The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom was proposed as an alternative[1] to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 whose enactment was met with mixed reactions.

A YouTube clip was also released by Anonymous, airing its vocal statement of being against the anti-cybercrime law that ends the freedom of expression of Filipinos.

On October 9, 2012, the high tribunal of the Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

[6] On May 24, 2013, The Department of Justice announced that the contentious online libel provisions of the law were being pushed to be dropped alongside other pending revisions as it awaited the Supreme Court's ruling on its legality.

[7] Prior to this law, the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (RA 8792) was enacted to acknowledge that aside from the Article II, Section 24 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution providing that, "The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building," information and communications technology was emphasized as an up-to-date addition in the Section 2 of the act which declares,"The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology (ICT) in nation-building; the need to create an information-friendly environment which supports and ensures the availability, diversity and affordability of ICT products and services..." There were 4 punishable acts in the law: hacking, introducing viruses to destroy data, pirating intellectual data, and violating The Consumer Act of the Philippines (RA 7394) through electronic messages.

The law was designed to prevent businesses from engaging in fraudulent or specified 'unfair' practices where they gain unwarranted advantage over competitors through the means of deceptive advertising, selling counterfeit products, and the like.

The Consumer Act also provided a set of regulated standards for production, distribution, trade, and promotion applicable to traditional media, which can be accessible online.

Section 52 of the MCPIF places limits on certain types of speech “inimical to the public interest” where child pornography is filed under.

RA 9775 contains provisions protecting the right to privacy of the child through non-disclosure of his/her identity as well as duties and responsibilities of individuals and groups.

[8][9] The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was condemned as a threat to freedom of expression on the internet, the media, and online privacy by common netizens and hacktivist groups such as Anonymous.

[12] To resolve this, Santiago envisioned a new bill, the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, to define and penalize cybercrime through backing from crowdsourcing of netizens.

She claims the MCPIF will protect the rights and freedom of expression of the netizens since the proposed bill does not give the government too much power unlike the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

[13] With the MCPIF, Santiago became the first senator who has passed a law that was “crowdsourced” through discussion in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail.

10175,[14] a group of Filipino lawyers, bloggers, technology experts, and human rights advocates[15] called Democracy.Net.PH[16] spearheaded a crowdsourcing initiative[1] towards the drafting of a law intended to replace it.

"[33] The late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, the proposer of the MCPIF, pointed out the gaps the new bill addresses in juxtaposition with the Cybercime Prevention Act as it upholds the freedom of expression of Filipino netizens and protects them justly in a press release.

Santiago further states the limitations of RA 10175 as it "violates the right to privacy and the Constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure through allowing the warrant-less real-time collection of traffic data.

"[34] Santiago and other supporters claim that there is a dangerous 'takedown' clause of RA 10175 where the government has the authority to have a website or network blocked or restricted without due process of law which is absent in the MCPIF.

The MCPIF clarifies not just cybercrime law itself, but also its enforcement through the proposed Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT).

The DICT is prepared alongside law enforcement agencies, and the military with provisions for handling cybercrimes such as amendments to the AFP Modernization Act that ensure ample weapons and defenses against cyberattacks by terrorists, violent non-state actors, and rogue or enemy nation-states and mandates on the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation to combat cyberterrorism.

[34] Santiago also stated that the bill generally enables the Philippines to develop nationally alongside the realities and advances in ICT by harnessing its potential through ensuring government agencies and its laws move accordingly to the growth.

Establishes an executive department for purposes of Philippine information and communications technology policy, ICT4D, internet governance, and e-governance.

Reiterates the compliance of the Philippines to treaties and international conventions to which it is a signatory, defines duties of state agencies and instrumentalities, provides amendments of existing telecommunications, intellectual property, data privacy, and e-commerce laws, and provides explicitly for the repeal of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Detail the implementation of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom and provide the final provisions for putting it into effect.

Part 10 details the concrete instructions to the government for starting the implementation of the Magna Carta, such as appointing a head and preparing initial funding.

This part also includes clauses for the Magna Carta's separability from the rest of the Constitution, the repealing of unmentioned laws inconsistent to it and the start of its effectivity.

As one of the first crowdsourced bills in the country following the Crowdsourcing Act of 2012, the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom has been perceived as a success by various civil states in terms of participative democracy, as mentioned in the 2013 Internet Governance Forum in Bali, an annual forum dedicated to delegates from participating United Nations countries that serves as an avenue to discuss the current state, effects, and legal practices of new media.

As a response to a number of suggested amendments to the former Cybercrime Prevention Act which seeks to pin down criminal activities on the internet, the bill was crafted to protect online users' freedom of expression contrary to RA 10175 which, according to legislators and non-government organizations, restraints online rights and sends a "chilling effect" to consumers of new media.

With the MCPIF and its four pillars namely rights, governance, development, and security at hand, the Philippines can expect a more stable future in terms of the consumption of new media.

The MCPIF also promises a more open governance especially in ICT-related policies, a more sustained development towards ICT as a vessel towards a more progressive economy, and lastly, a more solidified security system that protects its citizens from outside threats on the internet.