Our leaders love to play blind on the constitutionality of the RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act!

Now we have two leaders who are playing blind to the fact that some provisions are obviously unconstitutional. The first one is incredibly, will you please stop laughing, is Justice Secretary Leila de Lima!

She claims that any legal questions can be addressed in the IRR or the implementent rules and regulation to be crafted with stakeholders (dont you just love to use the word "stakeholders?") We are glad she was not chosen as the Supreme Court Chief Justice.

The next leader is Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who blamed Senator Santiago for failing to look into the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act when the bill was still being deliberated in Congress early this year. Of course he failed to mention that the worrisome provisions about libel were SNEAKED in, or inserted by his good ally Senator Vicente Sotto. He added that he was ABSENT at the time the RA 10175 was passed by the Senate. He passed the buck to his fellow senators who failed to QUESTION or check the constitutionality of the cybercrime law during the discussion stage. Enrile now cries out about the inhouse expert, Sen. Miriam Santiago, on the Constitution:


“She could have seen it. She was the expert in constitutional law, I am not saying that I am expert on that but the point is, she could have raised that question when it was being crafted into a law,



He also added the lame excuse "NO LAW IS PERFECT!", and there is NOTHING WRONG if any law is declared unconstitutional. A law is not a perfect document, it is done by human beings! Thus we are heartened that Enrile is not claiming to be a God! when it comes to crafting laws as their mandated job require.

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño made the following cogent remarks on the Cybercrime Law:

It is to be remembered for posterity that the House bill APPROVED by the HOUSE, did not contain the questionable provisions found in the Senate version and the passed law. The House version did not contain the ‘electronic libel’ provision found in Section 4 (c) 4... There was no mention at all of the DOJ’s (Department of Justice) ‘blocking access’ power found in Section 19 of the law,” Teddy Casino added.

“Section 4 (b) 4 (cc) of the House bill did not contain the phrase ‘provided that the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided by the Revised Penal Code, and Special Laws.’ “While Section 9 of the House version allowed ‘real time collection of computer data,’ it requires the need to ‘secure a court warrant.’ The Senate version, found in Section 12 of the law, deleted this very important warrant requirement”

Meanwhile the bounds of credulity has been bent so much by the news item[See 2nd reference] that the President may be impeached due to the cybercrime law! We just laugh at this item, and we only surmise that this is only for PUBLICITY purposes!

Further reading:

1. Cybercrime law constitutional - Enrile, De Lima
   
   
2. Kabataan partylist: Aquino may be impeached for cybercrime law
   
   
3. Rappler.com: Colmenares asks SC to nullify Cybercrime Law