WRIT OF HABEAS DATA | A.M. No.

08-16-SC) | Effective on 2 February 2008

CONCEPT It is 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. (Sec. 1)
WHO MAY FILE: GR is the aggrieved party; EXP in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances: (a) immediate family; (b) in default of no. 1, ascendant, descendant, or collateral
relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. No docket fee is required.
VENUE: (1) SC; (2) CA; (3) Sandiganbayan (Manila); (d) Regional Trial Court (a) where petitioner
resides; (b) where respondent resides; (c) which has jurisdiction over place where data/
information is gathered (AT THE OPTION OF PETITIONER)
CONTENTS OF PETITION: (a) personal circumstances of parties; (b) manner of violation of right;
(c) actions and recourses taken by petitioner; (d) location of data or information, and person
having the same; (e) reliefs prayed for and other reliefs.
CONTENTS OF RETURN: It shall contain the (a) respondent’s lawful defenses; (b) in case
respondent possess and control the data and information, (i) disclosure of data and information
about the petitioner ;( ii) steps and actions taken by the respondent; (ii) currency and accuracy
of the data, and (iv) other allegations. (Hearing for defenses is allowed if just causes is shown).
JURISPURDENCE: In Tapuz v. Judge Rosario, the outright denial of the petition for the issuance
of the writ of habeas data is because there are no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful
violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. As well as in Manila
Electric Company v. Lim, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed
any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s right to privacy vis-à-vis the right to life,
liberty or security. The petition was also dismissed in Lee v. Ilagan because Ilagan was not able
to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video.
PROCEDURE:
1. Filing of the petition by the petitioner in one of the venue above cited at his option.
2. Within 3 days after the court grants the writ, the Clerk of Court shall issue and serve the writ
under the court’s seal. Service may be done personally or through substituted service.
3. Within 10 days from date of issuance, there shall be a summary hearing.
4. Within 10 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall render
judgment.
5. Upon its finality, it shall be enforced by the Sheriff or any lawful officer within 5 days, and
thereafter make a verified return to the court within 5 days after execution of judgment. A
hearing for the respondent’s return shall be set by the court.
6. Within 5 days from receipt of notice of final judgment or order, any aggrieved party may
appeal from the final judgment or order to the SC via Rule 45 on questions of law and fact or
both.
[The prior filing of a Writ of Habeas Data SHALL NOT PRECLUDE the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions. The petitions shall be CONSOLIDATED (a) when a criminal action is filed subsequent to
the filing of a petition for the writ and (b) when a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a writ of habeas data. When a criminal action has been commenced: (a) no separate petition
for the writ shall be filed; and (b) the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the criminal case.]