Disini vs.

DOJ Case Digest

Facts:
Republic Act No. 10175 otherwise known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was approved
on September 12, 2012. The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the
cyberspace. Using his laptop or computer, a person can connect to the internet, a system that
links him to other computers and enable him to access information, interact thru social
networking, conduct business thru e-commerce and so on.
However, it has been used to various illegal activities cybersex, child pornography, fraudulent ecommerce, various hacking activities to access confidential information and so on. For this
reason, the government has a legitimate right to regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and
punish wrongdoings.
But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable
cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course
asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish
wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system. Pending hearing and adjudication of
the issues presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the Court extended the original 120day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining
respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further orders.
Issue:
Weather the several provisions as petitioned by the petitioners of RA 10175 are
unconstitutional?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court en banc on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of the controversial online
libel provision in Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act. "The court also ruled on
the constitutionality of online libel when it further declares that Sec 4 C4 which penalizes online
and cyber-libel is not unconstitutional with the respect to the original author of the post.
The measure's provisions penalizing those who participate in the libelous statement or message
after it is posted violating Constitutional principles. "[The law's online libel clause] is
unconstitutional only when it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it. The high
court said that such penalties are the same as those under the libel clauses in the Revised
Penal Code and not the stricter penalties as stated in the new measure. Libel offenders may be
imprisoned for "minimum and medium periods" or fined from P200 to P6,000 under the Revised
Penal Code.
The court further upheld the anti-cybercrime law's penalties to those who aid and abet cyber
offenses, namely:

illegal access

illegal interception

data interference

system interference

misuse of devices

cyber squatting

computer-related fraud

computer-related identity theft

cybersex

Meanwhile, aiding and abetting in child pornography, sending and creating unsolicited
commercial communications or spam and online libel as punishable measures were said to be
violating the Constitution.
The high tribunal explained that penalties for child pornography are already stated elsewhere,
and those in the anti-cybercrime law prohibit "double jeopardy."
Unconstitutional provisions
The high tribunal similarly struck down a few of the more contested clauses of the anticybercrime la. "The court partially granted the reliefs sought in the 14 consolidated petitions
challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175". The anti-cybercrime law provides
penalties for sending and posting unsolicited commercial data or spamming and for monitoring
of real-time traffic data.
It similarly grants the Department of Justice authority to restrict or block access to suspected
computer data. The Supreme Court said, however, that these clauses violate the Constitution
when such activities may intrude upon privacy of individuals or corporations.