SC junks 16th petition vs. cybercrime law

The already big number of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will have to remain at 15. This was after the Supreme Court in a full court session denied a 16th petition filed by a group of youth leaders requesting that it be allowed to officially participate in the ongoing debates for and against the law, which was enacted by President Benigno Aquino III September last year. "The court denied the motion for leave of court to file a petition-in-intervention filed by Ephraim Ocampo, Julie Anne Cabuhat, Gabriel Paolo Diño and Lisandro Elias Claudio," the high court said in a statement. It did not explain the reason behind the dismissal. "The number of petitions challenging Republic Act 10175 remains at 15," the court added. The petitioners filed its 27-page petition long after the high tribunal had already set late last year the oral arguments for the issue. The arguments were scheduled for January 15 and January 22, 2013. In their petition-in-intervention for certiorari and prohibition filed last January 11, the petitioners asked the court to stop the implementation of the law for allegedly being unconstitutional. They said some of its provisions violate a person's constitutional rights. As an example, they said Section 4(c)(1) of the law on cybersex "impairs the right of privacy and free speech." They described the provision as "ambiguous," adding a "vague statute or act is repugnant to the Constitution." The petitioners also said the use of the word "prostitution" in the law "clearly applies to both prostitution, as commonly understood, and to private and intimate acts between consenting individuals not otherwise punished by law." Even the words "lascivious exhibition of sexual organ" and "sexual activity" is not precisely delineated in the law, the petitioners pointed out. They also said the law exposes individuals to the danger of being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. "In the offenses of e-libel and e-child pornography, and if Section 7 of the Act is upheld to be not unconstitutional, a person will be punished twice for committing a single set of acts simply because these acts constitute an offense both in RA 10175 and in another criminal statute," they said. The petitioners, who described themselves as citizen journalists, online activists, Internet users, and members of the youth population, are as follows:

• Ephraim Ocampo, president of the University of the East Student Council;
• Julie Anne Cabuhat, national spokesperson of Akbayan;
• Gabriel Paolo Diño, chair of the University of the Philippines Student Council and Metro Manila chair of the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines; and
• Lisandro Elias Claudio, a citizen journalist.

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa Jr., Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, Science and Technology Secretary Mario Montejo, Information and Communication Technology executive director Louis Napoleon Carambre, National Bureau of Investigation director Nonnatus Rojas, former Philippine National Police chief Director General Nicanor Bartolome, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. During its first oral argument on the controversial law last January 15, legal counsels for the petitioners took turns in explaining how certain provisions in the law like those on electronic libel, cybersex, and harsher penalties for offenders, would be violative of a person's right to free expression, due process, and against double jeopardy among others. Last Tuesday's continuation of the oral arguments did not push through after Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza—who legally represents the government in the case and whose turn it was to defend the law—filed a last minute request and was granted to have the proceedings defered because he was needed by Aquino at the Palace on that day. Oral arguments will resume Tuesday next week at 2 p.m. — Mark D. Merueñas/KBK, GMA News