WRIT OF HABEAS DATA CASES

Saez v Arroyo, GR No. 183533, September 25, 2012

FACTS:
Saez filed a petition with the SC to be granted the privilege of the writs of
amparo and habeas data with prayers for temporary protection order, inspection of
place and production of documents. He expressed his fear of being abducted and
killed and sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed by the Court. He
likewise prayed for the military to cease from conducting surveillance and monitoring
of his activities and for his name to be removed from the order of battle and other
government records connecting him to the Communist Party of the Philippines.
The SC issued the writ of amparo commanding the respondents who are
members of the military to make a verified return and referred the case to the CA.
The CA denied the reliefs prayed for and dropped President Macapagal-Arroyo
as a respondent on the grounds that the petition lacked substantial evidence to
establish Saez’s entitlement to them and failed to state specific allegations of how
the petitioner’s right to privacy was violated or threatened to be violated.
RULING & DISCUSSION:
The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality for lack of
substantial evidence.
Substantial Evidence
There is no substantial evidence to grant the reliefs prayed for by the
petitioner. “Threat” must find rational bases on the surrounding circumstances of the
case. Here, the allegations are not supported by independent and credible evidence.
Sufficiency of Contents
It must be noted that the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the writs
of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its contents. Saez made specific
allegations relative to his personal circumstances and those of the respondents.
Anent the documents sought to be subject of the writ of habeas data prayed for, the
requirement of specificity has been specified. That the exact locations and the
custodians of the documents were not identified does not render the petition
insufficient. The requirement of specificity arises only when the exact
locations and identities of the custodians are known.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility vis-à-vis Amparo Proceedings
Further, the doctrine of command responsibility applies in amparo
proceedings. The President, as commander-in-chief of the military, is within the
purview of the command responsibility doctrine. The President can be held liable for
affront against the petitioner’s right to life, liberty and security as long as substantial
evidence exist to show that he was involved or had knowledge of the violations, or
had failed to exercise necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the
necessary investigations, which Saez failed to prove.

Castillo v Cruz, GR No. 182165, November 25, 2009

FACTS:
Respondents leased a parcel of land and refused to vacate the property
despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan. The Province filed
a complaint for unlawful detainer against them. The RTC affirmed the decision of the
MTC against the respondents but they refused to vacate the property. The
respondents refused to turn over the property and shoved the petitioners, who are
employees and members of the local police force of the City Government of Malolos.
The respondents were arrested and sued for direct assault, trespassing, and other
forms of light threats. They later filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data, which the RTC issued.
RULING & DISCUSSION:
The issuance of the writs is not proper.
Coverage of the Writ

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:

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.

The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life,

liberty and security. And the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful
acts or omissions.
The writ of habeas data is an extraordinary remedy which cannot be used to
stall the execution of a final and executory decision in a property dispute. The
issuance of the writ cannot be granted when it is not even alleged that
petitioners are gathering, collecting, or storing data or information
regarding their person, family, home, and correspondence.
Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action
At all events, respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo
and habeas data should have been barred , because criminal proceedings
against them had commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto.
Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
“When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be made available by
motion in the criminal case.”

Tapuz v Rosario, GR No. 182484, June 17, 2008

FACTS:
A complaint for forcible entry was filed against the petitioners alleging that
the petitioners—armed with bolos and suspected firearms and together with
unidentified persons numbering 120—entered the disputed land by force and
intimidation and built a nipa and bamboo structure. The court rendered judgment
against the petitioners, who filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, issuance of a
writ of habeas data, and issuance of the writ of amparo. Petitioners claim that armed
men carrying shot guns intruded into their property and torched two of the houses
to ashes.
RULING & DISCUSSION:
The petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of habeas data is fatally
defective, both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of the writ of
amparo is fatally defective with respect to content and substance.
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;
(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."
In this case, support for the habeas data only alleges that the petition was
filed so that the PNP may release the report on the burning of the homes and acts of
violence against them and the investigation report, if an investigation was
conducted. The allegations obviously lack what the rule requires as a minimum and
is nothing more than a fishing expedition.

Vivarez v St Theresa’s College, GR No. 202666, September 29, 2014

FACTS:
Students were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College when
they took photos of themselves clad only in their undergarments. The pictures were
then uploaded by another student on her Facebook profile. A teacher was informed
about this and reported the matter to the STC.
The students claim that they were castigated and verbally abused by STC
officials during the disciplinary conference. They were also barred from joining the
commencement exercises.
A Petition for Injunction and Damages was filed to enjoin STC from
implementing the sanction that precluded the girls from joining the commencement
exercises. The RTC issued a TRO allowing the girls to attend but STC nevertheless
barred the students from participating in the graduation rites.
Petitioners filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data on the
grounds that their children’s privacy was violated.
RULING & DISCUSSION:
The petition is DIMISSED on the ground that the alleged violation of privacy
has no connection to the right to life, liberty, or security.
The existence of a person’s right to informational privacy and a showing, at
least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are indispensable before the privilege
of the writ may be extended.
Right to Informational Privacy
There are three strands of the right to privacy: locational or situational
privacy; informational privacy; and decisional privacy. Information privacy is usually
defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves. Having
expectation of informational privacy is not necessarily compatible with
engaging in cyberspace activities, including those that occur in online social
networks (OSN).
Facebook has privacy tools, designed to set up barriers to broaden the
visibility of one’s profile content. Before one can have an expectation of privacy in
his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that the user manifest the intention to
keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access
thereto or to limit its visibility. Utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation,
in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
In this case, the teacher had the opportunity to view the photos, which
contradict the allegation that the photos were “very private.” The more open the
method of transmission is, the less privacy one can expect.
Cyber Responsibility
Self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet consumers is the best
means of avoiding privacy rights violations. Claimants must first take utmost care in
safeguarding a right which they allege to have been violated before seeking relief
from the courts.
STC cannot be faulted for being steadfast in its duty of teaching its students
to be responsible in their activities in cyberspace when it enforced disciplinary
actions specified in the Student Handbook.