In recent events we have heard about Data Privacy and Cyber Libel being invoked by politicians when a certain news item is not in congruence to their liking. But we have to take note that there is information that is out of scope in RA10173 or the data privacy act of 2012 mainly:
- information that are matters of public concern
- personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes, subject to applicable laws
- personal information processed for research purposes, subject to applicable laws and ethical standards
- information necessary for public authorities to carry out their functions
- information necessary for banks and financial institutions to comply with the law
- personal information collected from residents of a foreign jurisdiction in accordance with the latter’s laws
This information has a special category under the data privacy act so to balance with other principles of the human person like freedom of expression and the right to information specifically on public concerns.
We have to take note that the exemption only relates to “information” but does not extend to the juridical entities that process personal information which we popularly call data controllers and processors in the parlance of data protection. The main gist of the DPA is the implementation, measurement of controls being implemented by entities to protect their digital asset and these entities have to take note that they are custodians of this personal information not the sole owner of PI and SPI.
So when a public official calls out the DPA and calls a zoom meeting as “PUBLIC SECRET” then we know that it cannot stand in court since items 1 and 2 specifically states that information that are matters of public concern and if personal information has been processed on articles on a journalistic manner then DPA cannot be invoked.