On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police operation at Tukanalipao,

Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to serve an

arrest warrant for Zulkifli bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a $5
million bounty on his head. This mission eventually led to a clash between the Philippine National
Police's (PNP) SAF, on the one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation was "successful"
because of the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed sixty-seven lives including forty-four
SAF troopers, eighteen MILF Fighters, and five civilians. However, the relatively high number
of SAF members killed in this operation caught the attention of many including the
Philippine media and the legislature. In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic
mission, then Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public
hearing of an audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre
of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence
under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited the legal brief of the Free Legal
Assistance Group (FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects only the recording
and interception of private communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA
4200) and explained that "any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,
purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information there in 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." Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public
order and dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. "Sinabi na ni Senator Drilon na ito daw ay illegal, na hindi
daw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng maging liable kung ito daw ay ipapakinig ko sa
Senado, ako naman, ano ba itong mga batas na ito?... Ang mga batas na ito ay para malaman natin
ang katotohanan at magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong mga anti-wiretapping or mga recording na
ganito, kung hindi pwedeng ilabas sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session."
Senator Poe's response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights? If it
is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can the government do
so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of people?

This case exposes the aftermath of

the Mamasapano
incident and the Senate investigations. The
Senate inquiry
proceedings raised questions on the
possibility of wire-
tapping and the intrusion to one's right to
privacy. While the
1987 Philippine Constitution does
protect one's right to
private communication, it did provide
some exemptions to its
inviolability. These exemptions include a
lawful order of the
court and/or issues involving public safety
and order. In fact,
RA 4200 (or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law)
and RA 9372 (or the
Human Security Act of 2007) both
provided exemptions to
the inviolability of the right to privacy in
instances of treason,
espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While
this is certainly a
legal issue, can it also constitute a moral
concern? By raising
the distinction between moral and legal
issues and concerns,
do you think that these two are different?
To simplify things,
let us put aside the question of law and let
us assume that
you were asked to decide whether
wiretapping is morally
permissible or not. On what instances is
wiretapping morally
permissible and on what instances is
it not morally
permissible?
When considering the moral permissibility
of wiretapping, we
calculate the costs and benefits of
wiretapping. If we
calculate the costs and benefits of our
actions, then we are
considering an ethical theory that
gives premium to the
consequences of actions as the basis
of morality and as
such is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an
ethical theory that
argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination
of right behavior based on the
usefulness of the action's
consequences. This means that pleasure is
good and that
the goodness of an action is determined by
its usefulness.
Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism
claims that one's
actions and behavior are good
inasmuch as they are
directed toward the experience of the
greatest pleasure over
pain for the greatest number of
persons. Its root word is
"utility" which refers to the usefulness of
the consequences
of one's action and behavior. When
we argue that
wiretapping is permissible because doing
so results in better
public safety, then we are arguing in a
utilitarian way. It is
utilitarian because we argue that some
individual rights can
be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the
many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873) are the two foremost
utilitarian thinkers
This case exposes the aftermath of
the Mamasapano
incident and the Senate investigations. The
Senate inquiry
proceedings raised questions on the
possibility of wire-
tapping and the intrusion to one's right to
privacy. While the
1987 Philippine Constitution does
protect one's right to
private communication, it did provide
some exemptions to its
inviolability. These exemptions include a
lawful order of the
court and/or issues involving public safety
and order. In fact,
RA 4200 (or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law)
and RA 9372 (or the
Human Security Act of 2007) both
provided exemptions to
the inviolability of the right to privacy in
instances of treason,
espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While
this is certainly a
legal issue, can it also constitute a moral
concern? By raising
the distinction between moral and legal
issues and concerns,
do you think that these two are different?
To simplify things,
let us put aside the question of law and let
us assume that
you were asked to decide whether
wiretapping is morally
permissible or not. On what instances is
wiretapping morally
permissible and on what instances is
it not morally
permissible?
When considering the moral permissibility
of wiretapping, we
calculate the costs and benefits of
wiretapping. If we
calculate the costs and benefits of our
actions, then we are
considering an ethical theory that
gives premium to the
consequences of actions as the basis
of morality and as
such is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an
ethical theory that
argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination
of right behavior based on the
usefulness of the action's
consequences. This means that pleasure is
good and that
the goodness of an action is determined by
its usefulness.
Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism
claims that one's
actions and behavior are good
inasmuch as they are
directed toward the experience of the
greatest pleasure over
pain for the greatest number of
persons. Its root word is
"utility" which refers to the usefulness of
the consequences
of one's action and behavior. When
we argue that
wiretapping is permissible because doing
so results in better
public safety, then we are arguing in a
utilitarian way. It is
utilitarian because we argue that some
individual rights can
be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the
many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873) are the two foremost
utilitarian thinkers
This case exposes the aftermath of
the Mamasapano
incident and the Senate investigations. The
Senate inquiry
proceedings raised questions on the
possibility of wire-
tapping and the intrusion to one's right to
privacy. While the
1987 Philippine Constitution does
protect one's right to
private communication, it did provide
some exemptions to its
inviolability. These exemptions include a
lawful order of the
court and/or issues involving public safety
and order. In fact,
RA 4200 (or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law)
and RA 9372 (or the
Human Security Act of 2007) both
provided exemptions to
the inviolability of the right to privacy in
instances of treason,
espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While
this is certainly a
legal issue, can it also constitute a moral
concern? By raising
the distinction between moral and legal
issues and concerns,
do you think that these two are different?
To simplify things,
let us put aside the question of law and let
us assume that
you were asked to decide whether
wiretapping is morally
permissible or not. On what instances is
wiretapping morally
permissible and on what instances is
it not morally
permissible?
When considering the moral permissibility
of wiretapping, we
calculate the costs and benefits of
wiretapping. If we
calculate the costs and benefits of our
actions, then we are
considering an ethical theory that
gives premium to the
consequences of actions as the basis
of morality and as
such is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an
ethical theory that
argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination
of right behavior based on the
usefulness of the action's
consequences. This means that pleasure is
good and that
the goodness of an action is determined by
its usefulness.
Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism
claims that one's
actions and behavior are good
inasmuch as they are
directed toward the experience of the
greatest pleasure over
pain for the greatest number of
persons. Its root word is
"utility" which refers to the usefulness of
the consequences
of one's action and behavior. When
we argue that
wiretapping is permissible because doing
so results in better
public safety, then we are arguing in a
utilitarian way. It is
utilitarian because we argue that some
individual rights can
be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the
many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
and John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873) are the two foremost
utilitarian thinkers
This case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate investigations. The
Senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of wire-tapping and the intrusion
to one's right to privacy. While the1987 Philippine Constitution does protect one's right to
private communication, it did provide some exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions include a
lawful order of the court and/or issues involving public safety and order. In fact, RA 4200 (or the Anti-
Wire Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions to the
inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While this
is certainly a legal issue, can it also constitute a moral concern? By raising the distinction between moral
and legal issues and concerns, do you think that these two are different? To simplify things, let us put
aside the question of law and let us assume that you were asked to decide whether wiretapping is
morally permissible or not. On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what
instances is it not morally permissible? When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping,
we calculate the costs and benefits of wiretapping. If we calculate the costs and benefits of our
actions, then we are considering an ethical theory that gives premium to the consequences of
actions as the basis of morality and as such is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that
argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on the usefulness
of the action's consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is
determined by its usefulness. Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that one’s actions and
behavior are good in as much as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest pleasure
over pain for the greatest number of persons. Its root word is “utility" which refers to the
usefulness of the consequences of one's action and behavior. When we argue that wiretapping
is permissible because doing so results in better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It
is utilitarian because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the
two foremost utilitarian thinkers.

Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the goodness or
the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the
greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of
actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the
usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad. While this is
the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian. For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way
of understanding the results of people's actions. Specifically, they are interested on whether
these actions contribute or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in the world. The utilitarian
value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its
promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of
pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s rights.

Q: What make this a matter of ethics?

Think of it like weighing two heavy bags. One bag represents privacy, and the other represents safety. To
make a good decision, you need to balance these bags carefully. You don't want to give up too much
privacy and risk people's rights, but you also don't want to ignore safety concerns. Finding the right
balance is a tough ethical challenge.

Several reasons may be considered in identifying what the provided material be matter of ethics, first is
privacy and safety of an individual. We have these two important values in our life, we have our
personal privacy meaning your right to keep your thoughts, ideas, and conversations private. On the
other hand our safety or our community, it is ensuring that every individual are protected from harm. So
wiretapping involves a conflict between these values. We can think it like weighing two heavy bags that
we need to balance it carefully. We don't want to give up too much privacy and risk people's rights, but
we also don't want to ignore safety concerns that is why finding the right balance is a tough ethical
challenge.