G.R. No. 127685 - Separate Opinion

G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998,
♦ Decision, Puno, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Romero, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Vitug, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Panganiban, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Kapunan, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Mendoza, [J]

BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner,
vs.
RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

Aside from the distinguishing physical characteristics, man is a rational being, one who is endowed with intellect which allows him to apply reasoned judgment to problems at hand; he has the innate spiritual faculty which can tell, not only what is right but, as well, what is moral and ethical. Because of his sensibilities, emotions and feelings, he likewise possesses a sense of shame. In varying degrees as dictated by diverse cultures, he erects a wall between himself and the outside world wherein he can retreat in solitude, protecting himself from prying eyes and ears and their extensions, whether form individuals, or much later, from authoritarian intrusions.

Piercing through the mists of time, we find the original Man and Woman defying the injunction of God by eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden. And when their eyes were "opened" forthwith "they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."1 Down the corridors of time, we find man fashioning "fig leaves" of sorts or setting up figurative walls, the better to insulate themselves from the rest of humanity.

Such vague stirrings of the desire "to be left alone," considered "anti-social" by some, led to the development of the concept of "privacy," unheard of among beasts.ᇈWᑭHIL Different branches of science, have made their own studies of this craving of the human spirit — psychological, anthropological sociological and philosophical, with the legal finally giving its imprimatur by elevating it to the status ofa right, specifically a private right.

Initially recognized as an aspect of tort law, it created giant waves in legal circles with the publication in the Harvard Law Review2 of the trail-blazing article, "The Right to Privacy," by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis.

Whether viewed as a personal or a property right, it found its way in Philippine Constitutions and statutes; this, in spite of the fact that Philippine culture can hardly be said to provide a fertile field for the burgeoning of said right. In fact, our lexicographers have yet to coin a word for it in the Filipino language. Customs and practices, being what they have always been, Filipinos think it perfectly natural and in good taste to inquire into each other's intimate affairs.

One has only to sit through a televised talk show to be convinced that what passes for wholesome entertainment is actually an invasion into one's private life, leaving the interviewee embarrassed and outraged by turns.7!ᕼdMᗄ7

With the overarching influence of common law and the recent advent of the Information Age with its high-tech devices, the right to privacy has expanded to embrace its public law aspect.ℒαwρhi৷ The Bill of Rights of our evolving Charters, a direct transplant from that of the United States, contains in essence facets of the right to privacy which constitute limitations on the far-reaching powers of government.

So terrifying are the possibilities of a law such as Administrative Order No. 308 in making inroads into the private lives of the citizens, a virtual Big Brother looking over our shoulder, that it must, without delay, be "slain upon sight" before our society turns totalitarian with each of us, a mindless robot.