Tapuz Vs Del Rosario

FACTS:

petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance of the writ; the

private respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion for
demolition.

1.
The private respondents spouses Sanson filed with the
Aklan MCTC a complaint for forcible entry and damages with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction against the petitioners and other John Does
numbering about 120.

7.
The respondent Judge subsequently denied the
petitioners MR and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction.

2.
The private respondents alleged in their complaint that:
(1) they are the registered owners of the disputed land; (2)
they were the disputed lands prior possessors when the
petitioners armed with bolos and carrying suspected firearms
and together with unidentified persons entered the disputed
land by force and intimidation, without the private
respondents permission and against the objections of the
private respondents security men, and built thereon a nipa
and bamboo structure.
3.
In their Answer, the petitioners denied the material
allegations and essentially claimed that: (1) they are the actual
and prior possessors of the disputed land;
(2) on the contrary, the private respondents are the intruders;
and (3) the private respondents certificate of title to the
disputed property is spurious. They asked for the dismissal of
the complaint and interposed a counterclaim for damages.
4.
The MCTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision in
the private respondents favor, finding prior possession through
the construction of perimeter fence in 1993.
5.

The petitioners appealed the MCTC decision to RTC.

6.
On appeal, Judge Marin granted the private respondents
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction upon posting of a bond. The writ authorizing the
immediate implementation of the MCTC decision was actually
issued by respondent Judge del Rosario after the private
respondents had complied with the imposed condition. The

8.
Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for
demolition. The respondent Judge nevertheless issued via a
Special Order a writ of demolition to be implemented fifteen
(15) days after the Sheriffs written notice to the petitioners to
voluntarily demolish their house/s to allow the private
respondents to effectively take actual possession of the land.
9.
The petitioners thereafter filed a Petition for Review of
the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition in
CA.
10.
Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff issued the Notice to
Vacate and for Demolition. Hence, the present petition for
certiorari with writs of amparo and habeas data.
ISSUE: W/N petition for certiorari with writ of amparo and
habeas data is proper
HELD:
No. We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of
habeas data fatally defective, both in substance and in form.
The petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo, on the
other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content and
substance.
Based on the outlined material antecedents that led to the
petition, that the petition for certiorari to nullify the assailed
RTC orders has been filed out of time. Based on the same
material antecedents, we find too that the petitioners have
been guilty of willful and deliberate misrepresentation before

this Court and, at the very least, of forum shopping. In sum, the
petition for certiorari should be dismissed for the cited formal
deficiencies, for violation of the non- forum shopping rule, for
having been filed out of time, and for substantive deficiencies.
To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally
conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the
number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the
perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address
these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address
violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security,
as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those
available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy
supplemental to these Rules. 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.
Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in line with the
extraordinary character of the writ and the reasonable
certainty that its issuance demands requires that every
petition for the issuance of the

petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete

allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to
privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. The
petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any
need for information under the control of police authorities
other than those it has already set forth as integral annexes.
The necessity or justification for the

issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous

efforts made to secure information, has not also been shown.
In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is
nothing more than the fishing expedition that this Court in
the course of drafting the Rule on habeas data had in mind in
defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not. In
these lights, the outright denial of the petition for the issuance
of the writ of habeas data is fully in order. PETITION DENIED.
Castillo vs Cruz

Writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact.

Facts:

On the whole, what is clear from these statements both

sworn and unsworn is the overriding involvement of property
issues as the petition traces its roots to questions of physical
possession of the property disputed by the private parties. If at
all, issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be
discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past
violence has been alleged. The right to security, on the other
hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and
harassments implied from the presence of armed men bare to
the waist and the alleged pointing and firing of weapons.
Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show
that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the
petitioners is imminent or is continuing.

Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her

husband Francisco G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz), leased a parcel of
land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property),
refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor
Provincial Government of Bulacan (the Province) which
intended to utilize it for local projects.

These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of

Habeas Data requires as a minimum, thus rendering the

Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights

over the property. The pertinent case among the filed cases
was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in
favor of the Province. Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the
RTC, which was granted. However, the demolition was already
implemented before the TRO issuance.
On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent
Felixberto Castillo et al., who were deployed by the City Mayor
in compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito

R. Mendoza instructing him to protect, secure and maintain

the possession of the property, entered the property.
Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the
property, however. Insisting that the RTC Order of Permanent
Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing it, they
shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them and cause
their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other forms
of light threats.
Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data.
Issue:
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights;
and,
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a
criminal case already filed.
Held:
On the 1st issue:
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data
provides that 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.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: As the
Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem
of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Tapuz v.
Del Rosario also teaches: 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.
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents
must meet the threshold requirement that their right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful

act or omission. Evidently, the present controversy arose out of

a property dispute between the Provincial Government and
respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the acts
complained of and its effect on respondents right to life,
liberty and security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of
petitioners entry into the property.
It bears emphasis that respondents petition did not show any
actual violation, imminent or continuing threat to their life,
liberty and security. Bare allegations of petitioners will not
suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of the writ of
amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In
fact, respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a
day after their arrest.
On the 2nd issue:
Respondents filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and
habeas data should have been barred, for criminal proceedings
against them had commenced after they were arrested in
flagrante delicto and proceeded against in accordance with
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of the arrest
or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that may
be set up by respondents during trial and not before a petition
for writs of amparo and habeas data.
Roxas
G.R. No.

v.
Macapagal-Arroyo
189155 07 September 2010

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo
and Habeas Data
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 subject of the present Petition
for Review on Certiorari.

FACTS:
Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in
the United States, enrolled in an exposure program to the
Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang MakabayanUnited States of America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a
member.
On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and
her companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio
Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her companions were resting,
15 heavily armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the
house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted
from the van, she was informed that she is being detained for
being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New
Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her
companions and was brought to a room, from where she could
hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off and landing,
and some construction bustle.
She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to
convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She was
informed by a person named RC that those who tortured her
came from the Special Operations Group and that she was
abducted because her name is included in the Order of
Battle.
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a
cellular phone with a sim card. She was
sternly warned not to report the incident to the group
Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her
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.
Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance
of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court,
impleading the high- ranking officials of military and Philippine

National Police (PNP), on the belief that it was the government

agents who were behind her abduction and torture.
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and
referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception
of evidence and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals
granted the privilege of writs of amparo and habeas data.
However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it
was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for
the abduction and torture of Roxas.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is
applicable in an amparo petition.
Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the
identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for
the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo.
Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the
writ may be extended.
ANSWERS:
No.
It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must
be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence.
Yes.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1.
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT
OF AMPARO

Command responsibility as justification in impleading

respondents is legally inaccurate The use of the doctrine of
command responsibility as justification in impleading the
respondents in her amparo petition, is legally 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.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy As held in the
case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a protective
remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the
appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be
crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or
threats of violation of the 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.
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. However, the inapplicability of
the doctrine of command responsibility does not preclude
impleading military or police commanders on the ground that
the complained acts in the petition were committed with their
direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders
may be impleaded not actually on the basis of command
responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their responsibility,
or at least accountability.
2.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be

preferred over mere circumstantial evidence In amparo
proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel
circumstances as evidence of military involvement 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. Direct evidence of identity,
when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial
evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former
indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and
affiliation of the perpetrators.
3.

EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS

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 before the
privilege of the writ may be extended is the 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. 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 Roxas, any inference regarding
the existence of reports being kept in violation of the
petitioners right to privacy becomes farfetched, and
premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike
down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals. However, it modified the directive of the Court of the
Appeals for further investigation, as follows:
Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting
further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of
extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take the necessary
steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic
sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their
whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to
petitioners abduction and torture.

Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police

(PNP), or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of
the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing
investigation of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing
the latter a copy of its personnel records circa the time of the
petitioners abduction and torture, subject to reasonable
regulations consistent with the Constitution and existing laws.
Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his
successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and
the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its
investigations and their recommendations, other than those
that are already part of the records of this case, within ninety
(90) days from receipt of this decision.
Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals
within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of
the reports on its investigation and its
corresponding
recommendations; and to (b) provide or continue to provide
protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the
Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined
by this Court.
The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court
of Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the
above directives and determining whether, in light of any
recent reports or recommendations, there would already be
sufficient evidence to hold any of the public respondents
responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such
determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report
with recommendation to the
Supreme Court for its consideration. It was declared that the
Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this
case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF

AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL
RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO,
PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ.
GEN.
NESTOR
Z.
OCHOA,
P/CSUPT.
AMETO
G.
TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO
M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA,
CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name "HARRY,"
ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN "BONG" PASICOLAN and
VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL
RODRIGUEZ, POLICE DIR. GEN. JESUS A. VERSOZA,
P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, BGEN. REMEGIO M. DE VERA,
1ST LT. RYAN S. MATUTINA, LT. COL. LAURENCE E. MINA,
ANTONIO C. CRUZ, ALDWIN C. PASICOLAN and VICENTE
A. CALLAGAN, Petitioners,
vs.
NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.
On 15 November 2011, the Court promulgated its Decision in
the present case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, we resolve to GRANT the Petition for Partial
Review in G.R. No. 191805 and DENY the Petition for Review in
G.R. No. 193160. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
The case is dismissed with respect to respondents former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G.
Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. Santos, Calog, George Palacpac,
Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vincent Callagan for lack of
merit.

This Court directs 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 lbrado, 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.
In the event that herein respondents no longer occupy their
respective posts, the directives mandated in this Decision and
in the Court of Appeals are enforceable against the incumbent
officials holding the relevant positions. Failure to comply with
the foregoing shall constitute contempt of court.
SO ORDERED.
After a careful examination of the records, the Court was
convinced that the Court of Appeals correctly found sufficient
evidence proving that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry
Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted
petitioner Rodriguez on 6 September 2009, and detained and
tortured him until 17 September 2009.
Pursuant to the Decision ordering the Office of the Ombudsman
to take further action, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales
sent this Court a letter dated 23 May 2012, requesting an
additional two-month period, or until 24 July 2012, within which
to submit a report. The Ombudsman stated that Noriel
Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and his family refused to cooperate with
the investigation for security reasons.
On 6 January 2012, respondents filed their Motion for
Reconsideration,1 arguing that the soldiers belonging to the
17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military
cannot be held accountable for authoring the abduction and
torture of petitioner. Their arguments revolve solely on the

claim that respondents were never specifically mentioned by

name as having performed, permitted, condoned, authorized,
or allowed the commission of any act or incurrence omission
which would violate or threaten with violation the rights to life,
liberty, and security of petitioner-respondent and his family.2
On 18 January 2013, the Ombudsman submitted the
Investigation Report, as compliance with the Courts directive
to take appropriate action with respect to possible liabilities
respondents may have incurred. The exhaustive report detailed
the steps taken by the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the
Office of the Ombudsman, concluding that no criminal, civil, or
administrative liabilities may be imputed to the respondents. It
was reflected therein that the lawyers for the Rodriguezes had
manifested to the FIO that the latter are hesitant to appear
before them for security reasons, viz:
Karapatan (a non-governmental organization that provides
legal assistance to victims of human rights violations and their
families) could not locate Noriel and Rodel. As of this writing,
the Rodriguezes refused to participate in the present factfinding investigation for security reasons. Atty. Yambot
disclosed (through a Manifestation dated March 30, 2012 that
despite efforts to convince Noriel to participate in the present
proceedings, the latter remains unconvinced and unwilling to
this date.
Recent information, however, revealed that Noriel and his
family are no longer interested in participating in the present
case.
Instead of appearing before this Office for a conference under
oath, SPO1 Robert B. Molina submitted an Affidavit dated June
13, 2012 stating that on September 15, 2009, at around 11:00
oclock in the morning, Wilma H. Rodriguez appeared before
the Gonzaga Police Station and requested to enter into the
blotter that her son, Noriel, was allegedly missing in Sitio
Comunal, Gonzaga, Cagayan. Thereupon, he gathered

information relative to Wilmas report "but the community

residence failed to reveal anything".3
The other accounts specifically that of respondent Antonino
C. Cruz, Special Investigator II of the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR), as well as the claims of respondents Mina and De
Vera that they had disclosed to the CHR that Noriel had
become an agent ("asset") of the 17th Infantry Battalion have
been thoroughly evaluated and ruled upon in our Decision. The
OMB further laments, "If only he (Noriel) could be asked to
verify the circumstances under which he executed these
subsequent affidavits, his inconsistent claims will finally be
settled," and that "(I)f there is one person who can attest on
whether detention and torture were indeed committed by any
of the Subjects herein, it is Noriel Rodriguez himself, the
supposed victim."4
The purported unwillingness of the petitioner to appear or
participate at this stage of the proceedings due to security
reasons does not affect the rationale of the writ granted by the
CA, as affirmed by this Court. In any case, the issue of the
existence of criminal, civil, or administrative liability which may
be imputed to the respondents is not the province of amparo
proceedings -- rather, the writ serves both preventive and
curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks
the expectation of impunity in the commission of these
offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent
punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
investigation and action.5 In this case then, the thrust of
ensuring that investigations are conducted and the rights to
life, liberty, and security of the petitioner, remains.
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
The writ of amparo partakes of a summary proceeding that
requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. As
explained in the Decision, it is not an action to determine

criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or

liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or
even administrative responsibility requiring substantial
evidence. The totality of evidence as a standard for the grant
of the writ was correctly applied by this Court, as first laid down
in Razon v. Tagitis:
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the
pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider
any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to
be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic
test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of
adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be
admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.6 (Emphasis
supplied.)
No reversible error may be attributed to the grant of the
privilege of the writ by the CA, and the present motion for
reconsideration raises no new issues that would convince us
otherwise.
Respondents claim that they were not competently identified
as the soldiers who abducted and detained the petitioner, or
that there was no mention of their names in the documentary
evidence, is baseless. The CA rightly considered Rodriguezs
Sinumpaang Salaysay7 as a meticulous and straightforward
account of his horrific ordeal with the military, detailing the
manner in which he was captured and maltreated on account
of his suspected membership in the NPA.8
Petitioner narrated that at dawn on 9 September 2009, he
noticed a soldier with the name tag "Matutina," who appeared
to be an official because the other soldiers addressed him as
"sir."9 He saw Matutina again at 11:00 p.m. on 15 September
2009, when his abductors took him to a military operation in
the mountains. His narration of his suffering included an
exhaustive description of his physical surroundings, personal

circumstances, and perceived observations. He likewise

positively identified respondents 1st Lt. Matutina and Lt. Col.
Mina to be present during his abduction, detention and
torture.10 These facts were further corroborated by Hermie
Antonio Carlos in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 16
September 2009,11 wherein he recounted in detail the
circumstances surrounding the victims capture.
Respondents main contention in their Return of the Writ was
correctly deemed illogical and contradictory by the CA. They
claim that Rodriguez had complained of physical ailments due
to activities in the CPP-NPA, yet nevertheless signified his
desire to become a double-agent for the military. The CA
stated:
In the Return of the Writ, respondent AFP members alleged that
petitioner confided to his military handler, Cpl. Navarro, that
petitioner could no longer stand the hardships he experienced
in the wilderness, and that he wanted to become an ordinary
citizen again because of the empty promises of the CPP-NPA.
However, in the same Return, respondents state that petitioner
agreed to become a double agent for the military and wanted
to re-enter the CPP-NPA, so that he could get information
regarding the movement directly from the source. If petitioner
was tired of life in the wilderness and desired to become an
ordinary citizen again, it defies logic that he would agree to
become an undercover agent and work alongside soldiers in
the mountains or the wilderness he dreads to locate the
hideout of his alleged NPA comrades.12 (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondents conveniently neglect to address the findings of
both the CA and this Court that aside from the abduction of
Rodriguez, respondents, specifically 1st Lt. Matutina, had
violated and threatened the formers right to security when
they made a visual recording of his house, as well as the
photos of his relatives. The CA found that the soldiers even
went as far as taking videos of the photos of petitioners
relatives hung on the wall of the house, and the innermost
portions of the house.13 There is no reasonable justification for

this violation of the right to privacy and security of petitioners

abode, which strikes at the very heart and rationale of the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo. More importantly, respondents also
neglect to address our ruling that the failure to conduct a fair
and effective investigation similarly amounted to a violation of,
or threat to Rodriguezs rights to life, liberty, and security.14
The writs curative role is an acknowledgment that the violation
of the right to life, liberty, and security may be caused not only
by a public officials act, but also by his omission.
Accountability may attach to respondents who are imputed
with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and
who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but
have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence
in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.15 The duty
to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not
as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.16
The CA found that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG Verzosa, LT.
Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Col. De Vera, and Lt. Col. Mina
conducted a perfunctory investigation which relied solely on
the accounts of the military. Thus, the CA correctly held that
the investigation was superficial, one-sided, and depended
entirely on the report prepared by 1st Lt. Johnny Calub. No
efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioners version of the
incident, and no witnesses were questioned regarding it.17 The
CA also took into account the palpable lack of effort from
respondent Versoza, as the chief of the Philippine National
Police.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY. Let a copy of
this Resolution be furnished the Ombudsman for whatever
appropriate action she may still take under circumstances.
SO ORDERED.
Meralco v Lim (2010) GR No 184769

Facts:
A letter was sent to the Meralco admin department in bulacan
denouncing Lim, an administrative clerk. She was ordered to be
transferred to Alabang due to concerns over her safety. She
complained under the premise that the transfer was a denial of
her due process. She wrote a letter stating that:
It appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats
to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if
they existed at all. She added, instead of the management
supposedly extending favor to me, the net result and effect of
management action would be a punitive one. She asked for
deferment thereafter. Since the company didnt respond, she
filed for a writ of habeas data in the Bulacan RTC due to
meralcos omission of provding her with details about the
report of the letter. To her, this constituted a violation of her
liberty and security. She asked for disclosure of the data and
measures for keeping the confidentiality of the data.
Meralco filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the
NLRC and that the petition wasnt in order.
Trial court ruled in her favor.
In the SC, Meralco petitioned that Habeas Data applies to
entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data
or information regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or
home
Issue: Is Habeas Data the right remedy for Lim?
Held: No, petition dismissed
Ratio:
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 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
Its a forum for enforcing ones right to the truth. Like amparo,
habeas data was a response to killings and enforced
disappearances.

Castillo v Cruz- and 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 or
doubtful.
Employment is a property right in the due process clause. Lim
was concerned with her employment, one that can be solved in
the NLRC.
There was no violation of respondents right to privacy.
Respondent even said that the letters were mere jokes and
even conceded the fact that the issue was labor related due to
references to real intent of management.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ, FRANCIS
SAEZ, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO
RAZON, 22NI) MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY
(MICO), CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO,
CAPT. ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL.
ROMANITO QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL.
ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A
CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN
PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY
GOMEZ, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution
dated AUGUST 31, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 183533 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ,
FRANCIS SAEZ, petitioner, versus GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO
RAZON, 22ND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY (MICO), CAPT.
LAWRENCE
BANAAG,
SGT.
CASTILLO,
CAPT.
ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL. ROMANITO
QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A

CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT.

ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN
PFC.
SONNY,
A
CERTAIN
CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents.
On July 21 2007, petitioner Francis Saez, a member of the
ANAKPAWIS party-list organization, was invited by Pvt. Zaldy
Osio and Sgt. Castillo of the Intelligence Unit of the 204th
Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division of the Philippine Army, to their
camp in Brgy. Pinagsabangan II, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. They
asked him about his involvement with the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CCP). Out of fear, petitioner agreed to become
an intelligence asset for the military. At around 5:00 p.m., he
was allowed to go home. Sometime in August 2007, petitioner
claimed that he was asked to retract his affidavit containing his
eyewitness account of the abduction and murder of Eden
Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy, and to declare that Major
General Jovito Palparan and his men had nothing to do with the
incident. Military officers made him sign a document admitting
that he was a surrenderee and a rebel returnee, and ordered
him to infiltrate GABRIELA, KARAPATAN, PAMANTIK, KASAMA-TK
and other activist groups. Believing that his life was in danger,
petitioner went to KARAPATAN for assistance.[1]
Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court a petition[2] for the
issuance of the writs of amparo andhabeas data with prayers
for a Temporary Protection Order and an Order for the
Inspection of Place and Production of Documents against
respondents.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court issued the
writs of amparo and habeas data, and referred the case to the
Court of Appeals (CA) to hear and decide the same.[3] In their
Return of the Writ,[4] respondents asserted that there are no
persons assigned in their units by the names of Capt. Lawrence
Banaag, Capt. Rommel Gutierrez and Cpl. Ariel Fontanilla.
Moreover, the names and designations "a certain Capt.
Alcaydo;" "a certain First Sergeant;" "a certain Cpl. James;" "a
certain Pfc. Sonny" and "a certain Joel" are insufficient to
specify the particular persons referred to in the petition.

Respondents Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.; Capt. Jacob

Thaddeus M. Obligado; Pvt. Rizaldy A. Osio; Pfc. Romanito C.
Quintana, Jr.; and Pfc. Jerico Duquil submitted their respective
affidavits.[5]
On July 9, 2008, the CA promulgated its Decision,[6] the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the forgoing, the petition is
DISMISSED. The reliefs prayed for in the petition are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition for review on
certiorari[8] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA.
Petitioner raises the following issue:
WHETHER OR NOT the Court of Appeals, Former 14th Division
committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition and
dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party
respondent?[9]
We deny the petition. A careful perusal of the subject petition
shows that the CA correctly found that the petition was bereft
of any allegation as to what particular acts or omission of
respondents violated or threatened petitioner's right to life,
liberty and security. His claim that he was incommunicado
lacks credibility as he was given a cellular phone and allowed
to go back to Oriental Mindoro. The CA also correctly held that
petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his right
to life, liberty and security were violated, or how his right to
privacy was threatened by respondents. He did not specify the
particular documents to be secured, their location or what
particular government office had custody thereof, and who has
possession or control of the same. He merely prayed that
respondents be ordered "to produce any documents submitted
to any of them in the matter of any report on the case of
FRANCIS SAEZ, including all military intelligence reports."
Petitioner assails the CA in failing to appreciate that in his
Affidavit and Fact Sheet, he had specifically detailed the

violation of his right to privacy as he was placed in the Order of

Battle and promised to have his record cleared if he would
cooperate and become a military asset. However, despite
questions propounded by the CA Associate Justices during the
hearing, he still failed to enlighten the appellate court as to
what actually transpired to enable said court to determine
whether his right to life, liberty or security had actually been
violated or threatened. Records bear out the unsubstantiated
claims of petitioner which justified the appellate court's
dismissal of the petition.
As to petitioner's argument that the CA erred in deleting the
President as party-respondent, we find the same also to be
without merit. The Court has already made it clear in David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo[10] that the President, during his or her
tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any
civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in
the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high
office of the President, the Head of State, if the President can
be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
Furthermore, it is important that the President be freed from
any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable the
President to fully attend to the performance of official duties
and functions.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition
for failing to show that the Court of Appeals committed
reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision dated July 9,
2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00024 WOA."
Gamboa vs Chan
Facts:Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Admin
No. 275 creating Zearosa Commissionwhich was formed to
investigate the existence of private army groups in the country
in view of eliminating and dismantling them permanently in the
future. Upon conclusion of its investigation, theCommission
submitted a confidential report to the office of the

President.Marynette Gamboa was the Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos

Norte. Gamboa alleged that the PhilippineNational Police Ilocos
Norte conducted surveillance operation against her and her
aides and classifiedher as PAG coddler. Purportedly
without the benefit of data verification, PNP forwarded in the
Reports
enumeration of individual maintaining PAGs.
Gamboas association with PAG was published and released in
the different forms of media,
publicly tagging her as a PAG coddler. Alleging that her right to
privacy was violated, Gamboa filed apetition before the RTC for
the issuance of writ of habeas data to destroy the unverified
reports fromthe PNP data base and restrain PNP from
forwarding baseless reports against her. The RTC ruled thatthe
inclusion of Gamboa in the report violates her right to privacy.
However, the RTC dismissed
Gamboas petition for writ of habeas data saying that Gamboa
failed to establish the source of the
information.ISSUES:1.
Whether or not the forwarding or information or intelligence
report by the PNP to the
Commission was an unlawful act that violated petitioners right
to privacy
2.
Whether or not resort to petition for writ of habeas data was
proper
HELD:Forwarding of information or intelligence report gathered
by the PNP to the Commission is
NOT an intrusion of petitioners right to privacy
It is clear that the issuance of AO 275 articulates a legitimate
aim which is to investigate theexistence of PAGs with the
ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. Pursuant
to the stateinterest of dismantling PAGs, as well as the powers
and functions accorded to the Commission and thePNP, the
latter collected information on individuals suspected of
maintaining PAGs, monitored them andcounteracted their
activities. One of those individuals is herein petitioner

Gamboa.This court holds that Gamboa was able to sufficiently

establish that the data contained in thereport listing her as a
PAG coddler came from the PNP contrary to the ruling of the
trial court, however,the forwarding of information by the PNP to
the Commission was not unlawful act that violated
orthreatened her right to privacy in life, liberty or security. The
PNP was rationally expected to forwardand share intelligence
regarding PAGs with the body specifically created for the
purpose of investigatingthe existence of these notorious group.
Moreover, the Commission was explicitly authorized to
deputize
the police force in the fulfillment of the formers mandate, and
thus had the power to request as
sistancefrom the latter.
Petition for writ of habeas data is NOT PROPER
David, Kremil: The Writ of Habeas Data in Relation to
Private Websites
I. Introductory Part
Kranzbergs First Law helps to clarify this situation: Technology is
neither good nor badnor is it neutral. At the risk of spoiling its
Zenlike nature, let me propose an interpretation: a technology
isnt inherently good or bad, but it will have an impact, which is
why its not neutral. Almost every applied technology has a good
side and a bad side. When you think of transportation
technologies, do you think of how they enable a delightful
vacation or get the family back together during the holidaysor
do you think of traffic jams and pollution? Are books a source of
wisdom and spirituality or a way to distribute pornography and
hate? Do you applaud medical technology for curing plagues or
deplore transportation technology for spreading them? Does
encrypted e-mail keep honest people safe from criminals or
criminals safe from the police? Are plastics durable conveniences
or everlasting pollutants? Counterfeiting comes with money,
obscene phone calls come with the telephone, spam comes with
e-mail, and pornography comes with the Internet. Every law
creates an outlaw.

- Bob Seidensticker, Future Hype: The Myths of Technology

Change [1]
The emergence of internet technology in our time has been
inconceivably tremendous. What used to be impossible a
decade ago seems to be ordinary things nowadays, especially
in the field of communication and research. Much of what we
know or do not know may simply be downloaded from the web.
This is a time of net surfing, web browsing, and online
recreations terms which have never been heard of in the
recent past.
As Bob Seidensticker aptly observed, technology will have an
impact. Although he did not categorically insist on the impact
of technology to the prevailing legal systems of the world, the
preferences of tech-savvy [2] have legal implications, without
them knowing it. The use or abuse of internet communication
may touch upon the realm of constitutional rights, privacy
issues, and jurisprudence and legislation.
The term cyberspace [3] refers to the abstract, non-physical
world made up of networked computers where people
communicate, shop, study, research, play, socialize and
otherwise interact. Internet (Net) [4] on the other hand, refers
to the worldwide network of computers originally set up by the
US Department of Defense in the late 1960s. Called ARPANET
(Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), it was designed
to function as a continuing method of communication should
any part of the system be destroyed by nuclear attack or
sabotage. In time, it was used as a means of communication
among university scholars throughout the United States. It
eventually evolved into the popular electronic forum for
international communication by way of interactive discussion,
email, commercial websites, entertainment and much more.
The emergence of internet technology has changed virtually
everything. The conventional ways of business and banking
transactions, research and communication, as well as other
private and governmental services have been gradually
replaced or modified by the use of virtual technology. Even the
field of the law has to evolve dynamically to meet the restless
trends brought by the indulgence of society into the World
Wide Web. Another world has been created thus, where

different sets of rules are to be observed by many of us who

engage in the use of technology. Internet has become a forum
to commit cyber crimes, tortuous acts, and other causes of
action brought by our social networking, web surfing, and
online interaction. Internet does not only deal with lifeless
microchip and broadband connectivity. It still remains that the
entity behind every conduct in the web is an act of a person,
deserving to be protected by the mantle of the law or
otherwise punished for violation of others right. Therefore, it
becomes imperative to learn how to cope with the nuances and
how to apply the law amidst the intangible concept of virtual
life.
II. Statement of the Legal Argument in Contemplation
Here is a guy with propensity for some unusual sexual
gratification. He places his hi-tech digital camera in the most
inconspicuous part of his room. He entices her partner to have
a release of that unresolved sexual tension. While both of them
are in limbo of forgotten dreams, the woman is not aware that
their act is being recorded in video format all through out.
The guy eventually uploads the recorded intercourse in a
private website dedicated to hosting video files in different
format, leaving it open in the virtual space, and giving other
net surfers the free hand to download the same video for
whatever pleasure they may obtain. Here is a girl who
complains over the proliferation of her video. She may run after
the guy who did the uploading, but too late for her to save her
face from the rest of the spectators who has seen her
performance in the internet.
Sounds familiar?
The present study aims to achieve one concrete purpose. In
times when digital e-life of the people and the prevalence of
virtual community, individual freedom and privacy issues which
may or are disturbed by the intricacies of these network
immersion, the law will always offer remedy. And for this
particular instance of privacy invasion in its most unthinkable
approach, the judiciary has taken the bold initiative to cope
with the changing time. The writ of habeas data has been
promulgated to accommodate a situation similar to the one
cited at the onset of this section.

The statement of the legal argument in contemplation

therefore is succinctly put in this wise: The benefit of writ of
habeas data can be extended to a victim of internet
harassment or to a person whose right to privacy has been
violated by malicious uploading and posting of videos, pictures,
and other irreverent stuff.
III. Background of the Thesis
A. Introductory Discussion
Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the
method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their
invasions.v It is a procedural law which provides for means or
methods whereby causes of action may be effectuated, wrong
redressed and relief obtained. Under this jurisdiction, our
procedural law follows code pleading which is based on written
rules found in the Rules of Court. Whenever a persons right is
violated by the acts of another, the injured person may resort
to court action. This is ordinarily done through a written
complaint filed in the proper court for its resolution. As
previously stated, our courts of law follow a defined procedure
in deciding the matter invoked by a person. [6]
The very same rules require that the elements of causes of
action, parties, venue and jurisdiction must be properly invoked
by the person who asks for the resolution of his case before the
court. The rules further provide a specific guideline for a
specific cause of action, containing therein all the substantial
as well as the remedial elements in an adversarial proceeding.
In some instance, the Court may entertain a request in writing,
generally known as petition. Such petition is filed in court for
purposes of obtaining a ruling or order, directing some act to
be done in favor of the petitioner. At the core of judicial
function is the deciding of the case brought before the court. To
be able to serve such function would require court orders. One
form of court order is a writ. Judicial histories of the world have
adapted the tradition of issuing a writ. A writ is a document in
the Kings name (under the British tradition), and under the
seal of the Crown or of a court, commanding the person to
whom it is addressed to do or forbear from doing some act.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno [7], in one of his speeches speaks
of writ in this wise:

In the history of law, filing an individual petition before courts

to invoke constitutional rights has long been granted a
substantive recognition. The first and perhaps most famous of
these is the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, roughly
translated, You should have the body. the writ of habeas
corpus is a guarantee against deprivation of liberty of a person.
It originated in the Middle Ages in England, recognized in the
several versions of the Magna Carta, so that a person held in
custody is brought before a judge or court to determine
whether the detention id lawful or otherwise.
Aside from the writ of habeas corpus, several writs have been
developed to protect the rights of the individual against the
State. In the United States craft of America, the writs of
mandamus, prohibition and certiorari are used to command a
governmental agency to perform a ministerial function, prohibit
the commission of an illegal act, or correct an erroneous act
committed with grave abuse of discretion. In Latin American
countries, particularly Mexico and Argentina, they crafted the
writ of amparo which protected a whole gamut of constitutional
rights. In Taiwan, they have the writ of respondeat superior that
makes a superior liable for the acts of the subordinate. There
are other mechanisms to protect human rights, but the most
recent of these legal mechanisms is the writ of habeas data.
Pursuant to the rulemaking power of the Judiciary [8], the
Supreme Court promulgated the rule on habeas data [9] 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 rule on
habeas data took effect on February 2, 2008.
The history of the writ is a short one but can be traced to
certain European legal mechanisms that protected individual
privacy. Certain German constitutional rights can be identified
as direct progenitors of the Habeas Data right. The German
Constitutional Tribunal created the right to information self
determination by interpretation of certain human dignity and
personality. This is a right to now what type of data is stored on

manual and automatic data bases about an individual, and it

implies that there must be transparency on the gathering and
processing of the data. [10]
The other direct predecessor of the writ of habeas data is the
Council of Europes 108th Convention on Data Protection of
1981. The purpose of the convention is to secure the privacy of
the individual regarding the automated processing of personal
data. To achieve this, several rights are given to the individual,
including the right to access their personal data as held in an
automated data base. The first country to implement the writ
of habeas data is th Federal Republic of Brazil, when its
legislature in 1988 voted for a new constitution which included
a novel right of the habeas data of individual complaint which
is now guaranteed as a full constitutional right. Many countries
in Latin America followed suit and adapted the new legal tool in
their respective constitutions.
B. Privacy as Object of the Writ
Privacy is the right to be left alone. There is actionable violation
to the right to privacy if publicity is given to any private or
purely personal information about a person without the latters
consent regardless of whether or not such publicity constitutes
a criminal offense, like libel or defamation, the circumstance
that the publication was made with intent of gain or for
commercial or business purposes invariably serves to
aggravate the violation of the right.
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Faculty of Law of Monash
University in its book Human Rights Translated, the right to
privacy is described as follows:
This right protects people against arbitrary, unreasonable or
unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or
correspondence, as well as attacks on their honour and
reputation. Arbitrary, or unreasonable, restrictions on privacy
are prohibited even if authorised under a States domestic
laws. Governments have duties to protect against interferences
with privacy by State agents or private bodies such as
employers and the media.
The right to privacy is not absolute. Governments can, for
example, authorise restrictions on privacy by measures that
are necessary to protect a legitimate public interest, such as

public order (e.g., search warrants to facilitate the detection of

crime and apprehension of criminal suspects) or national
security (e.g., lawful surveillance of terrorist suspects).
Companies activities may impact on the right to privacy,
especially in the workplace. Privacy has become a particularly
important issue in this electronic age in which large amounts of
data are stored and more sophisticated methods of obtaining
that data are being devised. Companies are frequently involved
in the large-scale gathering of personal data on customers,
employees and other stakeholders; there is a consequent need
to ensure the confidentiality of such information. Companies
may impinge on the right to privacy or risk being complicit in
other human rights violations, if, for example, IT or
telecommunications firms were to unlawfully or arbitrarily hand
over sensitive customer data to the State without consent. The
notion of privacy has been interpreted by the European Court
of Human Rights to include freedom from unreasonable
interference in the enjoyment of ones private space. For
example, under this theory, a companys emission of gas
fumes into a residential area could harm the privacy rights of
residents in that area.
Habeas Data has been described as a procedure designed to
safeguard the individual freedom from abuse in the information
age. It can be a mechanism available to citizens that will insure
a real control over sensible personal data, stopping the abuse
of such information which will be detrimental to the individual.
[11] Under the Section 1 of the German Federal Act on Data
Protection, the core objective of the data protection does not
the protection of data. The term refers to the protection of the
personal rights of those persons whose data are being
processed.
The applicability of the writ directed to privacy issues is
basically to enjoin government from exercising arbitrarily the
data held by it regarding the persons of individual.
Nonetheless, as will be discussed below, the Writ of Habeas
Data can be rightly directed against private entities in as much
as private companies maintaining websites are prone to abuse
their power in the cyberspace. Government websites are
outnumbered by millions of private websites, such that the

probability that these private websites will violate privacy

rights is higher than government sites will.
IV. Nature, Purpose and Applicability of the Writ
A. Writ of Habeas Data under the Philippine Judicial System
Our Supreme Court had in mind the extra-judicial killings
happening in the Philippines when it promulgated that the writ
of habeas data is 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 writ of habeas data may still be unfamiliar to many
Filipinos today. In a recent case of Castillo,et.al. vs. Cruz [12],
the Supreme Court nullified the issuance by the Regional Trial
Court of Bulacan of a writ of habeas data to stall the final and
executory order in a property dispute. The High Court held:
Oddly, respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas
data when it is not even alleged that petitioners are gathering,
collecting, or storing data or information regarding their
person, family, home and correspondence.
Similarly, in a forcible entry case of Daniel Masangkay Tupaz,
et.al. vs. Judge Elmo del Rosario [13]the Supreme Court denied
the petition for issuance of writ of habeas data filed by the
petitioners to compel the Philippine National Police to release
report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the
acts of violence employed against them by private respondents
and likewise the investigation report if an investigation was
conducted by the PNP. The Court ratiocinated in this wise:
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Habeas
Data requires as a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally
deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of
unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related
to right to life, liberty or security. The information likewise has
not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for information
under the control of police authorities other than those it has
already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or
justification for the issuance of the writ of habeas data is
nothing more than the fishing expedition that this Court in

the course of drafting the Rules on Habeas Data had in mind

in defining what the purpose of habeas data is not. In these
lights, the outright denial of the petition for the issuance of the
writ of habeas data is fully in order.
B. An Emerging Cause of Action
Section 1 of the Rule on Habeas Data provides that the
aggrieved party who has the locus standi to file the petition of
habeas data may be 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 data or information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of such aggrieved party. The aggrieved
party may file the petition. However Section 2 provides that in
cases of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance, the
petition may be filed by:
a. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouses, children or parents; or
b. Any ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
The respondent in the petition may be:
a. A public official or employee; or
b. A private individual or entity who is engaged in the
gathering, collecting, or storing of data regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence.
As perused from the foregoing, there must be an unlawful act
or omission on the part of the respondent. Such unlawful act or
omission must result to the violation of or threat to the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.
C. Procedural Requirements in Obtaining the Writ
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.
D. The Judicial Process Under The Rule
The aggrieved party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court in
a petition for the writ of habeas data is praying for two reliefs;
the first one is the granting by the Court of the writ of the
habeas data and the other one is the granting of the privilege
of the writ itself. The former refers to the decision of the court
to give due course to the petition, require the respondent to file
his return and set the petition for hearing. The grant of the
privilege of the writ, on the other hand refers to the decision of
the Court, granting the petitioner of the privilege pursuant to
those he has pleaded in the petition under paragraphs e and f
of Section 6 of the Rule.
The petition for the grant of the writ of habeas data may be
filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or
respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the
place where the data or information is gathered, collected or
stored, at the option of the petitioner. The petition may also be
filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices. [14] 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. [15] No docket and other lawful fees shall be required
from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be

docketed and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to

subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than
fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition.[16]
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.
The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or
person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain
a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ
cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on
substituted service shall apply. [17] Under Section 10 of the
Rule, the respondent shall file a verified written return together
with supporting affidavits within five (5) work days from service
of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the
Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other
things, contain the following:
a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,
privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of
information of media and others;
b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control
of the data or information subject of the petition:
i. a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner,
the nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its
collection;
ii. the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the
security and confidentiality of the data or information; and
iii. the currency and accuracy of the data or information held;
and
c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the
proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be
allowed.
The court, justice or judge may punish with imprisonment or
fine a respondent who commits contempt by making a false
return, or refusing to make a return; or any person who
otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the
court. [18]
In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or
judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the
petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the

court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit

evidence. [19]
A hearing in chambers may be conducted where the
respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or
information in question shall compromise national security or
state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
[20]
The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the
court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations and admissions from the parties. [21]
The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in
the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall
enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction,
or rectification of the erroneous data or information and grant
other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise,
the privilege of the writ shall be denied. 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. Such other reliefs
as are just and equitable.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff
or any lawful officer as may be designated by the court, justice
or judge within five (5) work days. [22]
The officer who executed the final judgment shall, within three
(3) days from its enforcement, make a verified return to the
court. This return should not be confused with the return
mentioned in Section 10. The verified return under Section 17
refers to the report from the officer, stating what he has done
in respect to a command from the court or why he has failed to
do what was commanded under the order. The return shall
contain a full statement of the proceedings under the writ and
a complete inventory of the database or information, or
documents and articles inspected, updated, rectified, or
deleted, with copies served on the petitioner and the
respondent. [23]

The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was
enforced and complied with by the respondent, as well as all
objections of the parties regarding the manner and regularity
of the service of the writ. The court shall set the return for
hearing with due notice to the parties and act accordingly. [24]
E. Practical Applicability of the Rule
For purposes of discussion, recall the hypothetical situation
under the Statement of the Legal Argument in Contemplation.
The woman in this case is the aggrieved party. Considering as
such, she is entitled to the protection of the law and may avail
of the remedy under the writ of habeas data. In connection
with this, the aggrieved partys right to privacy in life has been
violated by an unlawful act of her partner.
It is submitted that the guys act of uploading the recorded
intercourse in a website, leaving it in open virtual space, and
giving other net surfers the free hand to download the same
video for whatever pleasure they may obtain is in violation of
the partners right to privacy in life. The legal basis that the
aggrieved party may invoke is found in the Civil Code under
Article 26 which provides that:
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or
other personal condition.
The requirement of the rule that the act or omission causing
the violation must be unlawful is thus satisfied under the
premises. It also shows that the gathering, collecting, storing or
using of data by the guy without the consent of his partner is
unlawful and even vexatious. The term data as used in the Rule
may be interpreted to mean information, in its ordinary sense.
Such data or information may include any ephemeral,

concrete, visible, or recognizable element which may identify a

person. Following the rule on statutory construction of sui
generis, the video file in whatever format preposterously
uploaded by the guy in the case study is a data which must be
destructed or suppressed to prevent further injury on the part
of the aggrieved party.
Analyzing the requirements of Section 6, the aggrieved party
must verify the petition. By verification, the petitioner states
that he/she has read the pleadings and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his/her own knowledge and
authentic records. [25] The petition must also show the nexus
between the violation of the right to privacy and the threat or
violation of the petitioners right to life, liberty, or property, the
attempts made to secure the data or have it amended or
destroyed before the filing of the petition, the location of the
file and the name of the person in charge, if known, and the
reliefs prayed for.
F. Enforcement of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data
And now for the hard part.
Assuming that the girl in the given problem has complied with
the requirements of the petition of the writ and has been
subsequently granted by the court of the privilege of the writ
for purposes of enforcing the reliefs prayed for. Normally, the
girl may pray for the suppression or destruction of the
database or information or files kept by the respondent. Such
destruction of files would mean going over the website where
the video has been uploaded, and thereafter deleting the
uploaded file. The respondent can only do so much. The
technical assiduity of the person tasked to enforce the writ
must be competent to comply with its requirements. Obviously,
he must be equipped with the sufficient knowledge of how the
internet works to serve the purpose of Section 16 of the Rule
which states that if the allegations in the petition are proven by
substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained
of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the
erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs
as may be just and equitable.

In view of the discussion above, a somewhat highly technical

procedure must be observed to comply with the order of the
court.
1. Understanding the basic concept of internet communication
In effecting the writ of habeas data, one should take pains in
learning the meanings or definitions of internet-related terms.
A working knowledge on how the internet works therefore is
essential on the part of the court personnel tasked with the
implementation of the writ, and the aggrieved party to make
sure that writ is effectively served.
Internet and the World Wide Web are only two of the thousand
terms that may be encountered with regards to the
implementation of the writ. One cannot simplistically define the
term Internet as an inter-connected networks of computers
or refer the World Wide Web as the equivalent words for the
acronym www. The key to internet is networking getting the
computers to connect and communicate. While the Internet
networks the computer machines, the World Wide Web
networks the information meaning connecting the people into
a massively interlinked collection of digital documents, movies,
data bases, among others. Internet is the way on how to get
connected to the world wide web. [26]
The World Wide Web is the virtual world which emerged from
the connections and links of all computers around the globe,
having with as key players are the network providers, website
hosts, search engines, and millions of individual internet
surfers, bloggers, chatters and even hackers.
All computers which are connected to the Internet through an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) are assigned with a temporary
Internet Protocol address (IP address). This IP address is a
unique address in the form of series as nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn where
n must be a number from 0 to 255. This is the computers
numeric identity on the Internet. All computers of Web surfers
are identified by a number. [27] As a user, the number
assigned may either be static (always remains the same) or
may be offered on an as available basis each time the
individual logs on. [28]
Dialing, in the internet lingo refers to the act of establishing a
connection through dial-up network or a digital subscriber line

(DSL), usually by the use of telephone connection or modem. A

modem is a device or program that enables a computer to
transmit data over telephone or cable lines. What the internet
user does is that he or she dials the IP address of a certain
computer in the network through the ISP. The dialed IP address
is then transmitted over the network. This numeric (IP address)
or alphabetic (under the Domain Name System) text are
translated into electronic signals, transmitted over the internet,
and then translated back into alphabetic text.
By and large, internet works simply this way: A computer with
all the proper dialer software and modem contains an access
number, which the dialer contacts. The modem converts the
signals from the computer into signals that travel over the lines
to an Internet Service Provider. The ISP will then provide the
connection of the computer to the internet.
Websites can be accessed via a web browser through their
uniform resource locator with the use of certain protocols,
depending on the requirements of the ISP. The browser and the
web server communicate by means of protocols such as
hypertext transfer protocol and hypertext markup language.
The domain name contained in the URL identifies which
computer maintains the website being dialed. The browser
sends the request to the appropriate web server on the
internet. Once the web server locates the file of the webpage,
it will download the said page into the requesting computer.
[29] For purposes of this paper, private website refers to a
website maintained by private individual and companies as
distinguished from government websites, run and maintained
by the various governments for in the exercise of their
governmental functions. Corollarily, the writ of habeas data is
applicable to both private and government websites.
The sheriff tasked in implementing the writ of habeas data may
go after the respondent and require him to do the following:

Log on to the web site where the purported vexatious

video had been uploaded.

Remove from the respondents account the said video by

permanently deleting it.

Require the respondent to destroy all soft copies of the

video that he possesses or he stored.

However, our rules can only do so much. The writ may not
practically order the destruction of residual copies of the data
or those downloaded by third parties prior to the enforcement
of the writ. A net surfer who comes across the uploaded
incriminating photo or video may retrieve or download the
same in his personal laptop or even cellphone. It would be
impractical for the writ to run against said person.
2. Other situations where the writ is applicable.
Websites can be likened to a residence of a person (whether a
natural or a juridical person) in the cyberspace, as in personal
home page or company website. In an ever evolving age of
information technology, there have been millions of websites
developed and maintained in the world wide web from gaming
sites, to online libraries, auction site, entertainment, news, and
even pornographic sites. A social networking site provides for a
forum where its members can socialize electronically. Other
sites offer special features such as audio or video streaming
where a registered user may upload, view, or download text
data or video format.
Such is the trend that almost all facets of human interests can
be linked and embodied in a website. A virtual world is now
existing out there where netizens are its inhabitants. Just like
in the physical world, social interaction using the internet
services such as chatting, email, and web forum, produce
consequences and other nuances which must be dealt with.
Ordinary human endeavors have been coercively or voluntarily
given counterpart in the intangible world of the web. We now
engage in online banking and shopping, peer to peer gaming,
videoconferencing, among others. Even several government
services can now be availed via the net such as civil
registration,
passport
application,
and
other
similar
bureaucratic transactions.
Consequently, problems arising out of human interaction in the
physical world can also be experienced by the actors and key
players in the cyberspace. Legal consequence is only one
notion to consider amidst the various issues that transpire in
the internet. Concepts such as internet privacy, internet
reputation, cybercrimes, and web jurisdiction have come into
fore in a quite different manner. So greatly different from the

physical world that it even requires us, as key players and

actors in the physical and virtual world to seek new ways in
confronting such issues.
Consider another website devoted to social networking such as
Facebook. This website provides for its users the privilege of
creating a personal webpage where they can connect to other
friends, relatives, or coworkers and share other stuff such as
photos, videos, and messages. It has also interactive features
where a certain Facebook user may suggest a friend to other
user, become a fan of a well known celebrity, or simply engage
in interactive games of Farmville or Mafia. Photos posted by
another may be tagged or labeled in such a way as to identify
the person in the picture.
Privacy issues may come along Facebook users as when posted
comments or uploaded pictures may cause incrimination of a
person, especially so when such person is not a Facebook user.
Although the site offers privacy settings like search invisibility
and album security, irresponsible Facebook users may be
compelled by a writ of habeas data to rectify or remove from
their personal webpage those incriminating and vexatious
comments or photos. The Facebook website, acting as storage
of information and personal data (e.g. photos and notes) can
also be a respondent in a habeas data proceeding. The legal
basis for this conclusion is found on Section 1 of the Rule. The
said website provider is rightly considered as a private entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence.
In as much as the emergence of the internet has created a
segment of society exclusive to all those who actively
participate therein, the rise of internet reputation as a personal
right has also given way. Internet reputation may be roughly
defined as the reputation of a person as a netizen or how he is
known by his friends or others in the internet forum. Personal
website or homepages are sometimes attacked by negatively
in other websites. A person whose internet reputation has
become a subject of defamatory comment may seek the relief
of habeas data as a special provisional remedy without
prejudice to his right to file criminal or civil action. [30]

The writ of habeas data is also a useful tool in rectifying a

citizens erroneous information in government databases, if
such erroneous information will violate or threaten the citizens
right to privacy in life, liberty or security.
One serious problem confronting internet use is the anonymity
of persons behind websites and user accounts. The internet
surfers enjoy the royal prerogative of dishonesty in an
unparalleled approach. Since the internet is not regulated by
any governmental body, a subscriber to a Facebook may put
personal information totally different from the truth.
V. An Issue of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction [31] is the competence of a State to prescribe rules
of conduct, to enforce its legal processes, and to adjudicate
controversies or claims. As an aspect of States authority to
govern, it thus comprehends legislative, executive and judicial
competence within its territory. The authority is exclusive over
all persons, events, and transactions, except as may be limited
by the States consent. It is the States duty under general
international law to refrain from intervention in the exclusive
jurisdiction of other States.
The general understanding of jurisdiction refers to the
territorial jurisdiction by which the State [32]may exercise its
powers. The jurisdiction is geographical in consonance with one
of the elements of a State; that is the territory. For a
government entity, especially the Judicial branch entrusted
with the power to interpret laws, to exercise its function, it
must first validly acquire jurisdiction over the person or the
property subject of a controversy. In cases pertaining to actions
which involve the use of internet or where the entity in the
cyberspace is invoked as respondent or defendant, a valid
acquisition of jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the
pursuance of the case.
According to Jovan Korbalija [33], three main considerations are
important when thinking about jurisdiction:

Which court or state authority has the proper authority

(procedural jurisdiction);

Which rules should apply? (substantive jurisdiction);

How to implement court decisions (enforcement

jurisdiction).

In his book, Introduction to Internet Governance, Kurbalija aptly

observed
The number of Internet-related disputes has been steadily
increasing, which has made the issue of jurisdiction one of the
hot aspects of Internet governance. Confusion over jurisdiction
can have two immediate and simultaneous consequences:

an inability of the state to exercise its legal power as a

responsible entity in regulating social relations within its
territory;

an inability of individuals and legal entities to exercise

their rights to justice (denial of justice).
Other consequences of ambiguous jurisdiction might be:

legal insecurity on the Internet, including forum

shopping;

slower development of e-commerce;

compartmentalisation of the Internet into legal safe

zones.
Because of these consequences, the clarification of jurisdiction
and its procedures is a vital matter in Internet governance.
Internet jurisdiction has thus, been recently a serious dilemma
in international law. The cyberspace knows no bound and
respects no territory. The legal component of the internet may
be said to have been left behind by the evolving technology.
Obviously, the problem of jurisdiction in the internet can be
blamed to its peculiar setup. An interesting part in the
Cyberspace Independence Declaration [34]by John Perry
Barlow may well express the sovereignty of the cyberspace:
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have
one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with
which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social
space we are building to be naturally independent of the
tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to
rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we
have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did
not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world.
Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that
you can build it, as though it were a public construction project.

You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our

collective actions
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. There will be no problem if the aggrieved party who
obtains the writ will have it enforced within the jurisdiction of
the Philippines. However, it is highly probable that the
respondent may not be a citizen of this country or better yet,
the website in which the writ is enjoined is maintained in a
foreign state. This will be a clear case of brutum fulmen. The
traditional concept of jurisdiction is geographical in nature, in
such a way that the court issuing a writ may only exercise its
power within its confines.
A look at foreign jurisprudence regarding internet-related cases
will shows that no single formula may be universally adapted to
suit the differing requirements of every sovereign state.
Different forms of governments mean different laws and
procedures. Therefore, conflicts arise as to the assertion of one
states cause of action against another, or of one individual
person against a foreign entity.
In the case of Yahoo! Inc. vs. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme at
LAntisemitisme [35], the point of contention is whether or not
a French Court decision can be enforceable against Yahoo. com,
a foreign website company. The judgment ordered the
company Yahoo! to take all necessary measures to dissuade
and render impossible any access via Yahoo.com to the Nazi
artifacts that may be construed as constituting apology for
Nazism or a contesting of a Nazi crime.
Although the said case was later on appealed by the
respondent, ruling of California court may shed light on how to
deal with the matter. Part of the decision contains a discussion
on comity, to this effect:
No legal judgment has any effect of its own force, beyond the
limits of the sovereign from which its authority is derived.
However the United States Constitution and implementing
legislation require that full faith and credit be given to
judgments of sister states, territories, and possessions of the
United States. The extent to which the United States, or any
state, honors the judicial decrees of foreign nations is a matter
of choice, governed by the comity of nations. Comity is

neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor

mere courtesy and good will upon the other. United States
courts generally recognize foreign judgments and decrees
unless enforcement would be prejudicial or contrary to the
countrys interests. The court is not required to give effect to
foreign judicial proceedings grounded on policies which do
violence to its own fundamental interests.
what makes this case uniquely challenging is that the Internet
in effect allows one to speak in more than one place at the
same time. Although France has sovereign right to regulate
what speech is permissible in France, this Court may not
enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of United
States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occur
simultaneously within our border.
The problem of jurisdiction with respect to the implementation
of Habeas Data has been felt by foreign states which adapt this
rule in their constitutions and statutes. In his paper [36],
Andres Guadamuz asserted that
Whether Habeas Data will be successful will depend on many
different factors, but the main one will be the effectiveness of
each judicial system. It is rather difficult to measure each
countrys judicial institution lacking actual caseload statistics
and other hard data. It is clear that the legislation has already
been creating case law in Brazil, Paraguay and Columbia.
Nevertheless, it can be stated as a fact that Latin American
courts are often understaffed and overworked, common
characteristics of the legal systems of developing countries.
VI. Conclusion
The writ of habeas data is a potent tool, in this jurisdiction at
least, to compel any person responsible for circulating an
objectionable comment, fallacious and misleading information
or degrading web blogs and postings to rectify, suppress or
destruct or update if needed, the database or information or
files which constitute the violation of the right of the prejudiced
individual. Also, the writ may be used to restrain entities which
maintain private websites from accommodating such data,
which when circulated in the net may cause harm or injury to
the owner of the data or information. The emerging trend in
blogging, chatting, online forum and other usage of the

internet are not properly regulated. Data security may not be

guaranteed due to the openness or easy access to the internet.
Even the government is helpless to beat the cyber terrorism,
attendant to state enemies who take advantage of the
technology in the furtherance of their unlawful activities.
The beauty of the modern world we are now into would include
the benefits of latest technology, especially in the field of
communication. To lend a few lines from a song, its a small
world after all.
The world is really literally and figuratively getting smaller and
smaller as knowledge and information continue to reach on an
always optimal spectrum. It cannot be denied that affiliations
and connections of individuals to various diverging entities
such as government, politics, business, and cultural and social
communities impose upon them certain rules of standards,
peculiar to each institution. Internet and cyberspace is one of
these institutions that affect individual life. Perforce, internet
life and or e-life for that matter must succumb to an even

higher entity, regardless of boundaries (or even the lack of a

boundary).
The writ of habeas data is a novel attempt to at least regulate
the conduct of individuals and government with respect to
matters in the age of information technology. Legal and judicial
systems of the world may be perhaps slow to cope with
technology, partly due to the traditions these legal systems
have been maintaining over centuries. Nevertheless, the
growing concern of mutual interrelationship among nations and
subjects of international law, whether, individual or juridical
entities to having a peaceful coexistence will always be upheld.
It is high time that the nations of the world unite toward a
better setup that will uniformly render enjoyment of
technological advancement. The vision of John Perry Barlow in
the closing statement of his Cyberspace Independence
Declaration [37] may be effectively accomplished with the help
of government, one that is ruled by laws and not of men.