Monthly Archives: November 2012

Cybercrime Prevention Act of the Philippines…A Law that Backfired: A Timeline (Part II – Crafting of the Law at the Bicameral Conference and Presidential Approval)

The Conference Committee Report relative to the Anti-Cybercrime Law or
Republic Act No. 10175 is referred to as the Bicameral (Bicam for short)
Conference Committee Report. The members of this conference committee
are representatives from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

May 23, 2012
Senate receives the transmitted House Bill No. 5808.

June 5, 2012
The Bicam Conference Committee was co-chaired by Senator Edgardo J.
Angara and Representative Sigfrido R. Tinga. The Senate was represented by
Senators Angara, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand
“Bongbong” Marcos, Antonio Trillanes, Bong Revilla and Manuel Villar.

Members of the House in the conference committee were represented by
Sigfrido R. Tinga, Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara (Aurora), Diosdado “Dato” Macapagal,
Jr. (Camarines Sur), Roilo Golez (Paranaque) Miro Quimbo (Marikina), Susan
Yap (Tarlac), Ma. Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan), Eric Singson Jr. (Ilocos Sur),
Teodoro Marcelino (Marikina), Mel Sarmiento (Western Samar), Cesar
Sarmiento (Catanduanes) and Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro City).
The Conference Committee Report on reconciling the provisions of Senate
Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 were discussed.

Senate Bill No. 2796, entitled:

OTHER PURPOSES,” and House Bill No. 5808, entitled “AN ACT DEFINING

Senator Angara was recognized by the Chair to sponsor the report.
The following is the summary (in tabular form) of the amendments of House
Bill No. 5808 and Senate Bill No. 2796, the basis for the enactment of Republic
Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Law. As agreed upon, the Bicameral
Conference Committee, decided to generally adopt the Senate version of the bill
to be used as the working draft of this conference.

Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2796 Inserted

1. Section 3 – Definition of Terms (Original Retained Except for Amended Subparagraphs)

2. Section 3, Subparagraphs (e) – Computer Data (Subparagraph Renumbered);
Subparagraph (h) – Without Right (Subparagraph Renumbered); (j) Critical Infrastructure; (k) Cyber security; (l) Database; (m)Interception; (n) Service Provider; (o) Subscriber’s information; and (p)Traffic Data or Non-Content Data (All Subparagraphs Renumbered)

3. Section 4,

a. Subparagraph (2)- Illegal Interception (the succeeding provisions deleted); Paragraph (B3) Computer-Related Identity Theft (Renumbered Section; Second Paragraph on Penalties for said Crimes Deleted); 

b. Subparagraph (5) Misuse of Devices (The Succeeding provision Deleted); 

c. Subparagraph (6) Cybersquatting defined; (B1) Computer-Related Forgery; and (B2) Computer-Related Fraud (Subparagraphs Renumbered)

d. Section 4, Paragraphs (C1) Cybersex; and (C2) Child Pornography with the following amendments:
the words “especially as” between the words “2009 and “committed” (deleted); and
“Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.” (this provision between quotation marks inserted after the word “system” was added)

e. Section 4, Subparagraph (C3c), Unsolicited Commercial Communications – … “the primary intent of the communication is for service and/or” (Subparagraph Renumbered; Provision in Between Quotations Marks Inserted)

4. Section 5 – Other Offenses (Original Version)

5. Section 7- Liability under Other Laws (Section Renumbered)

6. Section 8- Penalties … Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009:
“Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.”
(Section Renumbered; Provision in Quotation Marks Inserted)

7. Section 9 – Corporate Liability
 a) a power of representation of the juridical person, Provided, the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person, Provided, the act committed within the scope of such authority, or … (Renumbered Section; Subsections a) and b) inserted)

8. Section 11- Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities (Section Renumbered)

9. Section 12-Real Time Collection of Traffic Data (Section Renumbered)

10.Section 13- Preservation of Computer Data (This Section Renumbered)

11. Section 14 – Disclosure of Computer Data (Renumbered Section)

12. Section 15-Search, Seizure, and Examination of Computer Data (Renumbered Section)

13. Section 19 -Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data. (Renumbered Section; Take-Down Provision)

14. Section 20-Non-Compliance (Renumbered Section)

15. Section 21-Jurisdiction (Renumbered Section)

16. Chapter VI – International Cooperation, Section 22- General Principle Relating to International Cooperation (Renumbered Section)

17. Chapter VII- Competent Authorities, Section 23- Department of Justice
(Renumbered Section)

18. Section 27 – Appropriations (Section Renumbered)

19. Section 29 – Separability Clause;

20. Section 30 – Repealing Clause; and

21. Section 31 – Effectivity (All Sections Renumbered)

Provisions of House Bill No. 5808) Inserted 


2. Section 2 – Declaration of Policy (Original Retained) 

3. Section 3, Subparagraphs (c) – Communication refers to the transmission of information through ICT media, including voice, video and other forms of data; (d) Computers – It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks, and other devices connected to the internet. (Definition of Communications and Computer inserted); (g) – Computer System (Definition of, with Subparagraph Renumbered); (i) Cyber (Definition inserted; Subparagraph Renumbered); and (t) – Computer Program (Definition inserted; Subparagraph Renumbered)

4. Section 4,

a. Subparagraph (3) Data Interference (Defined);  

b. Subparagraph (4) System Interference (Defined)

(Both Subparagraphs Renumbered);

5. Section 10 – Law Enforcement Agencies changed to “Law Enforcement Authorities” for consistency (Renumbered Section);

6. Section 16-Custody of Computer Data; 

7. Section 17 – Destruction of Data; 

8. Section 18, Exclusionary Rule (All Sections Renumbered; Section 17 entitled “Destruction of Computer Data” renamed “Destruction of Data”)

9. Section 24 – Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (Renumbered Section); 

10.Section 25 –Composition … “Head of the DOJ Office of the Cybercrime and one (1) representative each from the private sector and academe” (Inserted Provision in Quotation Marks)

11.Section 28 – Implementing Rules and Regulations (Renumbered Section)

Provisions of Both Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 Inserted

Chapter VIII – Final Provisions (Original Retained)

New Section Inserted

“Sec. 6. – All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code and special laws.” (New Section added to the reconciled version;  Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code relative to Libel is included, including all other offenses in the Revised Penal Code)
The Conference Committee Report regarding the disagreeing provisions of both Senate Bill No. 2708 and House Bill No. 5808 were approved by the Body.

August 15, 2012

President Benigno C. Aquino III receives the transmitted Bicameral Conference Committee Report.

September 12, 2012

Republic Act No. 10175 is signed into law by President Aquino III

The next blog will feature the timeline of the Filipino people’s reaction to Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Act of 2012. This was done through hackings, petitions, and other forms of protests. Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning certain provisions of said law. The Supreme Court finally issued a Temporary Restraining Order of the law’s implementation.

Related Links:

I. Republic Acts

A. Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012

II. Bicameral Conference Committee Report

A. For the Record: Public records of Senate Deliberations on the Cybercrime Prevention Bill: May 23, 2012 and June 5, 2012 Timeline senate-deliberations-on-the-cybercrime-prevention-bill/

III. Newspaper Clippings


Leave a comment

Filed under Cybercrime Prevention Act

Cybercrime Prevention Act of the Philippines…A Law that Backfired : A Timeline (Part I – Deliberations in Congress)

Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Law of the Philippines is an amalgamation of past bills proposed. There were loopholes and deficiencies in past laws related to cybercrime, and it was imperative to have them amended, or have new laws enacted. The Cybercrime Prevention Law originated from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, based on House Bill No. 5808 and Senate Bill No. 2796, respectively.

The following timeline shows the evolvement of the Cybercrime Prevention Law, in its deliberation in Congress.

Senate Deliberations

May 11, 2011

Senate approves the transfer of Committee Report No. 30 on Senate Bill No. 2796 from the Calendar for Ordinary Business to the Calendar for Special Orders and is approved on Second Reading without any objections. Senator Edgardo Angara sponsors Senate Bill No. 2796. In his speech he cites the need for enacting said Senate Bill. The Bill is discussed on the plenary level where Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri also gives a speech on the need to enact a cybercrime law. Senator Loren Legarda co-sponsors the bill. House Bill No. 2796 is thereafter is entitled:

September 12, 2011

Senate Bill No. 2796 is deliberated on Second Reading. Senator Angara is acknowledged as the main sponsor of the measure, which was interpellated by Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago and Tito Sotto. Among the Sections of the bill being discussed were the jurisdiction of cybercrimes committed outside the Philippines, which is not a signatory to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.

December 12, 2011

The Chair recognizes Senator Angara for the sponsorship of Senate Bill No. 2796, and is interpellated by Senators Sotto, Teofisto Guingona, Aquilino Pimentel. The more important provisions of the bill were discussed such as punishment for all types of cybercrimes such cyberterrorism. And internet libel/defamation and cyberpornography and child exploitation.
December 13, 2011
Senator Angara is recognized anew for the sponsorship of Senate Bill No. 2796, and was interpellated by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile over the legal definition of the various crimes stated.

January 24, 2012

The Chair recognized anew Senator Angara’s sponsorship of Senate Bill No. 2796 and requested that he be given sufficient time as he was awaiting the Senate Secretariat’s submission of all the proposed, individual amendments incorporated in the committee report, for review by the Body.
Individual amendments to Senate Bill No. 2796 were discussed and clarified. The following general amendments were approved by the Senate body:

1.The definitions of a Computer, Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity were inserted;

2. The words “DELETION” and “DETERIORATION” were included in the definition of “Data Interference”;

3. Cybersquatting was included and defined.

4. A new definition of Cybersex is inserted, which is the wilful engagement, operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity utilizing a computer system for favour or consideration.
Senator Guingona expressed his concern that the definition of Cybersex
which meant prior restraint might violate the Constitution. Senator Angara said that it did not impose such restraints and requested him to hear the individual amendments first then revert to his concern later.

Senator Pia Cayetano requested to be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pornography is consistent with Repubic Act (RA) No. 9775.
Senator Angara explained that the proposed amendment would not conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

7. Provisions for penalties and /or fines imposed upon persons guilty under Section 4 A.5, that is, punishable acts committed against critical infrastructure inserted.

8. Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant are given the power to collect or record real-time traffic of data.

Senator Angara remarked that the new definition of “Cybersex” was precisely in response to the reservation of Senators Guingona and Defensor Santiago over the word “arousal” which they considered as subjective. The phrase “favor” or “consideration” be retained for this was the heart of cybercrime, where such acts were done for money, consideration or favor. He questioned why this definition would imply prior restraint.

Senator Guingona argued that said definition is left for the judge to interpret, is too broad, and is tantamount to legislating morality. He suggested that the section be deleted, being inconsistent with the Constitution.

Senator Angara disagreed, and argued that deleting said section would imply that the Body is not in agreement that cybersex, one of the common crimes committed against children, is considered a crime. Inspite of this, the definition was still retained due to children’s computer usage exposure to unregulated and non-criminalized activities.

Senator Defensor Santiago proposed the following amendments to the Anti-Cybercrime Law as a Body, and this was accepted by Senator Angara and the rest of their colleagues.

9. While Sections 4(A) and (B) of the Act define offenses as applying to computer data/systems, including emails and social networks. This justified the insertion of the words “WHETHER STORED IN A LOCAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS OR ONLINE.

10. Damage and fraudulent intent is not for economic gain but with the purpose of destruction. Therefore, the phrase “WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT” was substituted for “economic gains.”

11. A new paragraph, Section 9, was inserted where the requirements for the issuance of a court warrant be issued/ granted upon written application/affirmation and examination under oath of applicant/produced witnesses and evidences. As observed by Senator Santiago, the section lacks the parameters to ensure that this will be subject to abuse by law enforcers. She proposed that Section 3 of RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) serve as a guide in setting the parameters.

Senator Lacson asked whether the definition of “cybersex” covers phone sex, Senator Angara said that doing so might be outside what is permissible.

Senator Sotto added that it was difficult to classify the telephone as part of the computer system. He also cited various abuses in video/photo uploading, unnecessary write-ups/comments in social networking systems, citing Supreme Court cases of Mendez vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 124491, June 1, 1999), and n Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G. R. No. 74907, May 23, 1988), relative to libel. Libel in cyber-space could further promote the “think before you click” mentality, and cybercrimes were not covered by Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

As proposed, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Senate Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph entitled:

12.”Libel – as defined in said Senate Bill as the unlawful act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system or any other similar means.
Senator Angara pointed out that cyberspace, a new medium for publishing libellous statements is subject to prosecution and punishment as defined by Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
Senate Bill No. 2796 was approved on Second Reading.

January 30, 2012

Senate Bill No. 2796 was approved on Third Reading. Senate Secretary Emma L. Reyes called the roll for the bill’s nominal voting. The result of the voting was as follows:
Those In Favour : Senators Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Francis Joseph Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Aquilino
Pimentel III, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr., Tito Sotto, Manuel Villar (13 Senators)

Those Against : Senator Teofisto Guingona Jr. (1 Senator)

Abstentions : None

Due to his libertarian views on the matter, Senator Guingona explained his vote against the bill mainly because of cybersex’s definition as violating constitutional principles of freedom of speech and expression. He also said that the bill sets the country back, instead of moving forward in the 21st century.

House Deliberations

February 9, 2012

House Bill No. 5808 was filed at the Calendaring and Registration Group, Bills and Index Service, with its full title entitled as:

“An Act defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation, Suppression and the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for other Purposes,” which was principally authored by Representative Susan A. Yap and 34 co-author-House Members namely:

Daryl Grace J. Abayon, Romeo M. Acop, Juan Edgardo M. Angara, Tomas V. Apacible, Ma. Rachel J. Arenas, Ma. Amelita A. Calimbas-Villarosa, Winston “Winnie” Castelo, Antonio A. Del Rosario, Diosdado JM M. Arroyo, Mary Mitzi L. Cajayon, Anthony Rolando T. Golez Jr., Roilo S. Golez, Bernadette R. Herrera-Dy, Carmelo F. Lazatin, Roy M. Loyola, Gloria A. M. Macapagal-Arroyo, Juan Miguel “Mikey” Macapagal-Arroyo, Eulogio “Amang” R. Magsaysay, Hermilando I. Mandanas, Romero Federico “Miro” S.
Quimbo, Maximo B. Rodriguez Jr., Rufus B. Rodriguez, Pedro P. Romualdo,
Cesar V. Sarmiento, Mel Senen S. Sarmiento, Eric G. Singson Jr., Ma. Victoria
R. Sy-Alvarado, Marcelino R. Teodoro, Irwin C, Tieng, Sigfrido R. Tinga, Jerry
P. Treñas, Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr., Joseph Gilbert F. Violago, Luis R.

February 13, 2012

The Committee on Information and Communications Technology submitted
Committee Report No. 1818, relative to House Bill No. 5808, recommending its
approval. House Bill No. 5808 was substituted for the consolidated ten bills
previously filed in the House of Representatives, which were: House Bill Nos. 85,
167, 364, 383, 511, 1444, 2279, 3376, 4031, and 4162. Representative Sigfrido R.
Tinga sponsors House Bill No. 5808 at the plenary session.
May 9, 2012
On motion of Representative Janette L. Garin, the House of Representatives
considers on Second Reading House Bill No. 5808, contained in Committee
Report No. 1818 and reported by the Committee on Information and
Communications Technology. Upon direction of the Chair, Secretary General
Marilyn B. Barua-Yap read the title of the bill as:

“An Act defining Cybercrime, providing for the prevention,
investigation, suppression and the imposition of penalities
therefor and for other purposes.”

The Chair recognized Representative Sigfrido R. Tinga to sponsor said House
Bill, and Representative Raymond V. Palatino to interpellate theron. As
Members received copies of the distributed House Bill, Representative Mylene
J. Garcia-Albano motioned to dispense with the reading of the text. Representatives
Raymond V. Palatino, in his interpellation, reported his discussion with
Representative Sigfrido R. Tinga, previous cybercrime bills filed with respect
to cybersex. Sections 10 and 12 of the bill, which requires a court warrant before
collection, record of data, and disclosure by law enforcement agencies, is similar
to that of the Senate version of the bill. Other significant amendments discussed
were the clarification on cybersex operations, the categories/maganitude/examples
of cybercrime offenses, the Bill as part of President Aquino III’s legislative agenda.
The rest of the House Members thereafter discussed computer-related offenses
as the criminalization of the most common type of cybercrimes in the country.
Representative Tinga stressed that amendments to the E-Commerce Act
(Republic Act No. 8792) as insufficient for law enforcers to pursue cybercriminals.

Representative Palatino proposed to expand the scope of said law such as its
applicability to include recent cybercrimes committed. They discussed the
justification for the inclusion of cyberthreats and cyberdefamation as offenses
under Section 4 of the said bill, including case filing procedures and safeguard
measures in the issuance of search warrants, as mentioned in Section 10. He
also proposed amending Section 5 of the bill. All of which was agreed upon by
Representative Tinga. Representative Antonio L. Tinio questioned the extent and
scope of the said House Bill, after which, he discussed with Representative Tinga
its applicability on criminal activities involving computer usage, systems and other
similar technologies. The rest of the House Members discussed the bill’s
applicability to the prosecution of cybercrimes, which will not in any way
repeal the Anti-Wiretapping Act (Republic Act No. 4200), or amend the Human
Security Act (Republic Act No. 9372); and the retention of traffic data for a limited
time by service providers, in compliance with Article XVI of the Budapest
Convention was also discussed. House Bill No. 5808 was approved on Second
Reading without any objections.

May 21, 2012

House Bill No. 5808 was the 88th house bill approved on Third Reading.
All 211 House Members voted for its approval, with no objections and
abstentions. They were the following (Surnames only):
Abad, Abaya, Abayon, Acop, Aggabao, Agyao, Albano, Almario, Almonte,
Alvarez (A.), Andaya, Angping, Antonio, Apacible, Apostol, Aquino, Arago,
Arenas, Arnaiz, Arquiza, Arroyo (D.), Asilo, Aumentado, Bagasina, Bagatsing,
Balindong, Banal, Bataoil, Batocabe, Bautista, Bello, Belmonte (F.), Belmonte (V.),
Benitez, Bichara, Binay, Bulut-Begtang, Cabaluna, Cabilao Yambao, Cagas, Calimbas-
Villarosa, Calixto-Rubiano, Canonigo, Casiño, Castro, Catamco, Celeste, Cerafica,
Cerilles, Co, Cojuangco (K.), Cojuangco (E.), Collantes, Cosalan, Cruz-Gonzales,
Cua, Dalog, Datumanong, Dayanghirang, Daza, De Venecia, Defensor, Del Mar,
Del Rosario (A. A.), Del Rosario (A. G.), Dimaporo (I.), Duavit, Dy, Ebdane, Ejercito,
Emano, Eriguel, Escudero, Espina, Estrella, Fabian, Ferrer (A.), Ferrer (J.),
Ferriol, Flores, Fortuno, Fua, Fuentebella, Fuentes, Garay, Garbin, Garcia (A.),
Garcia (P.), Garcia (P.J.), Garin (J.), Gatchalian, Go (A.C.), Go (A.), Golez (A.),
Golez (R.), Gonzales (A.), Gonzales (N.), Gonzalez, Guanlao, Gullas, Gunigundo,
Haresco, Herrera-Dy, Ilagan, Jaafar, Jalosjos (S.), Javier, Joson, Kho (A.), Kho (D.),
Labadlabad, Lacson-Noel, Lagdameo (A.), Lagdameo (M.), Lapus, Lazatin, Leonen-
Pizarro, Lico, Loong, Lopez (C.), Lopez (C.J.), Loyola, Madrona, Magsaysay (E.),
Maliksi, Mandanas, Marcoleta, Marcos, Mariano, Matugas, Mellana, Mendoza (J.),
Mendoza (M.), Mendoza (R.), Mercado (H.), Mercado (R.), Miraflores, Montejo,
Noel, Obillo, Ocampo, Ocampos, Olivarez, Ong, Ortega (F.), Ortega (V.), Osmeña,
Padilla, Paez, Palatino, Palmones, Pancho, Pangandaman (N.), Panotes, Paras,
Payuyo, Piamonte, Pichay, Ping-ay, Ponce-Enrile, Puno, Quisumbing,
Radaza, Ramos, Relampagos, Rivera, Robes, Rodriguez (I.), Rodriguez (M.),
Rodriguez (R.), Roman, Romarate, Romualdez, Romualdo, Romulo, Sacdalan,
Sakaluran, Salvacion, Sambar, San Luis, Sarmiento (C.), Sarmiento (M.), Sema,
Singson (E.), Singson (R.L.), Socrates, Suarez, Sy-Alvarado, Tan, Teodoro, Teves,
Tieng, Tinga, Tinio, Tomawis, Treñas, Tugna, Ty, Umali (R.), Unabia, Ungab, Unico,
Valencia, Velarde, Velasco, Vergara, Villafuerte, Villarica, Yap (A.), Yu, Zubiri

Note: The next part of this blog deals with the Bicameral Conference Committee
Report on the Proposed Amendments to House and Senate Bills Nos. (5808 and
2796, respectively), and the Presidential approval of the Cybercrime Prevention
Law (RA 10173).

Related Links:

I. Legislative Issuances

A. Acts of the Philippine Commission
1. ACT No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code (Online Official Gazette)

B. Republic Acts
1. Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Act
(Only Hard Copy Available)
Official Gazette Volume 62, No. 20,
Page 3350,
(Issue date: May 16, 1966)

2. Republic Act No. 8792 or the Electronic Commerce
(E-Commerce ) Act
(Only Hard Copy Available)
Official Gazette Supplement Volume 94,
No. 32, page 51,
(Issue date: August 10, 1998)

3. Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act)
(Only Hard Copy Available)
Official Gazette Volume 103, No. 17,
Page 2223
(Issue date: April 23, 2007)

4. Republic Act No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act
of 2009)
(Only Hard Copy Available)
Official Gazette Volume 106, No. 6,
Page 746
(Issue date: February 8, 2010)

5. Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Law of 2012)

a. House and Senate Bills on Republic Act No. 10175
(On-line Sources):
A. Text of Bills
Note: Scroll and Click “HB05808 [Text as engrossed…] “
1. Senate Bill No. 2796
2. House Bill No. 5808

B. Deliberations
1. Senate Deliberations (Senate Bill No. 2796)
a. For the Record: Public records of Senate Deliberations on the
Cybercrime Prevention Bill: September 12, 2011, December 12,
2011, December 13, 2011,
b. January 24, 2012, and January 30, 2012 Timelines

2. House Deliberations (House Bill No. 5808)
a. February 9, 2012, History of Bills

Note: Scroll and Click HB05808 [History]

3. February 13, 2012, House Journal No. 36, page 39)

4. May 9, 2012, House Journal No. 49,
pages 19-20

5. May 21, 2012 House Journal No. 50,
page 37 (approval), pages 38-40 (votation)

II. Supreme Court Cases

A. Supreme Court Case: Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court
(G. R. No. 74907, May 23, 1988)

B. Supreme Court Case: Mendez vs. Court of Appeals
(G. R. No. 124491, June 1, 1999)

Leave a comment

Filed under Cybercrime Prevention Act

Eid’l Adha in the Philippines 2012… A Legislative History (& A Late Blog Post)

In recognition of Muslim contribution to Philippine culture, the government has decided to include Eid’l Adha as part of the Philippine holidays to be celebrated.  Eid’l Adha is also known as the Hari Raya Haji, Hari Raya Kurban, Qurban or in English in what is known as the Festival of Sacrifice.  But what is the significance of the occasion?   Eid’l Adha honors Ibrahim’s (Islamic name for Abraham) willingness to sacrifice his son Ismail (Islamic name for Ishmael), in obedience to Allah’s  (Islamic name for God) commandment, as a test of his faith. This is similar to the Jewish Biblical version of Abraham’s testing of his faith and obedience to God.  God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mount Moriah. 

This year, 2012, Eid’l Adha celebrations fall on October 26.  


How Muslims Celebrate Eid’l Adha

Eid’l Adha is celebrated on the 10th to the 13th day of the 12th Islamic Lunar month of Dul Hajj which literally means Possessor of the Pilgrimage.  It is during this month that Muslims worldwide go on a pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia to visit the Kaaba.  The Hajj (pilgrimage) is performed on the eighth and ninth day of the Dul Hajj.  The ninth day, is called the Day of Arafat.  It is on this day where  Muslims on a pilgrimage travel from Mecca to a nearby hillside and plain called Mount Arafat and the Plain of Arafat. It was at this site that the Prophet Muhammad made his Farewell Sermon in the final year of his life.  Muslim pilgrims stand in devotion, starting at dawn,  praying for Allah’s forgiveness.  Even those Muslims who are not participating in this pilgrimage often spend this day in prayer and fasting.

The celebration of Eid’l Adha starts with morning prayers to remember Allah, and pray for the deceased souls of loved ones and acquaintances may rest in peace before breakfast.  A sacrificial animal without blemish is slaughtered according to Islamic tradition.  They may be either a male or female goat (at least a year old), sheep (at least six months old), cow/ox/buffalo (at least two years old), or camel (at least five years old).  The person, upon slaughtering the sacrificial animal recites the most essential prayers, namely: Bismillah, Allahu Akbar (In the name of Allah, Allah is the greatest).  The slaughtered animal is distributed equally into three parts, namely:  to family members, neighbors, and the poor.
Children as well as adults greet each other Eid’l Adha Mubarak as a greeting of happiness, peace and love.

Legislative History of Eid’l Adha in the Philippines

A.    Marcos Administration

 The legal origins of the celebration of Eid’l Adha in the Philippines started during Martial Law.  On September 12, 1973, former President Ferdinand Marcos signed Presidential Decree No. 291 recognizing Muslim holidays and providing for their implementation.  Section 2 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 291, as amended, mentions the celebration of Eid’l Adha .  One month later, on October 26, 1973, Presidential Decree No. 291 was amended by Presidential Decree No. 322, wherein the celebration of Eid’l Adha or Hariraya Haj (terminology used in Singapore and Malaysia) was stated in Section (b) of said Decree occurring on the 10th day of the 12th Lunar month of Dul Hajj, and declaring it as part of the national holidays of the Philippines.

B.    Macapagal-Arroyo Administration

Under former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s regime, Eid’l Adha was made a regional holiday in the Autonomous Region in Muslim MIndanao (ARMM), by virtue of Republic Act No. 9177 which she approved on November 13, 2002,  and Section 1 c) of Republic Act No. 9492 on July 24, 2007. Based on the declaration of the Grand Mufti (highest religious body) of Saudi Arabia, Eid’l Adha was celebrated last February 23, 2002 and December 20,  2007.

Republic Act No. 9492 was  implemented by Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 of the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 81-1277, issued on November 13, 1981,  stating the working hours of Muslim government employees and excusing them from being absent from work, as they observe religious celebrations such as the  Eid’l Adha.  Proclamation No. 1808 was then issued on April 12, 2009 making November 27-28, 2009 a national holiday to celebrate Eid’l Adha.  Its basis was to accommodate Filipino ethnic traditions such as Muslim holidays into mainstream Philippine society.  Macapagal-Arroyo changed her mind and reverted the celebration as a regional holiday, per Proclamation No. 1808-A issued on November 4, 2009.  She finally made it a national holiday through Section 3 of Proclamation No. 1841 which she signed on July 21, 2009.

C.     Aquino III Administration

Republic Act No. 9849 was the basis for all proclamations issued by President Benigno C. Aquino III, declaring Eid’l Adha which is the tenth day of the Zul Hijja, or the 12th month of the Islamic Calendar as a national holiday.  This is similar to a previous law which is Presidential Decree No. 322, except that this decree declares the occasion as a regional holiday. 

The following are the proclamations issued by Aquino III, based on Republic Act No. 9849:

a.     Proclamation No. 60, signed on November 9, 2010, declaring November 16, 2010 a national holiday to celebrate the occasion;     

b.     Proclamation No. 276 approved on  October 20, 2011 which sets a specific date for the celebration of Eid’l Adha as November 7, last 2011;

c.      Proclamation No. 295, issued last November 24, 2011, where Section 2 states the basis of determining the holiday’s specific date, subject to the advisory of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos; and

d.     Proclamation No. 488 issued last October 9, 2012, which sets the date of this Muslim holiday on October 26, 2012, as declared by Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, the highest religious body in that country

D.    Commission/Department Issuances:

As per the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos Resolution No. 2, issued last January 12, 2012, all government agencies are requested to comply with the said Civil Service Commission Resolution.

As part of the Philippine and worldwide holidays…let us greet all Muslims worldwide…Eid’l Adha Mubarak!



I. Philippine Laws:

A.    Presidential Decrees:

A.    Presidential Decrees (Official Gazette Hard Copy,

no On-line Official Gazette copy available):

1. Presidential Decree No. 291  (Official Gazette Hard Copy,

no On-line Official Gazette copy available):

    Official Gazette Volume 69,

    No. 38, page 8531

    (Issue date:  September 17, 1973)

2. Presidential Decree No. 322

    Official Gazette Supplement Volume 69,

    No. 45, page 10308-C

    (Issue date: November 5, 1973)

B.    Republic Acts:

1.     Republic Act No. 9177

2.     Republic Act No. 9492

3.     Republic Act No. 9849

C.     Presidential Proclamations:

1.     Proclamation No. 1808, series 2009

2.     Proclamation No. 1808-A, series 2009

3.     Proclamation No. 1841, series 2009

4.     Proclamation  No. 60, series 2010

5.     Proclamation No. 276, series 2011

6.     Proclamation No. 295, series 2011

7.     Proclamation No. 488, series 2012

D.    Commission/Department Issuances:

1.     Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 81-1277, Series 1981

 November 13, 1981 (page 4 of pdf)

2.National Commission on Muslim Filipinos Resolution No. 2, series 2012, (pages 2-3 of pdf)”>

II.Newspaper Articles (On-line):

III.URL Websites:

A.    Wikipedia

B.    Other URL Websites

Leave a comment

Filed under Eid'l Adha, Holidays

Pet Cemeteries in the Philippines

November 1, marks the holiday of All Saint’s Day in the Philippines.  During this occasion, Filipinos troop to the cemeteries to remember their dead loved ones.  They clean the tombs and offer flowers and prayers for the deceased.  During this same day, the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) announced that it is devoting 100 square meters of its facilities, to be used as pet cemeteries.  This will serve as  burial sites for these beloved, deceased pet animals, in the absence of  burial sites for these dead pets.  Since space is limited, these burial spaces are located atop of each other.  PAWS charges excavation and burial services of P500 for small animals and P1,000 for big ones.  An additional payment of P2,000 is charged if dedications in memory of these dead pets will be posted on a memorial wall which PAWS designated.

PAWS reasons out that animals need a decent burial too, aside from human beings.  This system is done not only for sentimental reasons but for sanitary conditions.  In the absence of a backyard or nearby empty lot, most Filipinos mistreat a dead pet by just placing them inside a garbage bag and throwing them  at the back of a passing garbage truck.  This is considered an undignified way of treating pets who have become part of the family for many years. 

Philippine legislation on the disposal of dead animals is stated in Section 8.3, Subsection 8.3.1 of Chapter XIX of Presidential Decree No. 856, or the Code on Sanitation.  Under this subsection, animal carcasses must be disposed of within 24 hours upon its death.  If the animal could not be buried within 24 hours due to lack of space and the unavailability of PAWS personnel to facilitate its burial,  it may be preserved by placing  on ice and utilizing a black plastic garbage bag to seal it.


Related Links:

1.     Philippine Laws

A.    Presidential Decree No. 856 (On-line Official Gazette)

B.    Presidential Decree No. 856, Implementing Rules and Regulations

(URL Website)

Leave a comment

Filed under Burial Sites, Cemeteries, PAWS Pet Cemetery, Pet Cemeteries