WRIT OF HABEAS DATA. Beleno|Laconico|Silva. Habeas Data as a Legal Notion. “ The writ of habeas data is a relatively new legal notion compared to the traditional writ of habeas corpus and the recently promulgated writ of amparo .”
“The writ of habeas data is a relatively new legal notion compared to the traditional writ of habeas corpus and the recently promulgated writ of amparo.”
Habeas data literally means ‘you should have the data,’ and is defined by Latin American legal scholars as a writ ‘designed to protect through a petition or complaint, the image, privacy, honor, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person.”
The Rule on Habeas Data, promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2008 through AM 08-1-16 was born in the midst of worsening human rights condition in the country through extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearance and torture (Annotation to the Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of 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 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.”
The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy;
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.
FACTS: Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued AO no. 275 “Creating an Independent Commission to Address Existence of Private Armies in the Country.” Its goal is to eliminate private armies before May 10, 2010 elections.
Gamboa, a mayor of DingrasIlocos Norte, then filed a petition alleging that the PNP – Ilocos Norte conducted surveillance operations against her and her aides and classified her as someone who keeps private armies without the benefit of data-verification.
Issue: Whether the RTC rightfully dismissed the case.
Ruling: Case dismissed. 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.
Note that under the Rule, the respondent may be:
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.
Habeas data cannot be invoked when respondents in the petition for issuance of the writ are not gathering, collecting, or storing data or information.
Under Section 3, the petition may be filed, at the “option of the petitioner”, with:
Section 5 states that, “(N)o docket and other lawful fees are required from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted upon immediately without prejudice to the subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.”
Upon the filing of the petition, the CJJ shall immediately order the issuance of the writ
if on its face it ought to issue.
The clerk shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance
in case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall 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 issuance.
… served upon the respondent by a judicial officer
by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge
by substituted service
A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ
a deputized person who refuses to serve the same
shall be punished for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
When a criminal action has been commenced,
no separate petition for the writ shall be filed.
The reliefs under the writ shall be available to the 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.
The filing of a petition for the writ of habeas data
shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SECTION 21. after the petition is filed?
When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action & a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for the writ,
the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
In after the petition is filed? any case, the procedure under the rule on habeas data shall govern the disposition of the reliefs prayed for in a “habeas data motion” filed before the court hearing the criminal case.
WON Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case already filed
“…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
“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. The reliefs afforded by the writs may, however, be made available to the aggrieved party by motion in the criminal proceedings.”
The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavitswithin five work days from service of the writ
(a) The lawful defenses;
(b) If the respondent is 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 after the petition is filed? general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
Hearing in Chambers
Sec. 14— CJJ 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 submit evidence.
No return filed within the period allowed: the court may hear the petition ex parte and may immediately grant the relief prayed for.
Yes. 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 resists a lawful process or order of the court.
No. Section 13 enumerates prohibited pleadings such as, inter alia, motions “to dismiss, for extension of time, dilatory motion for postponement, bill of particulars, motion to declare respondent in default, intervention, motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, Memorandum, counter claim, or reply”.
The rule requires the immediate issuance of the writ possibly in recognition of the urgency of remedy particularly in cases involving threat to life or liberty. However, there is no period set for the resolution of the petition except that it should be resolved within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. (Sec. 16)
Sec. 16 - If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall:
Otherwise (no substantial evidence)
The privilege of the writ shall be DENIED.
Sec. 19 - Any party may appeal from the judgment or final 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) days from the date of notice or judgment or final order. The appeal shall be given the same priority as habeas corpus or amparo cases.
This, the petitioner failed to do
Whether there were substantial evidence to prove petitioner’s claims