15 October 2022, from Gems:

“Julie, Tess and I wish to see the names in the first and second batches. Bernie and Mam Glo think that we should wait. Is there a privacy thing here? If there is, the leadership can therefore declare that it is not a public record… Can we have a show of hands if you agree or disagree that the 18 holders of Deed of Sale issued by DENR should remain incognito?”

I was out the whole day yesterday even as I monitored the thread of views in reaction to the informal motion of Sir Lito. I couldn’t drive and text earlier and felt we probably needed to wait for some inputs from lawyers in our community. Past dinner time I still paused to make sure we got this right. So, okay, here’s my view on the matter.

Up front, there is indeed a privacy issue here, one that runs in conflict with RA 10173. Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act seeks to protect all forms of information, be it private, personal, or sensitive. It is meant to cover both natural and juridical persons involved in the processing of personal information.

Under Sec. 3(j) of the Data Privacy Act, “processing refers to any operation or any set of operations performed upon personal information including, but not limited to, the collection, recording, organization, storage, updating or modification, retrieval, consultation, use, consolidation, blocking, erasure or destruction of data.”

As explained on the website of Data Privacy Philippines (privacy.com.ph), “processing of personal information is any operation where personal information is involved. Whenever your information is, among other things, collected, modified, or used for some purpose, processing already takes place.” This includes the simple revelation of a name. And the provisions particularly find applications in companies and organizations.

“Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Data Privacy Act, all organizations are required to appoint a Data Protection Officer. The Data Protection Officer shall be accountable for ensuring compliance with the appropriate data protection laws and regulations.”

In our association, while there is no such appointed officer, it has been our practice to protect the personal, sensitive and privileged information of all of our members, particularly given the unwillingness of many of them to divulge their identities and their exposed vulnerability to opportunistic agents.

As elected Directors and Officers of Phase 678 Chapter, we also serve as your data protection officers and personal information controllers. For with every Phase 678 member as a data subject, any breach of data privacy will not only be in violation of the law, but will have unintended consequences on our delicate solidarity and shared trust as an association.

We know that deeds of sale are personal documents. The consent ng individuals concerned is essential and necessary. That in itself may not yet suffice because no one may be induced to cede a waiver of his personal information without proper and legal justifications, including being given due notice of the intent and being made to understand why or for what purpose such act is about to be done.

As texted to me earlier by 678 Vice-President, Atty Manny Satuito, “a Deed of Absolute Sale, although signed by the contracting parties, remains as a private document and deserves privacy. It becomes a public document only after it has been notarized. Once notarized, it is already impressed with public interest.”

Although the DPA provides some justifying cases, including consent according to the specific purpose of processing and necessity to protect the life and health of the data subject and other persons concerned, the simple desire to know has no legal grounds.

I saw the raising of the hands and sensed how convenient it was to just say yes. Unfortunately, not from our end or from the side of those early recipients. For on the one hand that they probably felt triumphant, they felt awkward, on the other, to open their windows and blare their horns, knowing how many hundreds of others are left waiting in line all these years. Even to this hour.

Similarly, from where we sit as Board, we may feel gladly relieved about this breakthrough, but at the same time, we remain as anxious as ever since we have no control of DENR’s process, we’ve focused mainly on the lot application requirements and less on identities, and we have to negotiate our way through yet again with the new DENR administration.

And while it is relatively easy to just provide a list, releasing such information so that we can have a celebration of early victory or so that the morale of other lot applicants would get a boost will never justify the excuse to ignore, let alone violate, the mandate of the Data Privacy Act. A simple validation test is to ask a security guard or a reception staff at the front desk for the name of a unit dweller in a condo. Kahit pangalan lang, hindi pwedeng ibigay sa nagtatanong.

The legal infraction crosses the moral boundary when the names of the awardees or the recipients of the deeds of sale themselves would not want to divulge themselves to others, no matter how the latter may be similarly situated. By then, the act would not only be improper, but downright wrong. And here’s the truth and fact we’ve found out: many of those who knew about their deeds of sale – having been individually informed – called up yesterday to request that their identities be kept in confidence.

So let us respect them. For the DPA is not simply about data protection; it is substantially more about one’s right to privacy. We may argue on the point of the proper exercise by the AFPOVAI Board of transparency for the general membership, yes, we get that. But this is more about user-centric transparency, where the request must be understandable to the concerned data subjects (the recipients of DoS) and must satisfy their desire to understand how their personal information would be used. Without meeting those two and without meeting the other requirements of the DPA, we would be in violation of the law.

As to the other point about transparency, I was informed by another lawyer that it only applies to matters of legitimate public interest where public property whether it be real (land) or personal (such as money and others) is involved. Our interest with our deeds of sale, similar to motives many years ago when we first applied for those AFPOVAI lots, let me clarify, is purely private. But the process by which we have started and shall continue to pursue in order to obtain our deeds and our titles – as we have always explained since last year – shall be made transparent to all.

I hope we put some rest to this issue. We see the nobility of the intent. But we feel as well the guarded concerns of the first 18 members who can only thump their chests in private. Until that day that any one of them would willingly identify him or herself, we hav

e to respect their rights and obey the law.

Sirs, when your turn comes, you can be assured of the same protection and treatment of your personal data. It is our responsibility that they remain safe in our hands.

God bless our Phase 678 Chapter.

Data Privacy Philippines https://www.privacy.com.ph/