Tag: habeas data

Rules of Court

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

shirinneshat.jpg 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal law, Rules of Court

Female reporter, “kulot”, to be arrested daw in due time

basawanthree.jpg

Basawan. Akbar Tames The Savage Elephant Hawa’l, circa 1590 (with watermark from website) Right-clicked from www.allposters.com. Searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com

The suits that would be filed by the journalists who, after the police assault in Manila Pen was done, were still handcuffed, roughed up (i.e., pushed to the ground and made to lie on their palms on shards of glass), and warrantlessly arrested, already came out in the news last night (the suits); so I guess it’s alright to blog about related incidents (I try to give friends lead time when the stories come from them.)

Reliable defense beat reporter and columnist (I was going to introduce her as “star reporter” but she might mind that) Ellen Tordesillas was at the press con of PNP Director General Avelino Razon yesterday. One of the topics raised was DOJ Secretary’s allegation that the hotel CCTV tapes showed a female reporter allegedly giving her press card to Nicanor Faeldon and by which the latter managed to escape.

(In an ANC studio interview before Christmas, we clarified that PD 1829, “obstruction of justice”, punished those who facilitated the escape of a fugitive, and we gave the following examples or illustration: those who gave their press cards or jackets or hats as disguise or those who gave a cell load or their phone or car or those who pointed to the exit, to fugitives or who gave instructions, or those who locked the doors or blocked the entrance or physically barricaded the passageway of the police (as examples; hypothetical situation) can be made to fall under that; but merely photographing, filming, or interviewing persons accused of a crime, cannot in any way be construed as “facilitating the escape, or harboring or concealing etc ”. Anyway. So, a week ago, Raul Gonzales said they had a tape showing a reporter giving her press card etc.)

According to Ellen, Razon said during the press con: “Alam ni Ellen sa kaibuturan ng kanyang puso na hindi sya yon. Pati rin si Ces; alam nilang hindi sila yon.” (“Ellen knows in her heart of hearts that she is not the one referred to. And so does Ces.”)

Does that mean that: since Razon said the two reporters knew it wasn’t them; then the DOJ, the prosecutorial arm of government, those who go after criminals, can now go on with their blind items on “the female reporter caught on tape giving a press card to Faeldon”? How many female reporters were there in Manila Pen at that time? Twenty? How many interviewed Faeldon? Asked him why he was there, what he knew? Fifteen reporters? How many?

Here’s the news story. Ellen Tordesillas and other reporters were leaked “tips” by informants in the CIDG: That the name of said female reporter started with a “D” (first name or surname), that she was a member of Focap (Foreign Correspondents’ Association of the Philippines), and that her hair was “kulot”. When Avelino Razon was confronted that question of the CIDG leak, he neither confirmed nor denied. I guess he just smiled. Female reporter, “kulot” (curly-haired). There are many kinds of curls. Is it wavy? A tumble of curls? Poodle-tight curls? Frizzy? Kinky? Ringlets? Or just fluffy? Unless your hair is as straight as strips of ribbons, from rebonding, any kind of fluffy hair can be considered “kulot”. Should I give the legal advice that all female reporters at the Manila Pen on Nov.29 should have their hair rebonded or straightened right away to remove any suspicion that it was them? Or, so that they would not be mistakenly identified or pointed to in a police line-up? Mag-pa-straight ka na ng buhok! (Get your hair straightened!). Should I say that? What lengths of absurdity are the prosecutors, investigators, and the police, going to go to in order to put fear in the hearts of those journalists who were present at the Manila Pen? If they have tapes and evidence, why don’t they charge specific individuals, or in this case, one female reporter, instead of spreading blind items, blanket accusations, and rumors? What is the purpose? Why don’t you charge that one person if you have evidence and probable cause? It was me. Arrest me. Of course I wasn’t there; but aren’t you getting tired of this? Pick on people who can tangle with procedure and violations instead of hapless and harassed reporters, correspondents, videographers, doing their job, overworked and underpaid as it is. Make the arrest if you have a prima facie case. Today. Go to a judge. Let’s see if you have probable cause.

But they’re not doing that.

You know why?

Because they want their moves to remain as threats. To all.

(Those who fall under the category of “female reporters at the Manila Pen on Nov. 29” are all referred to in those blind items; Razon did not identify nor narrow it down; all these female journalists who were there then have good and more than sufficient cause of action to file a test case on the privilege of the writ of habeas data or in the alternative to get a writ of mandamus (the writ of habeas data to compel the police and the prosecutors who are making the threats to disclose any supposed tapes or information on their person. The rule on the writ of habeas data is on the agenda of the Supreme Court today, I asked the Supreme Court spokesperson, that’s another news story, you’re welcome; it’s for discussion/ review/ final approval today and the target date for effectivity is Feb. 2; if you cannot wait, the alternative (in my opinion) is mandamus. And, more important, in the alternative, if Raul Gonzales and Avelino Razon are not able to produce the supposed tapes that they are now using to intimidate the reporters, a citation for criminal indirect contempt (for failure or refusal to obey the Court) ; and a writ of amparo; (or prohibition in the alternative in case the Court says that amparo applies only to forced disappearances; which would be arguable since rules of procedure are to be construed liberally and because in statutory construction, “shall” can be construed as “may”, directory and not mandatory, to include and not exclude; and also I asked the Supreme Court spokesperson today, he said that it was not limited to extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances; amparo is applicable to similar threats to the right to be secure); amparo to enjoin and restrain the DOJ, the PNP, and other government agencies, from continuously making threats against the right to be secure. The threat is specific, continuing, persistent, and certain. The DOJ Secretary said that in due time, they will disclose the identity and the police will arrest her. Why not now? And because he hasn’t disclosed it, at this time, it refers to all female reporters present there then.) That’s the advice, and not the previous one of straightening your hair. Haven’t you heard the 2008 fashion forecast? Today in Manila, curly is beautiful. (and are you sure it wasn’t the man who was wearing a curly wig?)