View full case

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

FACTS:

The consolidated petitions seek to invalidate several provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, alleging that they are unconstitutional. The law's primary intent is to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace. Cyberspace allows individuals to connect to the internet via devices like laptops or computers, facilitating activities such as accessing virtual libraries, posting messages and media, conducting business with institutions, and communicating with others. However, the system is also susceptible to misuse by individuals who may exploit the technology for malicious purposes, such as defamation, hacking, identity theft, cybersex, child pornography, and the dissemination of electronic viruses. The government defends the law as a necessary measure to prevent, detect, and punish these cybercrimes. Meanwhile, petitioners argue that the law's provisions infringe upon their constitutional rights. Pending the resolution of the case, the Supreme Court had previously issued and later extended a temporary restraining order, preventing the implementation of the cybercrime law.

ISSUES:

  1. Is the power of the government to regulate and penalize certain actions under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) constitutional?

  2. Are specific provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, such as those penalizing unsolicited commercial communications, real-time collection of traffic data, and granting the Department of Justice the power to restrict or block access to computer data, constitutional?

RULING:

  1. Sections declared VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    • Section 4(c)(3): Penalizing unsolicited commercial communications.

    • Section 12: Authorizing real-time collection of traffic data.

    • Section 19: Authorizing the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected computer data.

    • Section 5 (partially): Penalizing aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes, in relation to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel.

    • Section 7: Charging offenders under both the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 10175 for online libel and child pornography constitutes a violation of pascription against double jeopardy.

  2. Sections declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL

    • Section 4(a)(1): Penalizing illegal access.

    • Section 4(a)(3): Penalizing data interference.

    • Section 4(a)(6): Penalizing cyber-squatting.

    • Section 4(b)(3): Penalizing identity theft.

    • Section 4(c)(1): Penalizing cybersex.

    • Section 4(c)(2): Penalizing child pornography.

    • Section 6: Imposing one degree higher penalties for crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code when committed using ICT.

    • Section 8: Prescribing penalties for cybercrimes.

    • Section 13: Requiring the preservation of computer data by service providers.

    • Section 14: Authorizing disclosure of computer data with a court-issued warrant.

    • Section 15: Authorizing the search, seizure, and examination of computer data under a court-issued warrant.

    • Section 17: Authorizing the destruction of preserved computer data after the expiration of holding periods.

    • Section 20: Penalizing obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime investigations.

    • Sections 24 and 26(a): Establishing the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) and defining its powers and functions.

    • Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code: Penalizing libel.

  3. Sections declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with specification

  • Section 4(c)(4): Penalizing online libel is valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the post but void and unconstitutional with respect to others who simply receive the post and react to it.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Right to Privacy and Due Process: Examination of whether regulations interfere with these rights, including expectations of privacy and protection from unreasonable government intrusion.

  2. Overbreadth and Vagueness: Laws must not sweep too broadly to encompass protected freedoms unnecessarily.

  3. Double Jeopardy: Preventing a person from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense.

  4. Separation of Powers and Delegation: Ensuring that legislative powers are not unduly delegated without adequate standards.

  5. Freedom of Expression: Regulation of speech, including circumstances when it may be limited or prohibited (e.g., libel, cybersquatting, unsolicited commercial communications).

  6. Proportionality in Penalties: Penalties must be proportionate to the severity and nature of the crime.