The University of the Philippines

Law Debate and Moot Court Union

MALCOLM CUP 2019

Justice George A. Malcolm Constitutional Law
Moot Court Competition

The case is entirely fictional. The participants should confine themselves to the facts supplied.
Neither the petitioners nor respondent may introduce new facts. Participants may nonetheless
draw reasonable inferences from the facts.
______________________________________________________________________________

PROBLEM

G.R. No. 091756

Mariah Cari Santos, petitioner,

vs.

Hon. Gong Bo, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 14 of the RTC of Quezon City, the
Secretary of Justice, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Executive
Secretary, respondents.

1. Wrapper is an independent media company that has been exclusively engaged in print media
up until January 2015. On 14 August 2012, Wrapper published a story in its newspaper
pertaining to the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and his usage of
vehicles registered under the names of companies of a prominent businessman who had cases
pending before the Supreme Court. The headline and a few excerpts of the newspaper article are
quoted below:
 Chief Justice uses SUVs of controversial businessman

Nikka Non, Author

Mariah Cari Santos, Editor

x x x we got hold of an intelligence report that detailed Mr. Wonka’s past. x x x

In the report, he was identified as bearing the alias “Willy.”

x x x The report also stated that Mr. Wonka had been under surveillance by the
National Security Council for alleged involvement in illegal activities, namely
"human trafficking and drug smuggling." x x x

The report also mentioned that Mr. Wonka was involved in a murder case for
which he was "never jailed." It could be referring to the death of former Manila
Councilor Charlie Bucket in 2008 wherein Mr. Wonka had been identified as
the mastermind.

2. Eventually, with the rise of electronic forms of digital publishing, Wrapper’s executives
decided to branch out to the same. In order to cater to a wider base of readers, Wrapper launched
its own website on 1 January 2015.

3. Wrapper published the above-mentioned article on its website on 14 August 2015 pursuant to
its archiving initiative. It stated therein that the article was originally published on 14 August
2012. The contents of the article remained untouched.

4. Meanwhile, the 15th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines enacted Republic Act No.
10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (“RA 10175”) and the same was signed into
law on 12 September 2012. Its effectivity clause stated therein that it shall take effect “fifteen
(15) days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.”

5. Because of the newly-gained traction of the article, one of the persons of interest therein, Mr.
Wonka, filed complaints for cyber libel under Section 4(c)4 of RA 10175 against Wrapper, its
executives, the author, and the editor of the article. Mr. Wonka, in his complaint-affidavit,
alleged that the article contained malicious imputations of crimes, with bad intentions, purposely
to malign, dishonor and discredit his character and good reputation. Section 4(c)4 of RA 10175
reads:

“Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of

cybercrime punishable under this Act:

xxx
 (c) Content-related Offenses:

xxx

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or
any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

6. The complaint was filed before the anti-cybercrime division of the NBI. Upon finding
probable cause, its prosecution was recommended to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
Thereafter, a prosecutor from the DOJ filed the necessary information and Judge Gong Bo from
Brach 14 of the RTC of Quezon City issued warrants of arrest for those named in the complaint-
affidavits. The basis of the issuance of the warrant against Mariah Cari Santos is that, as the
editor of the article, she participated in the authoring of said article.

7. Mariah Cari Santos filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines before the Supreme Court primarily assailing therein the constitutionality of RA
10175.

8. The Court is, therefore, set to resolve the following issues on oral arguments:

8.1. Whether the petitioner may, on a petition for prohibition under Rule 65, assail
the constitutionality of RA 10175 directly before the Supreme Court?

8.2. Whether the publication of the article dated 14 August 2012 on Wrapper’s
electronic media platform for archiving purposes can constitute cyber libel under
Section 4(c)4 of RA 10175?

8.3. Whether Section 4(c)4 of RA 10175 is valid and constitutional with respect to
the editor?
______________________________________________________________________________

The Justice George A. Malcolm Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition (“Malcolm Cup”)
is a tournament sponsored by the UP Law Debate and Moot Court Union. The Malcolm Cup is
open to all College of Law students currently enrolled for the second semester of the current
academic year without prior competitive moot experience.

RULES

1. Memorials/Written Pleadings
 1.1. The pleadings are to be addressed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

1.2. Each team shall submit a memorial for the positions of both petitioner and
respondents.

1.3. The memorial shall be submitted to the LDMU Competition Committee thru
deanna.heceta@gmail.com by 11:59 PM, 17 April 2019. Failure to submit your
memorials on the given deadline shall warrant deductions to your overall
memorial score.

1.4. The word count for the memorial shall not exceed 6,000 words, including the
title page, table of contents, and footnotes.

1.5. The body of the memorial shall have the following format: (1) font size 12
(10 for footnotes); (2) font face Times New Roman; and (3) 1.5 spaced.

1.6. The memorial should not contain the names of the team members. The team
should be identified only by the team number assigned.

2. Oral Arguments

2.1. Each team has a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes to present their arguments,
and five (5) minutes of rebuttal/sur-rebuttal.

2.2. Two (2) speakers per team shall speak for each round.

2.3. Laptops, tablets, or other similar devices are not permitted at the counsel
table. The team may, however, bring written or printed notes.

2.4. The order of speaking shall be as follows: Petitioner (1st speaker) →

Petitioner (2nd speaker) → Respondent (1st speaker) → Respondent (2nd speaker)
→ Petitioner (rebuttal) → Respondent (sur-rebuttal). However, the rebuttal and
sur-rebuttal may be waived.

3. Clarifications

3.1. Clarifications regarding the Problem shall be sent to

deanna.heceta@gmail.com not later than 6:00 PM, 3 April 2019.
3.2. Each team may only send one (1) list of questions for clarification.

3.3. The responses to the queries shall be announced during the general assembly
for the tournament to be held on 4 April 2019, venue TBA.

Good luck!