OJOJ B.

INAY VS OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

I.
NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for the writ of habeas data filed under A.M. No.
08-1-16-SC, also known as the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data to
require the respondent to produce and, if necessary update and
rectify, or, in the alternative, suppress or destroy information
within its control and/or contained in its database, which relates to
petitioner, her family, her home and her correspondence.

2. Petitioner respectfully submits that respondent obtained the

information through an unlawful act, has unjustifiably failed to
disclose the information to petitioner, and/or has unjustifiably
refused to update, rectify, suppress or destroy the information.

3. This act or omission of respondent to comply with petitioner's

demand is a violation of, or poses a threat of violation to,
petitioner's right to privacy in life, liberty and security.

4. In view of the foregoing, petitioner brings this petition before

this Honorable Court praying that the respondent be required to
cause the immediate production of the information requested
so that the same may be revealed to petitioner for proper
updating, rectification or, in the alternative, for its suppression or
destruction, whatever may be necessary to protect petitioner's
privacy.

5. Finally, petitioner respectfully submits that he is an indigent

person and prays that this Honorable Court exempt him/her from
docket and other legal fees in this case, subject to the submission
of proof of his/her indigency within fifteen days from the filing of
this petition.

II
 PARTIES

6. Petitioner OJOJ B. INAY is Filipino, of legal age, and residing at

123 Governor Road, Forbes Park, Makati. He may be served with
notices from this Honorable Court through her undersigned
counsel.

7. Respondent CONCHING C. MORALES is being impleaded in her

capacity as a public officer or employee, in charge of the
information or database of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman), which office is engaged in the gathering, collecting,
and storing of data. He may be served summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court at the Office of the Ombudsman,
Agham Road, North Triangle, Quezon City. Respondent is of legal
age, residing at 987 Kulasa Street, Paco, Manila and is engaged in
the gathering, collecting, and storing of data. She may be served
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court at the Office
of the Ombudsman, Agham Road, North Triangle, Quezon City.

8. Respondent Ombudsman is a government entity organized and

existing by virtue of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines. It is engaged in the gathering, collecting, and storing of
data. It may be served summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court at Office of the Ombudsman, Agham Road, North
Triangle, Quezon City.

III
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines whose

right to privacy is protected by the Bill of Rights found in Article III
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides:

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and

correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
 Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 7. The right of the people to information of matters of

public concern shall be recognized.

Access to official records and documents, and papers pertaining

to official acts, transactions, or decisions as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.

10. Also, in Lourdes T. Marquez vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, et al.,

this Honorable Court had occasion to rule:

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our

laws. The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts
for meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a
public officer or employee or any private individual liable for
damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another
person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private
communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime of the
violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade
and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy
is an offense in special lawslike the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and the Intellectual Property Code.
(G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001.)

11. Finally, Republic Act 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, makes it a
duty of every public officer and employee to allow the inspection of
all public documents, and to respond to requests within fifteen
days. Viz:
 Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In
the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees
are under obligation to:

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. — All public officials and
employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt
thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of
communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the
action taken on the request.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Make documents accessible to the public. — All public
documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for
inspection by, the public within reasonable working hours.

12. On December 10, 2010, petitioner requested access to all

information held about her by the respondent, within fifteen days
from respondent's receipt. A copy of the written request is
attached as Annex "A".

13. The period given to respondent to allow petitioner access to its

database has already lapsed.

14. As a result of respondent's failure or unjustifiable refusal to

allow access to its database, petitioner’s right to privacy is being
violated.

15. The use and possible dissemination of the information held by

respondent is an unlawful intrusion into petitioner's privacy, which
intrusion threatens to ultimately violate petitioner's right to life,
liberty and security.

16. The information which remains hidden from petitioner is in the

database of respondent located in the following offices: [state the
offices or known location of the information].
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this Honorable Court give due

course to this petition and issue the writ of habeas data and rule,
as follows:

1. Upon the filing of the petition, ENJOIN respondent from

disseminating the information;
2. Upon notice and hearing, ORDER respondent to:
a. Produce the information in its possession regarding petitioner's
person, his family, home and correspondence;
b. Correct, suppress or destroy the information in its database,
whatever may be applicable as determined by this Honorable
Court; and
c. Rectify the damage caused to petitioner's reputation by making a
public apology to petitioner, which shall be circulated in the
manner and to such persons as the petitioner may deem
appropriate.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Makati City, Philippines, this 10th day of November 2011.

ATTY. NOE C. ASE

Appointment No. 12345
Roll of Attorney No. 67890
PTR No.13579, Manila, 12/13/2005 (date and place of issue)
IBP No. 24680, 11/11/2004 Makati
Suite 1, 66th Floor, Tektite Building
Pearl Drive, Ortigas, Mandaluyong
noecase@lawfirm.com
555-6666 or 777-2345
MCLE Compliance No.8643