Privacy vs public interest
In response to an open letter from a physician that went viral last week, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago refuses to release her medical records that would prove her claim that she has been cured of stage 4 lung cancer.
Santiago, who is seeking the presidency for the third time, evidently thinks her word is good enough and is invoking her right to privacy and the possible violation of her human rights if her medical records were made public.
Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio cited in her open letter statistics from the American Cancer Society showing that only 1 percent of patients live beyond five years after being diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. Claudio called on the senator to disclose her medical records that would support her claimed recovery. “Because if you did not receive a miracle, there is a great probability that you will not survive your 6-year term,” the physician said.
On July 2, 2014, Santiago announced that she had lung cancer, that she was under medication, and that she would take a leave from her Senate duties. Health issues had also led her to refuse a posting at the International Criminal Court based in The Hague.
But barely two months later, she announced that she “had licked cancer and was thinking of several career options” as she would be disqualified by law from seeking another term as senator by 2016. Last week, she filed her certificate of candidacy for president, with Sen. Bongbong Marcos as her possible running mate.
Santiago’s candidacy, according to Claudio, makes full disclosure of her state of health a necessity. Claudio also cited the senator’s earlier feisty interpellation of the freedom of information bill, which showed that she appreciates the need for transparency in matters of public interest.
But Santiago will have nothing of it. She casually directs Claudio to St. Luke’s Medical Center Global City to formally seek the medical records, as though it were not clear that the confidentiality clause binding doctor and patient would make such a move futile. There is nothing in the civil and criminal code, or in the election code, that requires the disclosure of such private information as one’s state of health, adds the veteran lawmaker and former regional trial court judge who certainly knows enough about not only the letter but also the spirit of the law.
Claudio recognized the value of confidentiality but pointed out that it was Santiago herself who made her illness public. “There is no clear demarcation when the public’s need to know exceeds your right to confidentiality. But as a physician and as a concerned citizen, I believe you tipped the balance when you filed your certificate of candidacy,” Claudio said, stressing the need for public disclosure when something as crucial as the presidency is at stake.
Indeed, Santiago waived her rights as a private citizen when she sought and won public office, making herself a public figure subject to public scrutiny. Why should she now refuse to agree that full disclosure is crucial to voters who intend to make the correct choice in the presidential election? That with public office being a public trust, voters want assurance that poor health and possible inability to govern will not result in the No. 1 post passing to someone unworthy or even morally unqualified to have it?
Is seeking full disclosure of a presidential candidate’s state of health an unreasonable demand? We think not. Applicants for the lowliest jobs are obliged to undergo a medical examination before they are even considered for the sought positions. What more the presidency?
People with a long memory may cite Santiago’s previous hyperbolic statement: If he wins, I shall jump from a plane! She didn’t, of course, and when reminded of her earlier promise, she declared with a laugh: I lied! Voters would want to know for certain if she was being her usual hyperbolic self when she declared herself afflicted with stage 4 lung cancer, and subsequently miraculously cured. Voters would want to know for certain if they were made privy to her life story’s highs and lows, or are merely being toyed with—as though they were forever stupid.
How does one know for sure? During martial law she was a fearless judge who went by evidence to back her decisions. Why does she now hesitate to favor voters with the same means that can help them decide who can best be trusted with the lives of 100 million Filipinos in the next six years?
Should individual privacy trump national interest? Santiago’s response will help decide her—and the nation’s—political fate.
