EN BANC
[G.R. No. 203299. January 15, 2013.]
LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondents.
[G.R. No. 203306. January 15, 2013.]
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG [ALAM], ET AL., petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203335. January 15, 2013.]
JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203359. January 15, 2013.]
SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203378. January 15, 2013.]
ALEXANDER ADONIS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203391. January 15, 2013.]
HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203407. January 15, 2013.]
BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203440. January 15, 2013.]
MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203453. January 15, 2013.]
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203454. January 15, 2013.]
PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203469. January 15, 2013.]
ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203501. January 15, 2013.]
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203509. January 15, 2013.]
BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI J. COLMENARES, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., respondent.
[G.R. No. 203515. January 15, 2013.]
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL., respondents.
[G.R. No. 203518. January 15, 2013.]
PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 15, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203299(Louis "Barok" C. Biraogo vs. National Bureau of Investigation and Philippine National Police); G.R. No. 203306(Alab ng Mamamahayag [ALAM], et al. vs. Office of the President, represented by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, et al.); G.R. No. 203335(Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al. vs. Secretary of Justice, et al.); G.R. No. 203359(Senator Teofisto DL Guingona III vs. The Executive Secretary, et al.); G.R. No. 203378(Alexander Adonis, et al. vs. The Executive Secretary, et al.); G.R. No. 203391(Hon. Raymond V. Palatino, et al. vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.); G.R. No. 203407(Bagong Alyansang Makabayan Secretary General Renato M. Reyes Jr., et al. vs. His Excellency Benigno Simeon Aquino III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al.); G.R. No. 203440(Melencio S. Sta. Maria, et al. vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al.); G.R. No. 203453(National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, et al. vs. The Executive Secretary, et al.); G.R. No. 203454(Paul Cornelius T. Castillo, et al. vs. The Secretary of Justice, et al.); G.R. No. 203469(Anthony Ian M. Cruz, et al. vs. His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III, in his capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al.); G.R. No. 203501(Philippine Bar Association, Inc. vs. His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III, in his official capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines, et al.); G.R. No. 203509(Bayan Muna Representative Neri J. Colmenares vs. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.); G.R. No. 203515(National Press Club of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Office of the President, et al.); and G.R. No. 203518(Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance, et al. vs. The Executive Secretary, et al.). —
Acting on the Letter dated December 6, 2012 filed by Mr. Rogelio V. Quevedo, President, Philippine Electronics and Telecommunications Federation, Inc. (PETEF), Unit 704, Cityland Shaw Tower, Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City, informing the Court that PETEF would like to respectfully offer the participation of two (2) of its leading officers as amici curiae, namely, Atty. Rogelio V. Quevedo, incumbent PETEF President, and William H. Torres, Ph.D., Director, the Court Resolved to REQUIRE Atty. Quevedo and Dr. Torres to submit their respective MEMORANDA within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
At the hearing of these consolidated cases this afternoon, the following counsels appeared:
(a) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203299
1. Atty. Victor C. Avecilla
(b) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203335
1. Atty. Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr.
2. Atty. Rowena S. Disini EaScHT
(c) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203359
1. Senator Teofisto DL Guingona III
2. Atty. Dante Xenon B. Atienza
3. Atty. Alex O. Avisado, Jr.
4. Atty. Raymond M. Cajucom
5. Atty. Ronald Michael R. Ubaña
6. Atty. Maria Cristina B. Garcia-Ramirez
7. Atty. Rose Anne P. Rosales
8. Atty. Herbert Matienzo
9. Atty. Rhenelle Mae Operario
(d) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203378
1. Atty. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.
2. Atty. Romel Regalado Bagares
3. Atty. Gilbert Teruel Andres
(e) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203391
1. Atty. James Mark Terry L. Ridon
(f) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203407
1. Atty. Julius G. Matibag
2. Atty. Maria Cristina P. Yambot
3. Atty. Minerva F. Lopez
(g) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203440
1. Atty. Sedfrey M. Candelaria
2. Atty. Ryan Jeremiah D. Quan
3. Atty. Maria Patricia R. Cervantes
4. Atty. Ray Paolo J. Santiago EaISDC
5. Atty. Nina Patricia D. Sison-Arroyo
(h) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203454
1. Atty. Paul Cornelius T. Castillo
2. Atty. Ryan D. Andres
(i) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203469
1. Atty. Kristoffer James E. Purisima
(j) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203501
1. Atty. Rodel A. Cruz
2. Atty. Arthur Anthony S. Alicer
(k) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203509
1. Cong. Neri J. Colmenares
2. Atty. Edsel F. Tupaz
(l) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203515
1. Atty. Michael J. Mella
2. Atty. Bobby Gaytos
(m) For Petitioners in G.R. No. 203518
1. Atty. John Paolo A. Villasor
2. Atty. Kelvin Lee
(n) For the Office of the Solicitor General
1. Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza aTcIAS
2. Assistant Solicitor General Rex Bernardo Pascual
3. Assistant Solicitor General Sarah Jane Fernandez
4. Senior State Solicitor Marsha C. Recon
5. Senior State Solicitor Raymund Rigodon
6. Associate Solicitor Samantha Camitan
At the start of the hearing, the Chief Justice clarified in open Court that for this afternoon's session, only the side of the petitioners will be heard and that the Solicitor General will be heard in oral arguments on January 22, 2013.
At that point, the Solicitor General informed the Court that they have no advice yet as to whether any representative of Congress will discuss Section 19 of Republic Act No. 10175. The Court Resolved then to REQUIRE the Solicitor General to make a formal MANIFESTATION whether any representative of Congress will be discussing Section 19.
Upon manifestation of Atty. Roque that Senator Guingona will make an opening statement and that he (Atty. Roque) will need additional time to argue in view of the extra issue assigned to him, the Court granted Senator Guingona three (3) minutes to make his opening statement and Atty. Roque twelve (12) minutes to present his arguments, or a total of fifteen (15) minutes.
The other counsels were given ten (10) minutes each to make their presentation.
After the opening statement of Sen. Guingona, the other designated counsels, in the following order, argued on the following issues as directed in the Advisory issued by the Court on January 9, 2013:
First. Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. — Whether or not Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which punishes the crime of libel when committed using a computer system, violates the accused's rights:
(a) to due process of law;
(b) to equal protection of the law;
(c) to free expression; and
(d) against double jeopardy.
Further, whether the same Section 4(c)(4) is a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law or whether it violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. AEIDTc
Atty. Roque touched also the issue of whether or not Section 4(c)(1), which punishes cybersex (the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organ or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration), violates the constitutional right to free expression.
Second. Cong. Neri J. Colmenares — (1) Whether or not Section 6, which punishes by one degree higher those crimes covered by the Revised Penal Code or special laws if committed with the use of information and communications technologies, violate the constitutional rights:
(a) to due process of law;
(b) to equal protection of the law;
(c) to free expression; and
(d) against double jeopardy.
Further, whether the same Section 6 constitutes a bill of attainder and is incompatible with article 19, par. 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights respecting the freedom of expression.
(2) Whether or not Section 7, a related section, which provides that a prosecution under the Act shall be without prejudice to any liability under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, violates the constitutional rights:
(a) to due process of law;
(b) to equal protection of the law;
(c) to free expression; and
(d) against double jeopardy.
Third. Atty. Rodel A. Cruz — Whether or not Section 19, which empowers the DOJ to restrict or block access to computer data found to be in violation of the law, violates the constitutional rights:
(a) to due process of law; cIACaT
(b) against unlawful search and seizure;
(c) to privacy of communication;
(d) to free expression; and
(e) against double jeopardy.
Further, whether or not Section 19 (a) constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power; (b) grants the Secretary of Justice an unbridled power to act as "judge, jury, and executioner" of all cybercrime-related complaints; and (c) is an undue delegation of judicial function.
Fourth. Atty. Jesus M. Disini, Jr. — Whether or not Section 12, which empowers law enforcement authorities to collect traffic data in real time with specified communications transmitted through a computer system and requires service providers to assist such collection, violates the constitutional rights:
(a) to due process of law;
(b) to free expression;
(c) against unlawful search and seizure;
(d) against warrantless electronic surveillance;
(e) against the privacy of communications. CaATDE
Fifth. Atty. Julius G. Matibag — Whether or not Section 5(a) and (b), which punish internet users for aiding or abetting a cybercrime offense or attempting its commission, violate the constitutional rights:
(a) to due process of law;
(b) to equal protection of the law;
(c) to freedom of expression; and
(d) against double jeopardy.
Further, whether or not the same section constitutes a bill of attainder.
Interpellation by members of the court immediately followed after each presentation of arguments by respective counsels.
After hearing the arguments raised by the petitioners, the Chief Justice announced in open Court that the continuation of the hearing of these cases is SET on January 22, 2013, Tuesday, at 2:00 P.M., same venue.
The Court further Resolved to NOTE the following oral manifestations of Atty. Roque and ADVISE him that the Court will discuss them in its next En Banc session:
First. On the matter of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): Since all the petitions alleged the issuance of a provisional measure, petitioners move that the TRO be extended until such time as it may be lifted by the Court; and
Second. On the matter of the book of crimes project of the Executive Department: Atty. Roque moved that the Solicitor General be required to manifest, if not today, then in the next hearing, whether the Executive has embarked on a book of crimes project which is intended to substitute the Revised Penal Code; whether there is a committee, headed by Assistant Solicitor General Macaraeg-Guillen, that was created to study the libel provisions of the Revised Penal Code under Art. 355; and that whether said book of crimes project and committee are ready to recommend to Congress that Art. 355, the crime of libel, be decriminalized." Velasco, J., no part. Brion, J., on leave. Perlas-Bernabe, J., no part. (adv1) IcADSE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court