Republic Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT Baguio City EN BANC
G.R. No. 203335
April 22, 2014
JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA ROWENA S. DISINI, DISINI, LIANNE I! P. P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL TORAL "#$ ERNESTO ERNESTO SONIDO, SONIDO, JR., Petitioners, vs.
T%E SECRET SECRE TAR! O& JUSTICE, JUSTI CE, T%E SECRETAR! SECRETAR! O& T%E DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT O& T%E INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, T%E E'ECUTIE DIRECTOR O& T%E IN&ORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TEC%NOLOG! O&&ICE, T%E C%IE& O& T%E P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE "#$ T%E DIRECTOR O& T%E NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 2032)) LOUIS *(ARO+* C. (IRAOGO, Petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION "#$ P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 20330 ALA( NG MAMAMA%A!AG -ALAM, %U+UMAN NG MAMAMA!AN MOEMENT, INC., JERR! S. !AP, (ERTENI *TOTO* CAUSING, %ERNANI /. CUARE, PERC! LAPID, TRAC! CA(RERA, RONALDO E. RENTA, CIRILO P. SA(ARRE, JR., DERIN CASTRO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs.
O&&ICE O& T%E PRESIDENT, rpr#$ Pri$# (#i#o Si6o# A78i#o III, SENATE O& T%E P%ILIPPINES, "#$ %OUSE O& REPRESENTATIES, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 20335)
SENATOR TEO&ISTO DL GUINGONA III, Petitioner, vs.
E'ECUTIE SECRETAR!, T%E SECRETAR! O& JUSTICE, T%E SECRETAR! O&T%E DEPARTMENT O& INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, T%E C%IE& O& T%E P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, "#$ DIRECTOR O& T%E NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 20339: ALE'ANDER ADONIS, ELLEN TORDESILLAS, MA. GISELA ORDENES; CASCOLAN, %. %ARR! L. RO/UE, JR., ROMEL R. (AGARES, "#$ GIL(ERT T. ANDRES, Petitioners, vs.
T%E E'ECUTIE SECRETAR!, T%E DEPARTMENT O& (UDGET AND MANAGEMENT, T%E DEPARTMENT O& JUSTICE, T%E DEPARTMENT O& T%E INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, T%E NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, T%E P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND T%E IN&ORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TEC%NOLOG! O&&ICE; DEPARTMENT O& SCIENCE AND TEC%NOLOG!, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 2033)1 %ON. RA!MOND . PALATINO, %ON. ANTONIO TINIO, ENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO O& ANA+(A!AN, MA. +AT%ERINE ELONA O& T%E P%ILIPPINE COLLEGIAN, ISA(ELLE T%ERESE (AGUISI O& T%E NATIONAL UNION O& STUDENTS O& T%E P%ILIPPINES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs.
PA/UITO N. OC%OA, JR., i# =8i? S=r"r "#$ "lr;o o@ Pri$# (#i#o Si6o# A78i#o III, LEILA DE LIMA i# <r ="p"=i " S=r"r o@ J8i=, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203409 (AGONG AL!ANSANG MA+A(A!AN SECRETAR! GENERAL RENATO M. RE!ES, JR., N"io#"l Ari (IENENIDO L. LUM(ERA, C<"irpro# o@ Co#=r#$ Ari o@ < P
LINA(AN, S=r"r G#r"l G"ril" Wo6# P"r, ADOL&O ARES P. GUTIERRE, "#$ JULIUS GARCIA MATI(AG, Petitioners, vs.
(ENIGNO SIMEON C. A/UINO III, Pri$# o@ < Rp8li= o@ < P=8i? S=r"r, SENATE O& T%E P%ILIPPINES, rpr#$ SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, %OUSE O& REPRESENTATIES, rpr#$ SPEA+ER &ELICIANO (ELMONTE, JR., LEILA DE LIMA, S=r"r o@ < Dp"r6# o@ J8i=, LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAM(RE, E>=8i? Dir=or o@ < I#@or6"io# "#$ Co668#i="io# T=<#olo O=, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, Dir=or o@ < N"io#"l (8r"8 o@ I#?i"io#, DFGEN. NICANOR A. (ARTOLOME, C
%ONORA(LE PA/UITO OC%OA i# =8i? S=r"r, %ONORA(LE LEILA DE LIMA i# <r ="p"=i " S=r"r o@ J8i=, %ONORA(LE MANUEL RO'AS i# =8i? Dp"r6# o@ Go?r#6#,Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203453 NATIONAL UNION O& JOURNALISTS O& T%E P%ILIPPINES -NUJP, P%ILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE -PPI, CENTER &OR MEDIA &REEDOM AND RESPONSI(ILIT!, ROWENA CARRANA PARAAN, MELINDA /UINTOS;DE JESUS, JOSEP% ALW!N AL(URO, ARIEL SE(ELLINO AND T%E PETITIONERS IN T%E ;PETITION <pFFBBB.#8Hp.orF#o;o; r"10195F, Petitioners, vs.
T%E E'ECUTIE SECRETAR!, T%E SECRETAR! O& JUSTICE, T%E SECRETAR! O& T%E INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, T%E SECRETAR! O& (UDGET AND MANAGEMENT, T%E DIRECTOR GENERAL
O& T%E P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, T%E DIRECTOR O& T%E NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, T%E C!(ERCRIME INESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES O& GOERNMENT AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER T%EIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTION IN RELATION TO T%E IMPLEMENTATION O& REPU(LIC ACT NO. 10195,Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203454 PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO R!AN D. ANDRES, Petitioners, vs.
T%E %ON. SECRETAR! O& JUSTICE, T%E %ON. SECRETAR! O& INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 2034) ANT%ON! IAN M. CRU MARCELO R. LANDIC%O (ENJAMIN NOEL A. ESPINA MARC+ RONALD C. RIMORIN JULIUS D. ROCAS OLIER RIC%ARD . RO(ILLO AARON ERIC+ A. LOADA GERARD ADRIAN P. MAGNA!E JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS MA. ROSARIO T. JUAN (RENDAL!N P. RAMIRE MAUREEN A. %ERMITANIO +RISTINE JO! S. REMENTILLA MARICEL O. GRA! JULIUS IAN &. CA(IGON (ENRALP% S. !U CE(U (LOGGERS SOCIET!, INC. PRESIDENT RU(EN (. LICERA, JR "#$ PINO! E'PATFO&W (LOG AWARDS, INC. COORDINATOR PEDRO E. RA%ON Petitioners, vs.
%IS E'CELLENC! (ENIGNO S. A/UINO III, i# =8i? S=r"r %ON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, i# <r ="p"=i " S=r"r o@ J8i= %ON. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAM(RE, i# =8i? Dir=or, I#@or6"io# "#$ Co668#i="io# T=<#olo O= %ON. NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, i#
G.R. No. 203501 P%ILIPPINE (AR ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs.
%IS E'CELLENC! (ENIGNO S. A/UINO III, i# =8i? S=r"r %ON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, i# <r o=i"l ="p"=i " S=r"r o@ J8i= LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAM(RE, i# =8i? Dir=or, I#@or6"io# "#$ Co668#i="io# T=<#olo O= NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, i#
G.R. No. 20350) (A!AN MUNA REPRESENTATIE NERI J. COLMENARES, Petitioner, vs.
T%E E'ECUTIE SECRETAR! PA/UITO OC%OA, JR., Respondent. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 203515 NATIONAL PRESS CLU( O& T%E P%ILIPPINES, INC. rpr#$ (ENN! D. ANTIPORDA i#
O&&ICE O& T%E PRESIDENT, PRES. (ENIGNO SIMEON A/UINO III, DEPARTMENT O& JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT O& INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT O& (UDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND ALL OT%ER GOERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES W%O %AE %ANDS IN T%E PASSAGE ANDFOR IMPLEMENTATION O& REPU(LIC ACT 10195, Respondents. x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 20351: P%ILIPPINE INTERNET &REEDOM ALLIANCE, =o6po$ o@ DA+ILA; P%ILIPPINE COLLECTIE &OR MODERN %EROISM, rpr#$ L#i l"=o, PARTIDO LA+AS NG MASA, rpr#$ C"r S.
Ml#=io, &RANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANT%ON! ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO A. CASIKO, NOEMI LARDIA(AL; DADO, IMELDA MORALES, JAMES MATT%EW (. MIRA&LOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA &ATIMA A. ILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRI/UE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO ITTORIA TO(IAS SUMA!AO, IRENE C%IA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIO, CRISTINA SARA% E. OSORIO, ROMEO &ACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, +ENNET% +ENG, ANA ALE'ANDRA C. CASTRO, Petitioners, vs.
T%E E'ECUTIE SECRETAR!, T%E SECRETAR! O& JUSTICE, T%E SECRETAR! O& INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOERNMENT, T%E SECRETAR! O& SCIENCE AND TEC%NOLOG!, T%E E'ECUTIE DIRECTOR O& T%E IN&ORMATION TEC%NOLOG! O&&ICE, T%E DIRECTOR O& T%E NATIONAL (UREAU O& INESTIGATION, T%E C%IE&, P%ILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, T%E %EAD O& T%E DO O&&ICE O& C!(ERCRIME, "#$ T%E OT%ER MEM(ERS O& T%E C!(ERCRIME INESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, Respondents. RE!"#$%!N
A(AD, J.: A nu&ber of petitioners see' reconsideration of the Court(s )ebruary *+, * /ecision that declared invalid and unconstitutional certain provisions of Republic Act **0 or the Cybercri&e Prevention Act of * and upheld the validity of the others. $he respondents, represented by the !1ce of the olicitor 2eneral, also see' reconsideration of portions of that decision. After going over their &otions, ho3ever, the Court sees no substantial argu&ents fro& either side to 3arrant the reversal of its )ebruary *+, * /ecision. $he point about the legislative bica&eral co&&ittee(s insertions of certain provisions that 3ere neither in the 4ouse bill nor in the enate bill is soðing that the Court is not inclined to investigate since insertions are 3ithin the po3er of those co&&ittees to &a'e so long as the passage of the la3 co&plies 3ith the constitutional re5uire&ents. * $he Cybercri&e Prevention Act 3ent through both houses and they approved it. Any issue concerning alleged non-co&pliance 3ith the governing rules of both houses regarding co&&ittee insertions have to be internally resolved by each house. %n any event, the Court 3ill brie6y address certain aspects of the decision that dre3 the &ost ob7ections. ection 8 of the cybercri&e la3 i&poses penalties that are one degree higher 3hen the cri&es de9ned in the Revised Penal Code and certain special la3s are co&&itted 3ith the use of infor&ation and co&&unication technologies :%C$;. o&e of the petitioners insist that ection 8 is invalid
since it produces an unusual chilling einfor&ation and co&&unication technology>. But petitioner see&s to forget the basic tenet that statutes should not be read in isolation fro& one another. $he para&eters of that %C$ exist in &any other la3s. %ndeed those para&eters have been used as basis for establishing govern&ent syste&s and classifying evidence. ? $hese along 3ith co&&on usage provide the needed boundary 3ithin 3hich the la3 &ay be applied. $he Court had a&ple opportunity to consider the proposition that ection 8 violates the e5ual protection clause via the parties@ pleadings, oral argu&ents, and &e&oranda. But, as the /ecision stressed, the po3er to 9x the penalties for violations of penal la3s, li'e the cybercri&e la3, exclusively belongs to Congress. %n any event, ection 8 of the cybercri&e la3 &erely &a'es the co&&ission of existing cri&es through the internet a 5ualifying circu&stance that raises by one degree the penalties corresponding to such cri&es. $his is not at all arbitrary since a substantial distinction exists bet3een cri&es co&&itted through the use of %C$ and si&ilar cri&es co&&itted using conventional &eans. $he #nited Nations pecial Rapporteur, )ran' "a Rue, ac'no3ledged the &aterial distinction. 4e pointed out that >the vast potential and bene9ts of the %nternet are rooted in its uni5ue characteristics, such as its speed, 3orld3ide reach and relative anony&ity.> )or this reason, 3hile &any govern&ents advocate freedo& online, they recogni=e the necessity to regulate certain aspects of the use of this &edia to protect the &ost vulnerable.0 Not infre5uently, certain users of the technology have found &eans to evade being identi9ed and for this reason have been e&boldened to reach far &ore victi&s or cause greater har& or both. %t is, therefore, logical for Congress to consider as aggravating the deliberate use of available %C$ by those 3ho ply their 3ic'ed trades. Co&pared to traditional cri&es, cybercri&es are &ore perverse. %n traditional estafa for exa&ple, the o
and punish&ent of the absent cri&inal. Cybercri&inals en7oy the advantage of anony&ity, li'e 3earing a &as' during a heist. Petitioners share the Chief ustice@s concern for the overall i&pact of those penalties, being one degree higher than those i&posed on ordinary cri&es, including the fact that the prescriptive periods for the e5uivalent cybercri&es have beco&e longer. 8 Prescription is not a &atter of procedure over 3hich the Court has soðing to say. Rather, it is substantive la3 since it assu&es the existence of an authority to punish a 3rong, 3hich authority the Constitution vests in Congress alone. $hus, there is no 5uestion that Congress &ay provide a variety of periods for the prescription of o
proble&. $hese include the le3d and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or >9ghting> 3ords H those 3hich, by their very utterance, in6ict in7ury or tend to incite an i&&ediate breach of the peace. %t has been 3ell observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any bene9t that &ay be derived fro& the& is clearly out3eighed by the social interest in order and &orality. >Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense co&&unication of infor&ation or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punish&ent as a cri&inal act 3ould raise no 5uestion under that instru&ent.> :E&phasis supplied; $he constitutional guarantee against prior restraint and subse5uent punish&ent, the 7urisprudential re5uire&ent of >actual &alice,> and the legal protection aprivilege co&&unications> all ensure that protected speech re&ains to be protected and guarded. As long as the expression or speech falls 3ithin the protected sphere, it is the sole&n duty of courts to ensure that the rights of the people are protected. At botto&, the deepest concerns of the &ovants see& to be the fact that the govern&ent see's to regulate activities in the internet at all. )or the&, the %nternet is a place 3here a everyone should be free to do and say 3hatever he or she 3ants. But that is anarchical. Any good thing can be converted to evil use if there are no la3s to prohibit such use. %ndeed, both the #nited tates and the Philippines have pro&ulgated la3s that regulate the use of and access to the %nternet.* $he &ovants argue that ection :c;:; is both vague and overbroad. But, again, online libel is not a ne3 cri&e. %t is essentially the old cri&e of libel found in the *F? Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace. Conse5uently, the &ass of 7urisprudence that secures the freedo& of expression fro& its reach applies to online libel. Any apprehended vagueness in its provisions has long been settled by precedents. $he parties( other argu&ents in their respective &otions for reconsideration are &ere reiterations that the Court already considered and ruled upon 3hen it pro&ulgated its earlier /ecision. D4ERE)!RE, the Court /EN%E 3ith 9nality the various &otions for reconsideration that both the petitioners and the respondents, represented by the !1ce of the olicitor 2eneral, 9led for lac' of &erit. ! !R/ERE/.
RO(ERTO
A.
A(AD
Associate ustice DE C!NC#RG ee
Concurring
MARIA
I
LOURDES
/issenting
P.
A.
!pinion
SERENO
Chief ustice
ANTONIO
PRESITERO CARPIO JR.
T.
Associate ustice
J.
Associate ustice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO;DE CASTRO
ee
Associate ustice
Associate ustice
DIOSDADO
ELASCO,
M.
PERALTA
&y
ARTURO LUCAS
/issent
D. P.
(RION (ERSAMIN
Associate ustice
Associate ustice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
MARTIN S. ILLARAMA, JR.
Associate ustice
Associate ustice
JOSE
PORTUGAL
PERE JOSE
Associate ustice
(IENENIDO
CATRAL
MENDOA
Associate ustice
L.
Associate ustice
RE!ES
No
ESTELA (ERNA(E
M.
part
PERLAS;
Associate ustice ee
MARIC
MARIO
ICTOR
&.
dissent
LEONEN
Associate ustice CER$%)%CA$%!N Pursuant to ection *?, Article J%%% of the Constitution, it is hereby certi9ed that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case 3as assigned to the 3riter of the opinion of the Court.
MARIA Chief ustice
LOURDES
P.
A.
SERENO
&oo#o K No part. *
$atad v. $he ecretary of the /epart&ent of Energy, ?8 Phil. ?* :*FF;, citing $olentino v. ecretary of )inance, 2.R. Nos. **000, **000, **00?, **00, **00, **0+*, **0+0, **0+? I **0F?*, August 0, *FF, ?0 CRA 8?.
Lotion for Reconsideration, p. ?0.
?
An Act Providing And #se !f Electronic Co&&ercial And NonCo&&ercial $ransactions, Penalties )or #nla3ful #se $hereof, And !ther Purposes, Republic Act +F, une *, .
pecial Rapporteur on the pro&otion and protection of the right to freedo& of opinion and expression. 0
"a Rue accepts that >legiti&ate types of infor&ation M &ay be restricted such as child pornography :to protect the rights of children;, hate speech :to protect the rights of a :Citations o&itted; :A4RC*, p.+;O see Laria "uisa %sabel ". Rosales, $oday the %nternet, $o&orro3 Cable $JG ituating the %nternet as a 4u&an Right, 0 A$ENE! ".. 8?, +-+0 :*;. 8
Philippine Bar Association, Lotion for Reconsideration, p. ?FO Bloggers and Neti=ens for /e&ocracy, Lotion for Reconsideration, p. ?8.
People of the Philippine %slands v. Parel, 2.R. No. "-*+8, anuary , *F?, citing )iore, %rretroactividad e %nterpretacion de las "eyes, pp. 8-+. +
Dorcester v. !ca&po, Phil. * :*F*;, cited in Bernas, .. $he *F+ Constitution of the Republic of the PhilippinesG A Co&&entary, ?rd ed., Rex Boo' tore, Lanila, ?.
F
?*0 #.. 08+ :*F;, cited in 2orospe, R. Constitutional "a3G Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citi=enship and u