Griswold v Connecticut right to privacy

Right to privacy is aimed for the safeguarding the human dignity of an individual. It
fortifies other Constitutional guarantees such as freedom of expression, information, and
association because such right restricts unlawful surveillances and censorship.

Thus, in Griswold v Connecticut right to privacy, a licensed doctor and Yale professor,
served as Director for the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Griswold served as
Executive Director. Both Buxton and Griswold were arrested and convicted as “accessories”
under a state statute for giving out information medical advice and instruction to married couples
on how to prevent conception. The Connecticut state statute prevented the use of or assistance in
preventing contraception. Both challenged the convictions claiming the statute violated the right
to privacy. The Court ruled that the right to privacy implied in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights
prevents government intrusion into the marital relationship. The marital relationship is at issue in
this case. The Court held that the marital relationship falls within the zone of privacy impliedly
created by the constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights. The state law attempting to prohibit
the use of contraceptives in the marital relationship violates the relationships protected freedoms.

A case which also involves marital issue and right to privacy has been adjudicated in the
Philippines. In the case of Zulueta vs Court of appeals, the petitioner accused her husband of
infidelity. The same went to the clinic of private respondent, who is a doctor of medicine,
without the consent of the latter. That on the same day, petitioner opened the drawers and cabinet
of her husband and took documents and papers consisting of private correspondence between
respondent and his alleged paramours. The Court ruled that the documents obtained by the
petitioner is inadmissible. The Court upheld the respondent’s right to privacy. Right to privacy is
not an absolute right. The Government has the power to interfere with this right upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise. Hence, in the case, A
person, by contracting marriage does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

The right to privacy with herein cases are enforced by the Courts and making an
emphasis on the importance of the same to the well-being and enjoyment of liberty of every
individual. In the circumstances that was seen in the cases, the law and morals of the society
were properly weighed by the Courts in order to render judgment which is not oppressive but as
well not advantageous to the favored parties. The Courts only uphold and protected the right of
the people guaranteed by the Constitution which also provides their power and mandate that is
essential for the deliverance of justice towards society. Hence, in the cases right to privacy
prevailed. Right to privacy in the Philippines extends towards social media. People may invoke
the data privacy act in order to protect their rights to privacy whenever it is necessary. It ensures
compliance of personal information controllers. Receive complaints, institute investigations,
facilitate or enable settlement of complaints through the use of alternative dispute resolution
processes, adjudicate, award indemnity on matters affecting any personal information, prepare
reports on disposition of complaints and resolution of any investigation it initiates, and, in cases
it deems appropriate, publicize any such report. It as well provide the processing of personal
information shall be allowed, subject to compliance with the requirements of this Act and other
laws allowing disclosure of information to the public and adherence to the principles of
transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality. Privacy is very important in order to enjoy
ones person, liberty and property hence this right must be protected by the Government.