And because linking with the internet opens up a user to communications from others, the ill-motivated can use the cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or surreptitiously accessing his bank account or credit card or defrauding him through false representations. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data; q. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data; s. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and u. Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC on the crime of libel. One of them can, for instance, avail himself of the system to unjustly ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter by posting defamatory statements against him that people can read. ROJAS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Bureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR GENERAL NICANOR A. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. Inquire and do business with institutional entities like government agencies, banks, stock exchanges, trade houses, credit card companies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools; and 5. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. CASAMBRE, in his official capacity as Executive Director, Information and Communications Technology Office; NONNATUS CAESAR R. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Respondent. 203515 NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. ANTIPORDA in his capacity as President and in his personal capacity, Petitioner, vs. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHO HAVE HANDS IN THE PASSAGE AND/OR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 10175, Respondents. 203518 PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Advertise and promote goods or services and make purchases and payments; 4. But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The burden is on the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.2 Later, the strict scrutiny standard was used to assess the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights, as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection.3 In the cases before it, the Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is essentially a condemnable act accessing the computer system of another without right. The government certainly has the duty and the right to prevent these tomfooleries from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act. According to this standard, a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional. The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.13 But the Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v.
Notably, there are also those who would want, like vandals, to wreak or cause havoc to the computer systems and networks of indispensable or highly useful institutions as well as to the laptop or computer programs and memories of innocent individuals. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications; h. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes; j. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R. Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that interfere with the fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck down. But all is not well with the system since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current generation for greater information and facility of communication. For this reason, the government has a legitimate right to regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and punish wrongdoings. The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. The wicked can use the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for exposing to pornography guileless children who have access to the internet. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data; n. The Rulings of the Court Section 4(a)(1) Section 4(a)(1) provides: Section 4. The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: (a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems: (1) Illegal Access. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates millions and billions of simultaneous and ongoing individual accesses to and uses of the internet.