Our Right to the privacy of our documents are protected by the Constitution. Article III provides:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court also stated:
"Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty."
Privacy of documents is so important that: in the case of Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it was held that pictures and love letters proving the infidelity of the husband, kept by him in his private clinic, taken by the wife without the knowledge of the husband, are inadmissible as evidence for being obtained in violation of the husband’s privacy of communication and correspondence
Furthermore Sec 1 of the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Imagine that, if your wife cannot violate your privacy to such, than that means it is that inviolable. A remedy has also been provided by the preceding statute in case of such violation.
In closing, the search done in airports, although voluntary, should only be limited to the laptop itself, not to its contents. In this case, we should not rely on the Jurisprudence of other countries since our laws with regard to technology is still in need of reshaping and be developed better.
