CASE 2014-0018: JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., Petitioners, – versus – THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents. (G.R. NO. 203335) AND RELATED CASES (11 FEBRUARY 2014, ABAD J.) SUBJECT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF THE CYBER CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012 (BRIEF TITLE: DISINI ET AL. VS. DOJ)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES: 

 

1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:  

 

a. Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited commercial communications; 

 

b. Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and

 

c. Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer Data.  

 

2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL: 

 

a. Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right;

 

b. Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses;

 

c. Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over the internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others;

 

d. Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying information belonging to another;

 

e. Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration;

 

f. Section 4(c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;

 

g. Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code are committed with the use of information and communications technologies; 

 

h. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;

 

i. Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service providers to preserve traffic data and subscriber information as well as specified content data for six months;

 

j. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued warrant;

 

k. Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data under a court-issued warrant;

 

l. Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer data after the expiration of the prescribed holding periods;

 

m. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime investigations;

 

n. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); 

 

o. Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and

 

p. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel. 

 

Further, the Court DECLARES: 

 

  1. 1.    Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as 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; and

 

  1. 2.    Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel.  

 

Lastly, the Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the correct application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the crimes of: 

 

1.   Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy; as well as  

 

  1. 2.       Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2014-0018-FEB 2014-DISINI