WHETHER OR NOT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF RESPONDENT IS VIOLATED

The individuals right to privacy and human dignity are enshrined, protected, and
guaranteed not only by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines but likewise by the
International Covenants, viz:
o The state values the dignity of every person and guarantees full
respect for human rights. (Art. II., Sec. 2, 1987 Phil. Constitution)
o No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks
on his honor and reputation." (Art. 17, Sec. 1, ICCPR)
o Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks." (Art. 17, sec. 2, ICCPR).
The right to privacy is well-entrenched in the 1987 Constitution and safeguarded
by the Civil Code and special laws which provides for their violation in the form of
damages, fines or imprisonment.
The Constitution provides that the 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.
Similarly, the Civil Code provides that [e]very person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons and
punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into
the privacy of another.1 It also holds a public officer or employee or any private
individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another
person,2 and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications.3
The landmark American decision Whalen v. Roe4 bifurcated the right to privacy
into:

1 Article 26 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention
and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers 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.
2 Article 32, Civil Code.
3 Article 723, Civil Code.
4429 U.S. 589 (1977) (cited by Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 293 SCRA 143, Jul. 23,
1998).
 o Decisional privacy: the interest in independence in making certain kinds of
important decisions
o Informational privacy: the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of
personal matters5
what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own house or office,
is not a subject [of]... protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Katz v US.
Immunomedics v. Jean Doe6 ruled that Immunomedics had shown a prima facie
cause of action for a breach of the agreement and stated: Although anonymous
speech on the Internet is protected, there must be an avenue for redress for those
who are wronged. Individuals choosing to harm another or violate an
agreement through speech on the Internet cannot hope to shield their
identity and avoid punishment through invocation of the First Amendment.7
Privacy is a fundamental human right, enshrined in numerous international human
rights instruments.8 It is central to the protection of human dignity and forms the
basis of any democratic society. It also supports and reinforces other rights, such
as freedom of expression, information and association.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION
CIVIL CODE
DATA PRIVACY ACT
JURISPRUDENCE

IMPORTANT CASE FACTS

5Id. at 599-600 (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179;
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479; Pierce v. Society
of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165
U.S. 578).
6 342 N.J. Super. 160 (App. Div. 2001).

7 Id. at 165.

8Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant
Workers Article 14, UN Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights
and Welfare of the Child, Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article
4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human
Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Sec
 There were 2 sets of pictures.
o ACTUAL PHOTOS PHOTOSHOPPEDOne set consisted of actual
photos of Andrea which had been photoshopped to make it appear that she
had posed naked for the camera.
o SUPERIMPOSED LEWD PHOTOGRAPHSThe other set consisted of
lewd photographs of porn stars in sexually explicit positions on which
Andreas face had been superimposed.
o THREATThe photos came with a threat that if Andrea did not stop
organizing the CKS rallies against the Marcos burial, these pictures would
made public via social media.
She reached for her stash of private photographs taken with her secret college
boyfriend, Edric Tancinco, and realized that these were the same photographs that
had been used and photoshopped.
o Andrea wondered how the anonymous Facebook account holder was able
to take hold of her private collection as ONLY she and Edric had access
to them.
an Information with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215
charging Edric Tancinco, Genevieve Libutaque, Crystal Tutay, Micah Morales,
Coopey Angeles, Monci Martin and Dong Chul Lee of violations of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
and the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act.
The private complainant, Andrea Chua, on the other hand, applied with the trial
court for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the accused
from operating the Facebook/Instagram groups as the continued operation
of these groups violated her right to privacy and dignity, as well as countless
other peoples rights. The accused opposed the application, claiming that these
are private groups and that the matters discussed in these Facebook/Instagram
groups are protected by free speech and freedom of expression.

DATA PRIVACY ACT- the law only protects information that is considered private
Establish privacy in cyber world (vivares)
informational privacy has two aspects:
o the right not to have private information disclosed, and
o the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.
*threat to right to privacy is violation to right to privacy
difference with normal stalking (not available online)
meaning of surveillance and intrusion (definition)
https://privacy.gov.ph/know-your-rights/#topic7_part2
self-regulation best defense against breach of privacy, especially among the
tech-savvy selfie generation. (Vivares)
o [S]elf-regulation on the part of online social network users and internet
consumers in general is the best means of avoiding privacy rights violations.
As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive in protecting
 his or her own privacy. It is in this regard that many online users,
especially minors, fail
VIVARES
o It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a posts or profile details
privacy to Friends is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by
another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content,
the high court said in ruling against the petition.
Andrea: private to her and the bf only
o claimants themselves take utmost care in safeguarding a right which they
allege to have been violated.
How did Andrea show utmost care?
o [Online] users must be mindful enough to learn the use of privacy tools, to
use them if they desire to keep the information private, and to keep track of
changes in the available privacy settings, such as those of Facebook,
especially because Facebook is notorious for changing these settings and
the sites layout often.

BELO V GUEVARRA (2016 ADMIN CASE)

MESSENGERdalawang tao palang yung nakakakita

Not public, pictures sent in messenger anonymous user and andrea
Anonymous user sino yung anonynmous user diba pa siya considered public
kasithird person?
Not public kasi violation pa rin siya ng right to privacy
Jurisprudence violation of right to privacy threat

CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL ASPECT OF PRIVACY

The rights constitutional aspect consists of decisional and informational privacy,
while its civil aspect consists of the various privacy torts and the broad tort
intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as various statutory zones
identified in Ople.
Finally, one wonders if present understanding will expand to cover modern
situations where a single intrusion may give rise to a perpetual threat of intrusion,
as in electronic and genetic contexts, drawing in particular from Justice Cortess
and Oples discussions on databases. Recall Justice Cortess now prophetic words
from almost four decades past: The computer age is upon us. While the use of
computers in this country is as yet limited, the need to provide protection to
individual privacy against threats arising from computerization will have to be met.
A legal framework will have to be established which, while recognizing the various
ways in which the computer may be utilized, will also afford protection to privacy.9

9 IRENE CORTES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY 1 (UP Law

Center, 1970). Adapted from the second of the Albino Z. SyCip Lecture Series delivered
at the University of the Philippines College of Law, Feb. 21 and 28, 1970.
 inherent to the right to privacy is the freedom from "unwarranted exploitation
of ones person or from intrusion into ones private activities in such a way
as to cause humiliation to a persons ordinary sensibilities."10
Concepcion v. Court of Appeals,11 we explained that:
o The philosophy behind Art. 26 underscores the necessity for its inclusion in
our civil law. The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the
human personality must be exalted. The sacredness of human personality
is a concomitant consideration of every plan for human amelioration. The
touchstone of every system of law, of the culture and civilization of every
country, is how far it dignifies man. If the statutes insufficiently protect a
person from being unjustly humiliated, in short, if human personality is not
exalted - then the laws are indeed defective. Thus, under this article, the
rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are provided for
violations of a persons dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.
o It is petitioners position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any
of those enumerated in Arts. 26 and 2219. In this respect, the law is
clear. The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive but
are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous
acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a persons
dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive
language. Under Art. 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages which include
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if
they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.

VAWC
Section 5(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or
through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological
distress to the woman or her child.
o (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

10Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633 and
161658, 3 November 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 431.
11 381 Phil. 90 (2000).