(case

no. 361)

DISINI V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

G.R. No. 203335
Feb. 11, 2014
Art. III

FACTS:

These are consolidated petitions assailing several provisions of the Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012.

Petitioners assert that methods adopted by said law violates a number of their
constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to due process.

ISSUES:

Whether of not the Cyrbercrime Prevention Act of 2012 violates the right of people to
due process.

HELD:

Yes.

Petitioners assail Section 4(b)(3) as being violative of the rights of people to due process
and to privacy. The right to privacy, or what is also known as the right to be let alone, was
institutionalized as a right protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. It has also been
stated that the right to privacy exists independently from the right to liberty.

Within “Zones of Privacy”, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless authorized by

law and in accordance with the given legal processes. Two constitutional guarantees create these
zones of privacy:

1. the right against unreasonable searches and seizures

2. the right of privacy and correspondence

Also, to add to that, the Court must also determine whether a person has exhibited,
through his acts, a reasonable expectation of privacy and if that expectation has been violated by
the government. Petitioners simply fail to show how the government violates their right to
privacy and correspondence, as well as their right to due process, with regard to the Cybercrime
law. To add to that, this section cannot be held invalid because of the overbreadth doctrine. This
section regulates specific acts of people. There is not guaranteed right to acquire another’s
personal data.

Also, section 17 of the law provides: Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon expiration
of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement
authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and completely destroy the computer data
subject of a preservation and examination.

Prepared by: Roberto Batungbacal

1
(case no. 361)

Petitioners claim that the destruction of computer data that was made subject of previous
preservation violates the person’s right against deprivation of property without the due process of
law. The Court answers: “it is unclear that the user has a demandable right to require the service
provider to have that copy of the data saved indefinitely for him in its storage system. If he
wanted them preserved, he should have saved them in his computer when he generated the data
or received it. He could also request the service provider for a copy before it is deleted.”

Prepared by: Roberto Batungbacal

2