THE Court of Appeals has dismissed the petition of ZTE scam whistleblower Joey de Venecia III that sought a writ of habeas data and to restrain the military and the National Police from tapping his telephone conversations.
De Venecia, son of former House Speaker Jose de Venecia, failed to prove his right to privacy was violated or threatened by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, former Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., and military and police officials, whom he accused of tapping his phone conversations without authorization, the court said in a decision written by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa.
De Venecia had claimed before the Senate that the government’s $320-million broadband deal with ZTE Corp. of China had been padded. His company was a losing bidder in the deal, which was later scrapped following corruption allegations.
The appellate court also denied De Venecia’s petition to reopen the case last November.
“The application of issuance of habeas data cannot be granted as prayed for. The petition is dismissed. The privilege of writ of habeas data is denied,” the court said.
“Considering the circumstances under which respondent Enrile supposedly confronted petitioner [De Venecia] with purported statements and conversations that the latter had over the telephone—implying that the said conversations were tapped and recorded and that Enrile had them in his possession—we find acceptable Enrile’s justification for claiming possession of the recording.”
The appellate said Enrile was merely feigning possession of contradicting evidence to determine Joey’s credibility as a witness.
“What he was doing was probably a dramatization of a pretense to inquire into the truthfulness of petitioner’s claims. . . Absent any proof other than respondent Enrile’s admission of possession of the tape recording of supposedly wiretapped conversations, we are not inclined to uphold petitioner’s allegation against Enrile,” the court said.
It said De Venecia “failed to prove by substantial evidence the manner by which his right to privacy is violated or threatened by respondents,” and “how it affects his right to life, liberty or security.”