Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Castillo v Cruz (2009) Gr No 182165 The same case states that the court will only issue the

The same case states that the court will only issue the writ after determining the facts ‘ existence from the
J. Morales supporting affidavits of thNotably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat to the
rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or continuing.”
Facts: There was no threat to the said rights by the petitioners use of force. They were only protecting property rights.
Respondent Cruz spouses leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos. They refused to vacate Their affidavit said: “Wala kaming nagawa ipagtanggol ang aming karapatan sa lupa na 45 years naming
the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan which intended to utilize it for “IN POSSESSION.”
local projects. Regarding habeas data, there was no allegation of the data collection requirement.
The local government filed charges in the MTC, which in turn decided against the spouses. The writs cant be used to stall the execution of a property dispute decision.
RTC affirmed the decision. The filing should have been barred after their arrest. This was due to the institution of criminal proceedings
The spouses didn’t vacate and continued to file cases in the Malolos RTC. The court suspended running first. They may avail of the reliefs as a motion.
the demolition against the property, a determination of the property bounds, and a remanding of the case by Obiter:
means of a writ of injunction. The filed the writs in the Sandiganbayan, but dismissed for form shopping and insufficiency.
The respondents filed a MFR in the MTC. The court ruled in their favor and issued another demolition order.
In order to stop the demolition, the spouses parked container vans around the property. MELISSA ROXAS v. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (2010)
Superintendent Castillo was told by the mayor to enter the property for maintaining its possession. J. Perez
Respondents refused. The y filed for a Petition for a writ of amparo and habeas data in Malolos RTC
The same people claimed that the respondents entered the property forcefully with heavy equipment and PONENTE: Perez, J.
arrested them. RTC ruled in their favor.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Issue: Is the writ of amparo and habeas data the correct remedy for the spouses predicament?
1. Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
Held: No. Petition dismissed 2. Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the
Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment which is the
Ratio: subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement
of constitutionalrights. FACTS:
As a response to extrajudicial killings, the court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Amparo on Oct. 24, 2007
and the Rule on Habeas Data on 2008. This power was inherent in the Constitutional grant to the courts to Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an exposure
promulgate rules for human rights. program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN-
Definitions of the Writs: USA) of which she is a member.
a. Writ of Amparo- an available course of action “to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus
private individual or entity” Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in civilian
b. Writ of Habeas Data- a course that can be taken when the “right to privacy in life, liberty or security is clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she was
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of a private individual informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s
or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person”. Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions and was brought to a room, from where she
The limitation of the writs was in the protection of rights of life, liberty, and security. could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off and landing, and some construction bustle.
Sec of National Defense v Manalo- limitation of the Amparo was to extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She
There must be a violation of these rights by means of an unlawful act. There must be a connection between the
was informed by a person named “RC” that those who tortured her came from the “Special Operations Group”
acts and effects of the aforementioned rights.
and that she was abducted because her name is included in the “Order of Battle.”
Tapuz v Del Rosario- “What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or
commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was sternly 2) WON circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough
warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo – NO
family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell phone given to her. Out of
apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence – In amparo
the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of military involvement
belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of
directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.
SC issued the writs and referred the case to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action.
Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on
CA granted the privilege of writs of amparo and habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and
respondents because it was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction and torture of affiliation of the perpetrators.
Roxas.
3) WON substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the SC. security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be extended – YES

ISSUES/HELD: 1) WON the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition – NO EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim
is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended – An indispensable requirement
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate – The use of the doctrine of before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or
command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition, is legally threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.
inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, by this account,
cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such right. Hence, until
such time that any of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy – As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy
protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and becomes farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the
directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats,
whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM
G.R. No. 184769, October 5, 2010
Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly
invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. FACTS OF THE CASE:

However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility does not preclude impleading military or Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also known as Cherry Lim, is an administrative clerk at the Manila Electric Company
police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or (MERALCO). On June 4, 2008, an anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering Office of the
indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan Sector, which reads:
responsibility—but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.
Cherry Lim:

MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN AY GUSTO MONG
PALAMON ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA MGA BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO. KAPAL NG MUKHA MO, LUMAYAS By Decision of September 22, 2008, the trial court granted the prayers of respondent including the issuance of a
KA RITO, WALANG UTANG NA LOOB.[1] writ of preliminary injunction directing petitioners to desist from implementing respondents transfer until such time
that petitioners comply with the disclosures required. Hence, this petition.
Copies of the letter were also inserted in the lockers of MERALCO linesmen. Respondent reported the matter on
June 5, 2008 to the Plaridel Station of the Philippine National Police. By Memorandum dated July 4, 2008, ISSUE:
petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCOs Human Resource Staffing, directed the transfer of respondent
to MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in Muntinlupa as A/F OTMS Clerk, effective July 18, 2008 in light of the receipt Whether or not Writ of Habeas Data is the proper remedy.
of reports that there were accusations and threats directed against [her] from unknown individuals and which
could possibly compromise [her] safety and security. RULING OF THE COURT:

Respondent, by letter of July 10, 2008 addressed to petitioner Ruben A. Sapitula, Vice-President and Head of No.
MERALCOs Human Resource Administration, appealed her transfer and requested for a dialogue so she could
voice her concerns and misgivings on the matter, claiming that the punitive nature of the transfer amounted to a Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
denial of due process. In her letter, the repondent cited the grueling travel from her residence in Pampanga to
Alabang, and violation of the provisions on job security of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Section 1. 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
Respondent thus requested for the deferment of the implementation of her transfer pending resolution of the or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
issues she raised. No response to her request having been received, respondent filed a petition for the issuance regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (emphasis and underscoring
of a writ of habeas data against petitioners before the RTC of Bulacan. supplied)

By respondents allegation, petitioner’s unlawful act and omission consisting of their continued failure and refusal The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy,
to provide her with details or information about the alleged report which MERALCO purportedly received honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce ones
concerning threats to her safety and security amount to a violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right
security, correctible by habeas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of a writ commanding petitioners to life, liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology.
to file a written return containing the following:
It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was conceived as a response, given the lack of
a) a full disclosure of the data or information about respondent in relation to the report purportedly received by effective and available remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and security; the nature of such data and the purpose for its disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy
collection; independently from those provided under prevailing Rules.[13]

b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data or information; and Castillo v. Cruz[14] underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del Rosario[15] that the writs of amparo and
habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in
c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained. support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.[16] Employment constitutes a property right under the
context of the due process clause of the Constitution.[17] It is evident that respondents reservations on the real
Additionally, respondent prayed for the issuance of a TRO enjoining petitioners from effecting her transfer to the reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of ones employment - are
MERALCO Alabang Sector. what prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
The trial court granted respondent's application for a TRO.
In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable or
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the petition and recall of the TRO on the grounds that, resort to a petition unlawful violation of respondents right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that
for writ of habeas data was not in order; and the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the case which properly belongs petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly received on the threats to respondents safety
to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). amounts to a violation of her right to privacy is at best speculative. Respondent in fact trivializes these threats
and accusations from unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as highly
suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all.[18] And she even suspects that her transfer to Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students logged in to their respective personal Facebook accounts and showed
another place of work betray[s] the real intent of management] and could be a punitive move. Her posture her photos of the identified students, which include: (a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and
unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 22, 2008 Decision of the Bulacan RTC, Branch 7 that showvirtually the entirety of their black brassieres.
in SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SP. Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is, accordingly,
Also, Escudero’s students claimed that there were times when access to or the availability of the identified
DISMISSED.
students’ photos was not confined to the girls’ Facebook friends, but were, in fact, viewable by any Facebook
user.
No costs.
Investigation ensued. Then Julia, Julienne and other students involved were barred from joining the
SO ORDERED. commencement exercises.

Petitioners, who are the respective parents of the minors, filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, Petitioners, Data. RTC dismissed the petition for habeas data on the following grounds:

vs 1. Petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened violation of the minors’ right to privacy, one
of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data.
ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES, Respondents. 2. The photos, having been uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them, lost their privacy
in some way.
3. STC gathered the photographs through legal means and for a legal purpose, that is, the implementation of the
G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014 school’s policies and rules on discipline.

TOPIC: right to informational privacy, writ of habeas data ISSUE:

PONENTE: Velasco, Jr. Whether or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or
security of the minors involved in this case. (Is there a right to informational privacy in online social network
PREFATORY: activities of its users?)

The individual’s desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire. HELD: (Note that you can skip the preliminary discussions and check the ruling at the latter part)
Thus each individual is continually engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he balances the desire for
privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental Nature of Writ of Habeas Data
conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives.
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened
– Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) 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
FACTS: correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College (STC), Cebu City. It is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and
Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to attend, freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to
Julia and Julienne, along with several others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in
These pictures were then uploaded by Angela on her Facebook profile. instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.

At STC, Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher at STC’s high school department, learned from her students that In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an individual’s right to informational privacy,
some seniors at STC posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in among others. A comparative law scholar has, in fact, defined habeas data as “a procedure designed to
brassieres. Escudero then asked her students if they knew who the girls in the photos are. In turn, they readily safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.”
identified Julia and Julienne, among others.
Issuance of writ of habeas data; requirements To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with different
privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile as well as information uploaded by the
1. The existence of a person’s right to informational privacy user. In H v. W, the South Gauteng High Court recognized this ability of the users to “customize their privacy
2. An actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim (proven by at least settings,” but did so with this caveat: “Facebook states in its policies that, although it makes every effort to
substantial evidence) protect a user’s information, these privacy settings are not foolproof.”

Note that the writ will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a For instance, a Facebook user can regulate the visibility and accessibility of digital images (photos), posted on his
person. or her personal bulletin or “wall,” except for the user’s profile picture and ID, by selecting his or her desired
privacy setting:
The writ of habeas data is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
1. Public – the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo;
2. Friends of Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends and their friends can view the photo;
The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to privacy, more 3. Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends can view the photo;
specifically the right to informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of such right can include the 4. Custom – the photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or networks of the Facebook user; and
updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files in possession or in 5. Only Me – the digital image can be viewed only by the user.
control of respondents. Clearly then, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases
outside of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
The foregoing are privacy tools, available to Facebook users, designed to set up barriers to broaden or limit the
visibility of his or her specific profile content, statuses, and photos, among others, from another user’s point of
Meaning of “engaged” in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information view. In other words, Facebook extends its users an avenue to make the availability of their Facebook activities
reflect their choice as to “when and to what extent to disclose facts about themselves – and to put others in the
Habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or position of receiving such confidences.”
entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her
correspondences, or about his or her family. Such individual or entity need not be in the business of collecting or LONE ISSUE:
storing data.
NONE. The Supreme Court held that STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy as the subject
To “engage” in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To “engage” means “to do or take part digital photos were viewable either by the minors’ Facebook friends, or by the public at large.
in something.” It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is
that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved
party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a Without any evidence to corroborate the minors’ statement that the images were visible only to the five of them,
business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is and without their challenging Escudero’s claim that the other students were able to view the photos, their
immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.

As such, the writ of habeas data may be issued against a school like STC. It is well to note that not one of petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn account that her students, who are the
minors’ Facebook “friends,” showed her the photos using their own Facebook accounts. This only goes to show that
no special means to be able to view the allegedly private posts were ever resorted to by Escudero’s students,
Right to informational privacy and that it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos were, in reality, viewable either by (1) their
Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at large.
Right to informational privacy is the right of individuals to control information about themselves. Several
commentators regarding privacy and social networking sites, however, all agree that given the millions of OSN Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is “Public,” it can be surmised that the photographs in
users, “in this Social Networking environment, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectations, but question were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ children positively limited
rather in some theoretical protocol better known as wishful thinking.” So the underlying question now is: Up to the disclosure of the photograph. If such were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to
what extent is the right to privacy protected in OSNs? informational privacy.

US v. Gines-Perez: A person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and renounce
all privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under circumstances such as here, where the Defendant did not
Facebook Privacy Tools employ protective measures or devices that would have controlled access to the Web page or the photograph
itself.
United States v. Maxwell: The more open the method of transmission is, the less privacy one can reasonably
expect. Messages sent to the public at large in the chat room or e-mail that is forwarded from correspondent to
correspondent loses any semblance of privacy.

The Honorable Supreme Court continued and held 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. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto,
regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the
post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or
who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at “Friends.” Thus, it is suggested, that a
profile, or even a post, with visibility set at “Friends Only” cannot easily, more so automatically, be said to be “very
private,” contrary to petitioners’ argument.

No privacy invasion by STC; fault lies with the friends of minors

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. Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. 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. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors. Curiously enough,
however, neither the minors nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy against the students who showed
the images to Escudero.

Different scenario of setting is set on “Me Only” or “Custom”

Had it been proved that the access to the pictures posted were limited to the original uploader, through the “Me
Only” privacy setting, or that the user’s contact list has been screened to limit access to a select few, through the
“Custom” setting, the result may have been different, for in such instances, the intention to limit access to the
particular post, instead of being broadcasted to the public at large or all the user’s friends en masse, becomes
more manifest and palpable.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi