Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335)
Facts:
Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretary of Justice et al., G.R. Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440, 203453, 203454, 203469, 203501, 203509, 203515, 203518, February 18, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Abad, J., writing for the Court.
Multiple petitioners — bloggers, journalists, civil-society groups, legislators and others — filed consolidated suits seeking to declare several provisions of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) unconstitutional. They challenged both substantive offenses (e.g., cybersex, child pornography, cyber-squatting, online libel, unsolicited commercial communications) and investigatory/policing powers (real‑time traffic‑data collection, preservation and disclosure of computer data, search/seizure rules, takedown/blocking, and the powers of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center).
After the law was signed, the Supreme Court earlier issued a temporary restraining order (originally Oct. 9, 2012) and on February 5, 2013 extended that TRO enjoining implementation pending resolution. The petitions were consolidated and the Court examined whether petitioners could obtain pre‑enforcement relief and, where ripe, the constitutionality of numerous sections of RA 10175. The Court proceeded to decide which pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: May petitioners obtain pre‑enforcement (facial) judicial review of the challenged provisions of RA 10175 (i.e., is there an actual case or controversy and a credible threat of prosecution)?
- Substantive — content and related offenses: Are Sections 4(c)(1) (cybersex), 4(c)(2) (child pornography), 4(c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications/spam), and 4(c)(4) (online libel) of RA 10175 constitutional?
- Substantive — system/utility offenses: Are Sections 4(a)(1) (illegal access), 4(a)(3) (data interference), 4(a)(6) (cyber‑squatting), and 4(b)(3) (computer‑related identity theft) constitutional?
- Substantive — aiding/abetting, attempts, and penalty rules: Is Section 5 (aiding or abetting; attempt), Section 6 (one‑degree higher penalty when ICT used), Section 7 (liability under other laws), and Section 8 (penalties) constitutional as written and as applied to the offenses challenged here?
- Substantive — investigatory, preservation, disclosure and takedown powers: Are Sections 12 (real‑time collection of traffic data), 13 (preservation), 14 (disclosure under warrant), 15 (search/seizure/examination under warrant), 17 (destruction of preserved data), 19 (DOJ takedown/blocking), 20 (penalt...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)