[Mirror] Lim, Leo

SY 2011-2012, First Semester

  • would it be appropriate to announce for brodcasting company a social network?
  • can we as ordinary citizen create our own version of wikilink, and put certain document of all anomalous document of the government and major corporation
  • whether chanrobles, lawphil, ust repository of laws or any other private repository of laws and jurisprudence be compeled by private person who’s name was mentioned in the decision of the court , may be removed in violation of right to privacy

would it be appropriate to announce for brodcasting company a social network?

Right to privacy- the right of a person and the person’s property to be free from unwarranted public scrutiny or exposure. (black law dictionary)

in a free society, a large measure of personal privacy must be assumed for each individual. at the same time, demands for governmental service create situations which intrude upon privacy. a welfare or medical case system, for example, requires the acquisition of detailed personal information about citizens, which when stored in computer, may be easily retrieved for illegitimate uses. technological developments, such as eavesdropping devices, may help to curb crime but are dangerously subject to abusive intrusions on privacy. (plano & greenberg, the american political dictionary.)

it is not appropriate to announce a social network such as twitter or facebook for any broadcasting .

our right to privacy under Article 3, sec. 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution provide that” 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.”

the object of the provision was to provide adequate protection for ” letters and messages” carried by the agencies of the government lest ” their privacy be wantonly violated and great harm (be) inflicted upon the citizens”. (Bernas, commentaries of the 1987 constitution.)

the purpose of the constitution is to protect the privacy of every individual against unauthorized use, display and exhibit in any public broadcasting without the consent of the owner.

the use of social network in public broadcasting without the consent of the owner, will constitute a civil liability under Art. 26 of the new civil code, which provide that ” every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind his neighbors and other persons”. in relation to Art. 32 of the same code, which provide that ” any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.

xxxxx

10. the privacy of communication and correspondence.

xxxxxxx

this article is a further implementation of the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. the creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action which this article for the violation of civil liberties provides, was considered essential to the effective maintenance of democracy. (Tolentino, 1 civil code p. 129)

under the broadcast code of the Philippines (sec. 41) broadcasting station shall:

41. provide programs for entertainment within the bounds of respect for the individuals private life and consistent with human dignity and morals.

the court’s public/private distinction in its libel and emotional distress decisions creates an important incentive for superficial journalism. in both areas, the Court has held than when the press reports on public officials or public figures, plaintiff can recover only if they prove actual malice. if the press reports about private figures, a lower level of protection is applied. thus, it is safer for the press to cover public officials and public figures than it is to report on private figures. (Marshall & Gilles, the supreme court review 1994. p. 181-182)

the court has adopted a rule of similar effect in the private facts torts cases. in these cases, the court has declined to hold the press immune from liability when it publishes the truth, instead declaring the narrower principle that liability will not attach if the information was received from government sources. thus, while the press is fully protected when it reports information received from a government source, it may not be protected if it publishes the same information from a non-government source. press protection is most secure when it simply reproduce[s}, with no substation change, the government’s rendition of the event in question. the press’s own “rendition of the event” is not similarly protected. (supra. p190)


Can we as ordinary citizen create our own version of wikilink, and put certain document of all anomalous document of the government and major corporation

” the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication thereon, is the only effectual guardian of every other right.” by: James Madison.

– yes, as an ordinary citizen, we can create our version of wikilink. org., because our public concern is important. our constitution under Art. III sec. 7 provide that ” the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.”

– the right to information on matter of public concern. the right of access to official record is given as an implementation of the right to information. thus, the right to information on matters of public concern is both the purpose and the limit of the right of access to public documents.(Bernas,1987 constitution,a commentary. p. 372)

– “public concern” like public interest is a term that eludes exact definition. both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subject which the public may want to know either because these directly affect their lives, or because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. in the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case to case basis whether the public at issue is of interest or importance as it relates to or affects the public. (Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission 150 SCRA 530)

– the limitation or restrictions to the right of information was held in the case of Chavez vs. PCGG, (299 SCRA 744) which innumerate such limitation.

  1. national security matters which includes state secrets. etc.
  2. trade secrets and banking transactions
  3. criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters.
  4. other confidential matter.

– the constitutional right to public information is self executory hence, it may be asserted without need for any law. what the law may provide for are reasonable conditions and limitations. ( Legaspi vs. CSC 150 SCRA 530)

-the important of this right was discuss in the case of Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice (297 SCRA 754)

“the incorporation in the constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas in a democracy. in the same way that free discussion enables members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time, access to information of general interest aids the people in democratic decision-making by giving them a better perspective of the vital issues confronting the nation.”

– justice Blackmun held that the free flow of information about commercial matter was necessary to ensure informed public decision- making. he reasoned that the protection of the first amendment extends not only to the speaker, but to the recipient of the communication. although the case dealt with commercial speech, the majority opinion made it clear that the constitutional protection for receipt of information would apply with even more force when more directly related to self-government and public policy. ( constitutional philosophy of the Phil. juresprodence by: justice puno. p. 727)

– moreover, both jefferson and madison were convinced that the only wise policy was to keep the market place of ideas unregulated by the government. Madison wrote: ” a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both. knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. (the right of the people by: William Douglas (1962) p.10)

– Jefferson wrote in January 16,1787 which state that:

” i am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. they may be led astray for a moment , but will soon correct themselves. the people are the only censors of their governors; and even their error will tend to keep them to the true principles of the institution. to punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. the way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people, is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to continue that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. ( the right of the people by William Douglas (1962) p. 11)

– in the case of New York Times vs. United States (403 US 713) held that any prior restraint of freedom of expression by the government carries a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. in this case the court held that the Nixon administration could not forbid newspaper publication of classified documents on the vietnam war since the government had failed to bear the heavy burden of justification for censorship.

– significance: the new york times case, also known as the “pentagon paper” case, involved publication of secret documents on the history of American policy in Vietnam which had been leaked to the press. the case was the first involving an effort by the national government to restrain newspaper publication of material in its possession. while the court permitted publication in this instance, the opinions of the justices left unclear the question of whether the government could enjoin publication of information which presents a serious threat to national security. ( the American political dictionary by Jack Plano and Milton greenberg (1985) p. 120)

-it is clear from above discussion and opinion of some authority of the law that every individual has a right to acquire, expose and disseminate any information that public concern and interest is involved. whether it is printed in the newspaper or posted in the internet. subject to the limitations provided by law. the creation of wikilink is part of our constitutional right which our mission to our society is to inform the public, about what our government and other major corporation have done, provided that such posting in the internet will not constitute a crime of libel and it will not harm or destroy our government with respect to our national security and international relation.


whether chanrobles, lawphil, ust repository of laws or any other private repository of laws and jurisprudence be compeled by private person who’s name was mentioned in the decision of the court , may be removed in violation of right to privacy

No, the right to privacy of an individual is not absolute, it is subject to limitation as provided by law. a person cannot use such right as a defense against any person or institution. first, we define what is the right.

-right to privacy- the right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity. term ” right to privacy” is generic term encompassing various rights recognized to be prevents governmental interference in intimate personal relationships or activities, freedom of individual to make fundamental choices involving himself, his family, and his relationship with others. ( Black’s law dictionary 5th ed. p. 624)

right to privacy as such is accorded recognition. the language of prof. Emerson is particularly apt; ” the concept of limited governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. this is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. ( the constitutional philosophy of Phil. jurisprudence by Justice Puno p. 763)

– justice Douglas pointed out in the case of public utilities commission vs. pollak, 343 US 451 (1952), cited in morfe vs. mutuc 22 SCRA 424 ” liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well if it is to be a repository of freedom. the right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.

– the limitation of such right. the constitutional guarantee of privacy of communication and correspondence will not also be violated because a court has power and jurisdiction to issue such orders in virtue of the express exception made in favor of the disclosure upon lawful order of a court of justice. ( materials distributions inc. vs. natividad 84 Phil. 27)

– our constitution provide under Art. VIII sec. 5 the power of the Supreme Court such as:

(2) review, revise, reverse, modify of affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and order of lower courts in ;

c. all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower courts is in issue.

e. all cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

– Art VIII sec. 14 of the same provision in our constitution provide: ” no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based.

– the first paragraph of this section (sec. 14) refers to ” desitions” that is, the final determination made by a court of the substantive issues brought for resolutions. ( 1987 constitutions, a commentary by Bernas P. 994)

– it is a requirement of due process and is certainly desirable in the interest of clearness and certainty, that court should state the facts and the reasons upon which their decisions rest. (ocampo vs.cabangis 15 Phil. 828)

– when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate, in accordance with the rule on conclusiveness of judgment. ( handbook of civil procedure by agpalo 2001 ed. p. 450)

– chanrobles, lawphil, ust repository of laws and other any other private repository of laws and jurisprudence have a right to published and posted the said court decision without violating the privacy right of an individual. only the Supreme Court has the power and authority to grant the changes of any information regarding the said information or decision.

– under the civil code art. 8 judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.

– courts are not limited to the automatic and mechanical functions of interpreting the law. they have, further, a double functions: first, to fill the deficiencies of legislation and provide a rule for the facts of a given case for which there is neither positive provision of law nor established custom; and second, to adapt and adjust rigid and inflexible provisions of law, rendered in adequate by time and circumstances, to the changing conditions of life and society, so that the law may accomplish its social mission. ( 1 civil code of the Phil. by Tolentino, p 37) – furthermore, decisions with a full exposition of the facts and the law upon which they are based, particularly if they originate from the Supreme Court, are useful references for bar and bench alike, not to mention law students. ( Philippine political law by Cruz 2002 ed. p 289)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: