Ang Writ of Amparo, Habeas Data at Habeas Corpus

Hinggil sa Karapatan ng Bawat Tao

ANG WRIT OF AMPARO, HABEAS DATA AT HABEAS CORPUS

Nagsasaliksik ako hinggil sa writ of amparo upang isulat na artikulo sa dalawang pahayagang aking pinagsusulatan nang makita ko sa internet yung writ of habeas data. Kaya imbes na writ of amparo lamang ang aking talakayin, tatalakayin ko na rin yung dalawa pa, writ of habeas corpus at writ of habeas data. Ang mga nasaliksik ko’y nais kong ibahagi sa inyo, at baka may mangailangan ay alam natin ang ating mga karapatan. Kung may mga komento o mungkahi, pakipadala lamang. Maraming salamat. - greg

Sa writ of habeas corpus, karaniwang ang mga kamag-anak ng mga desaparecido (o mga dinukot o sapilitang nangawala) ay nagpe-petisyon para sa habeas corpus upang pilitin ang estado na ilabas ang mga taong pinaniniwalaang biktima ng sapilitang pagkawala.

Sa writ of amparo, mapupwersa ang mga ahente ng estado na hanapin ang nawawalang tao. At kung malalaman ng korte na ang mga opisyal ay hindi nagsikap na hanapin ang nawawalang tao, ang mga opisyal na ito’y mananagot. Ito ay ayon kay dating Chief Justice Panganiban.

Sa writ of habeas data naman, ito’y konstitusyonal na karapatan ng bawat tao, at ang mga mga nagsakdal o nagdemanda sa isang korte ay maprotektahan ang lahat ng detalye sa kanyang pagkatao, malaman kung sinu-sino ang may access sa kanyang personal na rekord, at magprotesta laban sa sinumang nag-iingat ng pribadong detalye ng kanyang buhay. (Habeas Data can be brought up by any citizen against any manual or automated data register to find out what information is held about his or her person. That person can request the rectification, actualisation or even the destruction of the personal data held. The legal nature of the individual complaint of Habeas Data is that of voluntary jurisdiction, this means that the person whose privacy is being compromised can be the only one to present it. The Courts do not have any power to initiate the process by themselves.)
Ito ang aking mga nasaliksik sa google:

WRIT OF AMPARO

The writ of amparo is an order issued by a court to protect the constitutional rights of a person. The word "amparo" comes from the Spanish verb "amparar," meaning "to protect."

Former Supreme Court chief justice Artemio Panganiban said in an interview that the writ of amparo has been used in totalitarian countries to protect the rights of victims of disappearances.
In the Philippines , relatives of missing persons usually file a petition for habeas corpus to compel the state to produce persons thought to be victims of forced disappearances.

But Chief Justice Reynato Puno said recently that petitions for habeas corpus usually end up with state agents simply denying they had the missing person in their custody.

Panganiban explained that the writ of amparo would compel state agents to look for the missing person. And if the court were to find that the officials did not exert enough effort in finding the person, it could hold them liable, Panganiban added.

The writ of amparo, however, has not yet been enforced in the country. But Panganiban said it was authorized by the 1987 Constitution when it allowed the Supreme Court to promulgate rules to protect constitutional rights.

The writ of amparo was first instituted in Mexico in 1847. It is recognized in some South American countries and some American states.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

The literal translation from Latin of Habeas Data is “you should have the data”. Habeas Data is a constitutional right granted in several countries in Latin-America. It shows variations from country to country, but in general, it is designed to protect, by means of an individual complaint presented to a constitutional court, the image, privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person.

Habeas Data can be brought up by any citizen against any manual or automated data register to find out what information is held about his or her person. That person can request the rectification, actualisation or even the destruction of the personal data held. The legal nature of the individual complaint of Habeas Data is that of voluntary jurisdiction, this means that the person whose privacy is being compromised can be the only one to present it. The Courts do not have any power to initiate the process by themselves.

History

Habeas Data is an individual complaint before a Constitutional Court. The first such complaint is the Habeas Corpus (which is roughly translated as “you should have the body”). Other individual complaints include the writ of mandamus (USA), amparo (Spain and Mexico), and respondeat superior (Taiwan).

The Habeas Data writ itself has a very short history, but its origins can be traced to certain European legal mechanisms that protected individual privacy. This cannot come as a surprise, as Europe is the birthplace of the modern Data Protection. In particular, certain German constitutional rights can be identified as the direct progenitors of the Habeas Data right. In particular, the right to information self-determination was created by the German Constitutional Tribunal by interpretation of the existing rights of human dignity and personality. This is a right to know what type of data are stored on manual and automatic databases about an individual, and it implies that there must be transparency on the gathering and processing of such data. The other direct predecessor of the Habeas Data right is the Council of Europe’s 108th Convention on Data Protection of 1981. The purpose of the convention is to secure the privacy of the individual regarding the automated processing of personal data. To achieve this, several rights are given to the individual, including a right to access their personal data held in an automated database.[1]
The first country to implement Habeas Data was the Federal Republic of Brazil. In 1988, the Brazilian legislature voted a new Constitution, which included a novel right never seen before: the Habeas Data individual complaint. It is expressed as a full constitutional right under article 5, LXXI, Title II, of the Constitution.

Following the Brazilian example, Colombia incorporated the Habeas Data right to its new Constitution in 1991. After that, many countries followed suit and adopted the new legal tool in their respective constitutions: Paraguay in 1992, Peru in 1993, Argentina in 1994, and Ecuador in 1996[2]

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, so that the court can determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."2

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. When the United States declared independence and became a constitutional republic in which the people are the sovereign, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority, so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. In this they differ from a motion in a civil process in which the burden of proof is on the movant, and in which there can be an issue of standing.