WHAT’S ON THE MENU: Tender Bobs, Greenbelt 2

WHAT’S ON THE MENU: Tender Bobs, Greenbelt 2.


GOING THROUGH AIRPORT SECURITY: Laptop contents scrutiny a violation of one’s right 


As we all know, when we go to the airport, every belonging we have pass through the X-ray scanner so as to search for dangerous and prohibited items which cannot be carried inside the aircraft. Of course, this includes all electronic devices such as mobile phones, ipods and laptops.

So let’s just say that the airport security asks you to open up your laptop to browse the contents for security checking, what would you do?


Can airport security validly search and browse the contents of your laptop for security purposes, even if the same be a valid search?


No. The airport security cannot validly ask a passenger to open up his laptop and browse the contents thereof. It would be a clear violation of one’s right against self-incrimination, which is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Note that the search being conducted in airports may be considered as “plain view searches,” by the use of X-ray scanners, which means that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. Such applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[1]

We have to bear in mind that the contents of a laptop may never be subject to the “plain view doctrine,” considering the fact that it is never in plain sight. One has to open up the laptop before you can see the contents.

The Constitution also guarantees the right to privacy of correspondence and communication, which such contents of our laptop may fall into. Hence, even if the search may be valid, airport security cannot just browse the contents of your laptop against your will.

[1] People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999


Dear friends from the Philippine Daily Inquirer,

If I ruffle some feathers, forgive me in advance. Take this as a letter of protest from the daughter of a woman felled by stroke and the colleague of many journalists who’ve suffered the same.

My Nanay was a beautiful woman with the classic Asian face, a perfect oval with high cheekbones and a firm chin. She was not prone to dramatics. She did not need that; her eyes – and her words – guaranteed people listened to her, even when they did not want to. She was the nurturer in the family, the doctor content to walk behind her journalist-husband. Then stroke felled Nanay and forced her into a slow, year-long recovery. There was a period of hope before a series of smaller but successive strokes weakened her to the point of now return.

So I have seen, up close and…

View original post 437 more words

Decoding the Constitution: The Right to Privacy in the Philippines


Mr. A has this estafa case and the case reached the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, he lost the case. As we all know, when a case reaches the Supreme Court, the same is published in every website discussing Philippine jurisprudence. Now, every time someone key-in his name in the web search engines, the estafa case is displayed as one of its results. Due to such, Mr. A suffered humiliation and embarrassment from people, who chanced upon such search result of his name. Because of this, he wants his name be removed from such websites and he therefore invokes his Constitutional right to privacy.


Can a person request that his name be removed from such websites pertaining to SC decided cases as the same is a violation of his right to privacy? Why? Why not?


No. A person cannot ask for such removal as the same does not constitute as a violation of his right to privacy.

The Philippineshas no specific law on privacy. However, the 1987 Constitution[1] tried to provide under its Article III (Bill of Rights) provisions for the right to privacy, namely:

                Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against  unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be         determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

                       Section 3.

                      1)The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

Basically we can draw out what the Constitution guarantees, as with regard to right to privacy, are (1) the rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (2) the privacy of communication and correspondence. The situation brought up by such facts neither falls in the said classification.

Note also that under Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. A citizen has the right to access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, subject to the limitations provided by law. Hence, the case being jurisprudence, one has the right to access such information.

Given the situation, a person cannot invoke that his right to privacy has been violated because of the publication of his name along with the case he was in as the right to privacy does not prohibit the publication of matter which is of public or general interest.[2]

IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT: How the web is an effective tool for communication in this day and age


Since we are now in the age of modernization, people are finding ways as to how to fully utilize the use of the World Wide Web. Publication of news articles, events, commentaries and opinions are readily available 24/7 to the million of users around the globe. But should such style of Publication be made applicable to the requirement necessary for the effectivity of a law?

According to Article 2 of the Civil Code of thePhilippines, as amended by E.O. No. 200, “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of publication either in the OFFICIAL GAZETTTE, or in a NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION in thePhilippines, unless it is otherwise provided.” Hence, it is a mandatory requirement that a law, in order to be effective, needs to be published either in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE or in a NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.


The usual connotation when someone says “publish” is by means of printing presses and by using papers for printing. However, is it possible to take the word “publish” to the next, not to mention, modern level? Can the Office of the President “publish” the law in the Official Gazette through the web and hence still satisfy the requirement provided in Article 2 of the Civil Code, as amended, for the law to be effective?


YES. Publishing the law in the Official Gazette’s “Official Website” will satisfy the requirement laid down in Article 2 of the Civil Code.

Publication is the act of offering something for the general public to inspect or scrutinize. It means to convey knowledge or give notice.[1] There is nowhere in the law that provides that a particular way of publishing be used so long as the publication requirement is satisfied. There is no limitation imposed as to how a law should be published in the Official Gazette. Note that a law should be able to accommodate not only the present occurrences but also future ones. It cannot be presumed that the legislature did not foresee the fact that years from the time they drafted the said provision, paper publication will not be the only way of publishing something.

The web is the most convenient and efficient way of communicating to people as it is readily accessible to anyone 24/7. There is no better way to publish the law than through this. The amendment of Article 2 was made to include newspaper of general circulation as the Official Gazette has erratic releases and limited readership. The former was said to perform the better function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have wide readership, and come out regularly.[2] With the availability of the Official Gazette online, a wider audience is expected to be provided with the knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern them.

This issue should also be related to the Electronic Commerce Act[3], which aims, as one of its goals, to facilitate the storage of information through the utilization of electronic, optical or similar medium. The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology (“ICT”) in nation-building and the need to create an information-friendly environment, which supports and ensures the availability, diversity and affordability of ICT products and services. As what the law evinces, the government is amenable to the fact of using technology for government transactions and dealings, provided that the necessary authentication process, rules and regulations are followed.

In line with this, online publication of a law in the Official Gazette Website should be considered as fully complying with the requirement set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code. Such constitutes the fact that public knowledge of the law was disseminated immediately after it went live.


[2] Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 [29 December 1986].

[3] Republic Act No. 8792

Royce’ Chocolate Menu

I was browsing through Royce’ stall in Greenbelt 5 last week when they handed me down this pamphlet.

Enjoy browsing through their products. Prices are also indicated.



ROYCE’ was founded in Sapporo in 1983. By gradually acquiring better techniques and enriching our experiences, we are dedicated to making real good chocolate of world quality in Hokkaido where the climate and the clean air are suitable for making confectionaries.

The fundamental principle of Royce’ has been and will always be to painstakingly source for high quality ingredients, and to sell its products at prices that customers can afford for daily consumption.

In the course of time, because of increasing demand, Royce’ began taking orders from customers from outside of Hokkaido by telephone. Customers’ names and addresses were recorded and their orders were sent one by one from our factory. That was the beginning of our mail order system.

When we started to bake cookies at a small factory, the smell from the factory tempted and attracted the neighbors. A table was put in front of the factory and cookies were sold. That was the beginning of the direct management stores.

Looking back, the history of Royce’ has been based upon the support of many people.

Royce’ chocolate is enjoyed by many Royce’ chocolate lovers from Hokkaido to other parts of Japan, and now to other countries also.

We will continue to make real good chocolate by observing our fundamental principle, and with our challenging creative spirit.

**Source: http://www.e-royce.com/english/index.html

Anti-Wire Tapping Law





Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

Section 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding Sec. or who violates the provisions of the following Sec. or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding Sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.  C

The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.

All recordings made under court authorization shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. The envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.

The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.

Section  4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

Section 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.

Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 19, 1965

**Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno4200.htm