CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CHAPTER V – THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Section 3. 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.

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

Read:

NOTE: Applicable provisions of the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law, Republic Act No.
9372, Approved on March 6, 2007 and effective on July 15, 2007 (This Law shall be automatically
suspended one (1) month before and two (2) months after the holding of any election).

Please observe the procedure in obtaining the “The Warrant [or Order] of Surveillance”, not
found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS OF
SUSPECTS OR CHARGED OF TERRORISM
Section 7. Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications. The
provisions of RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law
enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of
Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form or kind or type of
electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of
any other suitable ways or means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation,
discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected
of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and
clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business
correspondence shall not be authorized.

Section 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization.- The written order of the authorizing
division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen, intercept, and record communications,
messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the
crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism, shall only be granted by the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals UPON AN EX-PARTE written application of a police or
law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council
created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex-parte application, and upon examination under
oath and affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses who may produce to establish:
  That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is
being committed, or is about to be committed;
 That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that evidence which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to
the solution or prevention of any such crimes, will be obtained; and
 That there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.
Sec. 9. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. The written order granted by the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the
same, the original application of the applicant, including his application to extend or renew, if
any, and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby
declared as classified information: Provided, That the person being surveilled or whose
communications, letters, papers, messages, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words
and effects have been monitored, listened to, bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities
has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities in the premises
or to challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interference before the Court of
Appeals which issued said written order. The written order of the authorizing division of the court
of Appeals shall specify the following:
 The identity, such as name and address, if known, of the charged of suspected persons whose
communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words are to be
tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted or recorded and, in case of radio, electronic, or
telephone (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words, the electronic transmission systems or the telephone
numbers to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their locations
if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully
known, such person shall be subject to continuous surveillance provided there is reasonable
ground to do so;
 The identity (name and address, and the police or law enforcement organization) of the
members of his team judicially authorized to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record
the communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words;
 The offense or offenses committed, or being committed, or sought to be prevented; and
 The length of time which the authorization shall be used or carried out.
Section. 10. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. Any authorization granted by the
authorizing division of the court of Appeals…shall only be effective for the length of time specified
in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, which shall not exceed 30
days from the date of receipt of the written order of the authorizing division of the court of
Appeals by the applicant police or law enforcement official.

The CA may extend or renew the said authorization for another non-extendible period, which shall
not exceed 30 days from the expiration of the original period…The ex-parte application for
renewal has been duly authorized by the Anti-terrorism Council in writing.
If no case is filed within the 30-day period, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall
immediately notify the person subject of the surveillance, interception, and recording of the
termination of the said surveillance, interception and recording. [Penalty to be imposed on the
police official who fails to inform the person subject of surveillance of the termination of the
surveillance, monitoring, interception and recording shall be penalized to 10 years and 1 day to 12
years.

Section 15. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded
communications, messages, conversations…WHICH HAVE BEEN SECURED IN VIOLATION OF THE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL ABSOLUTELY NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AND USABLE AS
EVIDENCE AGAINST ANYBODY IN ANY JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR ADMINISTRATIVE
INVESTIGATION, INQUIRY, PROCEEDING, OR HEARING.
JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO EXAMINE BANK DEPOSITS, ACCOUNTS, AND RECORDS OF
SUSPECTED OR CHARGED TERRORISTS

Section 27. judicial authorization required to examine bank deposits, accounts and records.

The justices of CA designated as special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying
themselves of the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose that:

 A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;
 Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons;
 Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association or group of
persons, may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of his
team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to:

1. examine or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets,
and records in a bank or financial institution; and

2. gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. The bank or
financial institution shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired
information, when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.

Sec. 28. Application to examine deposits, accounts and records.

The written order of the CA authorizing the examination of bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets and records:

 A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;
 Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons;
 Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association or group of
persons, in a bank or financial institution-
-SHALL ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE AUTHORIZING DIVISION OF THE CA UPON AN EX-PARTE
APPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT OF A POLICE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL who has been duly
authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file such ex-parte application and upon examination
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses he may produce to establish the facts
that will justify the need and urgency of examining and freezing the bank deposits, placements,
trust accounts, assets and records:

 Of A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit

terrorism;
 Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons;
 Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association or group of
persons.
Section 35. Evidentiary value of deposited bank materials.- Any information, data, excerpts,
summaries, notes, memoranda, work sheets, reports or documents acquired from the examination
of the bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of:
 A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;
 Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons;
 Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association or group of
persons,

-which have been secured in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be
admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding or hearing.

1. PEOPLE VS. CABALQUINTO, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419

2. ZULUETA VS. CA, February 10, 1996

The wife forcibly opened the drawers at the clinic of her doctor-husband and took diaries, checks
and greeting cards of his alleged paramours. Thereafter, she used the same in their legal
separation case. Said documents are inadmissible in evidence. This is so because the intimacies of
husband and wife does not justify the breaking of cabinets to determine marital infidelity.

3. OPLE VS. TORRES, July 23, 1998

Puno, J.
Facts:

On December 12, 1996, then President FIDEL V. RAMOS issued Administrative Order No. 308
entitled “ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM”.

The AO seeks to have all Filipino citizens and foreign residents to have a Population Reference
Number (PRN) generated by the National Statistics Office (NSO) through the use of BIOMETRICS
TECHNOLOGY .
The AO was questioned by Senator Ople on the following grounds:

1. The establishment of the PRN without any law is an unconstitutional usurpation of the
legislative powers of the Congress of the Philippines;

2. The appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the said AO is

unconstitutional since Congress has the exclusive authority to appropriate funds for such
expenditure; and

3. The AO violates the citizen’s right to privacy protected by the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution.

Held:

1. The AO establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing in scope, affects

the life and liberty of every Filipino citizens and foreign residents and therefore, it is supposed to
be a law passed by Congress that implements it, not by an Administrative Order issued by the
President. Administrative Power, which is supposed to be exercised by the President, is
concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative
efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. Prescinding from the foregoing precepts,
AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an Administrative Order. An
administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in
the administrative operation of the government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be
for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. The subject
of AO 308 therefore is beyond the power of the President to issue and it is a usurpation of
legislative power.

2. The AO likewise violates the right to privacy since its main purpose is to provide a
“common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies through the use of
BIOMETRICS TECHNOLOGY. Biometry is the science of the application of statistical methods to
biological facts; a mathematical analysis of a biological data. It is the confirmation of an
individual’s identity through a fingerprint, retinal scan, hand geometry or facial features.
Through the PRN, the government offices has the chance of building a huge and formidable
information base through the electronic linkage of the files of every citizen. The data, however,
may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast
reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may
be too great for some of our authorities to resist.

Further, the AO does not even tells us in clear and unequivocal terms how these informations
gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data and under
what circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy
and guaranty the integrity of the information. The computer linkage gives other government
agencies access to the information. YET, THERE ARE NO CONTROLS TO GUARD AGAINST LEAKAGE
OF INFORMATIONS. WHEN THE ACCESS CODE OF THE CONTROL PROGRAMS OF THE PARTICULAR
COMPUTER SYSTEM IS BROKEN, AN INTRUDER, WITHOUT FEAR OF SANCTION OR PENALTY, CAN
MAKE USE OF THE DATA FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, OR WORSE, MANIPULATE THE DATA STORED
WITHIN THE SYSTEM.

AO No. 308 is unconstitutional since it falls short of assuring that personal information gathered
about our people will be used only for specified purposes thereby violating the citizen’s right to
privacy.

KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., April 19, 2006 & June
20, 2006

BAYAN MUNA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., April 19, 2006 & June 20,
2006
Carpio, J.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation No. 420 that mandates the
Adoption of a Unified, Multi-purpose Identification System by all Government Agencies in the
Executive Department. This is so despite the fact that the Supreme Court held in an En Banc
decision in 1998 OPLE VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RUBEN TORRES Administrative Order No.
308[National computerized Identification Reference System] issued by then President Fidel V.
Ramos that the same is unconstitutional because “a national ID card system requires legislation
because it creates a new national data collection and card issuance system, where none existed
before”. The Supreme Court likewise held that EO 308 as unconstitutional for it violates the
citizen’s right to privacy.

Based on the Ople ruling, the petitioners claimed that Proclamation No. 420 is unconstitutional on
two (2) grounds:

a. usurpation of legislative powers; and

b. it infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy

Held:

The said Executive Order No. 420 does not violate the citizen’s right to privacy since it does not
require all the citizens to be issued a national ID as what happened in AO 308. Only those dealing
or employed with the said government entities who are required to provide the required
information for the issuance of the said ID.

CAMILO L. SABIO vs. GORDON, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 704
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
The Facts:
On February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution
No. 455 (Senate Res. No. 455),[1][4] “directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous
losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC)
due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors.”
On May 8, 2006, Chief of Staff Rio C. Inocencio, under the authority of Senator Richard J. Gordon,
wrote Chairman Camilo L. Sabio of the PCGG, one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to be one
of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government
Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. The purpose of the public
meeting was to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455.[2][6]
On May 9, 2006, Chairman Sabio and other commissioners of the PCGG declined the invitation
because of prior commitment.[3][7] At the same time, they invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No.
1 earlier quoted.

On September 12, 2006, at around 10:45 a.m., Major General Balajadia arrested Chairman Sabio in
his office at IRC Building, No. 82 EDSA, Mandaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises
where he was detained.

Hence, Chairman Sabio filed with the Supreme Court a petition for habeas corpus against the
Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public
Services, their Chairmen, Senators Richard Gordon and Joker P. Arroyo and Members.
I S S U E S:

Is the investigation conducted on the petitioners violative of their right to privacy?

H E L D:

The claim of immunity is without merit.

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws.[4][46] Within these zones, any form of
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process.
The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right
to privacy is a “constitutional right” and “the right most valued by civilized men,”[5][47] but also
from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, “no one
shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy” and “everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”[6][48]
Our Bill of Rights, enshrined in Article III of the Constitution, provides at least two guarantees that
explicitly create zones of privacy. It highlights a person’s “right to be let alone” or the “right to
determine what, how much, to whom and when information about himself shall be
disclosed.”[7][49] Section 2 guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose.” Section 3 renders inviolable the “privacy of communication
and correspondence” and further cautions that “any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”
In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court must determine whether a
person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has
been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.[8][50] Applying this determination to these
cases, the important inquiries are: first, did the directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings
Corporation exhibit a reasonable expectation of privacy?; and second, did the
government violate such expectation?
The answers are in the negative. Petitioners were invited in the Senate’s public hearing to
deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455, particularly “on the anomalous losses incurred by the
Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and Philcomsat Holdings Corporations (PHC) due to the
alleged improprieties in the operations by their respective board of directors.” Obviously, the
inquiry focus on petitioners’ acts committed in the discharge of their duties as officers and
directors of the said corporations, particularly Philcomsat Holdings Corporation. Consequently,
they have no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their offices in a
corporation where the government has interest. Certainly, such matters are of public concern
and over which the people have the right to information.
This goes to show that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overridingcompelling
state interest. In Morfe v. Mutuc,[9][51] the Court, in line with Whalen v. Roe,[10][52] employed the
rational basis relationship test when it held that there was no infringement of the individual’s
right to privacy as the requirement to disclosure information is for a valid purpose, i.e., to curtail
and minimize the opportunities for official corruption, maintain a standard of honesty in public
service, and promote morality in public administration.[11][53] In Valmonte v. Belmonte,[12][54] the
Court remarked that as public figures, the Members of the former Batasang Pambansa enjoy a
more limited right to privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, and their actions are subject to
closer scrutiny. Taking this into consideration, the Court ruled that the right of the people to
access information on matters of public concern prevails over the right to privacy of financial
transactions.
Under the present circumstances, the alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC and POTC,
ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and its officials
are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital information from the directors and officers
of Philcomsat Holdings Corporations, as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid
it in crafting the necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and
policy determination regarding PCGG’s efficacy. There being no reasonable expectation of
privacy on the part of those directors and officers over the subject covered by Senate Res. No.
455, it follows that their right to privacy has not been violated by respondent Senate Committees.
Let it be stressed at this point that so long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman
Sabio and his Commissioners, will be respected by respondent Senate Committees, it their duty to
cooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect the dignity of
the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of
proper investigation.
In fine, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio and Commissioners Ricardo Abcede, Narciso Nario, Nicasio
Conti, and Tereso Javier; and Manuel Andal and Julio Jalandoni, PCGG’s nominees to Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation, as well as its directors and officers, must comply with the Subpoenae Ad
Testificandum issued by respondent Senate Committees directing them to appear and testify
in public hearings relative to Senate Resolution No. 455.
Reference:
Constitutional Law Reviewer by Atty. Larry D. Gacayan (2008)
College of Law, University of the Cordilleras
Baguio City