View full case

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

FACTS:

The case involves multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of the Court's earlier decision that declared certain provisions of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as invalid and unconstitutional. The petitioners include various journalist groups, bloggers, and internet freedom alliances, while the respondents are government agencies and officials involved in the implementation of the law. The Court, after reviewing the motions for reconsideration, concludes that there are no substantial arguments presented by either side to warrant a reversal of its previous decision. The Court also states that it is not inclined to investigate the insertions made by the legislative bicameral committee during the passage of the law.

Additionally, the Court briefly addresses the objections raised against Section 6 of the cybercrime law, which imposes higher penalties for crimes committed using information and communication technologies.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the legislative bicameral committee's insertions of certain provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were valid.

  2. Whether Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which imposes higher penalties when crimes are committed using information and communication technologies (ICT), is unconstitutional and violates freedom of expression.

RULING:

  1. The Court is not inclined to investigate the legislative bicameral committee's insertions since it is within their power to make such insertions as long as the passage of the law complies with constitutional requirements. The issue of alleged non-compliance with governing rules of both houses regarding committee insertions should be internally resolved by each house.

  2. The Court upheld the validity of Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Some petitioners argued that it produced an unusual chilling effect on users of cyberspace that would hinder free expression. However, the Court did not find substantial arguments to warrant its reversal of the ruling.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Legislative bicameral committee insertions are valid as long as the passage of the law complies with constitutional requirements.

  • The issue of alleged non-compliance with governing rules of both houses regarding committee insertions should be internally resolved by each house.

  • Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which imposes higher penalties for crimes committed using ICT, is valid and does not violate freedom of expression.