G.R. No. 203335 – 727 Phil. 28; 733 Phil. 717 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights – Constitutionality of the Anti-Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
| FACTS | ISSUE | RULING |
| Search and Seizure | ||
| Section 15 of RA 10175 provides:
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and: (a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium; (b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured; (c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data; (d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and (e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network. Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination. Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court. |
Is Section 15 invalid for supplanting established search and seizure procedures? | No. It merely enumerates the duties of law enforcement authorities that would ensure the proper collection, preservation, and use of computer system or data that have been seized by virtue of a court warrant. The exercise of these duties do not pose any threat on the rights of the person from whom they were taken.
Section 15 is constitutional. |
| Right to Privacy | ||
|
Section 4(a)(1) (1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. The concern of the petitioners here, as well as in the sections below, is the case of white hat hackers or ethical hackers. These are usually independent good-intentioned hackers who test vulnerabilities of computer systems with the intention of helping the owner of the system to improve their system. Or ethical hackers who access questionable websites to obtain information to help government authorities. |
Does Sec. 4(a)(1) pass the Strict Scrutiny Test which provides that: The Government must prove that it is not in violation of fundamental rights. | The argument that Sec. 4(a)(1) does not pass the Strict Scrutiny Test is misplaced. The Strict Scrutiny Test is only applied in violations of fundamental rights. Here, no fundamental right or freedom is involved. Accessing a computer without consent from the owner is a universally condemnable act.
Section 4(a)(1) is constitutional. |
|
Section 4(a)(3) (3) Data Interference. – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses. |
Does Section 4(a)(3) violate the Overbreadth Doctrine because it is too sweeping that it makes illegal even good-intentioned access or interference like the ethical hackers who only want to help the government or the society in general? | No. The provision does not encroach on individual freedom at all. It simply punishes online or digital vandalism. There is no freedom to destroy other people’s computer systems and private documents.
Section 4(a)(3) is constitutional. |
|
Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system |
Does this violate the right to privacy on the ground that it is abusive and too invasive? | Yes. Section 12 is vague. DUE CAUSE was not properly defined. It leaves unbridled discretion on LEAs which is dangerous.
SC also emphasized Informational Privacy which is the right to refuse to disclose personal matters. Section 12 is unconstitutional. |
| Right to Privacy vis-à-vis Freedom of Expression (Commercial Expression) | ||
|
Section 4(c)(3) (3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. – The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited. |
Does Sec. 4(c)(3) pass the Strict Scrutiny Test which provides that: The Government must prove that it is not in violation of fundamental rights. | No. SC agreed with Petitioners.
The government presents no basis for holding that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the “efficiency of computers.” Secondly, people, before the arrival of the age of computers, have already been receiving such unsolicited ads by mail. These have never been outlawed as nuisance since people might have interest in such ads. What matters is that the recipient has the option of not opening or reading these mail ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the option to delete or not to read them. To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. Section 4(c)(3) is unconstitutional. |
| Right tp Privacy vis-à-vis Freedom of the Press | ||
|
Section 4(b)(3) (3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration, or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right. Atty. Chan’s note: The above provision, for the petitioners, may violate press freedom as it restricts anonymity practices used by the press to protect their sources, i.e., suppose an online source does not want to be identified and had assumed an identity which is coincidentally owned by another, it will be unfair to prosecute that source under this provision |
Does this violate privacy and correspondence rights in relation to press freedom? | No. Petitioners failed to demonstrate how such rights were violated.
SC emphasized: Zones of Privacy: Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. Section 4(b)(3) is constitutional. |
