The right to privacy is basically the right to be left alone. It is one of the rights which every human possesses in his natural state. It is based on a person’s inherent right to secure enjoyment of his private life. As to information, it usually covers the right of an individual to control information about himself, which includes the control over the processing, acquisition, disclosure and use of personal information[1]. It is the claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others[2].
The growth of technology has changed the way privacy is protected and violated because of the emergence of new technologies which created new ways to gather and share information. Indeed, the advancement of technology provided more convenient and faster ways of gathering information. The internet, in particular, paved way to immediate access to and research of information whether involving a particular person or a specific subject matter.
Easy access to information brought about by advancement in technology, is demonstrated, among others, by the emergence of websites which provided online repositories of statutes, implementing rules and regulations, administrative issuances as well as court decisions. In the Philippines, apart from the website of the government, its branches and its agencies, there are other independent websites which provide online repositories of laws and/or jurisprudence such as, Chan Robles, LawPhil, etc. In this case, one of the privacy issues that may arise is when a Supreme Court decision becomes available in these online repositories. The question is—Can the losing party in the case request to remove his name from the said decision (or remove the decision itself) on the basis of his right to privacy considering that the decision is prejudicial to his reputation?
My answer is in the negative.
In the Philippines, the right to privacy is principally bestowed under our Constitution and Civil Code. Article III of the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, provides at least two guarantees of right to privacy. “Section 2 guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose."Section 3 renders inviolable the "privacy of communication and correspondence.[3]" On the other hand, Article 26 of the New Civil Code provides that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. These provisions, however, do not expressly cover a request of a losing party to remove his name or the case itself if the published Supreme Court decision was prejudicial to his reputation.
In the case of Ayer Productions vs. Capulong[4] the Supreme Court ruled that, “[t]he right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, is not an absolute right. xxx [T]he right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of public interest.” In relation to this, the following provisions of the Constitution and Civil Code may be relevant:
- Section 7, Article III of the Constitution which guarantees “[t]he right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
- Article 8 of the New Civil Code which provides that that judicial decisions (i.e., decisions of the Supreme Court) forms part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Thus, based on the above, it can be considered that judicial decisions are vested with public interest. Accordingly, this limits the defense of right to privacy on the part of the losing party for the removal of his name or the case itself.
In the same case, the court stated that “[t]he interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.[5]” Thus, since the decision of the Supreme Court may not be considered as an unwarranted publicity or wrongful publication, the right to privacy may not provide a justification for said request of the losing party.
“In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.[6]” Applying this and considering a final judgment for the violation or wrongful act done by the losing party, he may not claim that he exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, it may not be argued that publication of a Supreme Court decision mentioning the losing party’s name as an unreasonable government intrusion.
Taking into account other existing laws on privacy, particularly on laws which protect women and children, it is more common that the offended party or the victim is the one who is accorded protection against right to privacy and thus, the name of the offended party or the victim may be withheld from the public. This is true in violations of Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, and Republic Act 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and its implementing rules.
Nonetheless, the Republic Act 8505 or the Rape Victim Assistance Protection Act of 1998 recognizes the right to privacy not only of the offended party but also the accused. The Act provides that “xxx the name and personal circumstances of the offended party and/or the accused, or any other information to establish their identities, and such other circumstances or information on the complaint shall not be disclosed to the public.” Thus, in this case, accused as the losing party may have a basis to request that his name may be removed from the Court’s decision but not the decision itself.
[1] The Common Right to Privacy, speech delivered by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno before the Forum on The Writ of Habeas Data and Human Rights
[2] Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom, Atheneum New York 1967 p7
[3] In The Matter Of The Petition For Issuance Of Writ Of Habeas Corpus Of Camilo L. Sabio, G.R. No. 174340. October 17, 2006
[4] G.R. No. 82380 April 29, 1988
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. 3
No comments:
Post a Comment