G.R. No.

203335 FEBRUARY 11, 2014 (EN BANC)

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR. vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

FACTS:
Cyberspace, is a system that accommodates millions and billions of simultaneous and
ongoing individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of the
current generation for greater information and facility of communication. But all is not well with
the system since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use
cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. For this reason, the government has a legitimate
right to regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and punish wrongdoings, hence the Cybercrime
Prevention Act.

But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating
undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government of
course asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish
wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.

Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a Bill of Attainder. The argument is that
the mere failure to comply constitutes a legislative finding of guilt, without regard to situations
where non-compliance would be reasonable or valid.

ISSUES:

WoN the Section 20 Cybercrime Law violates fundamental rights of the people as being
a Bill of Attainder.

RULING:

No. Section 20 of the Cybercrime Law Section 20 provides:

Sec. 20. Noncompliance. Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof
specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in
its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both,
for each and every noncompliance with an order issued by law enforcement
authorities.

But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
1829, Section 20 necessarily incorporates elements of the offense which are defined therein. If
Congress had intended for Section 20 to constitute an offense in and of itself, it would not have had
to make reference to any other statue or provision. P.D. 1829 states:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or
willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
 Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must still be done "knowingly or
willfully." There must still be a judicial determination of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor General
assumes, defense and justifications for non- compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid
insofar as it applies to the provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the Court.

The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of crimes is as a rule a legislative
prerogative. Here the legislature prescribed a measure of severe penalties for what it regards as
deleterious cybercrimes. They appear proportionate to the evil sought to be punished. The power to
determine penalties for offenses is not diluted or improperly wielded simply because at some prior
time the act or omission was but an element of another offense or might just have been
connected with another crime.

Judges and magistrates can only interpret and apply them and have no authority to modify
or revise their range as determined by the legislative department. The courts should not encroach
on this prerogative of the lawmaking body.