MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has directed the government to justify the inclusion of a lawmaker in its “narcolist” as it refuses to accept the government’s argument hook, line, and sinker that providing records of drug war investigations would violate national security.
In a 42-page ruling, the CA’s Former Special Eight Division has ordered law enforcement agencies to produce all information regarding Leyte Rep. Vicente “Ching” Veloso, who has been named in the government’s list of politicians purportedly involved in the illegal drug trade.
The appeals court’s recent order reverses its earlier decision remanding the petition to the Office of the Ombudsman where an administrative complaint on Veloso’s supposed links to the illicit drug business is pending.
“We hereby order the respondents to submit directly to the Court all information, data, documents and records that they collected, stored, and processed pertaining to the person of the petitioner, in connection with the investigation or operation that they conducted that led to his inclusion in the 14 March 2019 narco list,” the CA said.
“If the Court finds any or all of the information, data, documents, and records to be privileged or qualified within the precepts of the above-discussion, then…these data and information shall remain privileged,” it added.
Veloso’s name was dropped as part of the narcolist that was made public by President Rodrigo Duterte in March 2019, during the Joint National Peace and Order Council (NPOC)-Regional Peace Order Council (RPOC) Clusters Meeting and PNP-Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) command conference in Davao City.
Veloso then filed a writ of habeas data before the Supreme Court, seeking the “rectification, suppression or destruction of the database, information or files kept by law enforcement agencies” that identified him as a “narco-politician.”
A writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security has been violated or under threat by the unlawful gathering of information about the person, his or her family, and home.
Government authorities told the CA that as early as August 2016, prior to the complaint against Veloso before the Ombudsman, they already had a list of politicians involved in the illegal drug trade. The list that included Veloso, they said, has been subjected to verification and validation. But Veloso argued he was not given an opportunity to refute the government information.
“The Court holds that the inclusion of the petitioner in the watch-list, the subsequent ‘validation’ made by the respondent agencies, and his inclusion in the 14 March 2019 narcolist relates and pertains to information involving his private life,” the CA said.
It added that “the collection and storing of data during the ‘validation’ period and its use in the creation of the 14 March 2019 narcolist, to the Court, constitutes an interference in the petitioner’s right to informational privacy.”
The appeals court further noted that even the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman does not include the said information from government authorities.
In refusing to share its gathered information, the government cited national security.
But the appeals court pointed out that government authorities failed to demonstrate how information about Veloso can badly affect the country’s territorial integrity, national sovereignty, independence, or foreign relations.
“Our Constitution and its principles of popular sovereignty do not imagine a State absolutely devoid of secrets and privileges. But the very same Constitution provides that this privilege be rationally checked and, if necessary, for the rule of law to prosper, lifted, in appropriate cases.”
“That a man may be denied his rights at the mere whim of the government, is anathema to democracy, if the ideal that indeed freedom prevails in our land is to be upheld. Denying judicial relief based on the mere assertion that the matter involves national security and state secrets, permits if not encourages, state agents to ignore legal norms since they expect to be free from accountability for their conduct,” the appeals court added.
The government has 15 days to comply with the CA’s order that was penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
KGA
RELATED STORIES
Veloso slams inclusion in ‘narcolist,’ says it’s politically motivated
SC orders gov’t to explain why Leyte Rep. Veloso is on narcolist