And, as early as 1968, the constitutional and legal bases of this right have already been recognized by our Supreme Court. The SC said that the right to privacy in itself, is fully deserving of constitutional protection independently of its identification with liberty. The recognition of this right to privacy differentiates a democratic government from a totalitarian regime. The SC anchored its recognition on the statement of a noted U.S. constitutionalist who said that " the concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen". The capacity to support and maintain this "enclave of private life", to protect "the dignity and integrity of the individual" especially in modern times when all the forces of a technological age operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it, is what makes a democratic government basically different from a totalitarian regime (Morfe vs. Mutuc 22 SCRA 414).
According to the SC, our Constitution and some of our laws indeed expressly recognize several facets of the right to privacy. Specifically, they are found in the various provisions of the bill of rights (Art.III) as follows: (1) the inviolability of the privacy of communication and correspondence (sec.3[1]); (2) the requirement of due process before deprivation of life, liberty and property as well as the equal protection of law(sec.1); (3) the right of the citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, paper and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (sec.2); (4) the non impairment of the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law(sec.6); (5) the non abridgement of the right to form associations, unions or societies for legal purposes(sec. 8); and (6) the right against self- incrimination or the right not to be compelled as a witness against himself (sec.17). In the Civil Code, every person is required to respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of other persons such that if he: pries into the privacy of another’s residence; meddles with or disturbs the private life or family relations of another; intrigues to cause another to be alienated from his friends; or vex or humiliate another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly stations in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition, he may be liable for damages (Art.26). Also liable for damages are those who violate the rights and liberties of another (Art.32) or the privacy of letters and other private communications (Art.723). In the Revised Penal Code, the violation of secrets by an officer(art.229), the revelation of trade and industrial secrets(art.290-292) and trespass to dwelling (Art.280) are punishable as crimes. Special laws like the Anti-War Tapping Law (RA 4200), the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act (RA 1405) and the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) also consider invasion of privacy as an offense. The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain information.
These are the rights included within the "zones of privacy" enshrined and protected by our Constitution and Statutes, that Congress should respect in drawing up a bill on the proposed national ID system. ( To be continued)