Dear PAOL

A certain girl was threatening to file a criminal action against me, and she alleged that she would utilize the private messages that I sent her in Facebook messenger to support her complaint. I am thinking that these private messages cannot be utilized as pieces of evidence against me because doing so would be tantamount to a violation of my right to privacy.

Martene

Dear Martene,

The right to privacy is enshrined under Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, viz.:

“(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except ”pon 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.”

This fundamental right was expounded in the case entitled Bill and Hing v. Choachuy, GR 179736, June 26, 2013, written by then Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, where the Supreme Court said that:

“The right to privacy is the right to be let alone. The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as ‘the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. It is the right of an individual ‘to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned.’ Simply put, the right to privacy is ‘THE right to be let alone.’”

It is important to emphasize that the right to privacy may be raised by a private individual against abuses committed by the government or its agents. This finds support in the case of Cadajas v. People of the Philippines, GR 247348, Nov. 16, 2021, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, stated that:

“While the above provision highlights the importance of the right to privacy and its consequent effect on the rules on admissibility of evidence, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect private individuals against government intrusions. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals. As explained in People v. Marti:

“That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he himself posed, as follows:

“First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas, Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Emphasis supplied)

Applying the above-cited decision to your situation, the constitutional provision on the right to privacy under Article III of the Bill of Rights is essentially for the protection of private individuals from government intrusions. Thus, the said protection may not cover a situation where a private individual (girl) who threatened to utilize the private messages you sent to her as pieces of evidence to support her complaint.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.