SC junks pleas vs cyber law

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its ruling last February upholding the constitutionality of key provisions in the controversial Republic Act No. 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Justices voted in summer session in Baguio City yesterday to deny the motions for reconsideration filed by several petitioners in the case – mostly media, legal and academic groups – on the high court’s decision dismissing the constitutional questions raised on key provisions of RA 10175.

“The Court denied all the motions for reconsideration filed against the decision dated Feb. 18, 2014,” the high court’s public information office said in a statement.

Five magistrates have maintained their dissent to the majority ruling: Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Jose Mendoza and Marvic Leonen.

In the assailed ruling, the high court dismissed the constitutional questions raised on at least 22 provisions of RA 10175.

Among the key provisions declared constitutional by the SC were the sections penalizing illegal access, data interference, cybersquatting, computer-related identity theft, cybersex, child pornography and allowing search and seizure of computer data.

The SC also ruled that imposition of cyber libel on “original author of the post” is constitutional, but clarified that the same is unconstitutional insofar as it penalizes those who simply receive the post and react to it.

This means only the source of a malicious email, post on Facebook or any websites, tweet on Twitter can be held liable under RA 10175.

The high court also declared constitutional the imposition of penalty on those aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes under section 5 of the law.

The SC, however, struck down as unconstitutional three other assailed provisions of the law: section 4 (c) (3), which penalizes unsolicited commercial communication; section 12, which authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and section 19, which authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected computer data.

Also, the high court voided section 7 of the law, which allows prosecution of online libel and child pornography both under RA 10175 and the Revised Penal Code. The court said such provision violates the constitutional right against double jeopardy.

The motions for reconsideration were filed by a group of students and members of academe led by Kabataan party-list; UP law professor Harry Roque Jr.; National Union of Journalists of the Philippines; the National Press Club of the Philippines; officer of the Philippine Bar Association; and militant groups led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).

They insisted that section 4 (c) (4) of the law, which penalizes acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code committed through a computer system, is unconstitutional due to “vagueness and overbreadth.”

Petitioners reiterated the same argument on Sections 5 and 6 of the law, which penalizes aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes and applies penalties one degree higher as compared to the Revised Penal Code, respectively. – Edu Punay, Artemio Dumlao