I. Legal framework Constitutional privacy framework Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution stipulates the country's Bill of Rights.

The following sections related to privacy are contained in the Constitution: Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Criminal law Search and seizure: The Revised Penal Code1 criminalises the unlawful entry, search or seizure by any public officer or employee (Art. 128), and imposes the penalty of prision correccional2 in its minimum period to such act. Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods when such acts occur at night-time, or where papers or effects are not returned immediately after a search. When a proper search is conducted in the absence of the relevant individual, a member of their family or two witnesses residing in the same locality, the Code imposes a penalty of arresto mayor in its medium

and maximum periods (Art. 130). The malicious acquisition and use of search warrants is also criminalized in the Code, which imposes a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 (Art. 129).

reveals the contents thereof, is liable for a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding PHP500. If the secrets are acquired but not reveled, the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP500 (Art. 290). However, this provision is not applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of Falsification of documents: The Revised Penal Code creates a minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or number of offences related to the falsification of documents by minors placed under their care or custody, nor to access to the papers or letters of spouses by each other. Art. 291 of the private individuals, and the use of falsified documents. The Revised Penalty Code applies to managers, employees or penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than PHP5,000 is applicable to servants who, in their capacity, learn the secrets of their such crimes, which encompass acts of falsification of public or employers, principals or masters and reveal such secrets. In such a case, a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not official documents or commercial documents (Art. 172) or exceeding PHP500 is applicable. Where such secrets amount wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages (Art. to industrial secrets, the penalty of prision correccional in its 173). The falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like is also addressed by the Revised minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding PHP500 applies (Art. 292). Penal Code, which imposes the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 on any physician or Trespass: Trespass is governed by Articles 280 and 281 of the surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, Revised Penal Code. Trespass is punishable by penalties of issues a false certificate; or any public officer who issues a arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 (Art. 280). false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar If the offense is committed by means of violence or circumstances (Art. 174). The penalty of arresto mayor shall intimidation, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium be imposed upon any private person who commits a similar and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. offence, and upon anyone who knowingly uses falsified certificates (Art. 175) Libel: Although the Constitutional protections related to privacy do not connect the right to privacy with the protection Discovery and revelation of secrets: Any public officer who of reputation and honour, statutory provisions in the Revised reveals any secret known by him by reason of his official Penal Code articulate a number of crimes in this respect. Libel capacity, or who wrongfully delivers papers or copies of is defined as public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, published, is liable under Art. 229 of the Revised Penal condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the Code.If the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical papers causes serious damage to the public interest, the public person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead (Art. officer is liable for the penalties of prision correccional in its 353). The legislation stipulates that every defamatory medium and maximum periods, perpetual special imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no disqualification and a fine not exceeding PHP2,000. good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown Otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its (Art. 354). There are two exceptions to this principle, namely minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine (1) A private communication made by any person to another in not exceeding PHP50 will be imposed. If a public officer, to the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and (2) A whom the secrets of any private individual have become fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments known by reason of his office, reveals such secrets, they are or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official liable for penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any PHP1,000 (Art. 230). Any private individual who, in order to statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of discover the secrets of another, seize his papers or letters and any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of

their functions. Libel committed by means of writing or other similar means is punishable by a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PHP200 to 6,000, or both, in addition to any civil action which may be brought by the offended party (Art. 355). Threats to commit libel attract a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from PHP200 to 2,000, or both.

pornographic performances and being coerced to engage in pornography through whatever means. The law also ensures the confidentiality of the identity of any child involved in child pornographyduring investigation, prosecution, or trial, and provides mandatory services for victims such as emergency shelter, counselling, free legal, medical, and psychological services, and educational assistance. Any person who produces, distributes, or publishes such material or Slander: Oral defamation (slander) is criminalized by Art. 258 commits other related acts would also be subject to penalties. Internet service providers and Internet content hosts may be of the Revised Penal Code. It is punishable by a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP200, where it is of a held liable.5 Penalties include fines ranging between PHP50,000 and PHP5,000,000 and reclusion perpetua as the serious and insulting nature, it is punishable by a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in gravest penalty. Currently awaiting parliamentary assent, the its minimum period. Where slander is committed by deed, it is Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Bill of 20086 criminalises the publication, broadcast, and exhibition of pornographic punishable by the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine materials through all means, including online means, for the ranging from PHP200 to 1,000 (Art. 359). If said act is not of protection of morality. a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP200. Cybercrime Publication of defamatory statements: Any person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means is liable under the law (Art. 360). The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, is responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. Furthermore, any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who publishes facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned, is liable for punishment of the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from PHP20 to 2,000, or both (Art. 357). Voyeurism and pornography: The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA No. 9775)3 prohibits the act of photo or video voyeurism, as well as the publication, broadcasting, sharing, exhibition, and distribution of photos or videos resulting from this illegal act. The Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA No. 9775)4 law protects children from abuse and exploitation from being used in Until 2012, the Electronic Commerce Act (Republic Act No. 8792, s. 2000)7 was the primary Filipino legislation pertaining to online privacy. Section 31 of the Act provides that access to an electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic data message or electronic document shall only be authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity having a legal right to the possession or the use of the plain text, electronic signature or file and solely for the authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or integrity shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful possession of that electronic key. Unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, is punishable by a minimum fine of PHP100,000 and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six months to three years. Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, distribution, importation, use, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights is punishable by a minimum fine of PHP100,000 and a

maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six months to three years. On September 12, 2012, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA No. 10175)8 came into force. The Act creates a number of offences, including (Section 4): 1. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems, including illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and cybersquatting; Computer-related offenses such as computer-related forgery, computer-related fraud, computer-related identity theft; and Content-related Offenses, including cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, and libel.

2.

3.

Aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrime and attempt in the commission of cybercrime is also included as other offenses under Section 5. In addition, the Act stipulates that all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies, are covered by the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and the penalty for such crimes is degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code (Section 6). The punishments contained the Act include the imprisonment of prision mayor and fines of between PHP100,000 and PHP500,00 (Section 7). The Act provides for corporate liability (Section 9) and imposes double penalties for Acts committed by a corporate actor up to a maximum of PHP10,000,000. The Act declares that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) are responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The NBI and the PNP are mandated to organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of the Act (Section 10).

To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus, law enforcement authorities are required under the Act to submit timely and regular reports including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the Department of Justice for review and monitoring (Section 11).

sealed package, accompanied by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority, within 48 hours of the expiration of the warrant. The package is not to be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or then contents revealed, Disclosure of Computer Data: Law enforcement authorities, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted upon securing a court warrant, may issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded (Section 16). Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data: Law enforcement or control within seventy-two hours from receipt of the order authorities, are authorized by the Act to collect or record by in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time assigned for investigation, provided the disclosure is necessary Destruction of Computer Data: Upon expiration of the periods associated with specified communications transmitted by and relevant for the purpose of investigation (Section 14). as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law means of a computer system. Under the Act, traffic data refer enforcement authorities must immediately and completely only to the communication s origin, destination, route, time, Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data: Where a destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not examination (Section 17). search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law content, nor identities. All other data to be collected or seized enforcement authorities likewise have the power to conduct or disclosed will require a court warrant. Service providers are interception, as defined in this Act, and the power: Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence procured without a valid required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in warrant or beyond the authority of a warrant is inadmissible the collection or recording of traffic data. for any proceeding before any court or tribunal (Section 18). To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium; The court warrant required under this section shall only be Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data: When a To make and retain a copy of those computer data issued or granted upon written application and the computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the secured; examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and any provisions of this Act, the Department of Justice can issue an To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored witnesses he may produce sufficiently demonstrating (Section order to restrict or block access to such computer data computer data; 12): (Section19). To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and 1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any Competent Authorities: The Act establishes an Office of To render inaccessible or remove those computer of the crimes enumerated in the Act have been Cybercrime within the Department of Justice designated as the data in the accessed computer or computer and committed, are being committed or are about to be central authority in all matters related to international mutual communications network. committed; assistance and extradition (Section 23). The Act also 2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Law enforcement authorities may order any person who has evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and Center, under the administrative supervision of the Office of of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of, the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein the President, for policy coordination among concerned such crimes; and agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to 3. That there are no other means readily available for enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination. national cyber security plan (Section 24). obtaining such evidence. Preservation of Computer Data: In accordance with the Act, the integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider must now be preserved for a minimum period of six months from the date of the transaction. Content data must be similarly preserved for six months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium but in no case for a period longer than 30 days from date of approval by the court (Section 15). Custody of Computer Data: The Act prescribes that all computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a proper warrant must be deposited with the court in a Reaction to the legislation: Following the enactment of the law, petitions were immediately filed requesting the Supreme Court to issue temporary restraining orders to several government agencies from implementing several provisions of the law which were seen as unconstitutional. Problematic provisions cited by the party list Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) are:

preservation. Law enforcement authorities may order a onetime extension for another six months (Section 13).

Section 4c, which penalizes online libel defining it as an act committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future ; and Section 12, which makes it illegal to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system ; and Section 20, which enumerates the penalties for violating the law.9

monitor the IP address and not the content passing through it.16 Another group filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against government agencies from implementing the following provisions17: Section 4 (c)[4],which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on "any other similar means which may be devised in the future"; Section 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications; Section 7, which provides that apart from prosecution under the assailed law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws; Section 12, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to "collect or record by technical or electronic means" communications transmitted through a computer system; and Section 19, whichauthorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act."

The Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, s. 1949)19 governs the application of civil actions. Chapter 2 of the Code regulates human relations, and mandates that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Art. 26). The following and similar acts give rise to an action for damages, prevention and other relief (Art. 26): 1. 2. 3. 4. Prying into the privacy of another's residence; Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; and Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Critics have argued that the law creates a chilling effect on the public , violating media freedom and giving too much power to the Department of Justice.10 ALAM argues that the 1987 Constitution states that no law shall be passed to limit the freedom of expression, speech and press and that it was stupid for those who crafted the law to consider unsolicited advertisement, defined as the transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services, as cybercrime.11 Journalist organizations have launched a campaign to stop the implementation of the implementation. Aside from the chilling effect caused by the law, there is the added concern of higher degrees of punishment imposed by the Act.12 The petitioners challenged the government to prove that the Cybercrime Law would not violate peoples' "most fundamental right" under Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, by passing the "substantive due process test" and the "equal protection challenge .13

Anyone who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person is liable for damages under the law (Art. 32): 1. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; The liberty of abode and of changing the same; and The privacy of communication and correspondence.

2. 3. They reasoned that real time data collection of traffic data violates the right to privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, while stressing that the questioned Data protection: The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act provisions of the law "inter-operate with each other to create a 10173)20 preserves the citizen's right of privacy of 'chilling effect'" upon constitutional freedoms.18 communication while ensuring the free flow of information and recognizing the role of information and communications The Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and technology in nation-building and its obligation to ensure that On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Philippines Detection Group (CIDG), one of the government agencies issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) covering a period personal information in information and communications tasked with implementing the Cybercrime Law, said that itwill of 120 days. At the same time, it ordered the Solicitor General systems in government and private sector are secured and need further clarification on the Law before they can begin to to comment within ten days on the petitions filed against the protected. implement it. CIDG Director Samuel Pagdilao Jr. welcomed law. The court also set the case for oral argument on January the new Law but added that the implementing rules and 15, 2013. The Act covers the processing of personal information and regulation of the Law must be detailed and clarified.14 The those involved in processing said information. It does not Director assured that Section 12 of the Law shall only be amend or repeal the provisions of Republic Act 5321 that Civil law exercised if there is an existing complaint or if there is strong exempts the publisher, editor or reporter of any publication evidence to warrant gathering of traffic data relating to acts from revealing the source of published news or information such as hacking or terrorism.15Further, the CIDG shall only obtained in confidence. The Act is primarily designed to

address the privacy concerns raised by the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). The BPO industry is seen to benefit most from the enactment of the law which, by increasing the data protection standards in the Philippines, is projected to allow for an increase in BPO revenue, from US$9 billion in 2011 to US$25 billion by 2016, and an expansion of industry employment to four million in the same time period.22

Accurate and, when appropriate, up-to-date (inaccurate or incomplete data must be corrected, supplemented, or destroyed); Identical, adequate, and according to the purposes for which it is collected and processed; and Kept in a form that allows identification of the data subject, and for no longer than it is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected and processed.

Prior to being signed into law, media groups appealed against Section 30 of the Senate version of the bill (SB 296523) Personal data can only be processed when: where, in case of a breach in confidentiality of information results in it being published by the media, the responsible The data subject has given his/her unambiguous reporter, writer, president, publisher, manager and editor-inconsent; chief shall be held liable. The Economic Journalists The personal data processing is the result of the data Association of the Philippines saw the provisions as a tool that subject contractual obligation; can be used to harass media and suppress its guaranteed The data processing is vitally important' to protect freedom.24 Other groups have maintained that the restrictive the data subject, including life and health; or position would have a chilling effect on journalists.25 Despite The data controller is required to process personal the absence of the provision in the RA 10173, the law is data in compliance with his/her lawful obligations worded vaguely that it could apply to almost anything online, and only to the extent authorised by the parties. not just the personal medical information being handled by BPOs.26 Section 6 of the Order provides that access to personal data in The Law also provides for a National Privacy Commission to an information or communications system shall only be authorised in favour of the individual or entity having a legal monitor and ensure the country s compliance with right to the possession or the use of the file and solely for the international data protection standards. authorised purpose. It shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Data in Information in lawful possession, or in the absence of court order. and Telecommunication System in the Private Sector: In 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry adopted the Section 7 of the Order establishes the confidentiality principle, Administrative Order No. 8 (s. 2006) Guidelines for the and Section 8 addresses the issue of security of data, requiring Protection of Personal Data in Information and data controllers to implement organisational and technical Telecommunication System in the Private Sector. 27The means to assure protection of personal data from destruction, objective of the Order is to encourage and provide support to private entities to adopt personal data protection policies, and alteration, or disclosure. provide rules for data protection certifiers in Philippines. The Order also mandates the Department of Trade and Industry to create a Privacy Complaints Office to address General principles for the protection of personal data in the related issues that may surface in the implementation of the Order require that personal data be: Order. Collected for specified and legitimate purposes determined before collecting the personal data and processed in compliance with those purposes; Processed accurately, fairly, and lawfully; The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 provides for the preservation of traffic data and subscriber information for a minimum period of six months from the date of the

transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six months provided that once the computer data preserved, transmitted, or stored by a service provider is required as evidence in a case, the mere act of furnishing the service provider with a copy of the transmittal document sent to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination of the case. The service provider shall keep confidential the computer data ordered to be preserved (Section 13). The same Act provides that law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, must issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/its possession or control within 72 hours of receipt of an order in relation to a valid complaint, officially docketed and assigned for investigation, as long as the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation (Section 14). Writ of Habeas Data28: The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (2 February 2008) is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party. The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent lives, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected, or stored, at the option of the petitioner. It may also be filed with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or the Sandigan bayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices. Chapter: II. Surveillance policy Communications surveillance

The Anti-wiretapping Law (Republic Act No. 4200, s. 1965)1 regulates communications surveillance in the Philippines. Section 3 of the act provides for the authorization by written order of the Court of any peace office to execute communications surveillance in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security. A written order can be obtained upon the submission of a written application and the examination under oath of the applicant and witnesses sufficient to demonstrate:

The provisions relating to the custody and use of information obtained through interception under the Human Security Act are broadly similar to those under the Anti-Wiretapping Law However, the Human Security Act (Republic Act No. 9372, s. (see Sections 11-14). Just as under the Anti-Wiretapping Law, 2007)2 provides a number of exemptions to the Anticommunications intercepted under the Human Security Act Wiretapping Law in cases of terrorism. In particular, Section 7 shall not be used in any judicial proceeding (Section 15). empowers police or law enforcement officials, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, to listen to, intercept and Section 1 of the Anti-Wiretapping Law makes it unlawful for record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or tracking devices, any communication, message, conversation, cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken of the crimes enumerated in the application have been judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, word. It is also unlawful to knowingly possess, replay, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with replicate or furnish transcriptions of any such committed, are being committed or are about to be or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit communications. Such acts are punishable by imprisonment committed; terrorism. The application for a court order must establish That there are reasonable grounds to believe that for not less than six months or more than six years, and with evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction (Section 8): the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of, from public office if the offender is a public official at the time such crimes; and of the commission of the offense (Section 2). That there is probable cause to believe based on That there are no other means readily available for personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the obtaining such evidence. said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit Political intelligence gathering terrorism has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed; The written order must specify: In the lead up to the 2004 election, the Hello That there is probable cause to believe based on Garci wiretapping scandal was uncovered in the Philippines. personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that A recording was made by a covert team of intelligence officers The identity of the person whose communications are evidence, which essential to the conviction of any (referred to as Project Lighthouse) that included Vidal Doble, to be intercepted; charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or Jr., and was headed up by Col. Paul Sumayo. Composed of The identity of the peace officer authorized to prevention of, such crimes; and agents from the Military Intelligence Group-21 of the conduct the interception; That there are no other effective means readily Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces, the team had set out The offences committed or sought to be prevented; available for obtaining such evidence. to wiretap key personalities from both the Arroyo and administration and the political opposition because everyone The period of authorization. Authorizations granted by the Court of Appeals shall not on MIG-21 knew there was cheating going on." The resulting exceed a period of 30 days, and may be renewed for another cassette tape is thought to have contained uninterrupted phone Authorization shall be effective for the period specified on the non-extendible period of 30 days if authorized by the Anticonversations of key personalities Arroyo and order, which shall not exceed 60 days. Terrorism Council. The court order and any related Garcillano allegedly covering a variety of topics, including authorizations are declared as classified information, but the election manipulation. When Sumayo did not act on Doble s All recordings made under court authorization shall, within 48 person being surveilled has the right to be informed of and revelations in this regard, Doble decided to give the original hours, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope and challenge the acts done by the law enforcement authorities tape to Army Colonel Dioscoro Reyes. The subsequent accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer stating the (Section 9). If no case is filed within the initial 30 day period, Congressional inquiries failed to resolve the allegations of

details of the interception. The envelope shall not be opened except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard granted to the person whose communications have been interception. Communications obtained via interception and any information contained therein is inadmissible before judicial proceedings.

the law enforcement authority shall be immediately notify the subject of surveillance of the termination of interception, or will be liable to a penalty of ten to 12 years imprisonment (Section 10).

election fraud raised by this tape because President Arroyo banned officials from testifying without permission from the Office of the President. CCTV The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority operates CCTV throughout Manila. The Authority s No Physical Contact Policy3 involves the monitoring of traffic violations through digital cameras installed in key public highways. The data collected in this process are used to penalise drivers committing traffic violations.

Chapter: III. Privacy issues Financial privacy

Code of 1987, the Local Government Code of 1991, the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees reiterate the same.4 The Constitution and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (Republic Act 6713) have also required that these declarations be disclosed to the public.5 However, the Supreme Court resolved that the independence of the Judiciary is as constitutionally and important as the right to information, which is subject to the limitations provided by the law. Restricting the release of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) of justices and judges aims to shield them from acts that may result in endangering, diminishing or destroying their independence and objectivity in the performance of their judicial functions.6

Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law of 1955 (RA No. 1405)1 protects deems all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines, including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, to be of an absolutely confidential nature protected from examination or inquiry by any person, government official, bureau or office, In Davao City, the Davao City Public Safety Command Centre except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of (PSCC) has allocated a budget to install more CCTV cameras impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of in the city focusing on key checkpoints in Calinan, Toril, and bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases Tibungco.4 The PSCC already has 17 CCTV cameras installed where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of in 16 strategic areas in the city, covering entry and exit points the litigation. and populated areas in the downtown areas, and traffic signalling for the entire city. However, where it is established that there is probable cause

As a result of the debate around the Corona impeachment trial, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has formed a technical working group in order to revise the SALN being used. CSC Chairman Francisco Duque, who heads the working group, that the deposits or investments involved are in any way said that reviewing the SALN will result in clearer guidelines In Iligan City, there is an ordinance requiring all commercial related to a money laundering offense, Section 11 of the Anti- for government officials and employees and avoid token and service establishments whether private or public to install Money Laundering Act (Republic Act No. 9160, s. 2001)2 compliance.7 Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman has CCTV cameras, video monitoring devices, and similar empowers the Anti-Money Laundering Council to obtain a released guidelines that ease the public s access to the SALNs equipment within their premises and providing penalties for court order to inquire into or examine any particular deposit or of government officials.8 violation.5 The installation of CCTV and other monitoring investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial devices is intended to serve as deterrents to the commission of institution. Both Houses of Congress are looking to review the Bank crimes and provide assistance to law enforcement in the Secrecy Law along with the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of identification, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal The Philippines bank secrecy laws have recently been the Philippines (FCDA). It was admitted that banking suspects.6 scrutinized, during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice practices have come under scrutiny under the impeachment Corona, where the defense argued for the non-inclusion of trial and the legislature is looking to put in place a mechanism Workplace surveillance Corona's dollar accounts in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities promoting openness and transparency in the public sector. and Net Worth (SALN) he submitted to the government. The Hospital CCTV Act of 20087 legalises the installation of Concerns were raised that Corona's argument for financial Regulatory mechanisms privacy might set a precedent that would encourage other CCTV in hospital premises, exits, entrance, and operating public officials to only comply with minimum standards. The rooms to augment the security of patients, doctors, and other Corona impeachment trial fuelled a debate about whether the The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is the medical workers. According to Senator Miriam Santiago this Filipino government ought to pursue measures that encourage government agency responsible for the supervision and law will address other issues such as baby-switching and implementation of the telecommunications sector in the voluntary transparency among its officials beyond the legal medical scandals such as what happened in the 2008 "Cebu Philippines. According to the NTC s Director Edgardo minimums.3 spray" scandal at Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Centre, Cabarios, there is no Commission-issued order or guidelines when the doctors videotaped an operation and someone leaked the scandalous video to the Internet. A government official or employee is directed by Section 17, on protection of privacy; rather, the NTC believes that constitutional and statutory protections, and terms of service Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution to declare his/her assets, liabilities, and net worth. The Administrative

agreements, are sufficient to protect privacy in the Philippines.9

Government requirement. However, for numerous reasons the Philippines has refrained from adopting such requirements. Critics have pointed out that registration threatens the right to privacy of communications, as the government becomes a The Information and Communications Technology Office third party to the contracts to which consumers consent when (ICTO) was established by Executive Order 47 in 2011.10 The buying or using SIM cards from telcos.17 There have also ICTO replaced the Commission on Information and The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Communications Technology. The ICTO is the primary policy Population and Development Act 201113 provides for balance been concerns that SIM registration could trigger the sending of more spam texts, including prank calls and scams.18 and regulatory entity of the executive branch of the of access to information and individual privacy on government, charged with promoting and integrating strategic reproductive health needs and concerns. Similarly, the ICT systems and reliable communications facilities and Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,14 which Proponents of the scheme point out that SIM registration services. The ICTO is also responsible for managing the requires the submission of specific information related to would deter the use of cellphones in the commission of concerns of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). dangerous drugs and chemicals, clearly provides for the crimes;19 and would create no extra technical burden, since confidentiality of records of drug dependents undergoing post-paid subscribers already register their SIM cards.20 rehabilitation. Those in favour of the system argue that it allows for Medical Privacy increased accountability,21 and it eases the process of replacement or deactivation when the phone is stolen or Gender and privacy In 2005, the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) adopted a lost.22 Declaration on the Rights and Obligations of the Patient.11 In accordance with the Declaration, the patient has the right not The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of National ID Systems to be subjected to exposure, private or public, by either 2004 (RA No. 9262)15 protects women and their children photography, publications, video-taping, discussion, medical against physical violence, sexual abuse, psychological teaching, or any other means that would otherwise tend to violence, economic abuse, threats, and other forms of abuse UMID System: In late 2011, after calls from Senator Panfilo reveal his person and identity and the circumstances under that directly and or indirectly affect their lives. Under the Act, Lacson for a national ID card system to curb criminality,23 the which he was, is, or will be, under medical or surgical care or healthcare providers attending to victims needs are required to UMID system was introduced. The Unified Multi-Purpose treatment. safeguard records. All records concerning cases of violence Identification Card (UMID) combines ID cards for Social against women and their children, including those in the Security System (SSS), Government Social Insurance System barangay, shall be confidential and all public officers and (GSIS), Philippine Health Insurance (PhilHealth) and the Also included are provisions requiring that the details of the employees and public or private clinics and hospitals shall Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-Ibig). It was developed patient s medical condition remain confidential even after respect the victim's right to privacy. to reduce the costs inherent in maintaining redundant ID death and that all the patient s identifiable data be protected. systems and databases in government as well as to streamline processes for citizens. All data collected for UMID are treated The Family Courts Act 1997 (RA No. 8369)16 established In addition to the Declaration, a number of legislative family courts and granted them exclusive jurisdiction of child as confidential and shall not be shared or disclosed without the instruments relate to privacy and confidentiality in the health consent of the individual concerned or as required by law or and family cases. The Act requires that all hearings and sector. The Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of court order.24 conciliation of cases concerning children and family are 199812 provides that all health professionals, medical treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the instructors, workers, employers, recruitment agencies, child's and the family's dignity and worth, and respect their ePasaporte: The Philippine ePasaporte features microchip insurance companies, data encoders, and other custodians of privacy at all stages of the proceedings. Records of the cases technology, specifically an integrated circuit (chip) embedded any medical record, file, data, or test results are directed to must be dealt with utmost confidentiality and the identity of in its pages that contains the data that are essential in verifying strictly observe confidentiality in the handling of all medical parties must not be divulged unless necessary and with the identity of the passport holder. The ePasaporte stores a information, particularly the identity and status of persons authority of the judge. digital image of the passport photograph that can be read with with HIV. face recognition technology to verify the identity of the passport holder. It also holds the fingerprints of the passport It is also incumbent upon the State to provide a mechanism for Registration of SIM cards holder, captured using the Automated Fingerprint Verification anonymous HIV testing that guarantees anonymity and System (AFIS). It contains a digitised secondary photo, and an medical confidentiality in the conduct of such tests. Hospitals, There have been proposals (e.g., Villars SB 266) to require the electronic print of the holder s signature. Finally, it contains clinics, laboratories, and testing centresfor HIV/AIDS are registration of mobile SIM cards to replicate a Singapore

required to adopt measures to assure the confidentiality of medical record, personal data, file, including all data which may be accessed from various data banks or information systems.

overt and hidden security features such as Invisible Personal Information (IPI), letter screen, micro printing, and ultraviolet reactive ink, among others.25 The ePasaporte project was controversial from its inception. Supposedly a project under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) terminated its contract with BCA International, a Philippine-Thai company, for the manufacture of machine-readable passports and visas. DFA s termination of this contract was due to BCA s inability to implement the project after five years and its financial incapacity to carry out the project. This decision was upheld and deemed legal by the Supreme Court, which also allowed DFA to implement its ePasaporte project with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) instead. The Supreme Court further opined that government can terminate a BOT agreement, even without fault on the part of the project proponent. 26 Though the ePasaporte project has now been completed, the migrants rights group Migrants International has stressed, that the project still has unresolved issues, such as an alleged PHP50 overcharge for the passport laminates.27 Freedom of Information One of the lessons learned during the Corona impeachment trial is the need in the Philippines for a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Freedom of information legislation can help create a culture of accountability and trust by becoming a powerful tool by enhancing citizen participation in governance thereby deterring corruption.28In early 2012 a FOI bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, but it is still awaiting parliamentary assent. The FOI bill seeks to impose speedy procedures for obtaining documents of high public interest such as the SALNs of government officials. As of October 2012, the FOI bill is still pending approval on first reading before the committee on public information after the committee chair Representative Ben Evardone failed to put the bill to a vote, while the counterpart bill in the Senate was endorsed to the plenary in June.29 For its part, the Aquino Administration feels that the government has ensured that transparency and accountability are upheld in governance while the FOI is pending passage.

One such measure is the Budget ng Bayan, where the government s budgets and disbursements can be accessed online.30 Moreover, the Administration is of the opinion that the passage of the FOI bill lies with the legislature since it has already submitted its recommendations regarding the bill.31 The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), a Philippine media watchdog, has urged Congress to pass the Malaca ang version of the FOI bill which they say is not perfect, but is generally acceptable to the media and civil society groups.32