CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

(2ND SEMESTER, AY 2019)

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Written Report

Submitted by:
Acebedo, Isabella
Cristoria Adrian
Delan John Lee
Dizon, Maica Carmel Shirl
Falcone, Jon Joshua
Moscoso, Monica
Remoreras, Sandy
Rosal, Ivan Jed
Tudtud, Kiara

EH 301

Submitted to:
Atty. Vincent Joseph E. Cesista
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II PROFESSOR
 PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
I. Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wiretapping Act)
Section 1. Unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication
or spoken word.
Unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the
next preceding sentence:
1. to knowingly possess such copies
2. to replay the same for any other person or persons
3. to communicate the contents verbally or in writing
4. to furnish transcriptions whether complete or partial
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.
Exceptions:
 Upon lawful order of the court
 When public safety or order requires otherwise

Crimes That Would Warrant a Valid Court Order

1.) Treason
2.) Espionage
3.) Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
4.) Piracy
5.) Mutiny on the high seas
6.) Rebellion
7.) Conspiracy to commit rebellion
8.) Inciting to rebellion
9.) Sedition
10.) Inciting to sedition
 11.) Kidnapping
12.) Violations of CA 616 (espionage and other offenses against national security)

Court Order Application

1.) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the above crimes were committed,
are being committed or are about to be committed. In case of rebellion, conspiracy
to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition and inciting to sedition,
the order will be granted only if there is prior proof that a rebellion, etc., has actually
been or is being committed.
2.) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence obtained will secure
a conviction for the suspects or provide a solution to or prevention of any such
crimes.
3.) There are no other readily available means of gathering evidence.

Section 4. Anything obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding

sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

II. Republic Act 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)

TERRORISM
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the Article 134 (Rebellion or
Insurrection);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d'Etat), including acts committed High Seas or by private
persons
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), (The Law on Arson), (Toxic
Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990), Republic
Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968); (Anti-
Hijacking Law); (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,, as
amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives)
Key Element:
  thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear
and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as
provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.
Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications
Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications
Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons
Rights of a Person under Custodial Detention
Examination Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records
Disposition of Bank Materials

III. Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998

FACTS:
• Petitioner Senator Blas F. Ople assailed the constitutionality of the
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled “Adoption of Computerized Identification
Reference System” issued by President on the following grounds:

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the administrative order issued by the executive is deemed
to be a law and not a mere administrative order thus it is a usurpation of
legislative power of the congress to make laws, and
(2) Whether or not the AO impermissibly intrudes the citizen's constitutional right
of privacy.

RULING:
• Yes. A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order. Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution,
to make laws, and to alter and repeal them." The Constitution, as the will of the
people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power
in the Congress of the Philippines. While Congress is vested with the power to
enact laws, the President executes the laws. It establishes for the first time a
 National Computerized Identification Reference System. Moreover, even
assuming arguendo that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a law, still it
cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because
facially, it violates the right to privacy. The act of promulgating AO no. 308 is an
act of legislation rather than enforcement of a law, thus, should be struck down
as unconstitutional exercise of legislative power.
• Yes, the Administrative Order violates the constitutional right to privacy because
its scope is too broad and vague that will put people's right to privacy in clear
and present danger if implemented. The A.O. 308 also lacks of proper
safeguards for protecting the information that will be gathered from people
through biometrics and other means. Thus, A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the
individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his
movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential
information and circumvent the right against self- incrimination; it may pave the
way for “fishing expeditions” by government authorities and evade the right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

IV. Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011, 675 PHIL
225-300
FACTS:
• The petitioner (Pollo) is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC
Regional Office No. 4 and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance
and Liaison Division (PALD) under the "Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na"
program of the CSC.
• On January 3, 2007, an unsigned letter-complaint addressed to respondent
CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David alleged that the chief of the
“Mamamayan Muna hindi Mamaya na” division of the CSC has been lawyering
for the accused government employees having pending cases in the CSC.
• Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four personnel and issued a
memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically "to back up all
the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal
Divisions”.
• The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal
Services Division (LSD) was witnessed by several employees, together with
Directors Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said activity.
• After examination, it was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes
containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the
 petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters
in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals.
• Chairperson David issued the show-cause order requiring the petitioner to
submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days form notice.
• Petitioner filed a comment, denying that he is the person referred to in the
anonymous letter-complaint because he is not a lawyer and neither is he
"lawyering" for people with cases in the CSC.
• Petitioner also asserted that the files in the computer were his personal files and
those of his sister, relatives, friends, and some associates and that he is not
authorizing their sealing, copying , duplicating and printing as these would
violate his constitutional right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination
and warrantless search and seizure.
• The CSC issued Resolution No. 070382 finding prima facie case against the
petitioner and charging him with dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of RA No. 6713 (Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
• The petitioner was likewise placed under 90 days preventive suspension.
• Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion assailing the formal charge as without basis
having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond the authority of the
CSC Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court.
• Atty. Eric N. Estrellado (Atty. Solosa's client) attested that petitioner had nothing
to do with the pleadings or bill for legal fees because in truth he owed legal fees
to Atty. Solosa and not to petitioner.
• The CSC denied the omnibus motion.
• Petitioner filed an urgent petition assailing both the show-cause order and the
resolution no. 070382 as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or total absence of jurisdiction.
• Petitioner received a notice of hearing from the CSC setting a formal
investigation
• In view of the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the motion of the
prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have waived his right to the formal
investigation which then proceeded ex parte.
• Petitioner filed an urgent petition assailing both the show-cause order and the
resolution no. 070382 as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or total absence of jurisdiction.
 • Petitioner received a notice of hearing from the CSC setting a formal
investigation
• In view of the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the motion of the
prosecution, petitioner was deemed to have waived his right to the formal
investigation which then proceeded ex parte.
• The CSC cited O'Connor vs. Ortega:
• authority for the view that government agencies, in their capacity as employers,
rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in the
governmental workplace without meeting the "probable cause" or warrant
requirement for search and seizure.
• A government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to
an investigation of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable
in its inception and scope.
• The pursued the search in its capacity as government employer and that it was
undertaken in connection with an investigation involving work-related
misconduct, which exempts it from the warrant requirement under the
Constitution.
• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA the resolution dismissing
him from the service, and also prayed for the inclusion of Resolution 071800
which denied his motion for reconsideration.
• The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of
discretion committed by respondents CSC officials and held that:
• The petitioner was charged from the initiative of the CSC after a fact-finding
investigation, and not on the basis of the anonymous letter.
• David has not encroached on the authority of a judge in view of the computer
policy
• There is noting contemptuous in CSC's act of proceeding with the formal
investigation as there was no restraining order or injunction issued by the CA.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the search conducted by the CSC on the computer of the petitioner
without his consent constituted a violation of his constitutional right to privacy.

RULING:
 • The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari.
• Public employers have an interest in ensuring that their agencies operate in an
effective and efficient manner, and the work of these agencies inevitably suffers
from the inefficiency, incompetence, mismanagement, or other work-related
misfeasance of its employees.
• The search of petitioner’s computer was justified there being reasonable ground
for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence
relevant to the investigation being conducted by the CSC as government
employer of such misconduct subject to the anonymous complaint.
• SC said that the petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective)
expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which
contained his personal files.
• the CSC effected the warrantless search in an open and transparent manner.
Officials and some employees of the regional office, who happened to be in the
vicinity, were on hand to observe the process until its completion.
• The respondent himself was duly notified, through text messaging, of the search
and the concomitant retrieval of files from his computer

V. In the Matter of Petition for Issuance of Habeas Corpus of Camilo Sabio, G.R.
No. 174340, October 17, 2006
FACTS:
• Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 455 by Sen. Defensor Santiago, Senator
Gordon requested, through a subpoena ad testificandum, PCGG
Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to appear as resource persons in the
public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government
Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. This is
because of the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC)
due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of
Directors.
ISSUE/S:
• 1st Issue: Whether or not Section 4(b) of E.O. No.1 limits power of legislative
inquiry by exempting all PCGG members or staff from testifying in any judicial,
legislative or administrative proceeding.
 • 2nd Issue: Whether or not the subpoenae violated petitioners’ rights to privacy
and against self-incrimination.
RULING:
1st Issue:
• The Congress' power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that
concerns the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly
needed statutes. It even extends "to government agencies created by Congress
and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or
even abolish." PCGG belongs to this class
• SC cited Arnault v. Nazareno “A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the
legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislation body does
not itself possess the requisite information — which is not infrequently true —
recourse must be had to others who possess it ."
• Section 4(b) is inconsistent with Article VI, Section 21 (Congress' power of
inquiry), Article XI, Section 1 (principle of public accountability), Article II,
Section 28 (policy of full disclosure) and Article III, Section 7 (right to public
information).
• No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the
Constitution." Consequently, this Court has no recourse but to declare Section.
4(b) of E.O. No. 1 repealed by the 1987 Constitution.
2nd Issue:
• Right to Privacy:
(1) They have no reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their
offices in a corporation where the government has interest. Certainly, such
matters are of public concern and over which the people have the right to
information
(2) This goes to show that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an
overriding compelling state interest.
(3) the alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC and POTC, ranging in millions
of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and its officials are
compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital information from the directors
and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporations, as well as from Chairman
Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the necessary legislation to
prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and policy determination
regarding PCGG's efficacy.
 • Right against self-incrimination:
(1) Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: “A witness can invoke his right
against self-incrimination only when a question tends to elicit an answer that will
incriminate him is propounded to him.
(2) “this right maybe invoked by the said directors and officers of Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation only when the incriminating question is being asked, since
they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to
be asked of them.“

VI. KMU v. NEDA, Aril 19, 2006

FACTS:
• This case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus
• Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
• Seeking the nullification of Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420)
• On the ground that it is unconstitutional.
• EO 420 was issued by then President Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo onApril 13,
2015
Provided that a CORRESPONDING ID NUMBER issued by the participating agency
and a common reference number shall
• Form part of the stored ID data
• Together with at least the first five items listed above
• Including the print of the right thumbmark, or any of the fingerprints as collected
and stored
• Shall appear on the face or back of the ID card for visual verification purposes
President directs all government agencies and government-owned and controlled
corporations to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their existing ID system
• Petitioners allege that EO 420 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
• Constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of
the government
• Infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy
 • Contrary to law
• Completely disregards and violates the decisions of the Honorable
court in certain Jurisprudence and RA 8282 – Social Security Act
of 1997
• Executive has usurped the legislative power of Congress as she has no
power to issue EO 420.
• Use public funds not appropriated by Congress for that purpose
• EO 420 violates the constitutional provisions on the right to privacy
• Allows access to personal confidential data without the owner's
consent.
• Vague and without adequate safeguards or penalties for any
violation of its provisions.
• No compelling reasons that will legitimize the necessity of EO 420.

ISSUE:
• Whether or not EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the president
• Whether or not EO 420 infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy

RULING:
• The petitions are Without merit.
• EO 420 applies only to government entities that issue ID cards as part of their
functions under existing laws.
• Section 1 of EO 420 - adopt a uniform data collection and format for their IDs.
• Section 3 of EO 420 limits the data to be collected and recorded under the
uniform ID system to only 14 specific items
• EO 420 will reduce the data required to be collected and recorded in the ID
databases of the government entities.
On the Alleged Infringement of the Right to Privacy

• On its face, EO 420 shows no constitutional infirmity because it even narrowly

limits the data that can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the
existing ID systems of government entities.
 • EO 420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the
data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems which are bereft of strict
administrative safeguards.
• The data collection, recording and ID card system under EO 420 will even
require less data collected, stored and revealed than under the disparate
systems prior to EO 420.
• The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by
government entities.
• Petitioners have not shown how EO 420 will violate their right to privacy.
• EO 420 applies only to government entities that already maintain ID systems
and issue ID cards pursuant to their regular functions under existing laws.
• EO 420 does not establish a national ID system but makes the existing sectoral
card systems of government entities like GSIS, SSS, Philhealth and LTO less
costly, more efficient, reliable and user-friendly to the public.
• Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject of executive issuance under the President's
constitutional power of control over government entities in the Executive
department, as well as under the President's constitutional duty to ensure that
laws are faithfully executed.
• PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED – EO 420 IS VALID

VII. Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, Feburary 20, 1996, 324 PHIL
63-69
FACTS:
• Petitioner, Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent, Alfredo Martin.
• On March 1982, Cecilia entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine,
and in the presence of her mother, a driver, and Dr. Martin’s secretary
• Cecilia forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband’s clinic and
took 157 documents.
• 157 documents contained of greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martin’s passport and photographs.
• The documents were seized for use of evidence in a case of legal separation
and for disqualification from the practice of medicine, in which the wife
(petitioner) filed against her husband.
 • RTC: Dr. Martin brought an action to recover the documents and papers, and for
damages against petitioner.
• RTC rendered judgment for private respondent, Dr. Martin, declaring him “the
capital/exclusive owner of properties described in par. 3 of plaintiff's complaint
or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress” and ordering
Cecilia Zulueta to immediately return the properties and pay him P5,000 for
nominal damages; P5,000 for moral damages and attorney’s fees and to pay the
costs of the suit.
• CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the documents obtained is an admissible piece of evidence?
RULING
• There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to
private respondent, Dr. Martin, were taken by his wife without his knowledge
and consent. The trial court declared the documents and papers to be
properties of Dr. Martin, ordered petitioner to return them and enjoined them in
evidence.
• The husband invoked his right to privacy of communication a correspondence
against a private individual, his wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet
and presented as evidence against him documents and private
correspondence.
• The constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of communication and
correspondence inviolable” is no less applicable simply because it is the wife
(who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional provisions is to be enforced.
• The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is “lawful order
from a court or when public safety requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.”
Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceedings.
• The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during marriage,
save for specified exceptions
 • The papers are inadmissible in evidence, upholding the husband’s right to
privacy.

VIII. Republic Act 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)

Data subject refers to an individual whose personal information is processed.
Personal information refers to any information whether recorded in a material form or
not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and
directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with
other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.
Personal information controller refers to a person or organization who controls the
collection, holding, processing or use of personal information, including a person or
organization who instructs another person or organization to collect, hold, process,
use, transfer or disclose personal information on his or her behalf. The term excludes:
- A person or organization who performs such functions as instructed by another
person or organization; and
-An individual who collects, holds, processes or uses personal information in
connection with the individual’s personal, family or household affairs
Personal information processor refers to any natural or juridical person qualified to act
as such under this Act to whom a personal information controller may outsource the
processing of personal data pertaining to a data subject.
Processing refers to any operation or any set of operations performed upon personal
information including, but not limited to, the collection, recording, organization,
storage, updating or modification, retrieval, consultation, use, consolidation, blocking,
erasure or destruction of data.
Kinds of Information:
 Personal Information
 Sensitive Personal Information
National Privacy Commission:
 To ensure compliance of safety procedures regarding the processing of
information
 Receive complaints, investigate, and enable settlement complaints through
alternative dispute resolution processes
 Coordinate with other government agencies and the private sector to strengthen
the protection
Scope:
 Applies to all types of personal information and to any natural or juridical
persons involved in personal information collection within and outside the
country except:
o Government employee data, documents, and transactions
o Banks
o Personal information from residents of foreign jurisdictions
Rights of the Data Subject:
 To be informed whether the personal information pertaining to him are being
processed
 Furnished the information indicated before the entry of his or her personal
information into the processing system of the personal information controller, or
at the next practical opportunity
 Reasonable access to the contents, sources, names, manner and reasons of
personal information.
 Dispute the inaccuracy or error in the personal information
 Suspend, withdraw or destruct incomplete, false, outdated, and unlawfully
obtained information
 Be indemnified of any damages

IX. Writ of Habeas Data

Writ of habeas data – is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. · It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC – full text), which was approved by the Supreme
Court on 22 January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights.
 What is A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC?
o IT IS A RESOLUTION WHICH PRESCRIBES THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA
o It prescribes who may file, where to file, how to be served and more.
 What is the constitutional basis of Writ of Habeas Data?
o Constitutional Basis Section 5(5), Art. VIII.
o Supreme Court shall promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and
legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court. · The Rule takes effect on 2 February
2008, following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general
circulation.
 Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data? ·
o General rule: The aggrieved party.
o Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,
the petition may be filed by: (1) Any member of the immediate family of
the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and parents; or (2) 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.
 Is writ of habeas data confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances?
o It is not only confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
o It is also a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened as explained in the case of
Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College.
o In the case of Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, the petitioners sued for
habeas data praying for all the soft and printed copies of the subject data
and, after trial, a judgment be rendered declaring all data to have been
illegally obtained in violation of their children’s right to privacy.
o However, the courts dismissed the petition for failure to prove the
existence of an actual or threatened violation of minors’ right to privacy,
one of the preconditions for the issuance of the writ of habeas data.
o Needless to state, 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.
o Contents of Return
o (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
o (c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
o When 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. ·
o Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in chambers
when 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. ·
o 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.
o 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. ·
o When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by
motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall
 govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas
data.
o When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to
a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with
the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule
shall continue to govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
o · The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice
System complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These writs
which protect the rights of the individual against the state are as follows:
o · The Writ of Habeas Corpus – a writ ordering a person who detained
another to produce the body and bring it before a judge or court. Its
purpose is to determine whether the detention is lawful or not; ·
o The Writ of Mandamus – a writ ordering a governmental agency to
perform a ministerial function; ·
o The Writ of Prohibition – a writ ordering a person to prohibit the
commission of an illegal act;
o The Writ of Certiorari – a writ ordering a person to correct an erroneous
act committed with grave abuse of discretion; and
o The Writ of Amparo – a writ designed to protect the most basic right of a
human being. These are the right to life, liberty and security guaranteed
by the Constitution.