ROE VS WADE

Right to privacy is the right to be left alone, right of a person to be free from any
unwarranted publicity; right to live freely from unwarranted interference by the public in matter
which public is not necessarily concerned.

In Roe vs Wade, a law was enacted having the procurement or attempt of an abortion as a
crime except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant
Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face and
an injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District Attorney from enforcing the statutes.
Appellant alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant, and that she was unable to receive a
legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by the continuation of
her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal
abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming
that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy. Hence,
the Court ruled in favor of the appellant and has set aside the right to life argument. Court
recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of
personal pivacy. Hence, this case, initiated various debates up until now discussing the extent of
legal abortion in today’s generation. The case prompted discussions and divided people into pro-
life and pro-choice.

In Ople vs Torres, where an administrative order was issued for the adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System, the petitioner asserted that it
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. The court ruled in favor of
the petitioner declaring the administrative order null and void. The Court further discussed that
this System endangers the people’s right to privacy. The administrative order makes the
information of the people vulnerable to various abuses, misuse and exploitations to which the
Court emphasized as a fundamental right of the people vested by the Constitution.

Hence, the both cases manifested the emphasis of the protection of the Courts to the right
of privacy rendering decisions safeguarding an individual’s right to enjoy his life free from
unwarranted publicity which does not concerns the same. The right to privacy is a fundamental
right that must be enjoyed by every individual and must be protected by the Government. In the
1987 Constitution there are right to privacy are; the right to security of persons, their houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the right to privacy of
communication and correspondence. In view of technological advancement, the right to privacy
was further expanded by the promulgation of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data in 2008,
which authorizes the deletion or rectification of erroneous data or information.
It is safe to say that in the Philippines there is already a slow but steady innovation of the right to
privacy. Laws enacted allow the people to manage of how their personal data is procured through
the right to delete and the right to revise the same. Hence, the progress in this aspect is in fact
being acknowledged by the Courts however,