“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” (Article III, Section 4, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
We are featuring the views of lawyers Karen Jimeno and Ibarra Gutierrez III on the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, or Republic Act No. 10175.
By Ibarra “Barry” M. Gutierrez III
Much of the online outrage that came in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Disini v. Secretary of Justice was directed at the portion of the ruling upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(c)4 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175)—the “cyberlibel” provision.
By Ricardo J. Romulo
Few laws, if any, have received the minute scrutiny the Supreme Court justices gave Republic Act No. 10175. Thus, if I were a law dean, I would encourage my faculty, particularly those handling constitutional law and criminal law, to team-teach an elective to study the ramifications of the recent en banc decision of the high court on the consolidated cases questioning RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The consolidated decision (the “Cyber Law decision,” for short), which disposed of several cases that was headed by Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr. et al. vs The Secretary of Justice et al., G.R. No. 203335, was issued last Feb. 18.
By Conrado de Quiros
I join those who feel let down by the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the constitutionality of the cybercrime law. Despite its striking out a few provisions and restricting the penalties only to the original sender of the libelous material.