Disini V. Secretary Of Justice Case Digest q3s4c

Page 1 of 36 JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF

new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal

JUSTICE, ET AL.,

Code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely

G.R. No. 203335, FEBRUARY 18, 2014

affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel. But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as

Constitutional law; Unsolicited commercial communications,

the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement

also known as “spam” is entitled to protection under freedom of

or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of

expression. To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would

when the Penal Code provisions on libel were enacted. The

deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited

culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print.

commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a

Criminal law; Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law that

separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level

punishes “aiding or abetting” libel on the cyberspace is a

of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed

nullity. The “aiding or abetting” constitute broad sweep that

forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The

generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through

State cannot rob him of this right without violating the

cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Its vagueness

constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited

raises apprehension on the part of internet s because of its

ments are legitimate forms of expression.

obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially

Criminal law; Cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of the

since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the

Cybercrime Law is constitutional. The Court agrees with the

cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as the petitioners

Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech

point out, formal crimes such as libel are not punishable unless

and that the government has an obligation to protect private

consummated. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction

individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a

of netizens and their level of responsibility such as in other

Page 2 of 36 countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny.

ISSUES/GROUNDS: 1. Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of The Cybercrime Act violate the petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, due process, equal protection,

FACTS:

privacy of communications, as well as the Constitutional

Petitioners Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini,

sanctions against double jeopardy, undue delegation of

Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., as

legislative authority and the right against unreasonable

taxpayers, file a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule

searches and seizure;

65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petitioners seek to 1)

o

• Sections 6 and 7 of the Cybercrime Act more than

nullify Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175, otherwise

doubles the liability for imprisonment for any

known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012” for violating the

violation of existing penal laws are in violation of the

fundamental rights protected under the Constitution; and 2) prohibit

petitioners’ right against Double Jeopardy;

the Respondents, singly and collectively, from enforcing the aforementioned provisions of the Cybercrime Act.

o

•

Section

12

of

the

Cybercrime

Act,

which permits the NBI and the PNP “with due

Named as Respondents are the Secretary of Justice, the

cause” to engage in real time collection of traffic

Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, the Executive

data without the benefit of the intervention of a

Director of the Information Communications Technology Office, the

judge, violates the Petitioners’ Constitutionally-

Chief of the Philippine National Police, and the Director of the

protected right to be free from unreasonable

National Bureau of Investigation.

searches and seizure as well as the right to the privacy of communications;

Page 3 of 36 o

• Section 19 of the Cybercrime Act, which

freedom of the press. The increased penalties, plus

authorizes the Respondent Secretary of DOJ to

the ease by which allegedly libelous materials can

block or restrict access to any content upon a prima

be removed from access, work together as a

facie finding that the same violates the law, contains

“chilling effect” upon protected speech.

an

o

undue

delegation

of

legislative

authority,

2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the court of

infringes upon the judicial power of the judiciary, and

law, and that this Petition is therefore cognizable by the

violates the Petitioners’ Constitutionally-protected

SC’s judicial power under Article VIII, Section 1 par. 2 of the

right to due process and freedom of expression;

Constitution and pursuant to Rule 65, Sec. 1 of the 1997

and

Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

• Section 4(c)(4) defines libel as a cybercrime and in relation to Section 6 of the law increased the penalty from 6 months to 4 years and 2 months to the greater period of 6 years to 10 years, infringes upon

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS: 1. The Cybercrime Act Violates Free Speech: o

• imposes heavier penalties for online libel than

the right to freedom of expression and also restricts

paper-based libel; single act of online libel will result

the freedom of the press. Under Section 12, a prima

in two convictions penalized separately under the

facie finding by the Secretary of DOJ can trigger an

RP and the Cybercrime Act;

order directed at service providers to block access

o

online libel under the Cybercrime Act will ensure the

to the said material without the benefit of a trial or a

imprisonment of the accused and for a much longer

conviction. Thus, RA 10175 infringes upon the right

period. Such changes will result in a chilling effect

to freedom of expression and also restricts the

upon the freedom of speech;

Page 4 of 36 o

• with the age of the Cybercrime Act, Senator Vicente Sotto III’s earlier threat to criminally

Jeopardy and

prosecute all bloggers and internet s who were

Constitution:

critical of his alleged plagiarism of online materials

Protection

Clauses

of

the

• Persons who commit crimes using information and communication

Health

criminal

possibility of being imprisoned more than double the

prosecution under RA 10175 will work to preclude

imprisonment laid down in the RPC or special law,

people such as Petitioners from posting social

simply by the age of the Cybercrime Act;

Bill

became

real;

threat

of

o

technologies

(ICTs)

face

the

• the cybercrimes defined and punished under

upon the freedom of expression;

Section 6 of the Act are absolutely identical to the

• gives the DOJ Secretary blanket authority to

crimes defined in the RPC and special laws which

restrain and block access to content whether

raises the possibility that an accused will be

authored by private citizens or the organized press

punished twice for the same offense in violation of

sans any hearing of any kind but merely upon a

the Constitution;

mere prima facie showing that a particular Internet

•

respondents

must

demonstrate

o

• Congress created a class of offenders who commit crimes “by, through or with the use” of ICTs in

article constitutes online libel; o

o

Equal

for use in his speech against the Reproductive

commentaries online, thus creating a “chilling effect”

o

2. Sections 6 and 7 of the Cybercrime Act violate the Double

how

Cybercrime Act will fare under strict scrutiny

the

violation of the equal protection clause 3. The Real Time Collection of Traffic Date Violate the Right to Privacy and the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure:

Page 5 of 36 o

o

• No compelling state interest that justifies real time

4. The Respondent DOJ Secretary’s Take Down Authority

collection of data; the authority vested on the

under Section 19 of the Cybercrime Act violates Due

Philippine National Police and the National Bureau

Process and is an Undue Delegation of Legislative

of Investigation to collect data is not bounded by

Authority

any reasonable standard except “due cause” which

o

presumably, the PNP and NBI will determine for

order the restriction or blocking of access to certain

itself;

content upon a mere prima facie finding without any

• While the privacy of suspected terrorists, through

need for a judicial determination is in clear violation

the Human Security Act, are protected by the

of petitioners’ Constitutionally protected right to due

intervention

process;

of

the

Court

of

Appeals

before surveillance operations are conducted, the

o

o

o

• The Cybercrime Act contemplates that the

privacy of all citizens may be infringed without

respondent DOJ Secretary will be “judge, jury and

judicial participation in the Cybercrime Act;

executioner” of all cybercrime-related complaints;

• Neither the PNP nor the NBI is required to justify

o

To consider that all penal provisions in all specials

the incursion into the right to privacy;

laws are cybercrimes under Section 6, it • follows

No limits imposed upon the PNP or the NBI since

that:

they can lawfully collect traffic data at all times

o

• The DOJ Secretary’s overwhelming powers to

1. Complaints filed by intellectual property

without interruption;

rights owners may be acted upon the

• No stated justification for this warrant-free

Respondent DOJ Secretary to block access

unlimited incursion into the privacy of citizens

Page 6 of 36 to websites and content upon a mere prima

policy with respect to the blocking of content.

facie showing of an infringement;

No limits upon the takedown power of the

2. Foreign sites (e.g. Amazon.com) offering

respondent DOJ Secretary;

goods on retail to Philippine citizens may be

2. Prima facie standard is not enough to

blocked for violating the Retail Trade Law; 3. Foreign

service

providers

prevent the DOJ Secretary from exercising

such

infinite discretion and becoming the supreme

as Skype may be blocked from offering

authority in the Philippine Internet landscape.

voice services without securing a license from

the

National

Telecommunications

Communication; 4. YouTube

video

1. Declare null and void, for being unconstitutional, Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175;

may

be

blocked

for

presumably violating the IP Code. o

PRAYER:

2. Prohibit all Respondents from implementing Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175;

• The Cybercrime Act fails the two tests laid down

3. Issue a TRO ening the Respondents from implementing

by the Court in Abakada Guro Party List v.

Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175; and

Purisima (GR No. 166715) to determine the validity

4. Issue other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises.

of

the

5. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 18, upheld as

completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard

constitutional most provisions of Republic Act 10175 or the

test

Cybercrime Law, including online libel – subject to one

delegation

of

legislative

power:

(1)

1. Nowhere in the Cybercrime Act’s declaration of policy does it lay down the legislative

condition.

Page 7 of 36 6. The High Court also struck down a provision of the law that



gives the state the power to take down online content

communications 

without a court warrant. 7. Seeking to strike a balance between fundamental freedoms and government control, the High Court decided on the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175 a little over a year afteroral arguments were heard on Jan 15, 2013.

Section 4 (c)(3) which pertains to unsolicited commercial

Section 12 which pertains to real-time collection of traffic data



Section 19 which pertains to restricting or blocking access to computer data

The SC decided that Section 19 – granting power to the

8. Among the hotly-debated issues during the oral arguments

Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict computer data on the basis

was the law's provision on online libel. (READ: 'Libel gone

of prima facie or initially observed evidence – was not in keeping

is best-case scenario for SC cybercime ruling')

with the Constitution. The said automatic take-down clause is

9. The Supreme Court decision, penned by Justice Roberto

found in Section 19 of the cybercrime law.

Abad, ruled online libel to be constitutional but with an

Even the SOLICITOR General, in his defense of RA 10175,

exception – that is, in cases where it covers persons other

itted before the SC that Section 19 is "constitutionally

than the original author. Recipients of, and netizens who

impermissible, because it permits a form of final restraint on

react to a potentially defamatory post, will not be covered

speech without prior judicial determination."

by online libel.

Section 12 would have allowed law enforcement authorities with due cause to collect or record by technical or electronic means

Unconstitutional provisions Three

provisions

unconstitutional:

were

"traffic data" in real time. voted

down

as

categorically

Section 4 (c)(3) of the law says that "the transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer

Page 8 of 36 system which seek to , sell, or offer for sale products and

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cybercrime Division Chief

services are prohibited" unless certain conditions – such as prior

Ronald Aguto explained to Rappler that it will also be hard for both

affirmative consent from the recipient – are met. This was ruled

law enforcement and the prosecution to prove the "attempt to

unconstitutional.

commit a cybercrime."

A separability clause contained in Section 29, Chapter VIII of the law allows the rest of the law to "remain in full force and effect" even if certain provisions are held invalid.

Aiding a

nd abetting the commission of a cybercrime,

he added, might unduly cover certain players in the online industry. Section 7, which pertains to liability of a cyber criminal under other laws, was declared unconstitutional only in the

Nuances in other provisions

following cases: online libel and child pornography.

Three other provisions were not struck down and remain in

The SC cited the guarantee against double jeopardy or

the law, but they will not apply in certain cases as decided by the

being punished more than once for the same offense – a

SC. Among these provisions is online libel, which is constitutional

guarantee outlined in the Constitution – in deciding on Section 7.

as far as the original author is concerned. Section 5, which pertains to aiding or abetting the

Libel is punishable by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, while child pornography is punishable by RA 9775 or the

commission of a cybercrime and to the attempt to commit a

Anti-Child Pornography Act.

cybercrime, was declared unconstitutional only in the following

A person convicted of libel or child pornography can only be

cases: child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications

punished once, under the coverage of a single law.

(or spam), and online libel. Section 5 will apply to all other cybercrimes outlined in the law.

Page 9 of 36

CASE DIGEST: JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., et al. v. THE SECRETARY

OF

JUSTICE,

et

Are the following provisions valid and constitutional?

al.

TEXTS IN GREEN ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS CASE.

FACTS:

a.

Section

b.

Section

c.

Section

d.

Section

e.

4(a)(1) 4(a)(3)

f.

Section

Act (R.A.) 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

g.Section

Data on

4(b)(3)

Access; Interference;

Cyber-squatting;

on

Identity

Theft;

4(c)(1)

on

Cybersex;

on

Child

Pornography;

4(c)(2) 4(c)(3)

Illegal

on

4(a)(6)

Section

Petitioners assail the validity of several provision of the Republic

on

on

Unsolicited

Commercial

Communications; Petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law

h.

for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of

i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the

their constitutional rights. The government of course asserts that

Commission

the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace

j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;

activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on

k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised

the

Penal

system.

l. ISSUES:

Section

4(c)(4)

on

of

Code

(RPC)

Section

Libel;

Cybercrimes;

and

8

R.A. on

10175; Penalties;

m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data; n.

Section

13

on

Preservation

of

Computer

Data;

Page 10 of 36

o.

Section

14

on

Disclosure

of

Computer

Data;

Section

4(a)(1)

provides:

p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer q.

Section

17

on

Destruction

of

Computer

Data;

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute

Data;

the

offense

of

cybercrime

punishable

under

this

Act:

r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer s.

Data;

Section

20

on

Obstruction

of

Justice;

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of

computer

data

and

systems:

t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center u.

Section

(CICC); 26(a)

on

CICCs

and

Powers and

Functions.

(1) Illegal Access. The access to the whole or any part of a computer

system

without

right.

Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related

Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict

Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC on the crime of

scrutiny standard required of laws that interfere with the

libel.

fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck down.

HELD: The Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the Section

4(a)(1)

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

application of the strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is essentially

Page 11 of 36

a condemnable act accessing the computer system of another without

right.

It

is

a

universally

condemned

the

introduction

or

transmission

of

viruses.

conduct. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth in

Besides, a clients engagement of an ethical hacker requires an

that, while it seeks to discourage data interference, it intrudes

agreement between them as to the extent of the search, the

into the area of protected speech and expression, creating a

methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. Since the

chilling and deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.

ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client, such permission would insulate him from the coverage of

Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental

Section

purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not be

4(a)(1).

achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms.But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It

Section

4(a)(3)

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to

Section

4(a)(3)

provides:

others, in this case their computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to

(3) Data Interference. The intentional or reckless alteration,

guaranteed freedoms. There is no freedom to destroy other

damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic

peoples

document, or electronic data message, without right, including

computer

systems

and

private

documents.

Page 12 of 36

Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no set of circumstances will

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person

Section 4(a)(3) be valid.Petitioner has failed to discharge this

other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and

burden. (iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests Hence,

valid

Section

4(a)(6)

and

of

the

constitutional.

Cybercrime

Law

in

it.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-squatting violates the equal protection clausein that, not being narrowly tailored, it

Section

4(a)(6)

provides:

will cause a using his real name to suffer the same fate as those who use aliases or take the name of another in satire,

(6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the

parody,

or

any

other

literary

device.

internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy the reputation, and deprive others from ing the same, if such a domain

The law is reasonable in penalizing the offender for acquiring

name

the domain name in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy

is:

reputation, or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the (i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing

rightful

opportunity

Hence,

valid

of

ing

the

same.

and

constitutional.

trademark ed with the appropriate government agency at the

time

of

the

domain

name

registration;

Page 13 of 36

In Morfe v. Mutuc,it ruled that the right to privacy exists Section

4(b)(3)

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving

Section

4(b)(3)

of

constitutional

protection.

provides: Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept

b)

x

Computer-related

x

Offenses:

x

x

known

as

the

"Zones

of

Privacy."

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The intentional acquisition,

unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal

use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration, or deletion of

process. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones

identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or

arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a

juridical, without right: Provided: that if no damage has yet been

"constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized

caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

men," but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be

Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the constitutional

subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and

rights to due process and to privacy and correspondence, and

"everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such

transgresses

interference or attacks." In the Matter of the Petition for

the

freedom

of

the

press.

Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon,

Page 14 of 36

535

Phil.

687,

714-715

(2006).

personal

data.

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a)

Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates the

the right against unreasonable searchesand seizures, which is

freedom of the press in that journalists would be hindered from

the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy

accessing the unrestricted of a person in the news

of

to secure information about him that could be published.

communication

and

correspondence.In

assessing

the

challenge that the State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has

The Court held, the press, whether in quest of news reporting or

exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether

social investigation, has nothing to fear since a special

that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government

circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is

intrusion.

required

Petitioners simply fail to show how government effort to curb

Hence,

by

this

valid

and

Section.

constitutional.

computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and correspondence as well as the right to due process of law.

Section

Clearly, what this section regulates are specific actions: the

Section

4(c)(1)

of

the

4(c)(1)

Cybercrime

Law

provides:

acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal identifying data of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire anothers

(c)

Content-related

Offenses:

Page 15 of 36

The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave (1) Cybersex. The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or

trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This

operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of

includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by

sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer

webcam.

system,

for

favor

or

consideration. Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately through internet

Petitioners claim that the above violates the freedom of

connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced

expression

with the mandate of the State to eradicate white slavery and the

clause.They

express

fear

that

private

communications of sexual character between husband and wife

exploitation

of

women.

or consenting adults, which are not regarded as crimes under the penal code, would now be regarded as crimes when done

Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

"for favor" in cyberspace. In common usage, the term "favor" includes "gracious kindness," "a special privilege or right

Section

4(c)(2)

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

granted or conceded," or "a token of love (as a ribbon) usually worn conspicuously."This meaning given to the term "favor"

Section

4(c)(2)

provides:

embraces socially tolerated trysts. The law as written would invite law enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of married

(2) Child Pornography. The unlawful or prohibited acts defined

couples

and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child

or

consenting

individuals.

Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer

Page 16 of 36

system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1)

incalculable.

one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.

Hence,

The above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child

Section

valid

4(c)(3)

and

of

the

constitutional.

Cybercrime

Law

Pornography Act of 2009(AA) to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory, nothing prevents the government from

Section

4(c)(3)

provides:

invoking the AA when prosecuting persons who commit child pornography using a computer system. Actually, AAs

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. The transmission

definition of child pornography already embraces the use of

of commercial electronic communication with the use of

"electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other

computer system which seeks to , sell, or offer for sale

means."

products

Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one degree

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

and

services

are

prohibited

unless:

when the crime is committed in cyberspace. But no one can complain since the intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or

prerogative and there is rational basis for such higher

istrative announcements from the sender to its existing

penalty.The potential for uncontrolled proliferation of a particular

s,

piece of child pornography when ed in the cyberspace is

subscribers

or

customers;

or

Page 17 of 36

(iii)

The

following

conditions

are

present: The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, points

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a

out that unsolicited commercial communications or spams are a

simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt

nuisance that wastes the storage and network capacities of

of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the

internet service providers, reduces the efficiency of commerce

same

and technology, and interferes with the owners peaceful

source;

enjoyment of his property. Transmitting spams amounts to (bb) The commercial electronic communication does not

tres to ones privacy since the person sending out spams

purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and

enters the recipients domain without prior permission. The OSG contends that commercial speech enjoys less protection in law.

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the

These have never been outlawed as nuisance since people

message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.

might have interest in such ads. What matters is that the recipient has the option of not opening or reading these mail

The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited commercial

ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the

communications, also known as "spam." The term "spam"

option

to

delete

or

not

to

read

them.

surfaced in early internet chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One who repeats the same sentence or comment was

To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a

said

person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial

to

be

making

a

"spam."

Page 18 of 36

ads addressed to him. Unsolicited ments are legitimate forms

of

expression.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good

Hence,

void

for

being

unconstitutional.

intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the

following

cases:

Articles 353, 354, and 355 of the Penal Code and Section 4(c)(4)

of

the

Cyber

Crime

Law

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the penal code provisions on libel as well as Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any

Prevention

comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official

Act

on

cyberlibel.

proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any The

RPC

provisions

on

libel

read:

statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their

Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious

functions.

imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel

cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or

committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving,

juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

radio,

phonograph,

painting,

theatrical

exhibition,

Page 19 of 36

cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be

(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in

punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed

periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in

through a computer system or any other similar means which

addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended

may

be

devised

in

the

future.

party. Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal codeand, in The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the other hand,

effect, the libel provisions of the cybercrime law carry with them

merely incorporates to form part of it the provisions of the RPC

the requirement of "presumed malice" even when the latest

on

jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher standard of

libel.

Thus

Section

4(c)(4)

reads:

"actual malice" as a basis for conviction.Petitioners argue that Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the

inferring "presumed malice" from the accuseds defamatory

offense

statement by virtue of Article 354 of the penal code infringes on

of

cybercrime

punishable

under

this

Act:

his x

x

x

constitutionally

guaranteed

freedom

of

expression.

x Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the

(c)

Content-related

Offenses:

government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since

x

x

x

x

Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that

Page 20 of 36

online defamation constitutes "similar means" for committing

constitutional with respect to the original author of the post; but

libel.

void and unconstitutional with respect to others who simply receive

the

Section

5

post

and

react

to

it.

But the Courts acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. The

Section

5

provides:

culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print.

Sec. 5. Other Offenses. The following acts shall also constitute an

offense:

The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style. In a sense, they are a world apart in

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any

of quickness of the readers reaction to defamatory

person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of

statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply

the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person who

other

willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in

internet

s.

this Hence, Section 4(c)(4) penalizing online libel is valid and

Act

shall

be

held

liable.

Page 21 of 36

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that renders

Moreover, cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying

criminally liable any person who willfully abets or aids in the

that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and friends, evoking

commission or attempts to commit any of the offenses

from mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose,

enumerated as cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth,

which

creating a chilling and deterrent effect on protected expression.

communication technology to protect a persons reputation and

seeks

to

regulate

the

use

of

this

cyberspace

peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body

broadly sweep, invading the area of protected freedoms.

of jurisprudence and laws on aiding and abetting sufficiently

Griswold

v.

Connecticut,

381

U.S.

479

(1965).

protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail themselves of the services of the internet. He points

If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what

out that existing laws and jurisprudence sufficiently delineate the

sinister predicaments await internet s will suppress

meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the

otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be

innocent. The Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and

threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide

common usage is at times sufficient to guide law enforcement

reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and

agencies

triers

in

enforcing

the

law.

of

facts

to

prevent

arbitrary

and

discriminatory

enforcement. (Adonis) G.R. No. 203378The "aiding or Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a persons image

abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect

with just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can

on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts,

spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news.

comments,

and

other

messages.

Page 22 of 36

their level of responsibility such as in other countries, Section 5, Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes "aiding or

in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on

abetting"

Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2)

libel

on

the

cyberspace

is

a

nullity.

on

Child

Pornography,

cannot

stand

scrutiny.

As already stated, the cyberspace is an incomparable, pervasive medium of communication. It is inevitable that any

But the crime of aiding or abetting the commission of

government threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the

cybercrimes under Section 5 should be permitted to apply to

medium creates a chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected

Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal

freedom of expression of the great masses that use it. In this

Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section

case, the particularly complex web of interaction on social

4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of

media websites would give law enforcers such latitude that they

Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on

could

Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related

arbitrarily

or

selectively

enforce

the

law.

Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. Its

Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on

vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet s

the

exercise

of

the

freedom

of

expression.

because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting

Section

6

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way.In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and

Section

6

provides:

Page 23 of 36

Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

Sec. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and

with

the

use

of

information

and

Section

7

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

communications

technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this

Section

7

provides:

Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal

Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. A prosecution under this Act

Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special

Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through

laws.

the internet a qualifying circumstance. As the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial distinction between crimes

Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the

committed through the use of information and communications

published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted

technology and similar crimes committed using other means. In

online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject

using the technology in question, the offender often evades

of two separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of

identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation

greater harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for

of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same

higher

elements and are in fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the

penalties

for

cybercrimes.

OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) is not a

Page 24 of 36

new crime but is one already punished under Article 353.

Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009

Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as

also constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in

another means of publication. Charging the offender under both

respect

to

these,

is

void

and

unconstitutional.

laws would be a blatant violation of the proscription against double

jeopardy.

Section

The Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the

Section

8

of

the

Cybercrime

8

Law

provides:

correct application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic

Sec. 8. Penalties. Any person found guilty of any of the

Act 10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the

punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act

crimes

shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine

of:

of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to 1. Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both

a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or

Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the

both.

Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against

double

jeopardy;

as

well

as

Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or

2. Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the

a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos

offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and

(PhP500,000.00)

or

both.

Page 25 of 36

computer

system.

If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts

least Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) up to

enumerated

maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or

imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty

both,

thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) but not exceeding Two

shall

be

imposed.

in

Section

4(c)(3)

shall

be

punished

with

hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP250,000.00) or both. Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts

imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred

enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment

thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million

one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the

pesos

offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos

(PhP1,000,000.00)

or

both.

(PhP100,000.00) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts

pesos

(PhP500,000.00)

or

both.

enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the

The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of crimes is as

"Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009:" Provided, That the

a rule a legislative prerogative. Here the legislature prescribed a

penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that

measure of severe penalties for what it regards as deleterious

provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a

cybercrimes. Judges and magistrates can only interpret and

Page 26 of 36

apply them and have no authority to modify or revise their range

route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service,

as

but

determined

by

the

legislative

department.

not

content,

nor

identities.

The courts should not encroach on this prerogative of the

All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a

lawmaking

court

body.

Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

warrant.

Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the

Section

12

Section

of

the

12

Cybercrime

Law

provides:

above-stated

information.

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination

Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. Law enforcement

under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he

authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or

may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable

record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time

grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated

associated with specified communications transmitted by means

hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is

of

about to be committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to

a

computer

system.

believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the Traffic data refer only to the communications origin, destination,

conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the

Page 27 of 36

prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means

readily

available

for

obtaining

such

evidence.

Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not to have private information disclosed, and the right to live freely without

Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement agencies of the

surveillance and intrusion.In determining whether or not a

power to collect or record traffic data in real time as tending to

matter is entitled to the right to privacy, this Court has laid down

curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse.

a two-fold test. The first is a subjective test, where one claiming

They claim that data showing where digital messages come

the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of

from, what kind they are, and where they are destined need not

privacy over a certain matter. The second is an objective test,

be incriminating to their senders or recipients before they are to

where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society is

be protected. Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to

prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. 429 U.S. 589

privacy and to be protected from government snooping into the

(1977)

messages or information that they send to one another. Since the validity of the cybercrime law is being challenged, not Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in enacting the

in relation to its application to a particular person or group,

cybercrime law for there is a need to put order to the

petitioners challenge to Section 12 applies to all information and

tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good. To do this,

communications technology (ICT) s, meaning the large

it is within the realm of reason that the government should be

segment of the population who use all sorts of electronic

able to monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to combat all

devices to communicate with one another. Consequently, the

sorts

expectation of privacy is to be measured from the general

of

cybercrimes.

Page 28 of 36

publics point of view. Without reasonable expectation of privacy,

enforcement

the

communications. The power is virtually limitless, enabling law

right

to

it

would

have

no

basis

in

fact.

agencies

that

would

specify

the

target

enforcement authorities to engage in "fishing expedition," In Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)the United States

choosing whatever specified communication they want. This

Supreme Court classified privacy into two categories: decisional

evidently

threatens

the

right

of

individuals

to

privacy.

privacy and informational privacy. Decisional privacy involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions,

The Court must ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of

while informational privacy refers to the interest in avoiding

these technologies be written with specificity and definiteness

disclosure of personal matters. It is the latter rightthe right to

as to ensure respect for the rights that the Constitution

informational

guarantees.

privacythat

those

who

oppose

government

collection or recording of traffic data in real-time seek to protect. Hence,

void

Section

13

for

being

unconstitutional

Section 12 does not permit law enforcement authorities to look into the contents of the messages and uncover the identities of the

sender

and

the

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

recipient. Section

13

provides:

Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic data to those "associated with specified communications." But this supposed

Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. The integrity of traffic

limitation is no limitation at all since, evidently, it is the law

data and subscriber information relating to communication

Page 29 of 36

services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a

property. They liken the data preservation order that law

minimum period of six (6) months from the date of the

enforcement authorities are to issue as a form of garnishment of

transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6)

personal property in civil forfeiture proceedings. Such order

months from the date of receipt of the order from law

prevents internet s from accessing and disposing of traffic

enforcement

data

authorities

requiring

its

preservation.

that

essentially

belong

to

them.

Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for

No doubt, the contents of materials sent or received through the

another six (6) months: Provided, That once computer data

internet belong to their authors or recipients and are to be

preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as

considered private communications. But it is not clear that a

evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider

service provider has an obligation to indefinitely keep a copy of

of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall

the same as they its system for the benefit of s. By

be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the

virtue of Section 13, however, the law now requires service

termination

providers to keep traffic data and subscriber information relating

of

the

case.

to communication services for at least six months from the date The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall

of the transaction and those relating to content data for at least

keep

compliance.

six months from receipt of the order for their preservation.

Petitioners in G.R. No. 203391 (Palatino v. Ochoa)claim that

At any rate, as the Solicitor General correctly points out, the

Section 13 constitutes an undue deprivation of the right to

data that service providers preserve on orders of law

confidential

the

order

and

its

Page 30 of 36

enforcement authorities are not made inaccessible to s by reason of the issuance of such orders. The process of

The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened to the

preserving data will not unduly hamper the normal transmission

issuance

or

use

of

the

of

a

subpoena.

same. Besides, what Section 14 envisions is merely the enforcement

Hence,

valid

and

constitutional

of a duly issued court warrant, a function usually lodged in the hands of law enforcers to enable them to carry out their

Section

14

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

executive functions. The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful search or seizure nor would it

Section

14

provides:

violate the privacy of communications and correspondence. Disclosure can be made only after judicial intervention.

Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order

Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscribers information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its

Section

15

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed

Section

15

provides:

and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and

relevant

for

the

purpose

of

investigation.

Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data.

Page 31 of 36

Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law

accessed computer or computer and communications network.

enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and

duties.

Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the

Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct

computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the

interception,

computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the

as

defined

in

this

Act,

and:

necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, (a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage

seizure

and

examination.

medium; Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of (b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;

time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a

(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer

period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the

data;

court.

(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer

Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will

data

supplant

storage

medium;

and

(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the

established

search

and

seizure

procedures.

The exercise of these duties do not pose any threat on the

Page 32 of 36

rights of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15

as already stated, it is unclear that the has a demandable

does not appear to supersede existing search and seizure rules

right to require the service provider to have that copy of the data

but

saved indefinitely for him in its storage system. If he wanted

merely

supplements

them.

them preserved, he should have saved them in his computer Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

when he generated the data or received it. He could also request the service provider for a copy before it is deleted.

Section

17

of

the

Cybercrime

Law Hence,

Section

17

valid

and

constitutional.

provides: Section

19

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers

Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or

and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall

block

access

to

computer

data:

immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of

a

preservation

and

examination.

Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of

Petitioners claim that such destruction of computer data subject

the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict

of previous preservation or examination violates the s right

or

against deprivation of property without due process of law. But,

block

access

to

such

computer

data.

Page 33 of 36

Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of

The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for

expression and violates the right

unreasonable

being violative of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of

searches and seizures. The Solicitor General concedes that this

expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

against

provision may be unconstitutional. But since laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, the Court must satisfy itself that

Section

20

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

Section 19 indeed violates the freedom and right mentioned. Section

20

provides:

Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to

Sec. 20. Noncompliance. Failure to comply with the provisions

determine the validity of restrictions on speech. Restraints on

of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law

free speech are generally evaluated on one of or a combination

enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of

of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine, the balancing

Presidential Decree No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision

of interest test, and the clear and present danger rule. Section

correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred

19, however, merely requires that the data to be blocked be

thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every

found prima facie in violation of any provision of the cybercrime

noncompliance with an order issued by law enforcement

law. Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can actually be

authorities.

made to apply in relation to any penal provision. It does not take into consideration any of the three tests mentioned above.

Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a bill of attainder. The argument is that the mere failure to comply

Page 34 of 36

constitutes a legislative finding of guilt, without regard to

Sections

24

and

26(a)

of

the

Cybercrime

Law

situations where non-compliance would be reasonable or valid. Sections

24

and

26(a)

provide:

But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of

Presidential

1829,PENALIZING

Sec. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center.

OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION

There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the

OF

necessarily

effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the

incorporates elements of the offense which are defined therein.

Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC),

CRIMINAL

Decree

OFFENDERS.

(P.D.)

Section

20

under the istrative supervision of the Office of the Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must

President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies

still be done "knowingly or willfully." There must still be a judicial

and for the formulation and enforcement of the national

determination of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor General

cybersecurity

plan.

assumes, defense and justifications for non-compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid insofar as it applies to the

Sec. 26. Powers and Functions. The CICC shall have the

provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the

following

powers

and

functions:

Court. (a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend Hence,

valid

and

constitutional.

immediate assistance of real time commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team

Page 35 of 36

(CERT);

x

x

x. Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed

Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly delegated its

the CICC to formulate and implement a national cybersecurity

power when it gave the Cybercrime Investigation and

plan. Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law

Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national

gave sufficient standards for the CICC to follow when it provided

cybersecurity

a

parameters

plan

without

any

sufficient

it

to

for

standards

or

definition

of

cybersecurity.

follow. Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk

In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of

management approaches, actions, training, best practices,

legislative power, the Court has adopted two tests: the

assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber

completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the

environment and organization and s assets.This definition

first test, the law must be complete in all its and

serves as the parameters within which CICC should work in

conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it

formulating

the

cybersecurity

plan.

reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce

it.1avvphi1The

second

test

mandates

adequate

Further, the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent

guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries

with the policy of the law to "prevent and combat such [cyber]

of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from

offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and

running riot. Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 554 Phil. 563

prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and

(2007).

by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international

Page 36 of 36

cooperation." This policy is clearly adopted in the interest of law and order, which has been considered as sufficient standard.

Hence, Sections 24 and 26(a) are likewise valid and constitutional.