Topic: Right to privacy of correspondence and communication

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., G.R. No. 203335, FEBRUARY 18,2014

FACTS:Petitioners Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., as taxpayers, file aPetition for Certiorariand Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petitioners seek to 1) nullify Sections 4(c)(3), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of RA 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for violating the fundamental rights protected under the Constitution; and 2) prohibit the Respondents, singly and collectively, from enforcing the afore-mentioned provisions of the Cybercrime Act.

ISSUE:Whether or not Section 4(c)(3) Cybercrime Act violates the petitioners constitutionally protected rights to freedom ofexpression and privacy of communications.

HELD:The Supreme Court held that Section 4 (c)(3) of the law says that "thetransmissionof commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited" unless certain conditions such as prior affirmative consent from the recipient are met. This was ruled unconstitutional.

Unsolicited commercial communications, also known as spam is entitled to protection under freedom of expression.To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression.