My take on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)
As a law student with a BC undergrad degree, you didn't really expect me to not talk about this issue, did you?
Honestly, I wasn't going to. So much has been has about it, and so much is still being said about it, that in the past 24 hours there's so much misinformation going around that I feel the need to blog, if not to address this misinformation, then at least to get the irritation off my chest.
Allow me to disclaim as early as now, though. I am no legal expert. I am not pretending to be one. Whatever I type up (and you read) is purely my interpretation of the provisions and of jurisprudence, based on how I understand my lessons. It could be that I'm completely wrong, so don't take my word for it.
First, the good.
I will say this: I am annoyed at people who want to repeal the entire law. Guys, I know it's a bad law, and I'm not defending it, but it's not completely bad, okay? The provision on cybersex is especially welcome.
SEC. 4. (c) Content-related offenses.
(1) Cybersex. - The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.
(2) Child Pornography. - The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
These crimes are penalized under Sec. 8, as follows:
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhP1,000,000.00) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.
Prision mayor means six years and one day up to twelve years imprisonment. Which means that those creepy perverts out there who engage in cybersex can go to jail for at least six year, or be fined worth at least 200 thousand. Take note that the provision specifies that cybersex-ing should be done "for favor or consideration". This means that if you're in a long-distance relationship and you wanna get it on through the Internet, that's your business and there's nothing illegal whatsoever about that. But once you transform your internet cafe into a sex den once the neon lights come up, that's a different story.
People probably have no idea how bad cybersexploitation is in this country. As my Crim Pro prof says, "Nangyayari ba yan? Palagi." There are a lot of shady internet shops out there. Try nyo lumabas minsan at mag-internet cafe pag gumabi na.
I also think raising the penalty for child pornography if committed through a computer system is just right. It is in accordance with the constitutional declaration of principle to protect the youth, and basically with everything else that children's rights are for. We have so many laws and rules protecting children and this provision is a welcome addition.
Then the not-so-bad.
Okay fine, I admit those are the the only provisions I really like. Let's move on to the stuff I don't really like, but hey, they're not really so bad.
A lot of people have been making a fuss about not being able to download torrents anymore because of RA 10175. But in reality, the downloading of torrents has been prohibited since 1997 (of course hindi pa yun uso nung panahong 'yun) by virtue of the Intellectual Property Code. Stuff we usually torrent (movies, music albums, computer software, etc.) are all covered under "works" as defined in the Code, which are covered by copyright, which means they have to be authorized by the author before reproduction. Sec. 217 of the IP Code provides the following criminal penalties for copyright infringement:
(a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) for the first offense.
(b) Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years plus a fine ranging from One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for the second offense.
(c) Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years plus a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) to One million five hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,000) for the third and subsequent offenses.
On the other hand, RA 10175 Sec. 8 provides the following penalties for torrenting:
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
So see, matagal na talagang bawal mag-torrent, guys. Aminin na kasi natin na lahat tayo ay kriminal.
People are also fussing about the fact that the law authorizes the government to take internet data from people. This is in Sec. 12:
SEC. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. - Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.
All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.
Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.
The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed: (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The law explicitly states that they cannot get content or identities without a search warrant. The grounds for the issuance of a search warrant under this law still requires "reasonable grounds to believe that..." which is basically the statement of the term "probable cause" found in the 1987 Constitution. So guys, kalma lang muna.
And then, the really bad.
Okay so we go now to the stuff that's really bad about this law. My main point here is that there are quite a few provisions which violate the Constitution and should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional.
1. online libel
Art. III Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances."
This online libel thing is what's got people really annoyed. Sec. 4 penalizes libel, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, but if it's committed online (meaning it's published on a blog, or on FB or Twitter or Tumblr), it's penalized one degree higher by virtue of Sec. 6 of RA 10175. Re-tweeting could also make one liable under Sec. 5, for aiding and abetting in the commission of a cybercrime.
Art. 353 of the RPC defines libel as "a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person." Art. 355, which is the one that's transposed online via RA 10175, is "libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or other similar means". So it's not just FB and Twitter, it's also YouTube and SoundCloud and all that.
Libel in the RPC is punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (that's 6 months 1 day up to 4 years 2 months in prison), or a 200-6,000 peso fine, or both. However, under Sec. 6 of RA 10175, your tweets could land you 6 years 1 day up to 12 years in prison (let's hope I remember my Crim 1 correctly).
It's obvious, isn't it? People are now too scared to tweet. They're thinking they're gonna end up in jail just because of a tweet. Isn't that a chilling effect already? I think it is. Therefore, it is violative of the constitutional right to free expression. Which is why I'm really hoping the SC will strike this down. There doesn't even need to be an actual controversy (meaning no one needs to be actually imprisoned because of this law), because this is the right to free expression we're talking about here, and the facial challenge can be used.
The facial challenge doctrine basically provides that if there's something wrong with the law on its face, then it can be struck down as unconstitutional. This was applied in the case of KMU v. Ermita, where the court said that such doctrine was applicable because the law's "very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities." That's exactly what's happening now.
2. double jeopardy
Art. III Sec. 21 provides: "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." On the other hand, Sec. 7 of RA 10175 provides: "A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws."
Is this not a clear violation of the right against double jeopardy? Really? The Constitution explicitly says that "conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution," sabay lalagyan nyo ng "without prejudice to any liability"? Ano baaaaaa.
3. searches and seizures
I have two provisions under this. First is Sec. 19, another most controversial provision, which states: "When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data."
This means that if the DOJ thinks your content is libelous, they can automatically shut you down. I believe this is equivalent to a seizure (done in cyberspace) and is therefore prohibited by Art. III Sec. 2 of the Constitution. They will need a warrant to shut you down, if the Consti is to be followed (and it should!), and only a judge can issue a warrant. This gives the DOJ a power which is not vested in it by the Constitution, and should, therefore, be struck down.
Another problematic provision is Sec. 15.
SEC. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. - Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.
Sure, they need a warrant. They're even required to make a return, just like the Rules of Court require. But what do they do with the data they collect via the warrant? I think this might be struck down via the void for vagueness doctrine, laid down in Ople v. Torres. There are no safeguards here! What happens if someone discloses the information they get? Nothing? Hindi naman yata pwede yun.
So there. Yes, I am not in favor of the RA 10175 - but that doesn't mean I want it junked in its entirety. Amendments would be very nice. The Supreme Court taking action and striking down particular provisions would be very nice also. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court sees it this way.
Myth-buster time
Just to dispel some rumors that are going around.
Some people are saying that RA 10175 is retroactive, in the sense that if you posted something libelous before its effectivity, and it's still up by the time the law takes effect, you can still be held liable for it. I highly doubt that "publication" will be considered by the Court as "continuing." True, every act of publication is punished in "ordinary" libel, meaning if you publish one article in Kule then publish it again in the Inquirer, you can be liable for two counts of libel. But I don't think that's the same as tweeting on Oct. 2, then it's still up on Oct. 3. Unless you tweeted it again on the day the law took effect, I don't think you'll be liable for the Oct. 2 tweet.
And finally (and I think this is really what pushed me to write this novel of a blog entry), a number of people have been (re)tweeting this thing na mas okay pa mang-rape, because rape is punishable by only three years in prison, whereas online libel can get you 12. SRSLY SAAN GALING YUN?!? Rape, people, under Art. 266-A of the RPC, is punishable by reclusion perpetua. If committed under certain circumstances (with a deadly weapon, the victim dies or becomes insane, etc.) it becomes reclusion perpetua to death. Even when rape was still a crime against chastity (under Art. 335) it was already punishable by RP. So hindi ko talaga alam kung saang lupalop nanggaling yung balitang 3 years lang ang rape, kasi sobrang hindi. Utang na loob, pag may nakita kayong nagttweet nyan, paki-correct. It's bad enough that we have this law, dadagdagan pa ng misinformation. :|
So there. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert, because I am far from it. This is based on my (very little) knowledge on the law. What I know for sure is that there's something very wrong here, which unfortunately only the government can fix. Let us continue to call for the amendment of this law, or at least call for a complete attendance of the Supreme Court justices so they can meet and talk about the nine (and counting?) petitions to declare this law unconstitutional.
Honestly, I wasn't going to. So much has been has about it, and so much is still being said about it, that in the past 24 hours there's so much misinformation going around that I feel the need to blog, if not to address this misinformation, then at least to get the irritation off my chest.
Allow me to disclaim as early as now, though. I am no legal expert. I am not pretending to be one. Whatever I type up (and you read) is purely my interpretation of the provisions and of jurisprudence, based on how I understand my lessons. It could be that I'm completely wrong, so don't take my word for it.
First, the good.
I will say this: I am annoyed at people who want to repeal the entire law. Guys, I know it's a bad law, and I'm not defending it, but it's not completely bad, okay? The provision on cybersex is especially welcome.
SEC. 4. (c) Content-related offenses.
(1) Cybersex. - The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.
(2) Child Pornography. - The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
These crimes are penalized under Sec. 8, as follows:
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhP1,000,000.00) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.
Prision mayor means six years and one day up to twelve years imprisonment. Which means that those creepy perverts out there who engage in cybersex can go to jail for at least six year, or be fined worth at least 200 thousand. Take note that the provision specifies that cybersex-ing should be done "for favor or consideration". This means that if you're in a long-distance relationship and you wanna get it on through the Internet, that's your business and there's nothing illegal whatsoever about that. But once you transform your internet cafe into a sex den once the neon lights come up, that's a different story.
People probably have no idea how bad cybersexploitation is in this country. As my Crim Pro prof says, "Nangyayari ba yan? Palagi." There are a lot of shady internet shops out there. Try nyo lumabas minsan at mag-internet cafe pag gumabi na.
I also think raising the penalty for child pornography if committed through a computer system is just right. It is in accordance with the constitutional declaration of principle to protect the youth, and basically with everything else that children's rights are for. We have so many laws and rules protecting children and this provision is a welcome addition.
Then the not-so-bad.
Okay fine, I admit those are the the only provisions I really like. Let's move on to the stuff I don't really like, but hey, they're not really so bad.
A lot of people have been making a fuss about not being able to download torrents anymore because of RA 10175. But in reality, the downloading of torrents has been prohibited since 1997 (of course hindi pa yun uso nung panahong 'yun) by virtue of the Intellectual Property Code. Stuff we usually torrent (movies, music albums, computer software, etc.) are all covered under "works" as defined in the Code, which are covered by copyright, which means they have to be authorized by the author before reproduction. Sec. 217 of the IP Code provides the following criminal penalties for copyright infringement:
(a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) for the first offense.
(b) Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years plus a fine ranging from One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for the second offense.
(c) Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years plus a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) to One million five hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,000) for the third and subsequent offenses.
On the other hand, RA 10175 Sec. 8 provides the following penalties for torrenting:
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
So see, matagal na talagang bawal mag-torrent, guys. Aminin na kasi natin na lahat tayo ay kriminal.
People are also fussing about the fact that the law authorizes the government to take internet data from people. This is in Sec. 12:
SEC. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. - Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.
All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.
Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.
The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed: (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The law explicitly states that they cannot get content or identities without a search warrant. The grounds for the issuance of a search warrant under this law still requires "reasonable grounds to believe that..." which is basically the statement of the term "probable cause" found in the 1987 Constitution. So guys, kalma lang muna.
And then, the really bad.
Okay so we go now to the stuff that's really bad about this law. My main point here is that there are quite a few provisions which violate the Constitution and should, therefore, be struck down as unconstitutional.
1. online libel
Art. III Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances."
This online libel thing is what's got people really annoyed. Sec. 4 penalizes libel, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, but if it's committed online (meaning it's published on a blog, or on FB or Twitter or Tumblr), it's penalized one degree higher by virtue of Sec. 6 of RA 10175. Re-tweeting could also make one liable under Sec. 5, for aiding and abetting in the commission of a cybercrime.
Art. 353 of the RPC defines libel as "a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person." Art. 355, which is the one that's transposed online via RA 10175, is "libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or other similar means". So it's not just FB and Twitter, it's also YouTube and SoundCloud and all that.
Libel in the RPC is punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (that's 6 months 1 day up to 4 years 2 months in prison), or a 200-6,000 peso fine, or both. However, under Sec. 6 of RA 10175, your tweets could land you 6 years 1 day up to 12 years in prison (let's hope I remember my Crim 1 correctly).
It's obvious, isn't it? People are now too scared to tweet. They're thinking they're gonna end up in jail just because of a tweet. Isn't that a chilling effect already? I think it is. Therefore, it is violative of the constitutional right to free expression. Which is why I'm really hoping the SC will strike this down. There doesn't even need to be an actual controversy (meaning no one needs to be actually imprisoned because of this law), because this is the right to free expression we're talking about here, and the facial challenge can be used.
The facial challenge doctrine basically provides that if there's something wrong with the law on its face, then it can be struck down as unconstitutional. This was applied in the case of KMU v. Ermita, where the court said that such doctrine was applicable because the law's "very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities." That's exactly what's happening now.
2. double jeopardy
Art. III Sec. 21 provides: "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." On the other hand, Sec. 7 of RA 10175 provides: "A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws."
Is this not a clear violation of the right against double jeopardy? Really? The Constitution explicitly says that "conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution," sabay lalagyan nyo ng "without prejudice to any liability"? Ano baaaaaa.
3. searches and seizures
I have two provisions under this. First is Sec. 19, another most controversial provision, which states: "When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data."
This means that if the DOJ thinks your content is libelous, they can automatically shut you down. I believe this is equivalent to a seizure (done in cyberspace) and is therefore prohibited by Art. III Sec. 2 of the Constitution. They will need a warrant to shut you down, if the Consti is to be followed (and it should!), and only a judge can issue a warrant. This gives the DOJ a power which is not vested in it by the Constitution, and should, therefore, be struck down.
Another problematic provision is Sec. 15.
SEC. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. - Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.
Sure, they need a warrant. They're even required to make a return, just like the Rules of Court require. But what do they do with the data they collect via the warrant? I think this might be struck down via the void for vagueness doctrine, laid down in Ople v. Torres. There are no safeguards here! What happens if someone discloses the information they get? Nothing? Hindi naman yata pwede yun.
So there. Yes, I am not in favor of the RA 10175 - but that doesn't mean I want it junked in its entirety. Amendments would be very nice. The Supreme Court taking action and striking down particular provisions would be very nice also. I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court sees it this way.
Myth-buster time
Just to dispel some rumors that are going around.
Some people are saying that RA 10175 is retroactive, in the sense that if you posted something libelous before its effectivity, and it's still up by the time the law takes effect, you can still be held liable for it. I highly doubt that "publication" will be considered by the Court as "continuing." True, every act of publication is punished in "ordinary" libel, meaning if you publish one article in Kule then publish it again in the Inquirer, you can be liable for two counts of libel. But I don't think that's the same as tweeting on Oct. 2, then it's still up on Oct. 3. Unless you tweeted it again on the day the law took effect, I don't think you'll be liable for the Oct. 2 tweet.
And finally (and I think this is really what pushed me to write this novel of a blog entry), a number of people have been (re)tweeting this thing na mas okay pa mang-rape, because rape is punishable by only three years in prison, whereas online libel can get you 12. SRSLY SAAN GALING YUN?!? Rape, people, under Art. 266-A of the RPC, is punishable by reclusion perpetua. If committed under certain circumstances (with a deadly weapon, the victim dies or becomes insane, etc.) it becomes reclusion perpetua to death. Even when rape was still a crime against chastity (under Art. 335) it was already punishable by RP. So hindi ko talaga alam kung saang lupalop nanggaling yung balitang 3 years lang ang rape, kasi sobrang hindi. Utang na loob, pag may nakita kayong nagttweet nyan, paki-correct. It's bad enough that we have this law, dadagdagan pa ng misinformation. :|
So there. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert, because I am far from it. This is based on my (very little) knowledge on the law. What I know for sure is that there's something very wrong here, which unfortunately only the government can fix. Let us continue to call for the amendment of this law, or at least call for a complete attendance of the Supreme Court justices so they can meet and talk about the nine (and counting?) petitions to declare this law unconstitutional.