COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBMISSION ON ONLINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

27 November 2017

1. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (herewith the Commission)

submits to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), its inputs
relative to good practices regulating online violence and sexual harassment against
women in the Philippines.

2. This submission took into consideration local and international reports from government,
civil society, the media, and international non-government organizations. This
submission also utilized the Commission’s own documentation of independent
monitoring activities and statements which were subjected to the internal deliberations of
the Commission En Banc.

Online violence and sexual harassment in the Philippines

Existing legislative models, criminal or administrative, on prosecuting and punishing

various forms of online violence against women;

1. In the digital age where majority of the citizens have access to the internet and other
information and communications technology, people, especially women, are exposed to
greater risks of online harassment and violence. A good example would be the case of
human rights defender and climate advocate Renee Juliene Karunungan, who was
prompted to file an election offense case against 20 supporters of then Davao City mayor
and candidate for president Rodrigo Duterte before the Commission on Elections after
she received threats of rape, physical violence, and harassment last May of 2016.
Karunungan was subjected to such threats both online and offline after she spoke up
against Duterte's candidacy.1

2. Another notable incident of online harassment was against a woman whose photo
circulated online following a protest against the burial of late President Ferdinand
Marcos. The protestor’s photo was feasted on by male netizens with comments
containing vulgar descriptions, including sexual harassment and rape threats. 2

1
Rappler.com. (2016) 'Sana ma-rape ka': Netizens bully anti-Duterte voter https://www.rappler.com/move-
ph/128602-viral-duterte-supporters-harass-netizen (last accessed on 2 November 2017)
2
R.Adel. (2016) How to take action if you are harassed online. http://www.philstar.com/news-
feature/2016/11/22/1646312/fight-online-harassment-bullying (last accessed on 2 November 2017)
 3. Following a mapping of online gender-based violence in the Philippines conducted by the
Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA), it was found that there have been more than
one hundred and sixty (160) cases of online gender based violence cases in the country
since 2012. These include incidents of online harassment, cyber bullying, digital stalking,
identity theft, verbal sexual assault, threats and abusive comments, and uploading of
photos and videos on intimate nature without consent.3

4. In response to the increasing incidence of sexual harassment, misogynist attack and

unwanted remarks against women both online and offline, in 2016, Senator Risa
Hontiveros filed three bills dubbed as the ‘Tres Marias bills’ which are The Anti-Rape
Act, Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill, and the Gender-Based Electronic Violence Bill. 4The
said measures seek to strengthen the existing Anti-Rape Law, criminalize peer-to-peer
sexual harassment and impose penalties on perpetrators of misogynistic and homophobic
attacks on social media and other multimedia sites.56

5. The Gender-Based Electronic Act (Senate Bill No. 1251) seeks to prohibit and impose
penalties on people behind misogynistic and homophobic attacks on social media, which
it brands as gender-based electronic violence. According to Senator Risa Hontiveros,
many of the victims of gender-based electronic violence are young people, who use social
media as their primary outlet of expression. These attacks have the effect of silencing this
expression, and contributing to a culture of misogyny and hate. In sum, the bill proposes
to institute protective measures such as the issuance of a protective order, the imposition
of penalties against perpetrators and the provision of educational tools against gender-
based electronic violence. The bill affords protection not only to women and girls but
also to persons with diverse SOGIE.7

6. In August 2017, The Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill proposed by Senator Hontiveros,

(Senate Bill No. 1250) has been substituted by Senate Bill No. 1558, otherwise known as
the ‘Safe Streets, Workplaces and Public Spaces Act of 2017’. The said bill has the effect
of amending the Anti Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, expanding the definition of Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace as to include ‘acts involving unwelcome sexual advances,
requests or demand for sexual favors or any act of sexual nature, whether done verbally,
physically or through the use of technology such as text messaging or electronic mail
or communication that has or could have a detrimental effect on the conditions of an
individual’s employment or education, job performance or opportunities.’8
3
Take Back the Tech Philippines. FMA joins 1 st Senate Public Hearing on Gender-Based Electronic Violence.
http://www.fma.ph/?p=734 January 26, 2017.
4
Senate Bills No. 1252, 1250 and 1251, 17th Congress, respectively
5
Idem.
6
Senate of the Philippines, 17th Congress. Hontiveros files “Tres Marias” bills vs. gender-based electronic violence,
peer-to-peer sexual harassment and Rape. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2016/1122_hontiveros1.asp
November 22, 2016 (last accessed on 27 October 2017)
7
Senate of the Philippines, 17th Congress. www.senate.gov.ph Senate Bill No. 1251. “AN ACT DEFINING GENDER-
BASED ELECTRONIC VIOLENCE, PROVIDING PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES”. https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2513321647!.pdf. (last accessed on 27 October 2017)
8
Senate of the Philippines, 17th Congress. www.senate.gov.ph Senate Bill No. 1558. “AN ACT DEFINING AND
PENALIZING GENDER-BASED STREET AND PUBLIC SPACES HARASSMENT, EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, AND AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7877, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”. 17
August 2017. https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2656722832!.pdf (Last accessed last 28 November 2017)
 7. In addition to the said pending bills, Senator Nancy S. Binay likewise introduced Senate
Bill 180 ‘An Act Amending Republic Act No. 9262, Defining the Electronic Violence
Against Women or E-Vaw, Providing Protective Measures and Prescribing Penalties
Therefor, and for Other Purposes’. The said bill seeks to amend the VAWC Law to
include electronic violence against women and to offer protection to women in the form
of E-VAW Protection Orders. The bill likewise sets out penalties for acts of violence
against women committed through electronic means. 9

8. To date, there are still no existing legislations catering specifically to online violence
against women as the proposed bills mentioned are still under deliberation in the
Congress. However, victims of online harassment may seek redress under Republic Act
No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Civil Code on Damages (Art. 2176) or
under The Labour Code on Just Causes for Termination (Sec. 5.2(g), D.O 147-15). The
mentioned acts are, however, focused only on any act similar to cyberlibel, slander,
intriguing against honour and prying into the privacy of another and does not directly
cater to women.

9. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Cybercrime Division Group enumerated procedures on

how one can seek redress against online harassment:
a. Victims of online harassment cases may report through the DOJ Cybercrime
Division, the National Bureau of Investigation Cybercrime Division and the
Philippine National Police Cybercrime Group which accepts and handles cases of
such nature.
b. The reporting must be done personally by the victims.
c. When filing a report, it is necessary to present proof of cyberbullying and
harassment such as screenshots and other “receipts”
d. Once equipped with evidence, the victim will be asked to furnish a formal
complaint by submitting an affidavit narrating the crime or offense imputed.

10. Under Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, any person found
guilty of committing the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel, as defined in Article 355 of
the Revised Penal Code10, may be punished with prision correccional in its-its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period or a fine ranging from P6,000.00 up to the
maximum amount determined by the court. The provision however only applies to the
original author of the post of online libel and not to others who simply received the post
and or who just react to it.

9
Senate of the Philippines, 17th Congress. www.senate.gov.ph. “An Act Amending Republic Act No. 9262, Defining
the Electronic Violence Against Women or E-Vaw, Providing Protective Measures and Prescribing Penalties
Therefor, and for Other Purposes” 30 June 2016 https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2360220235!.pdf (last
accessed on 27 October 2017)
10
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as a “public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
Existing policies that allow identification, reporting and rectification of incidents of
harassment or violence against women via the internet services providers;

11. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of Republic Act No. 10175,
Otherwise Known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, “law enforcement
authorities, upon issuance of a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by
technical or electronic means, and the service providers are required to collect or record
by technical or electronic means and/or to cooperate and assist in the collection or
recording of computer data that are associated with specified communications transmitted
by means of a computer system” (Sec. 13, IRR).

12. The IRR likewise provides power to the DOJ to issue preservation orders addressed to
service providers and to monitor compliance of the service providers with regard to the
duties imposed upon them under Rule 7 of the IRR as follows:

a. Preserve the integrity of traffic data and subscriber information for a minimum
period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction;
b. Preserve the integrity of content data for six (6) months from the date of receipt of
the order from law enforcement or competent authorities requiring its
preservation;
c. Preserve the integrity of computer data for an extended period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement or competent
authorities requiring extension on its preservation;
d. Preserve the integrity of computer data until the final termination of the case
and/or as ordered by the Court, as the case may be, upon receipt of a copy of the
transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor;
e. Ensure the confidentiality of the preservation orders and its compliance;
f. Collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or cooperate and assist law
enforcement or competent authorities in the collection or recording of computer
data that are associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a
computer system, in relation to Section 13 hereof;
g. Disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its
possession or control to law enforcement or competent authorities within seventy-
two (72) hours after receipt of order and/or copy of the court warrant;
h. Report to the DOJ – Office of Cybercrime compliance with the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Act, and Rules 7 and 8 hereof;
i. Immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation
and examination after the expiration of the period provided in Sections 13 and 15
of the Act; and
j. Perform such other duties as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the
provisions of the Act.

Existing jurisprudence from international, regional, and national courts, on prosecution or

administrative proceedings in such cases;

13. Due to the absence of concrete legislative enactment directly for the apprehension of
online violence and sexual harassment against women in the Philippines, there are still no
existing jurisprudence available on the subject matter. However, there are decided cases
by the Supreme Court concerning violations of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
 Their Children (Republic Act No. 9262) through the use of electronic devices, one of
which is the case of Pascua vs. CA as discussed below:

14. In the case of Rustan Ang y Pascua vs. The Honoroable Court of Appeals and Irish Sagud
decided by the Supreme Court in 2010, the accused willfully and unlawfully sent through
SMS using his mobile phone, a pornographic picture to one Iris Sagud, who was his
former girlfriend whereby the face of the latter was attached to a completely naked body
of another woman making it to appear that it was said Irish Sagud who is depicted in the
said obscene pictures thereby causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological
distress and humiliation to the victim. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the
respondent, finding the accused guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of Republic Act
No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/182835.htm

The Commission on Human Rights

15. The Commission on Human Rights, as Gender Ombud11 currently has limited capacity to
investigate online VAW or Sexual Harassment cases. Nonetheless, the Commission
recommends cases of this nature to the Department of Justice (DOJ) specifically to
National Bureau of Investigation and the Anti- Cybercrime Group. The Commission
likewise has the power to monitor the concerned government agencies responsible for the
resolution of cases of online violence; as such, the Commission has the mandate to call
out such agencies in case of inadequacy in providing protection for women facing cases
of online violence.

Conclusion:

1. Although there are existing legislative safeguards against crimes committed online or
through electronic means, the provisions under and efficient implementation of such laws
remain limited in scope. There are yet enactments catering specifically to online abuse
against women who continue to be most vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence
perpetrated online. The Commission on Human Rights remains positive that, through
active lobbying, the Philippine Congress will be able to secure the passage of the
proposed bills which will provide means to address and penalize acts of online violence
against women.

11