HABEAS DATA

Feb 2, 2008
What is the writ of habeas data?
It 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.

What rule governs petitions for and the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC – full
text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2008. That Rule
shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

When does the Rule take effect?

The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in three (3)
newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party. However, in cases of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph.

Where can the petition be filed?

a. Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or
stored, at the option of the petitioner.
b. Supreme Court;
c. Court of Appeals; or
d. Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices.
How much is the docket or filing fees for the petition?
No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the
indigent shall be docketed and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent
submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.

What are the required contents of the petition?

The verified written petition shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in
charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the
relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
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 its 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 to 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.

Is there any penalty in case of refusal to issue or serve the writ?

Yes. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person
who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

How is the writ of habeas data served?

The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or 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.
After the writ is served, what should the respondent do?
The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits within five
(5) work days from service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court
for justifiable reasons.

What are the contents of the written return?

The return shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communication,
confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent 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 general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
What happens if the respondent makes a false return or refuses to make a return; or if any person who
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court?

That person may be punished with imprisonment or fine.

Also, when the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge 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 to submit evidence.
Instead of having the hearing in open court, can it be done in chambers?
Yes. It can be done when the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in
question shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
What is the nature of the hearing on the petition?
The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from
the parties.
How long does the court have in deciding the petition?
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.
Sec. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings
and motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
position paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim
relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.
What happens after the finality of the judgment?
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officer as may be designated by the
court, justice or judge within five (5) work days.

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 the 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.
The court shall set the return for hearing with due notice to the parties and act accordingly.
Does the filing of the petition preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions?

No. However, when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but
the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule
shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas data.
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.
SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the final
judgment or 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) working days from

the date of notice of the judgment or final order.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas

corpus and amparo cases.
Definition of writ of habeas data (Bar 2009)

Failure of the company to provide a copy of

investigation result it conducted is not a basis
for issuance of writ of habeas data without
showing that the right to privacy in life, liberty
and property is violated (Bar 2010)
Vivarez v. St. Theresa’s College, et al, (September 29, 2014)

Minor graduating students of STC Cebu. In January 2012, they took several pictures with their
undergarments and uploaded on their FB profile. They were barred from participating in the
graduating rites. Petitioner filed a Petition for HABEAS DATA alleging that the students right to
information privacy was violated.

Principles:
1. Habeas data does not cover only to those persons or entities engaged in the business of
collecting data. “engage” means to do or take part in something. It must not necessarily
mean that the activity must be in the pursuit of a business.
2. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy as the photos are public.
 Meralco v. Lim (October 5, 2010)
A letter was sent to the Meralco admin department in bulacan denouncing Lim, an administrative clerk.
She was ordered to be transferred to Alabang due to concerns over her safety. She complained under
the premise that the transfer was a denial of her due process. She wrote a letter stating that:

“It appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or
are just mere jokes if they existed at all.” She added, “instead of the management supposedly
extending favor to me, the net result and effect of management action would be a punitive one.”

She asked for deferment thereafter. Since the company didn’t respond, she filed for a writ of habeas
data in the Bulacan RTC due to meralco’s omission of providing her with details about the report of the
letter. To her, this constituted a violation of her liberty and security. She asked for disclosure of the data
and measures for keeping the confidentiality of the data.

Writ of Habeas Data does not cover proprietary right to employment. It will not issue to protect property
right or commercial concerns
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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding
the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and security against abuse in this
age of information technology.
It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was conceived as a response, given
the lack of effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of
killings and enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights
to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided under prevailing
Rules.13
Castillo v. Cruz14 underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario15 that the
writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful.16 Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process
clause of the Constitution.17 It is evident that respondent’s reservations on the real reasons
for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one’s
employment - are what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data.
Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor
Arbiters.
 Gamboa v. Chan (G.R. 193636, July 24, 2012)

Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of
surveillance operations against her and her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a Private Army
Group (PAG). Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte forwarded the information
gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission, thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of
individuals maintaining PAGs. Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her reputation maligned
and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against respondents in their
capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte.

Court ruled that 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. 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. [T]he LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE STATE in dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged
intrusion on the private life of Gamboa. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.
 LEE V. ILAGAN (OCTOBER 8, 2014)

llagan, a police officer, filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Data against Lee, his former
common law partner. Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing his sex video with another woman
and threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the Napolcom and uploading it to the
internet violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that of the other woman,
and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his favor is warranted.

He is not entitled to WHB. The petition for habeas data must adequately show that there exists a
nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the
other. The allegations in the petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an actual
or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. Here, while Ilagan
purports a privacy interest in the suppression of his video, he failed to explain the connection
between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security that would warrant the
issuance of a writ of habeas data.
Gen. Bautista v. Atty. Maria Catherine Salucon G.R. NO. 221862; January 23, 2018

Atty Salucon is a human rights lawyer. While having dinner meeting with his client he observed a car parked in front
of the resto with two guys in front. He noticed it was the same car following him for several weeks now. Later, he was
informed by an asset, also a client, that he was under surveillance by the AFP. The asset, according to him, was
likewise asked by members of AFP if Atty Salucon is a member of NPA. Atty. Salucon’s secretary later told him that
men purporting to be military came to his office asking about his whereabouts. Days after that, Atty. Salucon’s
paralegal was gunned down.
Atty. Salucon filed a petition for writ of amparo against the Command General of the AFP and other officers of AFP
identified to be involved in the surveillance. During the hearing, apart from Atty. Salucon’s secretary, she also
presented his driver who testified that vendors from outside the office told him that some men went to them and
asked them about Atty. Salucon’s whereabouts. RTC granted the petition. On appeal, the AFP officers argued that it
was wrong to admit Atty. Salucon’s proof as it consisted of circumstantial and hearsay testimonies.
TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to
consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the
admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason — i.e., to the
relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.
Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. (Razon v. Tagitis) (Same
rule Pet for Amparo of Vivian Sanchez v. Darroca, OCTOBER 15, 2019)
Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis cited the ruling in Velasquez Rodriguez,14 wherein the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights (IACHR) took note that enforced disappearances could generally be
proved only through circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference; and that it
would be impossible otherwise to prove that an individual had been made to disappear
because of the State's virtual monopoly of access to pertinent evidence, or because the
deliberate use of the State's power to destroy pertinent evidence was inherent in the practice
of enforced disappearances. Hence, the reliance on circumstantial evidence and hearsay
testimony of witnesses is permissible.

Under the totality of evidence standard, hearsay testimony may be admitted and
appreciated depending on the facts and circumstances unique to each petition for the
issuance of the writ of amparo provided such hearsay testimony is consistent with the
admissible evidence adduced. Yet, such use of the standard does not unquestioningly
authorize the automatic admissibility of hearsay evidence in all amparo proceedings. The
matter of the admissibility of evidence should still depend on the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. Clearly, the flexibility in the admissibility of evidence adopted and
advocated in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis is determined on a case-to-case basis.
 Gen. Bautista et al., v. Atty. Maria Catherine Salucon,G.R. No. 221862, January 23,
2018

The CA had sufficient basis to issue the writ

of habeas data at the respondent's behest
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.24 It 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. 25 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.26
n its decision, the CA, issuing the privilege of the writ of habeas data, directed the petitioners
"to produce and disclose to this Court any and all facts, information, statements, records,
photographs, dossiers, and all other evidence, documentary or otherwise, pertaining to
petitioner Atty. Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon, for possible destruction upon order of this
Court.''
The directive was factually and procedurally warranted. There was no question that the civilian
asset of the PNP Intelligence Section relayed to the respondent that there was a standing order
issued by the PNP Isabela Provincial Police Office to the PNP office in Burgos, Isabela to
conduct a background investigation in order to confirm if she was a "Red Lawyer." She was also
under actual surveillance by different individuals who looked like they were members of the
military or police establishments. The objective of these moves taken against her was
unquestionably to establish a pattern of her movements and activities, as well as to obtain the
records of the cases she was handling for her various clients. These and other established
circumstances fully warranted within the context of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data the
directive of the CA for the handing over and destruction of all information and data on her in
order to protect her privacy and security.
G.R. No. 227635, October 15, 2019
Leila de Lima v. Pres. Duterte

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas data against Pres. Duterte following several statements
made by the President against her.

Court DISMISSES the petition for the writ of habeas data on the ground that respondent Rodrigo Roa
Duterte as the incumbent President of the Philippines is immune from suit during his incumbency.

The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege

of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance
of distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive
of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of
the office-holder's time, also demands undivided attention.
The rationale has been expanded in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo:
x x x It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from
any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his
official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive
branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important
duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government.
However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he
remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law
and that is by impeachment.64
With regard to the submission that the President must first invoke the privilege of immunity before the
same may be applied by the courts, Sen. De Lima quotes from Soliven where the Court said that "this
privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only
by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's behalf." 65 But that passage
in Soliven was made only to point out that it was the President who had gone to court as the
complainant, and the Court still stressed that the accused therein could not raise the presidential
privilege as a defense against the President's complaint. At any rate, if this Court were to first require the
President to respond to each and every complaint brought against him, and then to avail himself of
presidential immunity on a case to case basis, then the rationale for the privilege – protecting the
President from harassment, hindrance or distraction in the discharge of his duties – would very well be
defeated. It takes little imagination to foresee the possibility of the President being deluged with lawsuits,
baseless or otherwise, should the President still need to invoke his immunity personally before a court
may dismiss the case against him.
Sen. De Lima posits that her petition for habeas data will not distract the
President inasmuch as the case can be handled by the OSG. But this is
inconsistent with her argument that the attacks of the President are
purely personal. It is further relevant to remind that the OSG is mandated
to appear as counsel for the Government as well as its various agencies
and instrumentalities whenever the services of a lawyer is necessary;
thus, a public official may be represented by the OSG when the
proceedings arise from acts done in his or her official capacity.66 The
OSG is not allowed to serve as the personal counsel for government
officials. If Sen. De Lima's position that the acts complained of are not
related to the official functions of the President, then it also necessarily
follows that the OSG can no longer continue to represent him.