In the Philippine jurisdiction,
we have laws covering the right of privacy in the private and public realm,
whether constitutional or statutory. However, determination of the scope and
content of this right is left to the courts.
Introductory
·
Brandeis: privacy is “the most comprehensive of
rights and the most valued of civilized men”
·
Westin in “Privacy and Freedom”: people have series
of zones or regions of privacy leading to a “core self”
·
Margaret Mead: in some primitive societies privacy
is almost unknown
·
Animals usually seek periods of seclusion or small
group intimacy as manifested by their territoriality
·
Philippine law recognizes the right to privacy but
the concept is alien to majority of the Filipinos
·
Carmen Nakpil: No precise word for privacy in
Filipino. Filipinos believe that privacy is an unnecessary imposition, esoteric
Western afterthought. Filipinos is accustomed to a public life
·
Early settlers: Punishment for those who enter the
house of a principalia
·
Variety of concepts of privacy among Filipinos
Privacy
and the Computer
·
Technological developments that even the
subconscious can be probed: polygraph, truth serums
·
Polygraph used by employers and courts as evidence
·
Possible harms of a computer (right to control the
flow of info)
o Deprivation of
access control - Disseminating evidence to a wider audience than the subject
consented
o Deprivation of
accuracy control - Introducing factual or contextual inaccuracies that create
an erroneous impression
·
Fear of a womb-to-tomb dossier in a computer (A collection of papers containing detailed
information about a particular person or subject)
·
Proposed legal safeguards
o Make the computer
a res (a thing, an object or a status
which legal proceedings have been instituted)
o Legislate to
prohibit the collection of certain classes of data
o Independent
regulatory agency to regulate the nature of info that can be recorded and
stored
The
Development of Privacy as a Legal Concept (1890)
·
Sam Warren and Louis Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy”
o Development of
the common law protection of the individual’s right to person and property and
of the “recognition of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and his
intellect.”
o English and
American cases involving the unauthorized publication of letters, or other
intellectual properties which courts considered a violation of property right,
of contract, or of trust and confidence or the – inviolate personality or the
right to be let alone.
o Often cited on
court decisions
o Remedies against
private individuals who violated the right
o Right to life
=> right to enjoy life => right to be let alone in the constitutional law
·
Roberson v.
Rochester Folding Box Co.(1902)
o US courts were
concerned WON there was a right of privacy at all
o Abigail
Roberson’s picture was printed in the flour package with the flour product of
the company without her consent
o TC Granted, CA:
“would necessarily result, not only in a vast amount of litigation, but in litigation
bordering the absurd.”
o Remedy should be
provided by the legislature
·
New York passed an act for a right of privacy law,
but majority of other states recognized the right through judge-made law.
·
Pavesich v. New
England Life Insurance Co.(1905)
o Use of a portrait
for advertising purposes without consent
o Opposite of
Roberson case
Privacy
as a Tort
·
Four kinds of tort in the violation of privacy
o Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s
seclusion or solitude or into his private affairs
o Public disclosure
of embarrassing private facts about
the plaintiffs
o Publicity which
places the plaintiff in a false light
in the public eye
o Appropriation for the defendant’s
advantage of the plaintiff’s name or likeness
·
Pope v. Curl
(1741)
o Curl, a
bookseller, obtained and published, without consent of the authors, personal
letters written by well known literary figures (Alexander Pope and Jonathan
Swift.)
o Pope sued Curl to
have the books removed from the market.
o Lord Chancellor
upheld the privacy of Pope’s letters on the grounds that the writer of a letter
has a property right in his words.
o The receiver of a
letter, has, at most, a joint property with the writer, and the possession does
not give him a license to publish.
·
Philippine Context (letters)
o Ownership of
letters belong to the recipient
o Publication
requires consent of the writer
§ Except if the
public good demands it
o If the sender and
retains the receiving copy, the laws is silent if the recepient’s consent is
required
·
Prince Albert v. Strange
(1894 – English Court)
o Prince Consort
sued to require the defendants to return all copies of the impression and to
prohibit their exhibition and the publication of the catalogue describing the
works
o Includes couples’
verses and dabbles in paintings
o SolGen:
unpublished manuscript is a “peculiar property”
o Right of privacy
is asserted, but it is on the basis of property rights that it was decided
·
Vassar College v.
Loose Wills Biscuit Co. (1912 – US)
o Unauthorized use
of the name and logo of Vassar College resulting in the humiliation of the
alumni and the student body
o Court decision
§ Plaintiff could
not invoke the right of privacy first because it was a public corporation
depending upon publicity
§ A corporation has
no right of privacy because it is an injury to the feeling and sensibilities
·
Brents v.
Morgan (1927 – US)
o Brents announced
in a placard that Dr. Morgan owed him money
o Dr Morgan was
awarded with $1000 even though the contents of the placard were true
·
Trammel v.
Citizen’s News Company, Inc. (1941 – US)
o Trammel wrote a
request to the newspaper not to print the announcement of his debt with a
grocery store
o Court:
§ Decided in favor
of Trammel.
§ A man’s feelings are as much a part of his
person as his limbs and are entitled to protection.
The
Right of Privacy in Philippine Courts
·
Existence of the right of privacy in the Philippines
o Constitution
§ Privacy of
correspondence and communication
o Civil Code
§
Chapter 2 – Human Relations
§
Article 26. Every person
shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or
disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause
another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating
another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
§ Article 32. Any public
officer or employee, or any private individual… who violates… the following
rights… shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
§ Article 723. Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the person to whom they are
addressed and delivered, but they cannot be published or disseminated without
the consent of the writer or his heirs. However, the court may authorize their
publication or dissemination if the public good or the interest of justice so requires.
o
Trademark law (RA 166),
patterned from US, which prohibits
§
Matters which may
disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons
o
Revised Penal Code
§
Revelation of secrets
§
Trespass to dwelling
§
Discover and revelation
of secrets by seizing papers and letters
o
Rules of Court
§
Recognizes to maintain
confidentiality between certain disclosures
§
Privacy between
·
Husband and wife
·
Attorney and client
·
Doctor and patient
·
Priest and penitent
·
Right of privacy is
rarely invoked independent of other constitutional guarantees in the
Philippines
·
Arnault v. Nazareno
o
Invoked the right of
privacy before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and SC but failed
·
Material Distribution Inc. v. Natividad
o
Invoked the privacy of
communication and correspondence
o
SC: Constitution provided
that a court order is an exception
·
Morfe v. Mutuc
o
Questioned the
constitutionality of the SALN as a violation of due process and unlawful
invasion of privacy
o
Statute requires
disclosure of information that infringes the right to privacy
Privacy
and the Mass Media
·
Private law => remedy
against the violation of right between private parties
·
Public law => constitutional
limitations on the acts of government against
our privacy
·
Balance between
o
Right to privacy
o
Freedom of speech
o
Freedom of the press
·
Warren and Brandeis:
matters which has no connection with his fitness for a public office should be
repressed
·
Sidis v. FR Publishing Corp (1940 – US)
o
Public figures must
sacrifice their privacy and expose at least part of their lives to public
scrutiny as the price of the power they attain
o
Sidis is a math child
prodigy who grew up to work as clerk
·
Cason v. Baskin (1946 – US)
o
Marjorie Baskin published
Cross Creek and used the actual names of her neighbors in the book.
o
Zelma Cascon filed a case
for being portrayed as a villain in the book
o
Ruled in favor of Cascon.
However, the court said there was no actual damages and awarded $1 and
attorney’s fees only.
·
News reporting would be
hampered if individuals will be allowed to recover damages for publication without
their consent or for mere inaccuracies.
·
Lack of malicious intent
or bad faith may exculpate the news reporter
