Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel.

The creation of the laws was an initiative of the Information Security and Privacy Sub-Committee chaired by Albert P. dela Cruz who was then president of the Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PHCERT), together with Anti-Computer Crime and Fraud Division (ACCFD) Chief, Elfren Meneses of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

9775 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and libel, an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system.

The local business process outsourcing industry has received the new law well, citing an increase in the confidence of investors due to measures for the protection of electronic devices and online data.

[12] Media organizations and legal institutions though have criticized the Act for extending the definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which has been criticized by international organizations as being outdated:[13] the United Nations for one has remarked that the current definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and therefore violates the respect of freedom of expression.

[17] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also expressed concern about the Act,[18] supporting local media and journalist groups which are opposed to it.

In protest, Filipino netizens reacted by blacking out their Facebook profile pictures and trending the hashtag #NoToCybercrimeLaw on Twitter.

[23] "Anonymous" also defaced government websites, including those of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and the Intellectual Property Office.

[31] While motions for reconsideration were immediately filed by numerous petitioners, including the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, they were all rejected on April 22, 2014.

[32][33] However, justice Arturo Brion, who originally wrote a separate concurring opinion, changed his vote to dissent after reconsidering whether it was just to impose higher penalties for cyberlibel than for regular libel.

[37] Senator Tito Sotto is primarily responsible for the cyberlibel provision, which he added after social media comments accusing him of plagiarism;[35] he has defended his authorship of the last minute amendment, asking reporters if it was fair that "just because [bloggers] are now accountable under the law, they are angry with me?

[41] As the act has universal jurisdiction, it is not required that an offender commit the offense in the Philippines; the DOJ brought up an OFW caregiver who lived in Taiwan on charges for allegedly "posting nasty and malevolent materials against President Duterte on Facebook".

[42] Insults that would be seen[tone] in other countries as minor have led to DOJ prosecutors filing cyberlibel charges: such as "crazy"; "asshole";[43] "senile"; and "incompetent".

[3] During the Bongbong Marcos administration, SMNI and the Daily Tribune also faced cyberlibel complaints from former Senator Antonio Trillanes and Philippine Consul General in Milan Elmer Cato, respectively.

[50][51] On March 2, 2020, the first guilty verdict in a cyberlibel case was returned against a local politician, Archie Yongco, of Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur.

[52] A Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom was crowdsourced by Filipino netizens with the intent of, among other things, repealing the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012;[53] it failed to pass.