Disini v. Sec of Justice Facts: This is a consolidated consolidated case case involving RA RA 10175, the C!e"c"i#e C!e"c"i#e $"evention $"evention Act of %01% &ith $etitione"s see'ing its decla"ation as unconstitional. (ith the advent of c!e"s)ace and it !eing "a)idl inte"t&ined &ith the )e"sonal lives and !usiness of the Fili)ino )eo)le the legislative has enacted the C!e"c"i#e $"evention Act of %01% to hel) cu"! the a!use !eing )e")et"ated online. *)on the enact#ent of the said la& )etitione"s contend the validit of seve"al )"ovisions. a. Section +a-1- on llegal Access/ !. Section +a-- on Data nte"fe"ence/ c. Section +a-- on C!e"2s3uatting/ d. Section +!-- on dentit Theft/ e. Section +c-1- on C!e"se4/ f. Section +c-%- on Child $o"nog"a)h/ g. Section +c-- on *nsolicited Co##e"cial Co##unications/ h. Section +c-+- on i!el/ i. Section 5 on Aiding o" A!etting and Atte#)t in the Co##ission of C!e"c"i#es/ 6. Section on on the $enalt $enalt of ne Deg"ee Deg"ee 8ighe"/ '. Section 7 on the $"osecution unde" !oth the Revised $enal Code R$C- and R.A. 10175/ l. Section 9 on $enalties/ #. Section 1% on Real2Ti#e Collection of T"ac Data/ n. Section 1 on $"ese"vation of Co#)ute" Data/ o. Section 1+ on Disclosu"e of Co#)ute" Data/ ). Section 15 on Sea"ch, Sei;u"e and <4a#ination of Co#)ute" Data/ 3. Section 17 on Dest"uction of Co#)ute" Data/ ". Section 1= on Rest"icting o" >loc'ing Access to Co#)ute" Data/ s. Section %0 on !st"uction of Justice/ t. Section %+ on C!e"c"i#e nvestigation and Coo"dinating Cente" CCC-/ and Section %a- on CCC?s $o&e"s and Functions. ssue: (@ the )"eceding )"ovisions a"e unconstitional. 8eld: A.
$etitio $etitione"s ne"s contend contend that that Sec. +a-1+a-1- fails fails to #eet #eet the st"ict st"ict sc"utin sc"utin standa standa"d "d "e3ui"ed of la&s that inte"fe"e &ith the funda#ental "ights of the )eo)le and should thus !e st"uc' do&n. T D
.
>. $etitione"s clai# that Sec. +a-- sue"s f"o# ove"!"eadth in that, &hile it see's to discou"age data inte"fe"ence, it int"udes into the a"ea of )"otected s)eech and e4)"ession, c"eating a chilling and dete""ent eect on these gua"anteed f"eedo#s. T Dut to )"ohi!it the t"ans#ission of unsolicited ads &ould den a )e"son the "ight to "ead his e#ails, even unsolicited co##e"cial ads add"essed to hi#. 8. $etitione"s dis)ute the constitutionalit of !oth the )enal code )"ovisions on li!el as &ell as Section +c-+- of the C!e"c"i#e $"evention Act on c!e"li!el.
SC held that li!el is not a constitutionall )"otected s)eech and that the gove"n#ent has an o!ligation to )"otect )"ivate individuals f"o# defa#ation. ndeed, c!e"li!el is actuall not a ne& c"i#e since A"ticle 5, in "elation to A"ticle 55 of the )enal code, al"ead )unishes it. .
$etitione"s 3uestion the constitutionalit of Sec. 5 that it sue"s f"o# ove"!"eadth, c"eating a chilling and dete""ent eect on )"otected e4)"ession. SC decla"ed Sec 5 of the c!e"c"i#e la& that )unishes aiding o" a!etting li!el on the c!e"s)ace a nullit. Also that Sec. 5 &ith "es)ect to Section +c+- is unconstitutional. ts vagueness "aises a))"ehension on the )a"t of inte"net use"s !ecause of its o!vious chilling eect on the f"eedo# of e4)"ession.
J.
Sec. 4 4 4 that the )enalt to !e i#)osed shall !e one 1- deg"ee highe" than that )"ovided fo" ! the Revised $enal Code, as a#ended, and s)ecial la&s, as the case #a !e. SC "uled that the"e is a su!stantial distinction !et&een c"i#es co##itted th"ough the use of info"#ation and co##unications technolog and si#ila" c"i#es co##itted using othe" #eans since ! using technolog the oende" often evades identiBcation and is a!le to "each fa" #o"e victi#s o" cause g"eate" ha"# 6ustifing highe" )enalties.
E. Sec. 7 on dou!le 6eo)a"d. SC decla"ed that cha"ging the oende" &ith A"t. 5 of the R$C and the AC$A Anti2 Child $o"nog"a)h Act- si#ultaneousl &ith Sec. 7 &ould !e a !latant violation of the )"osc"i)tion against dou!le 6eo)a"d. . Sec. 9 on e4cessive )enalties !eing i#)osed. The Cou"t can onl inte")"et and a))l )enalties and have no autho"it to #odif o" "evise thei" "ange as dete"#ined ! the legislative de)a"t#ent. . (hethe" o" not Section 1% has a )"o)e" gove"n#ental )u")ose since a la& #a "e3ui"e the disclosu"e of #atte"s no"#all conside"ed )"ivate and that it is too !"oad and do not )"ovide a#)le safegua"ds against c"ossing legal !ounda"ies and invading the )eo)le?s "ight to )"ivac. The"e is a co#)elling inte"est in enacting the c!e"c"i#e la& fo" the"e is a need to )ut o"de" to the t"e#endous activities in c!e"s)ace fo" )u!lic good. The"efo"e, it is &ithin the "eal# of "eason that the gove"n#ent should !e a!le to #onito" t"ac data to enhance its a!ilit to co#!at all so"ts of c!e"c"i#es. The cou"t "uled, ho&eve", that the autho"it that Sec.1% actuall gives la& enfo"ce#ent agencies is too s&ee)ing and lac's "est"aint. >ut it cannot !e st"ic'en do&n fo" !eing violative of the void2fo"2vagueness doct"ine and the
ove"!"eadth doct"ine as the )etitione"s contend since these doct"ines a))l onl to f"ee s)eech cases. The Cou"t 6ust co##ented that is should !e #indful and #ust ensu"e that la&s see'ing to ta'e advantage of these technologies !e &"itten &ith s)eciBcit and deBniteness as to ensu"e "es)ect fo" the "ights that the Constitution gua"antees fo" a))lication in futu"e cases. @. $etitione"s contend that Sec. 1 constitutes an undue de)"ivation of the "ight to )"o)e"t. The"e is no de)"ivation, the data that se"vice )"ovide"s )"ese"ve on o"de"s of la& enfo"ce#ent autho"ities a"e still accessi!le to use"s ! "eason of the issuance of such o"de"s. . $etitione"s? o!6ection is that Sec 1+, !eing li'ened to the issuance of su!)oenas, essentiall a 6udicial function. <4ecutive agencies also has the )o&e" to issue su!)oena as an ad6unct of thei" investigato" )o&e"s. >esides, it is #e"el the enfo"ce#ent of a dul issued cou"t &a""ant, a function usuall lodged in the hands of la& enfo"ce"s to ena!le the# to ca"" out thei" e4ecutive functions. $. $etitione"s challenge Sec 15 on the assu#)tion that it &ill "e)lace esta!lished sea"ch and sei;u"e )"ocedu"es. Sec 15 does not a))ea" to su)e"sede e4isting sea"ch and sei;u"e "ules !ut #e"el su))le#ents the#. G. $etitione"s clai# that such dest"uction of co#)ute" data su!6ect of )"evious )"ese"vation o" e4a#ination violates the use"?s "ight against de)"ivation of )"o)e"t &ithout due )"ocess of la&. SC decla"ed that it is unclea" if the use" has a de#anda!le "ight to "e3ui"e the se"vice )"ovide" to have that co) of the data saved indeBnitel fo" hi# in its sto"age sste# since the"e a"e othe" "e#edies li'e if he &anted the# )"ese"ved, he should have saved the# in his co#)ute" &hen he gene"ated the data o" "eceived it. 8e could also "e3uest the se"vice )"ovide" fo" a co) !efo"e it is deleted. R. $etitione"s contest Section 1= in that it stiHes f"eedo# of e4)"ession and violates the "ight against un"easona!le sea"ches and sei;u"es. @ot onl does Sec 1= )"eclude an 6udicial inte"vention, !ut it also dis"ega"ds 6u"is)"udential guidelines esta!lished to dete"#ine the validit of "est"ictions on s)eech. Sec. 1= is st"ic'en do&n fo" !eing violative of the constitutional gua"antees to f"eedo# of e4)"ession and against un"easona!le sea"ches and sei;u"es.
S. $etitione"s challenge Section %0, alleging that it is a !ill of attainde". t is not a >ill of Attainde" since the act of non2co#)liance, fo" it to !e )unisha!le, #ust still !e done 'no&ingl o" &illfull. The"e is still a 6udicial dete"#ination of guilt, du"ing &hich, as the Solicito" ene"al assu#es, defense and 6ustiBcations fo" non2co#)liance #a !e "aised. T. $etitione"s contend that Cong"ess invalidl delegated its )o&e" &hen it gave the C!e"c"i#e nvestigation and Coo"dinating Cente" CCC- the )o&e" to fo"#ulate a national c!e"secu"it )lan &ithout an sucient standa"ds o" )a"a#ete"s fo" it to follo&. The fo"#ulation of the c!e"secu"it )lan is consistent &ith the )olic of the la& to )"event and co#!at such Ic!e" oenses ! facilitating thei" detection, investigation, and )"osecution at !oth the do#estic and inte"national levels, and ! )"oviding a""ange#ents fo" fast and "elia!le inte"national coo)e"ation. This )olic is clea"l ado)ted in the inte"est of la& and o"de", &hich has !een conside"ed as sucient standa"d.