Cybercrime law provisions declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

Here are the Cybercrime Law (Cybercrime Act) provisions which were declared by the Supreme Court of the Philippines as unconstitutional.

Supreme Court

Posted as is from the SC tweet on Tuesday, February 18, 2014:

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.


What does the Supreme Court ruling mean? Let's have it simplified:
  1. Posting of unsolicited commercial messages or spam is NOT a crime.
  2. Real-time monitoring of traffic data is ILLEGAL.
  3. Takedown of websites suspected of committing cybercrime is ILLEGAL.
  4. Online libel: NOT unconstitutional with respect to original source or author of 'libelous' post(s); it is ILLEGAL to penalize those who receive or react to the post(s), meaning it's not a crime to share, retweet or comment on libelous content(s).
According to reports, petitioners are set to file soon a motion for reconsideration to ask the High Tribunal to strike down the entire online libel clause.