“The Right to Privacy in On-line repositories of Philippine Jurisprudence”

“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.