Saturday, September 17, 2011

Privacy Issue in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence Repositories

Privacy is based on the theory of natural right. It is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves to unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals. Its boundaries and content differ among cultures and individuals, but share basic common themes. The degree to which private information is exposed therefore depends on how the public will receive this information, which differs between places and over time. In the Philippines, the right to privacy is protected under various privacy laws such as Article 26 of the Civil Code which states that "every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. On the other hand, Repositories of Law and Jurisprudence (e.g. Chan Robles, LawPhil,and others) are storage location from which law and judicial decisions are stored which may be retrieved by the public for educational, social or other uses.

A question arises as to whether repositories of law and jurisprudence such as Chan Robles, LawPhil and others can be compelled by a private person whose name was mentioned in a case decided by the Supreme Court to removed it on a claim that it violates right to privacy.

My position is in the negative. In this case, we have to take into consideration that judicial decisions forms part of the legal system of the Philippines (Article 8 of the New Civil Code). This are public records vested with public interest. Section 7 of Article III of the Constitution provides that “the 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”.(emphasis supplied)

Therefore an apparent conflict with the privacy right of an individual at this case should yield to the general welfare and interest of the public since this judicial decisions are already part of the legal system.
The individual is not left without any remedy as there are laws which protects right to privacy of individual whose name was mentioned in the case like Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004". 

Section 44 of this Act provides “Confidentiality. – All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member, without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the court.

The Supreme Court in People vs Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006) to enforced this provision withheld the real name of the victim, and used fictitious initials instead to represent her. This scheme would be more appropriate but still this is based on express grant of the law, applicable only on the persons specified therein. Absence of such law a person whose name was mentioned in case cannot invoke his right to privacy. The Repositories of Law and Jurisprudence cannot therefore be compelled to remove the case or even his name.

Disclaimer: Please note that any views or opinions presented in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anyone. This work is intended as a legal opinion for the satisfaction of the requirements in the subject Technology and the Law.

No comments:

Post a Comment