Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Special Proceedings: Habeas Data

Vivares vs St. Theresas College(Huwag magpost ng pictures sa FB
na nakaksira ng image mo lalo ng estudyante ka pa lang)
What is Habeas Data?
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. It is an independent and summary remedy
designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of
an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to
informational privacy. It seeks to protect a persons right to control information regarding
oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being collected through
unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.

What does engage mean?

Meaning of "engaged" in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information

Respondents contention that the habeas data writ may not issue against STC, it not
being an entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party, while
valid to a point, is, nonetheless, erroneous.

To be sure, nothing in the Rule would suggest that the habeas data protection shall be
available only against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the business of gathering,
storing, and collecting of data. As provided under Section 1 of the Rule:

Section 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (emphasis Ours)

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

The provision, when taken in its proper context, as a whole, irresistibly conveys the idea
that habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and
of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about
the aggrieved party and his or her correspondences, or about his or her family. Such
individual or entity need not be in the business of collecting or storing data.

To "engage" in something is different from undertaking a business endeavour. To

"engage" means "to do or take part in something."19 It does not necessarily mean that
the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or
entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the
aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the element of
regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal
endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will
not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity.

Purpose of the writ.

to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age.

A petition for a writ of Habeas Data will not prosper

The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access
to information about a person. Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on
the other.14 Thus, the existence of a persons right to informational privacy and a
showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right
to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are indispensable before the privilege of
the writ may be extended.

Who may file?

Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the
fourth civil degreeof consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph.
2

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Lee vs Ilagan(Sinabi ko bang ikakalat ko iyong sex video mo?!

Bakit mo ako binugbog, safety precaution lang eh)
What is the right to informational privacy?
is defined as the right to control the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of
data about oneself.
In order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas Data
Rule essentially requires that the petition sufficiently alleges, among others, [t]he
manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party. In other words, the petition must adequately
show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the
right to life, liberty or security on the other . Corollarily, the allegations in the petition must
be supported by substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In this relation, it bears pointing out
that the writ of habeas data will not issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague
and doubtful.
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his right to
privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated through the supposed
reproduction and threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. While Ilagan
purports a privacy interest in the suppression of this video which he fears would
somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption
he failed to explain the connection between such interest and any violation of his right to
life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive versions of possible
transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, alleging and
eventually proving the nexus between ones privacy right to the cogent rights to life,
liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either
account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.

Opel vs Torres(Masyadong detailed na National ID System subject

to abuse)
Rights to Privacy enshrined in the Constitution and in Civil Law.
Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized
and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. 33 It is expressly recognized in
section 3 (1) of the Bill of Rights:

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.

Other facets of the right to privacy are protectad in various provisions of the Bill of
Rights, viz: 34

Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code
provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts
by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. 35 It also holds a public
officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the
rights and liberties of another person, 36 and recognizes the privacy of letters and other
private communications. 37 The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of
secrets by an officer, 38 the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, 39 and trespass to
dwelling. 40 Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping
Law, 41 the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act 42 and the Intellectual Property Code. 43 The
Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain
information.
Ruling:
We can even grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the name,
address and other basic personal information about the individual. Even that hospitable
assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from constitutional infirmity for again said order
does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information gathered shall he
handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what
circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the
privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. Well to note, the computer linkage

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

gives other government agencies access to the information. Yet, there are no controls to
guard against leakage of information. When the access code of the control programs of
the particular computer system is broken, an intruder, without fear of sanction or penalty,
can make use of the data for whatever purpose, or worse, manipulate the data stored
within the system.

It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information
which will be gathered about our people will only be processed for unequivocally
specified purposes. 60 The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of A.O. No. 308 may
interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track
down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential
information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for
"fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN,
biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the
individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the
correctness of the data encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights
seeks to prevent.

The ability of sophisticated data center to generate a comprehensive cradle-to-grave

dossier on an individual and transmit it over a national network is one of the most
graphic threats of the computer revolution. The computer is capable of producing a
comprehensive dossier on individuals out of information given at different times and for
varied purposes. It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping the information
up to date. Retrieval of stored date is simple. When information of a privileged character
finds its way into the computer, it can be extracted together with other data on the
subject. Once extracted, the information is putty in the hands of any person. The end of
privacy begins.

Though A.O. No. 308 is undoubtedly not narrowly drawn, the dissenting opinions would
dismiss its danger to the right to privacy as speculative and hypothetical. Again, we
cannot countenance such a laid back posture. The Court will not be true to its role as the
ultimate guardian of the people's liberty if it would not immediately smother the sparks
that endanger their rights but would rather wait for the fire that could consume them.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Duncan and Tecson vs Glaxo Wellcome(Pagmagaasawa ka ng

employee ng competitor,idisclose mo)
The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides that an employee is
expected to inform management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity
or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. If
management perceives a conflict of interest or a potential conflict between such
relationship and the employees employment with the company, the management and
the employee will explore the possibility of a "transfer to another department in a noncounterchecking position" or preparation for employment outside the company after six
months.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially
so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxos employees is reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying
down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the
possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No
less than the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a
policy to protect its right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and
growth.20 Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on
social justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be
decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights
which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.
The challenged company policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution as petitioners erroneously suggest. It is a settled principle that the
commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or those acting
under color of its authority.24 Corollarily, it has been held in a long array of U.S.
Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection clause erects no shield against
merely private conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful.25 The only exception
occurs when the state29 in any of its manifestations or actions has been found to have
become entwined or involved in the wrongful private conduct.27 Obviously, however, the
exception is not present in this case. Significantly, the company actually enforced the
policy after repeated requests to the employee to comply with the policy. Indeed, the
application of the policy was made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with due
regard for the lot of the employee. Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition
against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its
6

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own
choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the
employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships.

Zulueta vs CA(Ang akin ay akin, ang sayo ay sayo,walang

pakialaman kahit hindi ako loyal sa iyo)
Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence [to
be] inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the
drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him
or to her.

Valmonte vs Belmonte( A Public Office is a public trust, full

disclosure is a must, transparency and accountability is expected)
The pertinent provision under the 1987 Constitution is Art. 111, Sec. 7 which states:
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
The right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and
expression. But this is not to say that the right to information is merely an adjunct of and
therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the
press. Far from it. The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional
policies of full public disclosure * and honesty in the public service. ** It is meant to
enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in
checking abuse in government.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. As
stated in Legaspi, the people's right to information is limited to "matters of public
concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law."
Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public
interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.
First of all, the "constituent ministrant" dichotomy characterizing government function
has long been repudiated. In ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions and Government
Corporations and Offices (G.R. Nos. L-21484 and L-23605, November 29, 1969, 30
SCRA 6441, the Court said that the government, whether carrying out its sovereign
attributes or running some business, discharges the same function of service to the
people.
Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution which, though not binding upon
the Court, are nevertheless persuasive, and considering further that government-owned
and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary or governmental functions
are accountable to the people, the Court is convinced that transactions entered into by
the GSIS, a government-controlled corporation created by special legislation are within
the ambit of the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of
transparency in government dealings.

In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents evidencing loans granted by
the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the
manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may
be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may
be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the records may be
insured [Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v. Ozaeta,
80 Phil. 383, 387.] The petition, as to the second and third alternative acts sought to be
done by petitioners, is meritorious.

However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act sought by petitioners, i.e.,
"to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members
belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans
immediately before the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the
then First Lady Imelda Marcos."

Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled
to "access to official records," the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their
desire to acquire information on matters of public concern.

It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus to issue that the applicant
has a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the
imperative duty of defendant to perform the act required. The corresponding duty of the
respondent to perform the required act must be clear and specific [Lemi v. Valencia,
G.R. No. L-20768, November 29,1968,126 SCRA 203; Ocampo v. Subido, G.R. No.
L-28344, August 27, 1976, 72 SCRA 443.] The request of the petitioners fails to meet
this standard, there being no duty on the part of respondent to prepare the list
requested.

Manila Electric Company vs Lim(Huwag masyadong paranoid,they

are only voicing their distaste of you, speculative at best but not
life-threatening)
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint
the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is
meant to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy,
thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and
security against abuse in this age of information technology.
The writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or
commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefore
are vague or doubtful.[16] Employment constitutes a property right under the context of
the due process clause of the Constitution.[17] It is evident that respondents
reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the
terms and conditions of ones employment - are what prompted her to adopt the
extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably
lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
There is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any unjustifiable
or unlawful violation of respondents right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or
security. To argue that petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly
received on the threats to respondents safety amounts to a violation of her right to
privacy is at best speculative. Respondent in fact trivializes these threats and
accusations from unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

letter as highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all.[18] And
she even suspects that her transfer to another place of work betray[s] the real intent of
management] and could be a punitive move. Her posture unwittingly concedes that the
issue is labor-related.

Sabio v. Gordon(State Interest is greater than the right to privacy)

This goes to show that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding
compelling state interest. In Morfe v. Mutuc,51 the Court, in line with Whalen v. Roe,52
employed the rational basis relationship test when it held that there was no infringement
of the individual's right to privacy as the requirement to disclosure information is for a
valid purpose, i.e., to curtail and minimize the opportunities for official corruption,
maintain a standard of honesty in public service, and promote morality in public
administration.53 In Valmonte v. Belmonte,54 the Court remarked that as public figures,
the Members of the former Batasang Pambansa enjoy a more limited right to privacy as
compared to ordinary individuals, and their actions are subject to closer scrutiny. Taking
this into consideration, the Court ruled that the right of the people to access information
on matters of public concern prevails over the right to privacy of financial transactions.

Under the present circumstances, the alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT, PHC and
POTC, ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and
its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital information from the
directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporations, as well as from Chairman
Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the necessary legislation to prevent
corruption and formulate remedial measures and policy determination regarding PCGG's
efficacy. There being no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of those directors
and officers over the subject covered by Senate Res. No. 455, it follows that their right to
privacy has not been violated by respondent Senate Committees.

Gamboa vs Chan(Sharing of intelligence to the Commission is okay

but sharing must be strictly confidential)
This Court holds that Gamboa was able to sufficiently establish that the data contained
in the Report listing her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP. Contrary to the ruling of
the trial court, however, the forwarding of information by the PNP to the Zearosa
Commission was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in
life, liberty or security.

10

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with
the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these
notorious groups. Moreover, the Zearosa Commission was explicitly authorized to
deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the formers mandate, and thus had the
power to request assistance from the latter.

Following the pronouncements of the ECHR in Leander, the fact that the PNP released
information to the Zearosa Commission without prior communication to Gamboa and
without affording her the opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a
violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an inherent and crucial
component of intelligence-gathering and investigation.Additionally, Gamboa herself
admitted that the PNP had a validation system, which was used to update information on
individuals associated with PAGs and to ensure that the data mirrored the situation on
the field.66 Thus, safeguards were put in place to make sure that the information
collected maintained its integrity and accuracy.
However, to accord the right to privacy with the kind of protection established in existing
law and jurisprudence, this Court nonetheless deems it necessary to caution these
investigating entities that information-sharing must observe strict confidentiality.
Intelligence gathered must be released exclusively to the authorities empowered to
receive the relevant information. After all, inherent to the right to privacy is the freedom
from "unwarranted exploitation of ones person or from intrusion into ones private
activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a persons ordinary sensibilities."67

In this case, respondents admitted the existence of the Report, but emphasized its
confidential nature.1wphi1 That it was leaked to third parties and the media was
regrettable, even warranting reproach. But it must be stressed that Gamboa failed to
establish that respondents were responsible for this unintended disclosure. In any event,
there are other reliefs available to her to address the purported damage to her
reputation, making a resort to the extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data
unnecessary and improper.

Finally, this Court rules that Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial evidence
that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining PAGs made her and her supporters
susceptible to harassment and to increased police surveillance. In this regard,
respondents sufficiently explained that the investigations conducted against her were in
relation to the criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy
the presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome.

11

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the
collection and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful
mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

Pollo vs Constatino-David( A PC though assigned to you is still

government property and must be used for legitimate purposes
only, huwag mong gawin another source of income )
Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either
in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files.
Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share
with anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or
visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent
other employees from accessing his computer files. On the contrary, he submits that
being in the public assistance office of the CSC-ROIV, he normally would have visitors in
his office like friends, associates and even unknown people, whom he even allowed to
use his computer which to him seemed a trivial request. He described his office as full of
people, his friends, unknown people and that in the past 22 years he had been
discharging his functions at the PALD, he is personally assisting incoming clients,
receiving documents, drafting cases on appeals, in charge of accomplishment report,
Mamamayan Muna Program, Public Sector Unionism, Correction of name, accreditation
of service, and hardly had anytime for himself alone, that in fact he stays in the office as
a paying customer.[46] Under this scenario, it can hardly be deduced that petitioner had
such expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable.
The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that
they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the
office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources
using both automated or human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may
be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate
business purposes. A search by a government employer of an employees office is
justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up
evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.
Public employees expectations of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets, like
similar expectations of employees in the private sector, may be reduced by virtue of
actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. x x x The employees
expectation of privacy must be assessed in the context of the employment relation. An
office is seldom a private enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees, and
12

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

business and personal invitees. Instead, in many cases offices are continually entered
by fellow employees and other visitors during the workday for conferences,
consultations, and other work-related visits. Simply put, it is the nature of government
offices that others such as fellow employees, supervisors, consensual visitors, and the
general public may have frequent access to an individuals office. We agree with
JUSTICE SCALIA that [c]constitutional protection against unreasonable searches by the
government does not disappear merely because the government has the right to make
reasonable intrusions in its capacity as employer, x x x but some government offices
may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is
reasonable. x x x Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the
question of whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Prejudicial Question
Definition.
A prejudicial question is one based on a fact separate and distinct from the crime but is
so intimately related to it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Elements.
1.The previously filed civil action involves an issue which is similar or is intimately
related with an issue raised in the subsequent criminal action
2. The resolution of the issue will determine whether or not the criminal action may
proceed

13