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. But all is not well with the system since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. LINABAN, Secretary General Gabriela Women's Party, ADOLFO ARES P. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law Section 4(a)(6) provides: Section 4. The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: (a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems: x x x x (6) Cyber-squatting.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Respondents. PALABAY, Secretary General of Karapatan, FERDINAND R. MAGLUNSOD, Vice President of Anakpawis Party-List, LANA R. HONORABLE PAQUITO OCHOA in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HONORABLE LEILA DE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, HONORABLE MANUEL ROXAS in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine National Police, The DIRECTOR of the National Bureau of Investigation (all of the Executive Department of Government), Respondents. 203453 NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, ROWENA CARRANZA PARAAN, MELINDA QUINTOS-DE JESUS, JOSEPH ALWYN ALBURO, ARIEL SEBELLINO AND THE PETITIONERS IN THE e-PETITION Petitioners, vs. Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid.11 Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.

BARTOLOME, in his official capacity as Chief of the Philippine National Police, Respondents. Communicate in writing or by voice with any person through his e-mail address or telephone.

ROJAS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Bureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR GENERAL NICANOR A. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. Inquire and do business with institutional entities like government agencies, banks, stock exchanges, trade houses, credit card companies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools; and 5.

ANTONIO TINIO, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO OF ANAKBAYAN, MA. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,8 the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message. There is no freedom to destroy other peoples computer systems and private documents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms.7 But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. The government certainly has the duty and the right to prevent these tomfooleries from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act. According to this standard, a legislative classification that impermissibly interferes with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional. 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. Mutuc,14 it ruled that the right to privacy exists independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of constitutional protection. The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.13 But the Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x G. LABOG, Chairperson of Kilusang Mayo Uno, CRISTINA E. QUAN (all of the Ateneo Human Rights Center), Petitioners, vs. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing socially harmful conduct.10 Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section 4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the free exercise of ones constitutional rights.