Rochelle C.

Sanaga September 23, 2020

Legal Writing

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI

vs.
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014

Facts:
The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) 10175 or known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which seeks to protect individuals from crimes or
unlawful acts that can be committed through the internet. While it is admitted that the
use of internet or cyberspace gives access to research, advertisements, business,
inquiries and connection with a greater number of audience, it is also an instrument to
commit crimes which the law itself is trying to prevent and regulate.
Petitioners in these consolidated cases, contended that this law violated certain
constitutional rights thus praying that it be declared void and unconstitutional.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 9, 2012 is extended for 120 days,
pending resolution of the case.
Issue: Whether or not several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
violated freedom of expression and privacy.
Ruling: Yes. Out of the 21 sections in the Cybercrime Law challenged by the
petitioners, the Supreme Court declared three (3) provisions void for being
unconstitutional, to wit Sections 4(c)(3), Section 12, and Section 19.
Rationale: The Court in Section 4(c)(3) placed great weight in the protection of
commercial speech, it is ruled that unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of
expression. It ruled that there is no basis to the claim that the presence of unsolicited
commercial communications or spam tend to slow down the efficiency of computers, as
well as its storage and is considered as a nuisance to the users. Commercial speech is
afforded protection in this case, further stating that people have the right to read one’s
email, and the denial of such constitutes violation of freedom of expression.
It is noted that these messages forms part of the freedom of speech, and were never
considered as nuisance, some people may even be interested in the ads, as long as the
people have the right of option whether to open the mail or not.
As to Section 12, the court found that it failed to provide safeguards to the right to
privacy of every individual, as it authority is given to law enforcement authorities to
gather electronic traffic data referred as the date, time, size, origin etc. of a certain
communication. It is declared as unconstitutional, as it must be specific and definite to
ensure that the rights of every individual are protected.
The court ruled that the authority given under this Section is without restraint, although
the law states that the collection of data is limited to those associated with specified
communications, it is still the law enforcement agencies that would specify the target
communications.
It is noted that every single information when collected and gathered may create profiles
of persons, including their political views, associations and activities which is protected
by the right to privacy.
The section likewise failed to define what is meant by “due cause” which will empower
and authorize law enforces to collect traffic data, as it did not relate the use of said
collection of traffic data to the probable commission of a particular crime. There is no
guarantee or limitations imposed that law enforcers will not take advantage and abuse
the authority given to have access to information.
Lastly, the court declares Section 19 as unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional
guarantees to freedom of expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This section gives power to the DOJ to block access to a computer data which is found
to be prima facie a violation of the Cybercrime Law without the need of a search
warrant. It is guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution in Sec.2, Article III that every person
has the right to be secured against any unreasonable searches and seizures, the power
granted under section 19 of the Cybercrime law clearly contradicts the constitutional
right of every individual against searches and seizures without a warrant.
It is also ruled that computer data, constitutes speech and the curtailment of such by
the DOJ through blocking any access to it restricts freedom of expression.
The Court in upholding the validity of several provisions, ensured that the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution will not be violated or restricted.