Scribd
Upload
266 views2 pages

Case Digest Disini V SecofJ

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It found that Congress did not unduly delegate legislative power to the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center in directing it to formulate a national cybersecurity plan. The law was complete in itself and provided sufficient standards by defining cybersecurity. The Court also found the provisions on online libel and aiding/abetting valid but unconstitutional in some applications.

Uploaded by

Michelle Ann Asuncion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
266 views2 pages

Case Digest Disini V SecofJ

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It found that Congress did not unduly delegate legislative power to the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center in directing it to formulate a national cybersecurity plan. The law was complete in itself and provided sufficient standards by defining cybersecurity. The Court also found the provisions on online libel and aiding/abetting valid but unconstitutional in some applications.

Uploaded by

Michelle Ann Asuncion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R No.

203335 Disini vs Secretary of Justice February 11, 2014


 Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr.,
 Rowena S. Disini,
Petitioner/Appellee  Lianne Ivy P. Medina,
 Janette Toral
 Ernesto Sonido, Jr.
 Sec of Justice
 Sec of DILG
Respondent/Appellant  Exec Director of Information and Communications Tech Office
 Chief of Phil Natl Police
 Dir of NBI
Consolidated petitions that seek to declare several provisions of Republic
Application/appeal Act (R.A. 10175), the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional
and void.
Republic Act (R.A. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or “the
cybercrime law” aims to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace.
Relevant Facts (to the
Using his laptop or computer, a person can connect to the internet, a
subject/topic)
system that links him to other computers and enable him to access, post,
advertise, inquire and communicate.
Congress invalidly delegated its power when it gave the Cybercrime
Contentions of Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate
Petitioner a national cybersecurity plan without any sufficient standards or
parameters for it to follow.
W/N there was undue delegation of legislative power to CICC to formulate
Issue
the national cybersecurity plan?
In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of legislative power, the
Court has adopted two tests: the completeness test and the sufficient standard
test. Under the first test, the 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. The second test mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the
Ruling of Supreme law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the
Court (SC) delegation from running riot.

The cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to


formulate and implement a national cybersecurity plan.

Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law gave sufficient
standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a definition of
cybersecurity.
Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL
Decision of SC with respect to the original author of the post; but VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to others who simply receive the post
and react to it; and Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt
in the commission of cybercrimes as VA L I D and CONSTITUTIONAL only
in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a)(4) on
System.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy