Constitutionalists, lawyers and columnists, intrigued by the subject, have been making comments on the topic. One of them is Undersecretary Amado D. Valdez, former Dean of the College of Law of the University of the East and former Government Corporate Counsel, and now incumbent Executive Director of the Presidential Commission on the Visiting Armed Forces.
In our conversation at his office on the 9th floor of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Atty. Valdez said that the senator who asked the question of where in the Constitution one’s right of privacy is found was wrong. That is because, said Valdez, the right of privacy is "an inherent right of a human being. One does not need a document to bestow that right. A person does not even have to know that he has that right to enjoy it. It is just like a child who cries with his first speech atht emoment of his birth."
"It is this right to privacy that is the rationale behind the legal protection given to a husband a wife from being a witness against each other regarding their plan to commit a crime. A priest receiving the confession of a criminal or a doctor treating a fugitive from justice cannot be forced to testify. It is called privileged communication.
"Going back to that child, when he grew up he found out that there were powerful forces which did not like what he does for him to survive and be happy. His rights were curtailed. Then, it was not only him who was subdued, but entire communities and nations lived constantly harassed under a king, a despot, or a group of powerful persons called oligarchs.
"That is why when it became unbearable, people revolted. One of the most dramatic of these upheavals was the English Revolution which forced a monarch to sign a magna carta recognizing man‚s inherent rights.
"A magna carta, which modern legal writers call constitution, did not create the inherent rights of men. It is actually a solemn declaration of the king who governs that he will respect individual rights. Under our concept of constitutional government, the Bill of Rights in the constitution is actually putting a limit on the power of government in dealing with individual rights."
"Actually, in a democracy," said Valdez, "a social contract was established between the people and the state. But if the state is the people, how could there be two parties to forge a social contract? What we did was to treat the totality of people which is now called the State as one fictionized person on the one hand, and we, the individual people, as one party on the other.
"The people recognized certain powers to that fictionized state like police power, power of taxation and eminent domain, so that it could exist. However, the people did not throw away their rights. They just provide the State through the constitution, a reasonable means to prevent abuse of the individual rights for the common good."
The decisions of the Supreme Court here and abroad," said Attorney Valdez, "as long as the regime is constitutional, have always asserted the primacy of individual rights. Specifically, in the United States, the US Supreme Court had upheld the right of a witness in a congressional investigation not to answer a questions when his rights are not respected.
"Finally, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that Œno one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."