A former head of the National Privacy Commission (NPC) has weighed in on the controversy surrounding a lawmaker caught watching a cockfight video during a House session, saying the legislator cannot invoke the Data Privacy Act (DPA) to evade public accountability.
Raymund Liboro, the country’s first privacy commissioner, said Agap party-list representative Nicanor Briones — who was photographed viewing the video while Congress was in session — was in a public venue, performing official duties, and under live coverage, therefore had a “diminished expectation of privacy.”
Liboro issued the statement to Newsbytes.PH in response to the claim of Briones that the viral image violated his right to privacy.
Liboro emphasized that the public’s right to know takes precedence when elected officials are using public time and resources.
“Public interest is a legitimate basis for processing personal data — particularly when public funds, public time, and official duties are involved,” said Liboro, who now heads the data privacy consultancy firm Privacy and Security by Design Inc.
He clarified that while the DPA protects individuals from unauthorized use of personal data, it does not extend full protection to government employees in the context of their public functions.
Section 4 of the law specifically exempts information about public officials related to their duties — especially when it serves transparency and public accountability.
“Democratic transparency requires that public officials be held accountable for their actions, especially when conducted in an official capacity,” he said.
Liboro also underscored that the media acted within their constitutional mandate to report on government conduct.
“The footage did not intrude into the congressman’s private or intimate affairs but captured behavior within an official proceeding. Data privacy must not be misused as a shield against legitimate public scrutiny.”
He pointed out that the Supreme Court has long upheld the public’s right to information as part of the broader freedom of expression and press.
Although Liboro acknowledged that all individuals — including lawmakers — are entitled to dignity and data protection, he said privacy rights should not be weaponized to avoid public oversight.
“The law was not designed to insulate public officials from reputational damage resulting from their own conduct,” he said.
“This incident serves as a reminder that privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully balanced,” Liboro concluded.
“Public officials must exercise greater prudence, especially when performing their duties under public scrutiny.”
