GR No.

2023335, February 18, 2014

According to this case, the Senate and the House of the Representatives assembled and enacted RA10175 also
known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
In the case at bar, the petitioners raised numerous issues regarding with the said Act regarding with its
constitutionality as well as its possibility of double jeopardy. Under the Constitution, Freedom of expression is valued each
individual living under the protection of a Democratic country in which the country of the Philippines vigorously preserve.
Most of the petitioners were Bloggers and Netizens who are greatly concerned with the acts effects towards the
people using the internet as a mean of expressing their beliefs, opinions, values, etc., Many have invoked with its
Constitutionality on the ground that it violated the right of an individual of Freedom of Expression, Equal Protection clause
and Double Jeopardy which is greatly safeguarded by the Fundamental law of the Land The Constitution.
The Petitioner raised these provisions as a violation to the Constitution: Crimes under Cybercrime Offenses such as
offenses against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer date and systems. All under this Section was raised.
Cyber-squatting was raised as well where the acquisition of domain name over the internet in bad faith, profit, mislead,
destroy reputation and deprive others from registering the same. This did not need further explanation from the court to
justify the legislative in this area.
The Court however encountered other provisions in some sections that is actually in conflict of public interest and private
rights. For example, Under the Content-related Offenses, such as Cybersex, Child Pornography, Unsolicited Commercial
Communications and Libel where these provisions were in need of the Courts explanation for upholding such provisions.
In the case of Cybersex, the petitioners raised an issue where married couples would sometimes do some acts that may
be obscene for others through the use of the internet and webcam. One of the issues here that was raised was whether
these couples who commit such act will be criminally liable for the said act? How about the consenting adults? Are they
criminally liable too? In ruling this issue, the court answered in the negative. What the lawmakers intended to prohibit was
the online prostitution. IF these acts committed by these consenting adults as well as married couples for the reason as a
token of love or favor or even by gracious kindness, then this act does not qualify as a part of what the legislators
prohibits.
Another issue that was raised by the petitioners where about Child Pornography where this act is already punished under
the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and if this act is already punished in the RPC then how come this same act is
punished in RA10175 only having a one degree higher as a penalty? Doesnt this constitute double jeopardy? The Court
took time in handling this delicate issue, however, the Court then decided that the lawmakers promulgated this for the
reason that Child Pornography is a delicate matter and that once it is committed on the internet it has various threats as
well as future threats to the child. It just raised one degree higher of penalty for the reason that the perpetrators or the
wicked can easily invade the law while freely committing their schemes at the expense of another. Especially to a child.
The next issue raised was the Unsolicited Commercial Communications. The petitioners reasoned that one must be able
to solicit business to one another and this is provided as well in the Constitution to have a free trade. However, the Court
declared that the purpose of this provision was to eliminate the nuisance that may be caused by such sellers or people
who induce their products or products of another. In this case, the Court was persuaded and convinced that this should be
held as VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The reasons for the Court to agree that this provision was void and
unconstitutional because it anchored it decision that true, the solicitation of business was provided in the Constitution but
it did not emphasize such great importance to its communication but it was outweighed by the reason that no nuisance
shall be committed since the option was based solely upon the receiver whether he or she wants to read the mail or not.
Distinction should be made between libel stated in the RPC and online libel.
According to the Court, libel in the RPC would make the perpetrator be held guilty for such act if it was consummated.
However, in online libel there is no need for such consummation for the damage to anothers reputation and so on would
arise. The people who violate online libel can evade the authorities if the perpetrator is outside the Philippine jurisdiction
that the victim can no longer seek a relief from the proper court for reparation. The perpetrator can cause much more
damage to the victim online since the damaging information can be transmitted to a number of recipients in just a few
seconds. One can cause damage to another with just one press of a button.
As for the other issues such as those who might be guilty of Aiding and Abetting in the commission of Cybercrime was
clarified by the Court in this case as well. The court held that those who simply like, share or comment (subject to
conditions that libel will not arise in that manner) and those who retweet or repost may not be guilty of aiding or abetting in
the commission of the crime as stated in this Cybercrime Prevention Law but only those who are guilty of being a principal
of the said issue will be held criminally liable for online libel under this Act.
All in all the Decision of the Supreme Court was to held the RA 10175 as Valid and Constitution except Sec. 4 (c) (3) of
the same law and Section 7 that authorizes the prosecution of the offender under both RPC and RA10175 to actual cases
with the exception of crimes of Online libel, charging the offender under RA10175 and 353 of RPC which constitutes a
violation of the proscription against Double Jeopardy and Section 4 (c) (2) of RA10175 and RA9775 or the Anti-Child

Pornography Act of 2009 constitutes a violation of the same proscription and in respect to these, is VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
GR. No. 203335 April 22, 2014
A number of petitioners seek reconsideration of the Courts decision last February 18, 2014 regarding with the declaration
of some of the provisions of Republic Act 10125 as invalid and unconstitutional. However, the petitioners views cannot be
maintained for the reason that there are certain boundaries that the Court cannot simply encroach on the other branch of
the government. The petition was denied with finality for lack of merit.
Comment

The internet. Its one of the greatest gifts that this generation has ever experienced. Before, without internet, it
would take months we receive our snail mail from our loved ones. Now, through this, not only that we could communicate
with our loved ones with just a matter of seconds rather we could even see them on screen and be able to see them on
whether they look better than before. See our pets whether they are doing good or not. Who could live without internet? IT
could almost provide anything and everything in just mere seconds.
Through the internet, I must say that this was actually made us much more liberal in our actions knowing that we
could take advantage what the technology has to offer. WE get to join social networking sites that would enhance our
confidence in ourselves, get to have some new friends from different countries and probably get a chance to meet
someone who will be our husband Not only that, if youre not into love and a kind of person who prioritizes your career,
you could get a job by not leaving your house at all. True, internet could offer lots and lots of opportunities for us.
All that comes in good stuff has its bad. The internet, although how great opportunities it bring to us, there are
some who would rather take an opportunity to this technology by mere human evils. Greed, Envy, Jealousy, Wrath yes,
name all the seven deadly sins and we might be even guilty for some. For those who have been having troubles..people
who might be even mentally unbalanced or having problems in their life vent their problems and frustrations to other
people and use the internet instead as a mean of destroying the reputation, name or dignity of that person to his own
benefit.
There are lots of evil machinery that people could actually do and make just to reach their set goals. Its quite
unfortunate for us to be able to experience some fraudulent acts committed by others and some may also be a victim of
their accounts being hacked.
The internet can either make you or break you they say.
To those who have seen the rainbow in the rain through the internet- good. To those who didnt? not only do they
needed to suffer emotional stress, trauma or paranoia rather some, who could not do anything about people who have
more than enough time in making stories of another, would lead the victim or induce the victim to commit suicide.
Dreadful as it is, Many young teenagers experience being bullied on the internet in foreign countries. Surprisingly,
Philippines is one of those countries being able to experience this kind of crime. Families lose their children because of
online bullying, some teenagers even suffer bulimia just because they were being called fat everytime they post their
picture and some even commit suicides seeing their loved ones being with another man.
WE would like to deny this reality and simply close our eyes but we cannot. The lack of protection of the State for
this kind of act is a sin anchoring my opinion in the fundamental law of the land. I believe that RA10175 can actually
eliminate or even prevent these evils in the society.
I admit, at first, I was kind of horrified when I read the Republic Act 10175. It was kind of outrageous for the State
and the lawful authorities for scanning you files and folders just to gather evidence if ever you are guilty of some crime
that you may be prosecuted.
I was even more horrified upon the realization that they may even tap your phone calls, web chats and so on. Not
that I may be guilty of a crime or anything but for people like me who are private kind of persons, This is a big deal.
We dont like people getting to our stuff, snooping around or even stop us from saying something we believe in
but I guess this is the price we pay for being under the government where our individual rights are protected but limited.
Every Constitutional right has its limitation and this is just one of them.
I believe that the government did a good job, with special considerations to our lawmakers wherein through this
law, although I feel comfortable knowing this legal capabilities that may be invoked by the State, I will still respect the law.
According to the cases that I have read earlier regarding with the reasons of the Supreme Court regarding with the
Constitutionality of the Republic Act 10175, They have stated valid and sufficient ground for some of its validity in
compliance and in harmony of all the existing laws as well as the Constitution.

I believe that these rights shall not be violated and the power of the designated authorities shall be regulated. I
believe in the power of the courts to make a just and proper decision that is within their own proper discretion.
I am in full support of RA10175.
IT may threaten an individuals privacy. It may limit the Netizens in exercising their right of Freedom of Expression
but as to what the case I have mentioned earlier, the courts will see to it that there will be certain tests, elements and
grounds that are needed to be complied with in accordance to the set of rules given by our legislators.
WE should note that this law is indeed needed in the society for the reason that these laws protect not only those
individual who are emotionally weak and unstable but also to those who are vulnerable. The perpetrators would do
everything and anything for their own benefit. Whether to use a minor for selfish reasons or to fraud someone for personal
benefit and use, these perpetrators should meet someone their own match such as the Government officials that are
designated with this specialty to help track down these perpetrators and help the administration of justice dispense justice
in this country.
Not only do we have the authorities on our side, rather this power of the authorities given under this law will be
legally exercised with the supervision of the Government.
The court will do its duty to determine whether a person who is alleged to have committed a crime is guilty on the
tests and basis of the said Republic Act has provided as well as to the imposition of penalties to these
accused/defendants.
WE should keep in mind that Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I would like to use this phrase as a basis for the people using the internet or the Netizens that absolute liberty is not good
or ideal if what were doing is to destroy someone elses reputation. There are people whose job is to reveal the truth and
controversies to the public and that would be the journalists or the media. IF we talk on other peoples back which would
destroy their dignity, wouldnt that have a reflective damage to US to?
WE, as human beings, search in vain for wisdom. We have that insatiated thirst for knowledge and we could use the
internet for the good things. We could use our freedom of expression to good use without offending or going overboard.
We could invoke and advocate what we believe in. Thats the gift of internet. We shouldnt make this as something that
would basically hurt other people. Destroy what they value the most cause at the end of the day, whatever evil we may do
or did, We would be overpowered of our conscience and what would that leave us?
For my further legal reasons in supporting this belief, I must say is still the Constitution.
As stated under Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
And
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law.
The Constitutional Right that we have is subject to limitation and is NOT absolute.
WE may exercise our rights freely as long as we do not go overboard or step on another persons right because that
would cease the protection that the Constitution has carefully safeguarded.
I will not show in any manner my resistance to the law stated above. The courts have sufficiently satisfied my questions
regarding with its legality and its Constitutionality. This does not transgress the over superiority of the law and the purpose
of this act was to protect its people from any other people who have schemes, evil motives and malice to satisfy
themselves with their acts. They should not go unpunished and through this law, they may be able to face greater
punishment than those enumerated in the RPC and the special laws.
I understand the peoples concerns or the petitioners. I, too, have my concerns. But I have convinced myself that as long
as I am doing what is right, do not transgress the law, and do what is just in the eyes of God and the State, I have nothing
to be afraid of.
As long as I respect the law, I can aggressively and freely invoke my rights therein. The constitutionality is already proven
and there is no need for modification for now.
I would like to make myself believe that for now, everything is okay in terms of the conditions as specified in this Republic
Act. However, As the society evolves and as the people change, The law, too, has to be versatile and flexible in terms of
the needs of length of protection the people of this country needs.

This may be amended in the future, but for now, in my own opinion. The law is just as lawful as it is now for me. I do not
agree however that we imitate our laws in the US. The US is different from us. Their culture is different from us and our
basis for the changes that might be amended in this law should not be a basis on the case provided in the US rather
should only be amended as basis in case provided in this Philippine jurisdiction. This may not be a majority opinion but I
still would like to state it here. Although, I dont disclose the fact that some of the US cases that were adopted here in the
Philippines were useful. Its just that there are critics regarding with RA10175 in the said application in the country being
an imitation to the US
For further note, ever since, our freedom of expression has been limited once we overstep the boundaries given. This
does not signify that we are becoming a communist country. Just because we are a democratic country doesnt
necessarily mean that our rights are absolute. Again, its subject to such limitation. Being in a communist country would be
a whole lot worse in my opinion.
I dont see any drastic changes in the society since this law was already implemented for more than a year already and
this is a good chance in preserving our old traditions by saving the youth from being used further. This is a necessary law
for me and was enacted within the bounds of the Constitution and is well justified.