Criminal Law Case Digest:

DISINI vs SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Facts:

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175), aims to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace. The petitioners herein challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the cybercrime law regarding certain acts as crimes and impose penalties for their commission. These assailed provisions in the case at hand are as follows:

1. 1. 1. Section 4a1 – Illegal Access
      2. Section 4a3 – Data Interference
      3. Section 4a6 – Cyber-squatting
      4. Section 4b3 – Identity Theft
      5. Section 4c1 – Cybersex
      6. Section 4c2 – Child Pornography
      7. Section 4c3 – Unsolicited Commercial Communications
      8. Section 4c4 – Libel
      9. Section 5 – Aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrime
      10. Section 6 – Penalty of one degree higher
      11. Section 7 – Prosecution under the RPC and RA 10175
      12. Section 8 – Penalties
      13. Section 12 – Real-time collection of traffic data
      14. Section 13 – Preservation of computer data
      15. Section 14 – Disclosure of computer data
      16. Section 15 – Search, seizure, and examination of computer data
      17. Section 17 – Destruction of computer data
      18. Section 19 – Restricting or blocking access to computer data
      19. Section 20 – Obstruction of justice
      20. Section 24 – Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC)
      21. Section 26(a) – CICC’s powers and functions

Issue:

Whether Section 12 of the Cybercrime law on the real-time collection of traffic data infringes on the right to privacy of a person

Ruling:

Yes. The right granted to law enforcement agencies of the power to collect or record traffic data in real time would tend to curtail civil liberties and may provide opportunities for official abuse. Section 12 requires disclosure of matters normally considered private. In asserting regulations affecting privacy rights, the Courts should balance between legitimate concerns of the State vis-à-vis the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens. In the case, the Court held that while there is a compelling state interest in enacting the law, the evidence of traffic data is not adequate to fight cybercrimes.

The clause with due cause is not defined by the legislature and thus, the authority given to law enforcement agencies is too sweeping and lacks restraint. The Court opined that while it says that traffic data collection should not disclose certain content, there is nothing that can prevent law enforcement agencies to look into the identities of the sender or receiver of the data. Furthermore, the Court said that it must ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of technologies must be written with specificity and definiteness to ensure respect for the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.