Privacy of Comm and Correspondence

8/11/2019 Privacy of Comm and Correspondence

1/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995

SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner,vs.ONORA!"E COURT O# APPEA"S, $%& ESTERS. GARCIA, respondents.

'APUNAN, J.:

civil case da!a"es #as filed b$ petitionerSocorro D. Ra!ire% in the Re"ional Trial &ourt of'ue%on &it$ alle"in" that the private respondent,(ster S. )arcia, in a confrontation in the latter*soffice, alle"edl$ ve+ed, insulted and hu!iliated herin a hostile and furious !ood and in a !anneroffensive to petitioner*s di"nit$ and personalit$,contrar$ to !orals, "ood custo!s and publicpolic$.1

In support of her clai!, petitioner produced averbati! transcript of the event and sou"ht !oralda!a"es, attorne$*s fees and other e+penses ofliti"ation in the a!ount of P-/,///.//, in addition

to costs, interests and other reliefs a#ardable atthe trial court*s discretion. The transcript on #hichthe civil case #as based #as culled fro! a taperecordin" of the confrontation !ade b$petitioner.2The transcript reads as follo#s0

Plaintiff Soccoro D.Ra!ire% 1&huchi2 3)ood fternoon M*a!.

Defendant (ster S.)arcia 1(S)2 3 no

ba an" nan"$ari sa*$o, na4ali!ot 4a na4un" paano 4anapunta rito, por4e!e!ber 4a na,!a"su!bon" 4a 4un"ano an" "a"a#in 4o sa*$o.

&56&5I 3 7asi, na4adut$ a4o noon.

(S) 3 Tapos ini#anno. 1Sic2

&56&5I 3 5ind!*a!, pero ilan besesna nila a4on"

binali4an, sabin""anoon 3

(S) 3 Ito and 1sic2!asasabi 4o sa *$oa$a# 4un" 1sic2 !a"e+plain 4a, 4ashan""an" /0// p.!.4inabu4asan hindi 4ana pu!aso4. N"a$ona4o an" babali4 sa *$ona"8aapl$ 4a sa

States, na"8aapl$ 4asa revie# !o, 4un"4a4ailan"anin an"certification !o4ali!utan !o na 4ashindi 4a sa a4in!a4a4ahin"i.

&56&5I 3 5indM*a!. 7asi an" ano 4otala"a noon i8cocontinue 4o up to/0// p.!.

(S) 3 Bastoska, na4ali!utan !o na4un" paano 4apu!aso4 dito sa hotelMa"su!bon" 4a sa6nion 4un" "usto !oNa4ali!utan !o na4un" paano 4ana4apaso4 dito Do$ou thin4 that on $ouro#n !a4a4apaso4 4a

4un" hindi a4oPanunu!b$o$an na4ita 1Sinusu!batan na4ita2.

&56&5I 3 Itutulo$ 4ona M*a! sana an"dut$ 4o.

1


2/24

(S) 3 7aso ilan"beses na a4on"binabali4an doon n"!"a no 1sic2 4o.

(S) 3 Na4ali!utan!o na ba 4un" paano4a pu!aso4 sa hotel,4un" on $our o#n

!erit ala! 4o na!an4un" "aano 4a 4abobo !o. Mara!i an"na"8aapl$ ala! 4on"hindi 4a papasa.

&56&5I 3 7u!uha4a!i n" e+a! noon.

(S) 3 Oo, pero hindi4a papasa.

&56&5I 3 (h, ba4ita4o an" na4uha ni Dr.Ta!a$o

(S) 3 7u4unin 4a4asi a4o.

&56&5I 3 (h, di sana3

(S) 3 5u#a" !on"ipa"!ala4i na !a$

uta4 4a 4asi wala kangutak. 4ala !o ba!a4u4uha 4a dito4un" hindi a4o.

&56&5I 3 Ma"8ee+plain a4o.

(S) 3 5u#a" na,hindi a4o !a"8papa8e+plain sa *$o,!a4aalala 4a 4un"

paano 4a pu!a8rito.Putang-ina sasabi8sabihin !o 4a!a"8ana4 n" nana$ attata$ !o an" !"a!a"ulan" 4o.

(S) 3 9ala na a4on"pa4iala!, dahilnandito 4a sa loob,

nasa labas 4a pu#ede4a n" hindi pu!aso4o4e$ $an nasaloob 4au!alis 4a doon.

&56&5I 3 7asi M*a!,binbali4an a4o n" !"ata"a 6nion.

(S) 3 Nandi$an narin a4o, pero hu#a"!on" 4ali!utan nahindi 4a !a4a4apaso44un" hindi a4o. 7un"hindi !o 4ini4ilala $ano4e$ lan" sa a4indahil tapos 4a na.

&56&5I 3 Ina8ano 4o!*a! na utan" naloob.

(S) 3 5u#a" na lan",hindi !o utan" naloob, 4asi 4un" ba"asa no, nilapastan"an!o a4o.

&56&5I 3 Paano 4itanilapastan"anan:

(S) 3 Mabuti palu!abas 4a na. 5ind

na a4o !a4i4ipa"usapsa *$o. ;u!abas 4a naMa"su!bon" 4a.3

s a result of petitioner*s recordin" of the eventand alle"in" that the said act of secretl$ tapin" theconfrontation #as ille"al, private respondent filed acri!inal case before the Re"ional Trial &ourt oPasa$ &it$ for violation of Republic ct


3/24


4/24

tap an$ #ire or cable, or b$ usin"an$ other device or arran"e!ent, tosecretl$ overhear, intercept, orrecord such co!!unication orspo4en #ord b$ usin" a deviceco!!onl$ 4no#n as a dictaphone ordicta"raph or detectaphone or#al4ie8tal4ie or tape recorder, orho#ever other#ise described.

The aforestated provision clearl$ and une@uivocall$!a4es it ille"al for an$ person, not authori%ed b$all the parties to an$ private co!!unication tosecretl$ record such co!!unication b$ !eans of atape recorder. The la# !a4es no distinction as to#hether the part$ sou"ht to be penali%ed b$ thestatute ou"ht to be a part$ other than or differentfro! those involved in the private co!!unication.The statute*s intent to penali%e all personsunauthori%ed to !a4e such recordin" isunderscored b$ the use of the @ualifier an$.&onse@uentl$, as respondent &ourt of ppealscorrectl$ concluded, even a 1person2 priv$ to aco!!unication #ho records his privateconversation #ith another #ithout the 4no#led"eof the latter 1#ill2 @ualif$ as a violator 13underthis provision of R..


5/24

sa$0 Please be infor!ed that#hatever $ou sa$ here !a$ be useda"ainst $ou. That is fairness andthat is #hat #e de!and. No#, inspite of that #arnin", he !a4esda!a"in" state!ents a"ainst hiso#n interest, #ell, he cannotco!plain an$ !ore. But i% &ou aregoing to take a recor"ing o% the

o!ser#ations an" remarks o% aerson without him knowing that itis !eing tae" or recor"e", withouthim knowing that what is !eingrecor"e" ma& !e use" against him, Ithink it is un%air.

+++ +++ +++

1&on"ression Record, Vol. III, No.B, p. ?-


6/24

e+pressl$ been assured b$ our&onstitution. Needless to state here,the fra!ers of our &onstitution !usthave reco"ni%ed the natureof con#ersationsbet#een individualsand the si"nificance of !an*sspiritual nature, of his feelin"s and ofhis intellect. The$ !ust have 4no#nthat part of the pleasures and

satisfactions of life are to be found inthe unaudited, and free e+chan"eof communicationbet#eenindividuals 3 free fro! ever$unAustifiable intrusion b$ #hatever!eans.1*

In (aanan #s.Interme"iate Aellate Court, 18acase #hich dealt #ith the issue of telephone#iretappin", #e held that the use of a telephonee+tension for the purpose of overhearin" a privateconversation #ithout authori%ation did not violateR..


7/24

There is no @uestion that the docu!ents andpapers in @uestion belon" to private respondent,Dr. lfredo Martin, and that the$ #ere ta4en b$ his#ife, the herein petitioner, #ithout his 4no#led"eand consent. For that reason, the trial courtdeclared the docu!ents and papers to beproperties of private respondent, ordered petitionerto return the! to private respondent and enAoinedher fro! usin" the! in evidence. In appealin" fro!

the decision of the &ourt of ppeals affir!in" thetrial court*s decision, petitioner*s onl$ "round isthat in lfredo Martin v. lfonso Feli+, r.,this&ourt ruled that the docu!ents and papers1!ar4ed as nne+es 8 to 8 of respondent*sco!!ent in that case2 #ere ad!issible in evidenceand, therefore, their use b$ petitioner*s attorne$,lfonso Feli+ did not constitute !alpractice or "ross!isconduct, For this reason it is contended that the&ourt of ppeals erred in affir!in" the decision ofthe trial court instead of dis!issin" privaterespondent*s co!plaint.

Petitioner*s contention has no !erit. The casea"ainst tt$. Feli+, r. #as for disbar!ent. !on"other thin"s, private respondent, Dr. lfredoMartin, as co!plainant in that case, char"ed that inusin" the docu!ents in evidence, tt$. Feli+, r.co!!itted !alpractice or "ross !isconductbecause of the inAunctive order of the trial court. Indis!issin" the co!plaint a"ainst tt$. Feli+, r., this&ourt too4 note of the follo#in" defense of tt$.Feli+C r. #hich it found to be i!pressed #ith!erit0=

On the alle"ed !alpractice or "ross!isconduct of respondent Elfonso Feli+,r., he !aintains that0

. . . .

?B, ho#everhavin" appealed the said order to this &ourton a petition for certiorari, this &ourt issueda restrainin" order on aforesaid date #hichorder te!poraril$ set aside the order of thetrial court. 5ence, durin" the enforceabilit$of this &ourt*s order, respondent*s re@uestfor petitioner to ad!it the "enuineness andauthenticit$ of the subAect anne+es cannot

be loo4ed upon as !alpractice. Notabl$petitioner Dr. Martin finall$ ad!itted thetruth and authenticit$ of the @uestionedanne+es, t that point in ti!e, #ould it havebeen !alpractice for respondent to usepetitioner*s ad!ission as evidence a"ainsthi! in the le"al separation case pendin" inthe Re"ional Trial &ourt of Ma4ati:Respondent sub!its it is not !alpractice.

Si"nificantl$, petitioner*s ad!ission #asdone not thru his counsel but b$ Dr. Martinhi!self under oath, Such verified ad!issionconstitutes an affidavit, and, thereforereceivable in evidence a"ainst hi!Petitioner beca!e bound b$ his ad!issionFor &ecilia to avail herself of her husband*sad!ission and use the sa!e in her actionfor le"al separation cannot be treated as!alpractice.

Thus, the ac@uittal of tt$. Feli+, r. in thead!inistrative case a!ounts to no !ore than adeclaration that his use of the docu!ents andpapers for the purpose of securin" Dr. Martin*sad!ission as to their "enuiness and authenticit$did not constitute a violation of the inAunctive orderof the trial court. J$ no !eans does the decision inthat case establish the ad!issibilit$ of thedocu!ents and papers in @uestion.

It cannot be overe!phasi%ed that if tt$. Feli+, r#as ac@uitted of the char"e of violatin" the #rit ofpreli!inar$ inAunction issued b$ the trial court, it

#as onl$ because, at the ti!e he used thedocu!ents and papers, enforce!ent of the orderof the trial court #as te!poraril$ restrained b$ this&ourt. The TRO issued b$ this &ourt #as eventuall$lifted as the petition for certiorari filed b$ petitionera"ainst the trial court*s order #as dis!issed and,therefore, the prohibition a"ainst the further use ofthe docu!ents and papers beca!e effective a"ain.

Indeed the docu!ents and papers in @uestion are

inad!issible in evidence. The constitutionainAunction declarin" the privac$ of co!!unicationand correspondence Eto be inviolableBis no lessapplicable si!pl$ because it is the #ife 1#ho thin4sherself a""rieved b$ her husband*s infidelit$2 #hois the part$ a"ainst #ho! the constitutionaprovision is to be enforced. The onl$ e+ception tothe prohibition in the &onstitution is if there is ala#ful order Efro! a court or #hen public safet$or order re@uires other#ise, as prescribed b$

7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_107383_1996.html#fnt1


8/24

la#.


9/24


10/24

;in"an0 lisin !o an" baril !o lisin !oan" baril !o Suntu4an ta$o, si"e.

Navarro0 Ma$aban" 4a ah

1Sounds of a scuffle2

Navarro0 5ina!on a4o n$an Pare hina!ona4o n$an Pare hina!on a4o n$an, testi"o4a$o. lisin 4o da# an" baril 4o. 5ina!ona4o n$an. Pare, ila"a$ !o di$an, hina!ona4o sa harap ni Stanle$. Testi"o 4a$o,hina!on a4o. Pulis ta$o eh. Puta, buti n"a,sunto4 lan" an" inabot n$an. Sa harap nile+, ni oe, ni Stanle$, hina!on a4o. Pare,hina!on a4o, 4ini" n$o ha. 5ina!on a4on$an. Si"e, dalhin n$o sa hospital $an.

Petitioner Felipe Navarro clai!s that it #as thedeceased #ho tried to hit hi! t#ice, but he1petitioner2 #as able to duc4 both ti!es, and that

;in"an #as so drun4 he fell on the floor t#ice, eachti!e hittin" his head on the concrete.=-

In "ivin" credence to the evidence for theprosecution, the trial court stated0

fter a thorou"h and in8depth evaluation ofthe evidence adduced b$ the prosecutionand the defense, this court finds that theevidence for the prosecution is the !orecredible, concrete and sufficient to createthat !oral certaint$ in the !ind of the court

that accused herein is cri!inall$responsible.

The defense*s evidence #hich consists ofoutri"ht denial could not under thecircu!stance overturn the stren"th of theprosecution*s evidence.

This court finds that the prosecution#itnesses, !ore particularl$ Stanle$albuena, lac4ed an$ !otive to !a4e falseaccusation, distort the truth, testif$falsehood or cause accusation of one #hohad neither brou"ht hi! har! or inAur$.

)oin" over the evidence on record,theostmortemreport issued b$ Dra. (vaHa!a!oto confir!s the detailed account"iven b$ Stanle$ albuena on ho# ;in"ansustained head inAuries.

Saidost-mortemreport to"ether #ith thetesti!on$ of albuena sufficientl$ belie theclai! of the defense that the head inAuriesof deceased ;in"an #ere caused b$ thelatter*s fallin" do#n on the concretepave!ent head first.

The &ourt of ppeals affir!ed0

9e are far fro! bein" convinced b$appellant*s aforesaid dis@uisition. 9e havecarefull$ evaluated the conflictin" versionsof the incident as presented b$ both partiesand #e find the trial court*s factuaconclusions to have better and stron"erevidentiar$ support.

In the first place, the !ere fact thatalbuena #as hi!self a victi! of appellant*sa""ression does not i!pair the probative#orth of his positive and lo"ical account of

the incident in @uestion. In fact, far fro!provin" his innocence, appellant*sun#arranted assault upon albuena, #hichthe defense has virtuall$ ad!itted, clearl$betra$s his violent character or dispositionand his capacit$ to har! others. pparentl$the sa!e !otivation that led hi! intoassailin" albuena !ust have provo4ed hi!into also attac4in" ;in"an #ho hadinterceded for albuena and hu!iliated hi!and further challen"ed to a fistfi"ht..whi+n/t

+ + + + + + + + +

On the other hand, appellant*s e+planationas ho# ;in"an #as inAured is too tenuousand illo"ical to be accepted. It is in factcontradicted b$ the nu!ber, nature andlocation of ;in"an*s inAuries as sho#n intheost-mortemreport 1(+h. D2. ccordin"to the defense, ;in"an fell t#o ti!es #henhe #as outbalanced in the course of bo+in"the appellant. nd $et, ;in"an sufferedlacerated #ounds in his left forehead, left

e$ebro#, bet#een his left and ri"hte$ebro#s, and contusion in the ri"htte!poral re"ion of the head 1(+h. (.2&ertainl$, these inAuries could not have beenresulted fro! ;in"an*s accidental fall.

5ence, this appeal. Petitioner Navarro contends0

T5( 5ONORJ;( &O6RT OF PP(;S 5SD(&ID(D T5( &S( NOT IN &&ORD 9IT5

10


11/24

;9 ND 9IT5 T5( PP;I&J;(D(&ISIONS OF T5( S6PR(M( &O6RT. ITS&ON&;6SION IS FINDIN) JS(D ONSP(&6;TION, S6RMIS( OR &ON(&T6R(CT5( INF(R(N&( IT MD( IS MNIF(ST;HMIST7(N, JS6RD OR IMPOSSIJ;(C IT&OMMITT(D )RV( J6S( OFDIS&R(TIONC ITS 6D)M(NT IS JS(D ON MISPPR(5(NSION OF F&TSC ITS

FINDIN) IS &ONTRDI&T(D JH (VID(N&(ON R(&ORDC ND ITS FINDIN) IS D(VOIDOF S6PPORT IN T5( R(&ORD.

The appeal is #ithout !erit.

First. Petitioner Navarro @uestions the credibilit$ ofthe testi!on$ of albuena on the "round that he#as a biased #itness, havin" a "rud"e a"ainst hi!.The testi!on$ of a #itness #ho has an interest inthe conviction of the accused is not, for this reasonalone, unreliable.=Trial courts, #hich have the

opportunit$ observe the facial e+pressions,"estures, and tones of voice of a #itness #hiletestif$in", are co!petent to deter!ine #hether hisor her testi!on$ should be "iven credence.=?In theinstant case, petitioner Navarro has not sho#n thatthe trial court erred in accordin" #ei"ht to thetesti!on$ of albuena.

Indeed, albuena*s testi!on$ is confir!ed b$ thevoice recordin" had !ade. It !a$ be as4ed#hether the tape is ad!issible in vie# of R.. No.Since the e+chan"e bet#eenpetitioner Navarro and ;in"an #as not private, itstape recordin" is not prohibited.

Nor is there an$ @uestion that it #as dul$authenticated. voice recordin" is authenticatedb$ the testi!on$ of a #itness 12 that hepersonall$ recorded the conversationsC 1=2 that thetape pla$ed in the court #as the one he recordedCand 1B2 that the voices on the tape are those of thepersons such are clai!ed to belon".B/In theinstant case, albuena testified that he personall$!ade the voice recordin"CBthat the tape pla$ed inthe court #as the one he recordedCB=and that thespea4ers on the tape #ere petitioner Navarro and;in"an.BB sufficient foundation #as thus laid forthe authentication of the tape presented b$ theprosecution.

Secon". The voice recordin" !ade b$ albuena

established0 12 that there #as a heated e+chan"ebet#een petitioner Navarro and ;in"an on theplacin" in the police blotter of an entr$ a"ainst hi!and albuenaC and 1=2 that so!e for! of violenceoccurred involvin" petitioner Navarro and ;in"an,#ith the latter "ettin" the #orst of it.

Further!ore, Dr. (va Ha!a!oto, #ho perfor!edthe autops$ on the bod$ of ;in"an, issued the

11


12/24

!edical certificate,B>/,containin" the follo#in" findin"s0

Post MortemFindin"s0

Dried blood, forehead Q face

No blood oo%ed fro! the ears, nose Q!outh

S#ellin", B c! + = c!, te!poral re"ion,head, ri"ht

;acerated #ound, = c! in len"th, 8= indepth, lateral e$ebro#, ;eft

;acerated #ound, /. c! in len"th,superficial, bet#een the left Q ri"ht e$ebro#

;acerated #ound, = c! in len"th, c! indepth, forehead, ;eft

&$anosis of the tips of fin"ers Q toes

&6S( OF D(T50

&(R(JR; &ON&6SSION Q S5O&7

J;O9 ON T5( 5(D

Dr. Ha!a!ato testified0

' )ive $our opinion as to #hat #as the possiblecause of this findin"s nu!ber one, #hich is oo%in"of blood fro! the forehead:

It !a$ be due to a blo# on the forehead or itbu!ped to a hard obAect, sir.

' &ould a !etal li4e a butt of a "un have causedthis #ound No. .:

It is possible, sir.

' nd in the alternative, could have it beencaused b$ bu!pin" on a concrete floor:

Possible, sir.

FIS&;0

9hat could have been the cause of the contusionand s#ellin" under $our findin"s No. = doctor:

9ITN(SS0

It !a$ be caused b$ bu!pin" to a hard obAect, sir.

' &ould a butt of a "un have caused it doctor:

The s#ellin" is bi" so it could have not beencaused b$ a butt of a "un because the butt of a"un is s!all, sir.

' 5o# about this findin"s No.


13/24


14/24

The inde!nit$ as increased b$ the &ourt of ppealsfro! PB/,///.// to P/,///.// is in accordance#ith the current Aurisprudence.


15/24

chaired b$ the (+ecutive Secretar$,#ith the follo#in" as !e!bers0

5ead, Presidential Mana"e!ent Staff

Secretar$, National (cono!icDevelop!ent uthorit$

Secretar$, Depart!ent of the Interiorand ;ocal )overn!ent

Secretar$, Depart!ent of 5ealth

d!inistrator, )overn!ent ServiceInsurance S$ste!,

d!inistrator, Social Securit$S$ste!,

d!inistrator, National StatisticsOffice

Mana"in" Director, National&o!puter &enter.

Sec. B. Secretariat. The National&o!puter &enter 1N&&2 is hereb$desi"nated as secretariat to the I&&and as such shall providead!inistrative and technical supportto the I&&.

Sec. > andanuar$ =B, >>. On anuar$ =>, petitionerfiled the instant petition a"ainst respondents, then(+ecutive Secretar$ Ruben Torres and the heads ofthe "overn!ent a"encies, #ho as !e!bers of the

Inter8"enc$ &oordinatin" &o!!ittee, are char"ed#ith the i!ple!entation of .O. No. B/?. On pri?, >>, #e issued a te!porar$ restrainin" orderenAoinin" its i!ple!entation.

Petitioner contends0

. T5( (STJ;ISNM(NT OF NTION; &OMP6T(RIL(DID(NTIFI&TION R(F(R(N&(SHST(M R('6IR(S ;()IS;TIV(&T. T5( ISS6N&( OF .O. NOB/? JH T5( PR(SID(NT OF T5(R(P6J;I& OF T5( P5I;IPPIN(S IST5(R(FOR(, N6N&ONSTIT6TION; 6S6RPTIONOF T5( ;()IS;TIV( PO9(RS OFT5( &ON)R(SS OF T5( R(P6J;I&OF T5( P5I;IPPIN(S.

J. T5( PPROPRITION OF P6J;I&F6NDS JH T5( PR(SID(NT FOR T5(

15


16/24

IMP;(M(NTTION OF .O. NO. B/?IS N 6N&ONSTIT6TION;6S6RPTION OF T5( (K&;6SIV(RI)5T OF &ON)R(SS TOPPROPRIT( P6J;I& F6NDS FOR(KP(NDIT6R(.

&. T5( IMP;(M(NTTION OF .O.NO. B/? INSIDIO6S;H ;HS T5(

)RO6ND9OR7 FOR SHST(M95I&5 9I;; VIO;T( T5( JI;; OFRI)5TS (NS5RIN(D IN T5(&ONSTIT6TION. 2

Respondents counter8ar"ue0

. T5( INSTNT P(TITION IS NOT 6STI&IJ;( &S( S 9O6;D9RRNT 6DI&I; R(VI(9C

J. .O. NO. B/? E>>- 9S ISS6(D

9IT5IN T5( (K(&6TIV( NDDMINISTRTIV( PO9(RS OF T5(PR(SID(NT 9IT5O6T(N&RO&5IN) ON T5( ;()IS;TIV(PO9(RS OF &ON)R(SSC

&. T5( F6NDS N(&(SSRH FOR T5(IMP;(M(NTTION OF T5(ID(NTIFI&TION R(F(R(N&(SHST(M MH J( SO6R&(D FROMT5( J6D)(TS OF T5( &ON&(RN(D)(N&I(SC

D. .O. NO. B/? E>>- PROT(&TSN INDIVID6;*S INT(R(ST INPRIV&H. 3

9e no# resolve.

I

s is usual in constitutional liti"ation, respondentsraise the threshold issues relatin" to the standin"to sue of the petitioner and the Austiciabilit$ of the

case at bar. More specificall$, respondents averthat petitioner has no le"al interest to uphold andthat the i!ple!entin" rules of .O. No. B/? have$et to be pro!ul"ated.

These sub!issions do not deserve our s$!patheticear. Petitioner Ople is a distin"uished !e!ber ofour Senate. s a Senator, petitioner is possessed ofthe re@uisite standin" to brin" suit raisin" the issuethat the issuance of .O. No. B/? is a usurpation of

le"islative po#er. (s ta+pa$er and !e!ber of the)overn!ent Service Insurance S$ste! 1)SIS2petitioner can also i!pu"n the le"alit$ of the!isali"n!ent of public funds and the !isuse of)SIS funds to i!ple!ent .O. No. B/?. 5

The ripeness for adAudication of the Petition at baris not affected b$ the fact that the i!ple!entin"rules of .O. No. B/? have $et to be pro!ul"ated.

Petitioner Ople assails .O. No. B/? as invalid erseand as infir!ed on its face. 5is action is notpre!ature for the rules $et to be pro!ul"atedcannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, therespondents the!selves have started thei!ple!entation of .O. No. B/? #ithout #aitin" forthe rules. s earl$ as anuar$ >, >>respondent Social Securit$ S$ste! 1SSS2 causedthe publication of a notice to bid for the!anufacture of the National Identification 1ID2card. )Respondent (+ecutive Secretar$ Torres haspublicl$ announced that representatives fro! the)SIS and the SSS have co!pleted the "uidelinesfor the national identification s$ste!. *ll si"nalsfro! the respondents sho# their uns#ervin" #ill toi!ple!ent .O. No. B/? and #e need not #ait forthe for!alit$ of the rules to pass Aud"!ent on itsconstitutionalit$. In this li"ht, the dissentersinsistence that #e ti"hten the rule on standin" isnot a co!!endable stance as its result #ould be tothrottle an i!portant constitutional principle and afunda!ental ri"ht.

II

9e no# co!e to the core issues. Petitioner clai!sthat .O. No. B/? is not a !ere ad!inistrativeorder but a la# and hence, be$ond the po#er ofthe President to issue. 5e alle"es that .O. No. B/?establishes a s$ste! of identification that is all8enco!passin" in scope, affects the life and libert$of ever$ Filipino citi%en and forei"n resident, and!ore particularl$, violates their ri"ht to privac$.

Petitioner*s sedulous concern for the (+ecutive notto trespass on the la#!a4in" do!ain of &on"ressis understandable. The blurrin" of the de!arcation

line bet#een the po#er of the ;e"islature to !a4ela#s and the po#er of the (+ecutive to e+ecutela#s #ill disturb their delicate balance of po#er andcannot be allo#ed. 5ence, the e+ercise b$ onebranch of "overn!ent of po#er belon"in" toanother #ill be "iven a stricter scrutin$ b$ this&ourt.

The line that delineates ;e"islative and (+ecutivepo#er is not indistinct. ;e"islative po#er is the

16


17/24

authorit$, under the &onstitution, to !a4e la#s,and to alter and repeal the!. 8The &onstitution,as the #ill of the people in their ori"inal, soverei"nand unli!ited capacit$, has vested this po#er inthe &on"ress of the Philippines. 9The "rant ofle"islative po#er to &on"ress is broad, "eneral andco!prehensive. 1+The le"islative bod$ possessesplenar$ po#er for all purposes of civil"overn!ent. 11n$ po#er, dee!ed to be

le"islative b$ usa"e and tradition, is necessaril$possessed b$ &on"ress, unless the &onstitution haslod"ed it else#here. 12In fine, e+cept as li!ited b$the &onstitution, either e+pressl$ or i!pliedl$,le"islative po#er e!braces all subAects ande+tends to !atters of "eneral concern or co!!oninterest. 13

9hile &on"ress is vested #ith the po#er to enactla#s, the President e+ecutes the la#s. 1(Thee+ecutive po#er is vested in the Presidents. 15It is"enerall$ defined as the po#er to enforce andad!inister the la#s. 1)It is the po#er of carr$in"the la#s into practical operation and enforcin" theirdue observance. 1*

s head of the (+ecutive Depart!ent, thePresident is the &hief (+ecutive. 5e represents the"overn!ent as a #hole and sees to it that all la#sare enforced b$ the officials and e!plo$ees of hisdepart!ent. 185e has control over the e+ecutivedepart!ent, bureaus and offices. This !eans thathe has the authorit$ to assu!e directl$ thefunctions of the e+ecutive depart!ent, bureau andoffice or interfere #ith the discretion of its

officials.19&orollar$ to the po#er of control, thePresident also has the dut$ of supervisin" theenforce!ent of la#s for the !aintenance of "eneralpeace and public order. Thus, he is "rantedad!inistrative po#er over bureaus and officesunder his control to enable hi! to dischar"e hisduties effectivel$. 2+

d!inistrative po#er is concerned #ith the #or4 ofappl$in" policies and enforcin" orders asdeter!ined b$ proper "overn!ental or"ans. 21Itenables the President to fi+ a unifor! standard of

ad!inistrative efficienc$ and chec4 the officialconduct of his a"ents. 22To this end, he can issuead!inistrative orders, rules and re"ulations.

Prescindin" fro! these precepts, #e hold that .O.No. B/? involves a subAect that is not appropriateto be covered b$ an ad!inistrative order. nad!inistrative order is0

Sec. B. A"ministrati#e Or"ers. 3cts of the President #hich relate toparticular aspects of "overn!entaoperation in pursuance of his dutiesas ad!inistrative head shall bepro!ul"ated in ad!inistrativeorders. 23

n ad!inistrative order is an ordinance

issued b$ the President #hich relates tospecific aspects in the ad!inistrativeoperation of "overn!ent. It !ust be inhar!on$ #ith the la# and should be for thesole purpose of i!ple!entin" the la# andcarr$in" out the le"islative polic$. 2(9ereAect the ar"u!ent that .O. No. B/?i!ple!ents the le"islative polic$ of thed!inistrative &ode of >?. The &ode is a"eneral la# and incorporates in a unifieddocu!ent the !aAor structural, functionaand procedural principles o"overnance. 25and e!bodies chan"es inad!inistrative structure and proceduresdesi"ned to serve thepeople. 2)The &ode is divided into seven12 Joo4s0 Joo4 I deals #ith Soverei"nt$and )eneral d!inistration, Joo4 II #iththe Distribution of Po#ers of the threebranches of )overn!ent, Joo4 III on theOffice of the President, Joo4 IV on the(+ecutive Jranch, Joo4 V on &onstitutiona&o!!issions, Joo4 VI on Nationa)overn!ent Jud"etin", and Joo4 VII ond!inistrative Procedure. These Joo4s

contain provisions on the or"ani%ationpo#ers and "eneral ad!inistration of thee+ecutive, le"islative and Audicial branchesof "overn!ent, the or"ani%ation andad!inistration of depart!ents, bureaus andoffices under the e+ecutive branch, theor"ani%ation and functions of the&onstitutional &o!!issions and otherconstitutional bodies, the rules on thenational "overn!ent bud"et, as #ell as"uideline for the e+ercise b$ ad!inistrativea"encies of @uasi8le"islative and @uasi8Audicial po#ers. The &ode covers both theinternal ad!inistration o"overn!ent, i.e,internal or"ani%ationpersonnel and recruit!ent, supervision anddiscipline, and the effects of the functionsperfor!ed b$ ad!inistrative officials onprivate individuals or parties outside"overn!ent. 2*

17


18/24

It cannot be si!plisticall$ ar"ued that .O. No. B/?!erel$ i!ple!ents the d!inistrative &ode of>?. It establishes for the first ti!e a National&o!puteri%ed Identification Reference S$ste!.Such a S$ste! re@uires a delicate adAust!ent ofvarious contendin" state policies 3 the pri!ac$ ofnational securit$, the e+tent of privac$ interesta"ainst dossier8"atherin" b$ "overn!ent, thechoice of policies, etc. Indeed, the dissent of Mr.

ustice Mendo%a states that the .O. No. B/?involves the all8i!portant freedo! of thou"ht. ssaid ad!inistrative order redefines the para!etersof so!e basic ri"hts of our citi%enr$ #is-a-#istheState as #ell as the line that separates thead!inistrative po#er of the President to !a4erules and the le"islative po#er of &on"ress, itou"ht to be evident that it deals #ith a subAect thatshould be covered b$ la#.

Nor is it correct to ar"ue as the dissenters do that.D. No. B/? is not a la# because it confers nori"ht, i!poses no dut$, affords no proctection, andcreates no office. 6nder .O. No. B/?, a citi%encannot transact business #ith "overn!ent a"enciesdeliverin" basic services to the people #ithout theconte!plated identification card. No citi%en #illrefuse to "et this identification card for no one canavoid dealin" #ith "overn!ent. It is thus clear asda$li"ht that #ithout the ID, a citi%en #ill havedifficult$ e+ercisin" his ri"hts and enAo$in" hisprivile"es. )iven this realit$, the contention that.O. No. B/? "ives no ri"ht and i!poses no dut$cannot stand.

"ain, #ith due respect, the dissentin" opinionsundul$ e+pand the li!its of ad!inistrativele"islation and conse@uentl$ erodes the plenar$po#er of &on"ress to !a4e la#s. This is contrar$to the established approach definin" the traditionalli!its of ad!inistrative le"islation. s #ell statedb$ Fisher0 . . . Man$ re"ulations ho#ever, beardirectl$ on the public. It is here that ad!inistrativele"islation !ust he restricted in its scope andapplication. Re"ulations are not supposed to be asubstitute for the "eneral polic$8!a4in" that&on"ress enacts in the for! of a public la#.lthou"h ad!inistrative re"ulations are entitled torespect, the authorit$ to prescribe rules andre"ulations is not an independent source of po#erto !a4e la#s. 28

III

ssu!in", ar"uendo, that .O. No. B/? need notbe the subAect of a la#, still it cannot passconstitutional !uster as an ad!inistrative

le"islation because faciall$ it violates the ri"ht toprivac$. The essence of privac$ is the ri"ht to belet alone. 29In the >- case of )ris#old v&onnecticut, 3+the 6nited States Supre!e &ourt"ave !ore substance to the ri"ht of privac$ #hen itruled that the ri"ht has a constitutional foundation.It held that there is a ri"ht of privac$ #hich can befound #ithin the penu!bras of the First, ThirdFourth, Fifth and Ninth !end!ents, 31#i$0

Specific "uarantees in the Jill oRi"hts have penu!bras for!ed b$e!anations fro! these "uaranteesthat help "ive the! life andsubstance . . . various "uaranteescreate %ones of privac$. The ri"ht ofassociation contained in thepenu!bra of the First !end!ent isone, as #e have seen. The Third!end!ent in its prohibition a"ainstthe @uarterin" of soldiers in an$house in ti!e of peace #ithout theconsent of the o#ner is another facetof that privac$. The Fourth!end!ent e+plicitl$ affir!s the**ri"ht of the people to be secure intheir persons, houses and effectsa"ainst unreasonable searches andsei%ures. The Fifth !end!ent inits Self8Incri!ination &lause enablesthe citi%en to create a %one ofprivac$ #hich "overn!ent !a$ notforce hi! to surrender to hisdetri!ent. The Ninth !end!ent

provides0 The enu!eration in the&onstitution, of certain ri"hts, shalnot be construed to den$ ordispara"e others retained b$ thepeople.

In the >-? case of Mor%e #+ Mutuc, 32#eadopted the )ris#old rulin" that there is aconstitutional ri"ht to privac$. Spea4in" thruMr. ustice, later &hief ustice, (nri@ueFernando, #e held0

+++ +++ +++

The )ris#old case invalidated a&onnecticut statute #hich !ade theuse of contraceptives a cri!inaoffence on the "round of itsa!ountin" to an unconstitutionainvasion of the ri"ht of privac$ o!arried personsC ri"htfull$ itstressed a relationship l$in" #ithin

18


19/24

the %one of privac$ created b$several funda!ental constitutional"uarantees. It has #ideri!plications thou"h. Theconstitutional ri"ht to privac$ hasco!e into its o#n.

So it is li4e#ise in our Aurisdiction.The ri"ht to privac$ as such is

accorded reco"nition independentl$of its identification #ith libert$C initself, it is full$ deservin" ofconstitutional protection. Thelan"ua"e of Prof. (!erson isparticularl$ apt0 The concept ofli!ited "overn!ent has al#a$sincluded the idea that "overn!entalpo#ers stop short of certainintrusions into the personal life of theciti%en. This is indeed one of thebasic distinctions bet#een absoluteand li!ited "overn!ent. 6lti!ateand pervasive control of theindividual, in all aspects of his life, isthe hall!ar4 of the absolute state. Incontrast, a s$ste! of li!ited"overn!ent safe"uards a privatesector, #hich belon"s to theindividual, fir!l$ distin"uishin" itfro! the public sector, #hich thestate can control. Protection of thisprivate sector 3 protection, in other#ords, of the di"nit$ and inte"rit$ ofthe individual 3 has beco!e

increasin"l$ i!portant as !odernsociet$ has developed. ll the forcesof a technolo"ical a"e 3industriali%ation, urbani%ation, andor"ani%ation 3 operate to narro#the area of privac$ and facilitateintrusion into it. In !odern ter!s,the capacit$ to !aintain and supportthis enclave of private life !ar4s thedifference bet#een a de!ocratic anda totalitarian societ$.

Indeed, if #e e+tend our Audicial "a%e #e #ill findthat the ri"ht of privac$ is reco"ni%ed andenshrined in several provisions of our&onstitution. 33It is e+pressl$ reco"ni%ed in sectionB 12 of the Jill of Ri"hts0

Sec. B. 12 The privac$ of co!!unication and correspondenceshall be inviolable e+cept upon la#fulorder of the court, or #hen public

safet$ or order re@uires other#ise asprescribed b$ la#.

Other facets of the ri"ht to privac$ areprotectad in various provisions of the Jill ofRi"hts, #i$0 3(

Sec. . No person shall be deprivedof life, libert$, or propert$ #ithout

due process of la#, nor shall an$person be denied the e@uaprotection of the la#s.

Sec. =. The ri"ht of the people to besecure in their persons, housespapers, and effects a"ainstunreasonable searches and sei%uresof #hatever nature and for an$purpose shall be inviolable, and nosearch #arrant or #arrant of arrestshall issue e+cept upon probable

cause to be deter!ined personall$b$ the Aud"e after e+a!ination underoath or affir!ation of theco!plainant and the #itnesses he!a$ produce, and particularl$describin" the place to be searchedand the persons or thin"s to besei%ed.

+++ +++ +++

Sec. -. The libert$ of abode and ofchan"in" the sa!e #ithin the li!itsprescribed b$ la# shall not bei!paired e+cept upon la#ful order ofthe court. Neither shall the ri"ht totravel be i!paired e+cept in theinterest of national securit$, publicsafet$, or public health as !a$ beprovided b$ la#.

+++ +++ +++

Sec. ?. The ri"ht of the peopleincludin" those e!plo$ed in the

public and private sectors, to for!unions, associations, or societies forpurposes not contrar$ to la# shalnot be abrid"ed.

Sec. . No person shall beco!pelled to be a #itness a"ainsthi!self.

19


20/24


21/24

fact, the Solicitor )eneral clai!s that the adoptionof the Identification Reference S$ste! #illcontribute to the "eneration of population data fordevelop!ent plannin". 5(This is an ad!ission thatthe PRN #ill not be used solel$ for identification butthe "eneration of other data #ith re!ote relationto the avo#ed purposes of .O. No. B/?. &learl$,the indefiniteness of .O. No. B/? can "ive the"overn!ent the rovin" authorit$ to store and

retrieve infor!ation for a purpose other than theidentification of the individual throu"h his PRN.

The potential for !isuse of the data to be "atheredunder .O. No. B/? cannot be undarpla$ed as thedissenters do. Pursuant to said ad!inistrativeorder, an individual !ust present his PRNever$ti!e he deals #ith a "overn!ent a"enc$ toavail of basic services and securit$. 5is transactions#ith the "overn!ent a"enc$ #ill necessaril$ berecorded 3 #hether it be in the co!puter or in thedocu!entar$ file of the a"enc$. The individual*s file!a$ include his transactions for loan avail!ents,inco!e ta+ returns, state!ent of assets andliabilities, rei!burse!ents for !edication,hospitali%ation, etc. The !ore fre@uent the use ofthe PRN, the better the chance of buildin" a hu"efor!idable infor!atin base throu"h the electroniclin4a"e of the files. 55The data !a$ be "atheredfor "ainful and useful "overn!ent purposesC butthe e+istence of this vast reservoir of personalinfor!ation constitutes a covert invitation to!isuse, a te!ptation that !a$ be too "reat forso!e of our authorities to resist. 5)

9e can even "rant, ar"uendo, that the co!puterdata file #ill be li!ited to the na!e, address andother basic personal info!ation about theindividual. 5*(ven that hospitable assu!ption #illnot save .O. No. B/? fro! constitutional infir!it$for a"ain said order does not tell us in clear andcate"orical ter!s ho# these infor!ation "atheredshall he handled. It does not provide #ho shallcontrol and access the data, under #hatcircu!stances and for #hat purpose. These factorsare essential to safe"uard the privac$ and "uarant$the inte"rit$ of the infor!ation. 589ell to note, theco!puter lin4a"e "ives other "overn!ent a"enciesaccess to the infor!ation. Het, there are nocontrols to "uard a"ainst lea4a"e of infor!ation.9hen the access code of the control pro"ra!s ofthe particular co!puter s$ste! is bro4en, anintruder, #ithout fear of sanction or penalt$, can!a4e use of the data for #hatever purpose, or#orse, !anipulate the data stored #ithin thes$ste!. 59

It is plain and #e hold that .O. No. B/? falls shortof assurin" that personal infor!ation #hich #ill be"athered about our people #ill onl$ be processedfor une@uivocall$ specified purposes. )+The lac4 ofproper safe"uards in this re"ard of .O. No. B/?!a$ interfere #ith the individual*s libert$ of abodeand travel b$ enablin" authorities to trac4 do#n his!ove!entC it !a$ also enable unscrupulouspersons to access confidential infor!ation and

circu!vent the ri"ht a"ainst self8incri!inationC it!a$ pave the #a$ for fishin" e+peditions b$"overn!ent authorities and evade the ri"ht a"ainstunreasonable searches and sei%ures. )1Thepossibilities of abuse and !isuse of the PRNbio!etrics and co!puter technolo"$ areaccentuated #hen #e consider that the individualac4s control over #hat can be read or placed onhis ID, !uch less verif$ the correctness of the dataencoded. )2The$ threaten the ver$ abuses that theJill of Ri"hts see4s to prevent. )3

The abilit$ of sophisticated data center to "eneratea co!prehensive cradle8to8"rave dossier on anindividual and trans!it it over a national net#or4 isone of the !ost "raphic threats of the co!puterrevolution. )(The co!puter is capable of producin"a co!prehensive dossier on individuals out oinfor!ation "iven at different ti!es and for variedpurposes. )5It can continue addin" to the storeddata and 4eepin" the infor!ation up to dateRetrieval of stored date is si!ple. 9heninfor!ation of a privile"ed character finds its #a$into the co!puter, it can be e+tracted to"ether #ithother data on the subAect. ))Once e+tracted, the

infor!ation is putt$ in the hands of an$ person.The end of privac$ be"ins.

Thou"h .O. No. B/? is undoubtedl$ not narro#l$dra#n, the dissentin" opinions #ould dis!iss itsdan"er to the ri"ht to privac$ as speculative andh$pothetical. "ain, #e cannot countenance such alaidbac4 posture. The &ourt #ill not be true to itsrole as the ulti!ate "uardian of the people*s libert$if it #ould not i!!ediatel$ s!other the spar4s thatendan"er their ri"hts but #ould rather #ait for thefire that could consu!e the!.

9e reAect the ar"u!ent of the Solicitor )enerathat an individual has a reasonable e+pectation ofprivac$ #ith re"ard to the Natioal ID and the use ofbio!etrics technolo"$ as it stands on @uic4sandThe reasonableness of a person*s e+pectation oprivac$ depends on a t#o8part test0 12 #hether b$his conduct, the individual has e+hibited ane+pectation of privac$C and 1=2 #hether thise+pectation is one that societ$ reco"ni%es as

21


22/24

reasonable.)*The factual circu!stances of the casedeter!ines the reasonableness of thee+pectation. )85o#ever, other factors, such ascusto!s, ph$sical surroundin"s and practices of aparticular activit$, !a$ serve to create or di!inishthis e+pectation. )9The use of bio!etrics andco!puter technolo"$ in .O. No. B/? does notassure the individual of a reasonable e+pectation ofprivac$. *+s technolo"$ advances, the level of

reasonabl$ e+pected privac$ decreases.*1

The!easure of protection "ranted b$ the reasonablee+pectation di!inishes as relevant technolo"$beco!es !ore #idel$ accepted. *2The securit$ ofthe co!puter data file depends not onl$ on theph$sical inaccessibilit$ of the file but also on theadvances in hard#are and soft#are co!putertechnolo"$. .O. No. B/? is so #idel$ dra#n that a!ini!u! standard for a reasonable e+pectation ofprivac$, re"ardless of technolo"$ used, cannot beinferred fro! its provisions.

The rules and re"ulations to be b$ the I&& cannotre!ed$ this fatal defect. Rules and re"ulations!erel$ i!ple!ent the polic$ of the la# or order. Onits face, .O. No. "ives the I&& virtuall$ infettereddiscretion to deter!ine the !etes and bounds ofthe ID S$ste!.

Nor do $our present la#s prvide ade@uatesafe"uards for a reasonable e+pectation of privac$.&o!!on#ealth ct. No. > penali%es thedisclosure b$ an$ person of data furnished b$ theindividual to the NSO #ith i!prison!ent andfine. *3Republic ct. No. - prohibits public

disclosure of SSS e!plo$!ent records andreports. *(These la#s, ho#ever, appl$ to recordsand data #ith the NSO and the SSS. It is not clear#hether the$ !a$ be applied to data #ith the other"overn!ent a"encies for!in" part of the NationalID S$ste!. The need to clarif$ the penal aspect of.O. No. B/? is another reason #h$ its enact!entshould be "iven to &on"ress.

Ne+t, the Solicitor )eneral ur"es us to validate.O. No. B/?*s abrid"!ent of the ri"ht of privac$b$ usin" the rational relationship test. *55e

stressed that the purposes of .O. No. B/? are0 12to strea!line and speed up the i!ple!entation ofbasic "overn!ent services, 1=2 eradicate fraud b$avoidin" duplication of services, and 1B2 "eneratepopulation data for develop!ent plannin". 5ecocludes that these purposes Austif$ the incursionsinto the ri"ht to privac$ for the !eans arerationall$ related to the end. *)

9e are not i!pressed b$ the ar"u!ent. In Mor%e#+ Mutuc, **#e upheld the constitutionalit$ of R.B/>, the nti8)raft and &orrupt Practices ct, as avalid police po#er !easure. 9e declared that thela#, in co!pellin" a public officer to !a4e anannual report disclosin" his assets and liabilities,his sources of inco!e and e+penses, did notinfrin"e on the individual*s ri"ht to privac$. The la##as enacted to pro!ote !oralit$ in public

ad!inistration b$ curtailin" and !ini!i%in" theopportunities for official corruption and !aintainin"a standard of honest$ in the public service. *8

The sa!e circu!stances do not obtain in the caseat bar. For one, R.. B/> is a statute, not anad!inistrative order. Secondl$, R.. B/> itself issufficientl$ detailed. The la# is clear on #hatpractices #ere prohibited and penali%ed, and it #asnarro#l$ dra#n to avoid abuses. IN the case at bar.O. No. B/? !a$ have been i!pelled b$ a #orth$purpose, but, it cannot pass constitutional scrutin$for it is not narro#l$ dra#n. nd #e no# hod that#hen the inte"rit$ of a funda!ental ri"ht is atsta4e, this court #ill "ive the challen"ed la#ad!inistrative order, rule or re"ulation a stricterscrutin$. It #ill not do for the authorities to invo4ethe presu!ption of re"ularit$ in the perfor!ance ofofficial duties. Nor is it enou"h for the authoritiesto prove that their act is not irrational for a basicri"ht can be di!inished, if not defeated, even #henthe "overn!ent does not act irrationall$. The$!ust satisfactoril$ sho# the presence of co!pellin"state interests and that the la#, rule or re"ulationis narro#l$ dra#n to preclude abuses. This

approach is de!anded b$ the >? &onstitution#hose entire !atri+ is desi"ned to protect hu!anri"hts and to prevent authoritarianis!. In case ofdoubt, the least #e can do is to lean to#ards thestance that #ill not put in dan"er the ri"htsprotected b$ the &onstitutions.

The case of 3halen #+ Roe*9cite"b$ the Solicitor)eneral is also off8line. In 9halen, the 6nitedStates Supre!e &ourt #as presented #ith the@uestion of #hether the State of Ne# Hor4 could4eep a centrali%ed co!puter record of the na!esand addresses of all persons #ho obtained certaindru"s pursuant to a doctor*s prescription. The Ne#Hor4 State &ontrolled Substance ct of >=re@uired ph$sicians to identif$ parties obtainin"prescription dru"s enu!erated in the statute, i.e.dru"s #ith a reco"ni%ed !edical use but #ith apotential for abuse, so that the na!es andaddresses of the patients can be recorded in acentrali%ed co!puter file of the State Depart!entof 5ealth. The plaintiffs, #ho #ere patients and

22


23/24

doctors, clai!ed that so!e people !i"ht declinenecessar$ !edication because of their fear that theco!puteri%ed data !a$ be readil$ available andopen to public disclosureC and that once disclosed,it !a$ sti"!ati%e the! as dru" addicts. 8+Theplaintiffs alle"ed that the statute invaded aconstitutionall$ protected %one of privac$, i.e., theindividual interest in avoidin" disclosure of personal!atters, and the interest in independence in

!a4in" certain 4inds of i!portant decisions. The6.S. Supre!e &ourt held that #hile an individual*sinterest in avoidin" disclosuer of personal !atter isan aspect of the ri"ht to privac$, the statute didnot pose a "rievous threat to establish aconstitutional violation. The &ourt found that thestatute #as necessar$ to aid in the enforce!ent ofla#s desi"ned to !ini!i%e the !isuse of dan"erousdru"s. The patient8identification re@uire!ent #as aproduct of an orderl$ and rational le"islativedecision !ade upon reco!!!endation b$ aspeciall$ appointed co!!ission #hich helde+tensive hearin"s on the !atter. Moreover, thestatute #as narro#l$ dra#n and containednu!erous safe"uards a"ainst indiscri!inatedisclosure. The statute laid do#n the procedureand re@uire!ents for the "atherin", stora"e andretrieval of the infor!atin. It ebu!erated #ho #ereauthori%ed to access the data. It also prohibitedpublic disclosure of the data b$ i!posin" penaltiesfor its violation. In vie# of these safe"uards, theinfrin"e!ent of the patients* ri"ht to privac$ #asAustified b$ a valid e+ercise of police po#er. s #ediscussed above, .O. No. B/? lac4s these vitalsafe"uards.

(ven #hile #e stri4e do#n .O. No. B/?, #e spellout in neon that the &ourt is noter sea"ains theuse of co!puters to accu!ulate, store, process,retvieve and trans!it data to i!prove ourbureaucrac$. &o!puters #or4 #onders to achievethe efficienc$ #hich both "overn!ent and privateindustr$ see4. Man$ infor!ation s$ste! in differentcountries !a4e use of the co!puter to facilitatei!portant social obAective, such as better la#enforce!ent, faster deliver$ of public services,!ore efficient !ana"e!ent of credit and insurancepro"ra!s, i!prove!ent of teleco!!unications andstrea!linin" of financial activities. 816sed #isel$,data stored in the co!puter could help "oodad!inistration b$ !a4in" accurate andco!prehensive infor!ation for those #ho have tofra!e polic$ and !a4e 4e$ decisions. 82Thebenefits of the co!puter has revolutioni%edinfor!ation technolo"$. It developed theinternet, 83introduced the concept of c$berspace 8(and the infor!ation superhi"h#a$#here the individual, ar!ed onl$ #ith his personal

co!puter, !a$ surf and search all 4inds andclasses of infor!ation fro! libraries and databasesconnected to the net.

In no uncertain ter!s, #e also underscore that theri"ht to privac$ does not bar all incursions intoindividual privac$. The ri"ht is not intended to stiflescientific and technolo"ical advance!ents thatenhance public service and the co!!on "ood. It

!erel$ re@uires that the la# be narro#l$focused 85and a co!pellin" interest Austif$ suchintrusions. 8)Intrusions into the ri"ht !ust beacco!panied b$ proper safe"uards and #ell8defined standards to prevent unconstitutionainvasions. 9e reiterate that an$ la# or order thatinvades individual privac$ #ill be subAected b$ this&ourt to strict scrutin$. The reason for this stance#as laid do#n in Mor%e #+ Mutuc, to #it0

The concept of li!ited "overn!enthas al#a$s included the idea that

"overn!ental po#ers stop short ofcertain intrusions into the personalife of the citi%en. This is indeed oneof the basic disctinctions bet#eenabsolute and li!ited "overn!ent6lti!ate and pervasive control of theindividual, in all aspects of his life, isthe hall!ar4 of the absolute state. Incontrast, a s$ste! of li!ited"overn!ent safe"uards a privatesector, #hich belon"s to theindividual, fir!l$ distin"uishin" itfro! the public sector, #hich the

state can control. Protection of thisprivate sector 3 protection, in other#ords, of the di"nit$ and inte"rit$ ofthe individual 3 has beco!eincreasin"l$ i!portant as !odernsociet$ has developed. ll the forcesof a technolo"ical a"e 3industriali%ation, urbani%ation, andor"ani%ation 3 operate to narro#the area of privac$ and facilitateintrusion into it. In !odern ter!sthe capacit$ to !aintain and supportthis enclave of private life !ar4s thedifference bet#een a de!ocratic anda totalitarian societ$. 8*

IV

The ri"ht to privac$ is one of the !ost threatenedri"hts of !an livin" in a !ass societ$. The threatse!anate fro! various sources 3 "overn!entsAournalists, e!plo$ers, social scientists, etc. 88In

23


24/24

th case at bar, the threat co!es fro! the e+ecutivebranch of "overn!ent #hich b$ issuin" .O. No.B/? pressures the people to surrender their privac$b$ "ivin" infor!ation about the!selves on theprete+t that it #ill facilitate deliver$ of basicservices. )iven the record84eepin" po#er of theco!puter, onl$ the indifferent fail to perceive thedan"er that .O. No. B/? "ives the "overn!ent thepo#er to co!pile a devastatin" dossier a"ainst

unsuspectin" citi%ens. It is ti!el$ to ta4e note ofthe #ell8#orded #arnin" of 7alvin, r., thedisturbin" result could be that ever$one #ill liveburdened b$ an unerasable record of his past andhis li!itations. In a #a$, the threat is that becauseof its record84eepin", the societ$ #ill have lost itsbeni"n capacit$ to for"et. 89Oblivious to thiscounsel, the dissents still sa$ #e should not be too@uic4 in labellin" the ri"ht to privac$ as afunda!ental ri"ht. 9e close #ith the state!entthat the ri"ht to privac$ #as not en"raved in our&onstitution for flatter$.

IN VI(9 95(R(OF, the petition is "ranted andd!inisrative Order No. B/? entitled doption of aNational &o!puteri%ed Identification ReferenceS$ste! declared null and void for bein"unconstitutional.

SO ORD(R(D.

24

Documents

Privacy of Comm and Correspondence