Gamboa vs.

Chan
• While the writ of habeas data is a remedy available for the protection of
one’s right to privacy, the Supreme Court recognized that the state
interest in dismantling private armed groups outweighed the alleged
intrusion of a person’s private life.

• Former President Arroyo created the Zenarosa Commission, which was tasked to
investigate the existence of PAGs in the country. PNP Ilocos-Norte forwarded the
information gathered on Gamboa to the said commission, thereby causing her
inclusion in the report’s enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs.

• The SC noted that the Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling of private
armies and other armed groups not recognized by the duly constituted authority.

• The fact that the PNP released information to the Zenarosa Commission without
prior communication to Gamboa and without affording her the opportunity to
refute the same CANNOT be interpreted as a violation or threat to her right to
privacy since the act is an inherent and crucial component of intelligence-gathering
and investigation.
Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College
It is necessary to keep
certain posts private,
through the employment of
measures to prevent access
thereto or to limit its
visibility.
• The parents of graduating high school students of STC filed a petition
for the issuance of writ of habeas data when photos of their children in
their undergarments, uploaded on Facebook, were allegedly aaccessed,
saved, and shown by a faculty member to STC officials, thereby
intruding on said students’ privacy.
• The Supreme Court noted that Facebook has privacy tools designed to
regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile as well as information
uploaded by the user.
• However, it does not mean that any Facebook user automatically has a
protected expectation of privacy in all of his or her facebook activities.
• Had it been proved that the access to the pictures posted were limited
to the original uploader, through the “Me Only” privacy setting, or that
the user’s contact list has been screened to limit access to a select few,
through the “Custom setting”, the result may have been different.
• The issuance of writ of habeas data is denied
 FACTS
• Respondent Spouses Cruz, who leased a parcel of land, refused to vacate the property, despite
demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan which intended to utilize it for local
projects.

• Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property. 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.

Castillo vs. Cruz

 HELD: NO. The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security,
Does the rule on and the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
the writ of habeas
data apply in this To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold requirement that
case? 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.

Castillo vs. Cruz

Tapuz vs. Rosario
• Private respondents, Sps. Sanson filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioners, alleging that they
are the (1) registered owner of the disputed land; and (2) prior possessors, when Tapuz et. al., armed with
bolos and carrying suspected firearms together with unidentified persons, entered the disputed land by
force and intimidation without their permission.

• MCTC decided in private respondents’ favor, finding prior possession through the construction of perimeter
fence in 1993. In a petition for certiorari filed with the SC, the petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ
of habeas data for the release of a PNP report on the burning of their home and the alleged acts of violence
employed by Spouses Sanson.

• The court denied the prayer, ruling that there were no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful
violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. It held that the prayer for
issuance of writ of habeas data was nothing more than the “fishing expedition” that it --- in the course of
drafting the rule on habeas data --- had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not.
Manila Electric Company vs. Lim
• 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 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.
• MERALCO filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the NLRC and that the petition
wasn’t in order.
• Trial court ruled in her favor.
• In the SC, MERALCO petitioned that Habeas Data applies to entities engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved party’s person,
family or home.
May an employee invoke the remedies available under the writ of habeas data where an employer decides to
transfer her workplace on the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein --- imputing to her disloyalty
to the company and calling for her to leave, which imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of the details
thereof?
Manila Electric Company vs. Lim

HELD: NO. Respondent’s plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCO’s Memorandum directing
her reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in
possession of petitioners, DOES NOT FALL within the province of a writ of habeas data.

• 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.

• 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. Employment
constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the Constitution. 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.
Roxas vs. Arroyo

• Roxas, seeking sanctuary against the threat of future harm as well as the suppression of
any existing government files or records linking her to the communist movement, filed a
petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data in the SC.

• The SC ruled that there was actually no evidence on record that shows that any of the
public respondents had violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner.

• The act ascribed by the CA to the public respondents that would have violated or
threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner, i.e. keeping records of investigations
and other reports about the petitioner’s ties with the CPP-NPA, was not adequately
proven --- considering that the origin of such records were virtually unexplained and its
existence, clearly only inferred by the appellate court from the video and photograph
released by Rep. Palparan and Alcover in their press conference.
• The court found that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege
that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would
be violated through the supposed reproduction and
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. Lee vs. Ilagan
• Alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s
privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security
are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on
either account certainly renders a habeas data petition
dismissible, as in this case.
Saez vs. Arroyo
FACTS

• Petitioner filed with the Court a petition for the writs of amparo and
habeas data. He expressed his fear of being abducted and killed;
hence, he sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed by the
Court. He likewise prayed for the military to cease from further
conducting surveillance and monitoring of his activities and for his
name to be excluded from the order of battle and other government
records connecting him to the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP).

• After the hearings with the CA, it held that petitioner failed to allege
how the threat or violation of his right to life, liberty or security was
committed. It also ruled that the allegations of the petition do not
comply with Sec.7 of the rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.
Saez vs. Arroyo

Was the requirement of specificity met in this case?

HELD: YES. The court notes that the petition for the issuance of the
privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as o its
contents. The documents subject of the petition include the order of
battle, those linking the petitioner to the CPP and those he signed
involuntarily, and military intelligence reports making references to him.
Sec.6 (d) of the rule on Writ of Habeas Data is clear that the requirement
of specificity arises only when the exact locations and identities of the
custodians are known.
Saez vs. Arroyo
Was petitioner able to discharge the burden of proof to establish his
claims for a writ of habeas data?

HELD: NO. The court has ruled that in view of the recognition of the evidentiary
difficulties attendant to the filing of a petition for the privilege of the writs of
amparo and habeas data, not only direct evidence, circumstantial evidence,
indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so long as they lead to concluions
consistent with the admissible evidence adduced.

Given that the totality of the evidence presented by petitioner failed to support
the claims, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. The liberality accorded to
amparo and habeas data cases does not mean that a claimant is dispensed with
the onus of proving his case.

“Indeed, even the liberal standard of substantial evidence demands some

adequate evidence.”