Solidarity in the time of COVID-19 -- MS Supplement
Advertisement

Espionage raps vs Comelec junked

The Supreme Court   on Tuesday   dismissed a petition   filed by Automated Election System Watch against the alleged spying by the Commission on Elections on its critics like AES using a P30-million intelligence fund.

At the resumption of its en banc session after a month-long break, the SC resolved to deny the writ of habeas data petition filed by former Comelec Commissioner Augusto “Gus” Lagman, UP law professor Harry   Roque Jr. and whistleblower Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada Jr. in July 2013   seeking to stop the poll body’s alleged surveillance operations   against them.   

The high court affirmed a decision of the   Court of Appeals in September last year and last February, which did not find basis for the issuance of   the writ.   Habeas data is an extraordinary relief issued to protect the image,   privacy and freedom of information of a person, which can be used to find out what information is being held about a citizen.   

In rejecting the relief sought by the petitioners, the SC disagreed with their assertion that   threat alone would suffice for the writ   even in the absence of specific overt acts.   

“The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy 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 the case at bench, however, there has been no showing that respondents collected information through unlawful means for an unlawful purpose,” the SC ruled.   

The tribunal also sustained the Comelec’s use of intelligence funds, which   was also questioned by petitioners.   

“The Comelec was given intelligence funds for the purpose of gathering   information on suspected election saboteurs, with the objective of filing the necessary cases should the facts warrant the same,” the SC stressed.   

Petitioners had alleged that the poll body was conducting surveillance   operations against them and other vocal critics of the AES.

They alleged that the “illegally-gathered information are being used   to prosecute critics of the PCOS (precinct count optical scan)   automated elections technology suite for election sabotage and otherapplicable offenses or crimes.”

The petitioners also questioned the legality of Comelec’s use of intelligence   fund, saying it is unconstitutional because it stems from a misalignment of public funds by the Office of the President to asupposedly independent constitutional commission, and that it also   violates the right of citizens to free expression and the right to   privacy.   

Named respondents in the case were former Comelec chairman Sixto   Brillantes Jr. and commissioners Lucenito Tagle, Elias Yusoph,   Christian Robert Lim, Luie Tito Guia, Grace Padaca, Al Parreño,Comelec finance director Dulay Mejos, Executive Secretary Paquito   Ochoa Jr., and deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte.

Petitioners cited as basis of their petition the reported “warning” of   Chairman Brillantes that supposedly hints that AES Watch members were being held under surveillance.

Topics: Supreme Court , Automated Election System Watch , Espionage raps , Comelec
COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by Manila Standard. Comments are views by manilastandard.net readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of manilastandard.net. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with Manila Standard editorial standards, Manila Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.
AdvertisementGMA-Working Pillars of the House
Advertisement