07/12/2025
โ
Must read!!!
๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ'๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐?
Yes. While the Bill of Rights protects privacy against government intrusion, ๐ถ๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฒ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฏ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐น๐ถ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐๐ฒ. If a private person (not a police officer or state agent) obtains the messages, those messages are admissible as evidence in court.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the right to privacy is expressly recognized under Article III, Section 3 thereof, which reads:
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In ๐๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ท๐ฎ๐ ๐. ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ (G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021), the Supreme Court en banc held that while the above provision โhighlights the importance of the right to privacy and its consequent effect on the rules on admissibility of evidence, one must not lose sight of the fact that ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals.โ
In Cadajas, the Court explained that โthe photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messenger account that were obtained and used as evidence against petitioner, which he considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not obtained through the efforts of the police officers or any agent of the State. Rather, these were obtained by a private individual. Indeed, the rule governing the admissibility of an evidence under Article III of the Constitution must affect only those pieces of evidence obtained by the State through its agents. It is these individuals who can flex government muscles and use government resources for a possible abuse. However, where private individuals are involved, for which their relationship is governed by the New Civil Code, the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights.โ
The Cadajas ruling follows the logic of ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐. ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991) where the Supreme Court ruled that โthe constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.โ
In his sponsorship speech on the Bill of Rights, Commissioner ๐๐ผ๐ฎ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐ explained:
โThe protection of fundamental liberties is the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986, also cited in People v. Marti and Cadajas v. People)
In Cadajas, the Court also held that while the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights, ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ is properly governed by the provisions of the ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐น ๐๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ, the ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐๐ฐ๐ (๐๐ฃ๐), and other pertinent laws.
Take note, however, that the use of evidence against the spouse may fall under the ๐ฒ๐
๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฃ๐, particularly under Section 13(f) and Section 19, which state:
๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. ๐ญ๐ฏ. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information. - The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information shall be ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ, ๐ฒ๐
๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ in the following cases:
(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ณ๐๐น ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐๐ and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority.
๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. ๐ญ๐ต. Non-Applicability. - x x x Likewise, the immediately preceding sections are not applicable to processing of personal information gathered ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ผ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ in relation to any ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐น, ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ or ๐๐ฎ๐
๐น๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฒ๐ of a data subject.
