Laws & Jurisprudence
Matters To Be Alleged In A Petition For Writ Of Habeas Data
10:50 PM
In his
Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data,
Ilagan alleged that he and petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) were former
common law partners. He visited Lee at the latter’s condominium, rested for a
while and thereafter, proceeded to his office. Upon arrival, Ilagan noticed
that his digital camera was missing.
Petitioner
Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) confronted Ilagan at the latter’s office regarding a
purported sex video she discovered from the aforesaid camera involving Ilagan
and another woman.
Lee
utilized the said video as evidence in filing various complaints against
Ilagan, namely: (a) a criminal complaint for violation of
Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004,” before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Makati; and (b) an administrative complaint for grave
misconduct before the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
Ilagan
claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing the subject video and threatening to
distribute the same to the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading it to
the internet violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, and
privacy but also that of the other woman, and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in
his favor is warranted.
The RTC
granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data in Ilagan’s favor, and
accordingly, ordered the implementing officer to turn-over copies of the
subject video to him, and enjoined Lee from further reproducing the same.
The RTC did not give credence to Lee’s defense that she is not engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data regarding the person of Ilagan, finding that her acts of reproducing the subject video and showing it to other people, i.e., the NAPOLCOM officers, violated the latter’s right to privacy in life and caused him to suffer humiliation and mental anguish.
The RTC did not give credence to Lee’s defense that she is not engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data regarding the person of Ilagan, finding that her acts of reproducing the subject video and showing it to other people, i.e., the NAPOLCOM officers, violated the latter’s right to privacy in life and caused him to suffer humiliation and mental anguish.
Dissatisfied,
Lee filed this petition this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
the RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of Ilagan.
RULING:
The RTC did
not correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of Ilagan. As defined in
Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas
data now stands as “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.”
Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6
of the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the
petition sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner the right to privacy is violated
or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party.” In
other words, the petition must adequately show that there
exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to
life, liberty or security on the other . Corollarily, the
allegations in the petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In this relation, it bears pointing
out that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect purely
property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the
petitions therefor are vague and doubtful.
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption – he failed to explain the connection between such interest and any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.
G.R. No. 203254,
October 08, 2014
DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI
A. ILAGAN, Respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments