You are on page 1of 22

Tapuz v Del Rosario

Private respondents spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes T. Sanson filed a complaint
for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction against the petitioners
The private respondents alleged: (2) they were the disputed land's prior possessors when the
petitioners - armed with bolos and carrying suspected firearms and together with
unidentified persons numbering 120 - entered the disputed land by force and intimidation,
MCTC: found prior possession - the key issue in forcible entry cases - in the private
respondents' favor
Judge Marin granted the private respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction
The writ - authorizing the immediate implementation of the MCTC decision - was actually
issued by respondent Judge Elmo F. del Rosario
The petition contains and prays for the issuance of a writ of habeas data under the Rule on
the Writ of Habeas Data and finally, the issuance of the writ of amparo under the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo.
HELD: We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of habeas data fatally
defective, both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of the writ of
amparo, on the other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content and substance.
The Writ of Amparo
It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an
extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or
as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that
are purely property or commercial.
Every petition for the issuance of the writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact,
to wit:
"(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the
threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may
be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or
violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and
addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct
of the investigation, together with any report;
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the
threat, act or omission; and
(f) The relief prayed for.
What is clear from these statements - both sworn and unsworn - is the overriding
involvement of property issues as the petition traces its roots to questions of physical
possession of the property disputed by the private parties.
The right to security, on the other hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and
harassments implied from the presence of "armed men bare to the waist" and the alleged
pointing and firing of weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly
show that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is
imminent or is continuing.
Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the petitioners,
the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related and focused on the
disputed land.
Petitioners’ present recourse via the remedy of the writ of amparo is a mere subterfuge to
negate the assailed orders that the petitioners sought and failed to nullify before the appellate
court because of the use of an improper remedial measure. We discern this from the
petitioners' misrepresentations pointed out above; from their obvious act of forum shopping;
and from the recourse itself to the extraordinary remedies of the writs of certiorari and
amparo based on grounds that are far from forthright and sufficiently compelling.
We see no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of amparo in the
absence of any clear prima facie showing that the right to life, liberty or security - the personal
concern that the writ is intended to protect - is immediately in danger or threatened, or that
the danger or threat is continuing.
The Writ of Habeas Data

thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. 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. (b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life. the government office.Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data: "(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent.. 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. ] Similarly. suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent. After getting pregnant. During this time. if known. which may include the updating. furnishing the Court and the petitioners with copy of the same. registers or databases. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. liberty or security." These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as a minimum. Christina Yusay Caram (Christina) had an amorous relationship with Marcelino Gicano Constantino III (Marcelino) and eventually became pregnant with the latter’s child without the benefit of marriage. rectification.. (d) The location of the files. we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life.. [ . she intended to have the child adopted through . (e) The reliefs prayed for. [ . Christina mislead Marcelino into believing that she had an abortion when in fact she proceeded to complete the term of her pregnancy. in possession or in control of the data or information. Caram v Segui Petitioner Ma. ] 66. Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that: "1. (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information. and the person in charge.. Specifically.

2010 commanding the four respondents to produce the body of Baby Julian at a hearing. sent a Memorandum to DSWD Assistant Secretary Vilma B. Cabrera informing her that the certificate declaring Baby Julian legally available for adoption had attained finality. The DSWD. during the wake. the respondents had acted beyond the scope of their legal authority thereby causing the enforced disappearance of the said child and depriving her of her custodial rights and parental authority over him. Marijoy D.Sun and Moon Home for Children (Sun and Moon) in Parañaque City to avoid placing her family in a potentially embarrassing situation for having a second illegitimate son. Segui. Christina accused respondents of “blackmailing” her into surrendering custody of her child to the DSWD Christina argued that by making these misrepresentations. DSWD was no longer in the position to stop the adoption process. et. wrote a letter to the DSWD asking for the suspension of Baby Julian’s adoption proceedings. Marcelino suffered a heart attack and died without knowing about the birth of his son. The respondents complied with the writ and filed their Return. praying that the petition be . RTC: issued a Writ of Amparo on July 28. Thereafter. Christina who had changed her mind about the adoption. Thus. Should Christina wish to reacquire her parental authority over Baby Julian or halt the adoption process. After the emotional revelation. Christina disclosed to Marcelino’s family that she and the deceased had a son that she gave up for adoption due to financial distress and initial embarrassment. al. Christina gave birth to Baby Julian Christina voluntarily surrendered Baby Julian by way of a Deed of Voluntary Commitmentto the DSWD. she may bring the matter to the regular courts as the reglementary period for her to regain her parental rights had already lapsed Christina filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo before the RTC of Quezon City seeking to obtain custody of Baby Julian from Atty. terminated her parental authority and effectively made Baby Julian a ward of the State. they vowed to help her recover and raise the baby. She also said she wanted her family back together. Segui. through respondent Atty.

the State or a political organization. HELD: Denied Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides as follows: SECTION 1. (b) that it be carried out by. and. The writ of amparo is confined only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.” the Court in Navia v. . or with the authorization. Petition. The RTC further stated that Christina should have filed a civil case for custody of her child as laid down in the Family Code and the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. The RTC held that Christina availed of the wrong remedy to regain custody of her child Baby Julian. (c) thatitbefollowedbytheStateorpoliticalorganization’srefusaltoacknowledgeor give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition. As to what constitutes “enforced disappearance. support or acquiescence of. RTC dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ of amparo without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action in court.detention. Christina prayed that the Court declare the “enforced separation” between her and Baby Julian as violative of her rights to life. ISSUE: whether a petition for a writ of amparo is the proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child. Pardico enumerated the elements constituting “enforced disappearances” as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of R.abductionoranyformofdeprivationofliberty. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. liberty and security. and (4) grant her the privilege of availing the benefits of a writ of amparo so she could be reunited with her son. or of a private individual or entity. No.denied for being the improper remedy to avail of in a case relating to a biological parent’s custodial rights over her child. or to threats thereof. 9851 to wit: (a) thattherebeanarrest.A. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee.

Escudero’s students logged in to their respective personal Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the identified students. along with several others. liberty and security of persons. Therese College Nenita Julia V. Julia and Julienne. Cebu City. While changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to attend. Escudero reported the matter and. regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life. Christina alleged that the respondent DSWD officers caused her “enforced separation” from Baby Julian and that their action amounted to an “enforced disappearance” within the context of the Amparo rule. showed the . clearly indicates that she is not searching for a lost child but asserting her parental authority over the child and contesting custody over him. for all intents and purposes. the privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature. were. Christina’s directly accusing the respondents of forcibly separating her from her child and placing the latter up for adoption. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne). graduating high school students at St. learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted pictures online. however. the respondent DSWD officers never concealed Baby Julian’s whereabouts. both minors. Contrary to her position. the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. It is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the right to life. Escudero (Escudero). no “enforced disappearance” as used in the context of the Amparo rule as the third and fourth elements are missing. Mylene Rheza T. There is therefore. a computer teacher at STC’s high school department. took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. Theresa’s College (STC). Vivares v St. through one of her student’s Facebook page. depicting themselves from the waist up. These pictures were then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her Facebook profile. To reiterate. during the period material.(d) thattheintentionforsuchrefusalistoremovesubjectpersonfromtheprotection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child. has been legally considered a ward of the State. who. dressed only in brassieres STC’s computers.

violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them to STC’s officials. knew or ought to have known of laws that safeguard the right to privacy. they are barred from joining the commencement exercises A week before graduation. nevertheless. The photos of their children in their undergarments (e. 3. Angela’s mother. barred the sanctioned students from participating in the graduation rites. as well as the copying of information. filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages. its adverted motion for reconsideration on the issuance of the TRO remained unresolved. arguing that. Tan (Tan).. Escudero. cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. STC. Despite the issuance of the TRO. joined the fray as an intervenor. Dr. whose privacy has been invaded.” Respondents. 4. RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony. Purisima informed their parents the following day that. the mother of Julia. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at “Friends Only. data. Tan prayed that defendants therein be enjoined from implementing the sanction that precluded Angela from joining the commencement exercises. being involved in the field of education. The photos accessed belong to the girls to Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol). 2. bra) were taken for posterity before they changed into their swimsuits on the occasion of a birthday beach party. and not the offenders. following an investigation. and All the data and digital images that were extracted were boldly broadcasted by respondents . or on March 23. Petitioner Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares). Armenia M. Corollarily. however. for appropriate action. respondents knew or ought to have known that the girls. Petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data on the basis of the following considerations: 1. 6. Thereafter. as part of their penalty. 5. STC found the identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the school’s Student Handbook Sr. 2012. on the date of the commencement exercises. and digital images happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory. are the victims in this case. STC’s Discipline-in-Charge.g. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts. thus.

Moreover. issued the writ of habeas data. one of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data. having been uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them. whether or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life. To the trial court. and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand. the implementation of the school’s policies and rules on discipline. whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued given the factual milieu. ISSUES: 1. petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minors’ right to privacy. home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. that is. or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering. Is there a right to informational privacy in OSN activities of its users? . a habeas data petition will not prosper. particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. liberty or security on the other. the RTC noted. collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person. lost their privacy in some way. however. HELD: Denied The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life. STC gathered the photographs through legal means and for a legal purpose. the interplay of the foregoing constitutes an invasion of their children’s privacy The RTC. Besides. 2. will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a person. family. Without an actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to informational privacy. The writ. and the right to life. or security of the minors involved in this case. privacy. and freedom of information of an individual. RTC: rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for habeas data. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself. 2012. information. liberty. the court a quo held that the photos. through an Order dated July 5. liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee.To petitioners. honor. It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image.

through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. in this case the children of petitioners. This. (2) informational privacy. and (3) decisional privacy. STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy It is through the availability of said privacy tools that many OSN users are said to have a subjective expectation that only those to whom they grant access to their profile will view the information they post or upload thereto. however. Of the three. including those that occur in OSNs. manifest the intention to keep certain posts private. . Meaning of “engaged” in the gathering. does not mean that any Facebook user automatically has a protected expectation of privacy in all of his or her Facebook activities.” The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases outside of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. viz: (1) locational or situational privacy. it is first necessary that said user. Having an expectation of informational privacy is not necessarily incompatible with engaging in cyberspace activities. Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity. was designed “to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances Habeas data. to stress. In other words. The Right to Informational Privacy The Common Right to Privacy. The right to informational privacy on Facebook a. where he explained the three strands of the right to privacy. what is relevant to the case at bar is the right to informational privacy–– usually defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves. of the user’s invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. b. collecting or storing of data or information Such individual or entity need not be in the business of collecting or storing data. utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation. in cyber world.

in reality. When Kunnong returned from this errand. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Engr. absent any proof that petitioners’ children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph. reported Tagitis' disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis' fellow student counselor at the IDB.” it can be surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on Facebook. even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends. As applied. If such were the case. Razon v Tagitis Tagitis. That the photos are viewable by “friends only” does not necessarily bolster the petitioners’ contention. they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy. Tagitis was no longer around. respondent STC can hardly be taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy to “Friends” is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content. 2007). viewable either by (1) their Facebook friends. Soon after the student left the room. Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is “Public. the petition went on to state: xxxx 7. a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take . Sulu. was last seen in Jolo. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga. They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts. More than a month later (on December 28. the respondent filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA After reciting Tagitis' personal circumstances and the facts outlined above. Matli.The photos were. or (2) by the public at large.

subject Engr. omitting the evidentiary details. or any participation in. forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a motor vehicle then sped away 15. Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence operatives. In an Amparo petition. In this type of situation. because these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. As in any other initiatory pleading. speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr. detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life. to require the level of specificity. or who actually acted to kidnap. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups. According to reliable information received by the [respondent]. specifically with the CIDG. a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives. abduct or arrest him or her. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the [petitioners].his early lunch but while out on the street. this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding. the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo situation. or where the victim is detained. [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail. attached to the Return. Razon. however. the alleged disappearance ISSUE: The petitioners mainly dispute the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before the CA We do not find the petition meritorious. CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo The affidavit of PNP Chief Gen. their intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subject's human and constitutional rights. stated that: he did not have any personal knowledge of. 25. [the respondent] has no other plain. Avelino I. the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the . and under the circumstances. PNP Zamboanga City. liberty and security. except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO. which addresses a situation of uncertainty. the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared.

liberty and security through State or private party action. act or omission. as in this case. Where. Thus. the petition amply recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities. We note that the failure to attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and her witness (Mrs. instead of cooperating with authorities. the petition cannot be faulted. even on this a means to "fish" for evidence. the petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon.adjusted to the Philippine legal setting and the Amparo remedy this Court has established. the Chiefs of these organizations together with Col.are present.namely. and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate him. to determine if the required elements . Section 5(e) is in the Amparo Rule to prevent the use of a petition . and in particular. Section 5(e) merely requires that the Amparo petitioner (the respondent in the present case) allege "the actions and recourses taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat. Kasim.details available to the petitioner under the circumstances. of the disappearance. 2008 to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition. In the present case. thus compelling her to file her petition. Following the lead of this Turkish experience . The petition should likewise be read in its totality." The following allegations of the respondent's petition duly outlined the actions she had taken and the frustrations she encountered. Roxas v Macapagal . through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG. The petitioners contend that the respondent's petition did not specify what "legally available efforts were taken by the respondent." and that there was an "undue haste" in the filing of the petition when.that otherwise is not supported by sufficient allegations to constitute a proper cause of action . while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim's rights to life. should be held fully accountable for the enforced disappearance of Tagitis.we believe and so hold that the government in general. the respondent immediately invoked the Court's intervention. the strict need for the sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. as applied to the unique facts and developments of this case . rather than in terms of its isolated component parts. liberty or security . the State or private action. and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life. Talbin) personally testified in the CA hearings held on January 7 and 17 and February 18.

The armed men dragged petitioner towards the van After she was informed that she isbeing detained for being a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA). At around 1:30 in the afternoon. fifteen (15) heavily armed men forcibly opened the door. Petitioner was also sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family. La Paz. After doing survey work on 19 May 2009. decided to rest in the house of one Mr. Tarlac. petitioner was finally released and returned to her uncle's house in Quezon City. petitioner and her companions. DEFENSE: public respondents conclude that the claims of abduction and torture was no more than a charade fabricated by the petitioner to put the government in bad light. however. on the belief that it was government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. barged inside and ordered petitioner and her companions to lie on the ground face down. petitioner. What followed was five (5) straight days of interrogation coupled with torture. She volunteered to join members of BAYAN-Tarlac in conducting an initial health survey in La Paz. Barangay Kapanikian. 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.Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent. petitioner toured various provinces and towns of Central Luzon and. petitioner was separated from her companions and was escorted to a room that she believed was a jail cell from the sound of its metal doors. petitioner enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN-USA) During the course of her immersion. On 25 May 2009. her companions and Mr. Jesus Paolo (Mr. bring great media mileage to her and the group that she represents . Paolo) in Sitio Bagong Sikat. and at the same time. Suddenly. in April of 2009. While in the United States. Paolo were startled by the loud sounds of someone banging at the front door and a voice demanding that they open up. petitioner filed a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data Petitioner impleaded public officials occupying the uppermost echelons of the military and police hierarchy as respondents. Tarlac for a future medical mission.

Thus. Immediately thereafter. DND Secretary issued a Memorandum Directive addressed to the Chief of Staff of the AFP. The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and. the Court of Appeals absolved the public respondents from any complicity in the abduction and torture of petitioner. because of her immunity from suit In both the police and military arms of the government machinery. AMPARO Proceeding from such assumption. petitioner invokes the doctrine of command responsibility to implicate the high-ranking civilian and military authorities she impleaded as respondents in her amparo petition. by this account. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual . in view of her immunity from suit. the Court of Appeals was not convinced that the military or any other person acting under the acquiescence of the government. inquiries were set-up in the following manner: Police station launched an initial investigation. is legally inaccurate. if not incorrect. among others. cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition.Public respondents insist on the dismissal of the Amparo and Habeas Data petition based on the following grounds: (a) as against respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. ordering the latter. to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of the accusation of military involvement in the abduction. Command Responsibility in Amparo Proceedings It must be stated at the outset that the use by the petitioner of the doctrine of command responsibility as the justification in impleading the public respondents in her amparo petition. Hence. this appeal by the petitioner. The petition was likewise dismissed as against public respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. in particular. CA: In favor of petitioner However. were responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner.

civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. killing or threats. fix liability for such disappearance. An amparo court cannot simply leave to remote and hazy inference what it could otherwise clearly and directly ascertain. No evidence on record even shows that any of the public respondents had access to such video or photograph. While the principal objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance. In which case. HABEAS DATA The main problem behind the ruling of the Court of Appeals is that there is actually no evidence on record that shows that any of the public respondents had violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner. or at least accountability. at least in the meantime. For these reasons. the CHR finds that the . strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data. tasked with the continuation of the investigation of Jonas Joseph T. by so doing. extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired--the writ does not. it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. (Razon v Tagitis) Responsibility of Public Respondents The totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner does not inspire reasonable conclusion that her abductors were military or police personnel and that she was detained at Fort Magsaysay.liability. whether that may be criminal. this Court must. 2010 Resolution referring the present case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as the Court’s directly commissioned agency. HELD: Referred back to the CA Burgos v Esperon These incidents stemmed from our June 22. Burgos’ abduction Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in this case. commanders may be impleaded--not actually on the basis of command responsibility--but rather on the ground of their responsibility.

Baliaga to be impleaded as a party to the Amparo petition. Jr. Petition for the Writ of Amparo Based on its finding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. In the present case. the present case is beyond the ambit of a petition for habeas corpus. We also emphasize that the CA in its March 18. The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Jr. Tagitis. Harry A. while Jonas remains missing. Baliaga as one of the abductors who approached him and told him not to interfere because the man being arrested had been under surveillance for drugs. Petition for Habeas Corpus The CA held that the issue in the petition for habeas corpus is not the illegal confinement or detention of Jonas. Considering that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. referring back the same to the CA in order to allow Lt. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs. the CA concluded that the present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. but his enforced disappearance. and ordering Lt.enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Baliaga. (2) holding in abeyance our ruling on the merits of the Amparo aspect of the case. As we held in Razon. the writ merely embodies the Court’s directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. Burgos had transpired. The CA found that the totality of the evidence supports the petitioner’s allegation that the military was involved in the enforced disappearance of Jonas. Baliaga. Baliaga – the face he identified in the pictures the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. In light of the new evidence and leads the CHR uncovered. and the present Amparo respondents to file their Comments on the CHR Report. and that his constitutional rights to life liberty and security were violated by the Government have been fully determined. he also remembered the face of Lt. The CA took note of Jeffrey Cabintoy’s positive identification of Lt. 2013 decision already ruled with finality . we issued a Resolution: (1) issuing anew a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referring the habeas corpus petition to the CA. v.

together with the parish priest of the Holy Infant Jesus Parish and the officers of Alyansa Laban sa Mina sa Matnog (petitioners). Baliaga participated in the abduction on the basis of Cabintoy’s positive identification that he was one of the abductors of Jonas who told him not to interfere because the latter had been under surveillance for drugs. We emphasize that while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords the Court a wide latitude in crafting remedies to address an enforced disappearance.on the entities responsible and accountable (as these terms are defined in Razon. In its March 18. 2013 decision. to determine who is responsible or accountable. Jr. We so conclude as the petitioner’s request for the reissuance of the writ and for the rehearing of the case by the CA would be redundant and superfluous in light of: (1) the ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ through the NBI. At this stage. The petition contained the following pertinent allegations: (1) sometime in 2009. We resolve to deny the petitioner’s prayer to issue the writ of Amparo anew and to refer the case to the CA based on the newly discovered evidence. Tagitis) for the enforced disappearance of Jonas. by substantial evidence. Baliaga. the CA found. criminal. . that Lt. 2013 decision. filed a petition for continuing mandamus. and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. it cannot (without violating the nature of the writ of Amparo as a summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief) grant remedies that would complicate and prolong rather than expedite the investigations already ongoing. Dolot (Dolot). they protested the iron ore mining operations being conducted in the Municipality of Matnog. Note that the CA has already determined with finality that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. (2) the CHR investigation directed by the Court in this Resolution. As a final note. we emphasize that our ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place. and (3) the continuing investigation directed by the CA in its March 18. Dolot v Paje Petitioner Maricris D. v. investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before us. the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case with the CA’s final determination of the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. As shown above.

order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on. (5) Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and his predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit. ground settlement. and confronted with the environmental dangers of flood hazard.) No. RTC: The case was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (6) the representatives of the Presidential Management Staff and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). R. HELD: Jurisdiction and Venue . and (3) the petitioners failed to attach judicial affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency. The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon. and (7) the respondents violated Republic Act (R. preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality.A. did not do anything to protect the interest of the people of Matnog. liquefaction. Branch 53 being the designated environmental court.A. No. they prayed for the following reliefs: (1) the issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to immediately stop the mining operations in the Municipality of Matnog.(2) Matnog is located in the southern tip of Luzon and there is a need to protect. 7076 or the People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991. ISSUE: Whether the petition is dismissible on the grounds that: (1) there is no final court decree. The RTC further ruled that: (1) there was no final court decree. ground subsidence and landslide hazard. Thus. order or decision that the public officials allegedly failed to act on. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. and the Local Government Code. which they did not have authority to issue. (3) Matnog is susceptible to flooding and landslides. which is a condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus. they learned that the mining operators did not have the required permit to operate. despite knowledge. (2) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (4) after investigation.

a prima facie basis for the issuance of the writ. it does not warrant the outright dismissal of the petition by the RTC as venue may be waived.” The petition should mainly involve an environmental and other related law. prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC. the petition should have been filed in the RTC of Irosin. The writ of continuing mandamus is a special civil action that may be availed of “to compel the performance of an act specifically enjoined by law. instrumentality or its officer is specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Moreover. speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. . in essence.” Indeed. But even then. A writ of continuing mandamus is. it appears that the alleged actionable neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of Matnog and as such. The authority of the Governor of Sorsogon to issue mining permits in favor of these entities. rule or regulation or a right therein. The RTC need not be reminded that venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. viz: (1) an agency or instrumentality of government or its officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right. trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be filed with the “[RTC] exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred x x x. on the other hand. But the petition filed below does not involve a mining dispute.” In this case. (2) the act to be performed by the government agency. the action filed by the petitioners is not criminal in nature where venue is an essential element of jurisdiction. at the very least. as pointed out by the respondents. a command of continuing compliance with a final judgment as it “permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision. the Panel has jurisdiction over mining disputes. and (4) there is no other plain.Jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari. rule or regulation or a right therein. What was being protested are the alleged negative environmental impact of the small-scale mining operation being conducted. necessitates that the petition must contain substantive allegations specifically constituting an actionable neglect or omission and must establish. (3) such duty results from an office. Sufficiency of substance.

. On June 4. and violation of the provisions on job security of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). . which imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of the details thereof? Rosario G. May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ 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. Lim (respondent). denouncing respondent. Informed about it." effective July 18. 2008 in light of the receipt of ". Resolution of these matters does not entail the technical knowledge and expertise of the members of the Panel but requires an exercise of judicial function. an anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel. is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). 2008 to the Plaridel Station of the Philippine National Police. claiming that the "punitive" nature of the transfer amounted to a denial of due process. at which respondent is assigned. Meralco v Lim The Court is once again confronted with an opportunity to define the evolving metes and bounds of the writ of habeas data. respondent expressed her thoughts on the alleged threats to her security Respondent thus requested for the deferment of the implementation of her transfer pending resolution of the issues she raised. also known as Cherry Lim. Citing the grueling travel from her residence in Pampanga to Alabang and back entails. 2008. Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen. respondent reported the matter on June 5. Head of MERALCO's Human Resource Staffing.. directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCO's Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa as "A/F OTMS Clerk. reports that there were accusations and threats directed against [her] from unknown individuals and which could possibly compromise [her] safety and security. Bulacan Sector.and the perceived indifference of the DENR and local government officials over the issue. Petition granted." She appealed her transfer and requested for a dialogue so she could voice her concerns and misgivings on the matter.

The habeas data rule. resort to a petition for writ of habeas data was not in order. inter alia. respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against petitioners By respondent's allegation. honor. correctible by habeas data. The trial court granted the prayers of respondent including the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction directing petitioners to desist from implementing respondent's transfer until such time that petitioners comply with the disclosures required.No response to her request having been received. information. is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image. petitioners' unlawful act and omission consisting of their continued failure and refusal to provide her with details or information about the alleged report which MERALCO purportedly received concerning threats to her safety and security amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life. inter alia. ISSUE: the issuance of the writ is outside the parameters expressly set forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data HELD: Respondent's plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCO's Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang Sector. and c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained. does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data. recourse to a writ of habeas data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political activists but also to ordinary citizens. The trial court justified its ruling by declaring that. and freedom of information of an individual. under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners. the nature of such data and the purpose for its collection. privacy. . Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the petition and recall of the TRO on the grounds that. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of a writ commanding petitioners to file a written return containing the following: a) a full disclosure of the data or information about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security. like respondent whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by petitioners' refusal to provide her with information or data on the reported threats to her person. liberty and security. in general. b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data or information.

liberty or security. . Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent's right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life.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. In another vein.