1) Why “cyberbullying” is broader than the school setting

In everyday speech, “cyberbullying” often means repeated online harassment—name-calling, humiliation, threats, doxxing, impersonation, non-consensual sharing of intimate content, stalking, and coordinated pile-ons—usually associated with students. In Philippine law, however, there is no single “Cyberbullying Act” that covers everyone in one neat definition. Instead, Philippine policy is built like a toolbox:

A specific school-based law that mandates anti-bullying policies in basic education; and
A wider set of criminal, civil, and administrative laws that apply to anyone (adults, employees, public officials, online creators, strangers, intimate partners), depending on what the conduct actually is.

So outside schools, the question is not “Is it cyberbullying?” but “Which legal wrong did the online conduct amount to?”

2) School coverage (the “students and schools” baseline)

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (Republic Act No. 10627)

RA 10627 is the Philippines’ most direct “bullying” statute, but its reach is institutional and policy-based, not a general criminal law for the whole population.

Key features:

It requires elementary and secondary schools (public and private) to adopt anti-bullying policies and procedures.
It recognizes bullying that happens through technology (electronic means).
It focuses on prevention, reporting, investigation, intervention, and discipline within the school ecosystem.

Limits:

It is centered on basic education and the school’s duty to create policies and respond.
It does not function as a general “crime of cyberbullying” applicable to everyone outside school.

This matters because once conduct involves adults, workplaces, public spaces, creators, or strangers online, complainants typically rely on the broader laws below.

3) Beyond schools: the main legal frameworks that can apply to cyberbullying

A. Criminal law: the Revised Penal Code and related special laws (often “cyber-enabled”)

Many online bullying patterns match established criminal offenses. When committed through ICT, some may be prosecuted as cybercrime (see RA 10175 below) or as ordinary crimes with digital evidence.

1) Online defamation (libel/slander-related)

Revised Penal Code (RPC) offenses commonly invoked include:

Libel (written/printed or similar publication): online posts can qualify.
Oral defamation (slander) (spoken): may apply to voice streams or audio, depending on circumstances.
Incriminatory machinations (e.g., planting false evidence or instigating, depending on facts).

In practice, many “call-out” posts, accusation threads, and humiliating content disputes land in defamation territory—especially where reputational harm is central.

2) Threats, coercion, harassment-type behavior

Cyberbullying often includes intimidation and pressure. Possible RPC anchors include:

Grave threats / light threats
Grave coercion / light coercion
Unjust vexation (frequently used for persistent annoyance/harassment-type conduct, although legal interpretation depends on facts and jurisprudence)

3) Identity-based attacks and impersonation

Impersonation can implicate:

Falsification-related concepts (fact-specific)
Use of fictitious name / concealment in certain contexts
Fraud/deceit if used to obtain advantage or cause damage

Often, online impersonation is pursued through cybercrime provisions (identity theft-related) or through privacy/data laws if personal data is misused.

B. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175): when “bullying” becomes “cybercrime”

RA 10175 is central because it recognizes that the same harmful acts can be magnified online and provides cyber-specific offenses and rules for cyber-enabled crimes.

Two ways RA 10175 commonly enters a cyberbullying scenario:

1) Cyber-enabled versions of RPC crimes

If an act already penalized by the RPC is committed through a computer system or similar ICT, RA 10175 can treat it as a cyber-related offense, typically with harsher penalties (the law’s general approach is to increase penalty severity when crimes are committed via ICT).

The most well-known example is cyber libel (online defamation framed under RA 10175).

2) Cyber-specific offenses that overlap with bullying patterns

Depending on conduct, bullying can also involve cybercrime-specific offenses such as:

Identity theft (where someone’s identifying information is misused)
Computer-related fraud (if deception causes damage or advantage)
Computer-related identity-related misuse, or unauthorized access where accounts are hacked to harass or humiliate
Evidence preservation and investigative mechanisms (discussed later)

Important practical point: RA 10175 is not “the cyberbullying law.” It is the law that often provides the charging framework when bullying conduct maps onto cyber libel, identity theft, unlawful access, or other cyber offenses.

C. Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313): online gender-based sexual harassment (applies beyond schools)

RA 11313 is one of the most important expansions beyond the student/school lens because it explicitly deals with gender-based sexual harassment across streets, public spaces, workplaces, educational/training institutions, and online spaces.

Online coverage can include (fact-dependent):

Unwanted sexual remarks, sexualized ridicule, gender-based insults
Persistent sexual advances through messages/comments
Humiliating or degrading sexual content targeting a person
Threats or coercion with sexual content
Coordinated sexual harassment in comment sections or chats

RA 11313 is especially relevant when bullying is gendered, sexualized, or involves misogynistic/LGBTQ-targeted harassment.

D. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (Republic Act No. 7877) and workplace/school administrative regimes

RA 7877 covers sexual harassment in work, education, or training contexts, typically anchored on authority, influence, or moral ascendancy. While it predates modern social media, many cases involve harassment via electronic communications.

Additionally, many cyberbullying scenarios in professional settings are handled through:

Employer disciplinary procedures
Company codes of conduct
Collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
Administrative investigations in government (Civil Service rules)

This is crucial: workplace cyberbullying can be actionable even where criminal prosecution is not pursued, because administrative standards often focus on conduct unbecoming, dishonesty, grave misconduct, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, or professional ethics.

E. Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Republic Act No. 9262): online psychological violence in intimate/family contexts

RA 9262 is frequently used where the online abuse is committed by a:

spouse/ex-spouse,
dating partner/ex-partner,
person with whom the woman has or had a sexual/dating relationship,
or the father of her child,

and the acts cause or threaten psychological, emotional, or mental harm.

Online behaviors that may support a RA 9262 theory include:

Repeated harassment and intimidation through messages
Threats, stalking, surveillance, or tracking
Public humiliation campaigns
Coercive control through exposure threats (including intimate content threats)

RA 9262 is significant because it offers protective orders (barangay, temporary, permanent) that can provide faster safety relief than a conventional criminal case.

F. Privacy and data misuse: Data Privacy Act (Republic Act No. 10173)

A large portion of modern cyberbullying is doxxing: publishing addresses, phone numbers, workplace details, IDs, private messages, photos, or other identifying information to invite harassment.

RA 10173 can apply where there is:

Unauthorized processing of personal data
Unauthorized disclosure of personal information
Malicious disclosure or misuse causing harm
Failures involving data security (often in institutional contexts)

Even when the bully claims “the info is true,” truth is not always a defense in privacy law if the disclosure is unauthorized and harmful. The Data Privacy Act also opens an avenue through the National Privacy Commission for complaints and enforcement processes.

G. Image-based abuse: Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (Republic Act No. 9995)

If the bullying involves:

recording intimate acts or nudity without consent,
sharing intimate images/videos without consent,
uploading/selling/distributing such content,

RA 9995 is a primary statute. It is commonly relevant in “revenge porn” style cyberbullying and non-consensual intimate image (NCII) cases.

Related laws may also apply depending on age and context (see next section).

H. Child-focused online abuse: child pornography and online sexual exploitation laws

When the victim is a minor, “cyberbullying” can cross into far more serious territory, including:

grooming,
coercion to produce sexual content,
threats to release images (“sextortion”),
trafficking/exploitation dynamics.

Philippine law has strong child-protection statutes addressing child sexual abuse material and online exploitation. In such cases, the legal framing often shifts away from “bullying” and toward child protection and exploitation offenses, with heavier penalties and specialized procedures.

4) Civil law: suing for damages even without (or alongside) criminal charges

Even when prosecutors decline to file criminal charges—or when the victim’s goal is compensation and accountability rather than imprisonment—civil law may be used.

Under the Civil Code, common bases include:

Abuse of rights (Articles 19, 20, 21): acting contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy and causing damage
Violations of privacy, dignity, and peace of mind (Article 26 and related doctrines): intrusion, humiliation, vexation, and reputational harm
Quasi-delict (tort) (Article 2176): negligent or intentional acts causing damage
Civil actions related to defamation (Articles 33 and related provisions allow certain independent civil actions in specific contexts)

Civil claims can seek:

Actual damages (documented losses: therapy, lost income, security costs)
Moral damages (mental anguish, emotional suffering)
Exemplary damages (to deter especially wrongful conduct)
Attorney’s fees (in proper cases)
Injunction-type relief in appropriate circumstances (subject to procedural requirements)

Civil standards differ from criminal standards: proof burdens and strategic considerations may be different, and civil remedies can be paired with other processes (privacy complaints, administrative cases).

5) Administrative and professional accountability: workplaces, platforms, and public office

A. Private employment

Workplace cyberbullying frequently becomes:

an HR investigation,
a disciplinary case (suspension/dismissal),
a hostile work environment complaint,
a sexual harassment complaint (RA 7877 / RA 11313 or internal policy).

Even off-duty conduct can become actionable when it:

impacts the workplace,
targets co-workers,
harms the employer’s legitimate interests,
violates a code of conduct.

B. Government service

Public employees may face administrative liability under civil service rules for online conduct amounting to:

grave misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
dishonesty,
bullying/harassment,
sexual harassment or gender-based harassment.

C. Licensed professionals and ethical codes

Professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers, accountants, etc.) may face complaints under professional standards where online harassment violates ethical obligations, decorum requirements, or conduct standards.

6) Common cyberbullying patterns and the laws they often implicate

Below is a practical mapping (facts determine final classification):

Humiliation posts, accusation threads, “exposé” content
- Defamation (libel/cyber libel), civil damages, sometimes privacy violations (if private info is included)
Doxxing (address/phone/workplace/IDs posted), “send them threats” campaigns
- Data Privacy Act, civil damages, threats/coercion, sometimes cybercrime identity-related offenses
Impersonation accounts, fake screenshots, deepfake-style humiliation
- Identity theft/cybercrime angles, fraud/deceit, privacy violations, civil damages, defamation
Non-consensual intimate images, “revenge porn,” sextortion
- RA 9995 (voyeurism), other child-protection laws if minor, threats/coercion, VAWC in relationship contexts, privacy law
Gendered sexual harassment in DMs/comments, public sexual shaming
- Safe Spaces Act (online GB sexual harassment), RA 7877 (context-based), civil damages
Ex-partner harassment: relentless messaging, surveillance, humiliation, threats
- VAWC (psychological violence), threats/coercion, privacy law, civil damages
Account hacking to post embarrassing content or message others
- Cybercrime (illegal access), identity-related cyber offenses, fraud, plus downstream offenses like defamation

7) Jurisdiction, venue, and real-world enforcement notes (Philippine setting)

A. Where complaints are usually filed

Cyber-related complaints are commonly routed through:

the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG),
the NBI Cybercrime Division, and/or
the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (for inquest/preliminary investigation, depending on circumstances).

Privacy complaints are typically handled through processes involving the National Privacy Commission, depending on the nature of the violation.

B. Cross-border realities

If the bully is abroad or uses foreign platforms:

Evidence preservation becomes urgent.
Mutual legal assistance, platform processes, and jurisdictional rules become relevant.
Practical outcomes may differ depending on identifiability and enforceability.

C. Free speech vs. unlawful harassment

Philippine law protects speech, including criticism of public figures, but protection is not absolute. Key lines are often drawn around:

malicious falsehoods and reputational harm (defamation doctrines),
privacy violations and unauthorized disclosures,
threats and coercive conduct,
sexual harassment and gender-based targeting.

8) Evidence in cyberbullying cases: what typically matters

Because cyberbullying is digital, outcomes often hinge on evidence quality. Commonly important items include:

Screenshots with context (URL, timestamps, visible account identifiers)
Screen recordings showing navigation (to reduce claims of fabrication)
Message exports where possible (platform data downloads)
Metadata and device records (especially for NCII, hacking, impersonation)
Witness statements (people who saw posts before deletion)
Preservation steps (capturing content before it disappears)
Documented harm (medical/psychological consults, work impacts, security incidents)

Courts and prosecutors generally look for proof of:

authorship/identity (who posted),
publication/distribution,
intent/malice where required,
harm (or the legal harm element required by the offense),
continuity/repetition (useful for harassment narratives even when not a formal element).

9) Remedies beyond punishment: protection, takedown, and safety measures

Depending on the legal pathway, relief can include:

Protective orders in relationship-based abuse contexts (notably under VAWC)
Administrative directives and disciplinary outcomes (workplace/school/government)
Platform reporting and removal processes (not a legal remedy by itself, but often critical for harm reduction)
Civil damages and court orders where available
Privacy enforcement actions where personal data was unlawfully processed or disclosed

10) The core takeaway: Philippine law already covers most cyberbullying—just not under one label

Outside the school setting, Philippine law addresses cyberbullying by treating it as one (or several) of the following, depending on facts:

Defamation (often via cybercrime framing)
Threats/coercion/harassment-type offenses
Gender-based sexual harassment (including online)
Intimate partner/family psychological violence (including online conduct)
Privacy and data misuse (doxxing, unauthorized disclosure)
Image-based sexual abuse (non-consensual intimate content)
Child exploitation offenses when minors are involved
Civil wrongs that justify damages
Administrative/professional misconduct that triggers discipline

In other words, Philippine coverage beyond students and schools is extensive—but it is distributed across multiple statutes and remedies, and proper legal characterization depends on the precise acts, relationships, content, and harm involved.