CASE Griswold v Connecticut

ACT CHALLENGED General Statutes of Connecticut (imprisonment for using contraceptives and for assisting in such)

ACTOR Estelle Griswold and Lee Buxton

TEST USED Overbreadth (?)

ACT VALID? NO

RATIO A governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms (since it was established in this case that the right to privacy does exist as a penumbral right) Void for vagueness; AO does not specify particular biometrics technologies or biological characteristics to be measured, and for what purpose, opening it to abuse by the authorities The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The affairs of public figures become matters of public interest; Enrile, being a public figure, has lost, to some extent, his right to privacy; as long as the movie does not enter into matters of essentially private concern, it may be carried out even without Enriles approval Being a public figure ipso facto does not automatically destroy in toto a person's right to privacy The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities. EO 420 draws safeguards re: ID systems where there used to be none; EO 420 is a valid exercise of presidential power under the Faithful Execution Clause The inquiry is in relation to acts done by Sabio in the exercise of his official functions. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a matter involving a public corporation, since it is a matter of public concern over which people have the right to information (compelling interest: PHILCOMSAT anomalies)

Ople v Torres

AO 308 (Adoption of a National ID System) CA decision ordering Zulueta to return papers taken by her without Martins consent

Blas Ople

Zulueta v CA

Cecilia Zulueta

Ayer v Capulong

Filming of The Four Day Revolution

Juan Ponce Enrile Maria Soto Vda. de Gonzales KMU et al

Strict Scrutiny (since the right to privacy is fundamental) Application of Constitutional provision (W/N there was a lawful order from a court etc.) Balancing of Interests (right to privacy v freedom of speech) Balancing of Interests (right to privacy v freedom of speech) Rational Basis

NO

YES

YES

Lagunzad v Soto Vda. de Gonzales KMU v DirectorGeneral Sabio v Gordon

Screening of The Moises Padilla Story EO 420 (Harmonizing ID Systems)

YES

YES

Arrest of Sabio for contempt due to his refusal to appear in a Senate hearing under an inquiry in aid of legislation

Camilo Sabio

Strict Scrutiny (compelling State interest)

YES

Standard Chartered v Senate Committee on Banks SJS v Dangerous Drugs Board

Subpoena served by the Senate upon petitioners, who occupy high positions in Standard Chartered Bank RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Sec. 36 (required drug tests for candidates for public office, students, public officers, persons charged with certain offenses

Standard Chartered + its officials SJS

Rational Basis

YES

There is no infringement upon the right to privacy when there is a valid purpose behind the requirement to disclose information Legislature cannot add to requirements provided in the Constitution; reduced expectation for students (due to waiver of right to privacy and submission to authority of teachers upon entering school) and public officials (due to public accountability), plus the law meets a compelling State interest, and is narrowly drawn; persons accused of crimes do not necessarily waive their right to privacy, drug tests for accused are neither random nor suspicionless Bank secrecy remains a state policy due to the Bank Secrecy Act; AMLA provides an exception to this secrecy, but specific requirements must be strictly met

Repugnancy to the Constitution (re: candidates for office), Balancing of Interests (re: students, public officers)

NO, YES, NO

Republic v Eugenio

Issuance ex parte of bank inquiry orders into the accounts of Alvarez and Cheng

Pantaleon Alvarez, Lilia Cheng

OCA v Reyes

Nacague v Sulpicio Lines Pollo v ConstantinoDavid

Administrative charges against De Guzman (not really challenged, as he simply ignored them) Termination of Nacague for grave misconduct and loss of confidence due to use of illegal drugs Copying of files re: alleged lawyering of Pollo for people with pending cases with the CSC

OCA

None (since there is already definite statutory basis on the right to privacy re: bank accounts, via the Bank Secrecy Act) None (since no challenge) Implementation of RA 9165 Reasonableness

NO

YES

Upheld ruling in SJS v DDB re: public officials

Jeffrey Nacague Briccio Pollo

NO

YES

Meralco v Lim

Lims petition for a Writ of Habeas Data

Meralco

Rules on Writ of Habeas Data

NO

Sulpicio Lines failed to establish that it properly followed the procedures in RA 9165 to ensure accurate results (accredited drug testing center, screening and confirmatory tests, etc.) Being a public officer and using a computer which is under the Office Computer Use Policy, Pollo has no reasonable expectation of privacy re: the contents of said computer; search was reasonable because it was performed upon reasonable grounds for suspecting that it would turn up with evidence re: work-related misconduct No showing that Lims right to privacy was being violated; case concerned her employment, which was a property right; contention that non-disclosure of

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