Tag: oral arguments

breaking news, constitutional law, Criminal law, media law, News, Rules of Court, The News Media, tweets

Live coverage, Cybercrime Law, SC oral arguments

To your left, under the aqua-blue font title that reads 

” Cybercrime Law, SC Oral Arguments ” are live tweets; scroll down, below the aqua-blue font; it’s updated every ten minutes. 

Updated: tweets of oral arguments after the next three paragraphs, below:

We interrupt regular programming in this blog (in other words, i temporarily changed the theme to have a sidebar for live tweets, and reformatted the blog) to bring you, live,  via broadband, via Twitter, and via WordPress widget-link to Twitter, the Supreme Court oral arguments on the Cybercrime Law. i surveyed the live tweets of the media organizations and chose the fastest: rappler.com reporter Purple S. Romero, live tweets  to your left.

(and below, a copy)

xxx

It’s a quarter to 7pm, i think the Court is about to adjourn or has adjourned. (wait for the: “…So ordered.”)

Anyway, here’s a copy of the tweets posted live from the same twitter user. Ta-tah!

6:32 PM

Petitioners asked for extension of TRO. Sereno said the Court will note this.

Purple S. Romero @purpleromeropo

Oral arguments done. Solicitor general will present position on Jan.22

6:10 PM

Abad: I have a Facebook [account] also. If I like a post, it appeared on my screen, am I not as guilty as the one who published it?

6:07 PM

Matibag: The overbreadth nature of Sec. 5 makes it unreasonable.

6:05 PM

Matibag: The assailed statute issues a subsequent punishment of excessive fine.

5:59 PM

Julius Matibag tackles Sec. 5(1) which penalizes those who aid or abet the commission of a cybercrime offense

5:49 PM

Sereno: You expect to traverse the highway and not have data of your vehicle collected? Disini: That’s a good point.

5:49 PM

Sereno: You expect to traverse the highway and not data of vehicle collected? Disini: That’s a good point.

5:47 PM

Sereno asks about RFIDs in NLEX, SLEX: Can’t police asks operator of the highway to give plate numbers of vehicles that pass highway

5:46 PM

Disini: Data collected through CCTV devices under Data Privacy Act will be considered protected information.

5:39 PM

Leonen: Everyone can google you. How vulnerable are internet users in the Phil to hacking, phishing?

5:38 PM

Disini: What’s here is a license for the government to collect data anytime they want

5:36 PM

Leonen: Isn’t due cause enough?

5:35 PM

Leonen: Where is the balance for law enforcement on the one hand and use of Internet? The balance is found in traffic data.

5:33 PM

Leonen: The speed of our court system is not as fast as packets of information.

5:31 PM

Leonen: Let us speak about hackers. They will never go to these public sites and introduce themselves.

5:30 PM

Disini: There should be court warrant before surveillance is done

5:29 PM

Reyes: What kind of safeguards would you add to RA 10175 to prevent abuse

5:27 PM

Disini: The ability to collect copious amounts of data is unparalleled.

5:23 PM

Abad compares to the The government can only look at the name of the sender and the addressee, but is not authorized to look at content

5:19 PM

De Castro: Is there any way for the ordinary citizen to know they’re only collecting traffic data and not content data?

5:18 PM

Disini: They can conduct surveillance also on the associate i.e. members of family

5:16 PM

Disini: They can destroy data preventing the filing of a case against them

5:15 PM

De Castro: If doesn’t say here what due cause means, which will allow authorities to collect data

5:15 PM

Cruz: Identity behind the number could be revealed.

5:14 PM

Cruz cites http://Chikka.com, which has online promotions. The type of data collected from this are likely to be accurate.

5:13 PM

Cruz: The State has right to look at traffic data. All we ask is judicial intervention.

5:12 PM

Carpio: They cannot seize that from you without a court warrant.

5:11 PM

Carpio: What this law says is give me your phone bill just blacken your name and address

5:09 PM

Carpio: If you look at the phone bill, the only thing not allowed here in the traffic data is your name and address.

5:09 PM

Carpio: There are 3 types of underlying service in your phone bill: text, call, web use.

5:07 PM

Disini: Respondents in their comment agree that Sec.12 will fail to hurdle the standards of this Honorable Court

5:07 PM

Disini: Without privacy, we are not free.

5:06 PM

Disini: Respondents in their comment agrees that Sec.12 will fail to hurdle the standards of this Honorable Court

5:05 PM

Disini: It will permit collection of traffic and interception of traffic data without a court warrant

5:05 PM

Disini: If Internet service providers will not assist authorities, they may be charged with obstruction of justice

5:04 PM

Disini: Nothing in Sec. 12 states restrictions on how long state officers can look for data, use data.

5:02 PM

Disini: It’s as if there’s a state officer standing behind you watching you surf.

5:02 PM

Disin: Traffic data will yield size of messages, information about incoming and outgoing calls, incoming SMS.

5:01 PM

JJ Disini will now talk about Sec.12 which allows law enforcers to collect traffic data

Rules of Court, The President

Solomonic

cajipe.jpg

 Imelda Cajipe-Endaya. Mga Anino Kahapo’y Tanaw ko pa Ngayon APIII/25. [“Yesterday’s Shadows are still on Today’s Horizon” (my rough translation)] Photoengraving, etching, and collagraphy.  35 x 28 cm . 1979. . Hiraya Gallery. Rightclicked and uploaded with express permission (thanks thanks!) from the www.hiraya.com   

         The Supreme Court  last night  proposed a Solomonic solution,  a compromise, during  oral arguments  on Romy Neri’s petition  for the issuance of a prohibitory injunction against the enforcement of the Senate arrest warrant (or to stop the warrant of arrest from being enforced).        

         According to news reports, the Supreme Court proposed the following compromise: Neri can be  made to attend the Senate  committee hearing but  the following questions are deemed to have been  responded to by the invoking  of executive privilege by Neri and would not anymore be asked: “1.Did  the President tell you to approve the project in spite of  the bribery disclosure?”  “2. Did the President tell you to prioritize the project?”  “3.Did the President  follow up  her directive on the project?”          

      Second, when  Neri  attends the Senate hearing, depending on the query, he could still invoke executive privilege and if the Senate is not satisfied, they could file a supplement to their pending petition (or to another pending petition.)     

       The senators who were present asked for time to consult their peers on the proposed compromise and, as i understand it, close to midnight, the oral arguments were deferred.

             Some of the senators  (in particular Senator Biazon) had misgivings with the proposed compromise on the ground that  it would set a precedent and effectively “shackle the ability of the Senate” to ferret out information.

            Why is this compromise  being proposed when : it is  a certainty that on any and all questions arising from the offered “commissions” during the ZTE contract negotiations, on the overpricing, on  Jun Lozada’s  revelations, etc., Neri will  invoke executive privilege, and on other questions he will say he doesn’t remember?

               Since that is a certainty (it is a certainty because the petitioner thru counsel already stated at yesterday’s oral arguments that Neri’s communication with the President consisted of diplomatic and military secrets although the lawyer  himself admitted he did not know the contents of the communication!), since it is a certainty that Neri would invoke it if he were allowed to do so by the Supreme Court, why not resolve the question now, here, on whether or not those questions (the first three on what the President did) and  other matters related to it are  matters of executive privilege? Why defer a “final resolution” on whether the subject matter is covered by  executive privilege?

           To my mind, the Supreme Court is proposing a compromise  because  it does not want the conflict between the Senate and the Malacañang to escalate. It wants to defer that.

              In other words, it does not want the coercive powers of one branch of  government to collide with or be enforced against a co-equal  branch, the executive branch,  which  has a monopoly of armed force and which has publicly manifested it would resist the enforcement of the warrant of arrest on Romy Neri. (else, Romy Neri might find himself being “escorted” to Cavite, Calamba, Los  Baños.)

            In other words, maybe…the Supreme Court is trying to tell the parties they should behave like statesmen and diplomatically resolve their differences without asking the Supreme Court to use its own coercive powers.

           If the Supreme Court were to use/ not use  its own coercive powers and deny Romy Neri’s petition, paving the way for  Romy Neri’s arrest to  attend the Senate hearing, and then the Senate arrest order  is disobeyed, and disobeyed effectively by the executive branch; and the Supreme Court is compelled to issue a contempt citation too but that too is disobeyed,  there would be a final breakdown in the last “democratic institution” that people rely upon, the Supreme Court. The Macapagal-Arroyo government would have held the record for that: destroying  all the institutions of checks and balances in government  including the final institution that people resort to for redress of grievances.

              Where do we turn to when that happens?

              Malacañang if it defies the Supreme Court, would have destroyed the last vestige of civilized order in our society.

           Maybe the Supreme Court is not deferring a final resolution, it is deferring a final destruction.

       

         (the Senate can be creative when it is tossed back to them, i.e., trust the wisdom of the Chief Justice  and bring back the subject matter to the halls of the Senate. i don’t know. Work it.)