Category Archives: Special Laws

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., G.R. No. 203335, FEBRUARY 18, 2014

Constitutional law; Unsolicited commercial communications, also known as “spam” is entitled to protection under freedom of expression.  To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.  Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.  Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.

Criminal law; Cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law is constitutional.  The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation.  Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code, already punishes it.  In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel. But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article.  Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the Penal Code provisions on libel were enacted.  The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print.

Criminal law; Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law that punishes “aiding or abetting” libel on the cyberspace is a nullity. The terms “aiding or abetting” constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way.  What is more, as the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel are not punishable unless consummated. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level of responsibility such as in other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny.

Full text here.

Advertisements

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10609 (August 23, 2013): AN ACT PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN COURSES REQUIRING PROFESSIONAL LICENSING EXAMINATIONS TO ENROLL IN REVIEW CENTERS OF THEIR CHOICE AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

The Act ensures the protection of students against possible abuses by Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in relation to the right of students to choose their review centers. Violations thereof include (1) compelling students enrolled in courses requiring professional examinations to take review classes, which are not part of the curriculum, in a review center of the HEI’s choice; (2) Making such review classes a prerequisite for graduation or completion of the course; (3) Forcing students to enroll in a review center of the school’s choice, and to pay the corresponding fees that include transportation and board and lodging; and (4) Withholding the transcript of scholastic records, diploma, certification or any essential document of the student to be used in support of the application for the professional licensure examinations so as to compel the students to attend in a review center of the HEI’s choice.

Full text here.