Cyberi-crime Law Case

8/10/2019 Cyberi-crime Law Case

1/11

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Baguio City

EN BANC

G.R. No. 203335 April 22, 2014

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., Petitioners,

vs.THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OFTHE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THECHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203299

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner,vs.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and PHILIPPINE NATIONALPOLICE, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203306

ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYANMOVEMENT, INC., JERRY S. YAP, BERTENI "TOTO" CAUSING, HERNANI Q.CUARE, PERCY LAPID, TRACY CABRERA, RONALDO E. RENTA, CIRILO P.

SABARRE, JR., DERVIN CASTRO, ET AL., Petitioners,vs.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III,SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203359


2/11

SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, Petitioner,vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARYOFTHE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEFOF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203378

ALEXANDER ADONIS, ELLEN TORDESILLAS, MA. GISELA ORDENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., ROMEL R. BAGARES, and GILBERT T.

ANDRES, Petitioners,vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET ANDMANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE NATIONAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND THEINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE-

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203391

HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. ANTONIO TINIO, VENCER MARICRISOSTOMO OF ANAKBAYAN, MA. KATHERINE ELONA OF THEPHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN, ISABELLE THERESE BAGUISI OF THE NATIONAL

UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Petitioners,vs.

PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego ofPresident Benigno Simeon Aquino III, LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary

of Justice, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203407

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M.REYES, JR., National Artist BIENVENIDO L. LUMBERA, Chairperson of ConcernedArtists of the Philippines, ELMER C. LABOG, Chairperson of Kilusang Mayo Uno,CRISTINA E. PALABAY, Secretary General of Karapatan, FERDINAND R. GAITE,Chairperson of COURAGE, JOEL B. MAGLUNSOD, Vice President of Anakpawis


3/11

Party-List, LANA R. LINABAN, Secretary General Gabriela Womens Party,ADOLFO ARES P. GUTIERREZ, and JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, Petitioners,

vs.BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines,PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

represented by SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, represented by SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.,LEILA DE LIMA, Secretary of the Department of Justice, LOUIS NAPOLEON C.

CASAMBRE, Executive Director of the Information and CommunicationsTechnology Office, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, Director of the National

Bureau of Investigation, D/GEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, Chief of thePhilippine National Police, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of

the Interior and Local Government, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203440

MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA.MARIA, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, GILBERT V. SEMBRANO, and RYAN JEREMIAH D. QUAN (all of the Ateneo Human Rights Center), Petitioners,

vs.HONORABLE PAQUITO OCHOA in his capacity as Executive Secretary,

HONORABLE LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, HONORABLEMANUEL ROXAS in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and

Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine National Police, The DIRECTOR of

the National Bureau of Investigation (all of the Executive Department ofGovernment), Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203453

NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP),PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND

RESPONSIBILITY, ROWENA CARRANZA PARAAN, MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS, JOSEPH ALWYN ALBURO, ARIEL SEBELLINO AND THE PETITIONERS

IN THE e-PETITION http://www.nujp.org/no-to-ra10175/, Petitioners,vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARYOF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET

AND MANAGEMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING


4/11

CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENTAND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS,

DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.10175,Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203454

PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO & RYAN D. ANDRES, Petitioners,vs.

THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE HON. SECRETARY OF INTERIORAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203469

ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ; MARCELO R. LANDICHO; BENJAMIN NOEL A.ESPINA; MARCK RONALD C. RIMORIN; JULIUS D. ROCAS; OLIVER RICHARD

V. ROBILLO; AARON ERICK A. LOZADA; GERARD ADRIAN P. MAGNAYE; JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS; MA. ROSARIO T. JUAN; BRENDALYN P.

RAMIREZ; MAUREEN A. HERMITANIO; KRISTINE JOY S. REMENTILLA;MARICEL O. GRAY; JULIUS IVAN F. CABIGON; BENRALPH S. YU; CEBU

BLOGGERS SOCIETY, INC. PRESIDENT RUBEN B. LICERA, JR; and PINOYEXPAT/OFW BLOG AWARDS, INC. COORDINATOR PEDRO E.

RAHON; Petitioners,vs.HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his capacity as President of the

Republic of the Philippines; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Senate President; HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, represented by FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., in hiscapacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA,

JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacityas Secretary of Justice; HON. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his capacity as

Executive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office; HON.NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his capacity as Director, National Bureau of

Investigation; and P/DGEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his capacity as Chief,Philippine National Police, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203501


5/11

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,vs.

HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his official capacity as President ofthe Republic of the Philippines; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his official

capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her official capacity asSecretary of Justice; LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his official capacity asExecutive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office;

NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his official capacity as Director of the NationalBureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR GENERAL NICANOR A. BARTOLOME,

in his official capacity as Chief of the Philippine National Police,Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203509

BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI J. COLMENARES, Petitioner,vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203515

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. represented by BENNY D.ANTIPORDA in his capacity as President and in his personal capacity, Petitioner,

vs.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PRES. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III,DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCALGOVERNMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND ALLOTHER GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHO HAVE HANDS IN THE

PASSAGE AND/OR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 10175, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 203518

PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni

Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio, FRANCISEUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANTHONY ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO

A. CASIO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO, IMELDA MORALES, JAMESMATTHEW B. MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA FATIMA A.

VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA


6/11

TOBIAS SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINASARAH E. OSORIO, ROMEO FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, KENNETH

KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. CASTRO, Petitioners,vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARYOF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE HEAD OFTHE DO OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME, and THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE

CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

ABAD, J.:

A number of petitioners seek reconsideration of the Court's February 18, 2014 Decisionthat declared invalid and unconstitutional certain provisions of Republic Act 10125 orthe Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and upheld the validity of the others. Therespondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, also seekreconsideration of portions of that decision. After going over their motions, however,the Court sees no substantial arguments from either side to warrant the reversal of itsFebruary 18, 2014 Decision.

The point about the legislative bicameral committee's insertions of certain provisionsthat were neither in the House bill nor in the Senate bill is something that the Court isnot inclined to investigate since insertions are within the power of those committees tomake so long as the passage of the law complies with the constitutionalrequirements .1 The Cybercrime Prevention Act went through both houses and theyapproved it. Any issue concerning alleged non-compliance with the governing rules ofboth houses regarding committee insertions have to be internally resolved by eachhouse.

In any event, the Court will briefly address certain aspects of the decision that drew themost objections.

Section 6 of the cybercrime law imposes penalties that are one degree higher when thecrimes defined in the Revised Penal Code and certain special laws are committed withthe use of information and communication technologies (ICT). Some of the petitionersinsist that Section 6 is invalid since it produces an unusual chilling effect on users ofcyberspace that would hinder free expression.

Petitioner Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy insist that Section 6 cannot stand in theabsence of a definition of the term "information and communication technology" .2 But
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt1


7/11

petitioner seems to forget the basic tenet that statutes should not be read in isolationfrom one another. The parameters of that ICT exist in many other laws. Indeed thoseparameters have been used as basis for establishing government systems andclassifying evidence .3 These along with common usage provide the needed boundarywithin which the law may be applied.

The Court had ample opportunity to consider the proposition that Section 6 violates theequal protection clause via the parties pleadings, oral arguments, and memoranda. But,as the Decision stressed, the power to fix the penalties for violations of penal laws, likethe cybercrime law, exclusively belongs to Congress.

In any event, Section 6 of the cybercrime law merely makes the commission of existingcrimes through the internet a qualifying circumstance that raises by one degree thepenalties corresponding to such crimes. This is not at all arbitrary since a substantialdistinction exists between crimes committed through the use of ICT and similar crimes

committed using conventional means.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur ,4 Frank La Rue, acknowledged the materialdistinction. He pointed out that "[t]he vast potential and benefits of the Internet arerooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relativeanonymity." For this reason, while many governments advocate freedom online, theyrecognize the necessity to regulate certain aspects of the use of this media to protect themost vulnerable .5

Not infrequently, certain users of the technology have found means to evade beingidentified and for this reason have been emboldened to reach far more victims or causegreater harm or both. It is, therefore, logical for Congress to consider as aggravating thedeliberate use of available ICT by those who ply their wicked trades.

Compared to traditional crimes, cybercrimes are more perverse. In traditional estafa forexample, the offender could reach his victim only at a particular place and a particulartime. It is rare that he could consummate his crime without exposing himself todetection and prosecution. Fraud online, however, crosses national boundaries,generally depriving its victim of the means to obtain reparation of the wrong done andseek prosecution and punishment of the absent criminal. Cybercriminals enjoy theadvantage of anonymity, like wearing a mask during a heist.

Petitioners share the Chief Justices concern for the overall impact of those penalties,being one degree higher than those imposed on ordinary crimes, including the fact thatthe prescriptive periods for the equivalent cybercrimes have become longer .6

Prescription is not a matter of procedure over which the Court has something to say.Rather, it is substantive law since it assumes the existence of an authority to punish a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt3


8/11

wrong, which authority the Constitution vests in Congress alone. Thus, there is noquestion that Congress may provide a variety of periods for the prescription of offensesas it sees fit. What it cannot do is pass a law that extends the periods of prescription toimpact crimes committed before its passage .7

It is pointed out that the legislative discretion to fix the penalty for crimes is notabsolute especially when this discretion is exercised in violation of the freedom ofexpression. The increase in the penalty for online libel creates, according to this view,greater and unusual chilling effect that violates the protection afforded to such freedom.

But what the stiffer penalty for online libel truly targets are those who choose to use thismost pervasive of media without qualms, tearing down the reputation of privateindividuals who value their names and community standing. The law does notremotely and could not have any chilling effect on the right of the people to disagree, amost protected right, the exercise of which does not constitute libel.

The majority of the movants believe that the Courts decision upholding theconstitutionality of Section 4(c)(4), which penalizes online libel, effectively tramplesupon the right to free expression. 1wphi1 But libel is not a protected speech. There is nofreedom to unjustly destroy the reputation of a decent woman by publicly claiming thatshe is a paid prostitute.

As early as 1912, the Court held that libel is a form of expression not protected by theConstitution .8 Libel, like obscenity, belongs to those forms of speeches that have neverattained Constitutional protection and are considered outside the realm of protectedfreedom. As explained by the US Supreme Court in Champlinsky v. New Hampsire :9

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the FourteenthAmendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at alltimes and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limitedclasses of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought toraise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, thelibelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which, by their very utterance,inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of

ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may bederived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication ofinformation or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as acriminal act would raise no question under that instrument." (Emphasis supplied)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt7


9/11

The constitutional guarantee against prior restraint and subsequent punishment, the jurisprudential requirement of "actual malice," and the legal protection afforded by"privilege communications" all ensure that protected speech remains to be protectedand guarded. As long as the expression or speech falls within the protected sphere, it isthe solemn duty of courts to ensure that the rights of the people are protected.

At bottom, the deepest concerns of the movants seem to be the fact that the governmentseeks to regulate activities in the internet at all. For them, the Internet is a place where aeveryone should be free to do and say whatever he or she wants. But that is anarchical.Any good thing can be converted to evil use if there are no laws to prohibit such use.Indeed, both the United States and the Philippines have promulgated laws that regulatethe use of and access to the Internet .10

The movants argue that Section 4(c)(4) is both vague and overbroad. But, again, onlinelibel is not a new crime. It is essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised

Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace. Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that secures the freedom of expression from its reach applies to onlinelibel. Any apprehended vagueness in its provisions has long been settled by precedents.

The parties' other arguments in their respective motions for reconsideration are merereiterations that the Court already considered and ruled upon when it promulgated itsearlier Decision.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES with finality the various motions for reconsiderationthat both the petitioners and the respondents, represented by the Office of the SolicitorGeneral, filed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

See Concurring & Dissenting OpinionMARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice

PRESVITERO J. VELASCO, JR.* Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE See my Dissent
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html#brionhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html#brionhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#fnt10


10/11

CASTRO Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice

No partESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE*

Associate Justice

See dissentMARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that theconclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case

was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Chief Justice

Footnotes

* No part.

1 Tatad v. The Secretary of the Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321 (1997), citingTolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. Nos. 115455, 115525, 115543, 115544,115754, 115781, 115852, 115873 & 115931, August 25, 1994, 235 SCRA 630.

2 Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2357.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html#leonenhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html#leonen


11/11

3 An Act Providing And Use Of Electronic Commercial And Non-CommercialTransactions, Penalties For Unlawful Use Thereof, And Other Purposes, RepublicAct 8792, June 14, 2000.

4 Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom ofopinion and expression.

5 La Rue accepts that "legitimate types of information may be restricted [suchas] child pornography (to protect the rights of children), hate speech (to protectthe rights of affected communities), defamation (to protect the rights andreputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and public incitementto commit genocide (to protect the rights of others), and advocacy of national,racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility orviolence (to protect the rights of others, such as the right to life)." (Citationsomitted) (A/HRC/17/27, p.8); see Maria Luisa Isabel L. Rosales, Today the

Internet, Tomorrow Cable TV?: Situating the Internet as a Human Right, 57ATENEO L.J. 463, 484-85 (2012).

6 Philippine Bar Association, Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2397; Bloggers andNetizens for Democracy, Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2362.

7 People of the Philippine Islands v. Parel, G.R. No. L-18260, January 27, 1923,citing Fiore, Irretroactividad e Interpretacion de las Leyes, pp. 426-428.

8 Worcester v. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 41 (1912), cited in Bernas, S.J. The 1987Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 3rd ed., RexBook Store, Manila, 2003.

9 315 U.S. 568 (1942), cited in Gorospe, R. Constitutional Law: Notes andReadings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage, Vol. I, Rex Book Store,Manila, 2006, p. 672.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html#rnt3

Documents

Cyberi-crime Law Case