Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data

 The governing rule for the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is AM No.
08-1-16-SC

Definition (Section 1, AM No. 08-1-16-SC)

 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.
 Literal Translation – “[we command] you have the data”.

Why is a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data being filed?

 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 (Gamboa v. Chan, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 385)

On what ground filed?

 The rule [as to parties] allows any individual to file the petition on the ground that “his
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened”.
o This provision may be interpreted to refer to an act or omission which violates or
threatens the right to privacy of an individual which in turn, results in violating or
threatening his or her right to life, liberty or security.

Who may file a petition for the writ of habeas data? (Section 2, AM No. 08-1-16-SC)
 Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data.
 However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may
be filed by
1. any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
children and parents;
2. or in default of them, any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

Where should the petition be filed? (Section 3, AM No. 08-1-16-SC)

 The petition may be filed with the 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.
 The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices.

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.

In case of refusal to issue or serve the writ

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.

What must be alleged in the petition? (Section 6, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)

A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should contain:
 The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
 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;
 The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
 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;
 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
 Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

Gamboa v. Chan
G.R. No. 19363; July 24, 2012

FACTS:
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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data is proper when the right to
privacy is invoked as opposed to the state’s interest in preserving the right to life, liberty or
security.

RULING:
It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ of habeas data to be granted,
there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other. The 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 and to increased police surveillance. In this regard,
respondents sufficiently explained that the investigations conducted against her were in
relation to the criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the
presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome. [T]he state interest of dismantling
PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the
collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful
mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

Additional Jurisprudence

Doctrine of Command Responsibility is applicable in Habeas Data proceedings

Saez v. Macapagal Arroyo (G.R. No. 183533; September 25, 2012)
 Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as the Commander-
in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the petitioner’s rights to life,
liberty and security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he or she had
exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had
failed to exercise necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
investigations required under the rules.

Latest Cases Involving the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data

De Lima vs. Duterte (G.R. No. 227635; October 15, 2019)

 Senator Leila De Lima filed a petition due to the number of public statements made by
President Rodrigo Duterte against her, including denunciations of corruption and
immorality. She concluded that taking all the public statements of the President into
consideration, the issuance of the writ of habeas data is warranted because there was a
violation of her rights to privacy, life, liberty, and security, and there is a continuous
threat to violate her said rights in view of President Duterte's declaration that he had
been "listening to them, with the help of another country. "It was ruled by the Court
that the writ cannot be granted due to the presidential immunity granted under the
Constitution, as the said grant does not only pertain to immunity to suit as to the official
functions and duties of the President, but also as to his personal acts.

NUPL et. al vs. Pres. Duterte (G.R. No. 246175; May 3, 2019)
  National Union of People’s Lawyers is a nationwide voluntary association of human
rights lawyers, law students and legal workers promoting for human rights and assert
national sovereignty. It handles cases involving extrajudicial killings and
disappearances among others. The NUPL and its officers filed with the court a
petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data highlighting the increasing
number of deaths of its members in the Duterte administration. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition declaring that there was no evidence that would point to a
specific act committed by the president which violates or tends to violate the petitioners
right to life, liberty or security.
 The Supreme Court En Banc issued a writ of Amparo and habeas data in favor of the
National Union of People’s Lawyers. The court also referred the petition to the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals, who was directed to hear the petition and decide within
10 days after submission of the case for decision. The court order Pres. Duterte among
others to make a verified return of the Writ of Amparo and habeas data.

NOTES:
 The Writ of Habeas Data is not complimentary to the writ of amparo. It is an
independent remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy. All persons have the
right to access information about themselves, especially if it is in the hands of the
government. Any violation of this right ought to give the aggrieved person the remedy
to go to court to modify, remove or correct such misinformation. The right to access and
control personal information is essential to protect one’s privacy, honor and personal
identity, even as it underscores accountability in information gathering.
 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.
 SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. – The filing of a petition for the writ of habeas
data shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
 SEC. 21. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a
petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
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. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief under the writ
shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under
the writ of habeas data.
 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.