Writ of Habeas Data Cases

G.R. No. 184769

October 5, 2010

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, COMPANY, ALEAN!ER ALEAN!ER ". !EYTO and R and R#$EN #$EN A. "APIT#LA "APIT#LA,,  Petitioners, vs. RO"ARIO GOPE% LIM, Respondent. LIM,  Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALE", J.: The Court is once again confronted with an opportunity to define the evoving !etes and "ounds of the writ writ of ha"eas ha"eas data. #ay an e!poy e!poyee ee invo$e invo$e the re!edie re!edies s avaia avaia"e "e under under such such writ writ where where an e!poyer decides to transfer her wor$pace on the "asis of copies of an anony!ous etter posted therein % i!puting to her disoyaty to the co!pany and caing for her to eave, which i!putation it investigated "ut fais to infor! her of the detais thereof& Rosario '. (i! )respondent*, aso $nown as Cherry (i!, is an ad!inistrative cer$ at the #ania Eectric Co!pany )#ER+(CO*. On une une -, //0 //0,, an anon anony! y!ou ous s ett etter er was was post posted ed at the the door door of the the #ete #eteri ring ng Offi Office ce of the the  +d!inistration "uiding of #ER+(CO Paride, 1uacan Sector, at which respondent is assigned, denouncing respondent. The etter reads2 Cherry (i!2 #+T #+T+POS +POS #ON' (+#3NIN (+#3NIN (+4+T (+4+T N' 1I5+ 1I5+5+ N' #ER+(CO, #ER+(CO, N'+5O N'+5ON N N+#+N N+#+N +5 '3STO '3STO #ON' P+(+#ON P+(+#ON +N' 13ON' 63#P+N5+ 63#P+N5+ S+ #'+ 137+5 137+5+ + N' 'O15ERNO. 6+P+( N' #364+ 9 #O, (3#+5+S 6+ RITO, 7+(+N' 3T+N' N+ (OO18 . Copies Copies of the etter etter were were aso aso insert inserted ed in the oc$ers oc$ers of #ER+(C #ER+(CO O ines! ines!en. en. Infor!ed Infor!ed a"out it, respondent reported the !atter on une :, //0 to the Paride Station of the Phiippine Nationa Poice.  1y #e!orandu! ; dated dated uy -, //0, //0, petiti petitione onerr +e+?@ >+?@ OT#S OT#S Cer$, Cer$,>> effec effectiv tive e uy 90, //0 //0 in ight ight of the receip receiptt of >8 report reports s that that there there were were accusations accusations and threats threats directed directed against AherB fro! un$nown individuas individuas and which coud possi"y co!pro!ise AherB safety and security.> Respondent, "y etter of uy 9/, //0 addressed to petitioner Ru"en +. Sapitua, icePresident and 4ead of #ER+(CO=s 4u!an Resource +d!inistration, appeaed her transfer and reuested for a diaogue so she coud voice her concerns and !isgivings on the !atter, cai!ing that the >punitive> nature of the transfer a!ounted to a denia of due process. C&t&'( t)e (r*e+&'( tr-e+ ro/ )er  re&e'ce &' P/'( to A+b'( ' bc3 e't&+, ' -&o+t&o' o t)e ro-&&o' o' ob ec*r&t o t)e&r Co++ect&-e $r(&'&'( A(ree/e't C$A, reo'e't eree )er t)o*()t o' t)e ++e(e t)ret to )er ec*r&t &' t)& &e: <<<< I fee that it woud have "een "etter . . . if you coud have inti!ated to !e the nature of the aeged accusations and threats so that at east I coud have found out if these are credi"e or even serious. 1ut as you stated, these ca!e fro! un$nown individuas and the way they were handed, it appears that the veracity of these accusations and threats to "e AsicB highy suspicious, dou"tfu or are Fust !ere Fo$es if  they esitting duc$> so to spea$, see!s to "etray the rea intent of !anage!ent which is contrary to its e
1y respondent=s aegation, petitioners= unawfu act and o!ission consisting of their continued faiure and refusa to provide her with detais or infor!ation a"out the aeged report which #ER+(CO purportedy receivedconcerning threats to her safety and security a!ount to a vioation of her right to privacy in ife, i"erty and security, correcti"e "y ha"eas data. Respondent thus prayed for the issuance of a writ co!!anding petitioners to fie a written return containing the foowing2 a* a fu discosure of the data or infor!ation a"out respondent in reation to the report purportedy received "y petitioners on the aeged threat to her safety and securityG the nature of  such data and the purpose for its coectionG "* the !easures ta$en "y petitioners to ensure the confidentiaity of such data or infor!ationG and c* the currency and accuracy of such data or infor!ation o"tained.  +dditionay, respondent prayed for the issuance of a Te!porary Restraining Order )TRO* enFoining petitioners fro! effecting her transfer to the #ER+(CO +a"ang Sector. 1y Order H of +ugust , //0, 1ranch J of the 1uacan RTC directed petitioners to fie their verified written return. +nd "y Order of Septe!"er :, //0, t)e tr&+ co*rt (r'te reo'e't< +&ct&o' or  TRO. Petitioners !oved for the dis!issa of the petition and reca of the TRO on the grounds that, inter aia, resort to a petition for writ of ha"eas data was not in orderG and the RTC ac$ed Furisdiction over the case which propery "eongs to the Nationa (a"or Reations Co!!ission )N(RC*. J 1y Decision0 of Septe!"er , //0, the tr&+ co*rt (r'te t)e rer o reo'e't &'c+*&'( t)e &*'ce o  r&t o re+&/&'r &'*'ct&o' &rect&'( et&t&o'er to e&t ro/ &/+e/e't&'( reo'e't< tr'er *'t&+ *c) t&/e t)t et&t&o'er co/+ &t) t)e &c+o*re re;*&re. The tria court Fustified its ruing "y decaring that, inter aia, recourse to a writ of ha"eas data shoud eathough ingeniousy crafted as a petition for ha"eas data, respondent is essentiay uestioning the transfer of her pace of wor$ "y her e!poyer >99 and the ter!s and conditions of her e!poy!ent which arise fro! an e!poyere!poyee reationship over which the N(RC and the (a"or +r"iters under +rtice 9J of the (a"or Code have Furisdiction. Petitioners thus !aintain that the RTC had no authority to restrain the i!pe!entation of the #e!orandu! transferring respondent=s pace of wor$ which is purey a !anage!ent prerogative, and that OC+Circuar No. J//; 9 e
The ha"eas data rue, in genera, is designed to protect "y !eans of Fudicia co!paint the i!age, privacy, honor, infor!ation, and freedo! of infor!ation of an individua . It is !eant to provide a foru! to enforce one=s right to the truth and to infor!ationa privacy, thus safeguarding the constitutiona guarantees of a person=s right to ife, i"erty and security against a"use in this age of infor!ation technoogy. It "ears reiteration that i$e the writ of a!paro, ha"eas data was conceived as a response, given the ac$ of effective and avaia"e re!edies, to address the e*r&&ct&o' o-er *c) co'cer' & &'r(*b+ +o(e b + &t) t)e NLRC ' t)e Lbor Arb&ter. In another vein, t)ere & 'o )o&'( ro/ t)e ct ree'te t)t et&t&o'er co//&tte ' *'*t&&b+e or *'+*+ -&o+t&o' o reo'e't< r&()t to r&-c -&??-& t)e r&()t to +&e, +&bert or ec*r&t. To argue that petitioners= refusa to discose the contents of reports aegedy received on the threats to respondent=s safety a!ounts to a vioation of her right to privacy is at "est ec*+t&-e. Respondent in fact triviaiKes these threats and accusations fro! un$nown individuas in her earieruoted portion of her uy 9/, //0 etter as >highy suspicious, dou"tfu or are Fust !ere  Fo$es if they e 90 +nd she even suspects that her transfer to another pace of wor$ >"etrayAsB the rea intent of !anage!entB> and coud "e a >punitive !ove.> 4er posture unwittingy concedes that the issue is a"orreated. 74ERE@ORE, the petition & GRANTE!. The assaied Septe!"er , //0 !ec&&o' o t)e $*+c' RTC, $r'c) 7 &' "P. Proc. No. 21@?M?2008 & )ereb REER"E! ' "ET A"I!E . SP. Proc. No. 9;#//0 is, accordingy, DIS#ISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 18@5@@

"ete/ber 25, 2012

IN TBE MATTER O TBE PETITION OR TBE DRIT O AMPARO AN! TBE DRIT O BA$EA" !ATA IN AOR O RANCI" "AE%, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. BERMOGENE" E"PERON, P!IR. GEN. AELINO RA%ON, 22N! MICO, CAPT. LADRENCE $ANAAG, "GT. CA"TILLO, CAPT. ROMMEL G#TIERRE%, CAPT. >AFE O$LIGA!O, CPL. ROMAN ITO #INT ANA, PT. >ERICO !##IL, CPL. ARIEL ONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCA Y!O, A CERTAIN IR"T "ERGEANT, PT. %AL!Y O"+O, A CERTAIN PC. "ONNY, A CERTAIN CPL. >AME", A CERTAIN >OEL, RO!ERICF CLAN%A ' >EREY GOME%, Respondents. @or action "y the Court is the #otion for Reconsideration 9 dated Septe!"er H, /9/ fied "y petitioner  @rancis SaeK of our Resoution  dated +ugust ;9, /9/ denying the Petition for Review ; he fied on uy 9, //0. The Office of the Soicitor 'enera )OS'* fied its Co!!ent - thereon stating that it does not find cogent grounds to warrant setting aside our decision.  +ntecedent @acts On #arch H, //0, the petitioner fied with the Court a petition to "e granted the priviege of the writs of  a!paro and ha"eas data with prayers for te!porary protection order, inspection of pace and production of docu!ents.:In the petition, he eCapt. +caydo,> >a certain @irst Sergeant,> >Cp. a!es,> >Pfc. Sonny,> and >oe> were insufficient to propery identify so!e of the persons sought to "e incuded as a!ong the respondents in the petition. On the other hand, respondents 'enera 4er!ogenes Esperon, r. )'en. Esperon*, Capt. aco" Thaddeus O"igado, Pvt. RiKady +. Osio )Pvt. Osio*, Pfc. Ro!anito C. Muintana, r. and Pfc. erico Duui su"!itted their affidavits. T)e CA co'*cte )er&'( &t) ' &'te't to c+r& )t ct*++ tr'&re ' to eter/&'e ec&&c ct )&c) t)rete'e t)e et&t&o'er< r&()t to +&e, +&bert or ec*r&t. During the hearings, the petitioner narrated that starting +pri 9H, //J, he noticed that he was aways "eing foowed "y a certain >oe,> a for!er coeague at 1ayan #una. >oe> pretended pedding pandesa in the vicinity of the petitioner=s store. Three days "efore the petitioner was apprehended, >oe> approached and infor!ed hi! of his !arita status and current Fo" as a "a$er in Caapan, #indoro Orienta. >oe> inuired if the petitioner was sti invoved with +N+6P+7IS. 7hen as$ed "y the C+ Fustices during the hearing if the petitioner had gone ho!e to Caapan after having fied the petition, he answered in the negative e
herein prayed for shoud "e considered as eto order respondents to produce any docu!ents su"!itted to any of the! in the !atter of any report on the case of @R+NCIS S+E, incuding a !iitary inteigence reports.> <<<< 1oth the rues on the writs of +!paro and 4a"eas Data )Section 9J, +.#. No. /J9SC and Section 9H, +.#. No. /099HSC* provide that the parties sha esta"ish their cai!s "y su"stantia evidence. Not ony was petitioner una"e to esta"ish his entite!ent to the priviege of the writs appied for, the eSetted is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actua incu!"ency, !ay not "e sued in any civi or cri!ina case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or aw. It wi degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the 4ead of State, if he can "e dragged into court itigations whie serving as such. @urther!ore, it is i!portant that he "e freed fro! any for! of  harass!ent, hindrance or distraction to ena"e hi! to fuy attend to the perfor!ance of his officia duties and functions. < < <.> <<<< I. The petition ac$s proper verification in vioation of Section 9, //- Rues on Notaria Practice. 0 On uy 9, //0, Petition for Review was fied assaiing the foregoing C+ decision with the foowing issues su"!itted for resoution2 74ET4ER OR NOT T4E C+ CO##ITTED REERSI1(E ERROR IN DIS#ISSIN' T4E PETITION  +ND DROPPIN' '(ORI+ #+C+P+'+( +RRO5O +S P+RT5 RESPONDENT. 74ET4ER OR NOT T4E NOT+RI+( O@@ICER=S O#ISSION O@ REM3IRIN' @RO# T4E PETITIONER IDENTI@IC+TION C+RDS RE(+TIE TO T4E (+TTER=S EEC3TION O@ T4E ERI@IC+TION +ND CERTI@IC+TION O@ NON@OR3# S4OPPIN' 3STI@IES T4E DENI+( O@ T4E PETITION. 74ET4ER OR NOT T4E C+ CO##ITTED 'ROSS +13SE O@ DISCRETION 74EN IT @+I(ED TO CONC(3DE @RO# T4E EIDENCE O@@ERED 15 T4E PETITIONER T4E @+CT T4+T 15 1EIN' P(+CED IN T4E ORDER O@ 1+TT(E (IST, T4RE+TS +ND IO(+TIONS TO T4E (+TTER=S (I@E, (I1ERT5 +ND SEC3RIT5 7ERE +CT3+((5 CO##ITTED 15 T4E RESPONDENTS.  Court=s Resoution dated +ugust ;9, /9/ On +ugust ;9, /9/, the Court issued the Resoution 9/ denying the petition for review for the foowing reasons, viK2

 + carefu perusa of the su"Fect petition shows that the C+ correcty found that the petition was "ereft of  any aegation as to what particuar acts or o!ission of respondents vioated or threatened petitioner=s right to ife, i"erty and security. B& c+&/ t)t )e  &'co//*'&co +c3 cre&b&+&t  as he was given a ceuar phone and aowed to go "ac$ to Orienta #indoro. The C+ aso correcty hed that petitioner faied to present su"stantia evidence that his right to ife, i"erty and security were vioated, or  how his right to privacy was threatened "y respondents. 4e did not specify the particuar docu!ents to "e secured, their ocation or what particuar govern!ent office had custody thereof, and who has possession or contro of the sa!e. 4e !erey prayed that the respondents "e ordered >to produce any docu!ents su"!itted to any of the! in the !atter of any report on the case of @R+NCIS S+E, incuding a !iitary inteigence reports.> Petitioner assais the C+ in faiing to appreciate that in his +ffidavit and @act Sheet, he had specificay detaied the vioation of his ri ght to privacy as he was paced in the Order of 1atte and pro!ised to have his record ceared if he woud cooperate and "eco!e a !iitary asset. 4owever, despite uestions propounded "y the C+ +ssociate ustices during the hearing, he sti faied to enighten the appeate court as to what actuay transpired to ena"e said court to deter!ine whether his right to ife, i"erty or  security had actuay "een vioated or threatened. Records "ear out the unsu"stantiated cai!s of  petitioner which Fustified the appeate court=s dis!issa of the petition.  +s to petitioner=s argu!ent that the C+ erred in deeting the President as partyrespondent, we find the sa!e aso to "e without !erit. The Court has aready !ade it cear in !-& -. Mc(+?Arroo t)t t)e Pre&e't, *r&'( )& or )er te'*re o o&ce or ct*+ &'c*/be'c, / 'ot be *e &' ' c&-&+ or cr&/&'+ ce, ' t)ere & 'o 'ee to ro-&e or &t &' t)e Co't&t*t&o' or +. It &++ e(re t)e &('&t o t)e )&() o&ce o t)e Pre&e't, t)e Be o "tte, & t)e Pre&e't c' be r((e &'to co*rt +&t&(t&o' )&+e er-&'(  *c) . @urther!ore, it is i!portant that the President "e freed fro! any for! of harass!ent, hindrance or distraction to ena"e the President to fuy attend to the perfor!ance of officia duties and functions. 99 )Citation o!itted* 4ence, the petitioner fied the instant !otion for reconsideration. 9 Petitioner’s Arguments Contrary to the C+=s findings, it had "een shown "y su"stantia evidence and even "y the respondents= own ad!issions that the petitioner=s ife, i"erty and security were threatened. #iitary personne, who! the petitioner had na!ed and descri"ed, $new where to get hi! and they can do so with ease. 4e aso "eca!e a !iitary asset, "ut under duress, as the respondents had docu!ents aegedy in$ing hi! to the CPP and incuding hi! in the order of "atte. The petitioner cai!s that the foregoing circu!stances were not denied "y the respondents. The petitioner i$ewise chaenges the C+=s finding that he was not rendered inco!!unicado as he was even provided with a ceuar phone. The petitioner argues that the phone  o'+ (&-e' to )&/ for  the purpose of co!!unicating with the respondents !atters reative to his infitration activities of target ega organiKations. The petitioner cites Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,9; which pronounced that >in the a!paro conte.9- +ccording to the petitioner, his freedo! fro! fear was undou"tedy vioated, hence, to hi! pertains a cause of action. +nent the uantu! of proof reuired in a petition for the issuance of the writ of a!paro, !ere su"stantia evidence is sufficient. The petition >is not an action to deter!ine cri!ina guit reuiring proof "eyond reasona"e dou"t, or ia"iity for da!ages reuiring preponderance of  evidence, or ad!inistrative responsi"iity reuiring su"stantia evidence that wi reuire fu and e.9: Sady, in the petitioner=s case, the court not ony de!anded a greater uantu! of proof than what the rues reuire, "ut it aso accorded specia preference for the respondents= evidence. The petitioner also cites a speech delivered  in Siliman Universit ! former "hief Justice #enato Puno who ethe re!edy of ha"eas data can "e used "y any citiKen against any govern!enta agency or register to find out what infor!ation is hed a"out his or her person.> The person can i$ewise >reuest the rectification or even the destruction of erroneous data gathered and $ept against hi! or her.> In the petitioner=s case, he specificay sought the production of the order of  "atte, which aegedy incuded his na!e, and other records which supposedy contain erroneous data reative to his invove!ent with the CPP. OS'=s Co!!ent In the respondents= co!!ent 9H fied "y the OS', it is generay cai!ed that the petitioner advances no cogent grounds to Fustify the reversa of the Court=s Resoution dated +ugust ;9, /9/. The Court=s Disuisition

7hie 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 Reo+*t&o' te A*(*t @1, 2010. The petition reuire!ents of 7rits of +!paro and 4a"eas Data

confor!s the

to Rues

on

the the

Section :9J of +.#. No. /J9SC )Rue on the 7rit of +!paro* and Section H 90 of +.#. /099HSC )Rue on the 7rit of 4a"eas Data* provide for what the said petitions shoud contain. I' t)e ree't ce, 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 aegations reative to his persona circu!stances and those of the respondents. The petitioner i$ewise indicated particuar acts, which are aegedy vioative of his rights and the participation of so!e of the respondents in their co!!ission. +s to the prereuisite conduct and resut of an investigation prior to the fiing of the petition, it was e
evidence

e
to

The Court has rued that in view of the recognition of the evidentiary difficuties attendant to the fiing of  a petition for the priviege of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data, not ony direct evidence, "ut circu!stantia evidence, indicia, and presu!ptions !ay "e considered, so ong as they ead to concusions 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 *bt't&+ e-&e'ce e&t to co/e+ t)e (r't o t)e re+&e re 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 cai!ed that >oe> once inuired fro! the petitioner if the atter was sti invoved with +N+6P+7IS. 1y itsef, such cai! 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 peadings, nowhere stated that su"seuent to the ti!e he was as$ed a"out his invove!ent with +N+6P+7IS, he sti noticed >oe> conducting surveiance operations on hi!. 4e aeged that he was "rought to the ca!p of  the /-th Infantry 1rigade in NauFan, Orienta #indoro "ut was sent ho!e at :2// p.!. The petitioner  and the respondents have conficting cai!s a"out what transpired thereafter. The petitioner insisted that he was "rought against his wi and was as$ed to stay "y the respondents in paces under the atter=s contro. The respondents, on the other hand, averred that it was the petitioner who vountariy offered his service to "e a !iitary asset, "ut was reFected as the for!er sti dou"ted his !otives and affiiations. Section 9 of "oth the Rues on the 7rit of +!paro and 4a"eas Data is efreedo! 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 !ainy anchored on the aeged threats against

his ife, i"erty and security "y reason of his incusion in the !iitary=s order of "atte, the surveiance and !onitoring activities !ade on hi!, and the inti!idation edoes not have $nowedge a"out any +r!ed @orces of the Phiippines )+@P* order  of "atte= which aegedy ists the petitioner as a !e!"er of the CPP.> - This was aso denied "y Pvt. Osio, who the petitioner identified as the one who tod hi! that he was incuded in the order of  "atte.: The nd Infantry )unge @ighter* Division of the Phiippine +r!y aso conducted an investigation pursuant to the directive of +@P Chief of Staff 'en. Esperon, H and it was shown that the persons identified "y the petitioners who aegedy co!!itted the acts co!pained of were not connected or assigned to the nd Infantry Division. J #oreover, the evidence showed that the petitioner=s !o"iity was never curtaied. @ro! the ti!e he was aegedy "rought to 1atangas in +ugust of //J unti the ti!e he sought the assistance of  6+R+P+T+NST, there was no restraint upon the petitioner to go ho!e, as in fact, he went ho!e to #indoro on severa instances. +nd whie he !ay have "een wary of Pvt. Osio=s presence at the pier, there was no cai! "y the petitioner that he was threatened or prevented "y Pvt. Osio fro! "oarding any vehice that !ay transport hi! "ac$ ho!e. The petitioner aso ad!itted that he had a !o"ie phoneG hence, he had unha!pered access to co!!unication and can readiy see$ assistance fro! non govern!enta organiKations and even govern!ent agencies. The respondents aso "eied the petitioner=s cai! that they forced hi! to "eco!e a !iitary infor!ant and instead, aeged that it was the petitioner who vounteered to "e one. Thus, in his Sinu!paang Saaysay0e!onitoring> activities "eing conducted "y a certain >oe>, e.g., the atter=s aeged act of foowing hi!, pretending to pedde pandesa and as$ing hi! a"out his persona circu!stances. Such aegation "y the petitioner, however, is, at "est, a concusion on his part, a !ere i!pression that the petitioner had, "ased on his persona assess!ent of the circu!stances. The petitioner even ad!itted in his testi!ony "efore the C+ that when he had a conversation with >oe> so!eti!e in uy //J, the atter !erey as$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 ceary nothing on record which shows that >oe> co!!itted overt acts that wi uneuivocay ead to the concusion arrived at "y the petitioner, especiay since the aeged 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 ree'te b t)e et&t&o'er &+e to *ort )& c+&/, t)e re+&e re or, t)ereore, c''ot be (r'te . The i"eraity accorded to a!paro and ha"eas data cases does not !ean that a cai!ant is dispensed with the onus of proving his case. >Indeed, even the i"era standard of su"stantia evidence de!ands so!e adeuate evidence.> ;/ The President cannot "e auto!aticay dropped as a respondent pursuant to the doctrine of co!!and responsi"iity In Norie RodrigueK v. 'oria #acapaga +rroyo, et a., ;9 the Court stated2 a. Co!!and responsi"iity of the President

4aving esta"ished the appica"iity of the doctrine of co!!and responsi"iity in a!paro proceedings, it !ust now "e resoved whether the president, as co!!anderinchief of the !iitary, can "e hed responsi"e or accounta"e for e
affidavits reuired under Section :)c* of the Rue on the 7rit of +!paro were not su"!itted together  with the petition and it was rued that the defect was fuy cured when the petitioner and the witness personay testified to prove the truth of their aegations in the hearings hed "efore the C+. In the instant case, the defective verification was not the soe reason for the C+=s denia of the petition for the issuance of the writs of a!paro and ha"eas data. Nonetheess, it !ust "e stressed that athough rues of procedure pay an i!portant rue in effectivey ad!inistering Fustice, pri!acy shoud not "e accorded to the! especiay in the instant case where there was at east su"stantia co!piance with the reuire!ents and where petitioner hi!sef testified in the hearings to attest to the veracity of the cai!s which he stated in his petition. To concude, co!piance with technica rues of procedure is idea "ut it cannot "e accorded pri!acy. In the proceedings "efore the C+, the petitioner hi!sef testified to prove the veracity of his aegations 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'&ert&o' & !ENIE! DITB INALITY. SO ORDERED.