This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy insist that Section 6 cannot stand in the absence of a definition of the term "information and communication technology".[2] But petitioner seems to forget the basic tenet that statutes should not be read in isolation from one another. The parameters of that ICT exist in many other laws. Indeed those parameters have been used as basis for establishing government systems and classifying evidence.[3] These along with common usage provide the needed boundary within which the law may be applied. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| 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. | |||||