Disini v. Secretary of Justice
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 727 Phil. 28 (2014), is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines handed down on February 18, 2014. When the Congress of the Philippines passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the bill was immediately controversial, especially its strict penalties for the new crime of "cyberlibel", an upgraded form of the already existing criminal libel charge found in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc | ||||
Full case name | |||||
Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., vs. the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office, the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation | |||||
| |||||
Decided | February 18, 2014 | ||||
G.R. numbers | 203335, et al. | ||||
Citation | 727 Phil. 28 | ||||
Case history | |||||
Prior action(s) | None, Supreme Court was first instance of all fifteen consolidated petitions | ||||
Subsequent action(s) | Motion for reconsideration denied April 22, 2014 | ||||
Case opinions | |||||
Majority: 12 Roberto Abad (ponente), Maria Lourdes Sereno (also filed concurrence), Antonio Carpio (also filed concurrence), Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido Reyes, Arturo Brion (also filed concurrence, but dissented at time of reconsideration), Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza (joined Brion's concurrence) Dissented: 1 Marvic Leonen Abstained: 1 Estela Perlas-Bernabe Recused: 1 Presbitero Velasco Jr. | |||||
Court membership | |||||
Chief Justice | Maria Lourdes Sereno |
In the end, the Court declared that most of the law, including the cyberlibel provision, was constitutional. The ruling's abridgement of free expression has been widely criticized by critics of the law, including then attorney Harry Roque. The decision reached in Disini paved the way for the anti-fake news provisions of the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act.