DISINI

VS.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice
This case expands freedom of expression by invalidating portions
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that infringed upon the right to
freedom of expression and access to information. Particularly,
the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognized unsolicited
electronic commercial communications as “legitimate forms of
expression.”
Section 4(c)(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. - prohibits the transmission of unsolicited commercial
electronic communications, commonly known as spams, that seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale of products and
services unless the recipient affirmatively consents, or when the purpose of the communication is for service or
administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users.
- UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Court first noted that spams are a category of commercial

speech, which does not receive the same level of protection as
other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression ,”but is
nonetheless entitled to protection.” It ruled that the prohibition
on transmitting unsolicited communications “would deny a
person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial
ads addressed to him.” Accordingly, the Court declared
Section4(c)(3) as unconstitutional.
Section 12 Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. - authorizes the law enforcement without a court warrant “to
collect or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a
computer system.” - UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Whether Section 12 violated the right to privacy-

the Court first recognized that the right at stake concerned informational
privacy, defined as “the right not to have private information disclosed,
and the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.”
In determining whether a communication is entitled to the right of
privacy, the Court applied a two-part test:
(1) Whether the person claiming the right has a legitimate expectation of
privacy over the communication, and
(2) whether his expectation of privacy can be regarded as objectively
reasonable in the society.
Section 12 Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. - authorizes the law enforcement without a court warrant “to
collect or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a
computer system.” - UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Internet users have subjective reasonable expectation of privacy over their

communications transmitted online. However, it did not find the expectation
as objectively reasonable because traffic data sent through internet “does not
disclose the actual names and addresses (residential or office) of the sender
and the recipient, only their coded Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.”
Even though the Court ruled that real-time traffic data under Section 12 does
not enjoy the objective reasonable expectation of privacy, the existence of
enough data may reveal the personal information of its sender or recipient,
against which the Section fails to provide sufficient safeguard. The Court
viewed the law as “virtually limitless, enabling law enforcement authorities
to engage in “fishing expedition,” choosing whatever specified
communication they want.”
Section 19 Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data.- authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or
block access to a computer data found to be in violation of the Act. UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Court first recognized that computer data constitutes a

personal property, entitled to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’ Constitution
requires the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it
seeks to seize a personal property or to block a form of
expression. Because Section 19 precluded any judicial
intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional.
Sec. 4(a)(1) – Illegal Access
■ Ethical hackers are not punishable under Cyber Crime Law.
■ Ethical hackers evaluate the target system’s security and report back to the
owners the vulnerabilities they found in it and give instructions for how
these can be remedied. Ethical hackers are the equivalent of independent
auditors who come into an organization to verify its bookkeeping records.
■ Client’s engagement of an ethical hacker requires an agreement between
them as to the extent of the search, the methods to be used, and the systems
to be tested. This is referred to as the "get out of jail free card."6 Since the
ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client, such
permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).