Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch V
Makati City

DR. JOY MARGARTE LEE SPEC. PRO. NO. 001191

Petitioner, FOR: WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

-versus-

P/SUPT NERI. A. ILAGAN,

Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

I.
NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for the Writ of Habeas Data filed under A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, also known
as the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data to require the respondent to produce, fully surrender, and
in the alternative, suppress or destroy all information within his control and/or contained in his
possession, which relates to petitioner, her family, her home and her correspondence.

2. Petitioner respectfully submits that respondent obtained the information through an unlawful
act, has unjustifiably failed to disclose the said obtaining of such information to petitioner, and
has unjustifiably refused to surrender, suppress or destroy the information despite reasonable
demands.

3. This act or omission of respondent to comply with petitioner's demand is a violation of, or
poses a threat of violation to, petitioner's right to privacy in life, liberty and security.

4. In view of the foregoing, petitioner brings this petition before this Honorable Court
praying that the respondent be required to cause the immediate production of the information
requested so that the same may be surrendered to petitioner for proper disposal, or in the
alternative, for its suppression or destruction, whatever may be necessary to protect petitioner's
privacy.

II
PARTIES

6. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and residing at 1017C Jazz Residences, Metropolitan
Avenue, Bel-Air, Makati. She may be served with notices from this Honorable Court through her
undersigned counsel.
7. Respondent is being impleaded in his capacity as an officer of the Philippine National Police
Drug Enforcement Group, who has obtained such information from the petitioner unlawfully and
without proper authority from the court. Respondent is of legal age, and holds office at PNP
Drug Enforcement Group, Camp B. Gen. Rafael T. Crame, Quezon City.

III
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines whose right to privacy is protected by
the Bill of Rights found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides:

 Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

9. Petitioner is a licensed Medical Doctor, specializing in therapy and counseling for

individuals inquiring about, exploring to, and are currently undergoing rehabilitation due
to abuse of illegal drugs. She is a recognized practitioner in the field, having a range of
clientele. She has maintained a record of these conversations and sessions with her patients with
their full consent, with her patients understanding and agreeing to the same as these sessions
were conducted in a professional and private manner, and with the reasonable expectation to
have these conversations and sessions kept in confidence between the petitioner and her
patients.

10. Petitioner, as part of her oath as a Medical Doctor, vows to maintain confidentiality with
regard to her dealings with her patients, as specifically mandated by the Code of Ethics of
The Philippine Medical Association, to wit:

Article 2, Section 6. The physician should hold as sacred and highly

confidential whatever may be discovered or learned pertinent to the patient
even after death, except when required in the promotion of justice, safety
and public health.

12. Petitioner’s patients, in seeking medical assistance and professional help, has exhibited and
manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy, owing to the sensitive matter of the effects of
their abuse to illegal drugs, the protection of their honor and person, and the expectation from the
medical profession to keep in confidence all matters relating to patients. Thus, such discussions
done by the petitioner to her patients fall within the zones of privacy, specifically under the
right to privacy of communication and correspondence.

13. In Lourdes T. Marquez vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, et al., this Honorable Court ruled:
 Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The
Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy, and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts for meddling
and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or
employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the
rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and
other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime of the
violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial secrets,
and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special
laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and
the Intellectual Property Code. (G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001.)

14. Republic Act 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides specific
guidance as to when may a peace officer be authorized by the court to facilitate wire-
tapping activities, to wit:

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or

punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the
Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding
sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy
and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised
Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security

15. On May 9, 2021, three of petitioners’ patients’ legal counsel called her to question how the
PNP Drug Enforcement group has gained knowledge of the the prior conversations/sessions the
patients had with the petitioner. These patients of the petitioner has been subjected to inquest
proceedings with regard to possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In the information
furnished before the petitioner’s patients, the respondent issued a report confirming the
conversations that the patients had with the petitioner with regard to drug abuse.

13. Having realized that the devices and lines petitioner uses for communicating with her
patients may have been compromised, petitioner hired specialized technicians to check the
existence of wire-tapping devices in her clinic; which was positively confirmed as per the
check that was performed in all her communication devices in her clinic/office.

14. Petitioner, through the undersigned legal counsel below, has engaged the PNP Drug
Enforcement Group regarding the alleged wire-tapping activities done in her office and inquired
if there was any court order authorizing the conduct of the same. Despite reasonable demands
and escalation of the inquiry to the higher chain of command of PNP, the inquiry has been
left unacted upon and no court order authorizing the same has been produced to date.
15. In a separate action, the petitioner filed a criminal case against the PNP Drug
Enforcement Group on June 12, 2021 regarding the alleged violation of Republic Act 4200,
otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law, for violating both the petitioners’ and her
patients’ right to privacy of communication and correspondence; for subjecting petitioner’s
place of business to unlawful search and seizure without any court order which has breached the
privacy of both the petitioner and her patients, in a malicious intent to produce evidence to
incriminate the patients of the petitioner in separate actions filed against them for violating
Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this Honorable Court give due course to this petition and
issue the writ of habeas data and rule, as follows:

1. Upon the filing of the petition, ENJOIN respondent from disseminating and/or reproducing
the information obtained in the course of the unlawful wiretapping activities;

2. Upon notice and hearing, ORDER respondent to:

a) Produce the information in its possession regarding petitioner's person, his/her family, home
and correspondence;
b) Surrender, suppress or destroy the information in its database, whatever may be applicable
as determined by this Honorable Court; and
c) Remove all wiretapping devices installed by the PNP Drug Enforcement Group in all
communication lines, devices, places of dwelling and business of the petitioner.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, this 16th day of June 2021

Name Atty. Ron Ehmer M. Paguio

Roll of Attorney No. 17367
PTR No. 566766/03Jan2021/Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 17367/16Aug2016/Makati City
MCLE Compliance No: V-19911/05Apr2019