1. Basis―Scope of the protection The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a

facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.oRelevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept known as the Zones of Privacy.1

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a constitutional right and the right most valued by civilized men, but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy and everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

a) Decisional privacy involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions.2

b) Informational privacy refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.1) the right not to have private information disclosed; and2) the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.

oTwo-fold test in determining the right:a) Subjective test―where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate

expectation of privacy over a certain matter. b) Objective test―where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society is prepared to

accept as objectively reasonable. Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty :

oThe purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent (1) violations of private security in person and property, and (2) unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and (3) to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law.3

o The protection under Sec. 2, Art. III, is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of

a crime or not. Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be required to open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of its police and taxing power.4

The right is personal. It may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.5

o In Stonehill, et. al v. Diokno, as regards documents, papers, and things found and seized in the offices of the corporation, petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof because corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the interest of each of them in the corporations, whatever, the offices they hold therein may be. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.

1 Disini v. Sec. of Justice2 Distinction is based on US case Whalen v. Roe.3 Alvero v. Dizon4 Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 Phil. 15 Stonehill v. Diokno

o In the Stonehill case only the officers of the various corporations in whose offices documents, papers and effects were searched and seized were the petitioners. In Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, the corporation to whom the seized documents belong, and whose rights have thereby been impaired, is itself a petitioner. On that score, petitioner corporation here stands on a different footing from the corporations in Stonehill.

The right applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.6

oThe Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. In this case, petitioner’s officer opened an envelope addressed to private respondent and found therein a check showing overprice in the purchase of medicine. The check was then deemed as admissible in evidence.7

o In People v. Mendoza, 1999, the same principle was applied relative to the memorandum receipt and mission order (to carry firearms) discovered by accused-appellant’s father-in-law, a private citizen.

o In People v. Bongcarawan, 2002, Bongcarawan’s Samsonite bag was searched with his consent from which shabu was later found by the private vessels’ security personnel. Bongcarawan was turned over by the vessel security personnel to the Philippine Coast Guard. The search and seizure of the suitcase and contraband items were carried out without government intervention. Thus, the exclusionary rule may not be invoked.

oThe purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction , and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law.8

o In Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, respondent’s abductors (members of Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit and military personnel) violated respondents’ right to security or the right to security of person as enunciated by sec. 2 of Art. 3. While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive―upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned―the right to security of person is a guarantee of the secure quality of this life, viz: The life to which each person has a right is not a life lived in fear that his person and property may be unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. Rather, it is a life lived with the assurance that the government he established and consented to, will protect the security of his person and property.

o In Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, a university publication brought a civil action against police officers that conducted a search in its office.

oWilson v. Layne (I don’t know where this case should fall.) What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is purely a

judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.9

oWhere the search and consequent seizure of fish allegedly caught by the use of explosives was made without a warrant, and a search warrant was obtained by the officers only much later, there was a violation of this constitutional guarantee.10

6 People v. Andre Marti7 Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC8 Alvero v. Dizon9 Valmonte v. De Villa10 Manlavi v. Gacott

Objections to the warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea.2. Some Procedural Rules3. Only a judge may validly issue a warrant4. Requisites of a valid warrant

Probable cause Determination of probable cause personally by a judge After examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce Particularity of description

5. Properties subject to seizure6. Conduct of the Search7. Warrantless arrests

When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence.

When an offense had just been committed and there is probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or of other circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

When the right is voluntarily waived.8. Warrantless searches

When the right is voluntarily waived. When there is valid reason to “stop-and-frisk” Where the search (and seizure) is an incident to a lawful arrest. Search of vessels and aircraft Search of moving vehicles Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building

regulations. Where prohibited articles are in plain view. Search and seizure under exigent and emergency circumstances

9. Exclusionary Rule