1.

Roxas
DI KO NA SINAMA ANG WRIT OF AMPARO S ISSUE ZZZ
Di naprove ung s habeas data

The main problem behind the ruling of the Court of Appeals is that
there is actually no evidence on record that shows that any of the
public respondents had violated or threatened the right to privacy
of the petitioner. The act ascribed by the Court of Appeals to the
public respondents that would have violated or threatened the
right to privacy of the petitioner, i.e., keeping records of
investigations and other reports about the petitioners ties with
the CPP-NPA, was not adequately provenconsidering that the
origin of such records were virtually unexplained and its
existence, clearly, only inferred by the appellate court from the
video and photograph released by Representatives Palparan and
Alcover in their press conference. No evidence on record even
shows that any of the public respondents had access to such
video or photograph.
2. CASTILLO

Section 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.

HINDI NGA SAKOP ANG PROPERTY ISSUE KAKULIT

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.
To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a
response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies
to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations
of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and
independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as
a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect
concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ
that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in line with the extraordinary
character of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands
requires that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be supported by
justifying allegations of fact
3. iN RE
As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy
especially the right to informational privacy 1[66] the proceedings for the
issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail any finding of criminal,
civil or administrative culpability. If the allegations in the petition are proven
through substantial evidence, then the Court may (a) grant access to the
database or information; (b) enjoin the act complained of; or (c) in case the
database or information contains erroneous data or information, order its
deletion, destruction or rectification.

COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY PRESIDENT

To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the

following elements must obtain:

a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the

accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his
subordinate;

b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to
be or had been committed; and

c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to

prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof
KASO WALA
Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that on the basis of
the Melo Commission and the Alston Report, respondents in G.R. No.
1
191805 already had knowledge of and information on, and should have
known that a climate of enforced disappearances had been perpetrated on
members of the NPA.2[92] Without even attaching, or at the very least,
quoting these reports, Rodriguez contends that the Melo Report points to
rogue military men as the perpetrators. While the Alston Report states that
there is a policy allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the
President, we do not automatically impute responsibility to former President
Arroyo for each and every count of forcible disappearance. 3[93] Aside from
Rodriguezs general averments, there is no piece of evidence that could
establish her responsibility or accountability for his abduction. Neither was
there even a clear attempt to show that she should have known about the
violation of his right to life, liberty or security, or that she had failed to
investigate, punish or prevent it.