G.R. No. 203254, October 8, 2014
DR. JOY MARGARTE LEE, Petitioner, vs. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Police Superintendent Neri A. Ilagan filed a Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data against petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee, his former common-law partner. Ilagan alleged that Lee discovered a purported sex video involving him and another woman from his digital camera, which he left at her condominium. Lee confronted Ilagan about the video, and during the confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall. Lee subsequently used the video as evidence in filing a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) and an administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing the video and threatening to distribute it to NAPOLCOM officials and upload it to the internet violated his right to privacy, life, liberty, and security. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the writ and, after proceedings, granted the privilege of the writ, ordering the turnover of video copies to Ilagan and enjoining Lee from further reproduction. Lee admitted to keeping the memory card and reproducing the video but contended she did so solely to use it as evidence in her cases against Ilagan and that she was not engaged in gathering or storing data about Ilagan.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court correctly extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of respondent Ilagan.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and dismissed Ilagan’s habeas data petition for lack of merit. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available when a person’s 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 data or information. For the writ to issue, the petition must sufficiently allege and eventually prove a nexus between the right to privacy and the right to life, liberty, or security. In this case, Ilagan failed to sufficiently allege how the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the sex video violated or threatened his right to life, liberty, or security. He merely purported a privacy interest but did not explain the connection to these cogent rights. Furthermore, the evidence presented was inadequate. Ilagan relied only on his self-serving testimony, which did not constitute substantial evidence that Lee committed or would commit an overt act violating his rights. Lee clearly stated her sole purpose for reproducing the video was to legitimately use it as evidence in the filed cases. Due to insufficient allegations and absence of substantial evidence, the petition for habeas data was dismissible.