Defense, prosecution clash over alleged violation of data privacy of confidential funds payees

The defense and prosecution teams in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte exchanged words on Monday on whether there was a violation of the Data Privacy Act when the civil registry records of the confidential funds recipients were accessed without any consent.

On the 22nd day of the trial, defense counsel Justin Gular asked prosecution witness, Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande, if she got the consent of those listed on the acknowledgement receipts before their civil registry information was checked and provided to the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.

“For this particular request from the House of Representatives, we don’t think na kailangan ko po ng consent nung (there’s a need for the consent of the) individuals because the very purpose of this is the conduct already of an investigation,” Grande answered.

Gular pressed her if she got the consent. Grande admitted she did not.

“And are you aware that any information in a civil registry document is sensitive personal information?” the defense lawyer further asked during the cross-examination.

The witness said that there are procedures that the PSA has adopted in compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

“So you are aware that any disclosure of personal, sensitive information is a violation of the data privacy---,” Gular said, but he was cut off by the objection of private prosecutor Mae Divinagracia.

Divinagracia argued that the defense lawyer’s line of questioning was “misleading,” citing paragraph F, Section 13 of the Data Privacy Act, which states:

“The processing concerns such personal information as is necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority.”

Presiding officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero then asked Grande why she thinks the disclosure of the information requested by the House committee did not violate the Data Privacy Act or the PSA charter.

“Based po sa Data Privacy Act, sir, the same as mentioned by Atty. [Divinagracia], Section 13(f), so if there’s a legitimate purpose and pwede po namin i-release po ito sa nagre-request na agency or individual,” Grande said.

(Based on Section 13(f) of the Data Privacy Act, as mentioned by Atty. Divinagracia, if there’s a legitimate purpose, we can release it to the requesting agency or individual.)

“But most of the time po, sir, ‘yung mga ganitong cases po ay chinecheck namin what is the legitimate purpose and then ‘yung mga information that we provide, we determine that is proportionate doon sa ni-request ng House Committee po,” she added.

(But most of the time, sir, in these cases, we check what the legitimate purpose is. We also determined if the information we provided was proportionate to what the House Committee was requesting.) — RSJ, GMA News