News

Palace asks SC to lift TRO on Anti-Cybercrime Law

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief December 11, 2012 · 1 min read

Listen to article

Nothing teases Phone (4b) in cryptic teaser video The OnePlus N6 is coming very soon PH gov't speeds up investments to turn country into premier AI hub All Intel-powered Macs dropped from macOS 27 Golden Gate Pasig Mega Market gets Starlink internet for cashless payments

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.

React to this article:

cybercrime law ra10175

Abe Olandres

Editor-in-chief

Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech with over 20 years of experience in the technology industry. He is one of the pioneers of blogging in the country and is considered by many as the Father of Tech Blogging in the Philippines.

8,010 Articles

View all posts by Abe Olandres →

28 Comments

vladimir · 14 years ago

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

Mark · 14 years ago

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

lawrence · 14 years ago

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.

Arnold Gamboa · 14 years ago

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.

Jose Farrugia · 14 years ago

If you have read the description on the YouTube video you would clearly understand why I posted it online.

alainL · 14 years ago

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

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief · 14 years ago

This is first-hand info. I personally communicated with both.

aedis · 14 years ago

cite the site? :)

Jose Farrugia · 14 years ago

You can find the said video which I was being sued for here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsB1vSlLww

JMBalicano · 14 years ago

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.