“On April 27, 1999, while AAA was sleeping in the living room of her grandmother’s house, her father (the appellant) woke her up and told her to go to their house at the back of her grandmother’s house. On reaching their house, the appellant told her to go to the room. While inside the room, the appellant removed her shorts and underwear, and told her to lie down. The appellant then undressed himself, kissed her, and inserted his private organ into her vagina. Two days later, on April 29, 1999, while AAA was watching television at her grandmother’s house, the appellant told her to go home. The appellant once again told AAA to go inside the room. The appellant then kissed her on the neck. Two days later, on May 1, 1999, while AAA was playing in the street, the appellant called her home and told her again to go to the room. The appellant then undressed her, made her lie down, kissed her, and inserted his private organ into her vagina. When BBB, AAA’s mother, discovered what happened, she brought AAA on May 27, 1999 to the Burauen District Hospital for a medical examination. The medical examination revealed an old healed hymenal laceration.”
People of the Philippines vs. Nilo Rocabo is a rape case involving a minor. The facts of the case do not show the identity of the victim. The reason is there is a law that provides for the protection of the identity of the victims of children or women against violence. Section 40 of Republic Act 9262 provides that:
All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member, without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the court.
But what about the name of the accused? Can he ask the Court or Lawphil.net or Chanrobles.org to remove his name from these cases posted on the internet? Can he invoke his right to privacy?
In 1998, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile asked the Court to issue an order stopping the production of the movie, The Four Day Revolution. Senator Enrile alleged that if the movie would be shown, it would violate his right to privacy. However, the Court ruled that:
The right of privacy like freedom of expression is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person’s privacy has long been regarded as permissable when that person is a public figure and the information sought constitute matters of public character. The right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of public interest (160 SCRA 861 [1988]).
Well, this is not far from publications of jurisprudence, laws and statutes. Court decisions are kept in the records and the Court allows the public to access them. Laws are required to be published in the Official Gazette. President Fidel V. Ramos issued an Administrative Order directing agencies to allow the public an access to public records and documents that are of public interest. That is transparency. However, up to what extent should this “transparency” be applied and availed of by the public? Doesn’t this also violate the right to privacy of the people mentioned in those public documents? Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
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.
Right to Information does not extend to all information. What the law grants is the right to information that concerns public interest. The example cited above discloses the identity of the accused but not of the victim. The case is of public interest because the crime committed is against the millions of Filipinos versus the accused. As for the case of Senator Enrile, he cannot invoke his right to privacy because Filipinos have the right to information as to the Philippine revolutions. It forms part of history, thus forms part of the lives of the Filipino people.
The right to information as against the right to privacy, the former supersedes the latter when it is of public importance. Court jurisprudences are of public interest because not only it is the basis of future cases but it informs the public of the possible harm the persons in the case may cause. It does not however include transparency to bank accounts of private citizens, names of Rape victims and those violations against children and women, and matters that are personal and does not in any way involve the public. Right to information has its limitations and the laws and statutes provide such.
Victims of rape and violence against women and children may invoke their right to privacy. But the accused cannot invoke such right. It somehow forms part of his punishment; his commission of the crime humiliates his person in return. For plaintiffs of civil cases, they have submitted themselves to the court and they form part of the records of the court, thus accessible to the public.
REFERENCES:
· People of the Philippines vs. Nilo G.R. No. 193482 March 2, 2011
· Ayer Production Pty. Ltd. v Capulong (160 SCRA 861 [1988])
· Republic Act 9262: AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
· Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
- Freedom of Expression and the Media: http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/philippines-baseline-study.pdf
