Full text link
| Core Lesson: Without proof that a person placed his information within the ambit of his chosen protected zone of privacy, he cannot insist that he has an expectation of privacy with respect to the information in question. |
Facts
Several senior high school students of St. Theresa’s College (STC) in Cebu City posted their pictures online dressed online in brassieres. Their photos were shown to Tigol,the school’s discipline-in-charge and found that they violated the school’s student handbook.
Some students reported to the principal’s office and claimed that they were verbally abused by the STC officials. They also reported that they were barred from joining the commencement exercises in March 2012.
The mothers of some students filed for a Petition for Injunction and Damages against STC before RTC Cebu City.
RTC issued a TRO allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony.
Despite the TRO, STC barred the students from participating in the graduation rites arguing that the TRO remained unresolved.
| Before the RTC | |
| Petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data. One of the basis was | Respondents filed their verified written return and one of the reasons is: |
| (1) The settings of the childen’s FB accounts was “reasonable expectation of privacy” which must be respected. (2) STC should have known laws that safeguard the right to privacy. The girls’ privacy were invaded and were called “immoral” and were punished outright. (3) Mylene Escudero, the computer teacher, violated the girls’ rights by saving and reproducing their photos without their consent. RTC issued the writ of habeas data. Respondents was directed to file their verified written return with supporting affidavits. | “there can be no violation of their right to privacy as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook.” |
| RTC Cebu City dismissed the habeas data petition of the petitioners | |
Issue
whether or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case? No.
Ruling
Absent any proof that the children limited the photos to five of themselves or “only me.” they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy and therefore cannot invoke violation of their right to privacy.
Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question.
Did the minors limit the disclosure of the photos such that the images were kept within their zones of privacy?
There is no evidence that they limited it to 5 of themselves. The default setting for FB posts is “public.” Absent any proof that the children limited the photos to themselves, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy.
| Petitioner FB posters | Respondent Escudero | Supreme Court |
| Petitioners (FB posters) argue that when Ms. Escudero downloaded copies of the pictures of their children and showed them to Tigol (school discipline officer), this was a breach of privacy since the children’s FB accounts were “very private.” or “only friends” setting safeguarded with a password. Children’s disclosure limited only to their profiles and not open to public viewing. Therefore, people are barred from accessing post without their children’s consent and knowledge. | My students showed me the pictures of the petitioner students. There are still many photos posted in their FB accounts. There are times that these photos were public and not confined to their friends in FB. | Petitioners did not challenge Escudero’s (Computer Teacher’s) claim that the other students were able to view the photos. Therefore there is no means to show that the photos are only viewable to 5 of them. It means that they were viewable to their FB friends or by the public at large. Therefore, their testimonies were only self-serving. |
| Petitioner students claim that their photos are viewable only to the five of them, not to the other students of the school | No evidence of these. |
Even setting the audience to “Facebook Friends” only does not prevent it to be seen by others who are not the friends of the original source
An individual who did not employ protective measures to his photographs in the internet is presumed to have forsake all his privacy rights to such photos. – US vs. Gines-Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d at 225
Any message forward to the public in the chat room or email and is forwarded loses any semblance of privacy.
Even if the privacy is set to “friends only” does not support petitioners’ contention because one reason is that a person’s FB friend can share or tag others who are not friends of the original poster or source of the picture.
To set privacy to “friends only” is not an assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not FB friends with the source of the content.
Because of the ability of users to tag other friends, there is “democratization of fame” and setting privacy to “Friends Only” cannot be said to be “very private” contrary to the Petitioner’s contention.
Did the Respondent school employees illegally gathered information of the minors? No.
It was the FB accounts of the sanctioned minors that were showed to Tigol/STC employees. Tigol and the respondents were mere recipients of what was posted. Respondents did not resort to unlawful means of gathering information as the info was voluntarily given by the people who had legitimate access to the said posts.
Did the Respondents illegally reproduced the photographs? No.
There is no proof that they broadcasted the photographs. The respondents only attached the photographs in their memorandum to the trial court in the Civil Case. These are not a violation of the minor’s informational privacy rights.
Who has the fault here?
It is actually the FB friends of the minors here who have the fault. However, the petitioners did not impute violation of privacy against these students who showered their images to Escudero.
Did STC violate the students’ rights? No
STC should not be faulted in its duty to teach its students to be responsible. Online and social media users should be aware of the risks that they exposse themselves to when they engage in cyberspace activities.
English