Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Gamboa vs. Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Loyola Tapia
    The petitioner Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police violated her right to privacy by conducting surveillance on her and classifying her as someone who maintains a private army group. She filed a writ of habeas data. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ was not proper because Gamboa failed to prove that her inclusion on the list endangered her life, liberty or security. The state's interest in dismantling private armies outweighed the alleged privacy intrusion, since the police actions were pursuant to a lawful mandate. The petition for the writ of habeas data was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gamboa vs. Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Loyola Tapia
    52 views2 pages
    The petitioner Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police violated her right to privacy by conducting surveillance on her and classifying her as someone who maintains a private army group. She filed a writ of habeas data. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ was not proper because Gamboa failed to prove that her inclusion on the list endangered her life, liberty or security. The state's interest in dismantling private armies outweighed the alleged privacy intrusion, since the police actions were pursuant to a lawful mandate. The petition for the writ of habeas data was denied.

    Original Description:

    2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police violated her right to privacy by conducting surveillance on her and classifying her as someone who maintains a private army group. She filed a writ of habeas data. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ was not proper because Gamboa failed to prove that her inclusion on the list endangered her life, liberty or security. The state's interest in dismantling private armies outweighed the alleged privacy intrusion, since the police actions were pursuant to a lawful mandate. The petition for the writ of habeas data was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Gamboa vs. Chan

    Uploaded by

    Princess Loyola Tapia
    The petitioner Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police violated her right to privacy by conducting surveillance on her and classifying her as someone who maintains a private army group. She filed a writ of habeas data. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ was not proper because Gamboa failed to prove that her inclusion on the list endangered her life, liberty or security. The state's interest in dismantling private armies outweighed the alleged privacy intrusion, since the police actions were pursuant to a lawful mandate. The petition for the writ of habeas data was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CONSTI II TOPIC: Right to Privacy

    G.R. NO. G.R. No. 193636


    Gamboa v. Chan DATE OF PROMULGATION: 24 July 2012
    PONENTE: J. Sereno
    FACTS
    Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–Ilocos Norte) conducted a
    series of surveillance operations against her and her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a
    Private Army Group (PAG). Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte
    forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission, thereby causing her
    inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs. Contending that her right to
    privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the
    issuance of a writ of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos
    Norte.
    ISSUE/S

    Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data is proper when the right to privacy
    is invoked as opposed to the state’s interest in preserving the right to life, liberty or security.

    RULING

    NO.

    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. It 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. It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted,
    there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
    liberty or security on the other.

    In this case, the Court ruled that Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial evidence
    that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining PAGs made her and her supporters
    susceptible to harassment and to increased police surveillance. In this regard, respondents
    sufficiently explained that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to the
    criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the presumption of
    regularity, which she failed to overcome. The state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs
    the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection and
    forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate.
    Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.
    DOCTRINE

    “Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom from unlawful governmental
    restraint; it must include privacy as well, if is to be repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is
    indeed the beginning of all freedom.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision in Special Proc. No. 14979 dated
    September 9, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Laoag City, Br. 13, insofar as it denies Gamboa the
    privilege of the writ of the habeas data, is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like