CRUZ, MIKKA J.

2013-0596

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
SUN.1-3

Petition for Writ of Habeas Data (Leila M. De Lima vs Rodrigo Roa Duterte,
in his capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines)
Issue:
Whether or not the Petition for Habeas Data is Sufficient in Form and in
Substance
Ruling:
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data issued
by the Supreme Court, prescribed a form in which a petition for a writ of
habeas data must contain, particularly, section 6 of the said rule, which
states:
Sec.6. Petition.-A verified written petition for a writ of habeas
data should contain:
(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.

The petition for habeas data filed by Senator Leila M. De Lima is

insufficient in form and substance. As any other ordinary remedy available
to a party whose right has been violated or is threatened for violation, it
must be in factual antecedents, circumstances and specific statement of

facts that must be alleged and proved in the complaint. In the present case,
however, we cannot appreciate the veracity and truthfulness of any claim
that Sen. De Limas right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened to be violated since she did not, in the manner prescribed by
law, discuss the manner of such violation and its relation to her life, liberty
and security. She did not neither allege in her complaint that she exhausted
all her available remedies and recourses under the law to obtain an
information she wanted to access. In the simplest way, she did not state in
her complaint that she made a request to any 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. The unlawful remarks and utterances are of no doubt
outside the scope of ones official capacity and conduct, but, a writ of
habeas data is a prerogative right and will be granted if a clear, convincing
and substantial violation of privacy to life, liberty or security is violated.
Further, 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 as well is not stated in the complaint. The
petitioner should have included the names of the officials or employees
having released or made publications of the video clips of her alleged
affairs and who distribute copies to the unauthorized person.
Issue: Whether or not Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data should issue
We find no merit in the Petition
As held in the case of Rhoda Ave S. Vivares and Sps. Margarita and
David Suzara vs St. Theresas College, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero, and
John Does
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. It is an independent and summary remedy designed to
protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce
ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to
protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances in which such information is being

collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful

ends.

While it may be said that the petitioner has been repeatedly subjected
to personal attacks by the President, the remarks and utterances as to her
allege extramarital affairs and private activities including the issues on her
affair with her driver, there is no such other substantial allegation and
evidence as will support that the information obtained by the President is
unauthorized access to an information. She should have been more
specific of the acts and omissions that instances where the President
unlawfully obtains such private information to destroy her reputation,
privacy and dignity.
As can be gleaned from the petition itself, the video clips were the
alleged remarks and utterance against the person and womanhood, affairs
and activities are based from an unauthorized source and information.
There is no connection between the rights to privacy of petitioner at the
same time the actual or threatened violation.
The proper and best remedy to vindicate her life to privacy is to file
for a violation of the cybercrime law against the persons responsible for the
distribution of her video clips/scandal.
President Duterte, undeniably run after Senator De Lima with
personal grudge, his remarks against the senator is beyond the scope of
his duties and functions as the President of the Philippines and is against
oath of his office, it is a shown disrespect to the women. He publicly
humiliated and disrepute the Senator, attacking her personal activities and
affairs which should not be a Presidents concern, however, the remedy
that is sought for is inapplicable and cannot be granted because there are
other judicial remedy or recourse that can be taken to protect her right to
life, liberty, security due to violation of her right to privacy.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant Petition for
Habeas Data is DENIED.