Métodos de levantamiento artificial

Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be followed for the court to allow intrusion. Particularity of description is needed for written correspondence, but if the intrusion is done through wire- taps and the like, there is no need to describe the content. However, identity of the person or persons whose communication is to be intercepted, and the offense or offenses sought to be prevented, and the period of the authorization given can be specified. or

(2) When public safety or public order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law.

In Ayer Productions PTY. Ltd. v. Capulong (1988) (hint: Enrile case), the right to be let alone is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion to a person’s privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute matters of public character. The interest sought to be protected by the right to privacy is the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful

publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern. Intrusion has to be based upon a non- judicial government official’s assessment that public safety and order demands such intrusion, limited to the provisions of law. To hold otherwise would be to opt for a government of men, and not of laws. Public order and safety – the security of human lives, liberty and property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionist and rebels. [1971 Constitutional Convention, Session of November 25, 1972]

Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Speech and Communication

Because of the preferred character of the constitutional rights of the freedom of speech and of expression, a weighty presumption of invalidity vitiates measures of prior restraint upon the exercise of such freedoms. [Ayer v. Capulong, supra]

Right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. [Ayer v. Capulong, supra] Public Figure – a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doing, his affairs and his character, has become public personage. Why?

• They had sought publicity and consented to it, so they could not complain.

• Their personalities and their affairs had already become public and could no longer be regarded as their own private business.

• The press had a privilege, under the constitution, to inform the public about those that have become legitimate matters of public interest.

But as held in Lagunzad v. Soto (1979), being a public figure does not automatically destroy in toto a person’s right to privacy. In the case at bar, while it is true that the producer exerted efforts to present a true- to-life story of Moises Padilla, he admits that he induced a little romance in the film. Right of Privacy v. Freedom of Access to Information

Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director-General, NEDA (2006) stated that personal matters are exempt or outside the coverage of the people’s right to information on matters of public concern. The data treated as “strictly confidential” under EO 420 being matters of public concern, these data cannot be released to the public or the press.

As compared with Ople v. Torres (1998), where the Court ruled that no constitutional infirmity on the right of privacy was shown by EO 420 which streamlines and harmonizes the existing ID system within each government agency. According to the Court, it even narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded, and shown as compared to AO 308 (National ID System) which was not narrowly drawn.

Two-part test to determine the reasonableness of person’s expectation of privacy

(1) Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy (2) Whether his expectation is one that

society recognizes as reasonable

Note that factual circumstances of the case determine the reasonableness of the expectation. However, other factors such as customs, physical surroundings and practices of a particular activity, may serve to create or diminish this expectation. [Ople v. Torres, supra]

Forms of Correspondence Covered (1) Letters

(2) Messages (3) Telephone calls

(4) Telegrams, and the like [Bernas] Other imports from Jurisprudence:

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to secretly record such communications by means of a tape recorder. The law does not make any distinction. [Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590]

An extension telephone is not among the devices enumerated in Sec.1 of RA 4200. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. [Ganaan v. IAC (1986)]

E.O. 424 (s. 2005), adopting a unified multi- purpose ID system for government, does not violate the right to privacy because it (1) narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded, and released compared to existing ID systems, and (2) provides safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data collected. [KMU v. Director-General, (2006)]

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.

(1) 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. (2) Scope of intrusion is reasonable: if

measures used in the search are reasonable related to the search’s objectives, and it is not highly intrusive. [Pollo, supra]

Right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of her husband and there took documents consisting of private communications between her husband and his alleged paramour. [Zulueta v. Court of Appeals(1996)]

N.B. While Zulueta seems to be an exception to the State Action Requirement, Zulueta’s application of the exclusionary rule has only been cited once but to a state action.

See also: R.A. No. 10173, Data Privacy Act (2012)

Exclusionary rule

Any evidence obtained in violation of Article III, Section 3 (right to privacy of communications and correspondence) or Section 2 (right against unlawful search and seizures) shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This applies not only to testimonial evidence but also to documentary and object evidence.