Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, et al.), a motley of petitioners—including bloggers, journalists, legislators and civil-society groups—filed consolidated petitions beginning in October 2012 challenging the constitutionality of multiple provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. They invoked provisions of the 1987 Constitution protecting freedom of speech, privacy of communication, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, among others. In the main, they sought to enjoin the Executive Department from implementing sections of the law that criminalized online activities such as illegal access, data interference, cyber-libel, unsolicited commercial communications (spam), cybersex, and real-time monitoring of traffic data. The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on October 9, 2012, enjoining enforcement until further orders and extended it on February 5, 2013.Issues:
Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Consolidation of Petitions
- Multiple petitions (G.R. Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440, 203453, 203454, 203469, 203501, 203509, 203515, 203518) filed by a wide array of individuals and organizations (bloggers, lawyers, public figures, legislators, civil‐society groups).
- Respondents named include: the President, the Executive Secretary, Secretaries of Justice, DILG, Budget & Management, DOST‐ICTO Executive Director, PNP Chief, NBI Director, COMELEC, Senate, and House of Representatives.
- Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)
- Aims to punish cybercrimes under four categories: (a) Offenses against confidentiality, integrity & availability of computer data/systems; (b) Computer‐related offenses; (c) Content‐related offenses; (d) Other offenses (abetting, attempt).
- Establishes procedural powers: real‐time data collection, data preservation, disclosure orders, search & seizure of computer data, take‐down orders.
- Creates the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC).
- Procedural Posture
- The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, issued a temporary restraining order (Oct. 9, 2012; extended Feb. 5, 2013) enjoining implementation of RA 10175 pending resolution of the petitions.
Issues:
- Substantive Validity
- Are Sections 4(a)(1)–(6), 4(b)(1)–(3), 4(c)(1)–(4) of RA 10175 (crimes like illegal access, data interference, cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited communications, cyberlibel) constitutional?
- Accessory and Penalty Provisions
- Is Section 5 (abetting & attempt), Section 6 (higher penalties for ICT‐enabled crimes), and Section 7 (dual liability under RA 10175 and RPC) valid?
- Procedural Powers
- Are Sections 12 (real‐time traffic‐data collection), 13 (data preservation), 14 (data disclosure), 15 (computer search & seizure), 17 (data destruction), 19 (take‐down/blocking orders), and 20 (obstruction of justice) constitutional?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)