The Right to Privacy is a natural right. It is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of a democratic society. It is the right to be let alone, in the absence of some "reasonable" public interest in a person's activities. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. Its boundaries and contents varies among countries, cultures and individuals. The degree of exposure of private information depends on how the public will receive this information, which differs between places and over time.
In the Philippines, different laws protect the right to privacy of a person, such as the Bill of Rights under the Constitution and 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. " But at this point in time, the spread of internet has great effect on the privacy issue. For instance with regards to the publication of judicial decision, the use of internet significantly modified the traditional dissemination of judgements, increasing access and enabling easy retrieval capacity through websites, search engines and repositories managed by the Supreme Court and other organizations.
A question now arises as to whether a right to privacy can be invoke by a party-litigant against the publication of a judicial decisions.
In the instant case, my position will be in the negative. Although our laws uphold the right to privacy it does not mean that it has no limitations. Article 8 of the Civil Code provides that " judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. " Being part of the legal system those judicial decisions became public records vested with public interest. As provided in Section 7 of Article III of the Constitution " 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. "
Therefore an apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person in this case should yield to the general welfare and interest of the public since these judicial decisions are already public records and they form part of the legal system.
The person or individual is not left without any remedy. Congress enacted laws which protect right to privacy of those individuals involved in a case and whose names where mentioned in the court decisions and proceedings. Some of these laws are the following:
Section 29 of Republic Act 7610 which states: " Confidentiality - At the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of television and radio broadcasting, producer and director of the film in case of the movie industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of the offended party. "
Section 44 of Republic Act 9262 which similarly 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.
Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00). "
Likewise, Section 40 of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children states: Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings. - " All hearings of cases of violence against women and their children shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the dignity of women and their children and respect for their privacy.
Records of the cases shall be treated with utmost confidentiality. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer or other identifying information of the parties or an immediate family or household member, without their consent or without authority of the court, shall be liable for contempt of court and shall suffer the penalty of one year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos. "
The remedies are only available to offended parties who are children or women. This is based on the 14 February 2006 Resolution AM No. 99-7-06-SC of the Supreme Court entitled In Re Internet Web Page of the Supreme Court as provided by the court in the landmark case of People vs. Cabalquinto ( gr. no. 167693, September 19, 2006 ). It provides that:
" It is worth mentioning in this connection that the Court has resolved to refrain from posting in its Internet Web Page the full text of decisions in cases involving child sexual abuse in response to a letter from a mother of a child abuse victim addressed to the Chief Justice expressing anxiety over the posting of full text decisions of the Supreme Court on its Internet Web Page. The mother submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of the child must prevail over public access to information and pleaded that her daughter's cas as well as those of a similar nature, be excluded from the Web Page. "
It is now therefore the prevailing rule that if the offended person is NOT a child or a woman, the remedies granted by law cannot be applied and ultimately the provisions of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius.
In conclusion, the right to privacy of an individual is not absolute it has its limitations and an individual cannot not invoke right to privacy if he is not covered of those limitations granted by law. There will be no rights violated and the person affected has no right to demand the removal of his name from the database keep by these websites and repositories.
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.
