Jose Jesus Disini, Jr. vs.

Secretary of Justice

G.R. No. 203335,

ABAD,

18 Feb 2014

Facts:

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) was enacted to address illegal activities
using computer systems, such as hacking, identity theft, cybersex, child pornography, and libel. The Act's
punitive provisions are challenged on constitutional grounds. Libel provision reenacts the definition of libel
from the Revised Penal Code, including online expression. Solicitation or luring of children, cybersex, and
unsolicited commercial communications (spam) are among the key actions criminalized by the Act. The Act
allows the collection of real-time traffic data by law enforcement without a court warrant, based on "due
cause.

Issue:

Whether certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the constitutional rights to freedom of
speech and expression.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional while
upholding others. Provisions on illegal access, data interference, cyber-squatting, and child pornography
were found to be valid and necessary to protect against cybercrimes. Provisions on libel, unsolicited
commercial communications, and aiding or abetting cybercrimes were struck down as overbroad and vague.
The Court's decision was based on the principle that laws regulating the use of cyberspace must strike a
balance between protecting individuals from harm and preserving freedom of speech and expression.

Ratio:

Laws regulating the use of cyberspace must strike a balance between protecting individuals from harm and
preserving freedom of speech and expression. Provisions on illegal access, data interference, cyber-
squatting, and child pornography are valid and necessary to protect against cybercrimes. Provisions on libel,
unsolicited commercial communications, and aiding or abetting cybercrimes are overbroad and vague, and
therefore unconstitutional. The Court recognized the importance of regulating cyberspace to prevent crimes
and protect individuals, but also emphasized the need to ensure that laws do not unduly restrict the rights of
individuals to express themselves online.

A balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety.

To strike a balance between protecting individuals from harm in cyberspace and upholding their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.