Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Constitutional Law: Right to Privacy

The Lawyer's Post / 21 hours ago


In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed
practically everywhere for the protection and safety of
everyone. The installation of these cameras, however, should
not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of
privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to
privacy would be affected, was obtained
Bill and Victoria, spouses, filed a Complaint for Inunction and !amages with
prayer for issuance of a "rit of Preliminary Inunction against #le$ander and
#llan% #ccording to them, they own the lot adacent to the lots owned &y #ldo
!evelopment and Resources, where #le$ and #llan are stoc'holders% (he
corporation &uilt an auto)shop &uilding on Lot *+,,)C adacent to the lot owned
&y Bill and Victoria% In #pril, -,,., #ldo filed a case for inunction and damages
against Bill and Victoria claiming that they were constructing a fence without a
valid permit and the construction would destroy its &uilding% (he court denied
the application &y #ldo for preliminary inunction for failure to su&stantiate its
allegations% (o gather evidence against the spouses, #ldo illegally set)up on the
&uilding of #ldo two video surveillance camera facing petitioners party and
through their employees and without the consent of spouses too' pictures of their
on)going construction/ thus it violates their right to privacy% (he spouses prayed
that #le$ander and #llan &e ordered to remove their video)cameras and stopped
from conducting illegal surveillance%
#nswering, #le$ander and #llan claimed that they did not install the cameras,
nor ordered their employees to ta'e pictures of the spouse0s construction/ they
also averred that they are mere stoc'holders of #ldo/
(he Regional (rial Court granted the prayer for temporary restraining order
and directed #le$ander and #llan to remove their video cameras and install them
elsewhere where the spouse0s property will no longer &e viewed%
#le$ander and #llan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of #ppeals,
which granted their petition%
Bill and Victoria elevated the case to the 1upreme Court:
2(he right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws% It is
defined as 2the right to &e free from unwarranted e$ploitation of one0s person or
from intrusion into one0s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation
to a person0s ordinary sensi&ilities%3 It is the right of an individual 2to &e free
from unwarranted pu&licity, or to live without unwarranted interference &y the
pu&lic in matters in which the pu&lic is not necessarily concerned%3 1imply put,
the right to privacy is 2the right to &e let alone%3
(he Bill of Rights guarantees the people0s right to privacy and protects them
against the 1tate0s a&use of power% In this regard, the 1tate recogni4es the right
of the people to &e secure in their houses% 5o one, not even the 1tate, e$cept 2in
case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent procedural
safeguards,3 can distur& them in the privacy of their homes%3
$ $ $
26ur Code specifically mentions 2prying into the privacy of another0s
residence%3 (his does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to
privacy, &ecause the law covers also 2similar acts%3 # &usiness office is entitled to
the same privacy when the pu&lic is e$cluded therefrom and only such
individuals as are allowed to enter may come in% $ $ $7 89mphasis supplied:
(hus, an individual0s right to privacy under #rticle -;8*: of the Civil Code
should not &e confined to his house or residence as it may e$tend to places where
he has the right to e$clude the pu&lic or deny them access% (he phrase 2prying
into the privacy of another0s residence,3 therefore, covers places, locations, or
even situations which an individual considers as private% #nd as long as his right
is recogni4ed &y society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to
privacy% (he C#, therefore, erred in limiting the application of #rticle -;8*: of
the Civil Code only to residences%3
$ $ $
In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use the
2reasona&le e$pectation of privacy3 test% (his test determines whether a person
has a reasona&le e$pectation of privacy and whether the e$pectation has &een
violated% In 6ple v% (orres, we enunciated that 2the reasona&leness of a person0s
e$pectation of privacy depends on a two)part test: 8*: whether, &y his conduct,
the individual has e$hi&ited an e$pectation of privacy/ and 8-: this e$pectation is
one that society recogni4es as reasona&le%3 Customs, community norms, and
practices may, therefore, limit or e$tend an individual0s 2reasona&le e$pectation
of privacy%3 <ence, the reasona&leness of a person0s e$pectation of privacy must
&e determined on a case)to)case &asis since it depends on the factual
circumstances surrounding the case%
In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically
everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone% (he installation of these
cameras, however, should not cover places where there is reasona&le e$pectation
of privacy, unless the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy would &e
affected, was o&tained% 5or should these cameras &e used to pry into the privacy
of another0s residence or &usiness office as it would &e no different from
eavesdropping, which is a crime under Repu&lic #ct 5o% =-,, or the #nti)
"iretapping Law%
2(he concept of li&erty would &e emasculated if it does not li'ewise compel
respect for 7one0s> personality as a uni?ue individual whose claim to privacy and
7non>)interference demands respect%3
@%R% 5o% *A+AB;, Cune -;, -,*B, 1P6D191 BILL #5! VIC(6RI# <I5@,
P9(I(I659R1, V1% #L9E#5!9R C<6#C<DF, 1R% #5! #LL#5
C<6#C<DF, R91P65!95(1%
Li'e this:

Вам также может понравиться