SANDRA PATRICIA M.

PALILEO
AB MC 3
#3 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. CAPULONG Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker, and his movie production and for company, Philippine Ayer and Productions, envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial viewing international release, the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies consulted. Ramos also signified his

exploitation. petitioners acceded to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion picture. However, a complaint was filed by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. RTC ordered for the desistance of the movie production and making of any reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on, or bears substantial or marked resemblance to Enrile. Hence the appeal. Issue: Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated. Held: Yes. Freedom of speech and of expression includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and exhibit such motion pictures in theaters

relates to a highly critical stage in the history of the country. At all relevant times, during which the momentous events, clearly of public concern, that petitioners propose to film were taking place, Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their right to privacy. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy, may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of events. PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST INC. VS. THEONEN Facts: On 30 September 1990, a news item

approval of the intended film production. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series television play, presented in a "docu-drama" style, creating four fictional characters interwoven with real events, as and utilizing actual David documentary Williamson is footage background.

or to diffuse them through television. Furthermore the circumstance that the production of motion picture films is a commercial activity expected to yield monetary profit, is not a disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and of expression. The projected and motion hence private picture not was as to nor yet any the

appeared in the Peoples Journal claiming that a certain Francis Thoenen, a Swiss national who allegedly shoots wayward neighbors pets that he finds in his domain. It also claimed that BF Homes residents, in a letter through lawyer Atty. Efren Angara, requested for the deportation of Thoenen to prevent the recurrence of such incident in the future. Thoenen claimed that the article destroyed the respect and admiration he enjoyed in the community. He is seeking for damages.

Australia's leading playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American historian have developed a script. Enrile declared that he will not approve the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture, or that of any member of his family in any cinema or television production, film or other medium for advertising or commercial uncompleted audience. exhibited

Neither

respondent

respondent trial Judge knew what the completed film would precisely look like. There was, in other words, no "clear and present danger" of any violation of any right to privacy. Subject matter is one of public interest and concern. The subject thus

main source of information, Atty. Efren Angara, apparently either does not exist, or is not a lawyer. The petitioners admitted publication of the news item, ostensibly out of a social and moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest, promote the public good and protect the moral public (sic) of the people, and that the story was published in good faith and without malice. Issue: Whether or not the news report fall under privileged communication and therefore protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of speech. Held: The right of free speech is not absolute. Libel is not protected speech. In the instant case, even if we assume that the letter written by Atty. Angara is privileged communication, it lost its character when the matter was published in the newspaper and circulated among the general population, especially since the individual alleged to be defamed is neither a public official nor a public figure. Moreover, the news item contained falsehoods on two levels. First, the BF Homes residents did not ask for the deportation of Thoenen, more so because the letter of the Atty. Anagara was a mere request for verification of Thoenens status as a foreign resident. The article is also untrue because the events she reported never happened. Worse, the Facts: A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the Quezon City RTC alleging that the private respondent, Ester Garcia, in a confrontation in the latters office, allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a hostile and furious mood and in a manner offensive to petitioners dignity and personality, contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought RAMIREZ VS. CA There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances and falls societys into interest class in of uninhibited, Calculated robust, falsehood wide-open that debate.

damages. The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. As a result of petitioners recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the Pasay RTC for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, which the RTC later on granted, on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. The CA declared the RTCs decision null and void and denied the petitioners MR, hence the instant petition. Issue: W/N the Anti-Wiretapping Act applies in recordings by one of the parties in the conversation Held: Yes. Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes, provides: Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or

utterances which are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality The knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection

cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statutes intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier any. Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator under this provision of R.A. 4200. A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent courts conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or

communications

taken

either

by

the

parties

thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols (as language signs or gestures) These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of meanings or thoughts which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange, on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latters office. Any doubts about the legislative bodys meaning of the phrase private communication are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms conversation and communication were interchangeably used by Senator Taada in his Explanatory Note to the Bill. GAANAN VS. IAC The case: This is a petition for certiorari for an interpretation of RA 4200 or Anti-wiretapping Act Facts: In the morning of October 22, 1975,

themselves or by third persons. The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of or secretly overhearing, intercepting

recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: Nowhere (in the said law) is it required t hat before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed. Petitioners contention that the phrase private communication in Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not include private conversations narrows the ordinary meaning of the word communication to a point of absurdity. The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning to share or to impart. In its ordinary signification, communication connotes sharing signifies or the the act of as by sharing in or imparting signification, communication connotes the act of imparting, process a conversation, or meanings or which

complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were in the living room of complainant's residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault That same morning, Laconico, another lawyer, telephoned the appellant to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because his regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip.

When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement Twenty minutes later, complainant called up again to ask Laconico then if he told was agreeable to to the for conditions, which the latter answered in affirmative. Complainant Laconico wait instructions on where to deliver the money, he told Laconico to give the money to his wife but the latter insisted insisted that complainant himself should receive the money. And when he received the money at a restaurant, complainant was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary. Appellant Laconico executed on the following day an affidavit stating that he heard complainant demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Complainant then charged Laconico with violation of RA 4200 for listening to the telephone conversation without complainant's consent. The lower court found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200. The two were each sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment with costs

The

Intermediate of the

Appellate trial court,

Court

affirmed that

the the and was

of similar nature. We are of the view that an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements There is no question that the telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and accused Atty. Laconico was "private" made between one person and another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public; the affirmance of the criminal conviction would, in effect, mean that a caller by merely using a telephone line can force the listener to secrecy no matter how obscene, criminal, or annoying the call may be. It would be the word of the caller against the listener's. Such that ". An unwary citizzen who happens to pick up his telephone and who overhears the details of a crime might hesitate to inform police authorities if he knows that he could be accused under Rep. Act 4200 of using his own telephone to secretly

decision Laconico overheard

holding

communication was

between private in

the

omplainant therefore without

nature

covered by RA 4200; and that the petitioner such communication the knowledge and consent of the complainant; and that the extension telephone which was used by the petitioner to overhear the telephone conversation between complainant and Laconico is covered in the term "device' as provided in Rep. Act No. 4200. Issue: WON extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line. Held: No. Ruling: Our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment, persons such as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others

overhear the private communications of the would be criminals. Surely the law was never intended for such mischievous results. Telephones or extension telephones are not included in the enumeration of "commonly known" listening or recording devices, nor do they belong to the same class of enumerated electronic devices contemplated by law. Telephone party lines were intentionally deleted from the provisions of the Act.

What the law refers to is a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA 4200 . There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or

The court also ruled that the conduct of the party would differ in no way if instead of repeating the message he held out his hand-set so that another could hear out of it and that there is no distinction between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension telephone for the same purpose. Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. Thus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on whether or not an extension telephone is included in the phrase "device or arrangement", the penal statute must be construed as not including an extension telephone as ruled in PP vs. Purisima Wherefore, the petition is granted, decision of the IAC is annulled and set aside and petitioner is acquitted for the crime of violating RA 4200. ZULUETA VS. CA Facts: Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin. On 26 March 1982, Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and Martins secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husbands clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr.

Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which Zulueta had filed against her husband. Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against Zulueta, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Martin, declaring him the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of Martins Complaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorneys fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable apply even to the spouse of the aggrieved party.

arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words. In statutory construction, in order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA 4200, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.

Held: The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. 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 husbands 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. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. 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.

the person. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it substitute for an appeal. KMU VS. DIRECTOR (KMU S. NEDA) FACTS: In April 13, 2005, President Gloria

IN RE ALEJANO (ALEJANO VS. CABUAY) FACTS: A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already charged of coup detat. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees confinement is under a valid indictment. ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus? HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the determination of the propriety of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of

Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive Order 420 requiring all government agencies and governmentowned corporations to streamline and harmonize their Identification Systems. The purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability and ensure compatibility and provide convenience to the people served by government entities. Petitioners allege that EO420 is unconstitutional because functions it constitutes by the usurpation of legislative of the executive branch

government. Furthermore, they allege that EO420 infringes on the citizens rights to privacy. ISSUE: In issuing EO 420, did the president make, alter or repeal any laws? RULING: Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs, as well as insures efficiency, reliability, compatibility and user-friendliness in the

implementation

of

current

ID

systems

of

ignored by Sabio hence he threatened Sabio to be cited with contempt. HELD: It can be said that the Congress power of inquiry has gained more solid existence and expansive construal. The Courts high regard to

the people sufficient information to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation.

government entities under existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation.

IN RE SABIO (SABIO VS. GORDON) FACTS: On February 20, 2006, Senator MD Santiago introduced Senate Res. No. 455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Satellite and PHILCOMSAT Overseas Corporation Holdings Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications (PHILCOMSAT),

such power is rendered more evident in Senate v. Ermita, where it categorically ruled that the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrine legislation, in Arnault being a that the operation subject of for

SO KAPOYYYY (o.o) Sources:

government,

legitimate

is a proper subject for investigation

http://www.pinoycasedigest.info/2012/10/ayerproductions-vs-capulong-case-digest.html

and that the power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. Article III, Section 7 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. These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide

Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors. Pursuant to this, on May 8, 2006, Sen Gordon, wrote Chairman Sabio of the PCGG 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. Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment. At the same time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative Apparently, Subpoenae the Ad purpose is to proceeding PCGGs concerning matters within its official cognizance. ensure was

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/peoplesjournal-et-al-vs-francis.html http://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/201 2/11/07/ramirez-v-ca/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50860683/gaanan-vsiac-DIGEST

http://www.pinoycasedigest.info/2012/08/zuluetavs-court-of-appeals-case-digest.html http://karissafaye.blogspot.com/2010/10/conti-art3-sec-12-16.html%E2%80%8E http://karissafaye.blogspot.com/2009/06/kmu-vsneda-gr-no-167798-april-19-2006.html

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/sabio-vs-gordon/

unhampered performance of its task. Gordons Testificandum repeatedly