108031357 Senator TG Guingona Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

8/13/2019 108031357 Senator TG Guingona Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

1/39

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SENATOR TEOFISTO DLGUINGONA III,

Petitioner,

-versus-

G.R. No._____________

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,THE SECRETARY OF

JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OFINTERIOR AND LOCALGOVERNMENT, THE CHIEFOF THE PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE, andDIRECTOR OF THENATIONAL BUREAU OFINVESTIGATION,

Respondents.

xx

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND

PROHIBITION

(with Application for Temporary RestrainingOrder)


2/39

2

Petitioner, SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, by

counsel, most respectfully states that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

When the judiciary mediates to

allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not

assert any superiority over the other

departments; it does not in reality nullify or

invalidate an act of the legislature, but only

asserts the solemn and sacred obligation

assigned to it by the Constitution to

determine conflicting claims of authority

under the Constitution and to establish for

the parties in an actual controversy the rights

which that instrument secures and

guarantees to them. !"iraogo vs. #he

$hilippine #ruth Commission of %&'&, (.).

*o. '+%+, (.). *o. '+&, /ecember 0,

%&'&1


3/39

3

The power of the Honorable Supreme Court is sought

not on questions of the wisom an necessity of a law, but

on its compliance with the funamental guarantees

enshrine in our Constitution! "espite #nowing the

ifficulties of enforcement an se$eral a$enues for potential,

petitioner ma#es the calibrate choice to raise only

questions of constitutionality, both as an affirmation of his

primary ob%ections to certain pro$isions of the Cybercrime

Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2 an recognition of the %urisictional

reach of this Court!

This is an assault against our funamental

Constitutional rights to ue process, guarantee against

unreasonable searches an sei)ures, prohibition against

ouble %eopary, an equal protection of the law! The

questione pro$isions, as containe in certain pro$isions of

Republic &ct ('(*+, infringes our basic freeom an throws

us bac# to the ar# ages!

& goo law li#e the Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2

cannot be paraly)e by constitutionally infirme pro$isions

questionably angerous pro$isions! The remey sought from

this Court is to stri#e own the pro$isions that collie with

the Constitution!


4/39

-n clear constitutional grouns, this Petition is brought

before the Honorable Court to test the $aliity of a

go$ernmental act in light of its conformity with a higher

norm ... the Constitution!

I

NATURE OF THE PETITION

(! This is a Special Ci$il &ction for C/RT0-R&R0 an

PR-H010T0- uner Rule + of the Re$ise Rules of Court

see#ing to 455067 Sections 8c9 8(9 89, , *, an ( of

Republic &ct o! ('(*+, otherwise #nown as the

;Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2< 8Cybercrime Act,

for brevity9 for being 4C-ST0T4T0-&5 an=or PR-H010T

responent go$ernment boies from implementing it!

& certifie true copy of Cybercrime Act is hereto

attache an mae an integral part hereof asAnnex A!!


5/39

+

2! To pre$ent manifest in%ustice an inequality, the

Petitioner also see#s the issuance of a TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER !o IMMEDIATELY ENJOIN the

implementation an enforcement of Sections 8c9 8(9 89, ,

*, an ( of the C"#$%&%'($ A&!, uring the penency of

this Petition!

II

REASONS FOR THE ALLO)ANCEOF THE PETITION

3! The present Petition shoul be gi$en ue course

for the following reasons:

3!( Section + 8(9 829 8a9, &rticle >000 of the (?*

Philippine Constitution pro$ies that the Supreme Court

shall ha$e the power to rule on the constitutionality or

$aliity of a law! Thus,

S$&!'on *.The Supreme Court shall ha$e the

following powers:

(! Ex$%&'+$ o%''na- /%'+d'&!'on

o$er cases affecting ambassaors, other


6/39

public ministers an consuls, an o0$%

1$!'!'on+ 2o% &$%!'o%a%', 1%o3'#'!'on,

manamus, quo warranto, an habeas

corpus!

2! Re$iew, re$ise, re$erse, moify, or

affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law

or the Rules of Court may pro$ie, final

%ugments an orers of lower courts in:

a! A-- &a+$+ 'n 43'&3 !3$

&on+!'!/!'ona-'!" o% 0a-'d'!" o2

an" !%$a!", 'n!$%na!'ona- o%

$x$&/!'0$ a%$$($n!, -a4,

presiential ecree, proclamation,

orer, instruction, orinance, or

regulation '+ 'n 5/$+!'on.

8emphasis supplie9

3!2! Petitioner appeals that the Honorable

Supreme Court e@ercise its %uicial power to eclare

Sections 8c9 8(9 89, , *, an ( of the Cybercrime &ct

as NULL AND VOID for being in gross $iolation of the

constitutional rights to ue process, equal protection of

the laws, prohibition against ouble %eopary, right


7/39

*

against unreasonable search an sei)ure, an right to

pri$acy!

3!3 The sub%ect of the present Petition is of

transcenental importance which has o$erreaching

significance to society an paramount public interest,

consiering its impact on the public an social meia!

3!! There is no plain, speey an aequate

remey in the orinary course of law a$ailable to

Petitioner other than this Petition as the continue

implementation of the Cybercrime &ct alreay e@poses

the Petitioner an the general public to the harm it

see#s to a$oi!

III

PARTIES

! Petitioner SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA

III is a uly.electe Senator of the Republic of the

Philippines! He was the lone Senator who $ote against

Republic &ct o! ('(*+, otherwise #nown as the


8/39

?

;Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2

legislator, he has a legal staning to see to it that the

prerogati$e, powers an pri$ileges $este by the

Constitution in his office remain in$iolate! &s such, he is

allowe to question the $aliity of any official action which,

to his min, infringes on his prerogati$es as legislator(! He

may be ser$e with court notices an other process through

the unersigne counsel!

+! Responents are public officers tas#e with the

enforcement an implementation of the Cybercrime

Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2!

+!( Responent /A/C4T0>/ S/CR/T&R7 is the

alter ego of the Presient of the Philippines! He may be

ser$e with summons an other process at the Premier

Buest House, alacanang, DP 5aurel St!, San iguel

anilaE

+!2 Responent S/CR/T&R7 -6 TH/

"/P&RT/T -6 D4ST0C/ 8"-D9 is a public officer tas#e

( "iraogo vs. #he $hilippine #ruth Commission of %&'&, (.). *o. '+%+, (.). *o.'+&, /ecember 0, %&'&


9/39

with the enforcement an the prosecution of the crimes

efine uner the Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2!

She may be ser$e with summons an other process at

the "epartment of Dustice, Pare 6aura St!, /rmita,

anilaE

+!3 Responent S/CR/T&R7 -6 TH/

"/P&RT/T -6 0T/R0-R &" 5-C&5 B->/R/T

8"05B9 is a public officer tas#e with the

implementation of the Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of

2'(2! He may be ser$e with summons an other

process at &! 6rancisco Bol Conominium 00, /"S& cor!

acapagal St!, "iliman, Fue)on CityE

+! Responent CH0/6 -6 TH/ PH050PP0/

&T0-&5 P-50C/ 8PP9 is tas#e with the enforcement

of the Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2, particularly

authori)e to engage in the collection of traffic ata

uner the abo$e.mentione law! He may be ser$e with

summons an other process at the PP ational

Heaquarters, Camp Beneral Crame, Fue)on City,

etro anilaE an,


10/39

('

+!+ Responent "0R/CT-R -6 TH/ &T0-&5

14R/&4 -6 0>/ST0B&T0- 8109 is the hea of the

10, which is tas#e as the 5aw /nforcement &uthority

empowere to engage in the collection of traffic ata

uner the abo$e.mentione law! He may be ser$e with

summons an other process at the 10 1uiling, Taft

&$e!, /rmita, anila!

IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS

! -n Duly 2*, 2'(', House Representati$e Susan &! 7ap

file House 1ill o! ?+ entitle 2n 2ct /efining Cybercrime,

$roviding for the $revention, 3nvestigation, 4uppression, and the

3mposition of $enalties #herefor and for 5ther $urposes!

*! &fter its first reaing, it was referre to the Committee

on 0nformation Communication Technology, which later

consoliate all the bills on Cybercrime! This resulte to House

1ill o! +?'? which now appears in Committee Report o! (?(?

file on 6ebruary , 2'(2!

?! -n ay , 2'(2, House 1ill o! +?'? was appro$e on

Secon Reaing!


11/39

((

! &fter a series of amenments, copies of the bill were

istribute an later appro$e on Thir Reaing on 2( ay 2'(2!

This was thereafter transmitte to the Senate on 23 ay 2'(2!

('! 0n the meantime, on '3 ay 2'((, Senate 1ill o! 2*

entitle ;2n 2ct /efining Cybercrime, $roviding for $revention,

3nvestigation and 3mposition of $enalties #herefor and for 5ther

$urposes, as reflecte in Committee Report o! 3'!

((! &fter a series of interpellations, on 2 Danuary 2, 2'(2,

amenments were introuce an accepte by the Senate! Thus,

on the same ay, Senate 1ill o! 2* was appro$e on secon

reaing!

(2! Thus, copies of the bill with the appro$e amenments

were istribute an later appro$e on thir reaing on 3'

Danuary 2'(2! Petitioner was the lone Senator who oppose the

passage of the bill for being in $iolation of the (?* Constitution!

(3! -n ' Dune 2'(2, House 1ill o! +?'? an Senate 1ill

o! 2* were consoliate, resulting to the passage of Republic

&ct o! ('(*+(, otherwise #nown as ;Cybercrime Pre"ention

Act of #$%#.!


12/39

(2

(! -n (2 September 2'(2, the Presient of the Philippines

appro$e Republic &ct o! ('(*+, an this too# effect fifteen 8(+9

ays after the completion of its publication in the -fficial Ba)ette

an at least two 829 newspapers of general circulation!

(+! The abo$e.mentione &ct efines cybercrime an

enumerates therein the punishable acts escribe as cybercrime

offenses incluing among others, libel!

(! 4ner Section 8c9 8(9 an 89 of the Cybercrime &ct,

cyberse@ an libel were efine as follows:

&ection ' (c)(%) Cybersex 6 T3$ 4'--2/-

$na$($n!, (a'n!$nan&$, &on!%o-, o%

o1$%a!'on, d'%$&!-" o% 'nd'%$&!-", o2 an"

-a+&'0'o/+ $x3'#'!'on o2 +$x/a- o%an+ o%

+$x/a- a&!'0'!", 4'!3 !3$ a'd o2 a

&o(1/!$% +"+!$(, 2o% 2a0o% o%

&on+'d$%a!'on.

&ection '(c)(') ibel T3$ /n-a42/- o%

1%o3'#'!$d a&!+ o2 -'#$- a+ d$2'n$d 'n

A%!'&-$ 7** o2 !3$ R$0'+$d P$na- Cod$,


13/39

(3

a+ a($nd$d, &o(('!!$d !3%o/3 a

&o(1/!$% +"+!$( o% an" o!3$% +'('-a%

($an+ 43'&3 (a" #$ d$0'+$d 'n !3$

2/!/%$.

(*! Section of the Cybercrime &ct also pro$ie the

penalty to be impose upon any person who commits all

crimes defined and penali*ed by the Re"ised Penal Code,

as amended, and special laws, if committed by, thro+gh

and with the +se of information and comm+nications

technologies!.Thus,

&ection - &ll crimes efine an penali)e by

the Re$ise Penal Coe, as amene, an special

laws, if committe by, through an with the use of

information an communications technologies

shall be co$ere by the rele$ant pro$isions of this

&ct: Pro$ie, That !3$ 1$na-!" !o #$ '(1o+$d

+3a-- #$ on$ 89: d$%$$ 3'3$% !3an !3a!

1%o0'd$d 2o% #" !3$ R$0'+$d P$na- Cod$, a+

a($nd$d, and +1$&'a- -a4+, a+ !3$ &a+$ (a"

#$.


14/39

(

(?! Section * of the Cybercrime &ct, in turn, eclares that

the prosecution uner the sai &ct shall be witho+t pre+dice

to any liability for "iolation of any pro"ision of the Re"ised

Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.!Thus,

&ection / - iability +nder Other aws.G

& prosecution uner this &ct shall be without

pre%uice to any liability for $iolation of any

pro$ision of the Re$ise Penal Coe, as amene,

or special laws!

(! &s regars the implementation an enforcement of the

sai law, Section ( grante the "epartment of Dustice with the

authority to issue an orer to restrict or bloc# access to such

computer ata against any person prima facie foun to be in

$iolation of the pro$ision of the Cybercrime &ct! Thus,

&0C. %1. Restricting or 2loc3ing Access

to Comp+ter 4ata. G )3$n a &o(1/!$%

da!a '+ 1%'(a 2a&'$ 2o/nd !o #$ 'n

0'o-a!'on o2 !3$ 1%o0'+'on+ o2 !3'+ A&!,

!3$ DOJ +3a-- '++/$ an o%d$% !o %$+!%'&!

o% #-o&; a&&$++ !o +/&3 &o(1/!$% da!a.


15/39

(+

2'! The foregoing pro$isions are clearly $iolati$e of

the guarantees enshrine in the (?* Philippine

Constitution, hence, shoul be eclare 455 &" >-0"!

2(! Hence, this Petition!

V

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

A

S/CT0- 8c9 89 0 R/5&T0- T-S/CT0- -6 ;TH/ C71/RCR0/&CT< >0-5&T/S TH/C-ST0T4T0-&5 B4&R&T//S -/F4&5 PR-T/CT0- &" "4/PR-C/SS -6 5&!

B

S/CT0- * -6 ;TH/ C71/RCR0/&CT< 0S C-TR&R7 T- TH/C-ST0T4T0-&5 PR-H010T0-

&B&0ST "-415/ D/-P&R"7E an,

C

S/CT0- ( -6 ;TH/ C71/RCR0/&CT< 0S >0-5&T0>/ -6 TH/C-ST0T4T0-&5 PR-H010T0-&B&0ST 45&645 S/&RCH/S&" S/0I4R/ &" TH/ "4/

PR-C/SS C5&4S/ -6 TH/C-ST0T4T0-!

VI


16/39

(

ARGUMENTS < DISCUSSIONS

&ection ' (c) (') in relation to&ection of the CybercrimeAct is "iolati"e of theconstit+tional g+arantee one5+al protection of law.----------------------------------------------

22! Section (, &rticle 000 of the (?* Constitution pro$ies

that no 1$%+on+3a-- #$ d$n'$d !3$ $5/a- 1%o!$&!'on o2 !3$

-a4! This is one of the basic rights guarantee uner the

Constitution! This was emphasi)e in the case of "iraogo vs. #he

$hilippine #ruth Commission of %&'& !(.). *o. '+%+, (.). *o.

'+&, /ecember 0, %&'&1,where the Supreme Court eclare

that =$5/a- 1%o!$&!'on +'(1-" %$5/'%$+ !3a! a-- 1$%+on+ o%

!3'n+ +'('-a%-" +'!/a!$d +3o/-d #$ !%$a!$d a-';$, #o!3 a+

!o %'3!+ &on2$%%$d and %$+1on+'#'-'!'$+ '(1o+$d.>

23! 4nfortunately, this right was $iolate with the

enactment o R& law which see#s to punish libel alreay efine

an punishable uner &rt! 3++ of the Re$ise Penal Coe, but this

time, imposing a higher penalty simply because it was committe

through the use of information an communications technology!


17/39

(*

2! Significantly, the Cybercrime &ct merely aopte the

pro$ision on libel as pro$ie uner Re$ise Penal Coe, as

follows:

&ection '(c)(') ibel T3$ /n-a42/- o%

1%o3'#'!$d a&!+ o2 -'#$- a+ d$2'n$d 'n A%!'&-$

7** o2 !3$ R$0'+$d P$na- Cod$, a+ a($nd$d,

&o(('!!$d !3%o/3 a &o(1/!$% +"+!$( o%

an" o!3$% +'('-a% ($an+ 43'&3 (a" #$

d$0'+$d 'n !3$ 2/!/%$.

2+! Section of the Cybercrime &ct, on the other han,

pro$ies that a person who commits any crime efine an

penali)e by the Re$ise Penal Coe an special laws such as

libel, shall be punishe one 8(9 egree higher than that pro$ie

for by the Re$ise Penal Coe an special laws, as the case may

be, if he commits it with the use of information an

communications technology! Thus,

&ection - &ll crimes efine an penali)e

by the Re$ise Penal Coe, as amene, an

special laws, if committe by, through an

with the use of information an

communications technologies shall be


18/39

(?

co$ere by the rele$ant pro$isions of this &ct:

Pro$ie, That !3$ 1$na-!" !o #$ '(1o+$d

+3a-- #$ on$ 89: d$%$$ 3'3$% !3an !3a!

1%o0'd$d 2o% #" !3$ R$0'+$d P$na- Cod$,

a+ a($nd$d, and +1$&'a- -a4+, a+ !3$

&a+$ (a" #$.

2! &pplying the foregoing, it can be reaily seen that 5ibel

uner the Re$ise Penal Coe is punishe by Prision Correccional

in its minimum an meium perios, or imprisonment for a

perio of si@ 89 months an one 8(9 ay to four 89 years, or a

fine ranging from 2'' to ,''' pesos, or both! Thus,

2rt. . ibel means by writings or

similar means. 6 2 libel committed by

means of writing, printing, lithography,

engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,

theatrical e7hibition, cinematographic

e7hibition, or any similar means, shall be

punished by prision correccional in its

minimum and medium periods or a fine

ranging from %&& to ,&&& pesos, or both, in


19/39

(

addition to the civil action which may be

brought by the offended party.

2*! -n the other han , 5ibel uner the Cybercrime &ct is

punishe with a penalty of prision mayor or an imprisonment of

si@ 89 years an one 8(9 ay to twel$e 8(29 years, the penalty one

8(9 egree higher than prision correccional or an imprisonment of

si@ 89 months an one 8(9 ay to four 89 years!

2?! &pplying the foregoing pro$isions, it woul appear that

if libel is committe by means of writing, printing,

lithography, engra"ing, radio, phonograph, painting,

theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any

similar means /nd$% A%!'&-$ 7** o2 !3$ R$0'+$d P$na-

Cod$, the penalty woul only be si@ 89 months an one 8(9 ay

to four 89 years! -n the other han, if libel is committe thro+gh

a comp+ter system or any other similar means +nder the

Cybercrime Act, the penalty woul be the higher penalty of

imprisonment for a perio of si@ 89 years an one 8(9 ay to

twel$e 8(29 years!


20/39

2'

2! 0t is $ery clear that those liable for libel uner the RPC

woul suffer a lesser penalty than cyber libel uner R!&! o!

('(*+! This is clearly a $iolation of the equal protection clause of

the Constitution! 0t unuly iscriminates persons of the same

class, as it penali)es the act of publishing libelous materials

through internet more hea$ily than those which are committe by

means of writing, printing, lithography, engra$ing, raio,

phonograph, painting, theatrical e@hibition, cinematographic

e@hibition, or any similar means!

3'! T3'+ +3o/-d no! #$ a--o4$d. A -a4, !o #$ 0a-'d,

(/+! a11-" !o a-- ($(#$%+ o2 !3$ +a($ &-a++. P$%+on+

&o(('!!'n -'#$- a%$ +'('-a%-" +'!/a!$d, 43$!3$% /+'n a

&o(1/!$% +"+!$( o% no!. There is no reason to treat them

ifferently! &s such, there is no %ustification for the ifference in

the imposition of penalties uner the two statutes! 1eing unuly

iscriminatory to members of the same class, certainly, Section

of the Cybercrime &ct shoul be struc# own for being $iolati$e of

the constitutional guarantee against equal protection of the law!

3(! &s hel in the case of 2iraogo "s. The Philippine

Tr+th Commission of #$%$!(.). *o. '+%+, (.). *o. '+&,

/ecember 0, %&'&1,


21/39

2(

The equal protection of the laws is embrace

in the concept of ue process, as e$ery unfair

iscrimination offens the requirements of

%ustice an fair play! 0t has been emboie in

a separate clause, howe$er, to pro$ie for a

more specific guaranty against any form of

unue fa$oritism or hostility from the

go$ernment! &rbitrariness in general may be

challenge on the basis of the ue process

clause! B/! '2 !3$ 1a%!'&/-a% a&! a++a'-$d

1a%!a;$+ o2 an /n4a%%an!$d 1a%!'a-'!" o%

1%$/d'&$, !3$ +3a%1$% 4$a1on !o &/! '!

do4n '+ !3$ $5/a- 1%o!$&!'on &-a/+$!

32! 0n $iew of the foregoing, it is $ery easy to see that

Section of the Cybercrime 2ct shoul be struc# own for being

$iolati$e of the constitutional guarantee on equal protection of

the law!

&ection / of Rep+blic Act6o. %$%/7 is contrary tothe constit+tionalprohibition against do+bleeopardy.


22/39

22

---------------------------------------

33! &s if it were not enough, Section * of the Cybercrime

&ct also $iolates the constitutional prohibition against ouble

%eopary as it ma#es a person liable not only uner the

Cybercrime &ct, but also uner the Re$ise Penal Coe!

3! Section 2(, A%!'&-$ III o2 !3$ 9?@ P3'-'11'n$

Con+!'!/!'on, states that ;No 1$%+on +3a-- #$ !4'&$ 1/! 'n

$o1a%d" o2 1/n'+3($n! 2o% !3$ +a($ o22$n+$> 0f an act is

punishe by a law an an orinance, con$iction or acquittal uner

either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same

act!5oo#ing at it in a broaer

perspecti$e, it can be seen that this is tantamount to prior

restraint on the freeom of speech an e@pression!

+! 0t must be stresse that freeom of e@pression has

gaine recognition as a funamental principle of e$ery

emocratic go$ernment, an gi$en a preferre right that stans

on a higher le$el than substanti$e economic freeom or other

liberties! This was e@hausti$ely e@plaine in 8on*ales "s.

Commission on 0lections, where the Supreme Court state:

M&t the $ery least, free speech an free

press may be ientifie with the -'#$%!" !o

d'+&/++ 1/#-'&-" and !%/!32/--" an"

(a!!$% o2 1/#-'& 'n!$%$+! 4'!3o/!

&$n+o%+3'1 and 1/n'+3($n!! T3$%$ '+ !o

#$ no 1%$0'o/+ %$+!%a'n! on !3$

&o((/n'&a!'on o2 0'$4+ o% +/#+$5/$n!

-'a#'-'!" 43$!3$% 'n -'#$- +/'!+,

1%o+$&/!'on 2o% +$d'!'on, o% a&!'on 2o%

da(a$+, o% &on!$(1! 1%o&$$d'n+


33/39

33

unless there be a clear an present anger of

substanti$e e$il that Congress has a right to

pre$ent!

++! This right to freeom of e@pression is so important that

ecriminali)ing libel is the present tren in moern countries!

True to this, it was e$en e@pressly guarantee uner &rticle ( of

the 4ni$ersal "eclaration of Human Rights, that =E0$%"on$ 3a+

!3$ %'3! !o 2%$$do( o2 o1'n'on and $x1%$++'on !3'+ %'3!

'n&-/d$+ 2%$$do( !o 3o-d o1'n'on+ 4'!3o/! 'n!$%2$%$n&$

and !o +$$;, %$&$'0$, and '(1a%! 'n2o%(a!'on and 'd$a+

!3%o/3 an" ($d'a and %$a%d-$++ o2 2%on!'$%+.>

+! Consiering the foregoing, it is clear that allowing the

passage of the highly questionable pro$isions of the Cybercrime

&ct woul in effect curtail the peopleJs right to freeom of

e@pression! &s a result, any computer user will now li$e in fear

#nowing that his critical comments, when publishe on.line, might

e@pose him to criminal charges! This shoul not be allowe! &

emocratic go$ernment flourishes when its citi)ens are not left to

cower in the sielines because of fear, afrai to spea# up an

later, afrai e$en to thin# against its own go$ernment!


34/39

3

+*! 0n $iew of all the foregoing constitutional infirmities, the

Honorable Supreme Court shoul e@ercise its power to re$iew the

constitutionality of the Cybercrime Pre$ention &ct of 2'(2 an

shoul ma#e sure that all acts of the go$ernment are one in

consonance with the authorities an rights allocate to it by the

Constitution!

+?! 0n the case of "iraogo vs. #he $hilippine #ruth

Commission of %&'& !(.). *o. '+%+, (.). *o. '+&,

/ecember 0, %&'&1, the Supreme eclare the nullity of a law

simply because it was clearly $iolati$e of the Constitution, stating

that =No (a!!$% 3o4 no#-$ and 4o%!3" o2 ad('%a!'on !3$

1/%1o+$ o2 an a&!, #/! '2 !3$ ($an+ !o #$ $(1-o"$d 'n

a&&o(1-'+3'n '! '+ +'(1-" '%%$&on&'-a#-$ 4'!3

&on+!'!/!'ona- 1a%a($!$%+, !3$n '! &anno! +!'-- #$

a--o4$d. T3$ Co/%! &anno! /+! !/%n a #-'nd $"$ and +'(1-"

-$! '! 1a++. I! 4'-- &on!'n/$ !o /13o-d !3$ Con+!'!/!'on and

'!+ $n+3%'n$d 1%'n&'1-$+.>Thus,

&s :+stice a+rel puts it, ;when the

%uiciary meiates to allocate constitutional

bounaries, it oes not assert any superiority

o$er the other epartmentsE it oes not in


35/39

3+

reality nullify or in$aliate an act of the

legislature, but only asserts the solemn an

sacre obligation assigne to it by the

Constitution to etermine conflicting claims

of authority uner the Constitution an to

establish for the parties in an actual

contro$ersy the rights which that instrument

secures an guarantees to them!

Documents

108031357 Senator TG Guingona Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition