We are first to develop an expertise on the field of technology, e-commerce and cyberspace law. We offer a full range of legal services to start-ups as well as established companies moving forward with their strategies.
Our goal is to offer exceptional legal service by combining our expertise in the law with our in-depth knowledge of the Internet, convergence, new media, telecommunications as well as other emerging trends and technologies.
Founded in May 2000, Disini & Disini provides a full range of legal support and services to its clients in the fields of foreign investment, technology, corporate practice and litigation.
We have been involved in diverse transactions that include initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions, insurance, banking, finance and securities transactions, employment, labor relations, immigration concerns, media and entertainment matters, real estate, tax, telecommunications and intellectual property issues, as well as arbitration and litigation disputes.
We support our clients by delivering fast, cost-effective and exceptional legal service.
We constantly maintain a solid relationship with our clients by being responsive to their needs, and valuing their time and hard-earned money.
We believe that excellent legal service comes from creative solutions delivered by a team sensitive to the demands of its client but faithful to the rule of law.
We pride ourselves in formulating non-intuitive and unique answers to the challenges faced by our clients. Our lawyers are up-to-date with current events, business shifts and other global trends, enabling them to provide sound legal advice to our clients in anticipation of future business conditions.
We conduct seminars and forums on E-Commerce, Electronic Evidence, Data Privacy, Cybercrime, Social Media and other related topics. Lawyers in the Firm have taught in the most prestigious law schools and e-learning institutions in the country. We have been invited to speak in numerous conferences, both here and abroad, on a wide range of legal topics.
We believe that the rule of law and the predictability of legal frameworks provide the environment for a stable economy. It is therefore our responsibility to build a strong nation by advocating public interest causes.
We drafted the implementing rules for the E-Commerce Act (Republic Act No. 8792) in coordination with a multi-agency task force headed by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Department of Science and Technology. We co-drafted the Rules on Electronic evidence as part of the Supreme Court’s Sub-Committee on Electronic Evidence. We likewise assisted the Department of Trade and Industry in drafting the first data privacy directive.
We participated in various public-private cooperative initiatives of the National Government such as the I.T. E-Commerce Council and the National I.C.T. Advisory Council. We have advised the National Computer Center as well as the Advanced Science and Technology Institute of the Department of Science and Technology.
We have advised the National Government in its efforts to implement the National Single Window as part of the country’s compliance with the ASEAN economic integration.
We were one of the multiple petitioners in a suit filed before the Supreme Court against the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, Executive Director of the Information Communications Technology Office, Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation.
Our petition questioned the constitutionality of some of the provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10125), for violating the freedom of speech, due process, equal protection and privacy of communications, as well as the constitutional sanctions against double jeopardy, undue delegation and right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Of the four issues raised in our Petition, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled favorably on two and partially on one, striking down the contested provisions on warrantless online surveillance, the take-down power of the Department of Justice and the double liability for online libel.
In the course of the litigation, the Supreme Court formulated the so-called “Disini Rule” where the title of a case with multiple petitioners, shall be determined not by the first filed petition, but by the petition that is most meritorious. Applying the rule, the High Court selected the Firm’s petition (among the 15 petitions filed) as the most commendable, and changed the title of the case to “Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al, vs. Secretary of Justice, et al.” According to the Chief Justice herself, “save for the Disini Petition, all petitions herein have failed to establish that their claims call for this Court’s exercise of its power of pre-enforcement judicial review.”