ACCESS TO JUSTICE? Is the Legal Framework Satisfactory? A VAW committed through the internet is the law’s enforceability because perpetrators are oftentimes major obstacle in pursuing technology-related anonymous. According to a lawyer interviewed for this research, internet crimes are the same as those defined in the Philippine Revised Penal Code (RPC) except for the medium used. Even with the absence of a law on cybercrime, charges can be filed using existing laws, but it becomes problematic if the perpetrator’s identity is unknown. In the cases of Ruby and Martha, they could not file charges against the person/s who uploaded the video and photos. In the Cordova case, the online predators are located outside the country, therefore outside Philippine jurisdiction. Tracking and identifying perpetrators is also a problem. Ruby’s video was uploaded using a US-based web hosting site. The NBI Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division had to secure a court order for the web hosting site to open its system log in order to determine the IP address and domain registration of the person who uploaded the video. Martha’s lawyer, on the other hand, was able to identify the bloggers spreading photos from outside the country. While violence against women is considered a public crime, technology-related VAW is a new dimension which the Philippines is just starting to navigate. In Ruby’s case, she filed charges using the Anti-VAWC Law. When the prosecution charged her exboyfriend with the act of videotaping their intimate act without Ruby’s consent and further uploaded the same on the internet, there was yet no law specifically dealing with VAW and ICT. Ruby lost the case because “it was the uploading of the video and the resultant public viewing through the Internet which caused the emotional and psychological distress.”9 9 A Regional Trial Court’s decision on the case filed by ‘Ruby’ against her ex-boyfriend. <End Violence: Women’s Rights and Safety Online> 13