Private Citizen cannot claim removal of jurisprudence on the premise that his/her name was mentioned in the said case thus violating his right of privacy. It is basic rule that jurisprudence such as decisions of Supreme Court form part of the law of the land. Such decision should be made available or accessible to public being a public document. You cannot therefore remove the jurisprudence in its entirety, however pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People vs Cabalquinto there are information’s which are material to the case that was withheld such as the real name of the rape victim and instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her, also the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members are not disclosed in said decision. Such jurisprudence still exists but information as to the identity of the victim was withdrawn and such other matter which will reveal her identity. It is in response to a letter from a mother of a child abuse victim which is addressed to the Chief Justice expressing her anxiety over the posting of full text decision of the Supreme Court on its web page. The mother in that case submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of the child must prevail over public access to information and pleaded that her daughter's case, as well as those of a similar nature, be excluded from the Web Page.
Only those protected by RA 7610 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse , RA 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and Rule on Violence against Women and their Children can claim right of privacy for the confidentiality of information disclosed in the judicial proceeding. Such information should not be posted in the web page.
Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides that. Confidentiality-at the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case.
Likewise Sec. 44 of RA 9262 similarly provides that: Confidentiality. All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics or hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member, without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the court.
Moreover, the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children states that: Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings. All hearings of cases of violence against women and their children shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the dignity of women and their children and respect for their privacy.
It was definitely clear that those falls under the protection of the above provisions can claim right to privacy and such information as previously stated should not be disclosed in public especially via internet where public can have an easy access of such information in a snap of finger. In weighing the right of privacy and right to access to information, right of privacy covered under those provisions should prevail over the latter.
Right of privacy may be invoked by anyone provided that it must be shown that the person’s expectation of privacy is reasonable. Such expectancy depends on two part test (a) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy and (b) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. Such right cannot claim by any other person such as the accused on a case, women not covered by the above provisions and those who are not minors. We should considered facts and circumstances surrounding the issue whether by his conduct, the individual exhibit expectation of the right of privacy and such expectation is reasonably recognized by our society.
