Disini vs Exec Sec spams, that seek to advertise, sell, or offer
for sale of products and services unless the
Case Summary and Outcome recipient affirmatively consents, or when The Supreme Court of Philippines declared the purpose of the communication is for Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of service or administrative announcements the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as from the sender to its existing users, or unconstitutional. It held that Section 4(c) “when the following conditions are (3) violated the right to freedom of present: (aa) The commercial electronic expression by prohibiting the electronic communication contains a simple, valid, transmission of unsolicited commercial and reliable way for the recipient to reject communications. It found Section 12 in receipt of further commercial electronic violation of the right to privacy because it messages (opt-out) from the same lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness source; (bb) The commercial electronic in collecting real-time computer data. It communication does not purposely disguise struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the source of the electronic message; the government the authority to restrict or and (cc) The commercial electronic block access to computer data without any communication does not purposely include judicial warrant. misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.” Facts The government argued that unsolicited The case arises out of consolidated commercial communications amount to petitions to the Supreme Court of the both nuisance and trespass because they Philippines on the constitutionality of tend to interfere with the enjoyment of several provisions of the Cybercrime using online services and that they enter Prevention Act of 2012, Act No. 10175. the recipient’s domain without prior The Petitioners argued that even though permission. the Act is the government’s platform in The Court first noted that spams are a combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21 category of commercial speech, which does separate sections of the Act violate their not receive the same level of protection as constitutional rights, particularly the right other constitutionally guaranteed forms of to freedom of expression and access to expression ,”but is nonetheless entitled to inforamtion. protection.” It ruled that the prohibition on In February 2013, the Supreme Court transmitting unsolicited extended the duration of a temporary communications “would deny a person the restraining order against the government to right to read his emails, even unsolicited halt enforcement of the Act until the commercial ads addressed to him.” adjudication of the issues. Accordingly, the Court declared Section4(c) (3) as unconstitutional. Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law Decision Overview enforcement without a court warrant “to Justice Abad delivered the Court’s opinion. collect or record traffic data in real-time The government of Philippines adopted the associated with specified communications Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for the transmitted by means of a computer purpose of regulating access to and use of system.” Traffic data under this Section cyberspace. Several sections of the law includes the origin, destination, route, size, define relevant cyber crimes and enable date, and duration of the communication, the government to track down and penalize but not its content nor the identity of users. violators. The Petitioners argued that such Among 21 challenged sections, the Court warrantless authority curtails their civil declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the liberties and set the stage for abuse of Act as unconstitutional. discretion by the government. They also Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of claimed that this provision violates the right unsolicited commercial electronic to privacy and protection from the communications, commonly known as government’s intrusion into online expression, as well as the constitutional communications. protection against unreasonable searches According to the Court, since Section 12 and seizures. may lead to disclosure of private The Court first recognized that computer communications, it must survive the data constitutes a personal property, rational basis standard of whether it is entitled to protection against unreasonable narrowly tailored towards serving a searches and seizures. Also, the government’s compelling interest. The Philippines’ Constitution requires the Court found that the government did have government to secure a valid judicial a compelling interest in preventing cyber warrant when it seeks to seize a personal crimes by monitoring real-time traffic data. property or to block a form of expression. As to whether Section 12 violated the right Because Section 19 precluded any judicial to privacy, the Court first recognized that intervention, the Court found it the right at stake concerned informational unconstitutional. privacy, defined as “the right not to have private information disclosed, and the right World Wide Web Corp vs People to live freely without surveillance and WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. intrusion.” In determining whether a PEOPLE, GR No. 161106, 2014-01-13 communication is entitled to the right of Facts: privacy, the Court applied a two-part test: Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of (1) Whether the person claiming the right the Regional Intelligence Special Operations has a legitimate expectation of privacy over Office (RISOO) of the Philippine National the communication, and (2) whether his Police filed applications for warrants[3] expectation of privacy can be regarded as before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 78, objectively reasonable in the society. to search the office premises of... petitioner The Court noted that internet users have Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC)[4] subjective reasonable expectation of located at the 11th floor, IBM Plaza privacy over their communications Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Libis, transmitted online. However, it did not find Quezon City,... applications alleged that the expectation as objectively reasonable petitioners were conducting illegal toll because traffic data sent through internet bypass operations, which amounted to theft “does not disclose the actual names and and violation of Presidential Decree No. addresses (residential or office) of the 401... the trial court conducted a hearing on sender and the recipient, only their coded the applications for search warrants. The Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.” applicant and Jose Enrico Rivera (Rivera) Even though the Court ruled that real-time and Raymund Gali (Gali) of the Alternative traffic data under Section 12 does not enjoy Calling Pattern Detection Division of PLDT the objective reasonable expectation of testified as witnesse privacy, the existence of enough data may Issues: reveal the personal information of its PLDT, without the conformity of the public sender or recipient, against which the prosecutor, had no personality to question Section fails to provide sufficient safeguard. the quashal of the search warrants; The Court viewed the law as “virtually Ruling: limitless, enabling law enforcement at the conformity of the... public prosecutor authorities to engage in “fishing is not necessary before an aggrieved party expedition,” choosing whatever specified moves for reconsideration of an order communication they want.” granting a motion to quash search warrants Accordingly, the Court struck down Section When the search warrants issued were 12 for lack of specificity and definiteness as subsequently quashed by the to ensure respect for the right to privacy. RTC, there was nothing left to be done by Section 19 authorizes the Department of the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the Justice to restrict or block access to a search warrants were final orders, not computer data found to be in violation of interlocutory, and an appeal may be the Act. The Petitioners argued that this properly taken therefrom. section also violated the right to freedom of Principles: An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed.[40] Whether the criminal case (of which the search warrant is an incident)... has already been filed before the trial court is significant for the purpose of determining the proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash a search warrant. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, as it was in Marcelo, the quashal of a search warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still "something more to be done in the said criminal case, i.e., the determination of the guilt of the... accused therein."
SEO-Optimized title for SOLEDAD SOCO vs. HON. FRANCIS MILITANTE, Incumbent Presiding Judge of the CFI of Cebu, Branch XII, Cebu City and REGINO FRANCISCO, JR