VIOLATION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS?

QUESTION:

Can PHILJURIS, CHAN ROBLES and other repository of jurisprudence be compelled to remove cases in their webpage wherein the names/identities of the parties are mentioned because it violates their privacy right?

COMMENT/REMARK:

        No, repositories of jurisprudence such as LawPhil, Chan-Robles, PhilJuris, etc., cannot be compelled to remove cases posted in their websites.  These cases are public documents and no one shall be deprived to know how the case progressed and how the Courts ruled in the case.  What the party-victim may do is to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to make a modification or to issue a resolution for the repositories to make amendments in the names of the party-victim such as using a pseudonyms or alias to protect the name or identity of the party-victim, as suggested by the Office of the Solicitor General in People of the Philippines vs. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, Sept. 19, 2006):  “the adoption of a system of coding which could include the use of pseudonyms in cases of a similar nature. Short of withdrawing the full text of decisions in such cases from the Web Page, the OSG proposes that the Court instead replace the material information, such as the name of the child-victim, in its decisions.”   This is to safeguard the privacy of the party-victim and also to protect them from the humiliation which insensitive people may give them.

However, protecting the right to privacy must be within the constitutionally-protected zone of privacy.  It must show the “person’s expectation of privacy is reasonable.  The reasonableness of such expectancy depends on a two-part test:  (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited and expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. xxx”  Because the party-victim may have given its consent to the public hearing, such not  consent does not extend up to the termination of the case.