The State, the widow, and the right to privacy

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

There is a soft spot for widows.

In the Bible, Jesus was moved with compassion upon seeing a widow burying her only son. In 1986, Marcos was forced to flee to Hawaii in haste because the Filipino people’s adulation for Ninoy Aquino’s widow was overwhelming. (It was reported that Marcos and his family had left their food still warm on the dining table.) The widow Cory Aquino eventually became president.  When the COMELEC opened its gates for the filing of certificates of candidacy this month, another widow, the incumbent Vice-President Leni Robredo, hogged the news when she staked her claim to the presidency by declaring her decision to vie for the post.

Relatedly, a widow of less prominence took the mighty State to task for violating her privacy rights in In the matter of petition for Writ of Amparo of Vivian A. Sanchez v. Psupt. Marc Anthony D. Darroca, Chief of Police, San Jose Municipal Police Station; Pssupt. Leo Irwin D. Agpangan, Provicial Director, PNP-Antique; Pcsupt. John C. Bulalacao, Regional Director, PNP-Region VI, and Members of the PNP under their authority (G.R. No. 242257) which was handed down only last June 15, 2021.

In the case, the widow and her children were subjected to interrogation relative to their relationship with the deceased who was tagged as a communist rebel. When they refused to cooperate, the State’s agents doggedly pursued them in the guise of a military investigation involving “persons of interest”. They were surveilled relentlessly and were threatened with charges for obstruction of justice if they refused to budge. The widow and her children sought refuge from the Court.  Granting the widow and her children a Writ of Amparo (ie., protection accorded to an individual whose life, liberty or security is under threat from State forces), the Supreme Court ruled that:

“The right to privacy is a fundamental right, with the Constitution providing explicit limitations on unwarranted State intrusion into personal affairs. To deter potential abuse of the State’s awesome powers by State agents, the Constitution guarantees every person’s right to due process, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to the privacy of their communication and correspondence.

One’s right to privacy is not set aside because of their relationship with a person of interest or because they have become a person of interest. X x x While respondents have the mandate to investigate, their duty must be balanced with petitioner’s fundamental rights. Respondents must also take into account that petitioner and her children are not ordinary witnesses, as seen by the privileges of testimony and communication that they enjoy. Hence, petitioner’s relationship with her husband insulates her from any inquiries on his supposed communist activities. Whatever information respondents may have wished to obtain from petitioner or her children, as witting or unwitting witnesses, is protected by spousal and filial privilege.”

The Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to privacy.  The right to privacy has been recognized as a right in itself, independent of the right to liberty. Thus, it is not correct to say that one’s right to privacy is not violated if he or she is physically free.

“x x x In the leading case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas, stated: “Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. X x x The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” After referring to various American Supreme Court decisions, Justice Douglas continued: “These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition is a legitimate one.” x x x           x x x          x x x

So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. The language of Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: “The concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government, safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this private sector — protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individual — has become increasingly important as modern society has developed. All the forces of a technological age — industrialization, urbanization, and organization — operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society.” (Emphases supplied) (MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN, in his capacity as the PNP-Provincial Director of Ilocos Norte, and P/SUPT. WILLIAM O. FANG, in his capacity as Chief, Intelligence Division, PNP Provincial Office, Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. 193636               July 24, 2012).

Governmental powers are staggering. They especially become dangerous when recklessly unleashed against private citizens. What the humble widow’s case had shown is that the lowly citizen can be as powerful too. The right to privacy is sacrosanct. The Constitution that envisages it is an armory of legal weapons that can be used as anti-missiles to counter the State agents’ wayward bombs when the circumstances call for it.

Indeed, when the constitutional provisions protecting liberty and privacy are correctly summoned, and the justice system functions well, a humble widow becomes a national figure, too.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).