Right to Privacy Chart

7/28/2019 Right to Privacy Chart

1/3

CASE ACT CHALLENGED ACTOR TEST USED ACTVALID?

RATIO

Griswold vConnecticut

General Statutes of Connecticut(imprisonment for usingcontraceptives and for assistingin such)

EstelleGriswoldand LeeBuxton

Overbreadth (?) NO A governmental purpose to control or preventactivities constitutionally subject to state regulationmay not be achieved by means which sweepunnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area ofprotected freedoms (since it was established in this

case that the right to privacy does exist as apenumbral right)Ople v Torres AO 308 (Adoption of a National

ID System)Blas Ople Strict Scrutiny

(since the right toprivacy isfundamental)

NO Void for vagueness; AO does not specify particularbiometrics technologies or biological characteristics tobe measured, and for what purpose, opening it toabuse by the authorities

Zulueta v CA CA decision ordering Zulueta toreturn papers taken by herwithout Martins consent

CeciliaZulueta

Application ofConstitutionalprovision (W/Nthere was a lawfulorder from a courtetc.)

YES The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy ofcommunication and correspondence to be inviolable"is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (whothinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity)who is the party against whom the constitutionalprovision is to be enforced.

Ayer vCapulong

Filming of The Four DayRevolution

JuanPonce

Enrile

Balancing ofInterests (right to

privacy v freedomof speech)

YES The affairs of public figures become matters of publicinterest; Enrile, being a public figure, has lost, to some

extent, his right to privacy; as long as the movie doesnot enter into matters of essentially private concern, itmay be carried out even without Enriles approval

Lagunzad vSoto Vda. deGonzales

Screening of The Moises PadillaStory

MariaSoto Vda.deGonzales

Balancing ofInterests (right toprivacy v freedomof speech)

YES Being a public figure ipso facto does not automaticallydestroy in toto a person's right to privacy

KMU vDirector-General

EO 420 (Harmonizing IDSystems)

KMU et al Rational Basis YES The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities. EO420 draws safeguards re: ID systems where thereused to be none; EO 420 is a valid exercise ofpresidential power under the Faithful Execution Clause

Sabio vGordon

Arrest of Sabio for contempt dueto his refusal to appear in a

Senate hearing under an inquiryin aid of legislation

CamiloSabio

Strict Scrutiny(compelling State

interest)

YES The inquiry is in relation to acts done by Sabio in theexercise of his official functions. He has no reasonable

expectation of privacy in a matter involving a publiccorporation, since it is a matter of public concern overwhich people have the right to information (compellinginterest: PHILCOMSAT anomalies)


2/3

StandardChartered vSenateCommittee onBanks

Subpoena served by the Senateupon petitioners, who occupyhigh positions in StandardChartered Bank

StandardChartered+ itsofficials

Rational Basis YES There is no infringement upon the right to privacywhen there is a valid purpose behind the requirementto disclose information

SJS vDangerous

Drugs Board

RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Actof 2002), Sec. 36 (required drug

tests for candidates for publicoffice, students, public officers,persons charged with certainoffenses

SJS Repugnancy to theConstitution (re:

candidates foroffice), Balancing ofInterests (re:students, publicofficers)

NO, YES,NO

Legislature cannot add to requirements provided inthe Constitution; reduced expectation for students

(due to waiver of right to privacy and submission toauthority of teachers upon entering school) and publicofficials (due to public accountability), plus the lawmeets a compelling State interest, and is narrowlydrawn; persons accused of crimes do not necessarilywaive their right to privacy, drug tests for accused areneither random nor suspicionless

Republic vEugenio

Issuance ex parte of bankinquiry orders into the accountsof Alvarez and Cheng

PantaleonAlvarez,LiliaCheng

None (since there isalready definitestatutory basis onthe right to privacyre: bank accounts,via the BankSecrecy Act)

NO Bank secrecy remains a state policy due to the BankSecrecy Act; AMLA provides an exception to thissecrecy, but specific requirements must be strictlymet

OCA v Reyes Administrative charges againstDe Guzman (not reallychallenged, as he simplyignored them)

OCA None (since nochallenge)

YES Upheld ruling in SJS v DDB re: public officials

Nacague vSulpicio Lines

Termination of Nacague forgrave misconduct and loss ofconfidence due to use of illegaldrugs

JeffreyNacague

Implementation ofRA 9165

NO Sulpicio Lines failed to establish that it properlyfollowed the procedures in RA 9165 to ensure accurateresults (accredited drug testing center, screening andconfirmatory tests, etc.)

Pollo vConstantino-David

Copying of files re: allegedlawyering of Pollo for peoplewith pending cases with the CSC

BriccioPollo

Reasonableness YES Being a public officer and using a computer which isunder the Office Computer Use Policy, Pollo has noreasonable expectation of privacy re: the contents ofsaid computer; search was reasonable because it wasperformed upon reasonable grounds for suspectingthat it would turn up with evidence re: work-related

misconductMeralco v Lim Lims petition for a Writ of

Habeas DataMeralco Rules on Writ of

Habeas DataNO No showing that Lims r ight to privacy was being

violated; case concerned her employment, which wasa property right; contention that non-disclosure of


3/3

reports concerning the threats against her is aviolation of the pright to privacy is speculative

Documents

Right to Privacy Chart