07/12/2025
✅ Legal Opinion from our Of Counsel, Atty. Ralph A. Sarmiento!
𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲'𝘀 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗼𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁?
Yes. While the Bill of Rights protects privacy against government intrusion, 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲. If a private person (not a police officer or state agent) obtains the messages, those messages are admissible as evidence in court.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the right to privacy is expressly recognized under Article III, Section 3 thereof, which reads:
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
In 𝗖𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗷𝗮𝘀 𝘃. 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 (G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021), the Supreme Court en banc held that while the above provision “highlights the importance of the right to privacy and its consequent effect on the rules on admissibility of evidence, one must not lose sight of the fact that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals.”
In Cadajas, the Court explained that “the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messenger account that were obtained and used as evidence against petitioner, which he considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not obtained through the efforts of the police officers or any agent of the State. Rather, these were obtained by a private individual. Indeed, the rule governing the admissibility of an evidence under Article III of the Constitution must affect only those pieces of evidence obtained by the State through its agents. It is these individuals who can flex government muscles and use government resources for a possible abuse. However, where private individuals are involved, for which their relationship is governed by the New Civil Code, the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights.”
The Cadajas ruling follows the logic of 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘃. 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶 (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991) where the Supreme Court ruled that “the constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.”
In his sponsorship speech on the Bill of Rights, Commissioner 𝗝𝗼𝗮𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘀 explained:
“The protection of fundamental liberties is the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986, also cited in People v. Marti and Cadajas v. People)
In Cadajas, the Court also held that while the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights, 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 is properly governed by the provisions of the 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲, the 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁 (𝗗𝗣𝗔), and other pertinent laws.
Take note, however, that the use of evidence against the spouse may fall under the 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗣𝗔, particularly under Section 13(f) and Section 19, which state:
𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝟭𝟯. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information. - The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information shall be 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗵𝗶𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 in the following cases:
(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority.
𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝟭𝟵. Non-Applicability. - x x x Likewise, the immediately preceding sections are not applicable to processing of personal information gathered 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 in relation to any 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹, 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 or 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 of a data subject.
