Privacy of Communication & Correspondence

Art III Sec. 3(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed
by law.

RA 4200 Anti-wire tapping act, prohibits any person not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record

Ramirez v CA

Facts: Petitioner filed a case in RTC of QC against Ester Garcia for allegedly vexing, insulting,
& humiliating her in a hostile & furious mood. In support of her claim, she produced a verbatim
transcript of the event based on the recording of their private conversation.

Issues: Whether the recording of a private conversation is in violation of RA 4200

Held: Yes, because the law is clear and unambiguous making it illegal for any person, not
authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder.
To add, R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein.

Ople v Torres

Facts: President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order (A.O.) 308 on December 12, 1996
entitled “Adoption of National Computerized Identification Reference System” or commonly
known as “National ID System”.
Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the
constitutionality of the said executive issuance on two important grounds, viz: one, it is a
usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our
citizenry's protected zone of privacy. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated
by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion.

Issues: Whether A.O. 308 violates the right to privacy

Held: Yes, A.O. 308 violates the right to privacy because of its vagueness. The overbreadth of
A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present
danger. There are no vital safeguards.
The Administrative order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these
information gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data,
under what circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the
privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information.
Gaanan v IAC

Facts: Complainant Atty. Pintor and Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint for direct
assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8,000 from him. This demand was heard by
Atty. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so as to personally hear
the proposed conditions for the settlement. Atty. Pintor was subsequently arrested in an
entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. Since Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone
conversation without complainant''s consent, complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with
violation of the Anti- Wiretapping Act (RA 4200).

Issues: Whether an extension phone is among the devices prohibited in RA 4200

Held: No, An extension tel. cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph, or
other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of the law as the use thereof cannot be considered as
"tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. This section refers to instruments whose
installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by
their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
intercepting, or recording a tel. conversation. The tel. extension in this case was not installed for
that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes be construed strictly in favor of the
accused.

People v Albofera

Facts: Accused killed a person and when he was in prison wrote a letter to Esma which was
intercepted by the prosecution.

Issues: Whether the Albofera’s letter to Esma should be excluded as evidence in light of alleged
unwarranted intrusion or invasion of the accused’s privacy

Held: No, the production of that letter by the prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search
and seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera’s privacy.
Albofera admitted having sent the letter and it was its recipient, Rodrigo Esma himself, who
produced and identified the same in the course of his testimony in Court. Besides, there is
nothing really self-incriminatory in the letter. Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma change his
declaration in his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera’s) favor. Furthermore, nothing Albofera
stated in his letter is being taken against him in arriving at a determination of his culpability

In the Matter of Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo Sabio

Facts: The case involves an investigation regarding the anomalous losses incurred by the
Philippine Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communication
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) & Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the
alleged improprieties in the operations by their respective board of directors. Thus Camilo Sabio
is summoned to the investigation but refuses asserting his right to privacy.
Issues: Whether there is a violation of any civil rights to privacy

Held: No because any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in
accordance with customary legal process. In the case at bar, petitioners’ were invited in the
Senate’s public hearing. Consequently they have no reasonable expectation of privacy over
matters involving their offices in a corporation where the government has interest. Certainly,
such matters are of public concern and over which the people have the right to information.
This shows that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding
compelling state interest.

KMU v NEDA April 19, 2006

Facts: In April 13, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo issued Executive Order 420
requiring all government agencies and government-owned corporations to streamline and
harmonize their Identification Systems. The purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID
format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability and ensure compatibility and
provide convenience to the people served by government entities.
Petitioners allege that EO420 is unconstitutional because it constitutes usurpation of
legislative functions by the executive branch of the government. Furthermore, they allege that
EO420 infringes on the citizen’s rights to privacy.
Finally, out of the 14 key information to be taken, only 8 would be visible to the public.

Issues: Whether EO 420 infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy

Held: No because the right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by
government entities. To add, the personal data collected and recorded under EO 420 are treated
as "strictly confidential" & are personal matters. Whereas Section 7, Article III of the 1987
Constitution grants the "right of the people to information on matters of public concern" which
makes personal matters exempt from the people’s right to information.