Tech and the law - 2

Can a losing party in a case request for the removal of his name in a decision posted on the Supreme Court website?

The 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3. Provides that “(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.”  There can be no doubt that right to privacy is constitutionally protected. In the landmark case of Morfe v. Mutuc [130 Phil. 415 (1968), 22 SCRA 424], this Court, speaking through then Mr. Justice Fernando, stated:

... The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. The language of Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: "The concept of limited government has always included the idea that 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. UItimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute. State, In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this private sector — protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individual — has become increasingly important as modem society has developed. All the forces of technological age — industrialization, urbanization, and organization — operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society." [at pp. 444-445.]

However, such right no matter how fundamental it is, comes with a limitations. the following 19th century essay: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY by Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. Originally published in 4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890). Apparently, it was written during the time when internet was not yet introduced. Nonetheless, the same may be used to know the bounds of privacy. In it, the limits of the Right to Privacy are enumerated:

First. The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.

Second. The right to privacy does not prohibit the communication of any matter, though in its nature private, when the publication is made under circumstances which would render it a privileged communication according to the law of slander and libel.

Third. The law would probably not grant any redress for the invasion of privacy by oral publication in the absence of special damage.

Fourth. The right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent.

Fifth. The truth of the matter published does not afford a defense.

Sixth. The absence of "malice" in the publisher does not afford a defense.

I submitted, that the RETENTION OF E-DATA AND E- DOCUMENT under the E-Commerce Law which states that:

• Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent  reference.

• Is retained in the format in which it was generated, sent or received, or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent the electronic data message or electronic document generated, sent or received;

• Enables the identification of its originator and addressee, as well as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received.

is in light to the right of information, which provides “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.” (Sec. 7, Art III, 1987 Constitution).

On the part of the service provider, RESPONSIBILITY OF SERVICE  PROVIDERS – ECA “… service providers shall have no authority to modify or alter the content of the electronic data message or electronic document received or to make any entry therein on behalf of the originator, addressee or any third party unless specifically authorized to do so, and who shall retain the electronic document in accordance with the specific request or as necessary for the purpose of performing the services it was engaged to perform. ”

In resorting to the case at bench, The Court has always grappled with the meanings of the terms "public interest" and "public concern". As observed in Legazpi:

In determining whether or not a particular information is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. "Public concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citezen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public.

Thus, regardless of the need to inform the public about the latest and recent developments on the judiciary, without however affecting the integrity of the party in interest, it is their utmost discretion on whether or not the names may be removed; Provided further that it should be supported by a law or a resolution that will not discriminate nor impair the rights of all the parties.