(A Philippine legal article on the rules, liabilities, penalties, and procedures that apply to cyberbullying.)

1) What “cyberbullying” means in Philippine law (and why that matters)

Philippine statutes do not use a single, all-purpose crime called “cyberbullying.” Instead, cyberbullying is treated as a pattern of conduct that may fall under multiple offenses and regulatory regimes depending on:

What was done (threats, insults, doxxing, stalking, sexual harassment, extortion, uploading intimate images, impersonation, etc.)
Who is involved (minor or adult; intimate partner/family relation or not; student in a school setting; gender-based harassment; child victim)
Where and how it happened (Facebook posts, group chats, DMs, email, gaming platforms, doxxing forums, websites)
The harm (reputational injury, fear, anxiety, trauma, coercion, sexual humiliation, financial loss, risk to safety)

So in practice, “cyberbullying” in the Philippines is prosecuted and addressed through a bundle of laws—criminal, civil, administrative, and child-protection—rather than a single code section.

2) The main legal frameworks that cover cyberbullying

A. Republic Act No. 10175 — Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

This is the central statute when bullying is committed through information and communications technologies. It matters in two big ways:

It defines certain crimes that happen online (or commits traditional crimes “through a computer system”).
It provides higher penalties for crimes committed through ICT in certain cases.

Key provisions used against cyberbullying behavior include:

1) Cyberlibel

Baseline offense: Libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice/defect, or act/condition that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
Cyber version: RA 10175 includes libel committed through a computer system (“cyberlibel”).

Penalty structure:

Ordinary libel is punished by imprisonment (traditionally prisión correccional in minimum and medium periods) and/or fine under the RPC’s libel provisions.
Under RA 10175, penalties for certain crimes (including cyberlibel) are imposed one degree higher than their non-cyber counterparts.

Practical effect: Posting defamatory accusations, humiliating “exposés,” “call-out” threads that falsely accuse crimes, or viral defamatory memes can be charged as cyberlibel, often with heavier exposure than offline libel.

2) Unjust vexation / harassment-type conduct done online

Philippine prosecutors sometimes frame repeated online torment, humiliation, or pestering as offenses under the RPC (or special laws), then use RA 10175’s “committed through ICT” treatment where applicable. The exact charge depends on the facts: the presence of threats, coercion, defamatory imputations, privacy violations, sexual content, or specific protected relationships (e.g., VAWC).

3) Identity-related and systems-related offenses

Some cyberbullying campaigns involve:

Hacking accounts, taking over profiles, or breaking into private chats
Impersonation using stolen credentials or fake accounts
Publishing private data obtained from unauthorized access

These may implicate RA 10175 offenses such as illegal access, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and related crimes—depending on the method used.

4) Cybersex / sexual exploitation conduct

Some bullying includes coerced sexual acts online, recorded sexual humiliation, or coercive sexual content. RA 10175’s cybersex provisions may become relevant, but cases often overlap with other stronger or more specific laws (like Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism, child protection, or the Safe Spaces Act).

B. Revised Penal Code (RPC) — Traditional crimes that frequently appear in cyberbullying cases

Even without “cyber” labels, many RPC crimes apply when done online:

1) Threats

Grave threats / light threats can apply when someone threatens injury, a crime, or harm to the person, family, property, reputation, or safety—especially when the threat is intended to intimidate or coerce.

Examples:

“I will beat you up at school tomorrow.”
“I will leak your nudes if you don’t do what I say.”
“We know your address; watch out.”

2) Slander by deed / oral defamation equivalents

While online posts are written/recorded, humiliating acts (coordinated public shaming, manipulated videos, degrading “trends”) can sometimes be pursued as forms of defamation or related offenses depending on the content and publication.

3) Coercion / unjust vexation

Patterns like forcing someone to do something through intimidation, or persistent harassment that causes distress, may be framed under coercion-type or vexation-type provisions—case outcomes depend heavily on proof, context, and prosecutorial approach.

4) Extortion-related conduct

When the bully demands money, favors, sex, or silence in exchange for not posting harmful content, prosecutors may consider extortion-related theories through threats/coercion and other applicable laws.

C. Republic Act No. 10627 — Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (School-based bullying and cyberbullying)

RA 10627 is a school governance and student protection law, not a general crime definition for the entire public.

Core idea: Schools (basic education) must adopt policies to address bullying, including cyberbullying when it affects students and the school environment.

Key points:

Applies to students and incidents within school premises, school activities, and also bullying using technology that creates a hostile environment for the victim in school or substantially disrupts school operations.
Requires reporting mechanisms, investigation procedures, interventions, and disciplinary measures.
Typically results in administrative/school disciplinary action (e.g., suspension, expulsion or other sanctions under school rules) rather than criminal penalties, though criminal cases can still be filed if conduct violates other laws (e.g., cyberlibel, voyeurism, child abuse).

D. Republic Act No. 11313 — Safe Spaces Act (Bawal Bastos), including gender-based online sexual harassment

This is one of the most directly relevant laws when cyberbullying is sexual, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic/transphobic, or gender-based.

Covers a wide range of conduct online, commonly including:

Sending unwanted sexual remarks, sexual jokes, or threats
Persistent unwanted sexual advances in DMs
Public posts targeting someone’s sexuality, gender identity, or expression
Sharing sexual content to shame or control
Coordinated harassment with sexualized language and humiliation

Penalties: The Safe Spaces Act provides graduated penalties (fines and/or imprisonment) depending on the act, severity, and repetition. Courts consider aggravating factors such as public exposure, threats, and repeated conduct.

Practical effect: For many “sexual cyberbullying” cases, Safe Spaces can be a clearer fit than trying to squeeze the facts into generic vexation/coercion frameworks.

E. Republic Act No. 9995 — Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

A major cyberbullying overlap law.

Common cyberbullying patterns covered:

Recording intimate/sexual images or videos without consent
Sharing or publishing intimate images/videos without consent
Uploading to group chats, websites, or sending to classmates/co-workers
Threatening to share intimate images (“sextortion”) can overlap with threats/coercion and other crimes

Penalty (commonly cited in practice):

Imprisonment in the range of several years and significant fines; the law is designed to punish both recording and distribution.

F. Republic Act No. 9262 — Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) and online harassment

If the victim is a woman or her child and the offender is a spouse/ex-spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, former dating partner, or someone with whom the victim has or had a sexual/dating relationship, VAWC becomes extremely important.

Cyberbullying behaviors that may constitute psychological violence under VAWC include:

Repeated harassment via calls, messages, DMs, email
Stalking or monitoring online activities
Public humiliation and degradation
Threats and intimidation, including threats to expose private photos or secrets
Doxxing to endanger safety

Why VAWC matters:

It provides criminal liability for psychological violence
It enables protection orders (Barangay Protection Order, Temporary Protection Order, Permanent Protection Order) that can restrain contact and harassment, including through electronic means.

G. Child-protection statutes for minor victims

Cyberbullying against minors can escalate into child abuse/exploitation frameworks, such as:

RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) If online conduct amounts to cruelty, abuse, or exploitation, RA 7610 may apply depending on circumstances and proof.
RA 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act) If the cyberbullying involves creation, possession, distribution, or facilitation of sexual images of a minor (even self-generated images can trigger legal complexities), RA 9775 becomes central and carries severe penalties.

These cases are fact-sensitive and often involve coordination with child-protection units, schools, and specialized investigators.

H. Republic Act No. 10173 — Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Doxxing and unlawful processing)

Not all doxxing is automatically a Data Privacy Act crime, but many real-world doxxing cases implicate it—especially where:

Personal information is collected, disclosed, or published without lawful basis/consent
Sensitive personal information is exposed
Data is used to harass, stalk, or endanger

Potential liabilities can be:

Criminal (for certain unlawful processing/access/disclosure acts)
Administrative (before the National Privacy Commission)
Civil (damages)

3) Common cyberbullying “fact patterns” and likely legal hooks

1) Public shaming posts, false accusations, “exposé threads”

Cyberlibel (if defamatory imputations are present and malicious publication can be shown)
Possible civil action for damages (defamation, abuse of rights)

2) Coordinated harassment campaigns (dogpiling, mass tagging, brigading)

Possible Safe Spaces Act (if gender-based sexual harassment)
Threats/coercion where applicable
Civil damages (mental anguish, reputational harm)

3) Doxxing (posting address, phone number, workplace, family details)

Data Privacy Act exposure (depending on data type, processing, and context)
Threats/coercion if paired with intimidation
VAWC if within covered relationship and used to cause fear/distress

4) Impersonation / fake accounts / account takeover

Cybercrime offenses if illegal access or credential misuse occurred
Defamation if impersonation publishes defamatory content
Civil claims for damages and injunctive relief theories (case-specific)

5) “Nudes leak,” revenge porn, sexual humiliation

Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism (RA 9995)
Safe Spaces Act (gender-based online sexual harassment)
VAWC (if covered relationship)
Child pornography frameworks if a minor is involved (very serious)

6) Sextortion

Threats/coercion + RA 9995 / Safe Spaces / VAWC depending on facts
If the victim is a minor, child exploitation statutes may apply

4) Penalties: how to think about them in the Philippines

Because cyberbullying is not a single offense, penalties are charge-dependent. A few structural rules matter:

Cybercrime Act “one degree higher” rule (for certain crimes) When a traditional crime is committed through ICT and is enumerated for enhanced penalty treatment, the penalty can be one degree higher than the non-cyber version.
Special laws often carry fixed ranges of imprisonment and fines Laws like RA 9995 (voyeurism), RA 11313 (Safe Spaces), RA 9262 (VAWC), and RA 9775 (child pornography) have their own penalty clauses.
Multiple charges can be filed from one course of conduct A single campaign can trigger overlapping liabilities (e.g., doxxing + threats + cyberlibel + Safe Spaces). Courts handle overlaps through legal doctrines on complex crimes and special law interactions; prosecutors usually file in the alternative or as separate counts where allowed.
Civil damages can be pursued alongside criminal cases Philippine criminal procedure typically allows civil liability arising from the offense to be impliedly instituted with the criminal action (unless reserved/waived), and independent civil actions may exist for certain torts.

5) Evidence and proof in cyberbullying cases (Philippine practice essentials)

A. What evidence usually matters most

Screenshots of posts, messages, timestamps, URLs
Full conversation threads (context matters)
Witnesses who saw the posts or were added to group chats
Device data or account logs (when obtainable)
Proof of authorship (tying the account to the accused)
Proof of publication (visibility, shares, group membership)
Proof of harm (medical/psychological records, workplace/school impact, testimony)

B. Authentication and integrity

Courts look for reliability: unedited records, consistent metadata, corroboration, and credible testimony on how the records were captured/stored. When serious criminal charges are expected, victims commonly preserve:

Original files
Multiple backups
Screen recordings showing navigation to the content
Links and account identifiers

C. Cybercrime warrants and data disclosure

Philippine courts have special procedures for cybercrime-related warrants and compelled disclosure of computer data (rules on cybercrime warrants). These mechanisms can be used to obtain subscriber information, traffic data, and preserved content, subject to constitutional and statutory safeguards.

6) Where cases are filed and who investigates

Cyberbullying-related complaints commonly involve:

PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG)
NBI Cybercrime Division
Prosecutor’s Office / DOJ for inquest or preliminary investigation
Schools (for RA 10627 matters)
Barangay / local mechanisms for protection orders (especially VAWC contexts)
National Privacy Commission for Data Privacy issues (administrative and related remedies)

Jurisdiction and venue can be complicated because online publication crosses borders; Philippine practice often anchors venue based on where the offended party resides or where the content was accessed/published, depending on the specific offense and procedural rules.

7) Civil liability: damages and protective relief

Even when criminal prosecution is difficult, civil law can address harm.

Potential civil bases include:

Defamation damages and independent civil actions in certain cases
Abuse of rights and acts contrary to morals/good customs/public policy (Civil Code principles)
Violation of privacy, dignity, and peace of mind (privacy and personality rights)
Quasi-delict (fault/negligence causing damage)

Remedies can include:

Actual, moral, and exemplary damages (if proven)
Attorney’s fees in proper cases
Court orders under specific statutes (notably protection orders under VAWC) that restrain contact/harassment

8) Special issues when minors are offenders or victims

If the victim is a minor

Child-protection statutes may apply, and law enforcement typically prioritizes safeguarding and trauma-informed handling.
Distribution of sexual content involving a minor triggers extremely serious legal exposure for anyone who creates, shares, possesses, or facilitates it—even those who claim they were “just forwarding.”

If the offender is a minor

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare framework affects criminal responsibility, diversion, and the handling of the child in conflict with the law.
Schools may impose discipline under RA 10627 and child protection policies regardless of criminal outcomes.

9) Defenses and constitutional friction points

Cyberbullying cases often raise issues such as:

Free speech vs. defamatory imputation (opinion, fair comment, truth as a defense in certain contexts, privileged communications)
Identity and authorship (fake accounts, hacked accounts, spoofing)
Malice and intent (especially in defamation-based charges)
Privacy and legality of obtained evidence (how content/data was captured, consent, admissibility)
Jurisdictional questions where parties or platforms are abroad

10) Practical legal classification guide (Philippine context)

When analyzing a cyberbullying incident, the legally relevant questions usually are:

Is there a defamatory imputation published online? → cyberlibel/defamation track.
Are there threats or coercion? → threats/coercion/extortion-type track.
Is it sexual or gender-based harassment? → Safe Spaces Act track; possibly VAWC if relationship covered.
Are intimate images involved? → Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism; child pornography laws if minor involved.
Is personal data exposed (doxxing) or unlawfully processed? → Data Privacy Act and related civil remedies.
Is it school-based student bullying? → Anti-Bullying Act compliance and discipline; plus criminal/special laws if severe.

11) Bottom line

In the Philippines, “cyberbullying” is addressed through interlocking legal regimes rather than a single statute. The most frequently invoked anchors are:

RA 10175 for cyber-enabled crimes and enhanced penalties (especially cyberlibel and ICT-related offenses)
RPC for threats, coercion, defamation-related concepts, and other traditional crimes as applied to online conduct
RA 10627 for school-based bullying (including cyberbullying affecting students/schools)
RA 11313 for gender-based online sexual harassment
RA 9995 for non-consensual recording/sharing of intimate content
RA 9262 for online psychological violence within covered relationships (and protection orders)
RA 10173 for doxxing/unlawful personal data processing scenarios
Child-protection laws for minor victims and child sexual content/exploitation

Because liability and penalties depend on the exact acts, the relationship between parties, and the nature of the content, the legal classification is always fact-driven.