Ruling that the right to reputation of Leyte Rep. Vicente “Ching” Veloso has been “violated” with his inclusion in the government’s “narco list,” the Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed itself and granted the legislator’s petition for a writ of habeas data.
A writ of habeas data “is a legal 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.”
With its amended decision, the CA directed the heads of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG):
“… to produce and submit directly to the Court all data, information, documents, or records, duly sealed, regarding the person of the petitioner (Veloso) that have to do with the information collection efforts and actions undertaken that led to his inclusion in the ‘narco list’ within 15 days from receipt of notice."
The amended decision was issued by the CA last October 5. It was written by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
The CA reversed its November 2019 decision which ordered the remand of Veloso’s petition to the Office of the Ombudsman with a ruling that the filing of an administrative case against him curtailed his right to avail himself of the benefits of the writ of habeas data.
Veloso’s petition was originally filed with the Supreme Court (SC). The High Court remanded the case to the CA for resolution.
In reversing itself, the CA said that Veloso “was able to establish his right to information privacy.”
It said Veloso’s “inclusion in the March 14, 2019 ‘narco list’ was not a result of merely filing an administrative case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman but was a result of a series of State interference in his personal life.”
The CA said: “In the case at hand, the Court is convinced that the interference with the petitioner's right to informational privacy impacts and affects his privacy right in life, liberty, and security.
“The release to the public of a list of drug dealers or ‘narco list’ that includes his name and which was drawn from the information gathering activity of state agents has conveyed the idea that the petitioner is a criminal engaged in dealing dangerous drugs.
“Thus, the petitioner stands to lose his reputation, considering his years of public service in all of the three branches of government and his stature in the legal community.
“The respondents never controverted the petitioner's credentials. Taking these into consideration, the gravity of the allegations against him should have prompted the respondents to be more circumspect with their actions.
“There is no doubt in our mind that the petitioner's right to reputation has been violated by the respondents.”
Citing an opinion of retired SC Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in a case resolved by the High Court, the CA also said:
“We agree with the opinion of former Associate Justice Brion in Biraogo that evidence of such violation to the petitioner's reputation is hardly necessary because the prejudicial effects of the respondents' interference with his right to privacy are self-evident.
“When the government itself declared the petitioner as involved in the illegal drug trade, despite the absence of any criminal action commenced against him, it is certain that the petitioner's honor and reputation will be continuously prejudiced by such public revelation."
Thus, the CA said: “Veloso has substantially discharged the burden of proving his claim under the writ of habeas data. There is substantial evidence in this particular case that would warrant the conclusion that the petitioner's informational privacy right was interfered with and that his right to privacy in life, liberty, and security was violated.”
The CA ruling, in effect, rejected the government’s claim that “the information and data subject of the instant action cannot be disclosed, much more destroyed, considering their confidential and privileged character.”
The government also argued that “the information that the petitioner seeks involves the government's ‘war on drugs,’ which are matters of national security and concerns law enforcement as well as protection of public safety.”