D. Privacy of Communications and Correspondence

E. Privacy of Communications and Correspondence

• R.A. No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act
• Exclusionary Rule

1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 3; R.A. No. 4200); Informational, Decisional, Locational Privacy

> Art. III, sec. 3

SECTION 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.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

> [REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200](/848c4c28f8954272b1c2d3407d92db32?pvs=25)

Concept

Forms of communication and correspondence considered private and protected by this provision include:

• Letters
• Messages
• Telephone calls
• Telegrams and the like (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Private Communications Can Be Made Public

Private communications can be made public where a secret involves public questions which the State should and ought to know, the State may infringe that privacy of communication by some process or by appealing to the Court for the purpose of determining whether or not the privacy should be maintained. The court may allow intrusions on privacy of communication and correspondence only on the ground of probable cause. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED

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. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 3[1])

Concept

Any evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Phil. Const., art. III, § 3[2])

However, applied to wife who took documents and papers from husband’s clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent

The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. During the marriage, neither spouse may testify against the other without the affected spouse’s consent, except in a civil case by one spouse against the other or a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (Rule 130, sec. 23, Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended in 2019) Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20, 1996)

R.A. 4200 (ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT)

R.A. 4200 (ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT)

• R.A. 4200 prohibits the unauthorized interception, overhearing, or recording of private communications or spoken words by the means specified in the Act.
• The substance of the conversation need not be specifically alleged in the information.
• Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, may execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the said law in cases involving the crimes of:
• Treason
• Espionage
• Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
• Piracy and mutiny in the high seas
• Rebellion (conspiracy and proposal to commit; inciting to commit)
• Sedition (conspiracy to commit and inciting to commit)
• Kidnapping
• Violations of C.A. No. 616 (punishing espionage and other offenses against national security)
• R.A. 4200 does not distinguish between a party to the private communication or a third person. Hence, both could be held liable under R.A. 4200 if they commit any of the prohibited acts under R.A. 4200. (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, Sept. 28, 1995)
• The use of a telephone extension to overhear a private conversation is not a violation of R.A. 4200 because it is not similar to any of the prohibited devices under the law. Also, a telephone extension is not purposely installed for the purpose of secretly intercepting or recording private communication. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L- 69809, Oct. 16, 1986)

Requisites of the Existence of the Right to Privacy:

• Subjective: A person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; and
• Objective: The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable [Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881 (2011)].

Forms of correspondence and communication covered:

• Letters
• Messages
• Telephone calls
• Telegrams
• Others analogous to the foregoing

Intrusion, when allowed

General Rule: An encroachment on the right to privacy is invalid when: There is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and if there is no compelling state interest.

When allowed: [Section 3, Article III, 1987 Constitution]

• Lawful Order of the Court [Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution]
• When public safety or public order required otherwise as may be provided by law

E.O. No. 420 (s. 2005), adopting a unified multi-purpose ID system for government, does not violate the right to privacy because it (1) narrowly limits the data that can be collected, recorded, and released compared to existing ID systems, and (2) provides safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data collected [KMU v. Director-General, G.R. No. 167798 (2006)].

An intrusion into the privacy of workplaces is valid if it conforms to the standard of reasonableness. It is justified at inception if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work- related misconduct [Pollo v. Constantino-David, supra].

Right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of her husband and there took documents consisting of private communications between her husband and his alleged paramour [Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383 (1996)].

Qualifiedly Privileged Communications

Those which contain defamatory imputations but are not actionable unless found to have been made without good intention justifiable motive.

To this genre belong "private communications" and "fair and true report without any comments or remarks” under article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. (Manila Bulletin v. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5, 2017)

While generally every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, if the communication is privileged, the presumption does not arise. The plaintiff assumes the burden of proving malice. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Requisites of a Qualifiedly Privileged Communication under Article 354, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code – “Private Communications”

For a statement to be a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, all of the following must be present:

• The person making the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make it, or an interest to protect, whether that person’s own or the recipient’s.
• The communication was addressed to an officer, board, or superior with an interest or duty in the matter and the power to provide the protection sought.
• The statements were made in good faith and without malice. (Syhunliong v. Rivera, G.R. No. 200148, June 4, 2014)