All EYES ON ME
- Mary Ann Lopez
- Feb 2, 2023
- 4 min read
Updated: Feb 4, 2023
Social networks have opened up a new avenue of communication for millions of people around the world. The major attraction of this technology is the ease with which people can share their personal information with their friends. In analyzing this new technology, one needs to first understand the clear meaning of social networks. The following definition will be used in the analysis of this concept: Social networks are facilitated by web technology that allows several users to publish content freely on any subject for use by friends and others. Such sites allow users to create personal profiles visible to the people they allow.
Source:
Cover source:
Privacy and Social Media Policy in the Philippines
In the Philippines, there is no specific and direct policy on social media privacy. However, there are several laws including jurisprudence that deal with privacy in general and in relation to social media. A range of privacy policies can be found in the Constitution, Revised Penal Code, Rules of Court and Civil Code.
Overview of Available Laws
The 1987 Constitution
The Constitution tries to provide provisions with regards to right to privacy under the Bill of Rights namely: (a) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence. From the two sections, it can be surmised that right to privacy can be defined as the right to be left alone. It is the right of a person to be free from undesired publicity or disclosure and as the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned.
The Civil Code of the Philippines
Provisions related to privacy can be drawn out from Chapter Two of the Civil Code of the Philippines under Human Relations in which Article 26 states that, “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.” Though not considered as criminal offense, it identified acts that can produce a cause of action for damages and other relief, and in which social media can be used as a medium and place of commission of the offense. These include meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another, intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends, vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was passed as a response to the proliferation of intimate/private photos and videos, most notably of women, without their consent. The law itself recognizes invasion of privacy as a criminal offense. The law penalizes those who take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved are punishable.
Human Security Act of 2007
The law has provisions that affect the right to privacy. The Human Security Act of 2007 was enacted to counter and manage terrorism in the Philippines. The law is said to be heavily influenced by the United States’ Patriot Act, which provides tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.[9] Section 17 of the Human Security Act defines terrorism as a one that “causes widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace”. It allows authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and temporarily detain them without charges. Like most counter terrorism measure, the law has been criticized to violate international certain human rights standards. The law allows for unchecked invasion of privacy, e.g., permitting wiretapping and investigation of bank accounts.
Data Privacy Act of 2012
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 is an act protecting individual personal information in information and communications systems in the government and the private sector. It mandates the public and private institutions to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of all personal data that they might gather including the processing of personal information and sensitive personal information. It also sets the parameters on when and on what premise data processing of personal information can be allowed with basic premise when a data subject has given direct consent.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was enacted to address crimes committed in cyber space and use of ICT. The law is divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizing several types of offense, including illegal access (hacking), data interference, device misuse, cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such as computer fraud, content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other offenses. The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense under Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and libel, an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system.
Jurisprudence
There are two available jurisprudences decided by the Philippine Supreme Court dealing with privacy in relation to social media:
Judge Ma. Cecilia Austria Case
The case involved Ma. Cecelia Austria, Batangas Regional Trial Court Judge, whose profile picture in Friendster was deemed inappropriate for her profession as an officer of the court. According to the Supreme Court, a member of the court cannot and should not have a public Friendster account as her position and stature limits her to what she can do on the Internet. It further added that a an open public account on Friendster exposes the judge to influence and pressure, and gives litigants and lawyers an open access to communicate with her especially those attempting to influence her decisions.
Source:
Comments