“Every breath you take. Every move you make…I’ll be watching you” (w/apologies to Sting & The Police)

Shirin Neshat. I am Its Secret. 1993. Fujicolor crystal archive print. Waterhouse and Dodd Gallery. Right-clicked from www.artnet.com searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com

     So the Inquirer picked it up, and reported the story on the female journalist who supposedly gave a press card to Nicanor Faeldon. Before I posted the previous blog post below, or on Monday afternoon, I was informed that the female reporters who covered the Manila Pen Nov 29 and whose names started with “D” had denied that they gave a press I.D. to Faeldon. ( I also delayed the blog post by 12 hours to clear some matters.) On the legal aspect of the blog post, DZMM reported this morning that the Supreme Court yesterday had approved the rule on the writ of habeas data. The Supreme Court said that it would take effect on Constitution Day Feb. 2. In an interview of PNP Director General Avelino Razon over at “Umagang Kay Ganda” (“What a Beautiful Morning”) by Anthony Taberna, Razon said that they could still not reveal the identity because they were still using the supposed “information” for police operation to locate Faeldon. If he meant what he said, then the female reporter or reporters are being followed around as “tracer” to Faeldon; if his statement was true.

                 As I understand it, the remedy of the writ of habeas data is available to any individual who has facts to show that a law-enforcement agency or any government agency, is gathering or has gathered information on him or her or is keeping a file (transcript, tapes, photos, etc.) of his or her previous or present activities (you’re being monitored and “dossiered”!), and, in order to protect his or her right to privacy and his or her right to be secure in his or her person, the party can get a writ of habeas data. The writ will compel the police or government agency to open the dossier to the person, and if he or she or his or her lawyer deems it necessary, they could file the necessary cases against the police or any agency which violated their right to be secure or right to privacy.

              (Depending on the text of the rules that would be released, I suppose like any writ, it has a coercive effect; those officials who refuse or fail to obey can be forced to do so on pain of contempt or similar punishment.) Feb. 2 is a good day to file the test case, don’t you think? If the police has announced to the media or has described to the public the person whom they are casing, then that is more than sufficient cause of action for any person who falls under the category described, to fell threatened and to file such a petition (it’s special civil action).

              As I see it, one’s decision to file a petition for a writ of habeas data, and being able to get that writ, is preparatory to other moves and remedies you have against those who have violated your right to be secure in your person and your right to privacy.

             (The party can also, if he or she so desires, make corrections on the file or dossier, without prejudice.)

                Copies of the rules as approved by the
Supreme Court have not been officially released, but here’s a similar rule in effect in Argentina, quoted by Chief Justice Reynato Puno in a speech last November 2007 (at www.supremecourt.gov.ph):

              Quoting Chief Justice Puno: “ In Argentina, the writ of habeas data is not specifically called “habeas data” but is subsumed by the Argentine writ of amparo. Under Article 43 of the Argentine Constitution, entitled “the Writ of Amparo” or protection, it is stated thus:

               “Any person may file this action (referring to the writ of habeas data) to obtain information on the data about himself and their purpose, registered in public records and data bases, or in private ones intended to supply information; and in case of false data or discrimination, this action may be filed to request the suppression, rectification, confidentiality or updating of data. The secret nature of the sources of journalistic information shall not be impaired.”

              (Quoting Chief Justice again): quote “The Argentine version, though not called habeas data, is more comprehensive than other Latin American models. Like the Paraguay model, the Argentine model includes the judicial remedy to enforce one’s right to access, rectify, update, or destroy the data. This model also guarantees the confidentiality or privacy of personal or private information and makes specific the protection of journalistic privilege…” closed-quote.