Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Cybercrime Act provisions questioned

    Încărcat de

    Kara Aglibo
    352 vizualizări1 pagină
    Sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were challenged as unconstitutional. Petitioners argued that Section 4 defining libel as a cybercrime violated freedom of expression and press. Sections 6 and 7 were said to violate the right against double jeopardy. Section 12 allowing orders to block access without trial also violated freedom of expression and of the press. Section 12 permitting data collection without court intervention violated rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. Section 19 authorizing the Secretary of Justice to restrict access upon a prima facie finding of illegality was also challenged. The court was tasked with determining whether these provisions were unconstitutional.

    Descriere originală:

    Case digest for disini vs secretary of justice

    Titlu original

    Disini vs Secretary of Justice (K)

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were challenged as unconstitutional. Petitioners argued that Section 4 defining libel as a cybercrime violated freedom of expression and press. Sections 6 and 7 were said to violate the right against double jeopardy. Section 12 allowing orders to block access without trial also violated freedom of expression and of the press. Section 12 permitting data collection without court intervention violated rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. Section 19 authorizing the Secretary of Justice to restrict access upon a prima facie finding of illegality was also challenged. The court was tasked with determining whether these provisions were unconstitutional.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    352 vizualizări1 pagină

    Cybercrime Act provisions questioned

    Încărcat de

    Kara Aglibo
    Sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were challenged as unconstitutional. Petitioners argued that Section 4 defining libel as a cybercrime violated freedom of expression and press. Sections 6 and 7 were said to violate the right against double jeopardy. Section 12 allowing orders to block access without trial also violated freedom of expression and of the press. Section 12 permitting data collection without court intervention violated rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. Section 19 authorizing the Secretary of Justice to restrict access upon a prima facie finding of illegality was also challenged. The court was tasked with determining whether these provisions were unconstitutional.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    Kara Sheila Aglibo

    Social Legislation

    Disini Jr. vs Secretary of Justice

    Facts:
    Petitioners filed a case questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175
    otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for violating the fundamental rights under
    the Constitution. Petitioners alleged the following:
    Section 4 which defines libel as a cybercrime violates the right to freedom of expression and
    freedom of press
    Sections 6 and 7 violates the petitioners right against double jeopardy
    Section 12 which states that a prima facie finding by the Secretary of Justice can trigger an order
    directed at service providers to block access to the said material without the benefit of trial
    thereby violates right to freedom of expression and restricts the freedom of press
    Sec 12 which permits NBI and PNP with due cause to engage in real time collection of traffic
    data without the intervention of a Judge thereby violates petitioners right against unreasonable
    searches and seizures and right to privacy of communication
    Sec 19 which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to restrict access to any content upon a prima
    facie finding that the same violates the law
    Issue: WON the said provisions are unconstitutional
    HELD:

    S-ar putea să vă placă și