Guada Fatima A.

Hernandez
Special Procedure (1:00-3:00 PM)

In Re: Petition for Writ of Habeas Data of Leila M. De Lima against President
Rodrigo R. Duterte

This case involves the Petition of Writ of Habeas Data of Senator Leila De Lima
(De Lima) against the incumbent President Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte).

The Antecedents:

De Lima is a member of the Senates 17th Congress and was elected to the position
last May 2016 election.

The senator filed a resolution calling the Senate Committee on Justice and Human
Rights to investigate in aid of legislation, the series of recent killings which were
done extra judicially or summarily on suspected criminals, to reinforce the legal
regime to address phenomena of vigilantism and summary killings, to enhance legal
mechanisms of accountability of state and non-state actors, to strengthen the role and
responsibilities of relevant government agencies, especially the CHR, and to
institute legislative measures to ensure that fundamental rights, especially the right
to life are respected by authorities.

De Lima was also elected as the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Justice and
Human Rights and thus proceeded to investigate the alleged extrajudicial killing.

Duterte on the other hand, is the duly elected President of the Republic of the
Philippines who vowed to eradicate the drug problem in the country through unusual
means such as killing drug pushers who refuse to cooperate with the government in
their war against drugs.

Before Duterte was elected in office, he was the Mayor of Davao City and was
investigated by the petitioner when she was the Chairperson of the Commission on
Human Rights. The former was allegedly connected with the Davao Death Squad.

The petitioner contended that the petitioner has been repeatedly subjected to
personal attacks which involves collection and publication of her private life affairs
and activities which affected her life, liberty and security. In her petition, the
following are some of the declarations that were allegedly uttered by the President
in order to demean her character and wage a personal vendetta against the petitioner:

a) I know Im the favorite whipping boy of the NGOs and the human rights
stalwarts. But I have a special ano kay ano. She is a government official. One
day soon I will bitiwan ko yan sa in public and I will have to destroy her in
public.

1
 b) Theres one crusading lady, whose even herself led a very immoral life,
taking his driver as her lover Paramoour niya ang driver niya, ginawaan
niya ng bahay, at ngayon iyong driver niya nagging hooked rin sa drugs
because of the close association.

c) You know, when you are an immoral, dirty woman, the driver was married.
So if you live with the driver, its concubinage.

d) If I were De Lima, ladies and gentlemen, Ill hang myself. Your life has been,
hindi lang life, the innermost of your core as a female is being serialized
everyday O wala kan nang mukha. Ano pakit mo sa mga babae? Follow
me. Sabihin mo: This is how to be a woman of the world.

Issue:
The Court is confronted with the following issues:

i. Whether or not the petition is sufficient in form and substance; and

ii. Whether or not De Lima is entitled for the Writ of Habeas Data.

Ruling:

The petition is unmeritorious.

The Writ of Habeas Data as provided in Section 1 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC 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 gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.

The Writ is an independent summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy,
honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a
forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to
protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in
instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in
order to achieve unlawful ends. 1

A. Petitions Sufficiency in Form and Substance

It must be noted that Section 6 of the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires
the ultimate facts in the petition for the issuance of such writ:

a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

1
De Leon, Magdangal M. and Wilwayco Dianna Louise R. Special Proceedings Essentials for Bench and Bar,
2015

2
 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 part;

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 enjoining the
act complained of; and

f) Such other relevant relief as are just and equitable.

In support to the petition, De Lima alleges that the crude remarks, slut-
shaming and threats made by the respondent and his prying into her private
life and alleged private affairs have endangered her life, liberty and
security and that the respondent has violated her womanhood and dignity
as human being, and have caused her psychological scars. The tirades of
the respondent have resulted to the petitioners receipt of numerous hate
messages in her cellular phone and in her social media account.

Such allegations, however, are not enough to grant the Writ of Habeas
Data. The writ will not be issued on the basis of unauthorized access to
information about a person2. Though the petitioner has stipulated the
ultimate facts in her petition, the nexus between the violation to her privacy
and the threat to her life, liberty and security has not been established.
Substantial evidence which is a requirement in order to prove that there is
a threat in the life, liberty and security of the petitioner is not present as the
utterances made by the President in public will not result into any untoward
incidences that may lead to the threat against the life, liberty and security
of De Lima.

In the case of In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the
Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Melissa C. Roxas vs. Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo, Gilbert Teodoro, Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, P/Dir. Gen. Jesus Ame
Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Delfin N. Bangit, Pc/Supt. Leon Nilo A. Dela Cruz, Maj.
Gen. Ralph Villanueva, Ps/Supt. Rudy Gamido Lacadin, And Certain
Persons Who Go By The Name[S] Dex, Rc And Rose, September 7, 2010,
the petitioner alleges that even after her release, she continued to have
received phone calls from RC via the cellular phone given to her. In her

2
Vivares vs St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014.

3
 petition for Habeas Data she prayed that the respondents be ordered to
produce documents relating to any report on the case of petitioner
including, but not limited to, intelligence report and operation reports of
the 7th Infantry Division, the Special Operations Group of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and its subsidiaries or branch/es prior to,
during and subsequent to 19 May 2009 and respondents be ordered to
expunge from the records of the respondents any document pertinent or
connected to Melissa C. Roxas, Melissa Roxas or any name which sounds
the same; and respondents be ordered to return to petitioner her journal,
digital camera with memory card, laptop computer, external hard disk,
IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, medicines and her
P15,000.00 cash.

The court ruled in the negative as there is actually no evidence on record

that shows that any of the public respondents had violated or threatened
the right to privacy of the petitioner. The act ascribed by the Court of
Appeals to the public respondents that would have violated or threatened
the right to privacy of the petitioner, i.e. keeping records of investigations
and other reports about the petitioners ties with the CPP-NPA, was not
adequately proven considering that the origin of such records were
virtually unexplained and its existence, clearly, only inferred by the
appellate court from the video and photograph released by Representatives
Palparan and Alcover in their press conference.3

Nonetheless, even if the material facts of the petitioner were properly laid
down, sufficiency as to the substance of the petition is lacking. De Lima
failed to establish the link between the violation of her right to privacy and
threat to her life, liberty and security.

B. Entitlement of De Lima to Writ of Habeas Data

The petitioner is not entitled to the Writ.

The Right to Privacy

The Right to Privacy is enshrined in the Constitution and vested among the
people regardless of its class, social standing or political affiliation. Article
III, Section 3 (1) provides, the privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

The Right of Privacy is further enunciated in the case of Morfe vs Motuc in

which the Court said that The due process question touching on an alleged
deprivation of liberty as thus resolved goes a long way in disposing of the
objections raised by plaintiff that the provision on the periodical submission

3
In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Melissa C. Roxas vs.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Gilbert Teodoro, Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, P/Dir. Gen. Jesus Ame Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Delfin
N. Bangit, Pc/Supt. Leon Nilo A. Dela Cruz, Maj. Gen. Ralph Villanueva, Ps/Supt. Rudy Gamido Lacadin, And
Certain Persons Who Go By The Name[S] Dex, Rc And Rose, GR No. 189155, September 7, 2010

4
 of a sworn statement of assets and liabilities is violative of the constitutional
right to privacy. There is much to be said for this view of Justice Douglas:
"Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from
unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if it is to be
a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of
all freedom." As a matter of fact, this right to be let alone is, to quote from
Mr. Justice Brandeis "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most
valued by civilized men."4

Undoubtedly, the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right which should be

respected at all times. However, such right is not absolute especially where
there is overriding compelling state interest.

Threat to Life, Liberty and Security of the Petitioner

In granting of the Writ of Habeas Data, the threat against the life, liberty and
security of a person is a primary requirement and such should be proven
through substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is clearly defined in the case of Primo C. Miro vs.

Marilyn Mendoza Vda de Erederos, Catalina Alingsaga and Proferio I.
Mendoza as Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable
might conceivably opine otherwise. Second, in reviewing administrative
decisions of the executive branch of the government, the findings of facts made
therein are to be respected so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence.5

In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to prove through substantial evidence
that there is a threat against her life, liberty and security, hence, she is not
entitled to the Writ. The utterances made by the President in public against
the character of the petitioner may have psychological effect on the part of De
Lima but such is not sufficient and tantamount to a threat against her physical
liberty and security. Mere utterances against her persona cannot pose threat to
her life, liberty and security. The death threats received by the petitioner
through her mobile phone and social media account was not fully
substantiated to be the result of the respondents acts or omissions. The
petition failed to adduced substantial evidence that will prove that there is
indeed a violation of such rights arising from the respondents acts or
omissions.

Though there may be a violation against her privacy, that alone is not enough
in order for De Lima to be granted the Writ of Habeas Data, since, the
requirement of establishing the existence of threat against her life, liberty and
Security was not properly grounded. Moreover, the petitioner failed to present
4
Motuc vs Morfe, 103 Phil. 415 (1968)
5
Primo C. Miro vs. Marilyn Mendoza Vda de Erederos, Catalina Alingsaga and Proferio I. Mendoza, G.R. Nos.
172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013

5
the connection between the breach of her privacy to the threat against life,
liberty and security. The petitioner may be granted other reliefs in accordance
with other existing laws and policies as to the probable violation committed
by the President against her privacy but not the Writ of Habeas Data.