CASES IN PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND Zulueta vs.

Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)

CORRESPONDENCE
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA inviolable, except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as prescrbied by law. Any
Facts: Private Respondent Rafael Ortanez filed a complaint evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceeding section,
before the RTC for annulment of marriage against petitioner shall inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Teresota Salcedo-Ortanez on the grounds of lack of marriage
license and psychological incapacity. Rafael offered in evidence FACTS:
three cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent
between petitioner and unidentified persons. The petitioner Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1962, petitioner entered the clinic
objected, but the trial court admitted all of private respondent’s of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her
evidence. A petition for certiorari was then filed to the CA mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly
questioning the admissibility of such evidence. CA ruled for the opened the drawers and cabinet of her husband's clinic and took
validity of the admission, for two basic reasons: (1) Tape 157 documents consisting of private respondents between Dr.
recordings are not inadmissible per se. They and any other Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled
variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes, check, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The
depending on how they are presented and offered and on how documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case
the trial judge utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of
and the even handed administration of justice. (2) A petition for medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed error
in admitting evidence adduced during trial. ISSUE: Whether or not the papers and other materials obtained
from forcible intrusion and from unlawful means are admissible
Issue: WON the cassette tapes containing the conversation of as evidence in court regarding marital separation and
the petitioner is admissible as evidence. disqualification from medical practice.

Ruling: NO. Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone HELD:

conversations not admissible in evidence. — RA 4200 entitled Indeed the documents and papers in question are
“An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injuction declaring
Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other "the privacy of communication and correspondence to be
purposes” expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who
evidence. The relevant provisions of RA 4200 are as follows: Sec. thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infedility) who is the
1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the
any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, constitution is if there is a "lawful order from the court or which
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or public safety or order require otherwise, as prescribed by law."
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
or however otherwise described. . . .Sec. 4. Any communication
or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify
or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information anyone of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital
violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be infedility. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or her/his integrity or her/his right to privacy as an individual and
administrative hearing or investigation. the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
Clearly, respondents’ trial court and the Court of Appeals failed
to consider the provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the The law insures absolute freedom of communication
cassette tapes in question. Absent a clear showing that both between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband
parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent
the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may
under Rep. Act No. 4200. 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.
 KILUSANG MAYO UNO V. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL
OPLE v TORRES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Facts: Fidel V. Ramos issued on Dec. 12, 1996, A.O 308 Facts: President Arroyo issued Executive Order 450 which
“Adpotion of a National Computerized Identification Reference requires all government agencies and controlled corporations to
System” A.O. 308 published in different newspapers of general have a uniform identification card; the director-general of the
circulation. Petitioner filed instant petition against the Executive national economic development authority was tasked to
Sec. Torres and heads of the different government agencies that implement this order. The information required to be in the said
are part of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (committee identification card would be: name, home address, sex, picture,
in charge of the A.O. 308’s implementation) SC issued TRO signature, date of birth, place of birth, marital status, names of
enjoining the A.O.’s implementation. Petitioner’s Arguments and parents, height, weight, two index fingers and two thumb marks,
Repondents’ Counter-argument: (1) Issuance of A.O. 308 is an any prominent distinguishing features like moles and others, tax
unconstitutional usurpation of legislative powers of the Congress; identification number (TIN). The petitioners argued that the said
A.O. 308 was issued within the executive and administrative
executive order usurped legislative functions and violates the
powers of the president (2) Appropriation of public funds by the
right of privacy. Petitioners alleged that EO 450 is contrary to law
President for the implementation of A.O. 308 is an
because it violated the principle handed down by the Court in
unconstitutional usurpation of the power of Congress to
appropriate public funds; Funds necessary for the Ople v Torres and RA 8282 or the Social Security Act of 1997. The
implementation will come from the budgets of the difference order according to the petitioners was also going to use funds
government agencies involved in A.O. 308 (3) Implementation of that are not appropriated by the Congress, it was also issued
A.O. 308 lays the groundwork for a system which will violate the without a public hearing. The order was also violating the
bill of rights in our constitution; A.O. 308 protects an individual’s constitutional provision of equal protection of the laws because
interest in privacy. it discriminates and penalizes those who do not have an id. The
petitioners also argue that the order violates the right to privacy
Issue: Whether AO no. 308 violates the right of privacy by allowing for the access of the personal data of the owner
without his or her consent.
Held: Yes. Yes, AO 308 is broad and vague and if implemented
will put the people’s right to privacy in danger Issue: Whether or not EO 450 usurped legislative functions and
 Right to privacy is a fundamental right violated the citizen’s right to privacy.
o Burden is on the government to show that
AO 308 does not violate a person’s right to Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the petition had no merit.
privacy. The said order only applies to government agencies who are
o Right to privacy expressly recognized in already issuing identification cards even before the said order
our Constitution through various was implemented. The purposes of the order were to: reduce
provisions in the Bill of Rights. costs, achieve efficiency and reliability, convenience to the
 AO 308 VAGUE AND NOT NARROWLY DRAWN people served by the government entities and insure
o SECTION 4 – use of biometrics compatibility. Section 17 Article VII of the Constitution also
 AO 308 does not state what provides for the President to have control to all executive
specific biometrics technology departments, bureaus and offices. This constitutional power of
shall be used to identify people the President is self-executing and does not need implementing
who will seek its coverage. legislation. This power of course is limited to executive branch of
o Order does not state clearly who the the government and does not extend to other branches or
information gathered shall be handled, independent constitutional commissions. EO 450 does not
does not provide who shall control and violate the right to privacy since no citizen particularly
access data. government employee have complained upon the showing of
o Lacks proper safeguard and not narrowly information on their identification cards, even the petitioners
drawn. have not made any complaint about their own identification
o fatal on its face in a sense that it gives the cards. EO 450 also issues identification cards that only have 14
IACC (implementing body) unlimited data about the owner much less than what is issued upon
discretion to determine the metes and Supreme Court employees.
bounds of the ID System.
 Reasonableness of a person’s expectation of
privacy 2 part test:
o Whether by his conduct, the individual
has exhibited an expectation of privacy
o Whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable
AO 308, so widely drawn there is no minimum standard for a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
VIVARES VS ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE GR NO 202666 29 (a) Public – the default setting; every Facebook user can view the
SEPTEMBER 2014 photo;
(b) Friends of Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends and their
Facts: In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St. friends can view the photo;
Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several pictures (c) Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends can view the
of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) photo;
wearing only their undergarments. (d) Custom – the photo is made visible only to particular friends
Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to and/or networks of the Facebook user; and
their teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, (e) Only Me – the digital image can be viewed only by the user.
viewed and downloaded said pictures. She showed the said The default setting is “Public” and if a user wants to have some
pictures to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. privacy, then he must choose any setting other than “Public”. If
Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the student’s it is true that the students concerned did set the posts subject of
handbook and banned them from “marching” in their this case so much so that only five people can see them (as they
graduation ceremonies scheduled in March 2012. claim), then how come most of their classmates were able to
The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary restraining view them. This fact was not refuted by them. In fact, it was their
order) granted by the Cebu RTC enjoining the school from classmates who informed and showed their teacher, Escudero,
barring the students in the graduation ceremonies, STC still of the said pictures. Therefore, it appears that Tan et al never
barred said students. use the privacy settings of Facebook hence, they have no
Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and the other reasonable expectation of privacy on the pictures of them
mothers filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas scantily clad.
data against the school. They argued, among others, that:
1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was LEE VS ILAGAN
set at “Friends Only.” They, thus, have a reasonable expectation
of privacy which must be respected. Facts: Neri, a police officer, filed a petition for the issuance of
2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, cannot be Writ of Habeas Data against Joy, her former common law
used and reproduced without their consent. Escudero, however, partner.
violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and by
subsequently showing them to STC’s officials. Thus, the According to him, sometime in July 2011, he visited Joy’s
Facebook accounts of the children were intruded upon; condominium and rested for a while. When he arrived at his
3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as the office, he noticed his digital camera missing. On August 23, 2011,
copying of information, data, and digital images happened at Joy confronted him about a purported sex video she discovered
STC’s Computer Laboratory; from the digital camera showing him and another woman.
They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and deposit with
the court all soft and printed copies of the subject data and have He denied the video and demanded the return of the camera,
such data be declared illegally obtained in violation of the but she refused. They had an altercation where Neri allegedly
children’s right to privacy. slammed Joy’s head against a wall and then walked away.

Issue: Whether STC violated the right of privacy of the student Because of this, Joy filed several cases against him, including a
Held: No. STC did not violate the students’ right to privacy. The case for violation of Republic Act 9262 and administrative cases
manner which the school gathered the pictures cannot be before the Napolcom, utilising the said video.
considered illegal. As it appears, it was the classmates of the
students who showed the picture to their teacher and the latter, The use of the same violated his life to liberty, security and
being the recipient of said pictures, merely delivered them to the privacy and that of the other woman, thus he had no choice but
proper school authority and it was for a legal purpose, that is, to to file the petition for issuance of the writ of habeas data.
discipline their students according to the standards of the school
(to which the students and their parents agreed to in the first RTC issued the writ and directed Joy to appear before the RTC
place because of the fact that they enrolled their children there). and produce Neri’s digital camera, as well as the original and
copies of the video, and to make a return within five days from
The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking site (ONS) receipt. In her return,. Joy admitted keeping the memory card of
like Facebook has privacy tools, and the user makes use of such the digital camera and reproducing the video but only for use as
privacy tools, then he or she has a reasonable expectation of evidence in the cases she filed against Neri. Neri’s petitions
privacy (right to informational privacy, that is). Thus, such should be dismissed because its filing was only aimed at
privacy must be respected and protected. suppressing the evidence in the cases she filed against him; and
In this case, however, there is no showing that the students she is not engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data
concerned made use of such privacy tools. Evidence would show regarding the person of Neri. The RTC granted Neri’s petition and
that that their post (status) on Facebook were published as ordered the turn-over of the video to Neri and enjoined Joy from
“Public”. reproducing the same. It disregarded Joy’s defense that she is
Facebook has the following settings to control as to who can not engaged in the collection, gathering and storage of data, and
view a user’s posts on his “wall” (profile page): that her acts of reproducing the same and showing it to other
persons (Napolcom) violated Neri’s right to privacy and
humiliated him. It clarified that it ruling only on the return of the
video and not on its admissibility as evidence. Dissatisfied, Joy
filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Held: A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data (Habeas Data Rule), was conceived as a response, given the
lack of effective and available remedies, to address the
extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances[1]. It was conceptualized as a judicial remedy
enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informational privacy of individuals[2], which is defined as “the
right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and
dissemination of data about oneself[3].”

As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of

habeas data now stands as “a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.”

Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ,

Section 6 of the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the
petition sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner the
right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the
right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.” In other
words, the petition must adequately show that there exists a
nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the
right to life, liberty or security on the other[4]. Corollarily, the
allegations in the petition must be supported by substantial
evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the right
to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim[5]. In this
relation, it bears pointing out that the writ of habeas data will
not issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor
when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor
are vague and doubtful[6].

In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to
sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or
security was or would be violated through the supposed
reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex
video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression
of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to
Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption –
he failed to explain the connection between such interest and
any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.