01/08/2019
G.R. No. 202666
17
From Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s speech,"The Writ of Habeas Data," delivered on 19 November
2007, at the UNESCO Policy Forum and Organizational Meeting of the Information for all Program (IFAP),
Philippine National Committee, citing Enrique Falcon, Habeas Data: Concepto y Procedimiento 23 (1996).
18
Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, A.M. No. 08116SC, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
(2008).
19
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/engage. Last accessed February 13, 2013.
20
Delivered before the Forum on The Writ of Habeas Data and Human Rights, sponsored by the National
Union of Peoples’ Lawyers on March 12, 2008 at the Innotech Seminar Hall, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon
City. (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/speech/031208speech.pdf. LastAccessed, January 24, 2013).
21
Refers to the privacy that is felt in physicalspace, such as that which may be violated by trespass and
unwarranted search and seizure. Id.
22
Usually defined as the right of individuals to make certain kinds of fundamental choices with respect to their
personal and reproductive autonomy. Id.
23
Id.
24
Romano v. Steelcase, Inc. and Educational & Institutional Services Inc., Supreme Court of New York,
Suffolk County, 30 Misc. 3d 426; 907 N.Y.S.2d 650; 2010 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 4538; 2010 NY Slip Op 20388,
September 21, 2010, Decided. See also Kizza, Joseph Migga, Ethical and Social Issues in the Information
Age,Third Edition, SpringerVerlag London Limited 2007, p. 109, "However, these days in the information age,
the value of privacy has been eroded. We can no longer guarantee our privacy. It has left many wondering
whether there is such a thing as privacy any more. x x x No one has guaranteed privacy any more unless
such an individual is no longerpart of the society." Page 304 reads, "According to recent studies, personal
privacy isbecoming the numberone social and ethical issue of concern for the information age. Advances in
technology have brought with them gadgetry that have diminished individual private spaces through electronic
surveillance and monitoring, transmission, scanning, tapping, and fast and more efficient means of collecting,
categorizing, and sorting data."
25
Puno, The Common Right to Privacy, supra note 20.
26
Supra note 3. Penned by Judge N. P. Willis.
27
Including but not limited to the following: name, residence, email address, telephone or cellular phone
number, personal pictures, relationship status, date of birth, current location, relatives, hobbies and interests,
employment, profession, educational background, preferences, thoughts, messages, conversations, internet
memes, videos (ranging from personal videos to scene extracts from movies, television shows, news, et
cetera), photos, religious messages, political views,updates, commentaries and reactions to current events,
support and prayer petitions, as well as products and services.
28
http://newsroom.fb.com/KeyFacts. Last accessed January 24, 2013.
29
H v. W, supra note 3.
30
Id.
31
A user’s profile contains basic information about the account owner, i.e. Profile Picture, Full name,
Birthdate, Address, Place of Work, Profession, a list of the user’s "Facebook Friends," among others. It is akin
to an Identification Card.
32
Supra note 3.
33
Id.
34
Westin, Alan, Privacy and Freedom, cited in Valerie Steeves’ work, Reclaiming the Social Value of Privacy.
35
Newell, Bryce Clayton, Rethinking Reasonable Expectations of Privacy in Online Social Networks,
Richmond Journal of Law and Technology Vol.XVII, Issue 4, 2011, citing Avner Levin and Patricia Sanchez
Abril, Two Notions of Privacy Online, 11 V AND.J. ENT. & TECH. L. 1001, 1012 (2009)
(http://jolt.richmond.edu/v17i4/article12.pdf. Last accessed January 31, 2013)
36
It has been suggested that: focus on the individual’s control over information allows him to decide for
himself what measure of privacy to grant certain topics. It can also relieve the burden of determining
responsibility for certainperceived privacy breaches. For example, it is clear that the online socializer who
posts embarrassing pictures of himself publicly and without heightened privacy settings is a victim of his own
reckless behavior. By publicizing embarrassing information, he voluntary relinquished control—and a legally
recognizable privacy right—overit. (Avner Levin and Patricia Sanchez Abril, Two Notions of Privacy Online, 11
V AND.J. ENT. & TECH. L. 1001, 1012 [2009])
37
In the same vein that "a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in email messages stored in
computers that he alone could retrieve through use of his own assigned password. An objective expectation
of privacy exists with regard to email messages that a person transmits electronically to other subscribers of
the same Internet service who have individually assigned passwords."(United States v. Maxwell, 42 M.J. 568
(A.F.C.C.A. 1995), 45 M.J. 406 [C.A.A.F. 1996])
38
Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, 30 Misc. 3d 426; 907 N.Y.S. 2d
650; 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4538; 2010 NY Slip Op 20388, September 21, 2010.
39
Rollo, p. 54.
40
TSN, July 19, 2012, pp. 3234; 37.
41
Rollo, p. 134
42
People v. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 496.
43
Since the students merely viewed the photographs using their own accounts which are linked to the profiles
of the minors, they being Facebook friends.
44
214 F. Supp. 2d at 225.
45
Furthermore, "[a] person who places information on the information superhighway clearly subjects said
information to being accessed by every conceivable interested party. Simply expressed, if privacy is sought,
then public communication mediums such as the Internet are not adequate forums without protective
measures." Id.
46
45 M.J. 406 [C.A.A.F. 199]
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_202666_2014.html
7/8