CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON PRIVACY

(The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Art.III, Sec.3)

Exemption 1. Lawful Court Order.

The court order is lawful when the search warrant (court order) is issued by the judge after he personally determines that there is a probable cause which is required by Art. III Section 2 of the Constitution, thus:

The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

ExampleTo illustrate, if TABAKO Corp. is using unlicensed Microsofts Software, Microsoft or its agent cannot force itself to enter into the premises of TABAKO Corp to search and confiscate the latters unlicensed software. Doing so will violate TABAKOs privacy right and hence, any evidence obtained therein CANNOT be used as evidence against TABAKO.

What should Microsoft do?

Microsoft should apply for a search warrant to the Court which has jurisdiction over the place where a search is to be done. Thus, if TABAKO Corporation is located in the City of Calamba, Microsoft or any law enforcing agency should apply for a search warrant with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the City of CalambaIf the testimony of Microsoft or its witness is based on the personal knowledge of other person, then the Judge shall NOT issue the search warrant. Reason? In legal parlance, the knowledge is based on the hearsay.If the judge issued the search warrant based on hearsay, the order is NOT lawful.

Express Provision of the LawThere are so many laws which provide an express provision requiring surrender of ones privacy. For instance, under the Anti Money Laundering Law, when an individual deposits in one transaction an amount of at least Three Hundred Thousand pesos (P300,000) in a bank, the latter is obliged by law to provide the name, as well as the personal information of the depositor, to the Anti Money Laundering council.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY Before we dealt in deeply and illustrate by examples the principle reasonable expectation of privacy, let us familiarized ourselves with the salient features of RA 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act. This law, like the Anti-Money Laundering Act is an example of a law which allows to some extent that the privacy of individuals may be invaded, provided that some requirements are complied with.

Sample case:In one case involving spouses, the husband filed a complaint for annulment of marriage against his wife. During the trial, the husband presented as evidence three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between his wife and unidentified persons. The Supreme Court citing Section 1 and Section 4 of the Anti-Wiretapping Act did NOT accept the evidence (Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA and Rafael Ortanez, GR NO110662, August 4, 1994).

Section 1 and Section 4 of the Anti-Wiretapping Act provides:Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken work by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

Sample case :

In case of Ramirez vs. Garcia (1995), Ramirez was called by Garcia in the latters office where the latter ridiculed and mocked Ramirez. Unknown to Garcia, their conversation was secretly recorded by Ramirez which was used as evidence by the latter in her complaint for damages in a civil case. Garcia countercharged and filed a criminal case against Ramirez in violation of RA 4200.

Ramirez argued that RA 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved in the communication.

Is Ramirez correct?

PRIVACY BETWEEN SPOUSESThe intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

PRIVACY RIGHTS OF CONVICTED/DETAINED PERSONIf Juan is convicted of the crime of rape, can he invoke his right of privacy? Can he still use a mobile phone or a laptop computer to communicate freely with his friends and/or families?

In one case involving the then Lt.SG now Senator Antonio Trillanees IV, the latter alleged that the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) officials violated his privacy rights when they opened and read the letters handed by Trillanes, and other detainees to their visitors.

Courts in the U.S have generally permitted prison officials to open and read all incoming and outgoing mail of convicted prisoners to prevent the smuggling of contraband into the prison facility and to avert coordinated escapes. Even in the absence of statutes specifically allowing prison authorities from opening and inspecting mail, such practice was upheld based on the principle of civil deaths. Inmates were deemed to have no right to correspond confidentially with anyone. The only restriction placed upon prison authorities was that the right of inspection should not be used to delay unreasonably the communications between the inmate and his lawyer.

Eventually, the inmates outgoing mail to licensed attorneys, courts, and court officials received respect. The confidential correspondences could not be censored. The infringement of such privileged communication was held to be a violation of the inmates privacy rights (4th Amendment). A prisoner has a right to consult with his attorney in absolute privacy, which right is not abrogated by the legitimate interests of prison authorities in the administration of the institution. Moreover, the risk is small that attorneys will conspire in plots that threaten prison security.

The Philippine SC held that the opening and reading of the detainees letters in the present case did NOT violate the detainees right to privacy of communication. The letters were not in a sealed envelope. The inspection of the folded letters is a valid measure as it serves the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for the inspection of contraband.

The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees and their lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees personal courier and not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing.In the present case, since the letters were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters.If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees.

THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY THEFTIdentity theft is a type of consumer fraud and occurs when a person knowingly uses another persons information in a fraudulent manner of the purpose of obtaining goods, services, or credit. The identity thief looks for information he can use to create official documents or gain access to financial accounts.

Phishing is a high-tech scam that uses spam or pop-up messages to deceive a person into disclosing his credit card numbers, bank account information, Social Security number, passwords, or other sensitive information.

It is mostly done through an email. Phishers send an email or pop-up message that claims to be from a business or organization that you deal with Internet Service Provider (ISP), bank, online payment service, or even a government agency.

The message usually says that the person needs to update or validate his account information. It threatens some dire consequence if he does not respond. The message directs them to a Web site that looks just like a legitimate organizations site. The purpose of this is to deceive a person into divulging his personal information so the operators can steal his identity and run up bills or commit crimes in his name.

ETHICAL ISSUES ON PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HEARSAYAccording to Chief Justice Puno, the due process clause of the Constitution is an important element of the privacy rights of an individual. The due process clause is contained in Article III, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution, thus:

No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Actually, the above provision also contains the equal protection clause, but shall deal with the due process clause.

Story of Adam and Eve..

Now this is due process. God asked them, Who told you that you are naked? Did you eat of the fruit of the tree which you should NOT eat?.