GAMBOA v. CHAN Digest

MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P & SSUPT. MARLOU C.
CHAN,
G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
FACTS:
On 8 December 2009, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Order
No. 275 (A.O. 275), "Creating an Independent Commission to Address the Alleged Existence of
Private Armies in the Country."
o “Zeñarosa Commission” – formed to investigate the existence of private

army groups (PAGs) in the country with a view to eliminating them before the 10
May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the future
Upon the conclusion of its investigation, the Zeñarosa Commission released and submitted to
the Office of the President a confidential report entitled "A Journey Towards H.O.P.E.: The
Independent Commission Against Private Armies’ Report to the President" (the Report).
Petitioner Marynette R. Gamboa (Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte) alleged that Her right to
privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed. The reason of such allegation was
due to the fact 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 PAG.
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. ABS-CBN broadcasted on its evening news program the portion of the
Report naming Gamboa as one of the politicians alleged to be maintaining a PAG. Gamboa’s
association with a PAG also appeared on print media, thus, she was publicly tagged as someone who
maintains a PAG on the basis of the unverified information that the PNP-Ilocos Norte gathered and
forwarded to the Zeñarosa Commission. Gamboa alleged that her malicious or reckless inclusion in
the enumeration of personalities maintaining a PAG as published in the Report also made her, as well
as her supporters and other people identified with her, susceptible to harassment and police
surveillance operations.
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.RTC initially found the petitioner meritorious.
Respondents, P/SSupt. Marlou C. Chan (PNP-Provincial Director of Ilocos Norte) and

P/SUPT. William O. Fang (Chief, Intelligence Division, PNP Provincial Office, Ilocos Norte) also
contended that they had acted within the bounds of their mandate in conducting the investigation and
surveillance of Gamboa. The information stored in their database supposedly pertained to two
criminal cases in which she was implicated.
Moreover, they also alleged that the Petition was incomplete for failing to comply with the
following requisites under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data:
a. the manner in which the right to privacy was violated or threatened with violation and how it
affected the right to life, liberty or security of Gamboa
b. the actions and recourses she took to secure the data or information
c. the location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in
charge, in possession or in control of the data or information.
According to them the Petition for Writ of Habeas Data, being limited to cases of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances, was not the proper remedy to address the alleged besmirching
of the reputation of Gamboa.
ISSUES:
Whether the petition for writ of habeas data was proper. – NO.
RULING:
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data reads:

Habeas data. – The writ of habeas data is 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 information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
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. In order 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.
The notion of informational privacy is still developing in Philippine law and jurisprudence;
however, the right to informational privacy, as a specific component of the right to privacy, may yield
to an overriding legitimate state interest. In similar fashion, the determination of whether the privilege
of the writ of habeas data, being an extraordinary remedy, may be granted in this case entails a
delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion upon the private life of Gamboa and the relevant state
interest involved.
To accord the right to privacy with the kind of protection established in existing law and
jurisprudence, the Court nonetheless deems it necessary to caution investigating entities that
information-sharing must observe strict confidentiality. Intelligence gathered must be released
exclusively to the authorities empowered to receive the relevant information. After all, inherent to the
right to privacy is the freedom from "unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into
one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities."
In this case, respondents admitted the existence of the Report, but emphasized its confidential
nature. It was leaked to third parties and the media, but Gamboa failed to establish that respondents
were responsible for this unintended disclosure. In any event, there are other reliefs available to her
to address the purported damage to her reputation, making a resort to the extraordinary remedy of
the writ of habeas data unnecessary and improper.
Gamboa was also 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.
Moreover, it is clear that 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.

GAMBOA v. CHAN Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAMBOA v. CHAN Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA v. P & SSUPT. MARLOU C.

o “Zeñarosa Commission” – formed to investigate the existence of private

Respondents, P/SSupt. Marlou C. Chan (PNP-Provincial Director of Ilocos Norte) and

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data reads:

It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in

Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

You might also like