Disini vs Sec. of Justice Prescription of cyberlibel PDF

Preview

Summary

G. No. 203335. April 22, 2014.*JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI,LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL andERNESTO SONIDO, JR., petitioners, vs. THESECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THEDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCALGOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THEINFORMATION AND COMMUNICAT...

Description

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

 G.R. No. 203335.

April 22, 2014.*

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S. DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO, JR., petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, respondents. G.R. No. 203299.

April 22, 2014.*

LOUIS “BAROK” C. BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondents. G.R. No. 203306.

April 22, 2014.*

ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN MOVEMENT, INC., JERRY S. YAP, BERTENI “TOTO” CAUSING, HERNANI Q. CUARE, PERCY LAPID, TRACY CABRERA, RONALDO E. RENTA, CIRILO P. SABARRE, JR., DERVIN CASTRO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, respondents. G.R. No. 203359.

April 22, 2014.*

SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUS_______________ *EN BANC. 110

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

1/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

TICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, respondents. G.R. No. 203378. April 22, 2014.* ALEXANDER ADONIS, ELLEN TORDESILLAS, MA. GISELA ORDENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., ROMEL R. BAGARES, and GILBERT T. ANDRES, petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, respondents.

G.R. No. 203391.

April 22, 2014.*

HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. ANTONIO TINIO, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO OF ANAKBAYAN, MA. KATHERINE ELONA OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN, ISABELLE THERESE BAGUISI OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, respondents. G.R. No. 203407.

April 22, 2014.*

BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., National Artist BIENVENIDO L. LUMBERA, Chairperson of Concerned Artists of 111

the Philippines, ELMER C. LABOG, Chairperson of Kilusang Mayo Uno, CRISTINA E. PALABAY, Secretary General of Karapatan, FERDINAND R. GAITE, Chairperson of COURAGE, JOEL B. MAGLUNSOD, Vice https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

2/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

President of Anakpawis Party-List, LANA R. LINABAN, Secretary General Gabriela Women’s Party, ADOLFO ARES P. GUTIERREZ, and JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, petitioners, vs. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SENATE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., LEILA DE LIMA, Secretary of the Department of Justice, LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, D/GEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, Chief of the Philippine National Police, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, respondents. G.R. No. 203440. April 22, 2014.* MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA. MARIA, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, GILBERT V. SEMBRANO, and RYAN JEREMIAH D. QUAN (all of the Ateneo Human Rights Center), petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PAQUITO OCHOA in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HONORABLE LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, HONORABLE MANUEL ROXAS in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine National Police, The DIRECTOR of the National Bureau of Investigation (all of the Executive Department of Government), respondents.  112

G.R. No. 203453.

April 22, 2014.*

NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, ROWENA CARRANZA PARAAN, MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS, JOSEPH ALWYN ALBURO, ARIEL SEBELLINO AND THE PETITIONERS IN THE e-PETITION http://www.nujp.org/no-to-ra10175/, https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

3/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, respondents. G.R. No. 203454. April 22, 2014.* PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO & RYAN D. ANDRES, petitioners, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE HON. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, respondents. G.R. No. 203469. April 22, 2014.* ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ; MARCELO R. LANDICHO; BENJAMIN NOEL A. ESPINA; MARCK RONALD C. RIMORIN; JULIUS D. ROCAS; OLIVER RICHARD V. ROBILLO; AARON ERICK A. LOZADA; GERARD ADRIAN P. MAGNAYE; JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS; MA. ROSARIO T. JUAN; BRENDALYN P. RAMIREZ; MAUREEN A. HERMI113

TANIO; KRISTINE JOY S. REMENTILLA; MARICEL O. GRAY; JULIUS IVAN F. CABIGON; BENRALPH S. YU; CEBU BLOGGERS SOCIETY, INC. PRESIDENT RUBEN B. LICERA, JR; and PINOY EXPAT/OFW BLOG AWARDS, INC. COORDINATOR PEDRO E. RAHON; petitioners, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Senate President; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice; HON. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

4/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

capacity as Executive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office; HON. NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his capacity as Director, National Bureau of Investigation; and P/DGEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his capacity as Chief, Philippine National Police, respondents. G.R. No. 203501.

April 22, 2014.*

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in his official capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her official capacity as Secretary of Justice; LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his official capacity as Executive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office; NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Bureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR GENERAL NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his official capacity as Chief of the Philippine National Police, respondents.  114

G.R. No. 203509. April 22, 2014.* BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI J. COLMENARES, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., respondent. G.R. No. 203515. April 22, 2014.* NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. represented by BENNY D. ANTIPORDA in his capacity as President and in his personal capacity, petitioner, vs.  OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PRES. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHO HAVE HANDS IN THE PASSAGE AND/OR

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

5/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

IMPLEMENTATION respondents.

OF

REPUBLIC

ACT

10175,

G.R. No. 203518. April 22, 2014.* PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio, FRANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANTHONY ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO, IMELDA MORALES, JAMES MATTHEW B. MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA FATIMA A. VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA TOBIAS SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINA SARAH E. OSORIO, ROMEO FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, KENNETH KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. CASTRO, petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUS115

TICE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE HEAD OF THE DOJ OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME, and THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, respondents. Criminal Law; Cybercrime Law; Penalties; Section 6 of the cybercrime law imposes penalties that are one degree higher when the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code and certain special laws are committed with the use of information and communication technologies (ICT).—Section 6 of the cybercrime law imposes penalties that are one degree higher when the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code and certain special laws are committed with the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). Some of the petitioners insist that Section 6 is invalid since it produces an unusual chilling effect on users of cyberspace that would hinder free expression. Same; Same; Compared to traditional crimes, cybercrimes are more perverse; Cybercriminals enjoy the advantage of anonymity, https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

6/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

like wearing a mask during a heist.—Compared to traditional crimes, cybercrimes are more perverse. In traditional estafa for example, the offender could reach his victim only at a particular place and a particular time. It is rare that he could consummate his crime without exposing himself to detection and prosecution. Fraud online, however, crosses national boundaries, generally depriving its victim of the means to obtain reparation of the wrong done and seek prosecution and punishment of the absent criminal. Cybercriminals enjoy the advantage of anonymity, like wearing a mask during a heist. Same; Prescription of Crimes; Prescription is not a matter of procedure over which the Court has something to say. Rather, it is substantive law since it assumes the existence of an authority to punish a wrong, which authority the Constitution vests in Congress alone.—Prescription is not a matter of procedure over which the Court has something to say. Rather, it is substantive law since it assumes the existence of an authority to punish a wrong, which 116

authority the Constitution vests in Congress alone. Thus, there is no question that Congress may provide a variety of periods for the prescription of offenses as it sees fit. What it cannot do is pass a law that extends the periods of prescription to impact crimes committed before its passage. Same; Libel; Libel, like obscenity, belongs to those forms of speeches that have never attained Constitutional protection and are considered outside the realm of protected freedom.—The majority of the movants believe that the Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(4), which penalizes online libel, effectively tramples upon the right to free expression. But libel is not a protected speech. There is no freedom to unjustly destroy the reputation of a decent woman by publicly claiming that she is a paid prostitute. As early as 1912, the Court held that libel is a form of expression not protected by the Constitution. Libel, like obscenity, belongs to those forms of speeches that have never attained Constitutional protection and are considered outside the realm of protected freedom. Constitutional Law; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press; As long as the expression or speech falls within the protected sphere, it is the solemn duty of courts to ensure that the rights of the people are protected.—The constitutional guarantee against prior restraint and subsequent punishment, the jurisprudential requirement of “actual malice,” and the legal protection afforded by “privilege communications” all ensure that protected speech remains to be protected and guarded. As long as the expression or https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

7/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

speech falls within the protected sphere, it is the solemn duty of courts to ensure that the rights of the people are protected. Criminal Law; Cybercrime Law; Cyberlibel; Online libel is not a new crime. It is essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace. Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that secures the freedom of expression from its reach applies to online libel.— The movants argue that Section 4(c)(4) is both vague and overbroad. But, again, online libel is not a new crime. It is essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace. Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that secures the freedom of expression from its reach applies to online libel. Any 117

apprehended vagueness in its provisions has long been settled by precedents.

Sereno, CJ., Dissenting and Concurring Opinion: Constitutional Law; Freedom of Speech; View that freedom of speech is the nucleus of other rights. That is why it is the first right that is curtailed when a free society falls under a repressive regime. That is also why the Supreme Court has acknowledged freedom of speech as occupying a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights.—I maintain my dissent insofar as the application of Section 6 to libel is concerned because the one degree higher penalty it imposes creates a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech. Hence, while a solitary sentence to that effect would have sufficed, I respectfully but vigorously reassert my dissent, considering the far-reaching effects of Section 6 on the lives and liberty of the Filipino people. Freedom of speech is the nucleus of other rights. That is why it is the first right that is curtailed when a free society falls under a repressive regime. That is also why this Court has acknowledged freedom of speech as occupying a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights. Criminal Law; Penalties; View that penal statutes cannot be facially invalidated on the ground that they produce a “chilling effect,” since they are intended to have an in terrorem effect to deter criminality. However, when a law provides for a penalty that goes beyond the in terrorem effect needed to deter crimes and impedes the exercise of freedom of speech, it should be quashed at once without hesitation.—As a general rule, penal statutes cannot be facially invalidated on the ground that they produce a “chilling effect,” since they are intended to have an in terrorem effect to deter criminality. However, when a law provides for a penalty that goes beyond the in terrorem effect needed to deter https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

8/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

crimes and impedes the exercise of freedom of speech, it should be quashed at once without hesitation. As I previously demonstrated, the increase in penalty under this seemingly innocuous provision of Section 6, insofar as it is applied to libel, indirectly but absolutely results in chilling the right of the people to free speech and expression. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. 118

Same; Same; Cyberlibel; Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012; Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances; Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); View that Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act introduces the use of ICT as a qualifying aggravating circumstance; Section 6 doubles the maximum penalty for online libel.—Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act introduces the use of ICT as a qualifying aggravating circumstance, thusly: SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be. (Emphases supplied) Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, provides for libel the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum (from 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) and medium (from 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) periods. However, with the increase in penalty by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, libel qualified by the use of ICT is now punishable by prisión correccional in its maximum period (from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years) to prisión mayor in its minimum period (from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years). Therefore, Section 6 doubles the maximum penalty for online libel. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; View that Section 6 effectively creates an additional in terrorem effect by introducing information and communication technologies (ICT) as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.—Section 6 effectively creates an additional in terrorem effect by introducing ICT as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. This burden is imposed on top of the intended in terrorem effect of the original penalties imposed by the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the public will now have to take this additional burden into account in their calculation of penalties. As if the need to weigh the costs and benefits of whether to exercise freedom of speech is not burdened enough by the possibility of a libel suit, the public will now have https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0dc628ef06483d0d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False

9/54

2/19/22, 12:59 AM

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 723

to additionally mull over their use of ICT in the exercise of this freedom through ICT. 119

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; View that before the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the imposable penalty for libel under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code, even if committed by means of ...