Article III, Section 3, Section 1, of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines informs the public that “the secrecy of communications and correspondence is inviolable except by lawful order of the court or when security or public order requires otherwise, as required by law.” [68] This country not only grants Filipinos the right to privacy, but also protects the right of its people to privacy by establishing the consequences of its violation. In 2012, the Philippines passed Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012. [69] This law extended data protection regulations and laws to more than individual industries. This law also provided for the protection of individuals` data, regardless of where it is stored, whether privately or not. In the same year, the Law on the Prevention of Cybercrime was adopted. This law aimed to “protect and protect the integrity of computer and communication systems” and prevent their misuse. [61] The Philippines has not only these laws, but also officials responsible for regulating these confidentiality rules and ensuring the punishment of violators. In addition, with the Constitution, previous laws that were passed but violated the aforementioned laws were declared invalid and annulled. Another way in which this country has shown its commitment to implementing this law is to extend it to the governmental sphere as well.
Furthermore, as a Member of the United Nations, the Philippines is bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article two of which states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack. [32] Box 9. Examples of data protection supervisory authorities Thus, if an agency receives a FOIA request for information about an individual contained in a registration system that cannot be properly withheld under a FOIA exemption, it follows that the agency is “required under section 552 of this title” to disclose the information to the FOIA applicant. This would be a disclosure required under paragraph (b)(2). However, if a FOIA exemption – generally Exception 6 (personal and medical records) or Exception 7(C) (law enforcement information that could constitute a privacy breach) – applies to a record protected by data protection law, the Data Protection Act prohibits a government agency from issuing a “discretionary” FOIA because such disclosure would not be “required” by the FOIA for the purposes of of subsection (b)(2). See, e.g., DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 502 (1994); Big Ridge, Inc. v.
Fed. Mine Safety and Health Review Comm`n, 715 F.3d 631, 651 (7th Cir. 2013); Navy v. FLRA, 975 F.2d 348, 354-56 (7th Cir. 1992); Andrews v. VA, 838 F.2d 418, 422-24 & n.8 (10th Cir. 1988); Roble v. DOJ, 311 F. Supp.3d 161, 163-64 (D.D.C. 2018); Ecological rights found.
c. FEMA, Nr. 16-cv-05254, Slip op. cit. at 14-16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017); Jett v.
FBI, 139 Akmal v. United States, No. C12-1499, 2014 WL 906231, at *3 (W.D. Wash. March 7, 2014); Robbins v. HHS, No. 1:95-cv-3258, slip op. cit. at 2-9 (N.D. Ga. 13 August 1996), aff`d, 120 F.3d 275 (unveröffentlichte Tabellenentscheidung) (11th Cir.
8. Juli, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. 1194, 1199-1200 (D.N.H. 1989); Howard v. Marsh, 654 F. Supp.
853, 855-56 (E.D. Mo. 1986), aff`d, 855 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1988) (unveröffentlichte Tabellenentscheidung); Ass`n v. HEW, 479 F. Supp. 1291, 1305-07 (M.D. Fla. 1979), geräumt, 947 F. Supp.
2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2013); Providence Journal Co. gegen FBI, 460 F. Supp. 762, 767 (D.R.I. 1978), revidiert aus anderen Gründen, 602 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 1979); Phila. Newspapers, Inc. gegen DOJ, 405 F. Supp. 8, 10 (E.D.
Pa. 1975); siehe auch OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Reg. Fed. at 28 954, www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75. The fact that “a court is not defined as an `agency` or a `person` within the meaning of [data protection law]” (see definitions below) suggests that the law “was not intended to interfere with court access to information.” 120 Cong. Rec. 36,967 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 958-59, www.justice.gov/opcl/paoverview_sourcebook. Nevertheless, the public filing of documents in court in litigation constitutes a paragraph (b) of disclosure. See Laningham v. Navy, no.
83-3238, Slip op. cit. at 2-3 (D.D.C. 25 September 1984), summary judgment (D.D.C. 7 January 1985), aff`d per curiam, 813 F.2d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Citizens Bureau of Investigation v. FBI, No. 78-60, Slip op. cit. at 2-3 (N.D. Ohio 14 Dec.
1979). Accordingly, this public deposit must be made with written consent or in accordance with the common use exception in paragraph (b)(3) or the court order exception in paragraph (b)(11), both of which are discussed below. See generally Krohn v. DOJ, No. 78-1536, Slip op. cit. at 3-11 (D.D.C. 19 March 1984) (finding a violation of the Privacy Act, where the Agency`s disclosure of documents appended to affidavits in the FOIA prosecution “did not fall within any of the exemptions listed in section 552a”), review and rescission in an irrelevant part (D.D.C. 29 Nov. 1984) (see below).
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, drawn up and adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 and which currently covers the entire European continent, with the exception of Belarus and Kosovo, protects the right to respect for private life: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. The extensive case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has defined privacy and established its protection as a positive right for all.