Case Digest (G.R. No. 203335)
Facts:
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. Nos. 203335, 203299, 203306, 203359, 203378, 203391, 203407, 203440, 203453, 203454, 203469, 203501, 203509, 203515, 203518, April 22, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Abad, J., writing for the Court.A large number of petitioners (individual bloggers, media groups, civil‑society organizations, legislators and concerned citizens) challenged provisions of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) after the Court's February 18, 2014 decision that had struck down certain provisions as unconstitutional and upheld others. The consolidated petitions (the many G.R. numbers above) named executive‑branch officials (including the Secretary of Justice, the Executive Secretary, the Information and Communications Technology Office Director, the PNP Chief and the NBI Director) as respondents.
After the February 18 decision, both petitioners and the respondents (through the Office of the Solicitor General) filed motions for partial reconsideration contesting various aspects of the Court's ruling — most notably the constitutionality of Section 6 (which raises by one degree the penalty for crimes committed “by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies”), the scope and validity of Section 4(c)(4) (online libel), and the invalidation of Section 4(c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications). The parties re‑argued points already considered: petitioners urged that Section 6 produces an undue chilling effect on free expression and was vague, while respondents defended Congress' power to fix penalties and the material distinction between ICT‑enabled crimes and traditional crimes.
The Court (En Banc) considered the motions for reconsideration but found no substantial arguments that would warrant reversing its February 18, 2014 Decision. The present resolution affirms the denial with finality of the motions for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant the motions for partial reconsideration and reverse or modify its February 18, 2014 decision?
- May the Supreme Court inquire into alleged bicameral committee insertions in the legislative process of Republic Act No. 10175?
- Is Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act — which increases penalties by one degree for crimes committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies (ICT) — unconstitutional insofar as it applies to libel?
- Is Section 4(c)(3) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (regulating unsolic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)