Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
GR 182165
Facts:
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her husband Francisco
G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz), leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa,
Malolos (the property), refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the
lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan (the Province) which intended to
utilize it for local projects.
Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights over the
property. The pertinent case among the filed cases was the issuance by the
MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in favor of the Province. Respondents filed a
motion for TRO in the RTC, which was granted. However, the demolition was
already implemented before the TRO issuance.
Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however.
Insisting that the RTC Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province
from repossessing it, they shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them
and cause their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other forms of
light threats.
Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
Issue:
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights; and,
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case
already filed.
Held:
On the 1st issue:
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that 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.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As the Amparo Rule was
intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances.” Tapuz v. Del Rosario also teaches: “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.”
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.
It bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation,
imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare
allegations of petitioners will not suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of
the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In fact,
respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest.
Respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
should have been barred, for criminal proceedings against them had
commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded
against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of
the arrest or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set
up by respondents during trial and not before a petition for writs of amparo
and habeas data.
Transcript of WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
The writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s 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.
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 individual’s
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.
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 respondent’s 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)
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)
(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)
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.
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.
If there is utmost urgency, Petitioner has the option of asking the court, through the Petition,
to deputize petitioner’s counsel or representative to serve the writ on respondents.
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.
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.
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 one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy.
It seeks to protect a person’s 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.
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 President’s name as a party respondent
without any attempt at all to show the latter’s actual involvement in, or knowledge of the
alleged violations.