would it be appropriate to announce for brodcasting company a social network?

Right to privacy- the right of a person and the person's property to be free from unwarranted public scrutiny or exposure. (black law dictionary)
in a free society, a large measure of personal privacy must be assumed for each individual. at the same time, demands for governmental service create situations which intrude upon privacy. a welfare or medical case system, for example, requires the acquisition of detailed personal information about citizens, which when stored in computer, may be easily retrieved for illegitimate uses. technological developments, such as eavesdropping devices, may help to curb crime but are dangerously subject to abusive intrusions on privacy. (plano & greenberg, the american political dictionary.)
it is not appropriate to announce a social network such as twitter or facebook for any broadcasting .
our right to privacy under Article 3, sec. 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution provide that" 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."
the object of the provision was to provide adequate protection for " letters and messages" carried by the agencies of the government lest " their privacy be wantonly violated and great harm (be) inflicted upon the citizens". (Bernas, commentaries of the 1987 constitution.)
the purpose of the constitution is to protect the privacy of every individual against unauthorized use, display and exhibit in any public broadcasting without the consent of the owner.
the use of social network in public broadcasting without the consent of the owner, will constitute a civil liability under Art. 26 of the new civil code, which provide that " every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind his neighbors and other persons". in relation to Art. 32 of the same code, which provide that " any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.
xxxxx
10. the privacy of communication and correspondence.
xxxxxxx
this article is a further implementation of the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. the creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action which this article for the violation of civil liberties provides, was considered essential to the effective maintenance of democracy. (Tolentino, 1 civil code p. 129)
under the broadcast code of the Philippines (sec. 41) broadcasting station shall:
41. provide programs for entertainment within the bounds of respect for the individuals private life and consistent with human dignity and morals.
the court's public/private distinction in its libel and emotional distress decisions creates an important incentive for superficial journalism. in both areas, the Court has held than when the press reports on public officials  or public figures, plaintiff can recover only if they prove actual malice. if the press reports about private figures, a lower level of protection is applied. thus, it is safer for the press to cover public officials and public figures than it is to report on private figures. (Marshall & Gilles, the supreme court review 1994. p. 181-182)
the court has adopted a rule of similar effect in the private facts torts cases. in these cases, the court has declined to hold the press immune from liability when it publishes the truth, instead declaring the narrower principle that liability will not attach if the information was received from government sources. thus, while the press is fully protected when it reports information received from a government source, it may not be protected if it publishes the same information from a non-government source. press protection is most secure when it simply reproduce[s}, with no substation change, the government's rendition of the event in question. the press's own "rendition of the event" is not similarly protected. (supra. p190)