Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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)
(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 petitioners counsel or representative to serve the writ on
respondents.
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.
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 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.
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.