May a person request the removal or striking off his name in SC decisions and other repositories which contain the same such online websites, SCRA, SC decision online by claiming that his right to privacy is being impugned?

May a person request the removal or striking off his name in SC decisions and other repositories which contain the same such online websites, SCRA, SC decision online by claiming that his right to privacy is being impugned?

First, let us define what Right to Privacy is. Based on an article found at Dr. Jovito Salonga's Center for Law Development Website, it was defined as "the right to be left alone...  the right of a person to be free from undesired publicity or disclosure and as the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned." Using this definition, a person cannot just invoke that his name be striken off SC decisions and other repositories because these decisions concerns the public. These decisions are made precedent to similar future cases in which different members of society may use or invoke when applicable to them. These decisions serves as models and notices of the consequences of a certain action or inaction. It shows the applicabality of the law in different situations an individual may experience.  The right of privacy is not absolute, the constitution has provided for its limitation.  Again, as mentioned in the same website, "the right is not violated when the interference is made upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law." 

Looking at the practical side, I think the striking off  or removing of a  name would be costly and might cause chaos. Chaos in the sense that, when one is allowed then others would follow. Every person whose name would not want to make his name public would request for its removal, regardless of the reason. In case, our laws permits this removal by passing of a new law on this, I hope our legislators qualify and would be strick on those who can avail. The Supreme Court also, if given the task to make rules on such must be vigilant. There are already cases in which the Supreme Court allows that the naming of minor rape victims be witheld and this I believe is a valid ground as it will protect the rights of the child from being exposed. I have seen an ORDER  (see November 1, 2010 order) in which the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of Oregon (2010) applies that is similarly related on the issue at hand and such could be adopted in our society. The grounds in which they allow a "redaction" or the "replacement of a person's name with initials, psuedonyms, or use of any other convention to conceal the identity of the person". If such be adopted in our jurisdiction, it would be better if it be granted before the printing so as not to cause extra work or costs for the removal of such name. 

All in all, such right should be limited. If it has been proven that the person is innocent or that he falls in other reasons stated in the the Oregon order, he be allowed that his name be stricken of. If, however, he is guilty and that it serves as a model for the general public, the striking off should not be allowed.