1

DISINI V SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

(G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
On chilling effect

FACTS:
In 2012, the RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act was approved, aiming to regulate access to and
use of cyberspace. 15 petitions which sought to declare the provisions of the law unconstitutional and void
were filed and consolidated before the SC.

Among the provisions assailed are Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference and Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting
and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes. Petitioners contend that these provisions suffer from
overbreadth as they intrude into the protected speech and expression by creating a “chilling effect.”

ISSUES:
1. W/N Section 4(a)(3) creates a chilling effect
2. W/N Section 5 creates a chilling effect

RULING:
1. NO. Provision is valid and constitutional.
2. QUALIFIED. Provision is valid in general but is unconstitutional with respect to the provisions on
Libel, Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Child Pornography.

RATIO:
1. All penal laws like the cybercrime law have an inherent chilling effect or creation of a fear of
possible prosecution on the heads of citizens. However, to prevent the State from legislating
criminal laws because they instill such kind of fear is to render the State powerless in addressing
and penalizing socially harmful conduct.

The alleged chilling effect of Section 4(a)(3) is an illusion, since the provision clearly describes the
evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the free exercise of one’s
constitutional rights.

Besides, the overbreadth challenge creates a heavy burden of proof, which the petitioners failed to
discharge in this case.

2. In the cyberworld, there are many actors - the original author, the service providers, commenters,
sharers, likers, reposters, etc. However, it must be remembered that except for the original author
of the assailed statement, the rest of the actors (those who Like, Comment and Share) show what
are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of their
response to the original posting.

In application, the terms “aiding or abetting” are vague and broad. It raises apprehension on the
part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially
since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way.
2

(HOWEVER: If the commenter does not merely react to the original posting but creates an
altogether new defamatory story, that would be considered an original posting published on the
internet and would be penalized as libel.)

Thus, absent legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level of responsibility such as
in other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny.