Issues on Delegation of legislative Power: Complete in itself

GR 203335 – Disini v. Secretary of Justice

Abad J.

Completeness Test – law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it
reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.
Sufficient Standard Test – mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

Can’t follow format cause wala siyang facts talaga cause issue here is constitutionality lang ng Cybercrime huhu.
The main issue here in consideration of the main topic (issues on delegation of legislative power: complete in itself) is:
 Section 24 and 26(a) of Cybercrime law wherein there is delegation of legislative powers to the CYBERCRIME
INVESTIGATION and COORDINATING CENTER and giving it power to formulate a national cybersecurity plan
without any sufficient standrads or parameters for it to follow.
 Using the two tests above, the cybercrime law is COMPLETE in itself when it directed the CICC to formulate and
implement a national cybersecurity plan.
 Also the law gave sufficient standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity
 Cybersecurity – refers to collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions, training, best
practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber environment and organization and user’s
assets.
 Formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent with the policy of the law to prevent and combat offenses
 Thus the delegation of power to CICC is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Pero since you know naman na unpredictable si Madam Wilwayco, I’ll include the other shit para ready. PAK LABAN!
Assailed Section of Cybercrime law Petitioners’ Contention Ruling and Holding
Section 4(a)(1) 1. Fails to meet strict scrutiny standard 1. Nothing in this section that calls for
Illegal Access required by laws that interfere with the the application of the strict scrutiny
fundamental rights of the people. since no fundamental freedom like
speech is involved.
2. How about Ethical Hackers who
evaluate the target system’s security 2. Ethical hackers are not included
and report back to the owners? since there was prior permission from
the client.

Section 4(b)(3)
Data Interference – intentional or
reckless alteration of computer data,
electronic document without right
including the introduction of viruses.
1. Suffers from OVERBREADTH since
it intrudes into the area protected
speech and expression creating a
chilling effect
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Does NOT encroach on these
freedoms at all since it simply
punishes what essentially is a form of
VADALISM. There is NO freedom to
destroy other people’s computer
systems

Section 4(a)(6)
Cyber-squatting – the acquisition of
domain name over the internet in bad
faith to profit, mislead, destroy the
reputation and deprive others from
registering the same
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Violates equal protection clause will 1. Baseless because there is always a
cause a user using his real name to determination if there is BAD FAITH in
suffer the same fate as those who use the taking of the name or trademark.
aliases or take the name of another in
satire. CONSTITUTIONAL
Hypothetical example: My real name is
Rodrigo Duterte and I mock the
president then another uses the name
it to mock him, we both will be
punished under this section when in
fact I should be punished using
another law (if there is)

1
Section 4(b)(3)
Identity Theft
Section 4(c)(1)
CyberSEX
Section 4(c)(2)
Child Pornography
Section 4(c)(3)
Unsolicited Commercial
Communications or the ever famous
SPAM (Yummerzzzz! Joke Ma Ling
for life <3 )
The term referred to a Monty Python’s
Flying Circus Scene in which actors
would keep saying Spam when
reading options from the menu
(tandaan niyo yan tinanong ni madam
yan nung fake class sesh natin)
RPC 353 and Section 4(c)4
Libel
Section 5
Aiding and Abetting in the
commission of Cybercrime and
Attempt in the Commission of
Cybercrime
1. violates due process and right to
privacy and correspondence and
freedom of the press
1. Violates freedom of expression.
Cybersex between husband and wife
will be punished.
1. A person who merely doodles on
paper and imagines a sexual abuse of
a 16-year-old is not criminally liable for
producing child pornography but one
who formulates the idea on his laptop
would be.
1. Would deny a person the right to
read his emails even unsolicited
commercial ads addressed to him.
1. The libel provisions of cybercrime
law carry with them the requirement
of presumed malice even when the
latest jurisprudence already replaces
it with the higher standard of ACTUAL
MALICE.
2. Infringes on freedom of expression
3. Against International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights and General
Comment 34 of UN Human Rights
Committee
1. Suffers from Overbreadth creating
a chilling and deterrent effect on
protected expression
Microblogging (twitter) and liking,
sharing and commenting feelings
about a certain post would constitute
aiding and abetting.
1. Petitioners fail to show how
government effort to curb computer-
related identity theft violates these
rights. Clearly this section regulates
specific actions: the acquisition, use,
misuse or deletion of personal
identifying data of another. There is
NO fundamental right to ACQUIRE
another’s personal data.
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. This section only is concerned with
CYBER PROTSITUTION. (buti na
lang kung hindi madaming mahuhuli
sa inyo mga mahilig magskype dyan.
CHAROT!)
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Merely expands Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009. Nothing
prevent the government from invoking
the ACPA
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Government presents no basis for
holding that unsolicited electronic ads
reduce the efficiency of computers.
Unsolicited advertisements are
LEGITIMATE forms of EXPRESSION.
UNCONSTI!!!
1. Libel is not a constitutionally
protected speech
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. The terms aiding and abetting
constitute broad sweep that
generates chilling effect on those who
express themselves through
cyberspace posts.
UNCONSTITUTINAL with respect to
Child Pornography, Spam and Libel.
BUT!!!! Constitutional in relation to
other crimes such as system
interference, cyber-squatting,
2

Section 6
If crimes in Revised Penal Code
committed using information and
communications tech, penalty will
be 1 year higher
Section 7
A prosecution under this act shall
be without prejudice to any liability
for violation of other provisions and
laws.
Section 8
Penalties
Section 12
Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data
Section 13
Preservation of Computer Data –
content data shall be preserved for 6
months. Law enforcement authorities
may order an extension of 6 months if
going to be used in a case.
Section 14
Disclosure of Computer Data – upon
securing court warrant shall issue an
order requiring disclosure of data from
service provider or any person
Section 15
Search, Seizure and Examination of
Computer Data
Section 17
Destruction of Computer Data
1. Curtail civil liberties or provide
opportunities for official abuse
2. Affects right to privacy
1. Deprivation of the right to property
1. Deprivation of property without
due process of law
computer-related fraud and other
except those mentioned above!!!
1. In using tech, the offender often
evades identification and is able to
reach far more victims or cause
greater harm. The distinction
therefore creates a basis for higher
penalties.
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Does not cover crimes of online
libel and online child pornography
because not a new crime but only a
repetition of those enunciated in RPC
and ACPA respectively.
LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the
correct application of Section 7 that
authorizes prosecution of the offender
under both the RPC and Cybercrime
law to ACTUAL CASES with the
exceptions of libel and child porno.
1. Judiciary can only interpret the law.
Court should not encroach on the
prerogative of the lawmaking body.
1. With enough traffic data, analysts
may be able to determine a person’s
close associations, religious beliefs,
political affiliations and even sexual
preferences. Such would inflict
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Section 12 empowers law
enforcement authorities with DUE
CAUSE but this term is too sweeping.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
1. The data that service providers
preserve on orders of law
enforcement authorities are not made
inaccessible to use by reason of the
issuance of others.
The process of preservation of data
will not unduly hamper the normal
transmission or use of the same.
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. Merely the enforcement of duly
issued court warrant
CONSITUTITONAL
1. Merely enumerates the duties of
law enforcement
CONSTITUTIONAL
1. No right to order service provider
to keep data exclusively for him.
CONSTITUTIONAL
3
 Section 19
Restricting or Blocking Access to
Computer Data – when data is prima
facie found to be in violation of this
ACT, the DOJ shall issue an order to
restrict or block access to such data.
Section 20
Noncompliance
1. Stifles freedom of expression and
right against unreasonable search
and seizures
1. Bill of atainder
1. No search warrant shall issue
except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the JUDGE.
UNCONSTITUINAL
1. The act of non-compliance for it to
be punishable must still be done
knowingly or willfully. There must still
be a judicial determination of guilt

CONSTITUINAL
Section 24 and 26(a) SEE MAIN
ISSUE ABOVE

In Motion for Reconsideration April 23, 2014

 Assail constitutionality of Penalties (section 6) of now RA 10125 (before 10175 but still Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012) because produce a chilling effect
 Also assail section 4(c)4 about libel
 Government seeks to regulate activities in the internet because if not it would be anarchical
 Court DENIES MOR

DIGESTER: Malcolm Cruz and Macy Ybanez