"Communication is two-sided - vital and profound communication makes demands also on those who are to receive it... demands in the sense of concentration, of genuine effort to receive what is being communicated. "
~ Roger Sessions ~
Freedom of expression and communication goes hand in hand. It is one of the rights that the 1987 Constitution protects. But as the old saying goes, anything in extreme is toxic. Too much freedom of expression will lead to misunderstanding and sometimes fatal disputes. With the passing to Third Reading by the Senate of Data Privacy Act of 2011, the State is simply exercising its police power. However, I am reluctant with some of the provisions of this bill. I have two points that I would like to tackle. Take for example the excessive penalty for violating this bill. General penalty of imprisonment from 1 year and six months to 5 years and penalty of not less than Php1,000,000 but not more than Php 2,000,000 is definitely excessive. As provided by the Constitution under Section 19 of the Bill of Rights, that excessive fines shall not be imposed x x x unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Although the Supreme Court have already held in various cases questioning how to determine what is an excessive penalty, it was generally held that the determination will depend on the situation and the sound discretion of court. It will depend on how the court will appreciate the evidence to arrive with the decision. For me, although violating one's privacy could not be quantified as to provide a standard amount of award for damages, the Php 2,00,000 as maximum fine is very excessive. How do I say so? First and foremost, we need to determine first what was the violation. Was that considered as a heinous crime. Going back again to Section 19 of Article 3, excessive fines shall only be given for compelling reasons that involve HEINOUS CRIMES. This could be defined as those crimes or offenses that are exceedingly or flagrantly bad or evil or those committed with extreme cruelty as to shock the general moral sense. Now is the violation that flagrant or offensive? It is not as shocking as that of a crime of rape or murder. As a matter of fact, the violation is providing one's personal information to another without his or her consent? In layman's term the act of gossiping is now being punishable of a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and Php 2,000,000 as fine. Which leads me to my second point which is the act of providing the information to another without the subject's consent. As I have already mentioned, does the act of gossiping falls under this act as well? In gossiping definitely the consent of the subject is not freely given. Although in gossiping most of the time it is just rumors about the person. In this Bill, what is being protected is the personal information of the person. It is admirable that our dear legislators only wants the people to be protected and not to be harassed by others because their personal information shall only be taken and provided if there is a justified reason. As provided by Section 26 of Article VI, for a bill to be passed it shall only embrace one subject. Although the Title of the Bill is clear on what it wants to be protected, the act that could fall under it is very general and it is a catch all subject. As I have already discussed, the simple act of gossiping could fall under this topic.
To sum it all up, the Bill is definitely going to be beneficial to us all. But just like any other laws created by men, there are loopholes that could still be amended to better cater its purpose to the public in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment