Truth Telling and other Perils in “Democratic” Philippines 215 Privacy The protection of privacy is guaranteed in the Philippine Constitution and further regulated in the Civil and Penal Codes. The new Civil Code of the Philippines contains a provision on the right to privacy (Article 26), violations of which can result in civil damages against private persons. Article 32 penalizes any government ofcial or individual who “obstructs, defeats, violates, impedes and impairs” the exercise of freedom of speech, the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a publication, as well as the privacy of communication or correspondence. However, no government ofcial has so far been charged under this provision. The Penal Code also has a number of provisions on privacy. Protection of sources A special law (Republic Act 53) unique to the Philippines protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources unless “demanded by the security of the state”. Section 1 of this Act states that no one from a newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation can be “compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearing in said publication… unless the court or a House or Committee of Congress nds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state”. Only one attempt has so far been made (in 2003) to force a journalist to reveal their sources since the Marcos period. This was widely criticized by the press and did not prosper. Election reporting Republic Act 6646, prohibiting newspapers and broadcasting stations from printing or broadcasting election campaign material, was one of the most controversial laws to be passed and enforced in the Philippines. Passed by Congress in 1987, the Act declared it illegal “for any newspaper, radio broadcasting or television station or other mass media, or any person making use of the mass media to sell or give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes…” Civil libertarians, including a retired Supreme Court justice, criticized the Act as a violation of the people's right to information, which he said was part of free expression. It remained in force for 14 years, however, and was repealed only on 12 February 2001, in time for the May 2001 elections. But the Fair Election Act of 2001 (RA 9006) itself contained provisions prohibiting the publication of “surveys affecting national candidates” 15 days before an election, and “surveys affecting local candidates” seven days before an election. The survey group Social Weather Stations argued before the Supreme Court that the ban constituted prior restraint on free speech and the right to information. The Court agreed, and ruled that Section 5.4, which forbade the publication of the information cited above, constituted an unconstitutional abridgement of the rights to free speech, expression and press freedom, and declared it invalid.