What is the meaning of right to privacy? 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. Where can we find the right of privacy under our Constitution? Article III, Section 3, of the Philippine Constitution states that

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable e!cept upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order re"uires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

What is the purpose of this right? It is considered as belonging to that class of rights which every human being possesses in his natural state and which he does not lose or surrender by becoming a member of organi#ed society. It is founded in the belief in a person$s inherent right to en%oy his private life without having incidents relative thereto made public against his will. The right has been e"uated with the right to live as one chooses under the law, free from interference in the pursuit of one$s choices. Are there any limitations to this right? &es. The right is not violated when the interference is made upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order re"uires otherwise as prescribed by law. With regards to a married couple, can one of the partners invade the privacy of the other to obtain evidence that will incriminate the latter? 'o. The intimacy between the husband and wife do not %ustify any one of them in brea(ing the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransac(ing them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his)her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by ma(ing it privileged. 'either husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. 'either may be e!amined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified e!ceptions. *ut one thing is freedom of communication+ "uite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one

(nows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.
SECTION 3 Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence-Philippines Constitution CASE DOCT INES!"#The privacy of communication and correspondence shall $e inviola$le e%cept uponla&ful order of the court' or &hen pu$lic safety or order re(uires other&ise' as prescri$ed$y la&)!*# Any evidence o$tained in violation of this and the precedin+ section shall $einadmissi$le for anypurpose in any proceedin+) ,hat type of communication - correspondence does the provision cover. -"/30 Consti Convention 12letters - messa+es3 carried $y a+encies of +ov4t -Coorected5 2used in +eneral sense3 -Olmstead doctrine 1&hen there is no actual trespass' there is no search' - &here the o$6ect is not tan+i$le' it cannot $e sei7ed) Tan+i$les 1house' papers' persons- effects)) -8at7 v 9S overruled Olmstead 1includes &ire-tappin+' &ith or &ithout trespass under the $an of search - sei7ure clause,hat are the conditions for allo&a$le intrusion into the privacy of communication -correspondence.::The +uarantee +iven $y the privacy provision is not a$soluteIntent of ;aurel is to condition allo&a$le intrusion upon an order of a court 2person entitled to his secrets $ut if it involves pu$lic (uestions &<c State ou+ht to =no& may infrin+e that privacy !process or appeal to Court# "#;a&ful order *#Pu$lic safety - order so demands ::te%t not +ive any +round to allo& intrusion $ut there must $e pro$a$le cause that privacy ri+ht is $ut an aspect of the ri+ht to $e secure in one4s person)) :: identity of person - offense - the period of authori7ation +iven can $e specified,hen in intrusion is made &ithout 6udicial order.Pu$lic order - pu$lic safety throu+h non-

6udicial +ov4t official E%5 E%ec) Officer can order intrusion &hen in his 6ud+ment' even &<o prior courtapproval he $elieves that PS - PO so re(uires)PO - PS 1security of human lives' li$erty - property a+ainst the activities of invaders' insurrectionists - re$els)A) E%clusionary ule !Second para+raph of Section 3#People v) >arti 1pac=a+e $ound for S&it7erland 1The ?ill of i+hts is not meant to $einvo=ed a+ainst act of private individuals) It is directed a+ainst the +overnment and itsa+encies tas=ed &ith the enforcement of the la&) The constitutional a+ainst unreasona$lesearches and sei7ures cannot $e e%tended to acts committed $y a private individual) ?) ,aiver of i+hts@eroy v) ;aya+ue

1search of re$els in a house 1Permission &as +ranted $y @eroy to enterthe house $ut only to ascertain the presence of re$el soldiers) ,here permission to enter aresidence &as +iven'it is ille+al to search the rooms therein and sei7e firearms &ithout as search &arrant) O=a$e v) Autierre7 1estafa case 1An application for or admission to $ail shall not $ar theaccused from challen+in+ the validity of his arrest or the le+ality of the &arrant issuedtherefore)) An application for $ail SBA;; NOT ?E considered as a &aiver of ri+hts) A valid&aiver' re(uisites) "# ri+hts must e%istC *# there must $e clear and convincin+ proof that there&as an actual intention to relin(uish the ri+ht C) Anti-,ire Tappin+ ActNavarro v) CA 1police complaint +one $ad 1&here the e%chan+e $et&een t&o persons is not private' the tape recordin+ is not prohi$ited Salcedo-Ordone7 v) CA 1annulment &ith dama+es 1hus$and is cheatin+ on me case

1 9nauthori7ed tape recordin+s of telephone conversations not admissi$le D) Privacy of ?an= Accounts >ar(ue7 v) Desierto

1secrecy of $an= deposits 1e%ceptions5 "# depositor consents in &ritin+C*# su$6ect of an impeachment caseC 3# $y court order in cases of $ri$ery and dereliction $ypu$lic officials' D# deposit is su$6ect of liti+ationC 0# une%plained &ealth E) Privacy of Communication o%as v) Eu7uare+ui

1contempt of the Supreme Court 1the letter ceased to $e private &hen o%as furnished the letter to the all the 6ustices and not 6ust to the one &hom it is addressed