When you are with your true self – that’s privacy

An English lawyer once said that every man’s home is to him his castle and fortress. And a British statesman later gave us an accurate picture of this house. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter! – all his forces dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

And it was Greta Garbo who was always quoted as saying "I want to be alone". So much so that she had to explain, I never said, ‘I want to be alone’, I only said, ‘I want to be left alone.’ There, is all the difference. "Later, someone told her, "This is a free country. We have a right to share your privacy in a public place." Robert Browning carried it to its extreme. He said, "A privacy, an obscure nook for me, I want to be forgotten even by God."

Now the issue of privacy has been invoked by Ignacio Arroyo, younger brother of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, concerning the hearing on the Senate about the Jose Pidal Account. What we cannot figure out is this: It was Ignacio Arroyo himself who volunteered the information by claiming that he was the unknown Jose Pidal. He went as far as to say that he was willing to dispense with the bank secrecy law by volunteering to give a special power of attorney to the proper authorities to examine all the aspects of account. We don’t know why he was made a turnabout by now invoking the privacy law.

According to Senators Angara and Pimentel, there is no constitutional right of privacy. In short, privacy is not explicitly mentioned as one of the rights protected by our Constitution. In the United States, this issue was also raised and it was settled in 1967 by a Supreme Court decision in the case of Katz versus the United States. This is how the decision reads: "While the Federal Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The constitutionally-protected right of privacy emanates from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live. A person’s right to privacy has been described by the Supreme Court as ‘the right to be let alone’. (16A Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, Sec. 601, citing a long line of cases)."

In the Philippines, the same issue was answered in 1970 by the late Justice Irene Cortes who in her book.The Constitutional Foundation of Privacy (UP Law Center) gave the emphatic answer, "It most certainly does".

What Ignacio Arroyo needs at this point of time is not privacy. It is transparency. He voluntarily projected himself in the limelight by claiming ownership of the Pidal account. He knew the account was being questioned by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. He should make good his offer of a special power of attorney that would dispel any doubts on the legality of the account. The person who is bearing the brunt on the controversy concerning the Pidal account is neither Mike or Ignacio Arroyo. It is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Ignacio Arroyo’s name first cropped up in the news when a property allegedly owned by the First Couple was said to be his.

Transparency is what is needed. That is what the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee can do. Reveal the facts surrounding the Pidal account. No one is saying that a crime was committed. As they say, "Just the facts, Ma’am, just the facts".