Privacy of Communications and Correspondence Flashcards
(36 cards)
Sec. 3, Art. III. (1)
The privacy of _______ and ____________ shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the ______, or when _________________ requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any __________ obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be _________ for any purpose in any proceeding.
communication;
correspondence;
court;
public safety or order;
evidence;
inadmissible;
Sec. 3, Art. III. (1)
The privacy of _______ and ____________ shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the ______, or when _________________ requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any __________ obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be _________ for any purpose in any proceeding.
What are the three strands of the right to privacy?
- Decisional privacy
- Informational privacy
- Situational privacy
What is decisional privacy?
Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom…The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it does not likewise compel respect for his personality as a unique individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect
[Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424 (1968)].
What is informational privacy?
the right of an individual not to have private information about himself disclosed; and the right of an individual to live freely without surveillanceand intrusion
[Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589, (1977)].
What is situational privacy?
the privacy that is felt in physical space, such as that which may be violated by trespass or unwarranted searches and seizure
[Vivares v. St. Therese College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)]
What are zones of privacy?
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process.
The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a “constitutional right” and “the right most valued by civilized men,” but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which mandates that, “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy” and “everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Is the right to privacy have a specific provision in the Constitution?
NO.
The Constitution does not have a specific provision protecting the right to privacy. It is a penumbral right formed from the shadows created by several constitutional provisions. That is to say, the right to privacy is located within the zones created by various provisions of the Constitution and various statutes which protect aspects of privacy [Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685].
What are the provisions in the Constitution enumerated in Ople v Torres wherein which the right of privacy is enshrined?
a. Sec. 3 – Privacy of communication
b. Sec. 1 – Life, liberty, and property
c. Sec. 2 – Unreasonable searches and seizures
d. Sec. 6 – Liberty of abode
e. Sec. 8 – Right to form associations
f. Sec. 17 – Right against self-incrimination
What is required for one to have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social network activity (facebook)?
Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user, manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility (This case; OSN Privacy Tools).
Therefore, a Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to his or her post or profile detail should not be denied the informational privacy right which necessarily accompanies said choice.
[Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].
What are the Requisites of Existence of Privacy Right (Test of Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy)?
a. Subjective: A person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; and
b. Objective: The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
[Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881 (2011)
When is intrusion on privacy allowed?
a. by lawful order of the court
b. when public safety or public order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law
a. By lawful order of the court
Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be followed for the court to allow intrusion. Particularity of description is needed for written correspondence, but if the intrusion is done through wire-taps and the like, there is no need to describe the content. However, identity of the person or persons whose communication is to be intercepted, and the offense or offenses sought to be prevented, and the period of the authorization given shouldbe specified.
b. When public safety or public order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law.
In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong [G.R. No. 82380 (1988)], it was held that the right to be let alone is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion to a person’s privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute matters of public character. The interest sought to be protected by the right to 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.
Introsion on privacy should be based on what?
Intrusion has to be based upon a non-judicial government official’s assessment that public safety and order demands such intrusion, limited to the provisions of law. To hold otherwise would be to opt for a government of men, and not of laws.
What is meant by public order and safety?
the security of human lives, liberty and property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionist and rebels.
[1971 Constitutional Convention, Session of November 25, 1972]
What is the presumption on prior restraint on freedom of speech and expression?
Presumption of invalidity
Because of the preferred character of the constitutional rights of the freedom of speech and of expression, a weighty presumption of invalidity vitiates measures of prior restraint upon the exercise of such freedoms
[Ayer v. Capulong, supra].
Is the right of privacy of a public figure broader or narrower thatn that of an ordinary citizen?
Right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen
[Ayer v. Capulong, supra].
Who is a public figure?
a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doing, his affairs and his character, has become public personage.
Does being a public figre automatically destroy in toto a person’s right to privacy?
NO.
The press had a privilege, under the constitution, to inform the public about those that have become legitimate matters of public interest. But as held in Lagunzad v. Soto [G.R. No. L-32066 (1979)], being a public figure does not automatically destroy in toto a person’s right to privacy
Are personal matters outsie the coverage of people’s right to information?
YES.
Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, NEDA [G.R. No. 167798 (2006)] stated that personal matters are exempt or outside the coverage of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern.
Enumerate the two part test to determine the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy
- Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy
- Whether his expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable
The factual circumstances of the case determine the reasonableness of the expectation. However, other factors such as customs, physical surroundings and practices of a particular activity, may serve to create or diminish this expectation [Ople v. Torres, supra].
When is an encroachment on the right to privace invalid?
- There is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
2. if there is no compelling state interest.
What is the Effect of invalid intrusions?
Sec. 3(2), Art III (the Exclusionary rule)
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
What is the Exclusionary rule?
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Does a unified multi-purpose ID system for government violate the right to privacy?
NO.
E.O. 424 (s. 2005), adopting a unified multipurpose ID system for government, does not violate the right to privacy because it
(1) narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded, and released compared to existing ID systems, and
(2) provides safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data collected
[KMU v. Director-General, G.R. No. 167798 (2006)].
When is an intrusion into the privacy of workplaces valid?
An intrusion into the privacy of workplaces is valid if it conforms to the standard of reasonableness. Under this standard, both inception and scope of intrusion must be reasonable.
[Pollo v. Constantino-David, supra].
