Legal Definition of Privileged

Communication
A privileged communication is a conversation that takes places within the context of a
protected relationship, such as that between an attorney and client.3 min read

In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to
refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence
from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

What Is Privileged Communication?

Conversation that takes places within the context of a protected relationship, such as
that between an attorney and client, a husband and wife, a priest and penitent, and a
doctor and patient. The law often protects against forced disclosure of such conversations.
However, there are exceptions that can invalidate a privileged communication, and
there are various circumstances where it can be waived, either purposefully or
unintentionally.
Those statements made by a client to his counsel or attorney, or solicitor, in
confidence, relating to some cause Or action then pending or in contemplation. Such
communications cannot be disclosed without the consent of the client.

What Qualifies as Privileged Communication?

In judicial proceedings, the law allows people to refuse to disclose the contents of certain
privileged conversations and writings. Communications between an attorney and client,
husband and wife, clergyperson and penitent, and doctor and patient are all
privileged. In a few states, the privilege extends to a psychotherapist and client and to a
reporter and her source.

How Do Communications Qualify for Privileged

Communication Protection?
To qualify for privileged status, communications must generally be made in a private
setting (that is, in a context where confidentiality could reasonably be expected). The
privilege is lost (waived) when all or part of the communication is disclosed to a third
person.

Can a Person Reveal Privileged Communications

Without the Other Person's Consent?
These privileges are held by the client (but not the lawyer), the patient (but not the doctor or
psychotherapist), the speaking (but not the spoken-to) spouse and both the clergyperson
and the penitent. The lawyer, doctor, psychotherapist and spoken-to spouse, however,
cannot reveal the communication without the other person's consent. The client,
patient, speaking spouse, clergyperson and penitent may waive the privilege (that is, testify
about the conversation) and also may prevent the other person from disclosing the
information.

Example of Privileged Communications

Example: Sue and Martin are divorcing. When Martin first left Sue, he emptied out a joint
bank account and placed that money in a separate account in another state. He refuses to
tell Sue where the money is, but he has told his lawyer, Ann. The discussion between
Martin and Ann is privileged, and unless Martin authorizes Ann to tell Sue where the money
is, or unless Martin himself tells another person about his conversation with Ann, Ann
cannot be forced to disclose the information.
Are Marital Communications Protected By Privileged
Communication Laws?
Marital communications privilege. Courts cannot force husbands and wives to disclose
the contents of confidential communications made during marriage. The purpose of
the privilege is to protect and promote honesty and confidence within marriages.
Spousal privilege. Courts cannot force husbands and wives to testify against each
other. For example, when a former husband trying to gain custody of his child called his ex-
wife's new husband as a witness to testify about her treatment of the child, the court refused
to force him to testify on the grounds that it could jeopardize an existing marriage.

Example of Marital Communications Protected By

Privileged Communications Laws?
Example: Sandy has a budding marijuana brownie business which she operates out of her
home. Sandy has told her husband, Doug, about her endeavors. All private conversations
between them are privileged; that is, if Sandy is ever prosecuted for her business, she can
prevent Doug from disclosing what he knows.

TIMELINE: The GCTA law

and the controversy it has
stirred
The debate now focuses on whether or not people convicted of heinous crimes should
benefit from the Good Conduct Time Allowance law. What are the arguments for
amendment now?

MANILA, Philippines – The Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law has been at the center
of controversy after initial news about the possible early release of convicted murderer-rapist
Antonio Sanchez broke.

As government officials backtracked on cutting short the prison term of Sanchez, the
debate has now focused on whether or not those convicted of heinous crimes should
benefit from the GCTA.

But how did the law come to be? What are the arguments for amendments?

December 1930

The Revised Penal Code is signed into law. Chapter 2 lays out the specifics of "partial
extinction of criminal liability," including conditional pardon, commutation of sentence,
and good conduct allowances.

November 5, 2012

The Senate passes Senate Bill No. 3064 which amends several articles of the Revised
Penal Code.

January 18, 2013

The House of Representatives passes House Bill 417 which amends Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code.
May 29, 2013

Then-president Benigno Aquino III signs Republic Act No. 10592 or the Good Conduct
Time Allowance (GCTA) law, which amended several articles under the Revised Penal
Code, including Article 97, which lays out the allowance for good conduct for persons
deprived of liberty (PDLs).

The GCTA law allows for a reduction of sentences of PDLs, depending on how well they
abide by rules and regulations inside “any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention
center or any other local jail.”

March 26, 2014

The law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) document is released. Penned by
then-justice secretary Leila de Lima and interior secretary Mar Roxas, the IRR provides
for a prospective application of the GCTA law.

Prospective application is seen in Section 4 of the IRR, which provides “for new
procedures and standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance"
and requires "the creation of a Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee.”

The IRR takes effect on April 18 of the same year.

June 18, 2014

At least 13 Bilibid inmates, represented by lawyer Michael Evangelista, file a petition for
certiorari and prohibition against Roxas and De Lima, contesting the prospective
application of the GCTA Law.

The inmates include Venancio Roxas, Saturnino Paras, Edgardo Manuel, Heminildo
Cruz, Allan Tejada, Roberto Marquez, Julito Mondejar, Armando Cabuang, Jonathan
Crisanto, Edgar Echenique, Janmark Saracho, Josenel Alvaran, and Crisencio Neri Jr.

July 14, 2014

Lawyer Rene Saguisag files a petition-in-intervention, saying that RA 10592’s legislative

history shows no intent of being prospective in character. The High Court grants the
leave to intervene.

October 21, 2014

Three NBP inmates file another petition-in-intervention against the provision. Inmates
William Montinola, Fortunato Visto, and Arsenio Cabanilla are represented by the Free
Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).

The provision, FLAG said at the time, “discriminates, without any reasonable basis,
against those who would have been benefited from the retroactive application of the
law.”

October 24, 2014

Ten inmates at the NBP’s Maximum Security Compound file a petition for certiorari and
prohibition against the prospective application of the law, saying that the IRR was
“issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
June 25, 2019

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court grants the petition and makes the GCTA law
retroactive.

In his concurring opinion, SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen says that the prospective
provision of the 2014 IRR “implies that all inmates detained or convicted prior to its
effectivity can no longer be rehabilitated for a successful reintegration into society,
effectively trampling upon their dignity as human beings.”

August 20, 2019

Reporters receive unverified information that convicted rapist and murderer Antonio
Sanchez might soon be walking free. (READ: TIMELINE: DOJ backtracks on possible
early release of Antonio Sanchez)

Sanchez was convicted in 1995 for the rape and murder of Eileen Sarmenta and murder
of Allan Gomez – both University of the Philippines-Los Baños students – and in 1999,
for the double murder of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa. He has been in Bilibid prison for
25 years.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra tells reporters that Sanchez "may actually be
released," and, in another instance, "is very likely for release.”

"That benefits lahat ng mga nakakulong na preso ngayon kaya isa sa mga magbe-
benefit doon ay si Mayor Sanchez... pati siya mae-entitle duon sa computation ng Good
Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA),” he says in a telephone conference.

(That benefits all the inmates, so one of the beneficiaries will be Mayor Sanchez. Even
he will be entitled to the computation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance.)

August 22, 2019

Senate President Vicente Sotto III files Senate Resolution No. 107 which seeks a
review of RA 10592 with a view of amending it. Senator Panfilo Lacson supports the
plan to amend the law. (READ: Amid Sanchez news, senators split on amending
reduced prison term law)

Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, the justice secretary at the time Sanchez was
convicted, dismisses the need for amendments, saying the law is already “good." He
pins the blame on the Supreme Court which decided that a certain provision was
unconstitutional.

After a massive public backlash, Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director General

Nicanor Faeldon says that while Sanchez is qualified to avail of the GCTA, he might still
have to stay in Bilibid for several more years because of misdemeanors he reportedly
committed. (LISTEN: [PODCAST] Ang batas na puwedeng magpalaya sa rapist-
murderer na si Antonio Sanchez)

August 23, 2019

Guevarra explains that the wording of Section 1 and Section 3 of the law makes only
the inmates eligible for credit of preventive imprisonment (CPI, or the period of
imprisonment prior to conviction) also eligible for GCTA (applicable only to post-
conviction imprisonment).
To Guevarra, because those charged with heinous crimes are not eligible for CPI, then
they are also not supposed to benefit from the GCTA. “It’s been a tough process of
interpreting the wordings of a law that has certain ambiguities in its provisions. In the
end, however, it is the spirit and the intention of the law that guided us in taking a
position,” Guevarra says.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo echoes Guevarra in a press conference,

saying that “the inevitable conclusion is that all those convicted of a heinous crime,
including Mr Antonio Sanchez, would be ineligible and disqualified from availing the
benefits of the GCTA.”

In a Rappler column, human rights lawyer and former SC spokesperson Ted Te says
that there is a need for more objective criteria to determine good conduct.
(READ: [OPINION | Deep Dive] What the GCTA law is and what it needs)

He writes that “while the GCTA is a good idea, the question of determining whether
conduct falls under ‘good conduct’ to merit the GCTA may be arbitrary sans any
objective standards to measure, assess, and rate such.

Raymund Narag, an expert on criminal justice, writes in his column that “there are
sufficient legal and procedural remedies to make sure that the law will not be abused by
the rich and powerful.” (READ: [OPINION] Media sensationalism, bureaucratic
ineptitude, the common tao's quest for justice)

August 24, 2019

Guevarra says the DOJ is “considering seriously” the need to suspend the processing of
the GCTA of convicts pending a review of guidelines for the early release of inmates.

Those who are deserving to be freed early, he adds, “really have to wait a
little.” (READ: Beyond Sanchez: How to improve the Good Conduct Time Allowance
law)

August 25, 2019

Guevarra says the DOJ hopes the Supreme Court or Congress will be able to clarify
whether or not inmates who are convicted of heinous crimes can benefit from the GCTA
law.

“The DOJ will be glad to have this issue resolved with clarity and finality either by a
congressional amendment of its own act or by an interpretation rendered by the
Supreme Court in a proper case brought before it,” he says.

August 26, 2019

Guevarra reiterates that the processing of early release of inmates under the good
conduct time allowance (GCTA) law is briefly suspended.

"Very temporary lang, na i-suspend ang pag-process ng GCTAs para mabigyan ng

pagkakataon ang DOJ, BuCor, ang BJMP (Bureau of Jail Management and Penology)
na ma-review 'yung mga existing guidelines sa pagbibigay ng GCTAs, pati mga internal
procedures," Guevarra tells DZBB.

(It will be a very temporary suspension of the processing of GCTAs to give a chance to
the DOJ, BuCor, and BJMP to review existing guidelines for granting GCTAs, including
internal procedures.)
Drilon calls the suspension a "welcome development."

August 27, 2019

AKO Bicol Representative Alfredo Garbin Jr files House Resolution No. 260 which
seeks a congressional investigation to help clarify whether or not inmates who are
convicted of heinous crimes should benefit from the GCTA law.

In his resolution, Garbin says that the law “is a good law” but that “there is a need to
determine whether the criterion used in the implementing rules of the law is consistent
with the very law it seeks to implement.” –

What did the lawyer name his daughter?

Sue!#lawyerjokes#mnsolo @MinnesotaCLE

A man in an interrogation room says “I’m not saying a word without my lawyer present.”

"You are the lawyer." said the policeman.

"Exactly, so where’s my present?" replied the lawyer.

What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?

A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge. #lawyerjokes

What do you call a priest that becomes a lawyer?

- A father in law. #LawyerJokes

Where there is a will there is a lawsuit.

Addison Mizner#lawsuit #best #jokes

When an attoney gets married they don’t say “I do” Thay say, “I accept the terms and conditions”.