They accomplish this by sending electronic viruses or virtual dynamites that destroy those computer systems, networks, programs, and memories. The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny standard, an American constitutional construct,1 useful in determining the constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of things or persons. 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. 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.
SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Respondents. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth in that, while it seeks to discourage data interference, it intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression, creating a chilling and deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents. 203306 ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), HUKUMAN NG MAMAMAYAN MOVEMENT, INC., JERRY S. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Respondents. ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Respondents. But there is no real difference whether he uses "Julio Gandolfo" which happens to be his real name or use it as a pseudo-name for it is the evil purpose for which he uses the name that the law condemns.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. 203359 SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA III, Petitioner, vs. ROJAS, Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, D/GEN. BARTOLOME, Chief of the Philippine National Police, MANUEL A. Petitioners claim that, considering the substantial distinction between the two, the law should recognize the difference.
Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further orders. Ethical hackers evaluate the target systems security and report back to the owners the vulnerabilities they found in it and give instructions for how these can be remedied.
The government of course asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system. It is a universally condemned conduct.4 Petitioners of course fear that this section will jeopardize the work of ethical hackers, professionals who employ tools and techniques used by criminal hackers but would neither damage the target systems nor steal information.
This is referred to as the "get out of jail free card."6 Since the ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client, such permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).