Technologies Impact on Privacy

Commandment # 3 states, Thou shalt not snoop around with other peoples computer files. To address this
problem, the Article III, Section III of Philippine Constitution (Privacy Rights).

PRIVACY is the right of a person to be alone.

TECHNOLOGY is the used of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve a
problem.

Life Under National ID System

NATIONAL I.D SYSTEM - which will serve as the official identification of a Filipino citizen or alien
permanent resident dealing with department, bureau, agency, or office of the government or any governmentowned or controlled corporation, firm or establishment, including, but not limited to government financial
institutions.
The national identification card will do away with the need to present other documents required for
identification purposes. It intends to facilitate, for instance, the issuance of passports and other official
documents required by our citizens from the Government. It will make the payment of fees and the collection
of taxes much easier and efficient. Election fraud, which is national scourge, can be eliminated with the use of
a national identification card.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON PRIVACY

The word PRIVACY was only mentioned once in the 1987 Philippines Constitution thus:
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribe by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the proceeding section shall be admissible for any purpose in any
proceedings.(Art. III, Sec. 3).
Reading or even memorizing this constitutional provision of our Constitution will not be enough in
determining whether ones privacy is being violated or not because the right of the citizen to privacy is NOT
absolute, that is, it admits of exemptions and this is clear in the phrase, except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires otherwise prescribe by law. A good question might be,

When can we say that the order of the court is lawful?.

In what instance that the citizens right to privacy can be invaded because public safety or order
requires it?
What are the laws which prescribe the invasion of an individuals privacy?

A. Exemption 1. Lawful Court Order.

The court order is lawful when the search warrant(court order) is issued by the judge afer he
personally determines that there is a probable cause which required by Art. III Section 2 of the Constitution
thus:
The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except
upon probable cause to determine personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be search and the persons or the things to be seized.

B. Public Order or Safety Requirement

This provision is best explained without regard with the technology. If Pedro is carrying his precious
wedding gift specially wrapped and sealed for wedding purpose decides to ride at any LRT/MRT station he
cannot prevent the security guard to compel him to open and show the content of the gift. This is because of
the principle that the general welfare of the public is the supreme law. Thus, when one decides to ride in
LRT/MRT or to travel by plane, he is temporary surrendering his right to privacy because public safety
requires it.
C. Express Provision of the Law
There are so many laws which provide an express provision requiring surrender ones privacy. For
instance, under the Anti Money Laundering Law, when an individual deposits in one transaction an amount
of atleast Three Hundred Thousand pesos (P300,000) in a bank, the latter obliged by law to provide the name,
as well as the personal information of the depositor, to the Anti Money Laundering council.

Facts:
On December 12, 1996, then Pres. Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 38 entitled
ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM (AO
308) to provide Filipino citizens and foreign residents with facility to conveniently transact business with basic
service among others. The administrative Order was published on January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. On
January 24, 1997, the Senator Blas OPLE filed a petition contending that:
Administrative Order 308 is unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of Congress
It violates the individuals right to privacy.
Issue:
Whether or not A.O. 308 is unconstitutional for violation of individuals right to privacy.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that AO 308 is a law and hence, unconstitutional because the President has
no power to make laws.
AO 308 was held to be unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.

Broadness, vagueness and overbreadth of AO 308. It does not state in the clear and categorical term of
the information will be handled. It does NOT provide who shall control and access the data, under
which circumstances and for what purpose.
There is NO guard against leakage of information. Thus, an intruder, without fear or sanction or
penalty, can make use of the data for whatever purpose, or worse, manipulated the data stored within
the system.
An individual has no reasonable exception of privacy with regard to the National ID System.

4.
5.

The rules and regulation to be promulgated by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC)
cannot remedy the defect.
It does not satisfy with the rational relationship test.

Question: Is our Supreme Court against the use of technology?

Answer: Not really. According to the Supreme Court,

A National ID System is possible if:

Congress, not the President, will be the one to intact a law.

The law must state I clear and categorical term all information to be handled. It should provide who
shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose.
The law must ensure safeguard against leakage of information. Thus, an intruder, should be penalized
so that they may be afraid to do illegal acts.
It must satisfy the rational relationship test.

The Rational Relationship Test

- A judicial standard of review that examines whether a legislature had a reasonable and not an
arbitrary basis for enacting a particular statute.
The Supreme Court will first determine if the policy has a reasonable purpose or rational basis for being
enacted by the legislature. If the answer is yes, the policy is deemed to be legitimate.
If the Supreme Court will then determine if the policy is reasonably related to attain the indentified
legitimate end. If the answer is yes, the Supreme Court will go no further and the policy will upheld.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Republic Act 4200 or Anti-Wiretapping Act.
Section 1 and Section 4 of Anti-Wiretapping Act provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or
any part thereof, or any information therein 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.
The law expressly provides that It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word (underlining supplied).

PRIVACY BETWEEN SPOUSES

Question: Is privacy should be present between husband and wife?
The Supreme Court declared,
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
cabinets of the other and I ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting
marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is
ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between spouses by making it privileged. Neither
husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the
marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing
is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the
other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.
So as it is state above the answer to the question is yes.

Privacy Rights of Convicted/Detained Person

If Juan is convicted of a crime rape, can he invoke his rights of privacy? Can he still use a mobile
phone or a laptop computer to communicate freely with his friends and/or families?
The answer to that question is no because in Art III Sec. 3 of the Constitution thus:
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribe by law.
Since you committed a crime that is against the law there is no reason and petition that you could file to
invoke your privacy.

Concept of Identity Theft

Identity Theft - the deliberate use of someone else's identity, usually as a method to gain a financial advantage
or obtain credit and other benefits in the other person's name, and perhaps to the other person's disadvantage
or loss. The person whose identity has been assumed may suffer adverse consequences if they are held
responsible for the perpetrator's actions. Identity theft occurs when someone uses another's personally
identifying information, like their name, identifying number, or credit card number, without their permission,
to commit fraud or other crimes.
Phising - is the attempt to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details
(and sometimes, indirectly, money), often for malicious reasons, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an
electronic communication.

Republic Act No. 10173 or Data Privacy Act of 2012

It is the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human right of privacy, of communication while
ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of
information and communications technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that
personal information in information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector
are secured and protected.

What is Due Process?

The constitution contains no formal definition of due process, however, both local and foreign
jurisprudence held that:
Due process of law we mean a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial.

Aspect of Due Process:

1. Procedural due process- refers to the mood of procedure which government and private agencies,
must follow in the enforcement and application of laws and rules.
2. Substantive due process- prohibition against arbitrary laws.

Requisites of Procedural Due Process

For judicial proceedings:
1.
2.
3.
4.

A court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is
the subject of the proceedings.
The defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing.

The Constitution states: No person shall be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..
In analyzing the stylistic way of how the constitution is worded, can we formulate in the following rule:
General Rule:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Exception to the Rule:
If there is due process of law.
So what? Anybody can understand this. Does it have any legal significance?
Yes, it has very important legal consequence. Since the exemption to the rule can only be applied if there is
due process, any person in litigation who alleged that there is due process of clause has been burden of proof.
In law, whoever alleges the exemption to the rule has been burden of proof.

Now what if the Constitution was amended and Sec. 1 of Article III was amended to read as follows:
A person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, unless if there is no due process of law.
Because the presumption of the law under this stylistic writing will be presence of due process and the burden
of proof that will be no due process of law. Why? Because under this format:
The general rule is:
A person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property; this presupposes the presence of due process;
Exception:
If there is no due process of law.

Due Process Clause Applied in Software Designs

You may not be aware that the programmer is applying that due process clause when designing and writing
programs, that is, it gives the user the right to be heard when it discerns the presence of a clear and present
danger.