AN ORDINANCE THAT BORDERS ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It bothers me endlessly, indeed, that a Quezon City ordinance requiring business establishment to install short-circuit television (CCTV) cameras under a "no CCTV, no business permit" policy has been passed without much ado, to take effect lst January 2013.  Maybe, medyo "nakatulog ako sa pansitan" about this one; but I think there's noharm in my hereby putting out my two-centavo worth of comments thereon.

To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras.  As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world.  As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it.  In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can.  In the same token, not a few business establishments  probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge.   I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times.  That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.

Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world.  I don't have any quarrel with that.  Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself.  If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard.  As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera  long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene.  Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures.    But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman?  My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved."  Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.

Be that as it may, I repeat,  I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments.  But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise.  I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional.  The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed.  The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality.  Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish --  I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.      

Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations.  Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?  Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that.  At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?