privacy of communications

7/25/2019 Privacy of Communications

1/22

G.R. No. 161107 March 12, 2013

HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO, in her caaci!" a#Ci!" Ma"or o$ Mari%ina Ci!", &OSE'H(NE C. E)ANGEL(S*A, in her caaci!" a# Chie$, 'er+i! Dii#ion, O$$ice o$ !heCi!" En-ineer, an ALFONSO ES'(R(*U, in hi# caaci!" a#Ci!" En-ineer o$ Mari%ina Ci!", Petitioners,vs.

S*. SCHOLAS*(CA/S COLLEGE an S*. SCHOLAS*(CA/SACADEMMAR((NA, (NC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOA, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under

Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which see!s to set aside the

Dece"#er $, %&&' Decision$of the Court of (ppeals )C(* in

C(+.R. SP No. -/$.

*he Fac!#

Respondents St. Scholastica0s Colle1e )SSC* and St.Scholastica0s (cade"2+3ari!ina, Inc. )SS(+3ari!ina* are

educational institutions or1anied under the laws of the

Repu#lic of the Philippines, with principal offices and #usiness

addresses at 5eon uinto Street, 3alate, 3anila, and at 6est

Drive, 3ari!ina 7ei1hts, 3ari!ina Cit2, respectivel2.%

Respondent SSC is the owner of four )4* parcels of land

"easurin1 a total of ,'&.8& s9uare "eters, located in

3ari!ina 7ei1hts and covered #2 :ransfer Certificate :itle

):C:* No. /$'-. 5ocated within the propert2 are SS(+

3ari!ina, the residence of the sisters of the Benedictine Order,

the for"ation house of the novices, and the retire"ent house

for the elderl2 sisters. :he propert2 is enclosed #2 a tall

concrete peri"eter fence #uilt so"e thirt2 )'&* 2ears a1o.(#uttin1 the fence alon1 the 6est Drive are #uildin1s, facilities,

and other i"prove"ents.'

:he petitioners are the officials of the Cit2 overn"ent of

3ari!ina. On Septe"#er '&, $//4, the San11unian1

Panlun1sod of 3ari!ina Cit2 enacted Ordinance No.

$/%,4entitled ;Re1ulatin1 the Construction of 5(:IN :7E CONS:R>C:ION O5?(SSE3B5ED=

Section $. Covera1e= :his Ordinance re1ulates the

construction of all fences, walls and 1ates on lots classified or

used for residential, co""ercial, industrial, or special

purposes.

Section %. Definition of :er"s=

a.


2/22

Section '. :he standard hei1ht of fences or walls allowed

under this ordinance are as follows=

)$*


3/22

that the dan1er to securit2 had no #asis in their case.

3oreover, it held that the purpose of #eautification could not #e

used to ustif2 the eAercise of police power.

It also o#served that Section - of Ordinance No. $/%, as

a"ended, provided for retroactive application. It held, however,

that such retroactive effect should not i"pair the respondents0

vested su#stantive ri1hts over the peri"eter walls, the siA+

"eter strips of land alon1 the walls, and the #uildin1,

structures, facilities, and i"prove"ents, which would #e

destro2ed #2 the de"olition of the walls and the seiure of thestrips of land.

:he R:C also found untena#le the petitioners0 ar1u"ent that

Ordinance No. $/% was a re"edial or curative statute intended

to correct the defects of #uildin1s and structures, which were

#rou1ht a#out #2 the a#sence or insufficienc2 of laws. It ruled

that the assailed ordinance was neither re"edial nor curative

in nature, considerin1 that at the ti"e the respondents0

peri"eter wall was #uilt, the sa"e was valid and le1al, and the

ordinance did not refer to an2 previous le1islation that it sou1ht

to correct.

:he R:C noted that the petitioners could still ta!e action toeApropriate the su#ect propert2 throu1h e"inent do"ain.

:he R:C, thus, disposed=

67ERE


4/22

the "unicipalit2 to enact ordinances as "a2 #e necessar2 and

proper for the health and safet2, prosperit2, "orals, peace,

1ood order, co"fort, and convenience of the "unicipalit2 and

its inha#itants, and for the protection of their propert2.;%4

6hite 5i1ht Corporation v. Cit2 of 3anila,%discusses the test

of a valid ordinance=

:he test of a valid ordinance is well esta#lished. ( lon1 line of

decisions includin1 Cit2 of 3anila has held that for an

ordinance to #e valid, it "ust not onl2 #e within the corporate

powers of the local 1overn"ent unit to enact and pass

accordin1 to the procedure prescri#ed #2 law, it "ust also

confor" to the followin1 su#stantive re9uire"ents= )$* "ust not

contravene the

Constitution or an2 statute )%* "ust not #e unfair or

oppressive )'* "ust not #e partial or discri"inator2 )4* "ust

not prohi#it #ut "a2 re1ulate trade )* "ust #e 1eneral and

consistent with pu#lic polic2 and )* "ust not #e

unreasona#le.%

Ordinance No. $/% was passed #2 the Cit2 Council of 3ari!ina

in the apparent eAercise of its police power. :o successfull2invo!e the eAercise of police power as the rationale for the

enact"ent of an ordinance and to free it fro" the i"putation of

constitutional infir"it2, two tests have #een used #2 the Court G

the rational relationship test and the strict scrutin2 test=

6e ourselves have often applied the rational #asis test "ainl2

in anal2sis of e9ual protection challen1es. >sin1 the rational

#asis eAa"ination, laws or ordinances are upheld if the2

rationall2 further a le1iti"ate 1overn"ental interest. >nder

inter"ediate review, 1overn"ental interest is eAtensivel2

eAa"ined and the availa#ilit2 of less restrictive "easures is

considered. (ppl2in1 strict scrutin2, the focus is on the

presence of co"pellin1, rather than su#stantial, 1overn"entalinterest and on the a#sence of less restrictive "eans for

achievin1 that interest.%-

Even without 1oin1 to a discussion of the strict scrutin2 test,

Ordinance No. $/%, series of $//4 "ust #e struc! down for not

#ein1 reasona#l2 necessar2 to acco"plish the Cit20s purpose.

3ore i"portantl2, it is oppressive of private ri1hts.

>nder the rational relationship test, an ordinance "ust pass

the followin1 re9uisites as discussed in Social Fustice Societ2

)SFS* v. (tiena, Fr.=%8

(s with the State, local 1overn"ents "a2 #e considered ashavin1 properl2 eAercised their police power onl2 if the

followin1 re9uisites are "et= )$* the interests of the pu#lic

1enerall2, as distin1uished fro" those of a particular class,

re9uire its eAercise and )%* the "eans e"plo2ed are

reasona#l2 necessar2 for the acco"plish"ent of the purpose

and not undul2 oppressive upon individuals. In short, there

"ust #e a concurrence of a lawful su#ect and lawful "ethod.%/

5ac!in1 a concurrence of these two re9uisites, the police

power "easure shall #e struc! down as an ar#itrar2 intrusion

into private ri1hts and a violation of the due process clause.'&

Section '.$ and of the assailed ordinance are pertinent to the

issue at hand, to wit=

Section '. :he standard hei1ht of fences of walls allowed

under this ordinance are as follows=

)$*


5/22

enacted on Dece"#er %&, %&&&, the petitioners could ver2 well

have raised it in their defense #efore the R:C in %&&%. :he

settled rule in this urisdiction is that a part2 cannot chan1e the

le1al theor2 of this case under which the controvers2 was

heard and decided in the trial court. It should #e the sa"e

theor2 under which the review on appeal is conducted. Points

of law, theories, issues, and ar1u"ents not ade9uatel2 #rou1ht

to the attention of the lower court will not #e ordinaril2

considered #2 a reviewin1 court, inas"uch as the2 cannot #e

raised for the first ti"e on appeal. :his will #e offensive to the

#asic rules of fair pla2, ustice, and due process.'


6/22

Sections '.$ and of Ordinance No. $/%, as a"ended, are,

thus, invalid and cannot #e enforced a1ainst the respondents.

Nonetheless, ;the 1eneral rule is that where part of a statute is

void as repu1nant to the Constitution, while another part is

valid, the valid portion, if suscepti#le to #ein1 separated fro"

the invalid, "a2 stand and #e enforced.;4%:hus, the other

sections of the assailed ordinance re"ain valid and

enforcea#le.

Conclusion

Considerin1 the invalidit2 of Sections '.$ and , it is clear that

the petitioners were actin1 in eAcess of their urisdiction in

enforcin1 Ordinance No. $/% a1ainst the respondents. :he C(

was correct in affir"in1 the decision of the R:C in issuin1 the

writ of prohi#ition. :he petitioners "ust per"anentl2 desist

fro" enforcin1 Sections '.$ and of the assailed ordinance on

the respondents propert2 in 3ari!ina Cit2.

67ERE


7/22

proceedin1s, the latter Qre"ains unconvinced and unwillin1 to

this date.0

Recent infor"ation, however, revealed that Noriel and his

fa"il2 are no lon1er interested in participatin1 in the present

case.

Instead of appearin1 #efore this Office for a conference under

oath, SPO$ Ro#ert B. 3olina su#"itted an (ffidavit dated Fune

$', %&$% statin1 that on Septe"#er $, %&&/, at around $$=&&

o0cloc! in the "ornin1, 6il"a 7. Rodri1ue appeared #efore

the ona1a Police Station and re9uested to enter into the

#lotter that her son, Noriel, was alle1edl2 "issin1 in Sitio

Co"unal, ona1a, Ca1a2an. :hereupon, he 1athered

infor"ation relative to 6il"a0s report ;#ut the co""unit2

residence failed to reveal an2thin1;.'

:he other accounts G specificall2 that of respondent (ntonino

C. Cru, Special Investi1ator II of the Co""ission on 7u"an

Ri1hts )C7R*, as well as the clai"s of respondents 3ina and

De Jera that the2 had disclosed to the C7R that Noriel had

#eco"e an a1ent );asset;* of the $-th Infantr2 Battalion G have

#een thorou1hl2 evaluated and ruled upon in our Decision. :he

O3B further la"ents, ;If onl2 he )Noriel* could #e as!ed toverif2 the circu"stances under which he eAecuted these

su#se9uent affidavits, his inconsistent clai"s will finall2 #e

settled,; and that ;)I*f there is one person who can attest on

whether detention and torture were indeed co""itted #2 an2

of the Su#ects herein, it is Noriel Rodri1ue hi"self, the

supposed victi".;4

:he purported unwillin1ness of the petitioner to appear or

participate at this sta1e of the proceedin1s due to securit2

reasons does not affect the rationale of the writ 1ranted #2 the

C(, as affir"ed #2 this Court. In an2 case, the issue of the

eAistence of cri"inal, civil, or ad"inistrative lia#ilit2 which "a2

#e i"puted to the respondents is not the province of a"paro

proceedin1s ++ rather, the writ serves #oth preventive and

curative roles in addressin1 the pro#le" of eAtraudicial !illin1s

and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it #rea!s

the eApectation of i"punit2 in the co""ission of these

offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the su#se9uent

punish"ent of perpetrators #2 inevita#l2 leadin1 to su#se9uent

investi1ation and action.In this case then, the thrust of

ensurin1 that investi1ations are conducted and the ri1hts to

life, li#ert2, and securit2 of the petitioner, re"ains.

6e den2 the "otion for reconsideration.

:he writ of a"paro parta!es of a su""ar2 proceedin1 that

re9uires onl2 su#stantial evidence to "a!e the appropriateinteri" and per"anent reliefs availa#le to the petitioner. (s

eAplained in the Decision, it is not an action to deter"ine

cri"inal 1uilt re9uirin1 proof #e2ond reasona#le dou#t, or

lia#ilit2 for da"a1es re9uirin1 preponderance of evidence, or

even ad"inistrative responsi#ilit2 re9uirin1 su#stantial

evidence. :he totalit2 of evidence as a standard for the 1rant of

the writ was correctl2 applied #2 this Court, as first laid down in

Raon v. :a1itis=

:he fair and proper rule, to our "ind, is to consider all the

pieces of evidence adduced in their totalit2, and to consider

an2 evidence otherwise inad"issi#le under our usual rules to

#e ad"issi#le if it is consistent with the ad"issi#le evidence

adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the "ost #asic

test of reason G i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the

issue at hand and its consistenc2 with all other pieces of

adduced evidence. :hus, even hearsa2 evidence can #e

ad"itted if it satisfies this #asic "ini"u" test.)E"phasis

supplied.*

No reversi#le error "a2 #e attri#uted to the 1rant of the

privile1e of the writ #2 the C(, and the present "otion for

reconsideration raises no new issues that would convince us

otherwise.

Respondents0 clai" that the2 were not co"petentl2 identified

as the soldiers who a#ducted and detained the petitioner, or

that there was no "ention of their na"es in the docu"entar2

evidence, is #aseless. :he C( ri1htl2 considered Rodri1ue0s

Sinu"paan1 Sala2sa2-as a "eticulous and strai1htforward

account of his horrific ordeal with the "ilitar2, detailin1 the

"anner in which he was captured and "altreated on account

of his suspected "e"#ership in the NP(.8

Petitioner narrated that at dawn on / Septe"#er %&&/, he

noticed a soldier with the na"e ta1 ;3atutina,; who appearedto #e an official #ecause the other soldiers addressed hi" as

;sir.;/7e saw 3atutina a1ain at $$=&& p.". on $ Septe"#er

%&&/, when his a#ductors too! hi" to a "ilitar2 operation in

the "ountains. 7is narration of his sufferin1 included an

eAhaustive description of his ph2sical surroundin1s, personal

circu"stances, and perceived o#servations. 7e li!ewise

positivel2 identified respondents $st 5t. 3atutina and 5t. Col.

3ina to #e present durin1 his a#duction, detention and

torture.$&:hese facts were further corro#orated #2 7er"ie

(ntonio Carlos in his Sinu"paan1 Sala2sa2 dated $

Septe"#er %&&/,$$wherein he recounted in detail the

circu"stances surroundin1 the victi"0s capture.

Respondents0 "ain contention in their Return of the 6rit was

correctl2 dee"ed illo1ical and contradictor2 #2 the C(. :he2

clai" that Rodri1ue had co"plained of ph2sical ail"ents due

to activities in the CPP+NP(, 2et nevertheless si1nified his

desire to #eco"e a dou#le+a1ent for the "ilitar2. :he C(

stated=

In the Return of the 6rit, respondent (


8/22

conducted a perfunctor2 investi1ation which relied solel2 on

the accounts of the "ilitar2. :hus, the C( correctl2 held that the

investi1ation was superficial, one+sided, and depended entirel2

on the report prepared #2 $st 5t. Fohnn2 Calu#. No efforts

were underta!en to solicit petitioner0s version of the incident,

and no witnesses were 9uestioned re1ardin1 it. $-:he C( also

too! into account the palpa#le lac! of effort fro" respondent

Jersoa, as the chief of the Philippine National Police.

67ERE


9/22

:7E K K K C( CO33I::ED ( REJERSIB5E ERROR 67EN

I: (NN>55ED (ND SE: (SIDE :7E ORDERS O< :7E R:C

D(:ED $8 OC:OBER %&& (ND (R? %&&

7O5DIN :7(: :7E? 6ERE ISS>ED 6I:7 R(JE (B>SE

O< DISCRE:ION.

II.


I: R>5ED :7(: PE:I:IONER SPO>SES 7IN (RE NO:

EN:I:5ED :O :7E 6RI: O< PRE5I3IN(R? INF>NC:ION

ON :7E RO>ND :7(: :7ERE IS NO JIO5(:ION O:ION(5 (ND CIJI5 RI7: :O PRIJ(C?

DESPI:E :7E (5 ? RJEI55(NCE C(3ER(S OM? 6O>5D C(P:>RE :7E

PRIJ(:E (C:IJI:IES O< PE:I:IONER SPO>SES 7IN,

:7EIR C7I5DREN (ND E3P5O?EES.

III.


I: R>5ED :7(: SINCE :7E O6NER O< :7E B>I5DIN IS(5DO DEJE5OP3EN: (ND RESO>RCES, INC. :7EN :O

S>E RESPONDEN:S C7O(C7>? CONS:I:>:ES (

P>RPOR:ED5? >N6(RR(N:ED PIERCIN O< :7E

CORPOR(:E JEI5.

IJ.


I: INORED :7E SERIO>S RSE (ND CONSIDER(:ION.''

Essentiall2, the issues #oil down to )$* whether there is a

violation of petitioners0 ri1ht to privac2, and )%* whether

respondents are the proper parties to this suit.

Petitioners0 (r1u"ents

Petitioners insist that the2 are entitled to the issuance of a 6rit

of Preli"inar2 Inunction #ecause respondents0 installation of a

stationar2 ca"era directl2 facin1 petitioners0 propert2 and a

revolvin1 ca"era coverin1 a si1nificant portion of the sa"e

propert2 constitutes a violation of petitioners0 ri1ht to

privac2.'4

Petitioners cite (rticle %)$* of the Civil Code, whichenoins persons fro" pr2in1 into the private lives of

others.'(lthou1h the said provision pertains to the privac2 of

another0s residence, petitioners opine that it includes #usiness

offices, citin1 Professor (rturo 3. :olentino.':hus, even

assu"in1 ar1uendo that petitioners0 propert2 is used for

#usiness, it is still covered #2 the said provision.'-

(s to whether respondents are the proper parties to i"plead in

this case, petitioners clai" that respondents and (ldo are one

and the sa"e, and that respondents onl2 want to hide #ehind

(ldo0s corporate fiction.'8:he2 point out that if respondents are

not the real owners of the #uildin1, where the video

surveillance ca"eras were installed, then the2 had no

#usiness consentin1 to the ocular inspection conducted #2 thecourt.'/

Respondents0 (r1u"ents

Respondents, on the other hand, echo the rulin1 of the C( that

petitioners cannot invo!e their ri1ht to privac2 since the

propert2 involved is not used as a residence.4&Respondents

"aintain that the2 had nothin1 to do with the installation of the

video surveillance ca"eras as these were installed #2 (ldo,

the re1istered owner of the #uildin1,4$as additional securit2 for

its #uildin1.4%7ence, the2 were wron1full2 i"pleaded in this

case.4'

Our Rulin1

:he Petition is "eritorious.

:he ri1ht to privac2 is the ri1ht to #e let alone.

:he ri1ht to privac2 is enshrined in our Constitution44and in ourlaws. It is defined as ;the ri1ht to #e free fro" unwarranted

eAploitation of one0s person or fro" intrusion into one0s private

activities in such a wa2 as to cause hu"iliation to a person0s

ordinar2 sensi#ilities.;4It is the ri1ht of an individual ;to #e free

fro" unwarranted pu#licit2, or to live without unwarranted

interference #2 the pu#lic in "atters in which the pu#lic is not

necessaril2 concerned.;4Si"pl2 put, the ri1ht to privac2 is ;the

ri1ht to #e let alone.;4-

:he Bill of Ri1hts 1uarantees the people0s ri1ht to privac2 and

protects the" a1ainst the State0s a#use of power. In this

re1ard, the State reco1nies the ri1ht of the people to #e

secure in their houses. No one, not even the State, eAcept ;in

case of overridin1 social need and then onl2 under the

strin1ent procedural safe1uards,; can distur# the" in the

privac2 of their ho"es.48

:he ri1ht to privac2 under (rticle %)$*

of the Civil Code covers #usiness offices

where the pu#lic are eAcluded

therefro" and onl2 certain individuals

are allowed to enter.

(rticle %)$* of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an

individual0s ri1ht to privac2 and provides a le1al re"ed2

a1ainst a#uses that "a2 #e co""itted a1ainst hi" #2 other

individuals. It states=

(rt. %. Ever2 person shall respect the di1nit2, personalit2,

privac2 and peace of "ind of his nei1h#ors and other persons.

:he followin1 and si"ilar acts, thou1h the2 "a2 not constitute

a cri"inal offense, shall produce a cause of action for

da"a1es, prevention and other relief=

)$* Pr2in1 into the privac2 of another0s residence

A A A A

:his provision reco1nies that a "an0s house is his castle,

where his ri1ht to privac2 cannot #e denied or even restricted

#2 others. It includes ;an2 act of intrusion into, peepin1 or

peerin1 in9uisitivel2 into the residence of another without the

consent of the latter.;4/:he phrase ;pr2in1 into the privac2 of

another0s residence,; however, does not "ean that onl2 the

residence is entitled to privac2. (s elucidated #2 Civil law

eApert (rturo 3. :olentino=

Our Code specificall2 "entions ;pr2in1 into the privac2 ofanother0s residence.; :his does not "ean, however, that onl2

the residence is entitled to privac2, #ecause the law covers

also ;si"ilar acts.; ( #usiness office is entitled to the sa"e

privac2 when the pu#lic is eAcluded therefro" and onl2 such

individuals as are allowed to enter "a2 co"e in. A A

A&)E"phasis supplied*

:hus, an individual0s ri1ht to privac2 under (rticle %)$* of the

Civil Code should not #e confined to his house or residence as

it "a2 eAtend to places where he has the ri1ht to eAclude the

pu#lic or den2 the" access. :he phrase ;pr2in1 into the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt50


10/22

privac2 of another0s residence,; therefore, covers places,

locations, or even situations which an individual considers as

private. (nd as lon1 as his ri1ht is reco1nied #2 societ2, other

individuals "a2 not infrin1e on his ri1ht to privac2. :he C(,

therefore, erred in li"itin1 the application of (rticle %)$* of the

Civil Code onl2 to residences.

:he ;reasona#le eApectation of

privac2; test is used to deter"ine

whether there is a violation of the ri1ht

to privac2.

In ascertainin1 whether there is a violation of the ri1ht to

privac2, courts use the ;reasona#le eApectation of privac2; test.

:his test deter"ines whether a person has a reasona#le

eApectation of privac2 and whether the eApectation has #een

violated.$In Ople v. :orres,%we enunciated that ;the

reasona#leness of a person0s eApectation of privac2 depends

on a two+part test= )$* whether, #2 his conduct, the individual

has eAhi#ited an eApectation of privac2 and )%* this

eApectation is one that societ2 reco1nies as reasona#le.;

Custo"s, co""unit2 nor"s, and practices "a2, therefore, li"it

or eAtend an individual0s ;reasona#le eApectation of

privac2.;

'

7ence, the reasona#leness of a person0seApectation of privac2 "ust #e deter"ined on a case+to+case

#asis since it depends on the factual circu"stances

surroundin1 the case.4

In this da2 and a1e, video surveillance ca"eras are installed

practicall2 ever2where for the protection and safet2 of

ever2one. :he installation of these ca"eras, however, should

not cover places where there is reasona#le eApectation of

privac2, unless the consent of the individual, whose ri1ht to

privac2 would #e affected, was o#tained. Nor should these

ca"eras #e used to pr2 into the privac2 of another0s residence

or #usiness office as it would #e no different fro"

eavesdroppin1, which is a cri"e under Repu#lic (ct No. 4%&&

or the (nti+6iretappin1 5aw.

In this case, the R:C, in 1rantin1 the application for

Preli"inar2 Inunction, ruled that=

(fter careful consideration, there is #asis to 1rant the

application for a te"porar2 restrainin1 order. :he operation #2

respondents of a revolvin1 ca"era, even if it were "ounted on

their #uildin1, violated the ri1ht of privac2 of petitioners, who

are the owners of the adacent lot. :he ca"era does not onl2

focus on respondents0 propert2 or the roof of the factor2 at the

#ac! )(ldo Develop"ent and Resources, Inc.* #ut it actuall2

spans throu1h a 1ood portion of the land of petitioners.

Based on the ocular inspection, the Court understands wh2

petitioner 7in1 was so un2ieldin1 in assertin1 that the revolvin1

ca"era was set up deli#eratel2 to "onitor the onL+M1oin1

construction in his propert2. :he "onitor showed onl2 a portion

of the roof of the factor2 of (ldo. If the purpose of respondents

in settin1 up a ca"era at the #ac! is to secure the #uildin1 and

factor2 pre"ises, then the ca"era should revolve onl2 towards

their properties at the #ac!. Respondents0 ca"era cannot #e

"ade to eAtend the view to petitioners0 lot. :o allow the

respondents to do that over the o#ection of the petitioners

would violate the ri1ht of petitioners as propert2 owners. ;:he

owner of a thin1 cannot "a!e use thereof in such a "anner as

to inure the ri1hts of a third person.;

:he R:C, thus, considered that petitioners have a ;reasona#le

eApectation of privac2; in their propert2, whether the2 use it as

a #usiness office or as a residence and that the installation of

video surveillance ca"eras directl2 facin1 petitioners0 propert2

or coverin1 a si1nificant portion thereof, without their consent,

is a clear violation of their ri1ht to privac2. (s we see then, the

issuance of a preli"inar2 inunction was ustified. 6e need not

#ela#or that the issuance of a preli"inar2 inunction is

discretionar2 on the part of the court ta!in1 co1niance of the

case and should not #e interfered with, unless there is 1rave

a#use of discretion co""itted #2 the court.7ere, there is no

indication of an2 1rave a#use of discretion. 7ence, the C(

erred in findin1 that petitioners are not entitled to an inunctive

writ.

:his #rin1s us to the neAt 9uestion= whether respondents are

the proper parties to this suit.

( real part2 defendant is one who has a

correlative le1al o#li1ation to redress a

wron1 done to the plaintiff #2 reason of

the defendants act or o"ission which

had violated the le1al ri1ht of the

for"er.

Section %, Rule ' of the Rules of Court provides=

SEC. %. Parties+in+interest. ( real part2+in+interest is the

part2 who stands to #e #enefited or inured #2 the ud1"ent in

the suit, or the part2 entitled to the avails of the suit. >nless

otherwise authoried #2 law or these Rules, ever2 action "ust

#e prosecuted or defended in the na"e of the real part2+in+

interest.

( real part2 defendant is ;one who has a correlative le1al

o#li1ation to redress a wron1 done to the plaintiff #2 reason of

the defendant0s act or o"ission which had violated the le1al

ri1ht of the for"er.;-

In rulin1 that respondents are not the proper parties, the C(

reasoned that since the2 do not own the #uildin1, the2 could

not have installed the video surveillance ca"eras.8Such

reasonin1, however, is erroneous. :he fact that respondents

are not the re1istered owners of the #uildin1 does not

auto"aticall2 "ean that the2 did not cause the installation of

the video surveillance ca"eras.

In their Co"plaint, petitioners clai"ed that respondentsinstalled the video surveillance ca"eras in order to fish for

evidence, which could #e used a1ainst petitioners in another

case./Durin1 the hearin1 of the application for Preli"inar2

Inunction, petitioner Bill testified that when respondents

installed the video surveillance ca"eras, he i""ediatel2

#roached his concerns #ut the2 did not see" to care,&and

thus, he reported the "atter to the #aran1a2 for "ediation, and

eventuall2, filed a Co"plaint a1ainst respondents #efore the

R:C.$7e also ad"itted that as earl2 as $//8 there has

alread2 #een a dispute #etween his fa"il2 and the Choachu2

fa"il2 concernin1 the #oundaries of their respective

properties.%6ith these factual circu"stances in "ind, we

#elieve that respondents are the proper parties to #e

i"pleaded.

3oreover, althou1h (ldo has a uridical personalit2 separate

and distinct fro" its stoc!holders, records show that it is a

fa"il2+owned corporation "ana1ed #2 the Choachu2 fa"il2.'

(lso 9uite tellin1 is the fact that respondents, notwithstandin1

their clai" that the2 are not owners of the #uildin1, allowed the

court to enter the co"pound of (ldo and conduct an ocular

inspection. :he counsel for respondents even toured Fud1e

3aril2n 5a1ura+?ap inside the #uildin1 and answered all her

9uestions re1ardin1 the set+up and installation of the video

surveillance ca"eras.4(nd when respondents "oved for

reconsideration of the Order dated Octo#er $8, %&& of theR:C, one of the ar1u"ents the2 raised is that (ldo would

suffer da"a1es if the video surveillance ca"eras are re"oved

and transferred.Noticea#l2, in these instances, the

personalities of respondents and (ldo see" to "er1e.

(ll these ta!en to1ether lead us to the inevita#le conclusion

that respondents are "erel2 usin1 the corporate fiction of (ldo

as a shield to protect the"selves fro" this suit. In view of the

fore1oin1, we find that respondents are the proper parties to

this suit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fnt65


11/22

67ERE


12/22

eAception to the prohi#ition in the Constitution is if there is a;lawful order Lfro" aM court or when pu#lic safet2 or orderre9uires otherwise, as prescri#ed #2 law.;4(n2 violation of thisprovision renders the evidence o#tained inad"issi#le ;for an2purpose in an2 proceedin1.;

:he inti"acies #etween hus#and and wife do not ustif2 an2one of the" in #rea!in1 the drawers and ca#inets of the otherand in ransac!in1 the" for an2 telltale evidence of "aritalinfidelit2. ( person, #2 contractin1 "arria1e, does not shed

hisher inte1rit2 or his ri1ht to privac2 as an individual and theconstitutional protection is ever availa#le to hi" or to her.

:he law insures a#solute freedo" of co""unication #etweenthe spouses #2 "a!in1 it privile1ed. Neither hus#and nor wife"a2 testif2 for or a1ainst the other without the consent of theaffected spouse while the "arria1e su#sists.Neither "a2 #eeAa"ined without the consent of the other as to an2co""unication received in confidence #2 one fro" the otherdurin1 the "arria1e, save for specified eAceptions.-But onethin1 is freedo" of co""unication 9uite another is aco"pulsion for each one to share what one !nows with theother. (nd this has nothin1 to do with the dut2 of fidelit2 thateach owes to the other.

67ERE


13/22

*he R;in- o$ !he Co;r! o$ Aea#

:he Court of (ppeals found the petition #ereft of "erit. :heappellate court pointed out that the detainees are alread2char1ed of coup detat#efore the Re1ional :rial Court of3a!ati. Habeas corpus is unavailin1 in this case as thedetainees0 confine"ent is under a valid indict"ent, the le1alit2of which the detainees and petitioners do not even 9uestion.

:he Court of (ppeals reco1nied that habeas corpus "a2also

#e the appropriate re"ed2 to assail the le1alit2 of detention ifthere is a deprivation of a constitutional ri1ht. 7owever, theappellate court held that the constitutional ri1hts alle1ed tohave #een violated in this case do not directl2 affect thedetainees0 li#ert2. :he appellate court ruled that the re1ulationof the detainees0 ri1ht to confer with their counsels isreasona#le under the circu"stances.

:he appellate court declared that while the openin1 andreadin1 of :rillanes0 letter is an a#horrent violation of his ri1htto privac2 of co""unication, this does not ustif2 the issuanceof a writ of habeas corpus. :he violation does not a"ount toille1al restraint, which is the proper su#ect of habeascorpusproceedin1s.

:he Court of (ppeals thus dis"issed the petition and ordereden. Ca#ua2 to fulfill the pro"ise he "ade in open court touphold the visitin1 hours and the ri1ht of the detainees toeAercise for two hours a da2. :he dispositive portion of theappellate court0s decision reads=

67ERE


14/22

"easures to secure the safet2 of the detainee and prevent hisescape. Section 4)#* of R( -4'8 provides=

Section 4. Penalty Clause. G a* A A A

#* (n2 person who o#structs, prevents or prohi#its an2 law2er,an2 "e"#er of the i""ediate fa"il2 of a person arrested,detained or under custodial investi1ation, or an2 "edicaldoctor or priest or reli1ious "inister or #2 his counsel, fro"visitin1 and conferrin1 privatel2 chosen #2 hi" or #2 an2

"e"#er of his i""ediate fa"il2 with hi", or fro" eAa"inin1and treatin1 hi", or fro" "inisterin1 to his spiritual needs, a!an" ho;r o$ !he a" or, in ;r-en! ca#e#, o$ !he ni-h! shallsuffer the penalt2 of i"prison"ent of not less than four )4*2ears nor "ore than siA )* 2ears, and a fine of four thousandpesos )P4,&&&.&&*.

:he provisions of the a#ove Section notwithstandin1, an2securit2 officer with custodial responsi#ilit2 over an2 detaineeor prisoner "a2 ;ner!a%e #;ch rea#ona>e +ea#;re# a#+a" >e nece##ar" !o #ec;re hi# #a$e!" an reen! hi#e#cae. )E"phasis supplied*

:rue, Section 4)#* of R( -4'8 "a!es it an offense to prohi#it a

law2er fro" visitin1 a detainee client ;at an2 hour of the da2 or,in ur1ent cases, of the ni1ht.; 7owever, the last para1raph ofthe sa"e Section 4)#* "a!es the eApress 9ualification that;no!Bi!h#!anin-; the provisions of Section 4)#*, thedetention officer has the power to underta!e such reasona#le"easures as "a2 #e necessar2 to secure the safet2 of thedetainee and prevent his escape.

:he last para1raph of Section 4)#* of R( -4'8 prescri#es aclear standard. :he re1ulations 1overnin1 a detainee0sconfine"ent "ust #e ;reasona#le "easures A A A to secure hissafet2 and prevent his escape.; :hus, the re1ulations "ust #ereasona#l2 connected to the 1overn"ent0s o#ective ofsecurin1 the safet2 and preventin1 the escape of the detainee.:he law 1rants the detention officer the authorit2 to ;underta!esuch reasona#le "easures; or re1ulations.

Petitioners contend that there was an actual prohi#ition of thedetainees0 ri1ht to effective representation when petitioners0visits were li"ited #2 the schedule of visitin1 hours. Petitionersassert that the violation of the detainees0 ri1hts entitle the" to#e released fro" detention.

Petitioners0 contention does not persuade us. :he schedule ofvisitin1 hours does not render void the detainees0 indict"ent forcri"inal and "ilitar2 offenses to warrant the detainees0 releasefro" detention. :he IS(

.S.Supre"e Court co""anded the courts to afford ad"inistrators;wide+ran1in1 deference; in i"ple"entin1 policies to "aintaininstitutional securit2.%$

In our urisdiction, the last para1raph of Section 4)#* of R(-4'8 provides the standard to "a!e re1ulations in detentioncenters allowa#le= ;such reasonable measures as may benecessary to secure the detainees safety and prevent hisescape.; In the present case, the visitin1 hours accorded tothe law2ers of the detainees are reasona#l2 connected to thele1iti"ate purpose of securin1 the safet2 and preventin1 theescape of all detainees.

6hile petitioners "a2 not visit the detainees an2 ti"e the2want, the fact that the detainees still have face+to+face

"eetin1s with their law2ers on a ai" >a#i#clearl2 shows thatthere is no i"pair"ent of detainees0 ri1ht to counsel.Petitioners as counsels could visit their clients #etween 8=&&a.". and =&& p.". with a lunch #rea! at $%=&& p.". :hevisitin1 hours are re1ular #usiness hours, the sa"e hourswhen law2ers nor"all2 entertain clients in their law offices.Clearl2, the visitin1 hours pass the standard ofreasona#leness. 3oreover, in ur1ent cases, petitioners couldalwa2s see! per"ission fro" the IS(


15/22

also re9uires that the har" or disa#ilit2 #e si1nificantl2 1reaterthan, or #e independent of, the inherent disco"forts ofconfine"ent.'%

Block v. Rutherford,''which reiterated Bell v. Wolfish,upheld the #lan!et restriction on contact visits as this practicewas reasona#l2 related to "aintainin1 securit2. :he safet2 ofinnocent individuals will #e eopardied if the2 are eAposed todetainees who while not 2et convicted are awaitin1 trial forserious, violent offenses and "a2 have prior cri"inal

conviction.

'4

Contact visits "a!e it possi#le for the detainees tohold visitors and ail staff hosta1e to effect escapes. 'Contactvisits also leave the ail vulnera#le to visitors s"u11lin1 inweapons, dru1s, and other contra#and.':he restriction oncontact visits was i"posed even on low+ris! detainees as the2could also potentiall2 #e enlisted to help o#tain contra#and andweapons.'-:he securit2 consideration in the i"position of#lan!et restriction on contact visits was ruled to outwei1h thesenti"ents of the detainees.'8

Block v. Rutherfordheld that the prohi#ition of contact visits#ore a rational connection to the le1iti"ate 1oal of internalsecurit2.'/:his case reaffir"ed the ;hands+off; doctrineenunciated in Bell v. Wolfish, a for" of udicial self+restraint,#ased on the pre"ise that courts should decline urisdiction

over prison "atters in deference to ad"inistrative eApertise.4&

In the present case, we cannot infer punish"ent fro" theseparation of the detainees fro" their visitors #2 iron #ars,which is "erel2 a li"itation on contact visits. :he iron #arsseparatin1 the detainees fro" their visitors prevent directph2sical contact #ut still allow the detainees to have visual,ver#al, non+ver#al and li"ited ph2sical contact with theirvisitors. :he arran1e"ent is not undul2 restrictive. In fact, it isnot even a strict non+contact visitation re1ulation li!e in Blockv. Rutherford. :he li"itation on the detainees0 ph2sicalcontacts with visitors is a reasona#le, non+punitive response tovalid securit2 concerns.

:he #oardin1 of the iron 1rills is for the furtherance of securit2within the IS(


16/22

In #udson v. Palmer,%the >.S. Supre"e Court ruled that anin"ate has no reasona#le eApectation of privac2 inside his cell.:he >.S. Supre"e Court eAplained that prisoners necessaril2lose "an2 protections of the Constitution, thus=

7owever, while persons i"prisoned for cri"e eno2 "an2protections of the Constitution, it is also clear thati"prison"ent carries with it the circu"scription or loss of "an2si1nificant ri1hts. :hese constraints on in"ates, and in so"ecases the co"plete withdrawal of certain ri1hts, are ;ustified

#2 the considerations underl2in1 our penal s2ste".; :hecurtail"ent of certain ri1hts is necessar2, as a practical "atter,to acco""odate a "2riad of ;institutional needs ando#ectives; of prison facilities, chief a"on1 which is internalsecurit2. Of course, these restrictions or retractions also serve,incidentall2, as re"inders that, under our s2ste" of ustice,deterrence and retri#ution are factors in addition tocorrection.'

:he later case of $tate v. "unn,4citin1 #udson v. Palmer,a#andoned Palmigiano v. ravisonoand "ade no distinctionas to the detainees0 li"ited ri1ht to privac2. $tate v."unnnoted the considera#le urisprudence in the >nitedStates holdin1 that in"ate "ail "a2 #e censored for thefurtherance of a su#stantial 1overn"ent interest such as

securit2 or discipline. $tate v. "unndeclared that if co"pletecensorship is per"issi#le, then the lesser act of openin1 the"ail and readin1 it is also per"issi#le. 6e 9uote $tate v."unn=

L(M ri1ht of privac2 in traditional .S. ruled that pre+trial detainees "i1ht occasionall2 posean even 1reater securit2 ris! than convicted in"ates. Bell v.Wolfish reasoned that those who are detained prior to trial"a2 in "an2 cases #e individuals who are char1ed withserious cri"es or who have prior records and "a2 thereforepose a 1reater ris! of escape than convictedin"ates.%alencia v. Wigginsfurther held that ;it isi"practical to draw a line #etween convicted prisoners and pre+trial detainees for the purpose of "aintainin1 ail securit2.;

("erican cases reco1nie that the un"onitored use of pre+trial

detainees0 non+privile1ed "ail poses a 1enuine threat to ailsecurit2.-7ence, when a detainee places his letter in anenvelope for non+privile1ed "ail, the detainee !nowin1l2eAposes his letter to possi#le inspection #2 ail officials.8( pre+trial detainee has no reasona#le eApectation of privac2 for hisinco"in1 "ail./7owever, inco"in1 "ail fro" law2ers ofin"ates eno2s li"ited protection such that prison officials canopen and inspect the "ail for contra#and #ut could not readthe contents without violatin1 the in"ates0 ri1ht to correspondwith his law2er.&:he inspection of privile1ed "ail is li"ited toph2sical contra#and and not to ver#al contra#and.$

:hus, we do not a1ree with the Court of (ppeals that theopenin1 and readin1 of the detainees0 letters in the presentcase violated the detainees0 ri1ht to privac2 of co""unication.

:he letters were not in a sealed envelope. :he inspection ofthe folded letters is a valid "easure as it serves the sa"epurpose as the openin1 of sealed letters for the inspection ofcontra#and.

:he letters alle1ed to have #een read #2 the IS(

e!Been !hee!ainee# an !heir aB"er#, !he o$$icia# o$ !he (SAF'

De!en!ion Cen!erco; rea !he e!!er#. If the letters are"ar!ed confidential co""unication #etween the detainees andtheir law2ers, the detention officials should not read the letters#ut onl2 open the envelopes for inspection in the presence ofthe detainees.

:hat a law is re9uired #efore an eAecutive officer could intrudeon a citien0s privac2 ri1hts%is a 1uarantee that is availa#leonl2 to the pu#lic at lar1e #ut not to persons who are detainedor i"prisoned. :he ri1ht to privac2 of those detained is su#ect

to Section 4 of R( -4'8, as well as to the li"itations inherent inlawful detention or i"prison"ent. B2 the ver2 fact of theirdetention, pre+trial detainees and convicted prisoners have adi"inished eApectation of privac2 ri1hts.

In assessin1 the re1ulations i"posed in detention and prisonfacilities that are alle1ed to infrin1e on the constitutional ri1htsof the detainees and convicted prisoners, >.S. courts ;#alancethe 1uarantees of the Constitution with the le1iti"ate concernsof prison ad"inistrators.;':he deferential review of suchre1ulations ste"s fro" the principle that=

LsMu#ectin1 the da2+to+da2 ud1"ents of prison officials to aninfleAi#le strict scrutin2 anal2sis would seriousl2 ha"per their

a#ilit2 to anticipate securit2 pro#le"s and to adopt innovativesolutions to the intracta#le pro#le"s of prison ad"inistration.4

:he detainees in the present case are unior officers accusedof leadin1 '&& soldiers in co""ittin1 coup detat, a cri"epunisha#le with reclusion perpetua.:he unior officers are notordinar2 detainees #ut visi#le leaders of the Oa!wood incidentinvolvin1 an ar"ed ta!eover of a civilian #uildin1 in the heart ofthe financial district of the countr2. (s "e"#ers of the "ilitar2ar"ed forces, the detainees are su#ect to the (rticles of 6ar.

3oreover, the unior officers are detained with other hi1h+ris!persons fro" the (#u Sa22af and the NP(. :hus, we "ust 1ivethe "ilitar2 custodian a wider ran1e of deference ini"ple"entin1 the re1ulations in the IS(


17/22

DE'AR*MEN* OF 9UDGE* anMANAGEMEN*, Respondents.

A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A

G.R. No. 167430 Ari 14, 2006

9AAN MUNA Rere#en!a!ie# SA*UR C. OCAM'O,*EODORO A. CAS(O, an &OEL G. )(RADOR, GA9R(ELA

8OMENS 'AR* Rere#en!a!ie L(A L. MAA,ANA'A8(S Rere#en!a!ie# RAFAEL ). MAR(ANO anCR(S'(N 9. 9EL*RAN, Re. FRANC(S G. ESCUDERO, Re.EDUARDO C. (ALC(*A, Re. LORENO R. *AADA (((,DR. CAROL 'AGADUANARAULLO an RENA*O M.REES, &R. o$ 9AAN, MAR(E H(LAOENR(UE o$ARA'A*AN, AN*ON(O L. *(N(O o$ AC*, FERD(NANDGA(*E o$ COURAGE, G(O)ANN( A. *A'ANG o$ AGHAM,8(LFREDO MAR9ELLA GARC(A, o$ M', LANA L(NA9ANo$ GA9R(ELA, AMADO GA* (NC(ONG, RENA*OCONS*AN*(NO, &R., DEAN 'AC(F(CO H. AGA9(N,SHARON R. DUREMDES o$ !he NA*(ONAL COUNC(L OFCHURCHES (N *HE 'H(L(''(NES, an 9RO. EDMUNDO L.FERNANDE @FSC o$ !he ASSOC(A*(ON OF MA&OR

REL(G(OUS SU'ER(ORS OF *HE 'H(L(''(NES@AMRS',Petitioners,vs.

EDUARDO ERM(*A, in hi# caaci!" a# Eec;!ie Secre!ar",ROMULO NER(, in hi# caaci!" a# Direc!orGenera o$ !heNA*(ONAL ECONOM(C an DE)ELO'MEN* AU*HOR(*@NEDA an !he A+ini#!ra!or o$ !he NA*(ONALS*A*(S*(CS OFF(CE @NSO,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CAR'(O, J.:

:his case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari,prohi#ition, and "anda"us under Rule of the Rules of

Court, see!in1 the nullification of EAecutive Order No. 4%& )EO

4%&* on the 1round that it is unconstitutional.

EO 4%&, issued #2 President loria 3acapa1al+(rro2o on $'

(pril %&&, reads=

REU>IRIN (55 OJERN3EN: (ENCIES (ND

OJERN3EN:+O6NED (ND CON:RO55ED

CORPOR(:IONS :O S:RE(35INE (ND 7(R3ONIE

:7EIR IDEN:I:7ORIIN

C7 P>RPOSE :7E DIREC:OR+ENER(5,

N(:ION(5 ECONO3IC (ND DEJE5OP3EN: (>:7ORI:?:O I3P5E3EN: :7E S(3E, (ND RPOSES

8HEREAS, 1ood 1overnance is a "aor thrust of this(d"inistration

8HEREAS, the eAistin1 "ultiple identification s2ste"s in1overn"ent have created unnecessar2 and costl2

redundancies and hi1her costs to 1overn"ent, while "a!in1 it

inconvenient for individuals to #e holdin1 several identification

cards

8HEREAS, there is ur1ent need to strea"line and inte1ratethe processes and issuance of identification cards in

1overn"ent to reduce costs and to provide 1reater

convenience for those transactin1 #usiness with 1overn"ent

8HEREAS, a unified identification s2ste" will facilitate private#usinesses, enhance the inte1rit2 and relia#ilit2 of 1overn"ent+

issued identification cards in private transactions, and prevent

violations of laws involvin1 false na"es and identities.

NO8, *HEREFORE, (, GLOR(A MACA'AGALARROO, President of the Repu#lic of the Philippines #2

virtue of the powers vested in "e #2 law, do here#2 direct the

followin1=

Sec!ion 1.&doption of a unified multi'purposeidentification ()"* system for government.+avvphil.net,(ll

1overn"ent a1encies, includin1 1overn"ent+owned and

controlled corporations, are here#2 directed to adopt a unified

"ulti+purpose ID s2ste" to ensure the attain"ent of the

followin1 o#ectives=

a. :o reduce costs and there#2 lessen the financial

#urden on #oth the 1overn"ent and the pu#lic

#rou1ht a#out #2 the use of "ultiple ID cards and the

"aintenance of redundant data#ase containin1 the

sa"e or related infor"ation

#. :o ensure 1reater convenience for those

transactin1 #usiness with the 1overn"ent and those

availin1 of 1overn"ent services

c. :o facilitate private #usinesses and pro"ote the

wider use of the unified ID card as provided under this

eAecutive order

d. :o enhance the inte1rit2 and relia#ilit2 of

1overn"ent+issued ID cards and

e. :o facilitate access to and deliver2 of 9ualit2 and

effective 1overn"ent service.

Sec!ion 2. Coverage ,(ll 1overn"ent a1encies and1overn"ent+owned and controlled corporations issuin1 ID

cards to their "e"#ers or constituents shall #e covered #2 this

eAecutive order.

Sec!ion 3. "ata re-uirement for the unified )" system, :he data to #e collected and recorded #2 the participatin1

a1encies shall #e li"ited to the followin1=

Na"e

7o"e (ddress

SeA

Picture

Si1nature

Date of Birth

Place of Birth

3arital Status

Na"es of Parents

7ei1ht

6ei1ht

:wo indeA fin1ers and two thu"#"ar!s

(n2 pro"inent distin1uishin1 features li!e "oles and

others

:aA Identification Nu"#er ):IN*

Provided that a correspondin1 ID nu"#er issued #2 the

participatin1 a1enc2 and a co""on reference nu"#er shall

for" part of the stored ID data and, to1ether with at least the

first five ite"s listed a#ove, includin1 the print of the ri1ht


18/22

thu"#"ar!, or an2 of the fin1erprints as collected and stored,

shall appear on the face or #ac! of the ID card for visual

verification purposes.

Sec!ion .&uthoriing the "irector'/eneral0 1ational2conomic and "evelopment &uthority0 to #armonie &ll

/overnment )dentification $ystems. G :he Director+eneral,

National Econo"ic Develop"ent (uthorit2, is here#2

authoried to strea"line and har"onie all 1overn"ent ID

s2ste"s.

Sec!ion . 3unctions and responsibilities of the "irector'/eneral0 1ational 2conomic and "evelopment &uthority.G

In addition to his or1anic functions and responsi#ilities, the

Director+eneral, National Econo"ic and Develop"ent

(uthorit2, shall have the followin1 functions and

responsi#ilities=

a. (dopt within siAt2 )&* da2s fro" the effectivit2 of

this eAecutive order a unified 1overn"ent ID s2ste"

containin1 onl2 such data and features, as indicated

in Section ' a#ove, to validl2 esta#lish the identit2 of

the card holder=

#. Enter into a1ree"ents with local 1overn"ents,

throu1h their respective lea1ues of 1overnors or

"a2ors, the Co""ission on Elections )CO3E5EC*,

and with other #ranches or instru"entalities of the

1overn"ent, for the purpose of ensurin1 1overn"ent+

wide adoption of and support to this effort to

strea"line the ID s2ste"s in 1overn"ent

#. Call on an2 other 1overn"ent a1enc2 or institution,

or create su#Gco""ittees or technical wor!in1

1roups, to provide such assistance as "a2 #e

necessar2 or re9uired for the effective perfor"ance of

its functions and

d. Pro"ul1ate such rules or re1ulations as "a2 #e

necessar2 in pursuance of the o#ectives of this

eAecutive order.

Sec!ion 6. $afeguards. , :he Director+eneral, NationalEcono"ic and Develop"ent (uthorit2, and the pertinent

a1encies shall adopt such safe1uard as "a2 #e necessar2 and

ade9uate to ensure that the ri1ht to privac2 of an individual

ta!es precedence over efficient pu#lic service deliver2. Such

safe1uards shall, as a "ini"u", include the followin1=

a. :he data to #e recorded and stored, which shall #eused onl2 for purposes of esta#lishin1 the identit2 of a

person, shall #e li"ited to those specified in Section '

of this eAecutive order

#. In no case shall the collection or co"pilation of

other data in violation of a person0s ri1ht to privac2

shall #e allowed or tolerated under this order

c. Strin1ent s2ste"s of access control to data in the

identification s2ste" shall #e instituted

d. Data collected and stored for this purpose shall #e

!ept and treated as strictl2 confidential and a personal

or written authoriation of the Owner shall #e re9uired

for access and disclosure of data

e. :he identification card to #e issued shall #e

protected #2 advanced securit2 features and

cr2pto1raphic technolo12 and

f. ( written re9uest #2 the Owner of the identification

card shall #e re9uired for an2 correction or revision of

relevant data, or under such conditions as the

participatin1 a1enc2 issuin1 the identification card

shall prescri#e.

Sec!ion 7. 3unding. , Such funds as "a2 #e reco""ended#2 the Depart"ent of Bud1et and 3ana1e"ent shall #e

provided to carr2 out the o#ectives of this eAecutive order.

Sec!ion 5. Repealing clause. ,(ll eAecutive orders orissuances, or portions thereof, which are inconsistent with this

eAecutive order, are here#2 revo!ed, a"ended or "odified

accordin1l2.

Sec!ion 4. 2ffectivity. , :his eAecutive order shall ta!e effectfifteen )$* da2s after its pu#lication in two )%* newspapers of

1eneral circulation.

DONE in the Cit2 of 3anila, this $'th da2 of (pril, in the 2ear of

Our 5ord, :wo :housand and


19/22

Respondents 9uestion the le1al standin1 of petitioners and the

ripeness of the petitions. Even assu"in1 that petitioners are

#ereft of le1al standin1, the Court considers the issues raised

under the circu"stances of para"ount pu#lic concern or of

transcendental si1nificance to the people. :he petitions also

present a usticia#le controvers2 ripe for udicial deter"ination

#ecause all 1overn"ent entities currentl2 issuin1 identification

cards are "andated to i"ple"ent EO 4%&, which petitioners

clai" is patentl2 unconstitutional. 7ence, the Court ta!es

co1niance of the petitions.

:he Court0s Rulin1

:he petitions are without "erit.

On the (lle1ed >surpation of 5e1islative Power

Section % of EO 4%& provides, ;Covera1e. G (ll 1overn"ent

a1encies and 1overn"ent+owned and controlled corporations

issuin1 ID cards to their "e"#ers or constituents shall #e

covered #2 this eAecutive order.; EO 4%& applies onl2 to

1overn"ent entities that issue ID cards as part of their

functions under eAistin1 laws. :hese 1overn"ent entities have

alread2 #een issuin1 ID cards even prior to EO 4%&. EAa"plesof these 1overn"ent entities are the

SIS,'SSS,4Philhealth,3a2or0s Office,5:O,-PRC,8and

si"ilar 1overn"ent entities.

Section $ of EO 4%& directs these 1overn"ent entities to

;adopt a unified "ulti+purpose ID s2ste".; :hus, all

1overn"ent entities that issue IDs as part of their functions

under eAistin1 laws are re9uired to adopt a unifor" data

collection and for"at for their IDs. Section $ of EO 4%&

enu"erates the purposes of the unifor" data collection and

for"at, na"el2=

a. :o reduce costs and there#2 lessen the financial#urden on #oth the 1overn"ent and the pu#lic

#rou1ht a#out #2 the use of "ultiple ID cards and the

"aintenance of redundant data#ase containin1 the

sa"e or related infor"ation

#. :o ensure 1reater convenience for those

transactin1 #usiness with the 1overn"ent and those

availin1 of 1overn"ent services

c. :o facilitate private #usinesses and pro"ote the

wider use of the unified ID card as provided under this

eAecutive order

d. :o enhance the inte1rit2 and relia#ilit2 of

1overn"ent+issued ID cards and

e. :o facilitate access to and deliver2 of 9ualit2 and

effective 1overn"ent service.

In short, the purposes of the unifor" ID data collection and ID

for"at are to reduce costs, achieve efficienc2 and relia#ilit2,

insure co"pati#ilit2, and provide convenience to the people

served #2 1overn"ent entities.

Section ' of EO 4%& li"its the data to #e collected and

recorded under the unifor" ID s2ste" to onl2 $4 specific ite"s,na"el2= )$* Na"e )%* 7o"e (ddress )'* SeA )4* Picture )*

Si1nature )* Date of Birth )-* Place of Birth )8* 3arital

Status )/* Na"e of Parents )$&* 7ei1ht )$$* 6ei1ht )$%* :wo

indeA fin1ers and two thu"#"ar!s )$'* (n2 pro"inent

distin1uishin1 features li!e "oles or others and )$4* :aA

Identification Nu"#er.

:hese li"ited and specific data are the usual data re9uired for

personal identification #2 1overn"ent entities, and even #2 the

private sector. (n2 one who applies for or renews a driver0s

license provides to the 5:O all these $4 specific data.

(t present, 1overn"ent entities li!e 5:O re9uire considera#l2

"ore data fro" applicants for identification purposes. EO 4%&

will reduce the data re9uired to #e collected and recorded in

the ID data#ases of the 1overn"ent entities. overn"ent

entities cannot collect or record data, for identification

purposes, other than the $4 specific data.

Jarious laws allow several 1overn"ent entities to collect and

record data for their ID s2ste"s, either eApressl2 or i"pliedl2

#2 the nature of the functions of these 1overn"ent entities.

>nder their eAistin1 ID s2ste"s, so"e 1overn"ent entitiescollect and record "ore data than what EO 4%& allows. (t

present, the data collected and recorded #2 1overn"ent

entities are disparate, and the IDs the2 issue are dissi"ilar.

In the case of the Supre"e Court,/the IDs that the Court

issues to all its e"plo2ees, includin1 the Fustices, contain $

specific data, na"el2= )$* Na"e )%* Picture )'* Position )4*

Office Code Nu"#er )* ID Nu"#er )* 7ei1ht )-* 6ei1ht )8*

Co"pleAion )/* Color of 7air )$&* Blood :2pe )$$* Ri1ht

:hu"#"ar! )$%* :aA Identification Nu"#er )$'* SIS Polic2

Nu"#er )$4* Na"e and (ddress of Person to #e Notified in

Case of E"er1enc2 and )$* Si1nature. If we consider that the

picture in the ID can 1enerall2 also show the seA of thee"plo2ee, the Court0s ID actuall2 contains $ data.

In contrast, the unifor" ID for"at under Section ' of EO 4%&

re9uires onl2 ;the first five ite"s listed; in Section ', plus the

fin1erprint, a1enc2 nu"#er and the co""on reference

nu"#er, or onl2 ei1ht specific data. :hus, at present, the

Supre"e Court0s ID contains far "ore data than the proposed

unifor" ID for 1overn"ent entities under EO 4%&. :he nature

of the data contained in the Supre"e Court ID is also far "ore

financiall2 sensitive, specificall2 the :aA Identification Nu"#er.

3a!in1 the data collection and recordin1 of 1overn"ent

entities unified, and "a!in1 their ID for"ats unifor", will

ad"ittedl2 achieve su#stantial #enefits. :hese #enefits are

savin1s in ter"s of procure"ent of e9uip"ent and supplies,

co"pati#ilit2 in s2ste"s as to hardware and software, ease of

verification and thus increased relia#ilit2 of data, and the user+

friendliness of a sin1le ID for"at for all 1overn"ent entities.

:here is no dispute that 1overn"ent entities can individuall2

li"it the collection and recordin1 of their data to the $4 specific

ite"s in Section ' of EO 4%&. :here is also no dispute that

these 1overn"ent entities can individuall2 adopt the ID for"at

as specified in Section ' of EO 4%&. Such an act is certainl2

within the authorit2 of the heads or 1overnin1 #oards of the

1overn"ent entities that are alread2 authoried under eAistin1

laws to issue IDs.

( unified ID s2ste" for all these 1overn"ent entities can #e

achieved in either of two wa2s.


20/22

relia#ilit2, co"pati#ilit2, and convenience to the pu#lic. :he

President0s constitutional power of control is self+eAecutin1 and

does not need an2 i"ple"entin1 le1islation.

Of course, the President0s power of control is li"ited to the

EAecutive #ranch of 1overn"ent and does not eAtend to the

Fudiciar2 or to the independent constitutional co""issions.

:hus, EO 4%& does not appl2 to the Fudiciar2, or to the

CO3E5EC which under eAistin1 laws is also authoried to

issue voter0s ID cards.$&:his onl2 shows that EO 4%& does not

esta#lish a national ID s2ste" #ecause le1islation is needed toesta#lish a sin1le ID s2ste" that is co"pulsor2 for all #ranches

of 1overn"ent.

:he Constitution also "andates the President to ensure that

the laws are faithfull2 eAecuted. :here are several laws

"andatin1 1overn"ent entities to reduce costs, increase

efficienc2, and in 1eneral, i"prove pu#lic services.$$:he

adoption of a unifor" ID data collection and for"at under EO

4%& is desi1ned to reduce costs, increase efficienc2, and in

1eneral, i"prove pu#lic services. :hus, in issuin1 EO 4%&, the

President is si"pl2 perfor"in1 the constitutional dut2 to ensure

that the laws are faithfull2 eAecuted.

Clearl2, EO 4%& is well within the constitutional power of the

President to pro"ul1ate. :he President has not usurped

le1islative power in issuin1 EO 4%&. EO 4%& is an eAercise of

EAecutive power G the President0s constitutional power of

control over the EAecutive depart"ent. EO 4%& is also

co"pliance #2 the President of the constitutional dut2 to

ensure that the laws are faithfull2 eAecuted.

5e1islative power is the authorit2 to "a!e laws and to alter or

repeal the". In issuin1 EO 4%&, the President did not "a!e,

alter or repeal an2 law #ut "erel2 i"ple"ented and eAecuted

eAistin1 laws. EO 4%& reduces costs, as well as insures

efficienc2, relia#ilit2, co"pati#ilit2 and user+friendliness in the

i"ple"entation of current ID s2ste"s of 1overn"ent entities

under eAistin1 laws. :hus, EO 4%& is si"pl2 an eAecutive

issuance and not an act of le1islation.

:he act of issuin1 ID cards and collectin1 the necessar2

personal data for i"printin1 on the ID card does not re9uire

le1islation. Private e"plo2ers routinel2 issue ID cards to their

e"plo2ees. Private and pu#lic schools also routinel2 issue ID

cards to their students. Even private clu#s and associations

issue ID cards to their "e"#ers. :he purpose of all these ID

cards is si"pl2 to insure the proper identification of a person as

an e"plo2ee, student, or "e"#er of a clu#. :hese ID cards,

althou1h i"posed as a condition for eAercisin1 a privile1e, are

voluntar2 #ecause a person is not co"pelled to #e ane"plo2ee, student or "e"#er of a clu#.

6hat re9uire le1islation are three aspects of a 1overn"ent

"aintained ID card s2ste".


21/22

#. In no case shall the collection or co"pilation of

other data in violation of a person0s ri1ht to privac2 #e

allowed or tolerated under this order

c. Strin1ent s2ste"s of access control to data in the

identification s2ste" shall #e instituted

d. Data collected and stored for this purpose shall #e

!ept and treated as strictl2 confidential and a personal

or written authoriation of the Owner shall #e re9uired

for access and disclosure of data

e. :he identification card to #e issued shall #e

protected #2 advanced securit2 features and

cr2pto1raphic technolo12

f. ( written re9uest #2 the Owner of the identification

card shall #e re9uired for an2 correction or revision of

relevant data, or under such conditions as the

participatin1 a1enc2 issuin1 the identification card

shall prescri#e.

On its face, EO 4%& shows no constitutional infir"it2 #ecause it

even narrowl2 li"its the data that can #e collected, recorded

and shown co"pared to the eAistin1 ID s2ste"s of 1overn"ent

entities. EO 4%& further provides strict safe1uards to protect

the confidentialit2 of the data collected, in contrast to the prior

ID s2ste"s which are #ereft of strict ad"inistrative safe1uards.

:he ri1ht to privac2 does not #ar the adoption of reasona#le ID

s2ste"s #2 1overn"ent entities. So"e one hundred countries

have co"pulsor2 national ID s2ste"s, includin1 de"ocracies

such as Spain, nited States, Canada, (ustralia,

New ealand, Ireland, the Nordic Countries and Sweden, have

sectoral cards for health, social or other pu#lic services.$%

Evenwith EO 4%&, the Philippines will still fall under the countries

that do not have co"pulsor2 national ID s2ste"s #ut allow onl2

sectoral cards for social securit2, health services, and other

specific purposes.

6ithout a relia#le ID s2ste", 1overn"ent entities li!e SIS,

SSS, Philhealth, and 5:O cannot perfor" effectivel2 and

efficientl2 their "andated functions under eAistin1 laws.

6ithout a relia#le ID s2ste", SIS, SSS, Philhealth and

si"ilar 1overn"ent entities stand to suffer su#stantial losses

arisin1 fro" false na"es and identities. :he inte1rit2 of the

5:O0s licensin1 s2ste" will suffer in the a#sence of a relia#le

ID s2ste".

:he dissentin1 opinion cites three ("erican decisions on the

ri1ht to privac2, na"el2, riswold v. Connecticut, $'U.S.Fustice

Depart"ent v. Reporters Co""ittee for .S. Supre"e Court upheld the validit2 of a New

?or! law that re9uired doctors to furnish the 1overn"ent

reports identif2in1 patients who received prescription dru1s

that have a potential for a#use. :he 1overn"ent "aintained a

central co"puteried data#ase containin1 the na"es and

addresses of the patients, as well as the identit2 of theprescri#in1 doctors. :he law was assailed #ecause the

data#ase alle1edl2 infrin1ed the ri1ht to privac2 of individuals

who want to !eep their personal "atters confidential. :he >.S.

Supre"e Court reected the privac2 clai", and declared=

Disclosures of private "edical infor"ation to doctors, to

hospital personnel, to insurance co"panies, and to pu#lic

health a1encies are often an essential part of "odern "edical

practice even when the disclosure "a2 reflect unfavora#l2 on

the character of the patient. Re9uirin1 such disclosures to

representatives of the State havin1 responsi#ilit2 for the health

of the co""unit2 does not auto"aticall2 a"ount to an

i"per"issi#le invasion of privac2. )E"phasis supplied*

Co"pared to the personal "edical data re9uired for disclosure

to the New ?or! State in 6halen, the $4 specific data re9uired

for disclosure to the Philippine 1overn"ent under EO 4%& are

far less sensitive and far less personal. In fact, the $4 specific

data re9uired under EO 4%& are routine data for ID s2ste"s,

unli!e the sensitive and potentiall2 e"#arrassin1 "edical

records of patients ta!in1 prescription dru1s. 6halen,

therefore, carries persuasive force for upholdin1 the

constitutionalit2 of EO 4%& as non+violative of the ri1ht to

privac2.

Su#se9uent >.S. Supre"e Court decisions have reiterated

6halen. In Planned Parenthood of Central 3issouri v.Danforth,$the >.S. Supre"e Court upheld the validit2 of a law

that re9uired doctors perfor"in1 a#ortions to fill up for"s,

"aintain records for seven 2ears, and allow the inspection of

such records #2 pu#lic health officials. :he >.S. Supre"e

Court ruled that ;record!eepin1 and reportin1 re9uire"ents

that are reasona#l2 directed to the preservation of "aternal

health and that properl2 respect a patient0s confidentialit2 and

privac2 are per"issi#le.;

(1ain, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penns2lvania v.

Case2,$-the >.S. Supre"e Court upheld a law that re9uired
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt17


22/22

doctors perfor"in1 an a#ortion to file a report to the

1overn"ent that included the doctor0s na"e, the wo"an0s a1e,

the nu"#er of prior pre1nancies and a#ortions that the wo"an

had, the "edical co"plications fro" the a#ortion, the wei1ht of

the fetus, and the "arital status of the wo"an. In case of state+

funded institutions, the law "ade such infor"ation pu#licl2

availa#le. In Case2, the >.S. Supre"e Court stated= ;:he

collection of infor"ation with respect to actual patients is a vital

ele"ent of "edical research, and so it cannot #e said that the

re9uire"ents serve no purpose other than to "a!e a#ortion

"ore difficult.;

Co"pared to the disclosure re9uire"ents of personal data that

the >.S. Supre"e Court have upheld in 6halen, Danforth and

Case2 as not violative of the ri1ht to privac2, the disclosure

re9uire"ents under EO 4%& are far #eni1n and cannot

therefore constitute violation of the ri1ht to privac2. EO 4%&

re9uires disclosure of $4 personal data that are routine for ID

purposes, data that cannot possi#l2 e"#arrass or hu"iliate

an2one.

Petitioners have not shown how EO 4%& will violate their ri1ht

to privac2. Petitioners cannot show such violation #2 a "ere

facial eAa"ination of EO 4%& #ecause EO 4%& narrowl2 drawsthe data collection, recordin1 and eAhi#ition while prescri#in1

co"prehensive safe1uards. Ople v. :orres$8is not authorit2 to

hold that EO 4%& violates the ri1ht to privac2 #ecause in that

case the assailed eAecutive issuance, #roadl2 drawn and

devoid of safe1uards, was annulled solel2 on the 1round that

the su#ect "atter re9uired le1islation. (s then (ssociate

Fustice, now Chief Fustice (rte"io J. Pan1ani#an noted in his

concurrin1 opinion in Ople v. :orres, ;:he votin1 is decisive

onl2 on the need for appropriate le1islation, and it is onl2 on

this 1round that the petition is 1ranted #2 this Court.;

EO 4%& applies onl2 to 1overn"ent entities that alread2

"aintain ID s2ste"s and issue ID cards pursuant to their

re1ular functions under eAistin1 laws. EO 4%& does not 1rant

such 1overn"ent entities an2 power that the2 do not alread2

possess under eAistin1 laws. In contrast, the assailed

eAecutive issuance in Ople v. :orres sou1ht to esta#lish a

;National Co"puteried Identification Reference S2ste",;$/a

national ID s2ste" that did not eAist prior to the assailed

eAecutive issuance. O#viousl2, a national ID card s2ste"

re9uires le1islation #ecause it creates a new national data

collection and card issuance s2ste" where none eAisted#efore.

In the present case, EO 4%& does not esta#lish a national ID

s2ste" #ut "a!es the eAistin1 sectoral card s2ste"s of

1overn"ent entities li!e SIS, SSS, Philhealth and 5:O less

costl2, "ore efficient, relia#le and user+friendl2 to the pu#lic.

7ence, EO 4%& is a proper su#ect of eAecutive issuance under

the President0s constitutional power of control over 1overn"ent

entities in the EAecutive depart"ent, as well as under the

President0s constitutional dut2 to ensure that laws are faithfull2

eAecuted.

8HEREFORE, the petitions are D(SM(SSED. EAecutive OrderNo. 4%& is declared )AL(D.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html#fnt19

privacy of communications

Documents