The difficulty of information privateness was raised throughout the resumption of oral arguments on Tuesday on the Supreme Court on petitions looking for to invalidate the no-contact apprehension coverage in opposition to erring motorists.
During his interpellation, Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao questioned Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, who was representing the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), on how the LTO protects private knowledge.
In response, the previous justice secretary said that memoranda of understanding exist between the LGUs implementing the NCAP and the LTO concerning entry to knowledge saved by the company.
“Only authorized persons coming from the local government units may have direct access to the LTO database. These are covered by confidentiality provisions in the memoranda of agreements between the local government unit concerned and the LTO,” Guevarra stated.
Dimaampao additionally inquired whether or not there’s a part within the LTO registration process that requires the registrant’s consent earlier than the info is forwarded to the LGUs.
Guevarra, citing the Data Privacy Act, stated that this was “unnecessary and not required.”
“I think the matter of consent is not really a requirement because this is exactly one of the exceptions under the Data Privacy Act where the processing of personal information is required in the performance of the functions of public authorities. This is carved out [of] the requirements, from the general principles of the Data Privacy Act,” Guevarra stated.
“In other words, even without the consent of the person concerned, because the information will be processed for the discharge of a public function, consent is actually unnecessary and not required,” he added.
He additionally stated that they might solely assume, based mostly on the computerized knowledge obtainable on the LTO, that correct details about the registered proprietor of a automobile apprehended could be forwarded by the LTO to the LGUs.
In August final 12 months, lawyer Juman Paa requested the excessive court docket to declare the NCAP unconstitutional and difficulty a short lived restraining order in opposition to Manila City Ordinance No. 8676, which covers the coverage.
In his petition, he claimed that there was a transparent violation of his privateness when he accessed his visitors violations by coming into his license plate quantity on the NCAP web site of the City of Manila.
Transport organizations Kapit, Pasang Masda, Altodap, and the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organizations additionally filed a petition in opposition to native ordinances associated to the NCAP in 5 cities in Metro Manila: Manila, Quezon City, Valenzuela, Muntinlupa, and Parañaque. The SC then issued a TRO on the implementation of the coverage.
Guevarra urged the SC to shortly raise the TRO throughout the first day of oral arguments on the petitions final December.
He stated the transport teams did not allege precise or threatened damage, whereas Paa’s claims arose from his personal violation of visitors guidelines.
Guevarra added that the NCAP is likely one of the options to the worsening visitors downside, which is instantly tied to the rising variety of autos in Metro Manila.—VBL, GMA Integrated News
