The teaser of the Daryl Yap’s latest movie entitled, “The Rapist of Pepsi Paloma” showed a clip where the character played by veteran actress, Gina Alajar, mentioned the name of Eat Bulaga host, Vic Sotto. The clip immediately garnered hundreds of thousands of views, particularly in different social media outlets. Feeling aggrieved, Sotto then filed a Complaint for Cyber Libel as well as Petition for Writ of Habeas Data against Yap. In a Decision dated 24 January 2025, the Regional Trial Court of Taguig partially granted Sotto’s petition ordering, among other things, that the filmmaker and any person, entity acting on his behalf, including the production team of VinCentiments, to take down the 26-second teaser from all online platforms.
Having followed this particular issue, a lot of people are asking as to what “writ of habeas data” is all about. Thus, it will be the focus of our column in this week’s edition.
Section 1 of Administrative Matter No. 08-1-16-SC defines the writ of habeas data as 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.
Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data before the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner. The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices.
As lengthily discussed by Justice Marvic Leonen in his Separate Concurring Opinion, in the case of Leila M. De Lima vs President Rodrigo R. Duterte[1], citing Manila Electric Company vs Lim, the habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual.
The writ of habeas data “seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.” However, it is not issued merely because one has unauthorized access to another person’s information; rather, it requires a violation or a threatened violation of that person’s right to life, liberty, and security:
In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an individual’s right to informational privacy, among others. A comparative law scholar has, in fact, defined habeas data as “a procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.” The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.
Thus, the existence of a person’s right to informational privacy and a 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 are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be extended.[2]
This Court has stated that, “the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail any finding of criminal, civil, or administrative culpability.” In In Re: Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo: It bears stressing that since there is no determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.[3]
To sum it all up, the writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy.[4]
[1] G.R. No. 227635, October 15, 2019
[2] Idem
[3] Idem
[4] Gamboa vs Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012