Kabataan parylist asks SC to reconsider decision on cybercrime law

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Kabataan partylist on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court reconsider its decision declaring as

constitutional majority of the provisions of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

In their 11-page motion for reconsideration, the group said Sections 4(c)4, 5 and 6 are unconstitutional due to “vagueness and overbreadth.” Section 4(c)4 is internet libel while section 5 is about punishing those who aid, abet or attempt to commit cybercrime. Section 6 increases the penalty for offenses that fall within the Revised Penal Code and committed with the use of information technology.

“Being a case involving free speech, the overbreadth and the void for vagueness doctrine must be applied. A facial overbreadth is therefore applicable, considering the fact that the anti-cybercrime law seeks to regulate spoken words. As for the vagueness doctrine, since unbridled discretion is left in the hands of a few, people will have a difficult if not impossible way to delineate what is considered a crime and what is protected speech,” the motion stated.

They also insisted that Sections 13 and 15 are unconstitutional for violating the people’s right to due process.

Section 13 is the provision on computer data preservation while section 15 is the provision on search, seizure and examination of computer data.

Petitioners said an owner of computer data is not given due process, particularly notice and the opportunity to be heard as to why his computer data is being ordered preserved and his use and disposition restricted.

“It must be emphasized that the mandatory requirements of a valid search and seizure applies not merely to physical objects subject of a search and seizure but must also necessarily apply to incorporeal property such as computer data,” the group said in their motion.

“It is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that after due proceedings, a decision be rendered declaring the unconstitutionality of RA 10175 or its unconstitutional provisions,” the petitioner said.

Kabataan partylist is among the 15 groups who have filed at the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of the Cybercrime law.

The high court issued the ruling last month affirming the constitutionality of majority of the provisions of the cybercrime law.