NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
LAOAG CITY

Topic
: WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Name of Student : ELRENEO R. CASTRO
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Based on Section I of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, it states that 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.
Although we already have the writs of habeas corpus and amparo to protect
individual rights against abuses, writ of habeas data is the latest judicial remedy
intended to complement the two. Now that violations of the right to
informational privacy, right to control the flow of information and the right
balanced by legitimate public concerns are rampant, there should be a law that is
meant to prevent the collection or dissemination of erroneous data derived
therein. More often than not, these pieces of information are being used
improperly by people in authority/government against people. Hence, there is a
need to balance the powers of the government and the right of the people to live
a just and humane society.
On August 30, 2007, Renato S. Puno, former Chief Justice, in his speech at
Silliman University in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, he emphasized that with
the writ, he added that the data "can find out what information is held by the
officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered as quoted by Atty.
Manuel J. Laserna Jr. on his internet published speech.1 He cited that gathering
and disseminating incorrect information (be it inaccurate, outdated or worse,
1

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2008/05/writ-of-habeas-data.html

misused) is becoming more easily through the advancement in technology and

that the control of such that erode personal privacy has also diminished since
these private information may be divulged to the public.

WHERE THE WRIT OF HEABEAS DATA ORIGINATED

Many legal experts argue the origin of habeas data is believed to be from
Europe, particularly during their Council of Europes 108th Convention on Data
Protection of 1981. The rationale of said convention was to secure the privacy of
an individual as to the automated processing of his/her personal data. In order to
attain this, several rights are given to the individual, including a right to access
their personal data that is being held in an automated database.
But it was in the Latin American countries specifically Brazil that this has
became an expressed and full constitutional right wherein habeas data, under
the writ, plaintiffs or victims will have the right of access to information on their
lawsuits. This was conceptualized in relation to the right to protect against human
rights abuse and to protect socio-economic rights especially that majority of
these South-American like Brazil countries are under military juntas (N.B. Brazil is
now democratic).
In the Philippines, on February 2, 2008, this took effect when the Supreme
Court En Banc issued THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA following its
publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.2 This was triggered by
the rising issues on illegal wiretaps done by private parties and mostly on behalf
of the government to political opponents, human rights workers, journalists, and
labor organizers and use these information against them.

And for private

organizations wherein companies are using credit information for marketing like
banks selling credit information to marketers.

http://www.chanrobles.com/writofhabeasdata.html
2

BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

The Rule was drafted on the basis on the Supreme Courts constitutional
power to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights (Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]) that are also embodied in the human
rights laws of the country.
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.3

NOTED CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING WRIT OF HABEAS

DATA
The Rule on Habeas Data, promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 22,
2008 through AM 08-1-16 was born brought about because of the worsening
human rights condition in the country through extra-judicial killings, enforced
disappearance and torture. This has been exemplified in these two consolidated
cases, namely, (1) Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari dated 20 April 2010
(G.R. No. 191805), and (2) Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 19 August 2010
(G.R. No. 193160)that in these two petitions have granted the writ of amparo and
writ of habeas data.
This happened when government of former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, through its security forces were alleged to be compiling a database on
their opposition/s, listing many individuals in the Order of Battle under Oplan
Bantay Laya and filing various criminal charges against political opponents and
members of the media, considered as political harassment suits.
3

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-habeas-data-mean.html

Noriel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent

in G.R. No. 193160. He is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan
(Kagimungan), affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas(KMP), a peasant
organization.
On the other hand, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (former President Arroyo), Police
Director General (PDG.) Jesus A. Verzosa, Police Senior Superintendent (P/SSupt.)
Jude W. Santos, Brigadier General (Brig. Gen.) Remegio M. De Vera, First
Lieutenant (1stLt.) Ryan S. Matutina, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Laurence E.
Mina, Antonio C. Cruz (Cruz), Aldwin C. Pasicolan (Pasicolan) and Vicente A.
Callagan (Callagan) are respondents in G.R. No. 191805 and petitioners in G.R. No.
193160.
In this case, the Court ruled that;
Respondents in G.R. No. 191805 are responsible or accountable
for the violation of Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and security on
account of their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official
investigation of his ordeal in the hands of the military. Respondents Gen.
Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Col. De Vera and
Lt. Col. Mina only conducted a perfunctory investigation, exerting no
efforts to take Ramirezs account of the events into consideration.
Rather, these respondents solely relied on the reports and narration of
the military.
Further, respondents Ibrado, Verzosa, Bangit, Tolentino, Santos,
De Vera, and Mina are accountable, for while they were charged with
the investigation of the subject incident, the investigation they
conducted and/or relied on is superficial and one-sided. The records
further disclosed that the military, in investigating the incident
complained of, depended on the Comprehensive Report of Noriel
Rodriguez prepared by 1Lt. Johnny Calub for the Commanding Officer of
the 501st Infantry Brigade, 5th Infantry Division, Philippine Army. But
said report, however, is merely based on the narration of the military. No
efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioners version of the subject
incident and no witnesses were questioned regarding the alleged
abduction of petitioner.
Respondent PDG Verzosa, being the Chief of the PNP, is also made
accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975, otherwise known as
the PNP Law, that specified the PNP as a public office with the directive to
4

investigate and prevent crimes, to take effect the arrest of criminal offenders,
bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution. In this case, he failed to
order the police to conduct the necessary investigation to expose the mystery
surrounding petitioners abduction and disappearance. Instead, he disclaimed
accountability by merely stating that petitioner has no cause of action against
him. It is also obvious of his lack of any effort to effectively and aggressively
investigate the violations of petitioners right to life, liberty and security by
members of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 17th Infantry Division, Philippine Army.
Evidently, the absence of a fair and effective official investigation into the
claims of Rodriguez violated his right to security, for which respondents in G.R.
No. 191805 must be held responsible or accountable.
However, it was clarified that Rodriguez was unable to establish any
responsibility or accountability on the part of respondents P/CSupt. Tolentino,
P/SSupt. Santos, Calog and Palacpac. Respondent P/CSupt. Tolentino had already
retired when the abduction and torture of Rodriguez was perpetrated, while
P/SSupt. Santos had already been reassigned and transferred to the National
Capital Regional Police Office six months before the subject incident occurred.
Meanwhile, no sufficient allegations were maintained against respondents Calog
and Palacpac.
From all the foregoing, the ruling was that Rodriguez was successful in proving
through substantial evidence that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt.
Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1st Lt. Matutina, and Lt. Col.
Mina were responsible and accountable for the violation of Rodriguezs rights to
life, liberty and security on the basis of (a) his abduction, detention and torture
from 6 September to 17 September 2009, and (b) the lack of any fair and effective
official investigation as to his allegations. Thus, the privilege of the writs of
amparo and habeas data was granted in his favor. As a result, there was no
issuance of a temporary protection order, as the privilege of these writs already
has the effect of enjoining respondents in G.R. No. 191805 from violating his
rights to life, liberty and security.

It is also made clear that despite (a) maintaining former President Arroyo in
the list of respondents in G.R. No. 191805, and (b) allowing the application of the
command responsibility doctrine to amparo and habeas data proceedings,
Rodriguez failed to prove through substantial evidence that former President
Arroyo was responsible or accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty
and property.

He likewise failed to prove through substantial evidence the

accountability or responsibility of respondents Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Cruz, Pasicolan

and Callagan.
It was resolved and granted that the Petition for Partial Review in G.R. No.
191805 and denied the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 193160. This was the
Decision of the Court of Appeals that was affirmed and modified.
Further, the case dismissed respondents then President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. Santos, Calog, George
Palacpac, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicent Callagan for lack of merit.
The Court directed the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to take the appropriate action with respect to any
possible liability or liabilities, within their respective legal competence, that may
have been incurred by respondents Gen. Victor Ibrado, PDG. Jesus Verzosa, Lt.
Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen. Nestor Ochoa, Brig. Gen. Remegio De Vera, 1st Lt.
Ryan Matutina, and Lt. Col. Laurence Mina. The Ombudsman and the DOJ are
ordered to submit to this Court the results of their action within a period of six
months from receipt of this Decision.
These cases proved that under the writ of habeas data, any personal
information gathered regarding certain individuals, should not be used against
them. Although the people in possession are the proper authorities who have the
right to access such information, but still, the improper use of which is
tantamount to the violation of its confidentiality and is punishable under this
law. Likewise, these cases attested that this law is operational and if it is properly
being implemented, it truly provides protection to ones constitutional right to
privacy and prevents their misuse.

HOW PEOPLE BENEFIT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT

Generally, the writ of habeas data empowers our Courts to issue reliefs that
may be granted through judicial orders of protection, production, inspection and
other relief to safeguard one's life and liberty.
Former Justice Puno, explained further the benefits from the writ through
specifying some instances of its use that include the following:
a. This can be used in cases where data gathered by a credit bureau affects a
person's financial standing. Provided, that the information stored by the
bureau is wrong and this is spread to other financial companies, the person
could be rejected in future transactions. In this example, the habeas data
writ could provide relief.
b. In keeping the integrity of medical data, the habeas data can provide
protection. The dissemination of medical data intrudes on a person's right,
especially if the records are wrong or need to be updated.
c. It can be used by a candidate for an elective post contesting the vote tally
of the Commission on Elections as the proper remedy, in such a case, to file
an electoral protest.
d. Another is to correct erroneous reports in the media. The availability of the
writ would not stop a person from filing civil, criminal, or administrative
cases.
e. It also recognizes that certain information cannot be forcefully disclosed. A
respondent in a habeas data petition is allowed to invoke the defenses of
national security, state secrets, privileged communication, and the
confidentiality of sources, in the case of media.

EVALUATION/CRITICISMS
Although the writ provides protection to our rights, but up to this time, it is
still insufficient to resolve the problems of extra-legal killings and enforced
disappearances in the Philippines. For an instance, it failed to protect nonwitnesses, even if they too face threats or risk to their lives.

It is also said to respond to realistic areas, but it is still necessary that further
action must be taken in addition to this. And that, the Congress, both the Upper
and Lower House, being legislative bodies, must enact laws which ensure more
protection of rightslaws against torture and enforced disappearance and laws
to afford adequate legal remedies to victims. It has to be emphasized that there
must be a cooperative action on all parts of the government and civil society to
solve crimes.

CONCLUSIONS
The writ of habeas data may be one of the main remedies for those whose
right to life, liberty or security are threatened or violated by acts or omission of
public officials, hence, making a new wave of protecting human rights of the
Filipino people.

Although the Philippine version may vary from the other

countries data, the concept of which is basically for venue for victims of
harassment and other human rights violations committed by the state and its
security forces to seek redress and extract accountability for possible abuse of
information collected, stored and used by the State.

REFERENCES

AM No. 08-1-16-SC, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data. Published in Philippine
e-Legal Forum.
Albano, Ed Vincent S., et al. Philippine Government and Constitution, 2009. Atlas
Publishing Co., Inc. Quezon City.
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2008/05/writ-of-habeas-data.html. Atty. Manuel
J. Laserna Jr. on his internet published speech.
http//sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/191805.html for
G.R. No. 191805 and G.R. No. 193160.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-habeas-data-mean.html.
http://www.chanrobles.com/writofhabeasdata.html.