LEGAL RESEARCH

ATTY. FRANCIS PEORO

S.Y. 2017- 2018

Plagiarism and other related intellectual property rights

Define plagiarism
1. Act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the
ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind (A.M 10-
10-4-SC)
2. Plagiarism to steal and pass off as one’s own the ideas and words of another. (AM 10-7-17- SC)
3. Plagiarism is the deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas and
creative expressions as one’s own (Black’s Law Dictionary)
4. An offense against academic integrity anathema to the strict standards of originality of scholarly
works which members of the academic community subscribe to (DOJ Advisory Opinion No. 02,
Series of 2012)

Define copyright, trademark and patent

COPYRIGHT
1. The legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work.
2. The right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by positive law. (Black’s Law
Dictionary)
3. A right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions,
whereby he is invested, for a limited period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying
copies of the same and publishing and selling them. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
4. The scope of copyright confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual
creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation ( SC
Ruling in Kho v. CA)
TRADEMARK
1. “Mark” means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services
(service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods (Sec.
121.1)
2. Words, name, symbol or device to indicate and distinguish the source and point out distinctly the
origin or ownership of the goods.
3. Trademark – any visible sign capable of distinguishing goods (trademark) or services (service
mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods.(SC Ruling in
Kho v. CA)
PATENT
1. Patent is a legal document which provides protection to the ideas of any individual. (Black’s Law
Dictionary)
2. Its purpose is to foster and reward invention for a limited period, thus, promote disclosure of
inventions.
3. Another purpose is to ensure ideas in the public domain are fee for use by the public.
4. Patentable inventions, on the other hand, refer to any technical solution of a problem in any field
of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. (SC
Ruling in Kho v. CA)

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

1
Plagiarism v. copyright infringement (Source: Ohio State: University Libraries)
What is it?
What rules govern it?
Who enforces the rules?
How can I avoid it?
BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS
PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism occurs when
you use someone else’s
words or ideas without
giving credit to the original
author.
Academic and other
institutions often follow
ethical codes regarding
academic integrity which
prohibit plagiarism and
other misconduct.
Instructors, academic units,
and institutions as a whole
may enforce a variety of
penalties for plagiarism.
Use quotation marks and
ellipses when quoting
directly from another
source. When
you summarize or
paraphrase material,
restate it in your own
words. Whether quoting or
paraphrasing, always credit
the source!
COPYRIGHT
Copyright infringement can
occur if you infringe on the
exclusive rights given to an
author/creator. Those five
rights are:
• Reproduce or make
copies of the work
• Distribute copies of the
work
• Create a derivative work
• Display the work publicly
• Perform the work publicly
Copyright and penalties for
copyright infringement are
governed by federal and, in
some instances, state law.
A copyright owner or
his/her authorized agent
may bring a claim of
copyright infringement.
Claims of copyright
infringement may be settled
in or out of court between
the copyright owner and
the alleged infringer. An
expensive lawsuit could
result, where a judge or
jury determines whether
infringement has occurred
and if so, what the penalty
will be.
There are many options for
using copyrighted material
without infringing:
• Determine if your use falls
under a statutory
exception, such as Fair
Use
• Comply with existing
license terms or terms of
use if available
• Request permission from
the copyright owner to use
the work
2
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by
the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court”)

● Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of
his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s
own mind.

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC (In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, February 8, 2011)

● In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing
sides in a way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that
the parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their
resolution. It was here that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign
authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these present as they
developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of the
peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his
discussions of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his
work was original. He had but done an honest work.
● The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the Philippines and
elsewhere, dare permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions promulgated by its judges or
expose them to charges of plagiarism for honest work done.
● This rule should apply to practicing lawyers as well. Counsels for the petitioners, like all lawyers
handling cases before courts and administrative tribunals, cannot object to this. Although as a
rule they receive compensation for every pleading or paper they file in court or for every opinion
they render to clients, lawyers also need to strive for technical accuracy in their writings. They
should not be exposed to charges of plagiarism in what they write so long as they do not depart,
as officers of the court, from the objective of assisting the Court in the administration of justice.

U.P. Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999

FACTS
Respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine enrolled in the doctoral program in
Anthropology of the UP CSSP Diliman. She already completed the units of course work required and
finished her dissertation and was ready for oral defense. After going over her dissertation, Dr. Medina
informed CSSP Dean Paz that she committed plagiarism. However, respondent was allowed to defend
her dissertation. Four out of the five panelists gave a passing mark except Dr. Medina.
UP held meeting against her case and some of the panels indicated disapproval. Hence, she
expressed her disappointments over the CSSP administration and warned Dean Paz. However, Dean
Paz request the exclusion of Celine’s name from the list of candidates for graduation but it did not reach
the Board of Regents on time, hence Celine graduated.
Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and recommended that the
doctorate granted to her be withdrawn. Dean Paz informed private respondent of the charges against her.
CSSP College Assembly unanimously approved the recommendation to withdraw private
respondent's doctorate degree.

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

3
 The Board sent her a letter indicating that they resolved to withdraw her Doctorate Degree
recommended by the University Council.She sought an audience with the Board of Regents and/or the
U.P. President, which request was denied by President.
Hence, Celine then filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction and damages, alleging that petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without justification
and without affording her procedural due process.

ISSUE: Whether or not Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine was deprived of her right to substantive
due process.

RULING
No. Respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine was indeed heard several times. Several
committees and meetings had been formed to investigate the charge that private respondent had
committed plagiarism and she was heard in her defense.
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain
one's side of a controversy or a chance seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A party
who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been denied due
process.
In the case at bar, Celine was informed in writing of the charges against her and given
opportunities to answer them. She was asked to submit her written explanation which she submitted. She,
as well, met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In
addition, she sent several letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her position.
It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience before
the Board of Regents. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings
similar to those in the courts of justice. It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not require the attendance
of persons whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.

Pearl and Dean Inc. v. Shoemart Inc., G.R. No. 148222. August 15, 2003.

FACTS
Petitioner Pearl and Dean (Phil.), Inc. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising
display units simply referred to as light boxes. Pearl and Dean was able to secure a Certificate of
Copyright Registration over the illuminated display units. The advertising light boxes were marketed under
the trademark “Poster Ads”. Sometime in 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with respondent Shoemart,
Inc. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Since SM City North
Edsa was under construction at that time, SMI offered as an alternative, SM Makati and SM Cubao, to
which Pearl and Dean agreed. Only the contract for SM Makati, however, was returned signed.
However, in 1986, SMI rescinded the contract for SM Makati due to non-performance of the terms
thereof. Sometime in 1989, Pearl and Dean received reports that exact copies of its light boxes were
installed at SM City and in the fast food section of SM Cubao. It further discovered that respondent North
Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI) is a sister company of SMI and was set up primarily to sell advertising space
in lighted display units located in SMI's different branches. In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean,
sent a letter to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and to remove
the same from SMI's establishments and the payment to Pearl and Dean of compensatory damages in
the amount of Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00). Claiming that both SMI and NEMI failed to meet all
its demands, Pearl and Dean filed a case for infringement of trademark and copyright, unfair competition
and damages. P&D also demanded SMI to discontinue the use of the trademark “Poster Ads”. In denying
the charges hurled against it, SMI maintained that it independently developed its poster panels using

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

4
commonly known techniques and available technology, without notice of or reference to Pearl and Dean's
copyright. SMI noted that the registration of the mark "Poster Ads" was only for stationeries such as
letterheads, envelopes, and the like. Besides, according to SMI, the word "Poster Ads" is a generic term
which cannot be appropriated as a trademark, and, such, registration of such mark is invalid. It also
stressed that Pearl and Dean is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in its complaint since its advertising
display units contained no copyright notice, in violation of Section 27 of P.D. 49.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati ruled in favor of Pearl and Dean. On appeal, however, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court upheld SMI when it posited that what was
copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the light boxes themselves, and since the light
boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either prints, pictorial illustrations,
advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly classified as copyrightable under the law.
Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not SMI committed copyright infringement? Patent infringement? Trademark
Infringement?

RULING: NO – PETITION DENIED.

On Copyright Infringement
The SC affirmed the decision of CA. The SC ruled that P & D secured its copyright under the
classification class "O" work. This being so, petitioner's copyright protection extended only to the technical
drawings and not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of "prints, pictorial
illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps." What the law does not include, it excludes,
and for the good reason: the light box was not a literary or artistic piece which could be copyrighted under
the copyright law.
In fine, if SMI and NEMI reprinted P & D's technical drawings for sale to the public without license
from P & D, then no doubt they would have been guilty of copyright infringement. But this was not the
case. SMI's and NEMI's acts complained of by P & D were to have units similar or identical to the light
box illustrated in the technical drawings manufactured.

On Patent Infringement
For some reason or another, petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It therefore
acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it really was. And because it
had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially using the
contraption.
The patent law has a three-fold purpose: "first, patent law seeks to foster and reward invention;
second, it promotes disclosures of inventions to stimulate further innovation and to permit the public to
practice the invention once the patent expires; third, the stringent requirements for patent protection seek
to ensure that ideas in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public."
To be able to effectively and legally preclude others from copying and profiting from the invention,
a patent is a primordial requirement. No patent, no protection. The ultimate goal of a patent system is to
bring new designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure. Ideas, once disclosed to
the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to appropriation without significant restraint.

On Trademark Infringement
This issue concerns the use by respondents of the mark "Poster Ads" which petitioner's president
said was a contraction of "poster advertising." P & D was able to secure a trademark certificate for it, but
one where the goods specified were "stationeries such as letterheads, envelopes, calling cards and

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

5
newsletters." Petitioner admitted it did not commercially engage in or market these goods. On the
contrary, it dealt in electrically operated backlit advertising units and the sale of advertising spaces
thereon, which, however, were not at all specified in the trademark certificate. The failure of P&D to
secure a trademark registration for specific use on the light boxes meant that there could not have been
any trademark infringement since registration was an essential element thereof.

Laws and policies in information dissemination

A. Right to access to information

- Censorship and freedom of expression
- Freedom of information
- Exceptions to Freedom of Information

Chavez v. President Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC

CONCERN AND ACCESS TO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS: The instant petition is
anchored on the right of the people to information and access to official records, documents and papers
— a right guaranteed under Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

"PUBLIC INTEREST" AND "PUBLIC CONCERN," CONSTRUED.

 In Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., the Court emphasized that the information sought must be "matters
of public concern," access to which may be limited by law. Similarly, the state policy of full public
disclosure extends only to "transactions involving public interest" and may also be "subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law."
 As to the meanings of the terms "public interest" and "public concern," the Court, in Legaspi v.
Civil Service Commission, elucidated: "In determining whether or not a particular information is of
public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. 'Public concern' like 'public interest' is a
term that eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts
to determine on a case by case basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as
it relates to or affects the public "
 In Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, the Court also held that official acts of public officers done in
pursuit of their official functions are public in character; hence, the records pertaining to such
official acts and decisions are within the ambit of the constitutional right of access to public
records.

FACTS
1. Francisco Chavez, a taxpayer, citizen and a former government official, initiated these original
actions:
a. To prohibit and enjoin PCGG and its chairman from privately entering into, perfecting
and/or executing any agreement with the heirs of former president Marcos relating to
and concerning the properties and assets of former president Marcos located in the
Philippines and/or abroad – including the so-called Marcos gold hoard.

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

6
 b. To compel PCGG to make public all negotiations and agreement, be they ongoing or
perfected, and all documents related to or relating to such negotiations and
agreement between the PCGG and Marcos heirs.
2. Chavez also initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses and their cronies who committed
unmitigated plunder of the public treasury and the systematic subjugation of the country’s economy.
3. What impelled him to bring this action due to several news reports 2 bannered in a number of
broadsheets sometime in September 1997. These news items were:
a. The alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in various
coded accounts in Swiss banks
b. The reported execution of a compromise, between the government (PCGG) and the
Marcos heirs on how to split or share these assets
4. Chavez demands that PCGG make public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to
PCGG’s task of recovering the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth. According to him, any compromise on the
alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of “paramount public interest,” since it has a
“debilitating effect on the country’s economy” that would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest
of the Filipino people. Hence, the people in general have a right to know the transactions or deals
being contrived and effected by the government.
5. PCGG answers that they do not deny forgoing a compromise agreement with the Marcos heirs.
They claim that Chavez’s action is premature, because there is no showing that he has asked the
PCGG to disclose the negotiations and the agreements. Even if he has, PCGG may not yet be
compelled to make any disclosure, since the proposed terms and conditions of the agreements have
not become effective and binding.
6. Chavez invokes:
a. Sec. 7 Article 3. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
b. Sec. 28 Art 2. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts
and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.
7. PCGG answers that the above constitutional provisions refer to completed and operative official
acts, not to those still being considered.
8. The “information” and the “transactions” referred to in the subject provisions of the Constitution
have as yet no defined scope and extent. There are no specific laws prescribing the exact limitations
within which the right may be exercised or the correlative state duty may be obliged.
9. However, the following are some of the recognized restrictions. Limitations to the right:
a. National Security Matters and Intelligence Information
b. Trade Secrets and Banking Transactions
c. Criminal Matters
d. Other Confidential Information

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court could require the PCGG to disclose to the public the details of any
agreement, perfected or not, with the Marcoses.

RULING: YES. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The General and Supplemental Agreements
dated December 28, 1993, which PCGG and the Marcos heirs entered into are hereby declared NULL
AND VOID for being contrary to law and the Constitution. Respondent PCGG, its officers and all

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

7
government functionaries and officials who are or may be directly or indirectly involved in the recovery of
the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their associates are DIRECTED to disclose to the public
the terms of any proposed compromise settlement, as well as the final agreement, relating to such
alleged ill-gotten wealth.

Gonzalez v. Narvasa, G.R. No. 140835, August 14, 2000.

FACTS
On Dec 9, 1999, petitioner Ramon Gonzales in his capacity as a citizen and a taxpayer assailed
the constitutionality of the creation of the Preparatory Commision on Constitutional Forum (PCCF) that
will study and recommend proposed amendments and/or revisions to the 1987 Consti and the manner of
its implementation. Petitioner prayed for an order to compel respondent Exec Sec Ronaldo Zamora to
furnish petitioner with information on certain matters; he asked to be issued a writ of mandamus ordering
Exec Sec Ronaldo Zamora to answer his letter that requested for the names of executive officials holding
multiple positions in government, copies of their appointments and a list of the recipients of luxury
vehicles seized by the Bureau of Customs and turned over to Malacanang.

ISSUE: Whether or not a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel Zamora to provide information on
certain matters – YES

RULING
YES. Under the 1973/1987 Constitution, the right to information is enshrined in Sec 7 of the Bill
of rights, and it is a self-executing provision which can be invoked by any citizen.
The court held in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commision, the right to information is a public right and
when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, being a citizen satisfies the
personal interest requirement. However, Congress may provide reasonable conditions upon access to
info. Such limitations are in RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees” March 25, 1989. It provides that, in the performance of their duties, public officials and
employees are obliged to respond to letters sent by the public w/in 15 days from receipt to ensure
accessibility of all public docs.
The information to which the public is entitled to are those concerning “matters of public concern”,
which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives or because it aroused
one’s interest. It is for the court to determine in a case to case basis whether an issue is of public interest.
Thus, the court held that Zamora in his official capacity has a constitutional statutory duty to
answer the petitioner’s letter which are unquestionably of public concern. Also, he is obliged to allow
inspection and copying of the appointment papers of certain officials subject to the reasonable limitations
required for the orderly conduct of business.

Ba-Ra 7941 v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007.

FACTS:
Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and
set aside certain issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting party-list groups which
have manifested their intention to participate in the party-list elections on May 14, 2007.
In the first petition, docketed as G.R. No. 177271, petitioners Bantay Republic Act (BA-RA 7941,
for short) and the Urban Poor for Legal Reforms (UP-LR, for short) assail the various Comelec resolutions
accrediting private respondents Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list elections
on May 14, 2007 without simultaneously determining whether or not their respective nominees possess

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

8
the requisite qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the "Party-List System Act" and
belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector each seeks to represent.
In the second, docketed as G.R.No. 177314, petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan
Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution 07-0724 dated April 3, 2007
effectively denying their request for the release or disclosure of the names of the nominees of the
fourteen (14) accredited participating party-list groups mentioned in petitioner Rosales' previous letter-
request.
While the Comelec did not explicitly say so, it based its refusal to disclose the names of the
nominees of subject party-list groups on Section 7 of R.A. 7941.
This provision, while commanding the publication and the posting in polling places of a certified
list of party-list system participating groups, nonetheless tells the Comelec not to show or include the
names of the party-list nominees in said certified list. And doubtless part of Comelec's reason for keeping
the names of the party list nominees away from the public is deducible from the following excerpts of the
news report appearing in the adverted April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Comelec, by refusing to reveal the names of the nominees of the
various party-list groups, has violated the right to information and free access to documents as
guaranteed by the Constitution – YES

RULING
YES. By weight of jurisprudence, any citizen can challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise
of his right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus. And since every citizen by the
simple fact of his citizenship possesses the right to be informed, objections on ground of locus standi are
ordinarily unavailing. Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information and its
companion right of access to official records are not absolute. As articulated in Legaspi, supra, the
people's right to know is limited to " matters of public concern" and is further subject to such limitation as
may be provided by law. Too, there is also the need of preserving a measure of confidentiality on some
matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting national security. The
terms "public concerns" and "public interest" have eluded precise definition. But both terms embrace, to
borrow from Legaspi, a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because
these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally whet the interest of an ordinary
citizen. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to determine, on a case to case basis, whether or not at
issue is of interest or importance to the public. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list
groups subject of their respective petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
The last sentence of Section 7 of R.A. 7941 reading: " The names of the partylist nominees shall
not be shown on the certified list" is certainly not a justifying card for the Comelec to deny the requested
disclosure. To us, the prohibition imposed on the Comelec under said Section 7 is limited in scope and
duration, meaning, that it extends only to the certified list which the same provision requires to be posted
in the polling places on election day. To stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute is to read
into the law something that is not intended.
It has been repeatedly said in various contexts that the people have the right to elect their
representatives on the basis of an informed judgment. Hence the need for voters to be informed about
matters that have a bearing on their choice. The ideal cannot be achieved in a system of blind voting, as
veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the Comelec.
In all, we agree with the petitioners that respondent Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose
and release the names of the nominees of the party-list groups named in the herein petitions.

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

9
 WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 177271 is partly DENIED insofar as it seeks to nullify the
accreditation of the respondents named therein. However, insofar as it seeks to compel the Comelec to
disclose or publish the names of the nominees of party-list groups, sectors or organizations accredited to
participate in the May 14, 2007 elections, the same petition and the petition in G.R. No. 177314 are
GRANTED. Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby ORDERED to immediately disclose and release the
names of the nominees of the party-list groups, sectors or organizations accredited to participate in the
May 14, 2007 party-list elections. The Comelec is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court its
compliance herewith within five (5) days from notice hereof.

B. Right to privacy and confidentiality

Ople v. Torres- G.R. No. 127685, July. 23, 1998.

FACTS
Petitioner Senator Blas Ople assails the validity of Admin. Order No. 308 issued by President
Fidel V. Ramos entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” in so far
as it is an usurpation of the legislative power of Congress and it intrudes the citizen’s constitutional right to
privacy under the Bill of Rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not AO 308 violates the right to privacy – YES

RULING
YES. The broadness, vagueness and overbreadth of AO 308 will put the people’s right to privacy
in clear and present danger. AO 308 does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological
information alone for identification purposes. It does not provide who shall control and access the data,
under what circumstances and for what purpose, which are essential factors to safeguard the privacy and
guaranty the integrity of the information. There is, thus, a potential for misuse of the data to be gathered.
Its indefinite purpose can give the government the roving authority to store and retrieve information for
purposes other than the identification of individuals through his Population Reference Number (PRN).

Additional specific details: A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by
enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access
confidential information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for
"fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are
accentuated when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID,
much less verify the correctness of the data encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of
Rights seeks to prevent.

Disini v. Secretary of Justice - G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014.

FACTS
Petitioners assail the validity of several provisions of the Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. They claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for
regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. The government

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

10
of course asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities, punish
wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.

ISSUES: Whether or not the following provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 are
unconstitutional:
a. Section 4 (a) (1) on Illegal Access;
b. Section 4 (a) (3) on Data Interference;
c. Section 4 (a) (6) on Cyber-squatting;
d. Section 4 (b) (3) on Identity Theft;

Petitioners claim that Section 4 (b) (3) violates the constitutional rights to due process and to
privacy and correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the press.
The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a
facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the Court
acknowledged its existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, “it ruled that the right to privacy exists
independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of constitutional protection.”
Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept known as the "Zones of
Privacy." The Court explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of
Sabio v. Senator Gordon" the relevance of these zones to the right to privacy:
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is
a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized men," but also from our adherence to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks."
Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to
privacy of communication and correspondence,

a. Section 4 (c) (1) on Cybersex;

b. Section 4 (c) (2) on Child Pornography;
c. Section 4 (c) (3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications;
d. Section 4 (c) (4) on Libel;
e. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes;
f. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;
g. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175;
h. Section 8 on Penalties;
i. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;
j. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data;
k. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data;
l. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data;
m. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data;
n. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;
o. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;
p. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and
q. Section 26 (a) on CICC's Powers and Functions.

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

11
 Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the
RPC on the crime of libel.

RULING

1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4 (c) (3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited commercial
communications;
b. Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and
c. Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to
suspected Computer Data.

2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL:

a. Section 4 (a) (1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right;
b. Section 4 (a) (3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses;
c. Section 4 (a) (6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over the internet in bad
faith to the prejudice of others;
d. Section 4 (b) (3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying information
belonging to another;
e. Section 4 (c) (1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
activity for favor or consideration;
f. Section 4 (c) (2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;
g. Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes de ned under the Revised
Penal Code are committed with the use of information and communications technologies;
h. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;
i. Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service providers to preserve tra c
data and subscriber information as well as specified content data for six months;
j. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued warrant;
k. Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data under a court-
issued warrant;
l. Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer data after the
expiration of the prescribed holding periods;
m. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime investigations;
n. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC);
o. Section 26 (a) that defines the CICC's Powers and Functions; and
p. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel.

Further, the Court DECLARES:

1. Section 4 (c) (4) that penalizes online libel as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with respect to the
original author of the post; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to others who
simply receive the post and react to it; and
2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as
VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to Section 4 (a) (1) on Illegal Access, Section 4
(a) (2) on Illegal Interception, Section 4 (a) (3) on Data Interference, Section 4 (a) (4) on System
Interference, Section 4 (a) (5) on Misuse of Devices, Section 4 (a) (6) on Cyber-squatting, Section
4 (b) (1) on Computer-related Forgery, Section 4 (b) (2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4 (b)
(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4 (c) (1) on Cybersex; but VOID and

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

12
 UNCONSTITUTIONAL with respect to Sections 4 (c) (2) on Child Pornography, 4 (c) (3) on
Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and 4 (c) (4) on online Libel.

Lastly, the Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the correct application of
Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic
Act 10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the crimes of:
1. Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4 (c) (4) of Republic Act 10175
and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against
double jeopardy; as well as
2. Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4 (c)
(2) of Republic Act 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also
constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Vivares v. St Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014.

FACTS
● Petition for review on certiorari in relation to AM NO 08-1-16-SC. Assails RTC-Cebu decision
dismissed habeas data petition (July 27, 2012).
● Julia Daluz and Julienne Suzura are minors and graduating high school students from St.
Theresa’s College-Cebu. Sometime in Jan. 2012, they, along with several other girls, took digital
pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. They were uploaded by Angela Tan on
her Facebook profile.
● Escudero, computer teacher from STC HS dept., learned from her students that some seniors at
STC posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in brassieres.
Her students logged in their respective accounts and showed her photos of the identified students
which also included them drinking hard liquor, smoking cigarettes, and wearing provocative attire
along the streets of Cebu.
● Escudero reported the matter to Tigol (Discipline-in-Charge) for appropriate action in which they
violated 6 provisions of their handbook.
a. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus;
b. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts
c. Smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages in public places;
d. Apparel that exposes the underwear
e. Clothing that advocates unhealthy behaviour; depicts obscenity; contains sexually
suggestive messages, language or symbols; and
f. Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure.
● On Mar. 1, 2012, they reported to the office of Sr. Purisima (HS principal and ICM Directress).
Wherein they claim to be castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials. Further, their
parents were informed that they would be barred from joining the commencement exercises on
Mar. 30, 2012
● On Mar. 23, 2012, Angela’s mother filed a petition for injunction and damages before the RTC
praying the for the enjoinment of the sanction on Angela. Five days later, the defendants filed
their memorandum containing printed pictures of the minors. RTC issued TRO to allow students
to graduate. However, STC still barred them from participating.
● Thereafter, the petitioners petitioned for the Issuance of a writ of habeas data on the following
basis:
a. Invasion of their children’s privacy by acquiring photo;

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

13
 b. Acquiring them from STC computer lab; and
c. Broadcasting through their memorandum
● Wherein they prayed from the writ to be issued, surrender all soft and hard copies of the pictures
at the preliminary hearing, and render judgement that materials were illegally obtained.
● On July 5, habeas data was issued. However, on Jul. 27, RTC dismissed their petition citing
failure to prove existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minor’s privacy. Photos were
uploaded without restrictions as to audience. Acquisition of the photos were done thru legal
means and for legal purpose.

ISSUE: Whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued – NO (there was no violation of right to
privacy)

RULING
NO. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on the
one hand, and the right to life, liberty, or security on the other. Further, photos uploaded on Facebook
were not with restrictions as to audience as alleged by the minors (access were set to “Friends Only” not
to “Custom” 5 people). The availability of the pictures was the reason the Escudero, thru her students,
was able to acquire them. Thus, they cannot invoke the right to informational privacy (see notes for
discussion) on Facebook.

OTHER NOTES

A.M. NO. 08-1-16-SC. The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data | Jan. 22, 2008

Section 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Section 2. Who May File. — Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data.
However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
a. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and
parents;
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Three Strands of Right to Privacy

1. Locational or situational privacy
2. Informational privacy
3. Decisional privacy

Related laws:
 R.A. 8293 (1996) – Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Part IV (Law on Copyright).
 R.A. 10173 – Data Privacy Act
 R.A. 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
 Executive Order No. 2, Series of 2016
 Inventory of exceptions to E.O. 2, Series of 2016

BAUTO - BERNAL - DELA CRUZ - GUANSING - MENDOZA - PEREZ - SANTOS

14