Language document


15 Mar 2015

Type of document





Child pornography
Social Media

2014-2015 Cybercrime Report Philippines


15 Mar 2015

This report describes the effectiveness and current issues of law enforcement against cyber crime in the Phillipines. The report states the following about new trends:

'There are around 177 Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country today with the major providers offering services at an average rate of P25.00 per hour. Digital subscriber line (DSL), wireless and fixed broadband, cable, satellite Internet facilities are now being offered to the public making access to the internet easily serviceable. The number of Philippine Internet users range to 33.6 million.3 Contributing heavily to its growth are Internet cafes that allow Filipinos who do not own computers to gain access to the facility at an affordable price. An increasing number of schools and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) accessing the Internet contributed to this growth as well.'

The Philippines has been regarded as a haven of crime committed online for many years while other countries have developed cyber-warfare. It has only begun its stand when the country received recognition in 2000 as the source of "LOVE BUG" or the "I love you" virus. It has been 13 years since the virus bolstered the insufficiency of the government‟s policies on cybercrime suppression, investigation and prosecution when the author of the virus was released from jail and no case was filed against him for lack of legislation defining the act as a crime and imposing penalty for such commission.

On 12 September 2012, the Philippine Congress enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Act to govern crimes committed in the cyberspace. The new law specifies several new acts of cybercrime. Among those prohibited under the law are cybersex, online child pornography, illegal access to computer systems or hacking, online identity theft, and spamming. It increases the penalty for computer-related crimes. However, the law could not take its course in attaining its aim due to the indefinite restraining order issued by the Supreme Court for its implementation until the petitions challenging constitutionality of the law were resolved last February 2014.'