The Court of Appeals (CA) has junked the petition filed by the Alliance of Concerned Teachers seeking to declare as unconstitutional the memoranda issued by various units of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to conduct the profiling of ACT members and affiliates in public schools.
In a four-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Nina Antonio-Valenzuela, the CA’s Eleventh Division junked the petition on the ground of technicalities, citing the failure of the group to comply with the requirement under Rule 65, Section 2 in relation to Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
Specifically, the CA said the petitioner failed to submit certified true copies of the assailed memoranda issued by the PNP’s intelligence units.
The rule requires that a petition should be “accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.”
Furthermore, the CA pointed out that the ACT through its National Chairman Joselyn Martirez and Secretary-General Raymond Basilio did not state material dates in their petition, specifically the dates when the petitioners received the various assailed PNP memoranda.
The petition also failed to include the “current date of issuance of the IBP membership number of the petitioners’ counsel” and “the current date of issuance of the Professional Tax Number of the petitioners’ counsel” in violation to Bar Matter 287 dated September 26, 2000, and Bar Matter Number 1132 dated November 12, 2002, respectively.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ricardo Rosario and Perpetua Atal-Pano.
In its petition, the group named respondents in the complaint were PNP chief Director General Oscar D. Albayalde, PNP Intelligence Division chief Gregorio Pimentel, Interior Secretary Eduardo M. Año, PNP-National Capital Region Police Office chief Director General Guillermo Eleazar and 12 other police officials in various regional officers of the PNP.
The group said it filed the petition after receiving reports of profiling of its members by the PNP of its members from Negros, Baguio, Cebu and Davao late last year.
The group insisted that there is no legal basis for the PNP to conduct profiling of its members since their militant orientation and affinity with progressive groups do not constitute acts that are illegal.
The profiling, according to the petitioner, might dissuade both current and prospective members to withdraw membership or join for fear of breaches in their privacy and other rights.
The petitioners claimed that the illegal acts of the respondents has already sent a chilling effect on its members as some of its chapter-members have already expressed their fears of being publicly known as ACT members.
The petitioner said the profiling violates the Data Privacy Act considering its members have not given their consent to the gathering or processing of any information related to them.