BATI, Dave Andrew B.

12/07/2021
3ALM C-1800506

DISINI
V.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

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.