Today, the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA.ph) filed a petition at the Supreme Court (SC) for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Below is an outline of the substantive arguments in the Petition:
I. RA 10175 violates the right to privacy and due process (Sec 16, 19).
II. RA 10175 violates the right to equal protection (Sec 6, Sec 19).
III. RA 10175 violates the right to free speech (Sec 19, Sec 4(c)).
IV. RA 10175 violates jus cogens norms of international law (Sec 4(c)).
V. RA 10175 is an ex post facto law.
VI. RA 10175 imposes cruel and unusual punishment.
See the full petition below:
Petitioners are : PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio, FRANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANTHONY ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO, IMELDA MORALES, JAMES MATTHEW B. MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA FATIMA A. VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA TOBIAS SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINA SARAH E. OSORIO, ROMEO FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, KENNETH KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. CASTRO
In the Philippines, the primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was elevated to constitutional status in the 1935, the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions, reflecting our own lesson of history, both political and legal, that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. Moreover, our history shows that the struggle to protect the freedom of speech, expression and the press was, at bottom, the struggle for the indispensable preconditions for the exercise of other freedoms. For it is only when the people have unbridled access to information and the press that they will be capable of rendering enlightened judgments. In the oft-quoted words of Thomas Jefferson, we cannot both be free and ignorant.
- Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, speaking for the Court en banc, in Chavez v. Gonzales and National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
Nature of the Petition
1. This is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to assail for being patently unconstitutional R.A. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
2. Due to the infringement and violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights of privacy, freedom of expression, speech, and due process by the Respondents – who have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction – through the enactment and im-plementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Petitioners have no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3. Thus, Petitioners are constrained, in order to protect their constitutional rights, to seek relief with the Honorable Court by filing the instant petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Certiorari and Prohibition and:Or Injunction With Prayer for Issuance of Status Quo Ante Order by PIFA