Disini v.
Sec of Justice Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access
Feb 11, 2014 | Abad, J. | restrict/block access to computer data
PETITIONER: Jose Jesus Disini et. al.
RESPONDENTS: Secretary of Justice
SUMMARY: Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for being unconstitutional and void.
For our topic, this focuses more on Section 15 and 19 of the RA. Section 15 is
constitutional as it merely enumerates the duties of law enforcement authorities
that would ensure the proper collection, preservation, and use of computer
system or data that have been seized by virtue of a court warrant. Section 19
empowers the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to computer data.
But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected without
any judicial warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the opinion that such
content violates some law, for to do so would make him judge, jury, and
executioner all rolled into one. Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial
intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to
determine the validity of restrictions on speech.
DOCTRINE: Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
right to be secure in one’s papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Further, it
states that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge.
FACTS:
Section 15 authorizes the search, seizure and examination of computer data
under a court-issued warrant
Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data – Where a
search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement
authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as
defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage
medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer
data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the
accessed computer or computer and communications network.
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
1. Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will
supplant established search and seizure procedures.
to computer data:
Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.— When a
computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of
this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such
computer data. (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
1. Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of
expression and violates the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The Solicitor General concedes that this provision may be
unconstitutional.
2. But since laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, the Court
must satisfy itself that Section 19 indeed violates the freedom and
right mentioned.
ISSUES:
WoN Section 15 is constitutional- YES
WoN Section 19 is constitutional- NO
RULING: The decision of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City is reversed. Appellant is acquitted based on reasonable
doubt.
RATIO:
Section 15
1. Section 15 merely enumerates the duties of law enforcement
authorities that would ensure the proper collection, preservation,
and use of computer system or data that have been seized by virtue
of a court warrant.
2. The exercise of these duties does not pose any threat on the rights
of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15 does not
appear to supersede existing search and seizure rules but merely
supplements them.
Section 19
1. Computer data produced or created by their writers or authors may
constitute personal property. Consequently, they are protected from
unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while stored in their
personal computers or in the service provider’s systems.
2. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that the
right to be secure in one’s papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable. Further, it states that no search warrant shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge.
3. Here, the Government, in effect, seizes and places the computer
data under its control and disposition without a warrant. The
 Department of Justice order cannot substitute for judicial search
warrant. It is not enough for him to be of the opinion that such
content violates some law, for to do so would make him judge,
jury, and executioner all rolled into one.
4. The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for
being violative of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of
expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. The content of the computer data can also constitute speech. In
such a case, Section 19 operates as a restriction on the freedom of
expression over cyberspace.
6. Certainly not all forms of speech are protected. Legislature may,
within constitutional bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as
illegal. But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be
unprotected without any judicial warrant, it is not enough for him
to be of the opinion that such content violates some law, for to do
so would make him judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one.
7. Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but it
also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to determine
the validity of restrictions on speech. Restraints on free speech are
generally evaluated on one of or a combination of three tests: the
dangerous tendency doctrine, the balancing of interest test, and the
clear and present danger rule.
8. Section 19, however, merely requires that the data to be blocked be
found prima facie in violation of any provision of the cybercrime
law. Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can actually be made
to apply in relation to any penal provision. It does not take into
consideration any of the three tests mentioned above.
9. The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for
being violative of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of
expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
10.