This is Part 2 of a two-part feature. Read Part 1 here.

Cybercrimes happen over the Internet, and the money that fuels such illegal acts are sent over various forms of bank and non-bank institutions. Though most of the companies providing Internet services and processing financial transactions are often private, they still have to abide by the laws of the land and other relevant regulations when it comes to matters of public interest like child pornography and online child abuse.

The duties and responsibilities of ISPs and financial institutions in relation to the protection of children from child abuse were discussed at a simultaneous session during the Ako Para Sa Bata 2015: Cyberprotection of Children conference held at Marco Polo Plaza Cebu on December 1 and 2, 2015.

Responsibilities and liabilities of ISPs

State Counsel Herminia Angeles, a senior state counsel at the Department of Justice, explained the duties and responsibilities of internet service providers under the law, in relation to the protection of children from online abuse.

Under Section 9 of Republic Act 9775: “All internet service providers (ISPs) shall notify the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) within seven (7) days from obtaining facts and circumstances that any form of child pornography is being committed using its server or facility. Nothing in this section may be construed to require an ISP to engage in the monitoring of any user, subscriber or customer, or the content of any communication of any such person: provided, that no ISP shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this section.”

State Counsel Angeles explained ISPs’ monitoring of any user is considered unconstitutional and a violation of the person’s right to privacy, as a similar clause found in the Cybercrime Law was struck down from the final law. And yet, this changes in the context of matters of public interest.

“The Supreme Court underscores that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy,” said State Counsel Angeles. “The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancement but enhance public service and common good. It is allowed as long as there is compelling state interest to justify such incursion. So right to privacy is not absolute right.”

To complement existing laws, the National Telecommunications Commission issue memorandum circulars updating the guidelines and specific requirements for ISPs on blacklisting child porn, sextortion sites and similar web pages. All ISPs are also required to install available technology to ensure that access or transmittal of any form of child pornography will be or could be blocked or filtered, and they must provide a list of such pages that they blocked or to be blocked every month as well.

ISPs must also preserve customer data records, specifically the time, origin, destination of access for purposes of investigation and prosecution. Any ISP that intentionally violates such provisions will be subject to penalty, fines (up to P2 million), and possibly revocation of license to operate.

State Counsel Angeles also mentioned that acts of child pornography and abuse are not really modern because definition and corresponding punishment for those are already laid out in the Revised Penal Code under Crimes of Decency and Good Customs, and Republic Act 10364 or the Anti-Trafficking Law.

This is Part 2 of a two-part feature. Read Part 1 here.

Learn more about APSB2015 on its website and Facebook page. For details on the topics discussed in the conference, check out this program.

Check out photos from the event on Facebook and live social media coverage on Twitter!
Tweets about #APSB2015 #AkoParaSaBata