Private property, if containing pornographic materials, may be forfeited or destroyed.” The Court says that “engaging in sexual acts privately through internet connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced with the mandate of the State to eradicate white slavery and the exploitation of women.” No. Not even the Department of Justice can do this without court permission.Without a court order, the SC says this is tantamount to “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Computer data may constitute personal property and are constitutionally protected.
Can I ‘save’ the private cybersex for my private consumption?
“The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not constitute an unlawful search and seizure nor would it violate the privacy of communication and correspondence.
Disclosure can be made only after judicial intervention,” the SC stresses.
“In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level of responsibility such as in other countries, Sec. Like all other violations already defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code and covered under the cybercrime law, the penalty is “one degree higher” than what is provided in Republic Act 9775, or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. The Court observes that the cybercrime law’s definition of online child pornography “merely expands” ACPA’s scope.
Thus charging the offender for both laws would be “tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.” The media The cybercrime law affects the media in the sense that the Supreme Court still sustains libel as a criminal offense subject to the penalty of imprisonment.