Transcript of WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

The writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a persons right
to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve
unlawful end.
As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy
especially the right to informational privacy the proceedings for the
issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail any finding of criminal,
civil or administrative culpability.
Literal Translation of Habeas Data
You should have the data.

PURPOSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

It is designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information
age by means of an individual complaint presented in a constitutional court.
Specifically, it protects the image, privacy, honor, information, selfdetermination, and freedom of information of a person.
PHILIPPINE HABEAS DATA
The Rule on Habeas Data, promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 22,
2008 through A.M. 08-1-16 and took effect on February 2, 2008, was born in
the midst of worsening human rights condition in the country through extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearance and torture.
WRIT IS A GUARANTEE TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO TRUTH
Recourse to the action for habeas data has become a fundamental
instrument for investigations into human rights violations committed during
past military dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Family members of
disappeared persons have used actions for habeas data to obtain information
concerning government conduct, to learn the fate of disappeared persons,
and to exact accountability.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA VIS--VIS WRIT OF HABEAS AMPARO
The Writ of Habeas Data is not complimentary to the writ of amparo. It is an
independent remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy. All persons
have the right to access information about themselves, especially if it is in

the hands of the government. Any violation of this right ought to give the
aggrieved person the remedy to go to court to modify, remove or correct
such misinformation. The right to access and control personal information is
essential to protect ones privacy, honor and personal identity, even as it
underscores accountability in information gathering.
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PHILIPPINE HABEAS DATA
SEC. 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Interpreted to refer to an act or omission which violates or threatens the
right to privacy of an individual which in turn, results in violating or
threatening his or her right to life, liberty or security.
Habeas data essentially allows families of victims of enforced disappearance
to petition the courts to compel government and security officials to allow
access to documents about the missing person.
The rule requires that the act or omission causing the violation must be
unlawful. It is best that the petition must allege the unlawfulness of an act or
omission to fulfill this required element.
Any gathering, collecting, storing or using of data on an individual, without
that individuals consent, is presumed unlawful UNLESS the respondent
proves that the data is current, accurate, its confidentiality assured, and was
legally acquired or gathered for a legitimate or legal purpose.
The media may be a respondent in a habeas data petition, but it can raise as
a defense the confidentiality of its sources, and therefore privileged, as the
habeas data rule provides.
BASIS OF THE WRIT
It is based on the principle that the privacy of ones person, family and home
is a sanctified right in the history of constitutional law. (Irene Cortes, The
Constitutional Foundations of Privacy, in Emerging Trends, UP Press, 1983). It
has been said that a mans home is his kingdom, which even the king has to
respect. (Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424).

INAPPLICABILITY TO COMMERCIAL CONCERNS

The writ of habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or
commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the
petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.
CASE: The writ of habeas data cannot be invoked in labor disputes where
there is no unlawful
violation of the right to life, liberty, or security.
Employment is a property right in the due process clause. Lim was
concerned with her employment, one that can be solved in the NLRC. There
was no violation of respondents right to privacy. Respondent even said that
the letters were mere jokes and even conceded the fact that the issue was
labor related due to references to real intent of management.(MERALCO ET
AL VS. ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM GR No. 184769, October 5, 2010)
Habeas data cannot be invoked when respondents in the petition or issuance
of the writ are not gathering, collecting, or storing data or information.
The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty
and security. And the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful
acts or omissions.
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the
threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated
or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present
controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial
Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the
acts complained of and its effect on respondents right to life, liberty and
security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners entry into
the property.
Oddly, respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas data when it is
not even alleged that petitioners are gathering, collecting or storing data or
information regarding their person, family, home and correspondence.
(Felixberto Castillo, et al vs Amanda Cruz, et al GR No. 182165, November 25
2009)
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY ON HABEAS DATA PROCEEDING
Command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of commanders for
crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other
persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict.

Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity, the command

responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil cases for human
rights abuses. This development in the use of command responsibility in civil
proceedings shows that the application of this doctrine has been liberally
extended even to cases not criminal in nature. Thus, the doctrine may
likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of
habeas data. (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO
AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H.
RODRIGUEZ VS. GMA, G.R. No. 191805 November 15, 2011)
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS
Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable
requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended.
In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened
violation of such right. Verily, until such time that any of the public
respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and
torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the existence of reports
being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike
down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data. (IN RE ROXAS VS.
GMA et al)
WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION
SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of
habeas data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the
spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Any Aggrieved Party
Third parties - in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
In this situation, it is important to allege the threat of extrajudicial killing or
enforced disappearance in the petition in order to grant third parties the
standing to file the petition.

Unlike in Amparo, human rights organizations or institutions are no longer

allowed to file the petition, possibly in recognition of the privacy aspect of a
habeas data petition.
WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION
(i) The Regional Trial Court where the respondent or petitioner resides
(ii) The Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the place where the
data or information is gathered, collected or stored.
(iii) The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the
action concerns public data files of government offices. (Section 3)
WHERE THE WRIT IS RETURNABLE AND ENFORCEABLE
SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. - When the writ is issued by a
Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, it shall be returnable before such
court or judge.
When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent
resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, or to any Regional Trial
Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored.
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
SEC. 5. Docket Fees. - No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from
an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docked and acted
upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of
indigency not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition.

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION

SEC. 6. Petition. - A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should
contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or
information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office,
and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the
respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the
act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ vs. HON. JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO, ET ALG.R.
No. 182484 June 17, 2008

In the present case, Support for the habeas data aspect of the present
petition only alleges that:
1. Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is prayed for so that the
PNP may release the report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners
and the acts of violence employed against them by the private respondents,
furnishing the Court and the petitioners with copy of the same;
66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding the Philippine
National Police [PNP] to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of
the houses of the petitioners in the land in dispute and likewise the
investigation report if an investigation was conducted by the PNP.
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data
requires as a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient.
Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful

violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security.
The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for
information under the control of police authorities other than those it has
already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the
issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to
secure information, has not also been shown.
SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice
or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it
ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the
court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from the issuance; or, in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or
her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its
issuance.
WHEN IS THE WRIT ISSUED
The rule requires courts to immediately issue a writ if, from the face of the
petition, it ought to issue. Although no period was provided, it is expected
that the writ should issue forthwith since all the court is required to look into
is simply if it ought to issue on its face.
If there is utmost urgency, Petitioner has the option of asking the court,
through the Petition, to deputize petitioners counsel or representative to
serve the writ on respondents.
PENALTY FOR REFUSING TO ISSUE OR SERVE THE WRIT
SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. - A clerk of court who
refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who
refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for
contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served The writ shall be served upon the
respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice
or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case
the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on
substituted service shall apply.

HOW WILL THE WRIT BE SERVED

SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The respondent shall file in a verified written
return together with supporting affidavits within five (5) working days form
service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court
for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the
following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged
communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media and
others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or
information subject of the petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of
such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and
confidentiality of the data or information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE WRIT, WHAT SHALL THE RESPONDENT FILE?
Firstly, the return must also be verified by the respondent.
Secondly, the return must specify its lawful defenses to the Petition.
Thirdly, the return must state the currency and accuracy of the data or
information.
This could be the focal point of the petition since if respondent fails to prove
that the data is current and accurate, the prayer for its rectification or
destruction should be granted.
The collection and storage of data on an individual, without that individuals
consent, should be presumed a violation of his or her constitutional right to
privacy.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE WRIT, WHAT SHALL THE RESPONDENT FILE?
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF RESPONDENT FILES A FALSE RETURN OR
REFUSES TO MAKE A RETURN?
SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may punish with
imprisonment or fine a respondent who commits contempt by making a false
return, or refusing to make a return; or any person who otherwise disobeys
or resist a lawful process or order of the court

HOW WILL BE THE HEARING CONDUCTED IN CASES OF SENSITIVE DATA?

SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. - A hearing in chambers
may be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense that the
release of the data or information in question shall compromise national
security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be divulged
to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
Can the respondent file a pleading other than a return? NO.
SEC. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position
paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders;
and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory
order.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF RESPONDENT FAILS TO FILE A RETURN?
SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the
court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting
the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its
discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.

NATURE OF THE HEARING

SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to

simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
Is there a period within which the court must decide the petition? What
should the decision contain?
SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days
from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the
petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act
complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the
erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just
and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful
officers as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5)
working days.
GRANT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA vs. GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
SEC. 17. Return of Service. The officer who executed the final judgment
shall, within three (3) days from its enforcement, make a verified return to
the court. The return shall contain a full statement of the proceedings under
the writ and a complete inventory of the database or information, or
documents and articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copies
served on the petitioner and the respondent.
The officer shall state in return how the judgment was enforced and complied
with by the respondent, as well as all objections of the parties regarding the
manner and regularity of the service of the writ.

What shall the Sheriff do after enforcement of the writ?

CONTENTS of the Return of Service

Full statement of the proceedings under the writ;

Complete inventory of the database or information or documents or
articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with the copies
served on the petitioner and respondent;
Statement by the officer how the judgment was enforced and
complied with by the respondent; and
All the objections of the parties regarding the manner and

regularity of the service of writ.

HEARING ON OFFICERS RETURN

SEC. 18. Hearing on Officers Return. The court shall set the return
for hearing with due notice to the parties and act accordingly.
REMEDY of an Aggrieved Party after judgment is rendered
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or
law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of
the judgment or final order.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus and amparo
cases.

EFFECT of the filing of the Petition in relation to the Right to file other action
SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. The filing of a petition for the writ
of habeas data shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions.

EFFECT of the filing of a Criminal Action AFTER the filing of the Petition
SEC. 21. Consolidation. When a criminal actions is filed subsequent to the
filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal actions.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the
criminal action
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern
the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

May a petition for habeas data be filed if there is a pending criminal action?
NO
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief
under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the

criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of habeas data.
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT
SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
EFFECTIVITY
SEC. 25. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008,
following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
Marynette R. Gamboa vs. P/SSUPT.Marlou C. Chan GR No. 193636, July 24,
2012
The writ of habeas data may not be granted.
The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to
protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of
an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and
to informational privacy.
It seeks to protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through
unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It must be emphasized
that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, there must exist a
nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other.

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial evidence that her inclusion
in the list of individuals maintaining PAGs made her and her supporters
susceptible to harassment and to increased police surveillance. In this
regard, respondents sufficiently explained that the investigations conducted
against her were in relation to the criminal cases in which she was
implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the presumption of regularity,
which she failed to overcome.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the state interest of dismantling
PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa,
especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information
against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the
writ of habeas data must be denied.
SAEZ VS GMAG.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012
Petitioner failed to adduced substantial evidence to prove his claims
It cannot be overemphasized that Section 1 of both the Rules on the Writ of
Amparo and Habeas Data expressly include in their coverage even
threatened violations against a persons right to life, liberty or security.
Further, threat and intimidation that vitiate the free will although not
involving invasion of bodily integrity nevertheless constitute a violation of
the right to security in the sense of "freedom from threat".
It must be stressed, however, that such "threat" must find rational basis on
the surrounding circumstances of the case. In this case, the petition was
mainly anchored on the alleged threats against his life, liberty and security
by reason of his inclusion in the militarys order of battle, the surveillance
and monitoring activities made on him, and the intimidation exerted upon
him to compel him to be a military asset. While as stated earlier, mere
threats fall within the mantle of protection of the writs of amparo and habeas
data, in the petitioners case, the restraints and threats allegedly made
allegations lack corroborations, are not supported by independent and
credible evidence, and thus stand on nebulous grounds.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility is applicable in Habeas Data
proceedings
In Noriel Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., the Court stated:
a. Command responsibility of the President
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, necessarily
possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the
purview of the command responsibility doctrine.
Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as the
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the
petitioners rights to life, liberty and security as long as substantial evidence
exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement in or can be imputed
with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise necessary and

reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations required

under the rules.
The petitioner, however, is not exempted from the burden of proving by
substantial evidence his allegations against the President to make the latter
liable for either acts or omissions violative of rights against life, liberty and
security.
In the instant case, the petitioner merely included the Presidents name as a
party respondent without any attempt at all to show the latters actual
involvement in, or knowledge of the alleged violations.