opinions on anti - selfie bill philippines

8/9/2019 Opinions on Anti - Selfie Bill Philippines

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/opinions-on-anti-selfie-bill-philippines 1/20

MANILA - If you're the type of person who enjoys taking random snapshots of people, places, things and even the

ui!uitous selfies and groupies and then posting them on social media, etter e careful"

According to #ayan Muna $ep" %arlos &arate, there's a ill in %ongress that seeks to ar taking photos of people

without their permission"

ouse #ill ()*+ or the rotection against ersonal Intrusion Act is now up for rd reading in plenary"

It defines .intrusion of personal privacy. as .any person who willfully intrudes into the personal privacy of another,

without the consent of that person and with the intent to gain or profit therefrom, shall e civilly liale to the offended

party".

.# ()*+ will create a chilling effect on media and would especially affect citi/en journalism" It would punish with civil

suit taking photos,video or even audio recording anything claimed as a personal0 family matter even of pulic officials

and personalities,. &arate said"

.1ven an innocuous selfie with pulic figures at the ackground would e liale for 'intrusion of privacy'" 2his is

asurd and we urge our colleagues to reconsider,. he added"

According to # ()*+, the following acts are considered an intrusion into the personal privacy of another and shall e

presumed to have een committed with the intent to gain or profit"

-capturing y a camera or sound recording instrument of any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical

impression of the person

-trespassing on private property in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical

impression of any person

-capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person or family activity

through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device even when no physical trespass has occurred, when the

visual image, sound recording or other physical impression could not have een captured without a trespass if no

enhancement device was used"

3ection ( of the ill says any person whose personal privacy was intruded as defined may in a civil action against the

person who committed the intrusion, otain any appropriate relief, including compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief"

Any person otaining relief may e either the person whose visual or auditory impression has een captured or the

owner of the private property trespassed to capture the visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of

another"

.2he fact that no visual image , sound recording or other physical impression of a person was actually sold for gain or

profit shall not e availale as a defense in any civil action or proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions of this

act,. the ill e4plained"

2he only e4emption from this act are legitimate law enforcement activities"



2he ill is authored y %ongressmen $ufus $odrigue/, Ma4imo $odrigue/, 5orge Almonte, 6wendolyn 6arcia,

Linaelle $uth 7illarica, Lito Atien/a and Leopoldo #ataoil"

NO MORE SELFIES, PAPARAZZI?

%ritics said the ill has wide ranging implications on press freedom and even social media"

5ose 2orres 5r", oard memer of the hotojournalists8 %enter of the hilippines 9%:, Inc", said the ill needs to

define what .intent to gain or profit therefrom. means"

.It would seem that people from the media and journalists can e targets of the proposed measure" ;orthy of eing

emphasi/ed is the phrase 'with intent to gain or profit therefrom"' In case a complaint is filed in court against a

photojournalist, can lack of intent to gain e used as defense<

.It must e clearly defined what can e classified for 'gain' or 'profit"' News outfits - newspapers, maga/ines,

television, online pulications, radio, and news wire agencies - are asically for profit organi/ations" 2here must e

clear provisions that specify that news gathering must e e4empted from this section,. he added"

2he group said it wants media to e e4empted from the coverage of the proposed law"

.;e suggest to add the !ualification 'unless this is done in the practice of a media professional in the interest of

pulic interest"' If we limit 3ec a, 3ec c will then apply only to the protection of privacy clause".

2he group is also pushing for a definition of .private property".

.rivate property must e spelled out and defined" ulic places, cars, pulic transport, pulic uildings, among

others, and individuals, who y nature of their position or profession are classified as pulic figures, cannot claim

violation of privacy" =oes 'personal privacy' e4tend to pulic domain or pulic places in private spaces, for instance

malls, shopping centers, events venues, a lu4urious resort, among others<.

>n the matter of capturing any type of visual image, the group said this provision can affect journalists who use

modern legitimate tools of news gathering like drones with cameras or telephoto lenses"

2he group proposed that news and visual storytelling that fall into educating, warning, e4posing incidents and events

that will enefit the majority of society must e e4empted ecause interest groups can use provisions of the law to put

enterprising journalists in tough situations"

2he group also wants a corresponding provision of penalty for grave use of authority and clear use of provisions of

the law for harassment of journalists"

.>ur apprehension is ased on the premise that the act eing made punishale y this proposed measure is not

clearly defined to the point that many acts can e considered 'malum prohiitum' or conducts that constitute an

unlawful act only y virtue of statute as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself".

.;e worry that this proposed measure can ecome a tool that 'unwilling pulic figures' will use to suppress press

freedom".



ave you ever taken a picture of someone without asking their permission< ;hat aout people

who accidentally stumled into your vacation photos< ?nder a new draft law in the hilippines,

these kinds of often-innocent ehaviors would ecome illegal"

A proposed law that seeks to criminali/e the taking of photos of private persons without

permission has een critici/ed y activists and media groups in the hilippines for eing a threatto free speech" #ecause of its vague provisions, some have called it an @anti-selfie ill"

#ut according to the proponents of ouse #ill ()*+ or @rotection Against ersonal Intrusion

Act, the measure simply aims to @promote and protect the personal privacy of every person"

2hey clarified that only acts of trespassing and other intrusions with intent to gain or profit are

prohiited" 2hey also denied that selfies will e outlawed"

?nder the ill, the prohiited acts include the followingB

-capturing y a camera or sound recording instrument of any type of visual image, sound

recording or other physical impression of the personC

-trespassing on private property in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording or

other physical impression of any personC

-capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person or

family activity through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device even when no

physical trespass has occurred, when the visual image, sound recording or other physical

impression could not have een captured without a trespass if no enhancement device was

used"

2he proposed ill could e used to harass journalists, as it could prevent them from reporting onthe actions of pulic officials" More roadly, it could e used to discourage citi/ens from freely

e4pressing their views aout pulic policies" ?nder the ill, a crime has een committed even if

a photo or audio has not een sold to anyone as long as there is proof that it was taken with the

intent to profit"

Activist legislator %arlos Isagani &arate was the first to e4press reservation aout the worrying

impact of the measureB

At first glance, the terms used in these provisions may seem harmless and well meaning" Det, a

deeper look at how they will impact in everyday lives is truly worrisome" It affects not only those

in the media profession ut everyone"

Law scholar Mel 3ta" Maria called the measure an @anti-happiness ill and e4plainedwhy the

vague provisions of the measure could target even the innocuous popular selfiesB

2he law is so road that it can include doing a @selfie which, in turn, might include someone

who accidentally might have een in the picture" It may also involve merely taking pictures of

happy people, young and old alike, anywhere" In short, the proposed law practically says that

http://technology.inquirer.net/38248/bill-penalizing-techy-intruders-advances-to-plenary

http://technology.inquirer.net/38345/bill-vs-techy-intruders-mistaken-as-anti-selfie-bill#ixzz3BlUo0vH1

https://www.facebook.com/notes/carlos-isagani-tabora-zarate/bayan-muna-anti-selfie-bill-will-affect-everyone/670745426327627

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/94408/mel-sta-maria--anti-selfie-bill-superfluous-unjust-and-unconstitutional

http://technology.inquirer.net/38345/bill-vs-techy-intruders-mistaken-as-anti-selfie-bill#ixzz3BlUo0vH1

https://www.facebook.com/notes/carlos-isagani-tabora-zarate/bayan-muna-anti-selfie-bill-will-affect-everyone/670745426327627

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/94408/mel-sta-maria--anti-selfie-bill-superfluous-unjust-and-unconstitutional

http://technology.inquirer.net/38248/bill-penalizing-techy-intruders-advances-to-plenary



taking photographs of other people, intentionally or accidentally, without their consent, will e

considered an illegal intrusion"

2he National ?nion of 5ournalists of the hilippines warned that the ill can e a @weapon of

suppression and repressionB

;e agree that people are entitled to privacy and, in fact, the %onstitution guarantees as much,in all matters that are personal and have nothing to do with the pulic interest"

#ut the measure8s intent is so road it is likely to e used as another weapon for the criminal

and the corrupt to escape accountaility should it ecome law"

Ethe measure could end up stifling citi/en journalism and even simply taking pictures or videos

for personal pleasure"

In an era where technology is !uickly reaking down the ostacles that hamper the flow of

information and e4pression, which are the edrock of democracy, # ()*+ could return us to

the dark ages and worse, e used as a weapon of suppression and repression"

For Marc Lino Aila, leader of the %ollege 1ditors 6uild, the ill is impractical to implement

aside from eing a serious threat to press freedomB

2he ill is very impractical at all levels" In the face of serious and growing concerns of the

country, this ill has no space for legislative attention" Not only that it is a waste of time, it is

immensely unconstitutional"

>n 2witter, the hashtag Gantiselfieill trended gloally ecause of this issue" Many neti/ens

have rejected the ill and urged %ongress to focus on other more important national issuesB

Internet users following the issue pointed out that while some parliamentarians were eagerly

pushing the ill, another ill that would enshrine the right to freedom of information 9F>I:

appears not to e moving forward"

After triggering a mild pulic uproar, the proponents of the ill have vowed to further delierate

the matter"

Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the resident legal analyst of TV5. He is Dean of the FEU Institute of Law. He also teahes at the

Ateneo Shool of Law and daily o!hosts the "rogra# $%elasyon$ on %adyo Sing&o '(.) *ews FM.

InterAksyon"com reported that the ouse of $epresentatives, on second reading, passed ouse #ill No" ()*+, otherwise

known as the @rotection Against ersonal Intrusion Act" >stensily it seems good, ut a perusal of its provisions shows

that, not only is the proposed law superfluous and unnecessary, it is unjust" 3imply, this ill can e called the anti-happiness

ill"

1ssentially, the proposed law, as reported y InterAksyon"com, prohiits @capturing y a camera or sound recording

instrument of any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of the person and makes people who

commit it liale for civil damages"

http://www.nujp.org/2014/08/statement-nujp-on-hb-4807/

https://www.facebook.com/notes/college-editors-guild-of-the-philippines-national-office/anti-selfie-bill-clips-freedom-of-expression/10152260094015458

http://www.nujp.org/2014/08/statement-nujp-on-hb-4807/

https://www.facebook.com/notes/college-editors-guild-of-the-philippines-national-office/anti-selfie-bill-clips-freedom-of-expression/10152260094015458



It also includes acts of @trespassing on private property in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording or

other physical impression of any person and or @capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical

impression of a person or family activity through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device even when no physical

trespass has occurred, when the visual image, sound recording or other physical impression could not have een captured

without a trespass if no enhancement device was used"

2he law is so road that it can include doing a @selfie which, in turn, might include someone who accidentally might have

een in the picture" It may also involve merely taking pictures of happy people, young and old alike, anywhere" In short, the

proposed law practically says that taking photographs of other people, intentionally or accidentally, without their consent, will

e considered an illegal intrusion"

As reported y InterAksyon"com, @the only e4emption is when it involves legitimate law enforcement activities"

;hy is this proposed law superfluous< #ecause our present laws are already replete with provisions to protect the privacy of

people" For instance, Article H of the %ivil %ode provides that @every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy

and peace of mind of his neighors and other persons" It is an e4isting and etter law ased, as it is, clearly on fault" 2hus,

damages can e otained for @prying into the privacy of another's residence, meddling with or disturing the private life or

family relations of another, intriguing to cause another to e alienated from his friends, ve4ing or humiliating another on

account of his religious eliefs, lowly station in life, place of irth, physical defect, or other personal condition" >n

trespassing, Article H)* of the $evised enal %ode already makes it criminal"

2o add one more law is unnecessary" As the wise 6reek philosopher Arcesilaus said, @where you find the laws most

numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice"

And talking aout injustice - if passed, ouse #ill ()*+ is unjust" It focuses on photography" And as previously stated, the

scope is so e4pansive that it may include selfies" 3elfies are nothing less than revolutionary" 6one are the days when

pictures were taken y other people and then developed for so many days efore they can e seen" Now, with a small

gadget like a cellphone, one can take a self-portrait without the assistance of anyone else and it can e done alone or with

others, then disseminated immediately to the whole world"

ouse #ill ()*+ is an anti-selfie proposal that attempts to prevent or hinder a revolution that is now happening worldwide" It

will retard innovation, creativity, self-e4pression and self-actuali/ation" ope Francis happily does it with people unknown

to him" residents, like >ama and A!uino, do it" In fact, most of us relish it" Filipinos are one of the world8s happiest

people" 2he Filipino smile is so famous worldwide---communicating a message of resiliency, courage, hope, love and

gratitude especially after our devastating @Dolanda e4perience" And when this smile is shown in pictures, it gives joy,

comfort and even ama/ement to those who see it from all parts of the gloe" #ut now, legislation might just pave the way

for its oscurity"

;hy are our representatives in %ongress even entertaining this anti-happiness legislative proposal< erhaps, as Marshall

Macluhan, world famous communication-e4pert, put it, @when an individual or social group feels that its whole identity is

jeopardi/ed y social or psychic change, its natural reaction is to lash out in defensive fury" #ut for all their lamentations, the

revolution has already taken place" 2his @defensive fury y proposing an anti-selfie legislation cannot stop a modern

technological revolution" If passed as law, ouse #ill ()*+ will make us the laughing-stock of the whole world courtesy of

our legislators" ;e will e viewed as perple4ingly anachronistic, an e4uerant people self-flagellating itself to unhappiness

and oredom"

ictures - via selfies or conventional photography - educate and relay various ideas , whether popular, unpopular, political,

apolitical, religious or secular" 2hey are important forms of speech and e4pression" >ur %onstitution provides that no law

shall e passed aridging the freedom of speech and of e4pression"

If ouse #ill ()*+ ecomes law, it will curtail these fundamental freedoms" More important, it will suppress one of the

only few remaining forms of pleasure that most Filipinos enjoy"

A ill is pending in %ongress with the nole aim of @providing protection from personal intrusion for commercial purposes"



# ()*+ is a measure that replaces the ill previously drafted y $eps" $ufus #" $odrigue/ 9Hnd =istrict, %agayan de >ro %ity: and

Ma4imo #" $odrigue/, 5r" 9arty List, A#AMIN:" 2he co-authors of the current measure are $eps" 6wendolyn F" 6arcia 9rd =istrict,

%eu:, Linaelle $uth $" 7illarica 9(th =istrict, #ulacan:, 5ose L" Atien/a, 5r" 9arty List, #?AD:, and Leopoldo N" #ataoil 9Hnd

=istrict, angasinan:"

2he most important provisions of the measure would make still and film photographers and video-shooters, and those who pulish

and roadcast the photographs, films and videos, lialeJif any person in them has not consented to eing photographed, filmed or

videoed"

1ven owners of property shown in photographs, films and videos may sue if they have not given their consent to have their houses

or uildings photographed, filmed or videoed"

Like still photos, moving pictures and videos, tape and other sound recordings of human voices will also ecome illegalJif the

suject persons have not given their consentJwhen used @for commercial purposes and @individual profit"

3ome have called # ()*+ @the anti-selfie ill" 3elfies sometimes include houses and uildings in the ackground and people near

where the selfies are taken" If such a selfie gets pulished y a newspaper or roadcast y a 27 station, it would e covered y the

term @commercial purposes" For all newspapers and roadcast stations are in the usiness to make a commercial profitJeven if

most of them are losing enterprises"

NUJP statement

;e join the National ?nion of 5ournalists of the hilippines and other media organi/ations that have registered their opposition to

this proposed law"

2he authors of # ()*+ should withdraw it" If they don8t, we appeal to the honorale congressmen and congresswomen to vote

against it"

2his is an urgent matter" For the ill has all too !uickly won approval on second reading without the media organi/ations and civil

society organi/ations concerned with the asic freedoms eing informed that there is such a measure, much less invited to discuss

the ill and its provisions"

# ()*+8s authors are commendale for their concern for the dignity of persons whose privacy is violated y photographers, film

and video shooters who ehave without respect" #ut there are already e4isting laws punishing these misconducts or even felonies"

#ut the lanket re!uirement to secure the consent of persons who happen to e photographed, filmed, videoed or voice-recorded

will definitely make the work of pulishing newspapers and maga/ines and of running 27 stations almost impossile"

3ince every newspaper e4ists to make a commercial profit, how can a Manila 2imes photographer legally take a picture of an M$2

derailment if he has to get the consent of all the M$2 passengers who are shown in the photo< 1ven the memoraly award-winning

photographs of sunset on Manila #ay showing strollers on $o4as #oulevard would no longer e possile" 1very news photographer

does his work for individual profitJeven if it is only to receive his salary"

Artistic photography of street scenesJmany of which have een e4tolled on different Internet wesite venues J showing ordinary

people would also disappear from human civili/ation"

;e agree with N?5 that this @Act to rovide rotection From ersonal Intrusion for %ommercial urposes, may have een filed

with all the est intentions, ut it does pose @an all too real threat not only to freedom of the press ut on the very right to free

e4pression"



Indeed, as N?5 states, the ill8s avowed aim, to @cur acts of trespassing and other intrusions on personal privacy committed y

any person in order to capture visual or sound impressions of an individual, with intent to gain or profit, is overly road as are the

provisions that list the ways y which violations may e committed"

;e share these statements of the N?5B

@;e agree that people are entitled to privacy and, in fact, the %onstitution guarantees as much, in all matters that are personal and

have nothing to do with the pulic interest"

@#ut the measure8s intent is so road it is likely to e used as another weapon for the criminal and the corrupt to escape

accountaility should it ecome law"

@2hat the measure would punish even Kthe fact that no visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person was

actually sold for gain or profit,8 makes it even more insidious"

2he National ?nion of 5ournalists of the hilippines urges the authors of ouse #ill No" ()*+ 9also known as An Act to rovide rotectionFrom ersonal Intrusion for %ommercial urposes: to withdraw their proposed lawC and, should the authors refuse to do so, we call on the

rest of the memers of the ouse of $epresentatives to vote it down"

;hile we concede that the measure may have een f iled with all the est intentions in mind, the fact is it poses an all too real threat not onlyto the freedom of the press ut also to our citi/en8s right to free e4pression"2he ill8s avowed aimB to @cur acts of trespassing and other intrusions on personal privacy committed y any person in order to capture

visual or sound impressions of an individual, with intent to gain or profit" 2his is overly road as are the provisions that list the ways y whichviolations may e committed";e agree that people are entitled to privacy and, in fact, the %onstitution guarantees as much, in all matters that are personal and havenothing to do with the pulic interest" #ut the measure8s intent is so road that, once it ecomes law, the criminal and the corrupt are likely to

use it as another tool to elude accountaility"2hat the proposed law seeks to punish even @the fact that no visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person wasactually sold for gain or profit, makes it even more insidious";e are sure that the authors of the ill know only too well that media outfits are essentially @for profit enterprises" #ut institutional media

aside, the measure could end up stifling citi/en journalism and dissuade the pulic from even simply taking pictures or videos for personalpleasure"In an era where technology is !uickly reaking down the ostacles that hamper free e4pression and the flow of information, which are theedrock of democracy, # ()*+ would rather have us return to the =ark Ages and, worse, provide a weapon of suppression and repression";hile at it, we are e!ually distured y how the ill has swiftly made its way through the legislative millJit was approved on second readingwithout any of the sectors its passage would impact on eing informed, much less invited to discuss its implications"2he authors of the ill and the ouse as a whole would do the nation and the Filipino people a truly great service y discarding this ill and

any similar legislation, and instead pouring all their energies into passing andenacting the freedom of information ill"

$ead moreB httpB00opinion"in!uirer"net0+)*0recall-scrap-h-()*+Gi4//1LD#Nl?

Follow usB in!uirerdotnet on 2witter O in!uirerdotnet on Faceook

News articles label a proposed law as “anti-selfie” bill. The label, however, is not accurate. The proposal

currently pending at the House of Representatives does not prohibit selfies per se — it declares illegal the

act of taing photos, a!ong others, of other people for co!!ercial purposes. "ut it can seriously collide

with ubi#uitous recording technology and can adversely affect growing sectors lie citi$en %ournalis!,

blogging and online social networs. &t is, therefore, i!portant to understand what others call the “anti-

selfie” bill and what it sees to prevent. Read the full te't below and help us discuss the pros and cons of

this proposed law (use the co!!ent section below).

The proposed !easure is contained in House "ill *+, also nown as the rotection /gainst ersonal

&ntrusion /ct, which sees to “pro!ote and protect the personal privacy of every person by preventing

intrusion for co!!ercial purposes, and en%oining everyone to respect the dignity, personality, privacy and

http://opinion.inquirer.net/78035/recall-scrap-hb-4807#ixzz3ELQYBNlU


http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnet

http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnet



http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bSAw-mF-0r4Q-4acwqm_6r&u=inquirerdotnet




peace of !ind of every person.” &n a nutshell, as su!!ari$ed by a House press release, “under the

!easure, it is unlawful to capture, or to trespass on private property in order to capture, any type of visual

i!age, sound recording, or other physical i!pression of any individual, personal or fa!ily activity for

co!!ercial purposes and even if no physical trespass has occurred. The !easure also allows the person

whose visual i!age or auditory i!pression has been captured to file a civil action or proceeding to obtain

any appropriate relief including co!pensatory da!ages, punitive da!ages, and in%unctive of declaratory

relief.”

The te't of House "ill *+ has not been uploaded. To get a snapshot of this bill at this point, it would be

helpful to refer to the proposed law which it substituted, House "ill 01*+. Here2s the full te't and the

e'planatory note3

House Bill No. 3548

EXPLANATORY NOTE

4ection 1 of /rticle 5 of the 6onstitution provides that, “The !aintenance of peace and order, the

protection of life, liberty and property, and the pro!otion of general welfare are essential for the

en%oy!ent by all the people of the blessings of de!ocracy.”

The privacy of individuals and their fa!ilies have been violated by photographers, videographers and

audio recorders who physically trespass in order to capture i!ages or other reproductions of their private

lives for co!!ercial purposes, or who do so constructively through intrusive !odern visual or auditory

enhance!ent devices, such as powerful telephoto lenses and hyperbolic !icrophones that enable invasion

of private areas that would otherwise be i!possible without trespassing.

4uch harass!ent and trespass threatens not only public persons and their fa!ilies but also private persons

and their fa!ilies for who! personal tragedies or circu!stances beyond their control create !edia

interest.

This bill sees to provide protection fro! personal intrusion for co!!ercial purposes to protect

individuals and their fa!ilies against intrusions on their privacy due to activities undertaen in connection

with the reproduction and broadcast of their private activities.

&!!ediate approval of this bill is earnestly sought.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sixteenth Con!ess

House Bi No! "#$%



AN ACT TO PROVI"E PROTECTION FRO# PERSONA$ INTRUSION FOR

CO##ERCIA$ PURPOSES

SECTION %. Sho!t Title. — This /ct shall be nown as the “ersonal rivacy rotection /ct.”

SEC. &. "e'l(!(tion o) Poli'*. — &t is hereby the policy of the 4tate to adopt !easures that

would effectively pro!ote the !aintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property,

and the pro!otion of the general welfare which are essential for the en%oy!ent by all the people of the

blessings of de!ocracy in a %ust and hu!ane society.

SEC. 3. "e+nition o) Te!,. — 7or purposes of this /ct, the ter! “for co!!ercial purposes”

shall !ean with the e'pectation of sale, financial gain or other consideration.

SEC. 4. Rule o) Const!u'tion. — 7or purposes of this /ct, a visual i!age, sound recording, or

other physical i!pression shall not be found to have been, or intended to have been, captured for

co!!ercial purposes unless it was intended to be, or was in fact, sold, published or trans!itted inhilippine or foreign co!!erce, or unless the person atte!pting to capture such i!age, recording, or

i!pression !oved in hilippine or foreign co!!erce in order to capture such i!age, recording, or

i!pression.

SEC. 5. T!es-(ss )o! Co,,e!'i(l Pu!-oses In/(sion o) $eiti,(te Inte!est

in P!i/('* )o! Co,,e!'i(l Pu!-oses. —

(8) Trespass for 6o!!ercial urposes — &t shall be unlawful to trespass on private property in order to

capture any type of visual i!age, sound recording, or other physical i!pression of any person for

co!!ercial purposes9

(5) &nvasion of :egiti!ate &nterest in rivacy for 6o!!ercial urposes — &t shall be unlawful to capture

any type of visual i!age, sound recording, or other physical i!pression for co!!ercial purposes of a

personal or fa!ily activity through the use of a visual or auditory enhance!ent device, even if no

physical trespass has occurred if3

a. the sub%ect of the i!age, sound recording, or other physical i!pression has a reasonable e'pectation of

privacy with respect to the personal or fa!ily activity captured9 and,

b. the i!age, sound recording, or other physical i!pression could not have been captured without a

trespass if not produced by the use of the enhance!ent device.

SEC. 0. C(use o) A'tion. — /ny person who is legally present in the hilippines who is sub%ect

to a violation of this /ct !ay, in a civil action against the person engaging in the violation, obtain any

appropriate relief, including co!pensatory da!ages, punitive da!ages and in%unctive relief. / person

obtaining relief !ay be either or both the owner of the property or the person whose visual or auditory

i!pression has been captured. &n any civil action or proceeding to enforce a provision of this /ct, the



court shall allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney2s fees as part of the costs. &n awarding attorney2s

fees, the court shall include e'pert fees as part of the attorney2s fees.

SEC. 1. $i,it(tion on "e)ense. — &t is not a defense to an action under this 4ection that3

(8) no i!age or recording was captured9 or

(5) no i!age or recording was sold.

SEC. 8. Use o) I,(es. — Nothing in this /ct !ay be construed to !ae the sale, trans!ission,

publication, broadcast, or use or any i!age or recording of the type or under the circu!stances described

herein in any otherwise lawful !anner by any person sub%ect to cri!inal charge or civil liability.

SEC. 2. $i,it(tion. — ;nly a person physically present at the ti!e of, and engaging or assisting

another in engaging in a violation of this /ct is sub%ect to civil liability under this /ct. / person shall not

be sub%ect to such liability by reason of the conduct of an agent, e!ployee, or contractor of that person, or

because i!ages or recordings captured in violation of this /ct were solicited, bought, used, or sold by that person.

SEC. %. $( En)o!'e,ent Exe,-tion. — The prohibitions of this /ct do not apply with

respect to official law enforce!ent activities.

SEC. %%. Re-e(lin Cl(use. — /ny :aw, presidential decree or issuance, e'ecutive order, letter

of instruction, ad!inistrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this /ct is hereby repealed, !odified or a!ended accordingly.

SEC. %&. Se-(!(ilit* Cl(use. — &f any provision or part hereof, is invalid or unconstitutional,the re!ainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall re!ain valid and subsisting.

SEC. %3. E6e'ti/it*. — This /ct shall tae effect fifteen (81) days after its publication in at least

two (5) newspapers of general circulation.



7OO#IN IN ON THE 9ANTI:SE$FIE; BI$$< A REFRESHER AN"UP"ATEDecember 8, 2014

In late August 2014, members of the mediaacross the Philippines got very upset when they heard about

House ill 4!0"# According to reports, the bill could abolish press freedom and suspend the right to expression

http://www.digitalphotographer.ph/news/2014/12/6/zooming-in-on-the-anti-selfie-bill-a-refresher-and-update










of all Filipinos, even that of visitors entering the country. Also called the “Protection Against Personal Intrusion

Act,” H !"#$ had already been approved for the second time and %as on its %ay to the third and &nal reading

before becoming a la%. ut no one 'ne% about it until after the second reading. Furious, the press immediately

spread the %ord about the bill, %hich s%iftly led to several protests.

Too broad scope (he authors of H

!"#$ insisted that the bill %as created to protect the privacy of individuals by banning the capture of visual or

sound recording, or other physical impression of a person to be used for commercial purposes. )agayan de

*ro +ep. +ufus +odrigue, the principal author of the bill, %as -uoted in an August / )ongress press release

as saying,“0uch harassment and trespassing threaten public and private persons and their families %hom

personal circumstances beyond their control create media interest. “

Ho%ever, carefully reading the text revealed a di1erent scenario. (he bill aims to declare as unla%ful2

3 (he capturing, or trespassing on private property to capture, any type of visual or auditory recording of any

individual or personal or family activity for commercial purposes4

3 (he capturing of any type of visual or auditory recording through the use of any visual or auditory or

enhancement device if no trespass occurs.

5embers of the media say that the scope of the bill %as too broad. 6hile the text does mention protection of

privacy, the bill doesn7t seem to be about it at all. Actually, the bill %ants to declare illegal any visual or auditory

recording of any person even if no trespass on private property %as committed. Plus, if the person captured on

the recording %ould say that the recording %as ta'en during a time that %as considered a private a1air related

to personal or family activities, and the recording %as used for commercial pro&t, the person %ho too' the

recording is in trouble.

Restrictions on mass media (he re-uirements in

the bill have important e1ects. If passed, the bill %ould ma'e all photos, videos, sound recordings, and other

types of recording illegal if the people %ho too' them have made a pro&t, but had not obtained the consent of

any and all people captured in such recordings.



(he bill also includes the capture of any visual or auditory recording of and %ithin buildings. For example, if any

buildings and houses got included in a photo or %as the venue of an audio recording %ithout the consent of the

property o%ner, the persons %ho too' the recording can be sued in court.

6ho are these people that %ould stand to ma'e a pro&t from photographs, &lm, videos, and sound recordings8

*f course, they %ould be the ma9ority of people involved in mass media, including ne%spapers, broadcast

ne%s, reporters, photo9ournalists, blog publishers, ne%s %ebsites, and even stoc' photo sellers. All of these

people and the organiations they %or' for rely on the pro&t from such materials.

(rying to obtain consent from every person %ho enters the camera7s vie% frame can be burdensome at best

and out of the -uestion at %orst, especially in situations li'e disasters, rallies, train derailments, and scenes of

armed &ghting. 0ince that is the blan'et re-uirement of H !"#$, all the %or' being done by ne%spapers,

magaines, and (: stations becomes nearly impossible.

“Selfe Capital o the World” no more? ;iven its very broad

scope, H !"#$ %ill also restrict a common freedom that many, many Filipinos currently en9oy 3 ta'ing sel&es.

In many instances, sel&es can include into the photo houses, buildings, and people in the bac'ground that

happened to be near the sub9ect<s=. If these sel&es someho% get published, these %ould be covered by the

“commercial purposes” condition of H !"#$.

As a result, sel&es can get anyone in potential legal trouble. (he bill is not concerned %hether or not the sel&e>

ta'er %anted to include the properties or people in the bac'ground. He or she %ould have to prove their

innocence in a court of la% ifa property o%ner or person %ho %as included in the sel&e decides to &le a case.

(hrough H !"#$, they can do this on such grounds alone.

(his is ho% ayan 5una +ep. )arlos ?arate got to dub H !"#$ as the “anti>sel&e” bill. “@ven an innocent sel&e

that happened to include public &gures at the bac'ground %ould be liable for intrusion of privacy7,” he said.

0upporters of the bill %ere irritated by this bill nic'name, saying the erroneous “tag” misleads people.

Bevertheless, if the bill becomes a la%, 5a'ati )ity %ill have to surrender its title as the “sel&est” city in the

%orld.

More serious implications 0ome possible e1ects

of H !"#$, ho%ever, are far more threatening than 9ust preventing people to freely snap pictures of

themselves. (he %ide, %ide area covered by the proposed bill can allo% people to use it for “nefarious,” or more

evil, purposes.



Although the bill claims to protect the privacy of individuals, it can be used by public &gures, especially if they

are involved in suspiciously unla%ful or immoral activity. (hey can claim that the activity %as a personal or

family matter. 0imply put, the bill can declare unla%ful photography, tape recording, and all other manner of

recording because it says so, not because these acts are naturally bad or harmful.

@ven then, the bill doesn7t provide a clearer de&nition of “private property” or “privacy” and “intent to gain or

pro&t therefrom.” In its current text, the bill seems to be targeting the media, since all media out&ts %or' for

pro&t.

(he biggest impact of the bill %ould be on citien 9ournalism. (a'ing pictures, shooting videos, or taping voices

have helped a lot in exposing the %rongdoings of government oCcials. If H !"#$ becomes la%, citiens are

disabled from doing this because the act of recording %ill become a criminal o1ense. As a result, ordinary

people %ill become fearful of monitoring their elected oCcials for corruption and immorality.

6hat is more, ta'ing photographs or videos for personal pleasure %ill also stop. (he bill %ill a1ect even tourists,

%ho are“legally present” in the country as visitors, if their photos or videos end up “moving” in“Philippine or

foreign commerce,” or being used for pro&t, as the bill also re-uires.

(he only legal exemption provided by H !"#$ is %hen any recording is used “%ith respect to oCcial la%

enforcement activities.”

Full text unavailable Actually, the full text of

H !"#$ has not been uploaded by )ongress even since the ne%s &rst bro'e. 5ultiple reports can con&rm this.

A search of the House of +epresentatives %ebsite %ill only sho% that H !"#$ had replaced an earlier bill, H

DE!".

(he original authors of H DE!" %ere +ep. +odrigue and his brother, Abante 5indanao Partylist +ep. 5aximo,

r. 6hen H !"#$ %as approved on the second reading, the authors listed already included )ebu Drd Gistrict

+ep. ;%endolyn ;arcia, uhay Partylist +ep. ose Atiena, ulacan !th Gistrict +ep. inabelle +uth :illarica,

Pangasinan nd Gistrict +ep. eopoldo ataoil, and 5isamis *ccidental /st Gistrict +ep. orge Almonte.

*ddly enough, the bill %as able to reach the second reading stage at )ongress %ithout &rst having consulted or

informed the groups %ho %ill be a1ected. According to ayan 5una Partylist +ep. Beri )olmenares, the



sponsors of the bill stayed true to its intent, passing it “very privately” that even the media stationed to cover

events at the o%er House did not 'no% about H !"#$ until they came to his oCce.

“6e have been 'ept in the dar' and %e are surprised that the bill is on its third reading,” photography freedom

advocate 5el )orte said during a protest staged by photographers and photo9ournalists at the atasang

Pambansa )omplex last 0eptember. Press Photographers of the Philippines president Freddy 5aalac said the

rushing of the bill %as “shoc'ing.”

ast !no"n details on the issue 6hen the ne%s lea'ed

to the public and the media began protesting in full force, some authors of the bill %ithdre% support. +odrigue

himself eventually said he %ill not be pushing through %ith it anymore. He also claimed that he and his co>

sponsors %ill not be ta'ing up the bill for the third reading. Jet, he told a di1erent story in his letter to

committee on rules chairman )ong. Beptali ;onales II.

In the letter, +odrigue only re-uests H !"#$ to be “re>committed.” +odrigue said he is doing this in response

to strong disapproval to the proposed bill, %hich he claims %as due to “malicious and uninformed” statements

that led to the bill being nic'named “anti>sel&e.” (he bill %as sent bac' for further deliberation to the

)ommittee on Public Information, %hich is headed by Almonte, a co>author of the bill. +odrigue did not say

anything about %ithdra%ing or scrapping the bill.

Almonte %as the &rst to %ithdra% as co>sponsor. He said this isto ensure “an impartial discussion.”He said

further that his name %as only automatically added to the author list because his committee had completed

the report on the bill. Pangasinan +ep. eopoldo ataoil also %ithdre% his support, but refused to tell the public

%hy. ataoil also happens to be vice>chairman of the same committee as Almonte.

As of this %riting, H !"#$ remains in “freee>frame,” as photo9ournalists put it.EAlthough no one li'es to be its

sponsor right no%, the bill is still alive. 0ince H !"#$ had already passed the second reading, anyone in

)ongress can pic' it up again to have it passed into la%. (he media are all too a%are of this and continue to

demand to have the bill scrapped, or be voted do%n by )ongress if ever it should reach the third reading. As of

this %riting, 9ust a fe% short months after the issue erupted, all is -uiet, at least media>%ise. Bevertheless, the

fact that H !"#$ is one &nal hearing a%ay from becoming a la% remains.

Selfies of interest: HB 4807

September 13, 2014 at 8:16pm

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alma-anonas-carpio/selfies-of-interest-hb-4807/10153177212409676

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alma-anonas-carpio/selfies-of-interest-hb-4807/10153177212409676



NB: This cover story was publishedbeforemembers of the House dropped House Bill 4807 like a hot potato. The

proposed law has been "shelved." But there are still other measures that the members of the nation's August

legislative chambers are filing that threaten the people's Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech and

of the press.

In my honest opinion, it is way past high time to tell our "representatives" in no uncertain terms that public

consultations are a MUST when crafting draft legislation—and these consultations and hearings should be done

BEFORE they pass these proposed measures for FIRST reading. Also, they should really do legislative reviews of

existing laws and KNOW the 1987 Freedom Constitution before they even DREAM of making laws. Enough is

enough.

By Alma Anonas-Carpio

Published in thePhilippines Graphic magazine

Not close at all: No cigar. That House Bill No. 4807 (formerly House Bill No. 3548) seeks to "provide protection from personal

intrusion for commercial purposes to protect individual and their families against intrusions on (sic) their privacy due to

activities undertaken in connection with the reproduction and broadcast of their private activities."

Called the 'Anti-Selfie' bill, this proposed measure by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez was put on the back burner, then re-filed in its

present form. The bill's author calls it “The Personal Privacy Protection Act.” It is on its way to third reading.

Take a hint from the explanatory note: "The privacy of individuals and their families have been violated by photographers,

videographers and audio recorders...Such harassment and trespass threatens not only public persons and their families but

also private persons and their families."

Attention, social media users in the Selfie Capital of the World: This bill is not limited to members of the press. It covers

anyone with the capacity to shoot photographs, videos and make audio recordings—pretty much anyone who owns and can

competently use a smartphone.

WHAT PUBLIC HEARINGS?



The legislative processes of both houses of Congress include public hearings or consultations—usually before the first

reading of a bill. Public hearings and consultations are undertaken when a bill is expected to affect a specific segment of

society, usually adversely.

In the case of HB 4807, the livelihoods of photojournalists, bloggers, videographers and commercial photographers will be

affected by the passage of this measure into law: Their wages could wind up going toward paying civil damages if they get

sued under it and lose the case. Citizen journalists are also affected by this bill, as are freelancers who earn per photograph,

video or story.

One lawyer interviewed online by thePhilippines Graphic, Ma. Victoria Suarez, said she could not recall there being any

call for public hearings or consultation on this bill.

"We are equally disturbed at how the bill has swiftly made its way through the legislative mill to be approved on second

reading without any of the sectors its passage would impact on informed about it, much less invited to discuss its

implications," the NUJP said in a statement on the matter.

CONFLICT, REDUNDANCY

Is there already a law in place against invasion of privacy using recording devices like cameras and audio recorders? Yes,

there is. Old as it may be, the Anti-Wiretapping Law (Republic Act 4200) has not been repealed, for all that it specifies

devices now called "analog" and "obsolete."

Here is what Section 1 of RA 4200 states: "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."

This is the law that makes it necessary for a journalist shooting video or recording audio of an interview to begin the

recorded conversation by obtaining the recorded agreement of the interview subject to go on the record—even in this age of

digital recorders, cameras and smartphones.

In its explanatory note, HB 4807 cites Article 2, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution because it states the “maintenance of

peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of general welfare are essential for the

enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy” as its raison d' etre.



Under HB 4807, "the term 'for commercial purposes' shall mean with the expectation of sale, financial gain or other

consideration."

The Constitution's definition of "liberty" includes "freedom of the press" as upheld and guaranteed in Article III of the Charter,

the Bill of Rights.

What part of "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press" is unclear to the

legislators who have gotten HB 4807 past second reading? Because it does not seem to take that important segment of the

Bill of Rights into account.

The Rodriguez measure encompasses what people who take photographs, videos and audio recordings for the purposes of

gathering data for a story or for private (non law-enforcement) investigation do: Their jobs, for which they are paid.

HB 4807 goes into specifics in its "Rules of Construction": "[A] visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression

shall not be found to have been, or intended to have been, captured for commercial purposes unless it was intended to be,

or was in fact, sold, published or transmitted in Philippine or foreign commerce, or unless the person attempting to capture

such image, recording, or impression moved in Philippine or foreign commerce in order to capture such image, recording, or

impression."

Members of the working press, artists, bloggers who earn from their blogs and private investigators are part of the nation's

labor force who are also protected by the laws that govern the freedom to work and earn. There is also the matter of the right

of the people to timely and relevant information, which the Constitution guarantees under the Bill of Rights.

Each citizen has the right to privacy. But workers in the Philippines also have the right to choose their livelihood and earn.

According to the 1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3, "[t]he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,

organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all."

No law supersedes the Constitution. That is taught in school, as part of the curriculum, because every citizen should know

this. Legislators, especially.



Under the same article and section of the Charter, workers "shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes

affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." Something they were unable to do in the case of HB 4807 for

lack of public hearings or consultations.

HB 4807 says it "shall be unlawful to trespass on private property in order to capture any type of visual image, sound

recording, or other physical impression of any person for commercial purposes."

Trespassing is already illegal under the criminal code, where the penalties levied are heavier (prison time!) than those

specified in HB 4807. It has been illegal since the Revised Penal Code was enacted in 1930. Do Filipinos really need

another law penalizing trespassing?

The "limitation on defense" of HB 4807 states that "[i]t is not a defense to an action under this Section that: (1) no image or

recording was captured; or (2) no image or recording was sold." The NUJP called this provision "insidious."

This bill's limitation on defense is, at best, confusing. If no image was taken and no image was sold, how can the accused

under this proposed measure be sued? Where is the evidence needed for prosecuting such a case?

The Civil Code of the Philippines already protects the privacy of citizens in its provisions on human relations. Article 26 of

this code states unequivocally that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his

neighbors and other persons."

One may not, under the Civil Code, pry into the "privacy of another's residence" or meddle with or disturb the "private life or

family relations of another." One cannot even engage in "intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends" or "vex

or humiliate" another for that person's "religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal

condition."

CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL

In its statement opposing HB 4807, the NUJP "urges the authors of House Bill 4807 to withdraw the measure and members

of the House of Representatives to vote it down should they fail to do so."



The NUJP gave its criticsm of the bill: "The measure’s intent is so broad it is likely to be used as another weapon for the

criminal and the corrupt to escape accountability should it become law." This is something Suarez also noted in her

comments via online interview with theGraphic.

"We are sure that the authors of the bill know only too well that media outfits are essentially 'for profit' enterprises," the NUJP

said in its statement. "Institutional media aside, the measure could end up stifling citizen journalism and even simply taking

pictures or videos for personal pleasure."

The group noted that, "in an era where technology is quickly breaking down the obstacles that hamper the flow of information

and expression, which are the bedrock of democracy, HB 4807 could return us to the dark ages and worse, be used as a

weapon of suppression and repression."

As far as the NUJP is concerned, HB 4807 takes up precious space and time in the legislative mill better allocated to other,

more urgent measures: "The authors of the bill and the House of Representatives as a whole would do the nation a truly

great service to the nation and the Filipino people by discarding this and any similar legislation and instead pouring their

energies into passing and enacting the Freedom of Information bill."

Under Chapter 2, Article 32 of the Civil Code, "[a]ny public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or

indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another

person shall be liable to the latter for damages."

Here are some of the rights that can one be sued for violating under the Civil Code: Freedom of religion; freedom of speech;

freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; freedom of

suffrage; the right to the equal protection of the laws.

That's just citing a few of the circumstances when a person may be civilly liable for violating another person's rights under

the Constitution—something that HB 4807 can be misused to do if it becomes law.

Perhaps it is time to review something else: Legislators’ immunity to lawsuits while in office.

opinions on anti - selfie bill philippines

Documents