Supreme Court PIO · @SCPh_PIO
18th Feb 2014 from TwitLonger
DISINI ET AL. V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE | CYBERCRIME ACT
The Court declared the following provisions of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Act) as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, either wholly or contextually:
1. Sec. 4(c)(3) (Unsolicited Commercial Communications)
2. Sec. 12 (Real time collection of traffic data)
3, Sec. 19 (Restricting or blocking access to computer data)
4. Sec. 4(c)(4) (online libel- only where it penalises those who simply receive the post or react to it) but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL as far as the original author is concerned.
5. Sec. 5 (aiding or abetting in the commission of a cybercrime/attempt to commit a cybercrime) only in relation to secs. 4(c)(2) (child pornography), 4(c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications) and 4(c)(4) (libel);
6. Sec. 7 (liability under other laws) only in relation to secs. 4(c)(4) (libel) and 4(c)(2) (child pornography).
All other provisions not so declared by the Court are considered NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.