In law, particularly our rules on evidence, certain information is given a ‘privileged status’. This prevents the disclosure of the same, even in court, except under certain circumstances. I have in fact raised objections to questions that tried to extract privileged information, being sustained (or upheld) by the court owing to categorical provisions in our rules.

What are the most common types of relationships (or positions) where the information shared is considered privileged information?

(i) Husband - Wife. You cannot be compelled to disclose what you and your spouse talk about in secret except, broadly stated, when the case is against each other. Your spouse’s gripes about your neighbor are yours alone to keep.

(ii) Attorney - Client. A lawyer, or even one who is not a lawyer but was thought of by the client as one, cannot be asked questions about private discussions with clients. It does not however apply when the advice is sought to commit a crime. In short, information about something done (even a past crime) is privileged, but information on a crime still to be done is not. Pour out your heart out to your lawyer (some even give their hearts), as he or she is bound by strict confidentiality, and competent legal advice is possible only when you share everything. The lawyer’s staff is also bound by this privilege, and you cannot hope to get from the office secretary something you failed to get from the lawyer.

(iii) Physician/Psychotherapist - Patient. While this was limited to physicians previously, recent updates rightfully broadened it to include psychotherapists and others reasonably believed to be allowed to practice medicine or psychotherapy. The most recent rule changes embraced the importance of mental health considerations. This limitation applies only to civil cases, and covers those that assisted the doctor or psychotherapist in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Do not withhold information from your medical or mental professional- that is privileged anyway, and proper treatment requires no less.

(iv) Penitent – Priest/Minister. Counseling can be a tell-all affair, and it is imperative that the person revealing his or her deepest concerns (or ‘sins’) is assured that the one he or she is sharing to cannot be forced to divulge the information.

(v) Public Officers, concerning matters stated in official confidence, where the court rules that public interest might suffer because of disclosure. This may include information that might compromise state security considerations.

(vi) Ascendants and Descendants. You cannot be forced to testify against your parents, children, or other direct ascendants or descendants, except if the testimony is necessary in a crime against the one testifying or by a parent against the other. Preserving the most basic unit of society has always been important, and this rule seeks to further that. Share away your thoughts in your family gatherings (subject to health protocols nowadays).

(vii) Trade Secrets. It was only last year that one was categorically prohibited from testifying as regards trade secrets. However, the Supreme Court has time and again passed upon this issue, and the recent revisions to the rules merely codify a long recognized privileged subject. That secret recipe of your company is safe.

Just in case you’re asked to disclose information under any of the foregoing scenarios, be sure to check your privilege, and you might not have to say anything after all.