Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Group 6

Alog, Mariel G. Dela Peña, Roselle Joy C. Mercado, Raine John C.

Canosa, Ezra Joy A. Lim, Romy Ian C.

We believe that the act of editing and uploading the picture of Edith was illogical and
unethical. The case was about the picture which was edited and uploaded by Edith’s friends
during her 18th birthday. Edith had a photo with her male friends during the party. After two
days, Janine, one of her friends, told her that a photo of her was uploaded on Facebook (a
social networking site) in which she was wearing a very sexy and revealing swimsuit with their
male friends. Edith confronted them which resulted to a heated argument. However, her
friends did not want to turn down the photo. They told her that it was just for fun and she was
overreacting. Edith was greatly offended.
It was illogical because such act was not based on reason and sound judgment. To be
logical, one must consider the consequences of his/her act based on circumstances. (What are
the signs of being a logical person?, 2016)1 Edith’s friends were illogical when they edited and
uploaded her photo—Edith wearing a bikini among her male friends when in fact she did not—
because they did not think of the consequences it may bring. Edith was greatly offended when
she saw the edited picture which made the act more illogical because there was no
consideration of her reactions and feelings. Suffice it to say, the perception of the public on
who Edith is was also a big factor for them to consider which they failed to reckon.
It is unethical for the reason that such act and behavior of Edith's friends fall outside of
what is considered morally right or proper for an individual to do. The said act of editing and
uploading the picture upon which Edith wears a bikini among her male friends when in fact she
did not even wear such caused damage upon her emotional well-being because her friends did
not even ask for Edith’s permission to upload such fraudulent picture. There’s has been
manipulation upon the image by some of her friends who attended her 18th birthday and an
unauthorized circulation of the same. It is true that the action of editing images is neither
ethical nor unethical. It depends on what the image is for. What they did with the resulting

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-signs-of-being-a-logical-person (2016)
image is something that counts. Hence, the said act was unacceptable on the part of Edit. It
caused her embarrassment and humiliation when the said photo has circulated on Facebook.
Her friends should have first obtained her consent before doing so.
Edith has become a victim of bullying. Edith, together with her parents, could confront
her friends to settle the issue between them or they may also talk with her friends’ parents. If
still they failed to come up with an amicable settlement, that would be the time for them to file
a case against those who perpetrated the said act.
Edith could file a complaint for Bullying under Section 2(b) and (c) of Republic Act No.
10627 also known as the “Anti-Bullying Act of 2013”. (Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, 2013)2 Under
this law, it states whenever a certain act causes damage to a victim’s psyche or his emotional
well-being through the use of technology or any other electronic means will be considered as a
violation of this law. Under section 4 of the said law, Edith can report to the school principal or
school officer or any person designated by the principal to handle such issues and shall
investigate the report. If it is determined that the bullying really has occurred, the school
principal or the designated school officer may choose to: (1) Notify the law enforcement agency
if the person of authority in the school believes that criminal charges may be pursued against
the perpetrator; (2) Take appropriate disciplinary actions; (3) Notify the parents of the
perpetrators (4) Notify the parents or guardians of the victim regarding the action taken to
prevent any further acts of bullying and retaliation.
Edith could also file a complaint for Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation is punished under
2nd paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of her friends fall under
paragraph 2 of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code when her friends would still do not want
to turn down the photo. The law is broad to include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent
person. The paramount question to be considered is whether the offender’s act caused
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it
was directed.

Republic Act 10627 (ANTI-BULLYING ACT OF 2013,2013)
The argument of Edith’s friends that the uploaded edited picture was only ‘ just for fun’ is
an unacceptable reason. It must be noted Edith has no knowledge of the said photograph until
Janine had informed her that she has seen it in her facebook. Hence, she has no consent.
In Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, where a group of students from St. Theresa’ College in
Cebu City, posted pictures in Facebook wearing only their undergarments for a beach party.
Doing such, it resulted to them being barred from joining their commencement exercise or
rather barred from exercising. However, the petitioner Vivares representing her daughter as
one of the students who were barred from graduating, filed a complaint against the school in
which they contend that the school should have respected their privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled that the students cannot contest that the school has intruded
their right to privacy. The Court states that “It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to
exercise due diligence in their online dealings and activities and must not be negligent in
protecting their rights. Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding relief from the courts, as here,
requires that claimants themselves take utmost care in safeguarding a right which they allege
to have been violated. These are indispensable. We cannot afford protection to persons if they
themselves did nothing to place the matter within the confines of their private zone.” (Vivares
vs. St. Theresa’s College, 2014)
It can be inferred that in Edith’s case, her right to privacy was violated by her friends since
the photograph in question, was seen by Janine and perhaps even others. It clearly shows that
the friends of Edith failed to exercise due diligence and failed to consider Edith’s right to
privacy. Even if the access to the said photograph were only limited within Edith’s friends, the
mere fact it was edited without her consent clearly manifest that the intention was to make fun
of Edith. However, she did not find it as such, instead she was offended.

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013. (2013).

Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666 (Supreme Court September 29, 2014).

What are the signs of being a logical person? (2016). Retrieved from quora.com: