the re!edy of ha"eas data can "e used "y any citiKen against any govern!enta agency or register to find out what infor!ation is hed a"out his or her person.> The person can i$ewise >reuest the rectification or even the destruction of erroneous data gathered and $ept against hi! or her.> In the petitioner=s case, he specificay sought the production of the order of "atte, which aegedy incuded his na!e, and other records which supposedy contain erroneous data reative to his invove!ent with the CPP. OS'=s Co!!ent In the respondents= co!!ent 9H fied "y the OS', it is generay cai!ed that the petitioner advances no cogent grounds to Fustify the reversa of the Court=s Resoution dated +ugust ;9, /9/. The Court=s Disuisition
7hie the issuance of the writs sought "y the et&t&o'er c''ot be (r'te, t)e Co*rt 'e-ert)e+e &' /+e (ro*' to /o& t)e Reo+*t&o' te A*(*t @1, 2010. The petition reuire!ents of 7rits of +!paro and 4a"eas Data
confor!s the
to Rues
on
the the
Section :9J of +.#. No. /J9SC )Rue on the 7rit of +!paro* and Section H 90 of +.#. /099HSC )Rue on the 7rit of 4a"eas Data* provide for what the said petitions shoud contain. I' t)e ree't ce, t)e Co*rt 'ote t)t t)e et&t&o' or t)e &*'ce o t)e r&-&+e(e o t)e r&t o /ro ' )be t & *&c&e't to &t co'te't . The petitioner !ade specific aegations reative to his persona circu!stances and those of the respondents. The petitioner i$ewise indicated particuar acts, which are aegedy vioative of his rights and the participation of so!e of the respondents in their co!!ission. +s to the prereuisite conduct and resut of an investigation prior to the fiing of the petition, it was e
evidence
e
to
The Court has rued that in view of the recognition of the evidentiary difficuties attendant to the fiing of a petition for the priviege of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data, not ony direct evidence, "ut circu!stantia evidence, indicia, and presu!ptions !ay "e considered, so ong as they ead to concusions consistent with the ad!issi"e evidence adduced./ D&t) t)e ore(o&'( &' /&', t)e Co*rt t&++ &' t)t t)e CA & 'ot co//&t re-er&b+e error &' ec+r&'( t)t 'o *bt't&+ e-&e'ce e&t to co/e+ t)e (r't o t)e re+&e re or b t)e et&t&o'er. The Court too$ a second oo$ on the evidence on record and finds no reason to reconsider the denia of the issuance of the writs prayed for. In the hearing "efore the C+, it was cai!ed that >oe> once inuired fro! the petitioner if the atter was sti invoved with +N+6P+7IS. 1y itsef, such cai! cannot esta"ish with certainty that the petitioner was "eing !onitored. T)e e'co*'ter )e'e o'ce and the petitioner, in his peadings, nowhere stated that su"seuent to the ti!e he was as$ed a"out his invove!ent with +N+6P+7IS, he sti noticed >oe> conducting surveiance operations on hi!. 4e aeged that he was "rought to the ca!p of the /-th Infantry 1rigade in NauFan, Orienta #indoro "ut was sent ho!e at :2// p.!. The petitioner and the respondents have conficting cai!s a"out what transpired thereafter. The petitioner insisted that he was "rought against his wi and was as$ed to stay "y the respondents in paces under the atter=s contro. The respondents, on the other hand, averred that it was the petitioner who vountariy offered his service to "e a !iitary asset, "ut was reFected as the for!er sti dou"ted his !otives and affiiations. Section 9 of "oth the Rues on the 7rit of +!paro and 4a"eas Data is e
freedo! fro! threat>. 9 It !ust "e stressed, however, that such >threat> !ust find rationa "asis on the surrounding circu!stances of the case. In this case, the petition was !ainy anchored on the aeged threats against
his ife, i"erty and security "y reason of his incusion in the !iitary=s order of "atte, the surveiance and !onitoring activities !ade on hi!, and the inti!idation edoes not have $nowedge a"out any +r!ed @orces of the Phiippines )+@P* order of "atte= which aegedy ists the petitioner as a !e!"er of the CPP.> - This was aso denied "y Pvt. Osio, who the petitioner identified as the one who tod hi! that he was incuded in the order of "atte.: The nd Infantry )unge @ighter* Division of the Phiippine +r!y aso conducted an investigation pursuant to the directive of +@P Chief of Staff 'en. Esperon, H and it was shown that the persons identified "y the petitioners who aegedy co!!itted the acts co!pained of were not connected or assigned to the nd Infantry Division. J #oreover, the evidence showed that the petitioner=s !o"iity was never curtaied. @ro! the ti!e he was aegedy "rought to 1atangas in +ugust of //J unti the ti!e he sought the assistance of 6+R+P+T+NST, there was no restraint upon the petitioner to go ho!e, as in fact, he went ho!e to #indoro on severa instances. +nd whie he !ay have "een wary of Pvt. Osio=s presence at the pier, there was no cai! "y the petitioner that he was threatened or prevented "y Pvt. Osio fro! "oarding any vehice that !ay transport hi! "ac$ ho!e. The petitioner aso ad!itted that he had a !o"ie phoneG hence, he had unha!pered access to co!!unication and can readiy see$ assistance fro! non govern!enta organiKations and even govern!ent agencies. The respondents aso "eied the petitioner=s cai! that they forced hi! to "eco!e a !iitary infor!ant and instead, aeged that it was the petitioner who vounteered to "e one. Thus, in his Sinu!paang Saaysay0e!onitoring> activities "eing conducted "y a certain >oe>, e.g., the atter=s aeged act of foowing hi!, pretending to pedde pandesa and as$ing hi! a"out his persona circu!stances. Such aegation "y the petitioner, however, is, at "est, a concusion on his part, a !ere i!pression that the petitioner had, "ased on his persona assess!ent of the circu!stances. The petitioner even ad!itted in his testi!ony "efore the C+ that when he had a conversation with >oe> so!eti!e in uy //J, the atter !erey as$ed hi! whether he was sti connected with +N+6P+7IS, "ut he was not threatened >with anything> and no other incident occurred "etween the! since then. There is ceary nothing on record which shows that >oe> co!!itted overt acts that wi uneuivocay ead to the concusion arrived at "y the petitioner, especiay since the aeged acts co!!itted "y >oe> are suscepti"e of different interpretations. G&-e' t)t t)e tot+&t o t)e e-&e'ce ree'te b t)e et&t&o'er &+e to *ort )& c+&/, t)e re+&e re or, t)ereore, c''ot be (r'te . The i"eraity accorded to a!paro and ha"eas data cases does not !ean that a cai!ant is dispensed with the onus of proving his case. >Indeed, even the i"era standard of su"stantia evidence de!ands so!e adeuate evidence.> ;/ The President cannot "e auto!aticay dropped as a respondent pursuant to the doctrine of co!!and responsi"iity In Norie RodrigueK v. 'oria #acapaga +rroyo, et a., ;9 the Court stated2 a. Co!!and responsi"iity of the President
4aving esta"ished the appica"iity of the doctrine of co!!and responsi"iity in a!paro proceedings, it !ust now "e resoved whether the president, as co!!anderinchief of the !iitary, can "e hed responsi"e or accounta"e for e
affidavits reuired under Section :)c* of the Rue on the 7rit of +!paro were not su"!itted together with the petition and it was rued that the defect was fuy cured when the petitioner and the witness personay testified to prove the truth of their aegations in the hearings hed "efore the C+. In the instant case, the defective verification was not the soe reason for the C+=s denia of the petition for the issuance of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data. Nonetheess, it !ust "e stressed that athough rues of procedure pay an i!portant rue in effectivey ad!inistering Fustice, pri!acy shoud not "e accorded to the! especiay in the instant case where there was at east su"stantia co!piance with the reuire!ents and where petitioner hi!sef testified in the hearings to attest to the veracity of the cai!s which he stated in his petition. To concude, co!piance with technica rues of procedure is idea "ut it cannot "e accorded pri!acy. In the proceedings "efore the C+, the petitioner hi!sef testified to prove the veracity of his aegations which he stated in the petition. 4ence, the defect in the verification attached to the petition. 4ence, the defect in the verification attached to the petition was dee!ed cured. 74ERE@ORE, pre!ises considered, the et&t&o'erH /ot&o' or reco'&ert&o' & !ENIE! DITB INALITY. SO ORDERED.