So…Is it out yet…? (the text of the decision)
Three out of the three, “on its face”, unconstitutional provisions of the cybercrime law taken up in this blog were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional: in this post: https://marichulambino.com/2012/10/09/bullet-points-for-the-supreme-court-justices-en-banc-today-cybercrime-prevention-act/
excerpted here:
“BULLET POINTS FOR THE EN BANC (Oct. 9, 2012):
“Surveillance and stalking by government: “Section 12. Real-time Collection of Traffic Data. – Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
xxx “I don’t know about the justices but this, and Sec. 19, to me are the most objectionable and the most “on-its-face-unconstitutional” provisions of the Cybercrime Law.
“ True, it is “non-content” but look at how much content there is in traffic data (“the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service” – Sec. 12, Cybercrime Law.).
xxx
“It shows what time you started to use the internet. In effect, it shows what time you opened your computer (or what time you were awake, in effect), and what time you shut it down. For each day. Starting with most recent to oldest: xxx In effect, it shows where you were and what you were doing at certain points of the day, from July 11, 2012 to Oct. 9, 2012. These data are made available to “law enforcement authorities” without any court order, without notice to you or anyone. They will get it from the server (internet service provider like Globe, Smart, PLDT, Sky, etc, who are obliged to turn them in under the Cybecrime Law).
“Look at your traffic data now in your personal computers. Then ask yourselves whether or not you are willing to surrender all these to a “detective” or a clerk for print-outs for their principal or their bosses without a court order. Your traffic data shows your state of mind, grief, worries, joys, playtime, penchant, obsessions at certain times of the day or night.
“Do you not think this provision is unconstitutional?
“There are other alarming provisions:
“Section 19. You already know this. The prior restraint provision: It gives the DOJ Secretary a power she does not have under the Constitution: to shut down any Facebook account or Twitter account or any site that she finds objectionable. Definitely TRO-able.
“Overbroad libel law provisions: The clause: “…or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”: criminalizes acts not yet existing, criminalizes acts committed a hundred years from now. This is found in the provision “(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”. Definitely TRO-able.
“Double jeopardy: “Section 7. Liability under Other Laws. – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.”. Unconstitutional. TRO-able. 
xxx” (Oct. 9, 2012)
*** *** ***
       The blog post was only about the provisions that are patently unconstitutional, or “on its face”, unconstitutional (should that be pluralized – on their faces, we don’t pluralize it because we preserve phrases that have been there for a hundred years or so) : 3 out of 3; or maybe 3 out of 3 and ½, Sections 12, 3, 7, and a part of Section 4, the clause that penalized acts “committed through … any other similar means which may be devised in the future” as being patently unconstitutional.
But the Supreme Court went three steps further when it said thru the SC spokesperson that the following were unconstitutional: “Sec. 4(c)(4) (online libel- only where it penalises those who simply receive the post or react to it) but NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL as far as the original author is concerned. 5. Sec. 5 (aiding or abetting in the commission of a cybercrime/attempt to commit a cybercrime) only in relation to secs. 4(c)(2) (child pornography), 4(c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications) and 4(c)(4) (libel); xxx”
So… is the decision out yet…?
For online libel, here is the earlier post (Sept. 27, 2012) at: https://marichulambino.com/2012/09/27/cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012-notes-on-decriminalizing-libel-if-thru-the-sc-route/
“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, notes on decriminalizing libel if thru the SC route
“(for those who are choosing the Supreme Court route to decriminalize libel, that is, if you must choose this route for the decriminalization campaign)
“Even the Supreme Court through then Chief Justice Puno thinks the penalty provision of the libel law is too harsh, hence the Supreme Court circular advising judges not to impose jail time as punishment but to mete out fines instead. So far, this is being followed by judges. This circular however is not law, it is advisory in character.
“In other words, as everyone knows, the Supreme Court cannot legislate. Policy questions (whether or not libel should be decriminalized) should be addressed by the legislature. If the Supreme Court thinks the subject matter is a policy issue, it would shirk from ruling.
“Some suggestions: Those who want to decriminalize libel through the Supreme Court route might want to take note of the following: The Supreme Court has to be convinced that the opinion/ report of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) itself (October 2011) – of the Philippine libel law prison provision being too severe and in contravention of Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — has the status of law , and not merely persuasive in character. If this could be shown, then those who chose the Supreme Court route might succeed in transforming libel decriminalization from a policy issue to a legal issue. Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a restatement of the free-speech-clause. The ICPR has the status of law, i.e., it is a binding international convention. Does the UNCHR opinion itself have the status of law? You’ll need the Supreme Court to: either agree with the UNHRC opinion, and to adopt it, (that our Philippine libel law is in contravention of Section 19 of the ICPR), or to consider the UNHRC report itself as law.
“Tedious? Yes.
“Also, since the online libel provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Chapter II, Section 4, (c) (4) Libel,) is somehow a restatement of Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code except for the last clause, the Supreme Court will say: “Well, you are in effect questioning the constitutionality of Art. 355 itself, upon which the online libel provision is based, the latter being merely a restatement… aren’t you?” And when you answer yes, the Supreme Court will say, then why did you not plead that? You want us to in effect strike down Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code itself as unconstitutional, based on the ICCPR – replead this, attach a certified copy, then come back here.
“Technical? Yes. Acrobatic-technical.
“There are several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that are, “on their faces” (“on its face”), unconstitutional. (to be continued po ito)” (Sept. 27, 2012)

***   ***       ***        ***

Those are early posts, earlier write-ups, will just republish them, there’s a post here of photos from five years ago of an extraordinary 12-year-old Filipino leaping into the air then spinning thrice in mid-air landing on one foot perfectly on ice, then flying again and turning three times again, he kept hurtling upward and landing perfectly over and over, I was on the third floor of SM MOA then, i looked at the photos again several days ago and realized I had photographed a force of nature – will republish that, too.
           The SC public info office tweeted yesterday that the decision “will be uploaded as soon as it is made available to the PIO after promulgation.” “Promulgation of judgments means the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication.”
         How long does it take for the copy of the decision to travel from the conference room to the room of the clerk of court in the Supreme Court building? Maybe the desk of the clerk of court has been relocated to ….the north pole. It would have been three days in transit, by tomorrow.
           wasn’t Teddy Te holding a copy of it when he summarized it, or did the justices just tell him: just read these muna….. bullet points.