G.R. No. 193636 ; July 24, 2012
MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA, Petitioner, vs. P/SSUPT. MARLOU C. CHAN and P/SUPT. WILLIAM O. FANG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marynette Gamboa, then Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, filed a petition for a writ of habeas data against PNP officials. She alleged that the PNP-Ilocos Norte conducted surveillance and gathered unverified information classifying her as maintaining a Private Armed Group (PAG). This data was forwarded to the Zeñarosa Commission, created to investigate PAGs. The Commission’s confidential report, which listed Gamboa’s alleged association with a PAG, was subsequently broadcast by ABS-CBN and published in print media. Gamboa contended this violated her right to privacy, damaged her reputation, and made her susceptible to harassment. She sought the destruction of the data, its withdrawal, rectification, and restraints on future baseless reporting.
The Regional Trial Court denied the petition for the writ. It found that the respondents, in their Return of the Writ, denied possessing or controlling the specific report in question, as it was a confidential document submitted to and held by the Office of the President. The RTC ruled that the writ of habeas data was not the proper remedy since the respondents did not have actual or constructive control over the disputed data, and Gamboa failed to prove a direct threat to her right to privacy from the respondents’ ongoing actions.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for a writ of habeas data is the proper remedy to compel the respondents to destroy, correct, or cease from collecting alleged unverified personal data.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC decision. The writ of habeas data is a remedy to protect an individual’s right to privacy concerning personal information collected and stored in data files. For the writ to be granted, the petitioner must establish that the respondent is collecting, storing, or sharing data that threatens the petitioner’s right to privacy. The Court found Gamboa failed to meet this burden. The evidence showed the alleged damaging report was generated and held by the Zeñarosa Commission and the Office of the President, not by the respondent PNP officers. The respondents credibly denied having custody or control of the final report. Furthermore, the data collection by the PNP was performed pursuant to a lawful mandate under Administrative Order No. 275 and its inherent functions of intelligence-gathering for public safety, which enjoys a presumption of regularity. The mere allegation of unverified data, without proof of the respondents’ current control over it or of an ongoing violation, is insufficient to justify the extraordinary writ. The proper recourse for Gamboa, if she seeks to challenge the contents of the report, is a civil action for damages, not habeas data.