Any amendment to RA 10175 that Congress introduces later will not be enough because the substantive issues can be repeated, yet evade judicial review.

Unduly abridging free speech & expression, and press freedom

a. Infringes on freedom of speech
b. Vague and overbroad
c. Contradicts "balanced flow of information" under national and international laws

Authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures

a. Invalid warrantless electronic surveillance
b. Invalid seizure of internet users' data

Violating Internet user's privacy

a. Violates right to privacy of individual
b. Invalid seizure of internet users' data

Being contrary to equal protection of the law

a. Fails to distinguish the cybersex victim from the human trafficker; "spamming" from tele-marketing; "aiding or abetting" from re-tweeting, re-posting, or liking Facebook posts.

b. Makes invalid distinctions between "cyberlibel" and libel; and between crimes committed using computers or cell phones and crimes committed without such devices.

Violating legal obligations under public international law

"Freedom of expression on the internet" is a basic human right, according to a United Nations Assembly resolution.

Punishing certain acts previously allowed back when these were committed in the past (ex post facto law)

You might be held liable for previous status posts and tweets made long ago

Curtailing the speedy disposition of suits by clogging court dockets with a deluge of frivolously filed cases