Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Disini V Executive Sec

    Uploaded by

    Carina Frost
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled certain sections of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 were deemed to violate privacy rights and freedom of expression. Section 4(c)(3) made spamming illegal but was overly broad. Section 12 allowed warrantless collection of internet traffic data. Section 19 gave broad powers to block computer data without a warrant, violating protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court affirmed privacy rights apply online and warrants are generally required for searches and seizures of people's online activities and data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Disini V Executive Sec

    Uploaded by

    Carina Frost
    40 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled certain sections of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 were deemed to violate privacy rights and freedom of expression. Section 4(c)(3) made spamming illegal but was overly broad. Section 12 allowed warrantless collection of internet traffic data. Section 19 gave broad powers to block computer data without a warrant, violating protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court affirmed privacy rights apply online and warrants are generally required for searches and seizures of people's online activities and data.

    Original Title

    DISINI V EXECUTIVE SEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled certain sections of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 were deemed to violate privacy rights and freedom of expression. Section 4(c)(3) made spamming illegal but was overly broad. Section 12 allowed warrantless collection of internet traffic data. Section 19 gave broad powers to block computer data without a warrant, violating protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court affirmed privacy rights apply online and warrants are generally required for searches and seizures of people's online activities and data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    Disini V Executive Sec

    Uploaded by

    Carina Frost
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled certain sections of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to be unconstitutional. Specifically, Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 were deemed to violate privacy rights and freedom of expression. Section 4(c)(3) made spamming illegal but was overly broad. Section 12 allowed warrantless collection of internet traffic data. Section 19 gave broad powers to block computer data without a warrant, violating protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court affirmed privacy rights apply online and warrants are generally required for searches and seizures of people's online activities and data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rule 110

    DISINI V EXECUTIVE SEC

    G.R. Nos. 169823-24; September 11, 2013


    Facts:
    consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on the
    constitutionality of provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were filed
    as it was alleged to be a violation of Freedom of expression and privacy.

    The fourteen Petitioners argued that even though the Act is the government’s
    platform in combating illegal cyberspace activities, challenging 21 separate
    sections of the Act violate their constitutional rights, particularly the right to
    freedom of expression and access to information.Indicating that 21 sections of
    the said act is unconstitutional.

    The government then asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably
    put order into cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent
    hurtful attacks on the system, As the purpose of the law is to regulate access
    to and use of cyberspace. The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority
    curtails their civil liberties and set the stage for abuse of discretion by the
    government.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the 21 sections of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2021 are
    deem unconstitutional for violating the rights of freedom of expression and
    privacy of every person in the use of technological devices over the internet.

    Ruling:

    The Court then affirms that in the 21 sections challenged Sections 4(c)(3), 12,
    and 19 of the Act are unconstitutional.

    Section 4(c)(3) refers to the spam, advertisements or messages of products and


    services being promoted through the internet when the information given about
    the said service or product misleads and induces the person into reading the
    message.

    And the in Justice Abad’s opinion towards the section “The government argued
    that unsolicited commercial communications amount to both nuisance and
    trespass because they tend to interfere with the enjoyment of using online
    services and that they enter the recipient’s domain without prior permission.” The
    court then ruled that the spammed messages would deny the person to reading
    his messages or emails

    Section 12 pertains to the search of one’s data without the presence of a warrant.
    That law enforcers are allowed to collect or record traffic data over the internet
    without the consent or the identification of the internet user. It was argued that
    the warrantless officers will be committing abuse of discretion and that the
    government permits them to do so though they violate the right of privacy and
    protection from the government’s intrusion in online transactions and
    communications.

    Section 19 concerns the people’s protection against unreasonable searches and


    seizure. This section then give the DOJ the power to block access to a computer
    data that violates this Act which was argued to violate the freedom of expression
    of the people and conducts unwarranted searches and seizures. As the court
    recognizes computer data as one’s personal property then a warrant is needed
    as a phone needed a search warrant (Riley v California).

    You might also like