“The Right to Privacy in On-line repositories of Philippine
Jurisprudence”
"The Right to Privacy
may be defined as the right of the individual to determine when, how, and to
what extent he or she will release personal information.” (R V Duarte 1 SCR 39) On the
other hand the Right to Official Information is an indispensable element of a
functioning representative democracy. The ideal of a “government by the people”
presupposes that the people have access to information on matters of public
concern in order to effectively exercise its governing power.” (Explanatory Note House Bill 2993)
No less then the supreme
law of the land guarantee’s the right of people to information and matters of
public concern. Sec.7 of the Bill of Rights 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.”
Article 26 of the New Civil Code protects an
individual’s right to privacy. It
provides that “Every person shall respect
the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and
other relief….”
There seems to be a conflict with the provisions of law above-cited
and there is an issue as to which amongst them must prevail. Can a party litigant invoke his right to
privacy and ask for the removal of his name or the text of the whole decision
adverse to him? Would this be a
violation of the public’s constitutional right to information?
The Constitution is the
supreme law of the land and all laws must bow before it. (Art. 7 NCC) As a citizen of this country we have the
obligation to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. When we submit ourselves to the jurisdiction
of the courts by filing a case or being a participant in it we set the judicial
machinery in motion and we could not later on complain that the published
decision violates our rights to privacy for decisions of the Supreme Court
forms part of the law of the land. We
are not left without remedy though, for the Right to Information is not all encompassing
it is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. An example of this limitation is Sec. 44 of R.A. 9262 which provides
that “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 or 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.” Applying the said provision of the law
the Supreme Court protected the identity of the victim and her family by using fictitious
initials in the case of People v. Cabalquinto
(G.R. No. 167693,September 19,2006). Even
before the Cabalquinto ruling was promulgated on September 19, 2006, the Court
has already refrained from posting the full text of decisions in child sexual
abuse and similar cases in the SC website.
(AM No. 99-7-06-SC, In re: Internet Web Page of the Supreme Court, July 27,
2006)
A person’s right to
information must be respected, however we must also be mindful of respecting
one’s right to privacy. Thus, we cannot ask for the
removal of our names or the whole decision of the Supreme Court for the mere
reason that said decision is adverse to us.
We must be able to invoke a statutory law which grants such
exemption.