Arguments vs the Cybercrime Law: What to expect at the Supreme Court

Before the oral arguments begin at 2 p.m. today, January 15, several groups opposing the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) are set to conduct mass actions or mobilizations as early as 9 a.m. in front of the Supreme Court’s (SC's) gates on Padre Faura Street, Manila.  

Here's what to expect in the hours to follow.  

These include petitioner groups such as the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the National Press Club (NPC), and the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), as well as party-list groups Kabataan, Bayan Muna, and militant group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and the College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). Some of these groups had even staged an overnight vigil on the eve of the oral arguments. 

 

Three months ago, the high court in a unanimous vote restrained the implementation of RA 10175 after it received 15 petitions assailing the law’s validity for allegedly violating the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection, due process, and against double jeopardy, as well as the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.

 

The court will sit en banc or as a “whole bench” with all of its members sitting in judgment.  But in October last year, SC Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. said he will not take part in the case after petitioner NUJP asked that he inhibit himself. This means, at most there will be 14 magistrates to hear the oral arguments.

 

Preliminary matters  

This is the first time Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A.P. Sereno will preside over oral arguments in a Supreme Court hearing held open to the public.

 

This is also the first time that a “micro-site” was made within the official SC website in order to provide helpful information about the oral arguments, such as summaries of the 15 petitions and the Solicitor General’s “consolidated comment”, as well as relevant SC advisories and announcements.

 

“Media photographers and television crew will be allowed inside the Session Hall only until the banging of the gavel, which signals the start of the oral argument proper,” states an advisory issued by the high court last Jan. 9.

 

“Thereafter, the media photographers and television crew shall remove their respective broadcast and recording equipment and other gadgets from the courtroom as quickly and as unobtrusively as possible, and shall be escorted out of the Session Hall,” it adds. 

 

However, the SC Public Information Office will record video of the proceedings with a fixed, stationary camera and provide a real-time relay to a screen set up in the SC lobby on the first floor.  

 

When the hearing starts at 2 p.m., the high court is expected to dispose of several matters that came up after its issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).

 

These preliminaries include ruling on whether to allow petitioner Harry Roque Jr. to amend his petition so that he could not only argue against the cyber-libel provision of RA 10175 but also assail even the 82-year old libel provision in the country’s Revised Penal Code.

 

The court is also expected to rule on whether to allow a “petition in intervention” by a youth group and militant group Anakbayan, making theirs the 16th petition against RA 10175  or the first to be filed this year on top of the others filed last year.

 

Notably, the “consolidated comment” filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) only addresses points raised in the 15 previous petitions against RA 10175, thereby laying the groundwork for Tuesday’s oral arguments. In other words, the 16th petition will not be considered in the oral arguments.

 

Order of oral arguments

After disposing of the preliminary matters, the high court will first hear a prefatory statement to be delivered by Senator Teofisto “TG” Guingona III, who was the only solon at the Senate who voted against the passage of the bill that would eventually become RA 10175. Guingona also filed last year the fourth petition against the law. 

 

Once Guingona has said his piece, the five lawyers designated to deliver oral arguments for all 15 petitions will take to the podium. This is the agreement “Member-in-charge” SC Associate Justice Roberto Abad has secured from the petitioners’ lawyers and Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, who stands as the government’s legal counsel.

   

“The [designated] counsels shall each have a maximum of ten minutes to present his arguments on his assigned issue or issues,” states the SC advisory on the oral arguments. “The time allotted for counsels to argue shall be exclusive of the time devoted to interpellation by the Members of the Court.”

 

Roque, however, might be given more than ten minutes if the court allows the other counsels to “give some of their minutes” as a concession arrived at in an “internal arrangement” during practice or “mooting” sessions last week. This is because, aside from assailing the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 on “cyber-libel”, he was instructed by the court to also argue against Section 4(c)(1) on “cyber-sex”.

 

Roque’s petition did not address the cyber-sex provision, the constitutionality of which was assailed by Guingona’s petition as well as the PIFA petition.

 

Moreover, Roque has said he will make a manifestation during oral arguments asking the court to extend the TRO “indefinitely”. The SC’s 120-day TRO expires on Feb. 6, but already the Department of Justice has issued earlier at the start of the year the implementing rules and regulations for RA 10175.

Other arguments  

The other petitioners who will argue against specific portions of the law, in the following order, are:

 

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares on Section 6, which punishes by one degree higher crimes covered by the Revised Penal Code or special laws if committed with the use of information and communications technologies; and on Section 7, which provides that prosecution under RA 10175 shall be without prejudice to any liability under the Revised Penal Code;

 

Atty. Rodel Cruz on Section 19 or the “take-down” provision empowering the Department of Justice to block computer data found to be in violation of the law;

 

UP Law professor Jose Jesus “JJ” Disini Jr. on Section 12, which empowers law enforcement authorities to collect real-time traffic data of communications transmitted through a computer system; and

 

Atty. Julius Matibag on Section 5(a) and (b), which punishes Internet users for aiding or abetting a cybercrime.  

---

The author is a contributing writer to GMA News Online, a former Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Public Information Office, and a named petitioner in the 15th petition filed against the Cybercrime Law (PIFA, et al. vs. The Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 203518, Oct. 8, 2012). This article is meant to help increase public awareness on court procedures and not to discuss the merits of the case, per prohibition under the sub judice rule.