EPISODE 89: Repeal, Reenactment, and RA 11930 (Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials Act)

Welcome to the Supreme Court Podcast. All opinions expressed in this podcast do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court. For clarity, the text of the decision prevails. In July 2016, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracked online child exploitation activities of an individual in Pampanga, identified as YYY, who was allegedly selling nude photos of minor girls to foreign customers. The US Embassy, Legal Atashay, alerted the Philippine National Police detailing YYY's illegal activities. In August or the following month, the police and Baranga officials serve a search warrant at YYYY's house where they seized a computer set, cellular phone, other electronic devices, and a vibrator among others. Three minors were rescued during the operation and were subsequently turned over to the DSWD. The police officers returned the search warrant and presented the seized items to the regional trial court, which directed the PNP Anti-Serberic Crime Division to conduct a digital forensic examination. The rescued minors were also interviewed. One of them, AAA, who was then six years old, disclosed that her aunt YYYY exploited her online by forcing her to strip naked in front of a computer monitor with a webcam, where she would then be exposed to unidentified men. YYY would then take pictures and videos of her in order her to touch herself in front of the webcam. YYYY was charged with violation of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. She was convicted by the regional trial court in 2020 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2022, the CA affirmed YYY's conviction as it upheld the validity of the search warrant and banked on AAA's credibility. The CA ruled that the evidence clearly established YYY's involvement in the online exploitation scheme. While YYYY's case was pending further appeal before the Supreme Court, Congress passed Republic Act No. 11930, or the Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Explatation of Children, SAE, and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Explatation Materials, SAE, which expressly repealed the entire Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 in certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. This development compelled the Supreme Court to discuss the legal implications and consequences of the repeal of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. Given the repeal of R-A-9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 through the passage of R-A-11930 or the Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Explatation of Children and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Explatation Materials Act extinguish YYY's criminal liability. What are the other effects in this case of the subsequent enactment of R-A-11930? Hi, I'm Attorney Mike Navalya, Supreme Court Chief Communications Officer. It's the 10th of October 2025. Today we talk about the repeal of a criminal act by its reenactment and whether it would destroy or erase criminal liability within the context of the case of the Philippines versus YYY, GR #262941. This case was spent by then Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and decided by the Supreme Court on back on February 2020-24. And back with us today to discuss this, is Court of Appeals Associate Justice Wilhelmina Jorge Wagan, a member of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence and a professorial lecture at the Philippine Judicial Academy. Hi Justice Wagan, welcome back to the Supreme Court podcast. Hello Attorney Mike, it's nice to have an under-conversation with you. Right, so let's get on with the conversation justice. Let's talk about the repeal of A-Law. How is A-Law repealed? What is the general rule when a criminal statute is repealed or an act is decriminalized? Okay Attorney Mike, a repeal of A-Law may be expressed or implied. An express repeal is one wherein statute declares, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and specific law identified by its number or title is repealed. An implied repeal on the other hand transpires when a substantial conflict exists between the new and the prior laws. In the absence of an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and the old laws. So as a rule, the express repeal of a penal law depraves the courts of their authority to punish and accused charged with a violation of the old law prior to its repeal. The unqualified repeal of a penal law renders legal what had been previously declared as illegal. Differently stated, the offense no longer exists as if the person who committed it never did so. However this rule is subject to exceptions. And just as that's exactly what I was about to ask, what happens if the repealing law actually reenacts a once repealed law? So what happens with that criminal liability? Because instead of removing the criminal liability when you repeal a law, you reenact the crime. So what happens now? So this is relevance actually to the second exception. Where a clause or provision or a statute for that matter is simultaneously repealed and reenacted. There is no effect upon the rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute. Since the reenactment in effect neutralizes the repeal and continues the law enforce without interruption. This rule applies to penal laws and statutes with penal provisions. Thus the repeal of a penal law or provision under which a person is charged with a violation and its simultaneous reenactment, penalizing the same act done by him under the old law, will neither preclude the accused's prosecution nor deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear and try the case. Right. Let's pause that discussion a bit just as on repeal because let's not talk about other key provisions and legal terms under R89775 or the anti-child pornography act of 2009. So who does the law refer to when pertaining to a child? How does it define the concepts of child pornography and explicit sexual activity? Yes, Attorney Mike, that's a good question. The law, R89775, defines a child as a person below 18 years of age or over but is unable to fully take care of himself or herself or protect him, or herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. R89775 defines child pornography as any representation whether visual audio or written combination by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, any other means of a child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities. The same law also defines explicit sexual activity as referring to a real or simulated sexual intercourse or other sexual abuses or acts. This definition includes both actual acts and simulated depictions whether performed or digitally created. In short, explicit sexual activity refers to the actual or simulated sexual acts while child pornography refers to any medium that depicts a child involved in those acts. The law criminalizes both the performance and the creation, distribution or possession of such materials. And just what about R810175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? There are also provisions on cyber sex here and child pornography. What is the scope of that law? And what is the legislative intent behind its enactment? Yes, Tony Mike, that's a good question. R810175 is the primary law addressing crimes committed through information and communication technologies. It's a scope covers offenses against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data. And it also includes computer-related forgery, fraud or identity theft as well as content-related crime in particular cyber-libel. The legislative intent behind this enactment was to protect citizens, institutions and the state from the growing threats and abuses in cyber space. Recognizing how the internet can be misused or for fraud, harassment, privacy violations and exploitations. An essential aspect of the law is its strong stance against child pornography online. Congress purposely included this to align with the state's duty to protect children from sexual exploitation. Recognizing that, the internet has made trafficking and distribution of child sexual abuse. materials easier and more damaging. Now that we have the least the league of background, the background on the loss involved in this case, let's go to the case of YYYJustice. She was charged with violating sections 4A, B and C of the Anti-Child pornography act in relation to section 16 of the same law and section 46 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Those are a lot of loss in provisions. But for the information of our listeners, what exactly was the offense of YYYY? And the provisions that we mentioned, what are they in particular? Okay. She committed the prohibited acts of inducing, persuading and coercing her niece, AAA, to perform in the creation of nude photos and videos and subsequently offered to sell these child pornographic materials to foreign male customers online. In particular, AAA testified that her aunt, YYYY, ordered her to remove her clothes and stand naked while touching her genitalia in front of a computer, exposing her private parts to male customers watching online. These acts as held by the Supreme Court constitute unlawful and prohibited acts of child pornography, as defined under sections 4A, B and C of R-A-9775, committed by a relative within the third degree of consentment, which increases the penalty to its maximum duration. Since section 4C2 of R-A-10175 qualifies the crime, as it was established that YYY committed this acts of child pornography with the use of a computer system. It warrants the imposition of a penalty one degree higher than that prescribed in R-A-9775. So the trial court in 2020 justice convicted YYYY of child pornography, qualified by the use of a computer system and this ruling was in fact appelled by the Court of Appeals, but here's the peculiar case, in this particular case, while YYYY appeal before the Supreme Court was spending, R-A-11930 or the anti-online sexual abuse or exploitation of children or anti-child sexual abuse or exploitation materials was enacted. How different is R-A-11930 from the Anti-Child pornography act or R-A-9775? Yes, I turn the mic. That's a question. In fact, that was what was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in this case. Although R-A-11930 expressly repealed the entire R-A-9775, R-A-11930 re-enacted the unlawful acts defined as child pornography. R-A-11930 even expanded the scope of prohibited acts and declared the policy of the state to protect every child from all forms of abuse or exploitation, whether committed with or without the use of information and communications technology, such as when the abuse or exploitation involves performances and materials through online or offline means or a combination of both, as well as the inducement or coercion of a child to engage or be involved in child sexual abuse or exploitation materials through whatever means. So justice with R-A-11930 repealing the entirety of R-A-8775, what happened to the charges for which Y-Y-Y was convicted? Yes, the re-enactment in R-A-11930 of acts constituting child pornography neutralizes the repeal and continuous Y-Y-Y's criminal liability for transgressions of R-A-9775 without interruption. As such, the courts retain jurisdiction to decide pending criminal cases involving violations of R-A-9775 committed prior to its repeal. Just as that's to clarify what you said, the re-enactment in Republic Act No. 11930 neutralizes the repeal and continues the criminal liability for transgressions of Republic Act 9775 without interruption in simple terms. What does that mean? It means that the acts penalized under R-A-9775 before the re-enactment of R-A-11930 continue to remain as crimes. So it also means that pending cases for violations of R-A-9775 prior to its repeal are unaffected regardless of whether the new penalty to be imposed is more favorable to the accused. The re-enactment of R-A-11930 will not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear and try pending cases. So in practical terms, Justice, does that mean the charge will be changed to the new law or will it still be under the old law? It would depend. If the criminal complaint was filed prior to the effectiveness of R-A-9775, it will still be under 9775. But if the act was committed after the effectiveness of R-A-930, then it will be filed under that law. But for those pending before the court, it will continue. Yes, it will. No effect. So when the court says without interruption, at no point in time, will that act not be punishable? Yes, in fact, as stated by the Supreme Court in this case, the court retains its jurisdiction to hear. Going back to the repeal of Section 4C1 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, what would be the effect of such decriminalization? Insofar as cybercrimes committed against adults are concerned, can adults no longer be charged with cybersex crimes, or can they no longer file complaints involving cybersex acts committed against them? As to the first question, adults can still be charged with cybersex, although this particular crime was decriminalized or expressly repealed in R-A-11930. As defined in R-A-10175, cybersex prior to its repeal by R-A-11930 is the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation directly or indirectly of any less serious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer system or for favor or consideration. While Section 4C1 of 10175 was expressed repealed, the act defined as cybersex was re-enacted also in R-A-11930, but only insofar as the victim is a child. As defined in R-A-11930, online sexual abuse or exploitation of children refers to the use of information, communications, technology as a means to abuse and/or exploit children sexually, which includes cases in which offline child abuse and/or exploitation is combined with an online component, relatedly the definition of sexual activity in R-A-11930 includes sexual intercourse or lassevious act, as well as lassevious exhibition. Thus, as it appears, R-A-11930 did not actually decriminalize acts constituting cybersex in cases where the victim is a child, similar to acts considered as a child pornography, previously punished as cybersex. And so far as adult victims, in cases where the victim of an act constituting cybersex is an adult, he or she may file a criminal complaint for violation of R-A-9208 or the anti-trafficking in persons act of 2003, as amended by R-A-1-0364. And just as with the issue of criminal liability of drug use already settled, how did the prosecution secure the conviction of Y-Y-Y here in this case? The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Y-Y-Y for child pornography under sections for A, B, and C in relation to section 16 of R-A-9775 and as qualified in section 4C2 of R-A-10175. Now, gauge from the elements of sections for A, B, and C of R-A-9775 as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of people versus Y-Y-Y. The prosecution was able to prove the following facts that AAA was a minor, which is the first element that a victim is a child. The prosecution also was able to establish and based on the testimony of AAA that her aunt Y-Y-Y coerced her to address and expose herself in front of a computer to foreign male viewers. So this satisfies the second element of acts constituting anti-child pornography. The prosecution further showed that there was a forensic examination of the recovered nude photos. explicit videos and online chats confirming the sale of child pornographic materials. The Supreme Court also gave way to AAAS testimony as credible and consistent, here young, age and lack of motive to fabricate or emphasized by discord in this case. And why did the Supreme Court just give strong way to the testimony of AAAS despite the challenges against her credibility? That's a good question, because the Supreme Court stressed that the Court of Appeals and Artists' assessment on AAAS credibility and veracity of her testimony are given the highest degree of respect, especially if there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied. So the trial court had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witness, having evaluated her emotional state reactions and overall demeanor in open court. In addition, YYY failed to prove any ill motive on the part of AAAS to falsely testify against her. And it is even unthinkable for AAAS to accuse her own relative and expose herself along with her family to shame, pity or even ridicule for as to your scrim had she not been aggrieved. And just as how important was the digital forensic evidence in confirming the crime? You mentioned this as one of the elements. Yes, digital forensic evidence is important to substantiate the Commission of Child Pornography Arts. The prosecution presented the police officer who retrieved the seized computer and cell phone that contained multiple naked pictures and explicit video clips of AAAS. The same officer also recovered an online conversation between YYY and a foreign customer regarding the sale of AAAS nude photos and videos. This circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated AAAS testimony of YYYY's unlawful acts. Right. Just this. What strong message did the Supreme Court want to convey about child pornography and online sexual exploitation in this case, just this? Yes, the Supreme Court conveyed a strong message that child pornography among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the Internet. The sexually explicit images and videos of innocent children circulating online is a mode of revictimization that traps them in a cycle of extreme, permanent and continuing emotional and psychological torture that they will deeply suffer until their adult years. And the close of our discussion just is what do you think should be our key takeaway from this case? As emphasized in the case of people versus YYY, repeal and reenactment even without a saving clause does not extinguish criminal liability. The offense remained the same and the reenacted law reserved intent to punish such acts. Thus YYY's convictions stood. This demonstrates that legal accountability transcends technical repeals. What matters is the protection of vulnerable victims and the integrity of justice. All right. No, thank you again. Just this while again for joining us. And if you was to read the full text of the court's decision, please visit the Supreme Court website and e-library in search for people of the Philippines versus YYYGR number 262-941. Here's Tef Atindidu Beltran, Supreme Court Information Officer for this week's updates. From the Supreme Court of the Philippines, here's the latest. Supreme Court associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh on Monday, October 6, represented the Philippine Supreme Court during the 5th EUPH subcommittee meeting on good governance, rule of law and human rights in Brussels, Belgium. Just this thing shared the Philippine judiciary's efforts to revise the current rules of criminal procedure, the code of judicial conduct and the code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees. Do you highlighted the expansion of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council or JSC's Justice Zones and the crafting of the JSC's manual for women in conflict with the law and victim-sensitive guidelines? Meanwhile, S.H. Chief Communications Officer, Attorney Mike Nvalio, answered queries on the status of certain cases of interest to the European Union delegates. Foreign Affairs is a sense secretary, Dina Joy Amadong, that the Philippine government delegation. The EU delegation was led by Paola Pompoli, Deputy Managing Director of the Asia and Pacific Department at the European Union External Action Service and EU Ambassador to the Philippines, Massimo Santoro. Just this thing also spoke as one of the panelists at a discussion on open justice at the 2025 Open Government Partnership Global Summit in Vittoria Gaste, Spain on Thursday, October 9. Justice Singh shared the idea behind Justice Zones created under the Justice Sector Coordinating Council or JSC, an interagency effort of a Supreme Court, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and local government. Conceived as a sector approach in delivering justice, there are now 16 Justice Zones across the country, with three more set to be launched in November, focusing on online sexual abuse and exploitation of children. Justice Singh touted the 87% excellent to very good rating of the Justice Zones, based on an assessment by the EU Gojo's. Joining Justice Singh in the panel were judges and justices from Chile, South Africa and Dominican Republic, as well as representatives from international civil society organizations. SCSOC Justice Amilazar Abier also attended the conference. The OGP Global Summit gathered together more than 2,000 delegates from government. Civil society and policymakers around the world from October 6 to 10, 2025 to exchange experiences, best practices and progress on open government initiatives. Acting Chief Justice Marvick M.B.F. Leonan on Thursday, October 9, administered the oath of office of former Department of Justice Secretary, his Husker Spin Ramulia, as the new ombudsman in a ceremony held at the Supreme Court. He was joined by SCSOC Justice Antonio Cajunier and officials from the DOJ. In his message, ACJ Leonan congratulated the new ombudsman and wished him the courage and creativity to uncover breaches of integrity and instances of regulatory capture amid public outcry over alleged corruption in government projects. He urged the ombudsman to build strong, evidence-based cases to ensure that those who must be held accountable can be made answerable before the courts. He also pledged that the judiciary will do its part. He said the Supreme Court on bank has agreed to create a working committee to invent any and all projects within the judiciary that might have been undertaken by the Department of Public Works and Highways. On Monday, Acting Chief Justice Leonan also administered the oath of office of Senator Paolo Benigno-Bam Aquino as the newest member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal or SET. ACJ Leonan currently chairs the SET, which is composed of three Supreme Court justices and six senators. The SET is an independent constitutional body that hears and decides election contests involving members of the Senate. Also present at the ceremony were justices Raman Paul Hernando and Henry John Paul Intín, who complete the tribunals roster of Supreme Court members. The Supreme Court has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charge on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrowers' consent. In a resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SET Special Third Division granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernández, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planner's Bank or UCPB after they failed to pay a $16 million peso loan. The court emphasized that under the civil code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. The contract that depends only on one's party's will is void. In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB since the interest rate was invalid the foreclosure of the properties was void. The SET held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt. Acting Chief Justice Mark McEnvy F Leon and reminded tax and accountancy professionals of the vital role they play in ensuring that the country's tax system is fair and just. Speaking at the Philippine Institute of Certified Policy, public accountants Inc., National Animal Tax Convention on Wednesday, ACJ Leon and urged tax and accounting experts to ensure that the tax codes are understood, not just as a set of rules, but as a means of promoting fairness and equity. He also discussed how digitalization presents both opportunities and challenges. The convention gathered tax professionals, policy makers, and members of the accademe, to exchange insights on emerging trends and challenges in taxation amid the evolving digital landscape. This week, the Supreme Court and the Philippine Judicial Academy and partnership with the Pacific Judicial Council hosted an international judicial learning program aimed at deepening cross-cultural understanding of justice and the law. Titled "Echoes of the Law, Re-Awakening Judicial Heritage Cross Cultures," the program gathered members of the Philippine and American Judiciary from October 5 to 9 for a series of exchanges exploring how law and culture intersect across societies. The event opened in Bonifacio Global City with distinguished participants including Associate Justice Samuel Garland and Jose Maites Marquez, Guam Chief Justice Robert Torres Jr. and Philgevice Chancellor and retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Eduardo de Los Santos. Educational sessions followed at the judicial academy of the Philippines were around 70 to 100 Filipino-American judges engaged in lectures and discussions led by judges, academics, and representatives of indigenous communities. The sessions offered historical, cultural, and social anthropological perspectives on justice and governance. You are now up to date with the Philippine Supreme Court. I am Difatin Edible Trans, Supreme Court Information Officer. And that's our podcast this week. Join us again next time for a detailed discussion of select cases decided by the Supreme Court. I'm Antonio Mike Navalio, your Supreme Court Chief Communications Officer. You can catch this podcast on the Supreme Court Public Information Office's accounts on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Spotify. You can also catch previous editions on our website and on Spotify. This podcast episode was produced by the Supreme Court Public Information Office, with Attorney Karen Martinez, Jay Rampilio, May C. Bull and Ramirez Christopher Simbaho and his researchers, Brian Austria, Don Ryan Balza, Gordon Solano, Ossenele Scott and Bayabato Nga's Audien Video Editors, and Taik Flores and Jerome Matumalakia's web editors.