Skip to content
December 11, 2012

Palace asks SC to lift TRO on Anti-Cybercrime Law

The Anti-Cybercrime Law of 2012 (R.A. 10175) was placed on hold by a TRO issued by the Supreme Court last October 9. The SC will hear oral arguments from all parties in January 2013, including the 15 petitioners that filed for the TRO.

This week, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a 148-page comment requesting the Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order on R.A. 10175.

The request by the government to enforce the Anti-Cybercrime Law and have the TRO lifted was outlined in this report by GMA News.

Despite the TRO placed on the Anti-Cybercrime Law, several bloggers and YouTubers have been subject to online libel lawsuits in the last couple of months.

Just last week, local blogger was sued by a group-buying website for libel based on comments posted on his blog.

Then last month, blogger and YouTuber Jose Farrugia was also sued for online libel by their neighbor (also a distant relative) for uploading a video of their verbal altercations on YouTube.

AFP’s getting on the cybercrime act with C4ISTAR
Supreme Court extends TRO on RA 10175

14 Responses to “Palace asks SC to lift TRO on Anti-Cybercrime Law”

  1. JKisaragi says:

    Suit or sued?

  2. Adam Parnala
    Twitter: NoypiGeeks
    says:

    And it’s because of the upcoming election.

  3. JMBalicano
    Twitter: JMBalicano
    says:

    Kind of funny how eager they are to enable a law that can so easily be exploited. Rather than rushing to get that TRO lifted, they should iron out the kinks in the law that’s getting everyone riled up.

  4. alainL
    Twitter: kurogami207176
    says:

    Hi. Can you site the source for the last few paragraphs?

  5. Arnold Gamboa
    Twitter: Arnoldgamboa
    says:

    I’m thinking: why would you upload your verbal altercations online? I mean, seriously! :D

    Let’s just forget about the politicians and think about these small, day to day happenings that require a law to back them up when stupid people do stupid stuff against them.

  6. lawrence says:

    Establishing the existence of malice in a libel case is really hard. Dunno, but there is no need for this provialsions bec libel is already covered by the civil code.

  7. Mark says:

    It’s like how the current (1987) constitution was published and put into effect approximately 6 months.

  8. vladimir says:

    they’re insane, They don’t wanna let the people know some of their bad side, tsk, no more freedom… Suing everywhere, just like what Apple is doing right now

Leave a Reply

*
*

Written by

Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech. You Can follow him on Twitter @abeolandres.

More articles by Abe Olandres :