EN BANC
[G.R. No. 212174. August 19, 2014.]
SANDRA CAM, petitioner, vs. "SIR NOY," ASSISTANT SECRETARY ALEX G. ALMARIO, MARLON ADIGUE MAHILUM (DRIVER), JOHN DOE AND RICHARD DOE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated AUGUST 19, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212174 — Sandra Cam, petitioner, vs. "Sir Noy," Assistant Secretary Alex G. Almario, Marlon Adigue Mahilum (Driver), John Doe and Richard Doe, respondents.
RESOLUTION
This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data filed by petitioner Sandra Cam (petitioner).
Petitioner alleged that from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014, a white Toyota Innova and black pick-up without plate numbers (subject vehicles) conducted surveillance around Nazareth Institute of Alfonso which is a school managed by petitioner and where she resides temporarily; that on April 30, 2014, respondent Alex G. Almario (respondent Almario), an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Agrarian Reform, went to Nazareth Institute of Alfonso and left his calling card; that respondent Almario claimed to be an "unofficial representative" and requested to talk with petitioner about an alleged "List" containing the names of Cabinet officials and legislators involved in the alleged pork barrel scam; that from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014, the subject vehicles along with other vehicles were seen suspiciously roaming around the school's premises; that the subject vehicles parked in the same spot where the closed circuit television (cctv) could not capture their images; that petitioner reported the menacing vehicular movements by phone to Archbishop Oscar Cruz, Melchor Magdamo, and many others; and that the foregoing incidents were reported to the police on May 3, 2014, and is contained in a police blotter.
Petitioner prayed that a Writ of Habeas Data be issued; that respondents be ordered to cease and desist from conducting reconnaissance and/or surveillance activities in or around the private residence of petitioner; and that respondent Almario be ordered to explain why he made numerous attempts to personally talk with petitioner from April 30, 2014 to May 3, 2014.
On June 3, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution 1 requiring respondents to comment on the subject Petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
On July 7, 2014, respondents, through the Solicitor General, submitted their Comment 2 which they contend that: (1) the President is immune from suit, (2) the Petition is fatally defective for failure to allege the actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information, and (3) petitioner failed to allege how her right to privacy was violated or threatened, and how such affected her right to life, liberty or security.
The Court notes that respondent Almario failed to adequately comment on the allegations in the subject Petition relative to his participation in the alleged menacing surveillance activities and his repeated request for a face-to-face meeting with petitioner. 3cCTIaS
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court DIRECTS respondent Almario to comment on the subject Petition within ten (10) days from notice hereof." Villarama, Jr., J., on leave. (adv30)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 35.
2. Id. at 36-44.
3. See pages 8 to 9 of subject Petition, rollo, pp. 10-11.