Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Disini et al. v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335 et al.), decided April 22, 2014, a total of nineteen consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). Petitioners included lawyers, bloggers, netizens’ groups, journalists, student organizations, party-list representatives, human-rights advocates and professional associations, who assailed key provisions penalizing online libel, unsolicited commercial communications, warrantless data surveillance and others. Respondents were the Executive Branch officials tasked with implementing the Act—the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary 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—as well as the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives. After this Court’s February 18, 2014 Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petitions
- Petitioners: Over a hundred individuals and organizations (bloggers, netizens, journalists, civil society groups, public officials).
- Respondents: Executive Secretary; Secretaries of Justice, Interior and Local Government, Budget and Management; Chief of the PNP; Director of the NBI; ICT Office Executive Director; Cybercrime Investigation Center.
- Procedural Background
- En Banc Decision of February 18, 2014: Declared certain provisions of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) unconstitutional and upheld others.
- Motions for Reconsideration: Filed by petitioners and by respondents (through the Office of the Solicitor General) challenging various aspects of the February 18 decision.
Issues:
- Whether Section 6 of RA 10175 (penalty increase by one degree for crimes committed “by, through and with the use of ICT”) is constitutional.
- Whether Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 (online libel provision) is constitutional.
- Whether Section 4(c)(3) of RA 10175 (regulation of unsolicited commercial communications, i.e., spam) is constitutional.
- Whether other challenged provisions (Sections 7 on multiple prosecutions, Section 12 on warrantless data interception, Section 19 on takedown orders) comply with constitutional requirements.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)