Montezor Case Analysis Repor

Case Analysis: Data Privacy Act of
2012
Laela C. Montezor
Sped Teacher
REPUBLIC ACT NO.10173 AN ACT
PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL
INFORMATION IN INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS IN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
CREATING FOR THIS PURPOSE A
NATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES .This Act shall be
known as the “Data Privacy Act of
2012”.
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.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 is an
act protecting individual personal
information in information and
communications systems in the
government and the private sector.
It mandates the public and private
institutions to protect and preserve
the integrity and confidentiality of
all personal data that they might
gather including the processing of
personal information and sensitive
personal information. It also sets
the parameters on when and on
what premise data processing of
personal information can be
allowed with basic premise when a
data subject has given direct
consent.
Excerpts from Supreme Court
Resolution, GR No. 202666 of
2014.
The case stemmed from students
of St. Theresa’s College who
were not allowed to participate
in graduation exercise due to
their provocative posts in
Facebook. The parents of the
students filed a case against the
school over invasion of privacy.
The Philippine Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the school
stating that nothing is ever
private in Facebook.
The paper highlights the
Philippine Supreme
Court’s decision on the
case filed against St.
Theresa’s College Cebu.
It is the first ruling
made that explicitly
deal with privacy in
social media,
specifically privacy in
Facebook. It sets the
parameters as to what is
considered private and
public in social media.
The Supreme Court issued a
ruling saying that nothing is
ever private on Facebook,
even those tagged as
private never really escape
public viewing, including
unintended audiences. The
decision stemmed from the
case involving photos
posted on Facebook of two
minor students from STC.
The photos, which were
uploaded by one of their
friends, showed the students
drinking and smoking in a
bar, and wearing just
undergarments on a street.
The photos were shown by
one of the Facebook friends
of the girls to the school
officials prompting them to
ban the students from
marching in their graduation
rites in March 2012.
According to the STC, the
students violated the school
code of conduct
The parents of the
students in defense filed a
petition for the issuance
of a writ of habeas data
and asked the court to
order STC to surrender
and deposit all soft and
printed copies of the
photographs, and to
declare they have been
illegally obtained in
violation of the children’s
right to privacy.
The court dismissed the
parents’ petition and ruled
that, “STC did not violate the
minors’ privacy rights.”
According to the court, the
school cannot be faulted for
being “steadfast in its duty of
teaching its students to be
responsible in their dealings
and activities in cyberspace,
particularly in [social
networks], when it enforced
the disciplinary actions
specified in the Student
Handbook, absent a showing
that, in the process, it violated
the students’ rights.”
The decision of the court stated
that the students cannot invoke
the protection attached to the
right to informational privacy
because the photos were seen
by other STC students, who in
turn showed them to the
computer teacher who reported
the incident to the school
authorities. In the language of
the court, “the photos, having
been uploaded on Facebook
without restrictions as to who
may view them, lost their
privacy in some way.”
The court further added in its
ruling that setting post privacy
to ‘Friends Only is not an
assurance that it can no longer
be viewed by another user who
is not Facebook friends with the
source of the content. The
decision read that, “Without
proof that they placed the
photographs subject of this case
within the ambit of their
protected zone of privacy, they
cannot now insist that they have
an expectation of privacy with
respect to the photographs in
question.”
The decision of the court
puts the burden of ensuring
safeguarding privacy online
users and expects them to
exercise due diligence in
their online dealings and
activities. According to the
court, not discounting the
role of schools and parents
in disciplining and
educating their children to
be good digital citizens,
self-regulation is the “best
means of avoiding privacy
rights violations.”
Conclusion:
For Filipino online users,
Facebook is the easiest and
cheapest to access. Mobile
networks in the Philippines offer
it for free as package for data
plan or as an incentive for
subscribing to their network.
The pervasive use of social
media in the Philippines greatly
affected the manner by which
Filipinos interact and
communicate. Many live in the
“always available mode”. While
the Philippines is not an
information based society, it is
very much a networked culture.
This development in information
and communications technology
(ICT) impacted Filipinos
conception of privacy. The
concept of privacy is not, as we
like to imagine, a universal one.
Privacy is hard to define as it is
set differently in different
jurisdiction. Traditionally, the
right to privacy is concisely
defined as the right to be left
alone. It has also been defined as
the right of a person to be free
from undesired publicity or
disclosure and as the right to live
without unwarranted
interference by the public in
matters with which the public is
not necessarily concerned.
In the Philippines,
privacy is traditionally
viewed as a person’s
right against
unreasonable seizure
which is the person’s
right over his/her house,
office or any place
where he/she has
expectation of privacy
wherein the
state/government
cannot enter without
warrant.
However, developments in
technology brought about
informational privacy – the
person’s right to control
information about
him/her. In the context of
social media this refers to
a person’s selective control
over who accesses his/her
personal information,
including contact
information and personal
communication, and
control over the contexts
in which the information
can be used.
Nonetheless, privacy
in the context of social
media is less
understood and has
resulted to rising cases
of violations of privacy
occurring in online
spaces specifically in
social media
Character is like a tree and
reputation like a shadow. The
shadow is what we think of it;
the tree is the real thing.
Abraham Lincoln

Montezor Case Analysis Repor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montezor Case Analysis Repor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montezor Case Analysis Repor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis: Data Privacy Act of

You might also like