SC junks plea for TRO vs SIM registration law

This file photo shows the seal of the Supreme Court.
Philstar.com / EC Toledo

Baguio City, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the plea of several organizations for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the SIM Registration Act, allowing the continued implementation of the law while a petition to have it declared unconstitutional remains pending.

SC spokesman Brian Hosaka announced the decision yesterday, hours after SC justices deliberated on the matter.

“The Supreme Court, during its en banc deliberations today, April 25, 2023, denied the prayer to issue a temporary restraining order in National Union of Journalists of the Philippines Inc., et al. vs The National Telecommunications, et al. (G.R. No. 266367) and instead required the respondents to file their comment on the petition within 10 days from actual receipt of notice,” Hosaka said.

Last week, individuals belonging to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Bayan Muna, PAMALAKAYA, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas and others filed a petition for certiorari before the SC, alleging that the Republic Act 11934 infringes on four sections of the Bill of Rights.

Named respondents were the National Telecommunications Commission, Departments of Information and Communications Technology, Trade and Industry, the Interior and Local Government and Education; the National Privacy Commission and the telco companies implementing the law.

Aside from seeking a TRO, the organizations also asked the SC to order all telcos to cease and desist from “using, storing, transferring and processing all information gathered into the SIM Register and to destroy data already gathered.”

The petition hinges mainly on arguments that SIM registration restricts the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and violates the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to substantive due process.

The groups also argued that the law tramples on privacy zones and undermines all protections against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Constitution.

Show comments