112 Dictating the Internet: penalized by the Revised Penal Code and special laws” are covered under the CPA where they are “committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies” and provide that the CPA will increase penalties “one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code and special laws” where such crimes are committed online.418 The crime of “cyberlibel” covered under the CPA is a distinct example of how the law – implemented originally to “protect and safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data” – goes beyond regulation of distinct cyber-related crimes, as covered under section 4. It specifically criminalizes defamation through section 4(c)(4) of the Act, which extends criminalization of the offence of libel “as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code” to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” It also expands the possible penalties for such an offence. In 2014, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 4(c)(4) of the CPA. The ICJ and other organizations had publicly expressed the view that the provision would unlawfully restrict freedom of expression.419 Furthermore, the ICJ noted that the CPA was not only incompatible with the Philippine Constitution, but also with Philippines’ international obligations under the ICCPR, and that promulgation of the law raised risks of stifling freedom of expression.420 This law has since been construed widely by bodies charged with its implementation to target individuals expressing criticism against the ruling regime. In the case of Vice President Leni Robredo and 35 other individuals, the CPA allowed for politicians and lawyers to be targeted not only for alleged libel and “incitement to sedition” under the Revised Penal Code, but also the specific offence of “cyberlibel” and increased penalties for both types of crimes.421 As will be seen below, the CPA has also been misused to curtail press freedoms in the country. https://www.icj.org/se-asia-security-law/supreme-court-decision-re-cybercrime-prevention-actof-2012/ 418 CPA, sections 6, 7. 419 ICJ, ‘Philippines: Supreme Court decision may stifle freedom of expression’, 19 February 2014 (‘ICJ, 19 February 2014’) Available at: https://www.icj.org/philippines-supreme-court-decisionmay-stifle-freedom-of-expression/; Noting also that organizations, including the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Internet and Society Program of the UP College of Law, and the National Press Club, had filed petitions before the Supreme Court alleging section 4(c)(4) violated the right to free expression. 420 ICJ, 19 February 2014. 421 See Section III (iii).