Title
Disini, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice
Case
G.R. No. 203335
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2014
Petitioners challenged Cybercrime Prevention Act provisions, alleging violations of free speech, privacy, and due process. SC upheld cyber libel, higher penalties, and cybersex bans but struck down warrantless data collection, balancing state interests with constitutional rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203335)

Majority Resolution Denying Reconsideration

The Supreme Court, voting en banc, denied both petitioners’ and respondents’ motions for reconsideration of its February 18, 2014 decision. It reaffirmed its prior rulings on the constitutionality and invalidity of certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, finding no new arguments sufficient to warrant reversal.

Legislative Process and Committee Insertions

The Court refused to probe claims of unauthorized bicameral committee insertions, holding that each House must internally resolve alleged non-compliance with its own rules so long as constitutional passage requirements were met.

Section 6 – Aggravated Penalties for ICT-Facilitated Crimes

Section 6 raises by one degree the penalty for any Revised Penal Code or special-law crime “committed by, through and with the use of ICT.” The majority upheld its constitutionality under Congress’s exclusive power to define and fix penalties. It distinguished cybercrimes as inherently more harmful—owing to ICT’s speed, reach and anonymity—and therefore legitimately subject to stiffer sanctions.

Section 4(c)(4) – Online Libel

The Court reaffirmed that libel (Article 355, RPC) is unprotected speech and that the constitutional guarantee of free expression does not extend to defamatory statements. Consequently, online libel remains punishable, and increased penalties under Section 6 do not violate freedom of speech.

Section 4(c)(3) – Unsolicited Commercial Communications

The majority implicitly recognized the government’s interest in regulating spam and denied motions aiming to strike down Section 4(c)(3). It noted that the provision does not ban unsolicited e-mail but requires honest sender identification, non-misleading content and a reliable opt-out mechanism to protect users’ enjoyment of e-mail services without unduly restricting commercial speech.

Other Provisions Previously Addressed

In its February decision, the Court had already struck down provisions permitting warrantless real-time data interception (Sec. 12), takedown orders without due process (Sec. 19), certain aspects of cyberpornography and multiple prosecutions under Section 7. The resolution left those rulings intact.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Sereno

Chief Justice Sereno vigorously reasserted her view that Section 6’s mandatory one-degree penalty increase for cyberlibel unduly chills free speech. She argued that the in terrorem effects—longer prison terms, harsher accessory penalties, loss of probation, extended prescription periods and inability to offset aggravation—collectively overburden online expression. She would declare Section 6 and Section 4(c)(4) unconstitutional, while upholding Section 4(c)(3).

Concurring Opinion of Justice Carpio

Justice Carpio joined the majority in full, including the finding that Section 6 is constitutional. He reiterated his separate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms