Scribd
Upload
15 views5 pages

Right To Privacy 2025

The document outlines the right to privacy in the Philippines, detailing its definition, legal precedents, and various aspects such as decisional and informational privacy. It discusses the limitations of this right, including its application to corporations, government employees, and public figures, as well as privacy concerns in digital contexts like social media and banking. Additionally, it references significant cases and legislation, including the Data Privacy Act of 2012, that shape the understanding and enforcement of privacy rights.

Uploaded by

Valerie Ignacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views5 pages

Right To Privacy 2025

The document outlines the right to privacy in the Philippines, detailing its definition, legal precedents, and various aspects such as decisional and informational privacy. It discusses the limitations of this right, including its application to corporations, government employees, and public figures, as well as privacy concerns in digital contexts like social media and banking. Additionally, it references significant cases and legislation, including the Data Privacy Act of 2012, that shape the understanding and enforcement of privacy rights.

Uploaded by

Valerie Ignacio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Right to Privacy

Atty. Racma F. Garcia


Isabela State University

Definition
 Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870,
158633 & 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 431.
Concept
 Morfe v. Mutuc No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424.
 THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., VS. SECRETARY OF
FINANCE, G.R. No. 213860. July 05, 2022

Zones of Privacy
Constitutional and statutory bases of the right to privacy

 Ople v. Torres 354 Phil. 948 (1998). G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998
 Disini v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 18, 2014

Right to privacy Not Absolute


 Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks G.R. No. 167173, 27
December 2007, 541 SCRA 456.
To Whom Directed
 People v. Marti 271 Phil. 51 (1991)
 Zulueta v. Court of Appeals 324 Phil. 63 (1996)
Right to privacy of a Corporation

 Valmonte v. Belmonte 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

Three (3) different aspects or "strands" of the right to privacy


 Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College (G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014)
Decisional privacy

 SEPARATE OPINION LEONEN, J.: VERSOZA VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 184535.
September 03, 2019
Informational privacy

- Aspects
o DISINI, JR VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE 727 Phil. 28 [ G.R. No.
203335. February 18, 2014
o SEPARATE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION LEONEN, J.:
CADAJAS VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021
o Integrated Bar of the Philippines V. Purisima G.R. No. 211772/G.R.
No. 212178. April 18, 2023 [Date Uploaded: 05/31/2024]

Privacy in the Internet/Traffic data/ data disclosed to the public

 DISINI, JR VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE 727 Phil. 28 [ G.R. No.


203335. February 18, 2014 ]
 ABS-CBN Corporation and Jorge Cariño Vs. Datu Andalampatuan, Jr.G.R.
No. 227004. April 25, 2023 [Date Uploaded: 01/05/2024]
 OPLE VS. TORRES, 354 Phil. 948 [ G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998 ]
 Mirpuri v. Court ofAppeals 376 Phil. 628 (1999)

Privacy in Social Media


Facebook
 Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College (G.R. No. 202666, September 29,
2014)
 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. ATILLO, JR. A.M.
No. RTJ-21-018 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-07-109-RTC). September 29,
2021
 RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF LAWYERS/LAW
PROFESSORS, A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC. April 11, 2023

Messenger

 CADAJAS VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021

Privacy governing Bank Accounts


 Republic v. Eugenio G.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008.
 Republic of the Philippines Vs. Bolante G.R. No. 186717/G.R. No.
190357. April 17, 2017

 SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA MENDOZA AND BINAY LAW


OFFICES V. THE COURT OF APPEALS [ G.R. No. 216914.
December 06, 2016 ]
 ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) [ G.R. No.
217682. July 17, 2018 ]

Government employees' reasonable expectations of privacy in their workplace/


expectation of privacy to the use and contents of office computer

 POLLOVS. CONSTANTINO-DAVID 675 Phil. 225[ G.R. No. 181881. October 18,
2011 ]

Expectation of privacy in airports, seaports, bus terminals, malls, and similar


public places.
 MARCELO G. SALUDAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE 829 Phil. 65 [ G.R. No.
215305. April 03, 2018 ]

Prison inmate's right to privacy

 Alejano v. Cabuay 505 Phil. 298 (2005)


 RE: MOTU PROPRIO FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION ON THE ISSUANCE
OF SEARCH WARRANT AND OTHER PENDING INCIDENTS IN THE CASE
OF THE DECEASED MAYOR ROLANDO ESPINOSA, SR. A.M. No. RTJ-17-
2494 (FORMERLY A.M. No. 16-11-03-SC). January 26, 2021 ]
 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS/DATA
AND AMPARO IN FAVOR OF AMIN IMAM BORATONG, MEMIE SULTAN
BORATONG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA G.R. No. 215585.
September 08, 2020

Privacy in legislative inquiry


 Ong Vs. The Senate of the Philippines G.R. No. 257401/G.R. No. 257916. March
23, 2023 [Date Uploaded: 11/13/2023]
Privacy in business office
 HING VS. CHOACHUY, SR. 712 Phil. 337 [ G.R. No. 179736. June 26, 2013 ]

Expectation of privacy with regard to the National ID and the use of biometrics
technology
 OPLE VS. TORRES, 354 Phil. 948 [ G.R. No. 127685. July 23, 1998 ]

unified multi-purpose identification (ID) system for government


 KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL G.R. NO.
167798. April 19, 2006 521 Phil. 732
Mandatory drug testing

- Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board[ G.R. Nos. 157870,
158633 and 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 427
surveillance

 IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO OF VIVIAN


A. SANCHEZ. VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ VS. DARROCA G.R. No. 242257.
June 15, 2021 ]

DNA Test

 AGUSTIN vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005

"reasonable expectation of privacy" test


 HING VS. CHOACHUY, SR. 712 Phil. 337 [ G.R. No. 179736. June 26, 2013 ]

right of privacy of a “public figure”

 AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. , VS. CAPULONG 243 Phil. 1007 [ G.R. No.
82380. April 29, 1988 ]
 Valmonte v. Belmonte 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

Republic Act No. 10173 Data Privacy Act of 2012

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 263603. October


09, 2023 ]

compelling state interest.


 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS OF CAMILO L. SABIO, VS. GORDON 535 Phil. 687 [ G.R. NO.
174340. October 17, 2006 ]
 GAMBOA vs. CHAN G.R. No. 193636 July 24, 2012.
Rational basis relationship test
 Morfe v. Mutuc No. L-20387, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424.
Application of Strict scrutiny Test
o Ople v. Torres G.R. No. 127685 (1998)
 THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC - versus - SECRETARY
OF FINANCE G.R. No. 213860 July 5, 2022

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy