ALTHOUGH the country’s anti-wiretapping law already lists 13 exceptions in the prohibition of any secret interception of private conversations, Senator Panfilo Lacson wants to add five more instances when a court can allow wiretapping.
Lacson, chairman of the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs, sponsored Senate Bill No. 1210, or the Expanded Anti-Wiretapping Act of 2016, which he said should be viewed as a vital tool to enhance crime prevention and suppression.
“Though inclusion of additional crimes may appear to open wider gates towards the curtailment of the right to privacy, I encourage our distinguished colleagues to view the said amendment rather as a vital tool in enhancing crime prevention and suppression,” Lacson said.
“Further, the proceeds of judicial wiretapping will definitely strengthen the evidence against apprehended criminals when they are brought before the bar of justice,” he said.
Lacson said the bill sought to require a court order before wiretapping could be allowed.
“I would like to describe this measure as comprehensive. However, mere mention of the word comprehensive will definitely raise eyebrows. Let me assure you, with the numerous pronouncements already made by the Supreme Court, the right to privacy shall always be inviolable,” Lacson said.
“Having said so, I beg the kind indulgence of everybody in this hall and keep in mind that the respect for private lives of individuals still remains as the overall context of the Expanded Anti-Wiretapping Act of 2016,” he added.
Lacson noted that the prevailing anti-wiretapping law, or Republic Act 4200, is already 51 years old and there is a need to make the lw more adaptive and responsive to the times.
“Republic Act 4200 is even much older than some of our young senators,” he said, noting that ease of communications make it harder to fight organized crime.
Under his proposal, cases involving coup d’état, robbery in band, brigandage, drug crimes and money laundering will also be considered exceptions to the prohibition against wiretapping.
The existing law, he said, prohibits and penalizes the secret interception of private conversations except in cases involving crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping and espionage.
Due to this, he believes it is a must that our law enforcement agencies and the military are able to prevent and detect crimes by being able to intercept communications, conversations, discussions, data, information, messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written words through the use of electronic, mechanical or other equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to science.