No. Philippine laws and jurisprudence are official records and documents to which the public has the right to know and be informed about following the constitutional provisions on the right to information.[1] In this context, private repositories such as chanrobles.com and lawphil.net have taken advantage of technological developments like the internet to make these legal resources readily available and easily accessible to students, researchers, and the public in general.
The policy of full public disclosure is however limited mainly to protect the individual’s right to privacy. Quite a number of statutes now impose confidentiality provisions. For example, Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act, and R.A. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 provide that all records pertaining to cases of violence against women and children shall be confidential to respect the dignity and privacy of the victims. These laws prohibit the publishing or disclosing of certain pertinent information such as name, address, and telephone number of the victim or an immediate family number, and penalize those who violate for contempt.
In People v Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693) promulgated on September 19, 2006, the Supreme Court refrained to use the true name of an 8-year old rape victim or her immediate family in the decision of the case in order to give effect to the confidentiality provisions of RA 7610. The decision also provided that full text of decisions in cases involving child sexual abuse should not be posted in the internet or web page following the request of the mother’s victim on the right to privacy.
Laws including judicial decisions however do not have retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided.[2] Supreme Court decisions issued prior to Cabalquinto could therefore not be covered by the new ruling on confidentiality unless by a new ruling or law its applicability is clarified. Meanwhile, private repositories of legal resources may not be unilaterally compelled by a private party to remove certain judicial decisions which in his own opinion violate his right to privacy. Private repositories do not by their own right have the capacity to alter, revise, or modify official texts or portions of judicial decisions. As their scope of mandate is mainly to facilitate the availability of information, private repositories should not encroach upon the authority of the Supreme Court which rendered and issued such decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment