Você está na página 1de 3

Aquino, Romart March 8, 2018

Octa, Elijah Gabriel Bill Drafting Services


Tiu, Bryan Gabriel

Research on Privacy Laws and Cases Regarding a Public Person

First Case: DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, PETITIONER, VS. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,
RESPONDENT.

In a case dated October 08, 2014, with G.R. No. 203254, Neri Ilagan filed a petition for
the issuance of Writ of Habeas Data against Joy, her former common law partner. In July 2011,
as he visited Joy’s condominium, his digital camera went missing. On August 23, Joy confronted
him about a sex video that she discovered on his digital camera. He denied the allegations and
asked for the return of the camera but was failed to do so. Because of this, there were
allegations that says Neri slammed Joy’s head against a wall and went out.

Joy filed a case against him for violating Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as "Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,” and also used the said videos.
However, Neri said that the utilization of the video violated his right to life, liberty, security, and
privacy, thus the issuance of the writ of habeas data.

The RTC found the petition of Joy sufficient in form and substance, directing her to
appear before the RTC to produce what is present in the camera of Neri. Joy kept the memory
card to produce the video only as evidence she filed against Neri. Joy was granted the petition
and ordered the turn-over of the video to Neri and enjoined Joy from reproducing the same.
However, the ruling is only on the return of the video and not on the admissibility as evidence.
RTC’s decision made Joy file the petition further before the Supreme Court.

The main issue now is whether the filing of the petition for the issuance of the writ of
habeas data was proper.

The ruling before the court shows that Ilagan’s petition for the issuance of writ of habeas
data against Lee was insufficient. Ilagan failed to relate the alleged videos against him to be
violating his right to life, liberty, and security.

Thus, in verbatim:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 in SP No. 12-71527 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data filed by
respondent P/Supt. Neri A. Ilagan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Second case: BRICCIO A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID.


In a case dated October 18, 2011, with G.R. No. 181881, Civil Services Commission
Chairperson Karina David was given by an anonymous source a document that shows that
someone from their commission is corrupt. Knowing this, she told her personnel to back up all
the files from their computers.

David found documents in Bricio Pollo that are related to the administrative cases, thus
implying that he was accountable for the charges against them. This was because David was
consistently asking for his advice and was a regular practice for them. However, the actions of
David was inferred as insufficient given that she was not a lawyer in the first place. Furthermore,
Pollo contended that CSC was invading his privacy knowing that the complaint that was
received by them was anonymous. However, Pollo was charged by CSC by violating RA 6713,
otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees." He was ordered to be dismissed from his governmental duties by the Court of
Appeals as it was ruled that the investigation held was legal as government agencies are
allowed to initiate an investigation to employers without meeting the warrant requirements
immediately.

The issue, therefore, was whether or not there was illegal search.

The ruling by the Supreme Court is in favor of the CSC. Pollo was asked by the
Supreme Court on whether “...he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and
computer files and was the search reasonable in its inception and scope.” The SC found out on
the first inquiry that there are no signs of privacy in his work computer such that it had no
password nor had he a separate office space. On the second inquiry, the search for the files of
Pollo was issued by an anonymous complainant given that the complainant had found out a
work-related misbehavior.

Thus, in verbatim:

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated
October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 98224 are AFFIRMED.

LAWS:

According to R.A. No. 10173 otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act

The act functions for the processing of personal data into the cyberspace. “The
processing of personal data shall be allowed subject to adherence to the principles of
transparency, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.” yet it recognizes an individual’s privacy
and thus provides conditions for the data to be lawful. The data shall adhere to the following: it
has to be declared and be given consent from where, or whom the data was taken from or with.
It has to be lawfully just, and accurate.
References:
“Dr. Joy Margate Lee v. P & Supt. Neri A. Ilagan.” (2014). Lawyerly. Retrieved March 7,
2018 from http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce55e

“G.R. No. 181881.” (2011, October 18). Retrieved from


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/181881.htm

“Habeas Data Lee vs. Ilagan.” (2014). Scribd. Retrieved January 27, 2018 from
https://www.scribd.com/document/351810890/5-Habeas-Data-Lee-vs-Ilagan

Gabato, V. (2014, August 15). Briccio A. Pollo v. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://gabatovinson.blogspot.com/2014/08/briccio-pollo-v-
chairperson-karina.html

Jurisprudence Department of Justice (2017 Release). Retrieved March 05, 2018 from
Legislative Library Service in the Senate of the Philippines, 3/F.

Republic Act No. 10173 | GOVPH. (n.d.). Retrieved March 06, 2018, from
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/

Você também pode gostar