Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The forgotten issue of privacy intrusion
The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various sources – governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc.
One classic example of an intrusion of privacy made not by a private person but by the government itself is the case of Ople vs. Torres (G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998). In this case, the petitioner questioned the constitutionality of Administrative Order (AO) No. 308 entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” which was issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996. One of the arguments raised by the petitioner is that AO No. 308 was an impermissible intrusion in the zone of privacy. The heart of the AO lies in its Section 4 which provides for a Population Reference Number (PRN) as a “common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies” through the use of “Biometrics Technology” and “computer application designs”.
The Supreme Court struck the AO and ruled that the indefiniteness of AO No. 308 can give the government the roving authority to store and retrieve information through his PRN. AO No. 308 is so widely drawn that a minimum standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of technology used, cannot be inferred from its provisions. In the case at bar, the threat comes from the executive branch of government which by issuing the AO pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent will fail to perceive danger that AO 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin Jr., “the disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an unreasonable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat is that because of record-keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget. The Court said that the right to privacy was not engraved in the Constitution for flattery (Case was summarized in Torts and Damages, 2016 Edition by Timoteo B. Aquino).
The foregoing case was decided decades ago at a time when computer technology is not yet highly sophisticated. The Supreme Court then was so emphatic in protecting the right to privacy.
With the advent of artificial intelligence, data analytics, and other highly sophisticated computer programs, it pays to know how big companies and even the government are aiming their eyes at our most private affairs. We may be enjoying the use of free applications in the internet but, in the end, these entities make business of our privacy.
It is surprising to note that when Republic Act No. 11055 or Philippine Identification System Act, the very strong opposition in the previous attempts to establish a national ID system has eventually died down. After more than 4 years from the time it was signed into law, PhilSys remains hounded with implementation issues.