People of this age lives in a
fast phase. Fast food restaurants are the most visited during lunch, most
people drink instant coffee in the morning, or if they have the spare time,
they go to Starbucks, an instant noodle for breakfast and a take out from McDo
in the evening. Majority of the people this days are on the go, and possibly,
and I’m sure you’ll agree, lives off the internet either on their iPads,
iPhones, Androids, Smartphones or laptops.
Gone are the days when people
line up on the counter to buy a new pair of shoes or a nice shirt. We have
websites like Multiply.com, Lazada.com or sometimes even in Facebook. Hell, we
can even buy a car on Sulit.com. Airlines nowadays have their own website where
you can book flights to Hong Kong, Singapore, Boston or even to Boracay. Tickets
to the Script concert are a three minute process. All you need is a click of
the mouse or book it right to your fingertips. But one thing is for sure, we
always use our Credit Cards to do the job.
I must confess I have been a frequent
shopper on the sites mentioned above. I often feel lazy to go out, stand on a
long queue that takes hours. Why go to the mall when you can purchase anything
you need on the internet.
There is also a time when I have
to line up for two days just to apply for my passport. My Mader also had the experience of having to line up on the wee hours
of the morning just to apply for her US visa back in ’92. Comparing it now, I
can schedule and answer my application form from the US Consular office
website. How convenient, especially when I don’t have to go to the Consular
office by four in the morning.
But the convenience and the
instantaneous transactions come with a price. I have this doubt on some of the
sellers on-line especially since you have to indicate your personal
information, mainly when you are using your credit cards. There is this huge
chance that I could be a victim of identity theft, or that another person would
use my credit card to purchase.
Last August 15, 2012, President
Aquino III signed Republic Act 10173,
known as the ‘Data Privacy act of 2012’.
According to said law;
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is
the policy of the State to protect the
fundamental human right of privacy, of communication while ensuring free flow
of information to promote innovation and growth. The State recognizes the
vital role of information and communications technology in nation-building and
its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in information and
communications systems in the government and in the private sector are secured
and protected.(1)
This act aims to protect personal
information that a natural or juridical person has used on any transaction that
they have made. (2) I have no idea as to how I should react to this new
special law. It has somehow had some advantages and disadvantages on its face,
and frankly, one of its disadvantages is that it somehow appears to be
over-breadth.
Advantages
I
- This act protects the Journalists and their Sources.(3)
Let us first tackle the most obvious
right of protection in which the law applies which is the protection to the
journalists. The constitution provides, on Article 3, Bill of Rights:
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances. (4)
Let us admit, this is the usual
law provision that the most if not all of the journalists, writer, columnist or
whatever you may have called them to protect their rights into publishing and
posting their writings on the paper or the internet.
Quoting from an
opinion of the court, “Freedom of the press was virtually unknown in the
Philippines before 1900. In fact, a prime cause of the revolution against Spain
at the turn of the 19th century
was the repression of the freedom of speech and expression and of the press.” (5) And as of
now, it is one of the symbols of a democratic country. Voicing out opinions
thru editorials, magazines and newspapers, and even the polls being made,
especially on this electoral period, the people of the Press are given the
right of expression.
In connection with this, Atty. Vicente Sotto has authored
Republic Act No. 53: AN
ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM
REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE (6) on October 5, 1946, protecting the right of the writers, reporters
or editors in disclosing their sources. RA 10173 made exclusion in connection
with the said Republic Act. In fact, it was made clear on the provision of the
new act that there are no amendments are made.
The act ensured that any member of the Press may, with their
own discretion, reveal their sources. It is to protect the said sources’
identity. If the news is invasive or highly affects a powerful or influential
person that may detriment the source of the news, the reporter, may not reveal
the name of his source. It does help to protect the personal identity of the
said source.
II
– Protection of Personal Information
As you can see on the
introductory part of this blog, people lives in a fast phase and most if not
all uses the internet to transact, purchase or contract. This makes us
vulnerable to identity theft, since we have to make use of our personal
information in order to validate our businesses.
Again, the Constitution, being
the supreme law of the land provides protection to its people. Although the law
does not explicitly provide, every person has the right to privacy.
To quote from
jurisprudence, “The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted
exploitation of one's person or from intrusion into one's private activities in
such a way as to cause humiliation to a person's ordinary sensibilities.” (7)
This right is
usually connected to the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
However, it may also pertain to the protection of the information of a person
or a private corporation.
In defining what
Personal Information pertains to, let us go the section provided by the law:
(g) Personal information refers
to any information whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the
identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly
ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with
other information would directly and certainly identify an individual. (1)
Kind of confusing isn't it? However,
it only pertains to any information; name, gender or nationality that may
identify the person or private corporation who has made the transaction. The
law protects the identity of the individual, either a natural or juridical
person on being exposed.
Let me use a sample transaction
of booking a flight to using Cebu Pacific Air.
(8)
A person who uses the internet in
booking their flight needs to indicate his name, age, gender and other
necessary circumstances on the application. Throwing back to the late ‘90s, people
who want to travel via air needs to go to the airline’s office to purchase
their tickets, standing on long lines or waiting for their numbers to be
called. As of today, some still prefer on going to said offices, however other
prefer a much more sophisticated way such as doing it on-line.
Upon continuing the transaction, the
website also requires the credit card number to be used. This somehow becomes
the tricky part. However, RA 10173 created a commission, National Privacy Commission
(NPC for brevity), which is tasked to monitor and ensure compliance of the
country with international standards for data protection. (9)
The NPC filters data information
thru a system that they had devised will secure that there is no anomaly that
will happen while an individual is making transaction. It makes me feel a bit secure
and a bit confident when I make online transactions or purchases. Once again I
will highlight, I often use the internet to purchase any goods or close several
transactions using the internet, and this act will become my own personal body
guard in the world of the internet.
Disadvantages
And like a double edge sword, the
law’s advantages are also its flaws.
The 1987 constitution provides
the privacy to communication made. Isn't it that the system being introduced by
RA 10173 is also an intrusion on a person or a corporation to contract or
transact? We often use our e-mails to make contracts, not only domestically but
also internationally. Imagine that you are a business woman who is
communicating via e-mail on a foreign supplier, and that you transaction is
being monitored by the NPC.
The New Civil Code reiterated the
provision of the Constitution, which provides that:
Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person
shall be liable to the latter for damages:
xxx
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence
This provision entitles
a person to file a case for civil liability against any public officials or any
private person. Reading the sections from the new RA 10173, the scope of the
power given to the NPA seems to violate not only the constitutional right of a
person but it also violates provisions introduced by the new civil code. As I read
the new provisions of the new special law in conjunction of other laws, it
confuses me as to how limited the filtering system of the NPA regarding data’s
inputs made by a person or corporation has made.
I ask this question,
will the NPA violate a person’s right for unreasonable search and seizure?
On the ruling
made by the Supreme Court in Ople vs Torres:
“The Civil Code provides that "every person shall
respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a
person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual
liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another
person, and recognizes the privacy of
letters and other private communications xxx” (10)
On the case cited, the issue was
the implementation of A.O. No. 308, and as the court have stated on this case,
won’t the government misuse the data that they have acquired? They may have included
a confidentiality clause on the new RA 10173, but there is also this underlying
fear that the data that they have filtered to a person may be used against
them. On the quoted case, the Supreme Court stressed that, the right to privacy
is one of the most threatened rights of a man living in a mass society, and the
threats may come from various sources, one on which is the government. (10) It is like opening our personal
information to the government, or as how most would say it, we are stark nude
in the eyes of the government.
Conclusion
There is no
precedent case where said RA applies, therefore my interpretation of the said
law may be biased and solely be based on my opinion and as to how I appreciate
the law. It may be a good improvement on the IT world, a precaution against any
mishandling of sensitive or personal information. Or it may be a cause of riot
against private individuals who does not want to disclose their negotiations
and information.
Sources:
(1) Data Privacy Act of
2012 – The Official Gazette : http://www.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
(2) Data Privacy Act of
2012 – The Official Gazette : http://www.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
SEC. 4. Scope. – This
Act applies to the processing of all
types of personal information and to any natural and juridical person involved
in personal information processing including those personal information
controllers and processors who, although not found or established in the
Philippines, use equipment that are located in the Philippines, or those who
maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines subject to the
immediately succeeding paragraph: Provided, That the requirements of Section 5 are
complied with.
(3) Data Privacy Act of
2012 – The Official Gazette : http://www.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
SEC. 5. Protection Afforded to
Journalists and Their Sources. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
to have amended or repealed the provisions of Republic Act No. 53, which
affords the publishers, editors or duly accredited reporters of any newspaper,
magazine or periodical of general circulation protection from being compelled
to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said
publication which was related in any confidence to such publisher, editor, or
reporter.
(5)
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance -Separate Opinion
– Padilla: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_115455_1994.html
(7)
SJS vs Dangerous Drug Board, et’al. - G.R. No.
157870 : http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_157870_2008.html
(9) Data Privacy Act of
2012 – The Official Gazette : http://www.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/
SEC.
7. Functions of the National
Privacy Commission. – To administer and implement the provisions
of this Act, and to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with
international standards set for data protection, there is hereby created an
independent body to be known as the National Privacy Commission xxx
(10)
Ople vs Torres – G.R. No. 127685 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment