Body Scanners are the "IN" thing

Body screening technologies, some of them using ionizing radiations, are now considered to be used for security checking, for example at airports in western countries such as the United States, Canada and the European Union. And so far, the installation of this equipments has evidently strengthen their campaign against terrorism, unfortunately though, this high-tech piece of equipment have not yet found a home in our jurisdiction, probably because we are predominantly a conservative nation, and for us, privacy is the most, if not one the most sacred right that must never be breached or violated. But in every issue there is always a good and a bad side.



Let's start with the good news.

Full-body scanners use different systems, but there are two main competing technologies: Backscatter x-ray and millimeter-wave. Both of these use radiation (of a non-harmful kind, before you start worrying) that penetrates clothing.
Backscatter body scanners subject you to a far gentler burst of x-rays, and then detects those ones that are bounced back (scientifically: "backscattered") from your body, or objects on your person towards the machine. Concealed packets containing liquid bombs, drugs, or ceramic knives that would otherwise have passed through metal detectors undetected scatter the x-rays and are shown up. While, Millimeter wave tech uses a similar system, with rays transmitted out to you and bounced back. But in this case technology borrowed from military radar designs allows for detailed "radar" images of your body to be created in a computer, and there's no use of the scary-sounding "x-ray" science. Detection of foreign, concealed objects on a body work the same.



As such, both systems are absolutely ideal for defeating the efforts of some knife-wielding would-be hijackers or bomb-laden terrorists.

Now, the bad news. As mentioned earlier, privacy in this nation is a very sacred right that even the government has a difficulty of regulating due to our high-Christian culture. Hence, the intention of our legislature in attempting to enact a law to provide life to this systems shall most likely be archived. The reason is that these things do certainly reveal your weapons but they also reveal your body. Down to the furry bits, given that they're going to have to be human-operated like the baggage machines, that means you're effectively going to be taking your clothes off for that NAIA officer (you are lucky if your a guy, not so for ladies).



Now its time to move to the legal aspect. Our 1987 Constitution provides in Article III Section 2, it states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers…", and in Section 3, "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. There is no iron clad about privacy. So therefore, it is safe to say that under the Police Power of the state, privacy can be regulated for security purposes, especially today where there is rampant acts of terrorism. But is there a legal basis such act? Under our statutes, there are none, but fortunately under the United Nations Resolution no. 1373 also known as the UN Anti-Terrorism Resolution, where the Philippines is a signatory and under Article II Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." Under the resolution, all member states shall "Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information", and necessary acts shall definitely include the installation of these equipments to our airports and ports. So, therefore, appearance of these equipments are a very much welcome so long as it will give us peace of mind that we are safe, even if it will cost us a little satisfaction to "peeping toms".

DISCLAIMER:
This post is only for academic purposes. It shall not constitute as practice of law.