Opening Spiel (Alkrissa and Ace) kaya niu yan

Part 1 (Al)

Al: The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court or when

Ace: Our choices are:

Bene: (A) public safety or public health requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Nicole: (B) dictated by the need to maintain public peace and order.

Jade: (C) public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Nicole: (D) public safety or order requires otherwise as determined by the President.

Ace: So whats the correct answer, Al?

Al: Letter C. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

DISCUSSION
What are the conditions for allowable intrusion into the privacy of communication &
correspondence?

**The guarantee given by the privacy provision is not absolute

Intent of Laurel is to condition allowable intrusion upon an order of a court
“person entitled to his secrets but if it involves public questions which State ought to
know may infringe that privacy (process or appeal to Court)
1) Lawful order
2) Public safety & order so demands

**text does not give any ground to allow intrusion but there must be probable cause & that
privacy right is but an aspect of the right to be secure in one’s person..

** identity of person & offense & the period of authorization given can be specified

When intrusion is made without judicial order?

- Public order & public safety through non-judicial gov’t official
- Ex: Exec. Officer can order intrusion when in his judgment, even w/o prior court approval
he believes that Public Safety & Public Order so requires.
NOTE: Public Order & Public Safety – security of human lives, liberty & property against the
activities of invaders, insurrectionists & rebels.

MORFE v MUTUC -The Supreme Court also held that the Constitution provides freedom from
unlawful governmental restraints, which necessarily includes the right to privacy or be let alone
in a civilized society. Further, the Court held that a system of limited government safeguards an
individual from state control. However, such right may still be set aside upon lawful order of the
Court or when public safety and order requires otherwise.

DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE - The Supreme Court of Philippines ruled that several
provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 violated freedom of expression and
privacy. Fourteen petitioners, including the Philippine Bar Association, the National Press Club,
a number of other NGOs and prominent academics, challenged twenty-one provisions of the
Cybercrime Act. The Court held that Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Act were
unconstitutional. It found that Section 4(c)(3) restricted freedom of expression by prohibiting the
unsolicited transmission of commercial communications, such as spam. Section 12 was
declared in violation of the right to privacy because it lacked sufficient specificity and
definiteness in collecting real-time computer data. Section 19 was found to violate the rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which gave the government the authority to
restrict or block access to computer data without a judicial warrant.

ZONES OF PRIVACY

The Court explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of
Sabio v. Senator Gordon"15 the relevance of these zones to the right to 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 of 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."

Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable
searches16 and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to
privacy of communication and correspondence.17 In assessing the challenge that the State has
impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person
has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been
violated by unreasonable government intrusion.18

The usual identifying information regarding a person includes his name, his citizenship, his
residence address, his contact number, his place and date of birth, the name of his spouse if
any, his occupation, and similar data. 19 The law punishes those who acquire or use such
identifying information without right, implicitly to cause damage. Petitioners simply fail to show
how government effort to curb computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and
correspondence as well as the right to due process of law.

Also, the charge of invalidity of this section based on the overbreadth doctrine will not hold
water since the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into guaranteed freedoms like
speech. Clearly, what this section regulates are specific actions: the acquisition, use, misuse or
deletion of personal identifying data of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire
another’s personal data.
 Part 2 (Bene)

Ace: Our next question is a 2012 Bar Question:

The problem reads: Under Article III, Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, the exclusion of evidence
that violates the right to privacy of communication and correspondence, to come under the
exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by who ?

Al : Our choices are ..

Nicole : Letter A, private individuals acting on their own.

Bene: Letter B, government agents.
Jade: private individuals on orders of superiors

Al: (ask one classmate kung ano sagot niya), tama ba siya partner ?

Ace : The correct answer is .. , letter B, government agents. Bene, idiscuss mo na yan.

Bene: The exclusionary rule is embodied in Art III, Sec 3 (2) : Any evidence obtained in violation
of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

Though Section 3 is silent as to who obtained the inadmissible evidence, a number of cases
have fully discussed that the rule is applied to the government agents.

In the case of Silverthorne Lumber, the Court held that the Government may not introduce
incriminating evidence derived from an illegally obtained source.

In the case of People vs Aruta, the NARCOM agents and police officers confiscated the drugs
from the accused without a warrant . However, the illegality of the search and seizure was made
the basis of a demurrer of evidence. The exclusion of such evidence is the only practical means
of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Notice that in the two cases, the evidence subject to exclusion were obtained by government
agents. Thus, to come under the exclusionary rule, the evidence must be obtained by
government agents.

Nicole: Speaking of exclusion, do we exclude DNA samples from the accused taken without
their consent since it violates the right against self-incrimination ?

Bene: That’s an interesting question. In the case of Rondero, the court discussed that what is
proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature
acquired from the accused under duress. In this case, a strand of hair was taken from the
accused without his consent which ultimately matched the hair strand from the grip of the rape-
homicide victim. It eventually led to his conviction.
The strand of hair is not a testimonial nor communicative in nature, thus, admissible in
evidence.

Part 3 (Nicole)

Al: In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, what test will the court
use?

Ace: Our choices are:

Bene: A - "rational relationship expectation of privacy" test

Jade: B - "reasonable expectation of privacy" test

Nicole: C "valid expectation of privacy" test

Al: What do you think is the correct answer, classmates? (ikaw na bahala sino piliin mo
magrecite hahaha)

Al: The correct answer is letter B – “reasonable expectation of privacy test”

Ace: Now, Nicole will discuss what this test is all about

Nicole: Before discussing the said test, I would like to first discuss right to privacy. 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 (1998)].

In Ople v. Torres, different provisions in the 1987 Constitution also constitute zones of
privacy:

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

Now, going back to the reasonable expectation of privacy test, in ascertaining whether there is a
violation of the right to privacy, courts use the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. This test
determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the
expectation has been violated.

The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test:

 1. Subjective: Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of
privacy; and

2. Objective: This expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. (Pollo v.

Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, Oct. 18, 2011)

When Intrusion is Allowed - General rule: An encroachment on the right to privacy is invalid
when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and if there is no compelling state interest.

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.
It is justified at inception if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up
evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct. Scope of intrusion is
reasonable if measures used in the search are reasonably related to the search’s objectives,
and it is not highly intrusive [Pollo v. Constantino-David].

Part 4 (Jade)

Al/Ace: As discussed earlier, the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable, does this right also apply to Philippine bank accounts and deposits?

Bene: No, it violates the right to information and requirement of full public disclosure.
Jade: Yes, the Bank Secrecy Act provides for the absolute confidentiality of bank deposits.
Nicole: No, bank deposits may be inquired into upon order of a competent court.

Al/Ace: xxxx. The correct answer is B.

Ratio:

There is a right to privacy governing bank accounts in the Philippines. Because of the Bank
Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of bank deposits remains a basic state policy in the Philippines.
Subsequent laws, including the AMLA, may have added exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act,
yet the secrecy of bank deposits still lies as the general rule. It falls within the zones of privacy
recognized by our laws. The framers of the 1987 Constitution likewise recognized that bank
accounts are not covered by either the right to information under Section 7, Article III or under
the requirement of full public disclosure under Section 28, Article II. Any exception to the rule of
absolute confidentiality must be specifically legislated. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Eugenio,
G.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008)
NOTE:

Under RA No. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, prohibits the intentional and unauthorized
interception, monitoring, or recording of private communications without the consent of all the
parties involved. The only exception is in cases where wiretapping may be authorized by a court
order for law enforcement purposes, such as criminal investigations.

Gaanan vs. IAC [145 SCRA 113 (1986)], where the telephone extension was not considered as
“tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. Hence, the phrase “device or arrangement” in
Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be
construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use
of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments
whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard
because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for
tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.

_______________________If may time pa_________________________________________

Part 5 (Ace)

Question No. l for Political Law BAR 2024 ^_^

Bastian is a suspected member and sole survivor of the Maute Group. Paranoid that Marites
Intelligence Agency is monitoring his online activities and even his cellphone, he resorted to
traditional mail in order to recruit new members

Lt. Mosang, the chief of police then ordered the Postmaster to intercept and open all mail
coming from and going to Bastian in the interest of national security. (extracted from 1998 Bar)

a) Mam, Benelisa, is the order of Mosang valid?

- No. Such order is invalid. There was no law nor a court order authorizing
Mosang to do so. (Art III S3 provides: private communications and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful court order, when public
safety or order requires it, as prescribed by law)

b) Suppose, it was Bastian’s wife Marisol, who took Bastian’s private letters and
sent them to the police, will these be admissible as evidence, Ma’am Nicole?

- No. (exclusionary principle) and in the case of Zulueta vs CA, it was

explained that marriage does not divest a person from his right to privacy of
communication.

c) Suppose, Bastian was arrested. And while in jail, he wrote more letters and sent
them to his friend Mariposa who loves to post online. Would these letters be
admissible when presented as evidence, Madam Jade?

- Yes. In the case of People vs Albofera, the letters are admissible as evidence
if it was the recipient who produced them voluntarily or that they were not
obtained by unlawful search and seizure or invasion into the privacy of Bastian…
AND if the letters are not self-incrimanatory.

d) Suppose Bastian was convicted and his case went to the Supreme Court. While
the justices were deliberating, Bastian’s lawyer Atty. Talunan sent hate letters to the
justices regarding the performance of their duties. Are the letters covered by this
right of informational privacy, Madam Alkrissa?
 - No. Letters to individual justices of the Supreme Court in connection with the
performance of their functions will form part of judicial record and are a matter of
concern for the entire court. Thus, such letters are not covered by this
constitutional right. Atty. Talunan should be disciplined. (In Re: Disciplinary
Action against Atty. Laureta 148 Scra 382)

e) Assuming Bastian is not in jail, but he fears that the disclosure of his letters MAY
threaten his right to life, liberty, security and privacy, MAY he resort to Habeas Data? (kanino
itanong lol)
- NO, Bastian cannot just ask the court for Habeas Data just because of fears
that such letters MAY threaten..blablabla... In the case of Lee vs Ilagan, it was explained that a
writ of Habeas Data may be issued only if there is substantial evidence showing an actual or
threatened violation of right to life, liberty, security and privacy.(NO if not sufficiently alleged and
walang substantial evidence/ YES if meron).. In the case of Lee vs Ilagan, it was explained that
a writ of Habeas Data may be issued only if there is substantial evidence showing an actual or
threatened violation of right to life, liberty, security and privacy.(NO if not sufficiently alleged and
walang substantial evidence/ YES if meron).