Is a person's right to privacy violated whenever his name appears on the repositories of Philippine jurisprudence such as lawphil, lex libris, SCRA or other similar repositories more especially if it will involve the disclosure of private details which are closely guarded by the said person?
To put you in perspective, let take the case of Chi Ming Tsoi (G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997) where a part of the said decision provided this paragraph:
"The doctor said, that he asked the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erection and he found out that from the original size of two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters, the penis of the defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and one centimeter."
In the above stated paragraph, the length of the genitalia of Chi Ming Tsoi was indicated whereby it was possible that Mr Choi could have been subjected to insults because of this revelation.
Now that our perspective are already somewhat on a similar level, I'll start the discussion.
LIMITED ACCESS OF THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION
Some of these affected party-litigants may raise this issue as unconstitutional on the basis that it is provided by the supreme law of the land. It states:
"Section 7. 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. (emphasis supplied)"
For the possible argument on the part of the affected person, he could say that the fact that he had a minute penis should not be included since the right to information is not absolute as this is subject to limitations which the law may provide.
RESPECTING ONE'S DIGNITY
Banking on the Civil Code, he may use the argument that this limitation has been provided by the Civil Code of the Philippines
"Art. 26. 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: (emphasis supplied)
Xxx"
Now comes the real question, can this argument be actually sustained and eventually have his privacy protected from further exploitation?
No, the possible arguments are not valid and his privacy is never violated by the recital of facts contained in these repositories which are merely lifted entirely from the Supreme Court decisions.
APPLICATION OF THE LIMITATIONS
First, invoking the provisions of the Bill of Rights is misplaced. The limitations provided to protect the party litigant are provided under Section 29 of Republic Act 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and Sections 40 and 44 of Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004;
"Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:
Sec. 29. Confidentiality.—at the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in the case of television and radio broadcasting, producer and director in the case of the movie industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of a violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of the offended party.
Sec. 44 of RA 9262 similarly provides:
Sec. 44. Confidentiality.—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.
Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Likewise, the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children states:
Sec. 40. Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings.—All hearings of cases of violence against women and their children shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the dignity of women and their children and respect for their privacy.
Records of the cases shall be treated with utmost confidentiality. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer or other identifying information of the parties or an immediate family or household member, without their consent or without authority of the court, shall be liable for contempt of court and shall suffer the penalty of one year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos."
The limitations set is only applicable to offended parties who are children or women. Moreover, this limitation based on the Feb 14, 2006 resolution of the Supreme Court entitled A.M. No. 99-7-06-SC In Re Internet Web Page of the Supreme Court as provided by the court in the landmark case of People v Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006). It stated:
"It is worth mentioning in this connection that the Court has resolved to refrain from posting in its Internet Web Page the full text of decisions in cases involving child sexual abuse in response to a letter from a mother of a child abuse victim addressed to the Chief Justice expressing anxiety over the posting of full text decisions of the Supreme Court on its Internet Web Page. The mother submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of the child must prevail over public access to information and pleaded that her daughter’s case, as well as those of a similar nature, be excluded from the Web Page."
It is now therefore clear that if the offended person is not a child or a woman, this limitation cannot be applied and ultimately the provisions of the Constitution cannot be properly invoked. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius.
PRESERVING THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS CONCERNED
Decisions of the court are of public record and may be accessed anytime. It also forms part of the legal system of the Philippines
"Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines
As such, these decisions may not be altered by anyone, although at times, confidential matters that are not supposed to be made known are included in the presentation of facts especially if these facts are material to the case or issue being heard by the court.
In fact, the Rules of Court specifically requires the pleading to contain the ultimate facts omitting only statements of mere evidentiary facts (Sec 1, Rule 8, 1997 Revised Rules of Court)
In this connection, the argument which relies on the provision of the New Civil Code cannot prosper given that the intent to malign, besmirch or otherwise tarnish the dignity of the person is wanting. The mere fact that a personal circumsance is material to the case indicates that its inclusion is not a matter or choice but a necessity. Otherwise, the case might crumble like a makeshift house under an Intensity 9 earthquake.
To conclude, no right is violated and the person affected has no right to demand the removal of his name from the database kept by these repositories.
DISCLAIMER: The writer is a law student and the contents are used merely for academic discussions. This article is a mere opinion and does not, in any manner, provide legal advice. As such, it cannot be a source of a legal right.
No comments:
Post a Comment