Authorized Disclosure

WE ARE now living in a world where technology is a necessity because it makes our lives easier and gives us more freedom. It helps us save time and enables us to communicate instantly with our friends and loved ones.

Technology has made life less complex. However, others argue that it has also taken a toll on humans, especially in personal data collection and use.

A few days ago, a friend of mine asked me questions regarding the Data Privacy Law on 1) the scope or coverage of the law; 2) privileged information; and 3) inclusion of personal information processed by a journalist.

I decided to write this article as my answer to the questions.

Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10173 (R.A. No. 10173) or the Data Privacy Act of 2012, the said law “applies to processing of all types of personal information and to any natural and juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found or established in the Philippines, use equipment that are located in the Philippines, or those who maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines.”

However, the law does not apply to information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee, whether as a regular or under a contract of service, of the government that relates to his or her position or functions.

Additionally, it does not apply to information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature given by the government to an individual, information to carry out the functions of public authority, and information necessary for banks and other financial institutions.

There is also personal information collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions and processed in the Philippines. This information is collected in accordance with the laws of those foreign jurisdictions which include any applicable data privacy laws. Thus, this information is not under the scope of R.A. No. 10173.

On the second question, “privilege information” refers to any and all forms of data which under the Rules of Court and other pertinent laws constitute privileged communication.  

Under the Rules of Court, in particular, this refers to any communication shared in confidence between husband and wife, communication or advice between an attorney and a client, any advice or treatment given, or any information acquired by a doctor from a patient, any confession made by a person to a minister or priest, as well as any advice subsequently given by the latter to that person, and communication made to a public officer in official confidence.

It is also noteworthy that journalists are not sanctioned under the law for revealing confidential information. Section 5 of the law reads: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed the provisions of Republic Act No. 53, which affords the publishers, editors or duly accredited reporters of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation protection from being compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in any confidence to such publisher, editor, or reporter.”

Using and sharing information through communication allows us to promote the free flow of information to promote innovation and growth. But we should remember that as individuals, we have a fundamental right to privacy, and we have control over our own personal information./PN