You are on page 1of 466


September, 2010 Prepared by: ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN Professor (Political Law Review, Constitutional Law I & II) COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS PRE-BAR REVIEWER CPRS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Cagayan de Oro City, Za boanga City, I!oi!o City and "a#ao City$ E%CE&&ENT PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Ceb' City, Naga City and Ta)!oban City$ POWER*A+S PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Santiago City and Tagbi!aran City$ *O&, TRINIT, CO&&E-E PREBAR REVIEW CENTER (-enera! Santo. City$ COS(OPO&ITAN BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City$ LEX REVIEW CENTER +ni#er.ity o/ Panga.inan


"ag'pan City

police power---is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 196 ! he basi! purposes of poli!e power are: a. "o pro#o"e "$e %e&er'l wel('re, co#(or" '&) co&*e&ie&ce o( "$e people+ ,ASSOCIATIO- O. SMALL LA-/O0-ERS VS. SECRETARY, 1 1 SCRA 323+ 3S VS. TORI4IO, 11 5$il. 61 b. "o pro#o"e '&) pre7er*e pu8lic $e'l"$" (VILLA-3EVA VS. CASTA-E/A, Sep"e#8er 91, 196 + /ECS VS. SA- /IE:O, 16; SCRA 133 <-MAT=+ LORE->O VS. /IRECTOR O. HEALTH, 1; 5$il. 191?'ppre$e&) '&) co&(i&e leper7 i& ' lepro7'riu#! 5olice 5ower '7 ' li#i"'"io& "o "$e ri%$" "o pr'c"ice ' pro(e77io& 5RO.ESSIO-AL RE:3LATIO-S COMMISSIO- VS. ARLE-E /E :3>MA-, ET AL., Ju&e 91, 9;;2 #a!ts: A("er "$e 5ro(e77io&'l Re%ul'"io&7 Co##i77io& ,5RC! rele'7e) "$e &'#e7 o( 7ucce77(ul e@'#i&ee7 i& "$e Me)ic'l Lice&7ure E@'#i&'"io&, "$e 4o'r) o( Me)ici&e7 o87er*e) "$'" "$e %r')e7 o( "$e 9 .'"i#' Colle%e o( Me)ici&e 7ucce77(ul e@'#i&ee7 were u&u7u'lly '&) e@cep"io&'lly $i%$ i& "$e "wo ,9! #o7" )i((icul" 7u8Aec"7 o( "$e e@'#, i.e., 4ioc$e#i7"ry '&) O87"e"ric7 '&) :y&ecolo%y. he $oard then issued %esolution &o. 1' withholding the registration as physi!ians of all the e(aminees from #atima College of )edi!ine. Compared with other e(amines from other s!hools, the results of those from #atima were not only in!redibly high but unusually !lustered !lose to ea!h other. he &$* *nvestigation found that the B.'"i#' e@'#i&ee7 %'i&e) e'rly 'cce77 "o "$e "e7" Cue7"io&7.D


,eld: I" #u7" 8e 7"re77e) "$'" "$e power "o re%ul'"e "$e pr'c"ice o( ' pro(e77io& or pur7ui" o( '& occup'"io& c'&&o" 8e e@erci7e) 8y "$e S"'"e i& '& 'r8i"r'ry, )e7po"ic or oppre77i*e #'&&er. Howe*er, "$e re%ul'"i&% 8o)y $'7 "$e ri%$" "o %r'&" or (or8i) 7uc$ pri*ile%e i& 'ccor)'&ce wi"$ cer"'i& co&)i"io&7. $ut like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their e(er!ise may be regulated pursuant to the poli!e power of the State to safeguard health, morals, pea!e, edu!ation, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. -s su!h, mandamus will not lie to !ompel the $oard of )edi!ine to issue li!enses for the respondents to pra!ti!e medi!ine. %- +./+ whi!h pres!ribes the re0uirements for admission to the pra!ti!e of medi!ine, the 0ualifi!ations of the !andidates for the board e(amination, the s!ope and !ondu!t of the e(aminations, the grounds for the denying of the issuan!e of a physi!ian1s li!ense, or revoking a li!ense that has been issued. *t is therefore !lear that the e(aminee must prove that he has fully !omplied with all the !onditions and re0uirements imposed by law and the li!ensing authority to be granted the privilege to pra!ti!e medi!ine. *n short, he shall have all the 0ualifi!ations and none of the dis0ualifi!ations. he petition is therefore granted. !. "o pro#o"e '&) pro"ec" pu8lic 7'(e"y+ (A:3STI- VS. E/3, 66 SCRA 191+ TAEICA4 O5ERATORS VS. J3I-IO, 119 SCRA 69 ! ). "o #'i&"'i& '&) 7'(e%u'r) pe'ce '&) or)er+ ,:3A>O- VS. /E VILLA! e. "o pro"ec" pu8lic #or'l7" (CITY O. MA-ILA VS. J3/:E LA:3IO, JR., 211 SCRA 3;6+ 0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIOVS. CITY O. MA-ILA, J'&u'ry 9;, 9;;9+ /E LA CR3> VS. 5ARAS, 193 SCRA 169+ ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 196 + VILLAVICE-CIO VS. MAYOR L3F4AO. MA-ILA, 39 5$il. 6+ JMM 5ROMOTIO-S VS. CA, 96; SCRA 319+ VELASCO VS. VILLE:AS, .e8ru'ry 13, 1963! A& Or)i&'&ce o( "$e Ci"y o( M'&il' pro$i8i"i&% B7$or"G"i#eD i& Mo"el7 '&) Ho"el7. 0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIO-, TITA-I3M COR5ORATIO- '&) STA. MESA TO3RIST H /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO- *7. CITY O.



MA-ILA, repre7e&"e) 8y MAYOR AL.RE/O S. LIM, 2.%. &o. 1++/34, 5anuary +6, +66' *&2-, J.: 7ith another !ity ordinan!e of )anila also prin!ipally involving the tourist distri!t as sub8e!t, the Court is !onfronted anew with the in!essant cl'7$ 8e"wee& %o*er&#e&" power '&) i&)i*i)u'l li8er"y i& "'&)e# wi"$ "$e 'rc$e"yp'l "e&7io& 8e"wee& l'w '&) #or'li"y. *n City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr, the Court affirmed the nullifi!ation of a !ity ordinan!e barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, within the 9rmita-)alate area. he petition at bar assails a similarly-motivated !ity ordinan!e that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or :wash up; rates for su!h abbreviated stays. <ur earlier de!ision tested the !ity ordinan!e against our sa!red !onstitutional rights to liberty, due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion of law. he same parameters apply to the present petition. his =etition !hallenges the validity of )anila City <rdinan!e &o. >>>3 entitled, :-n <rdinan!e =rohibiting Short- ime -dmission, Short- ime -dmission %ates, and 7ash-?p %ate S!hemes in ,otels, )otels, *nns, @odging ,ouses, =ension ,ouses, and Similar 9stablishments in the City of )anila; (the <rdinan!eA. he fa!ts are as follows: <n De!ember ., 1''+, City )ayor -lfredo S. @im ()ayor @imA signed into law the <rdinan!e. he <rdinan!e is reprodu!ed in full, hereunder: S9C. .. =ursuant to the above poli!y, short-time admission and rate BsicC, wash-up rate or other similarly !on!o!ted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of )anila. S9C. 3. Definition of ermBsC. Short-time admission shall mean admittan!e and !harging of room rate for less than twelve (1+A hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twi!e a day or any other term that may be !on!o!ted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning. S9C. D. =enalty Clause. -ny person or !orporation who shall violate any provision of this ordinan!e shall upon !onvi!tion thereof be punished by a fine of #ive housand (=D,666.66A =esos or imprisonment for a period of not e(!eeding one (1A year or both su!h fine and


imprisonment at the dis!retion of the !ourt" =rovided, hat in !ase of BaC 8uridi!al person, the president, the manager, or the persons in !harge of the operation thereof shall be liable: =rovided, further, hat in !ase of subse0uent !onvi!tion for the same offense, the business li!ense of the guilty party shall automati!ally be !an!elled. <n De!ember 1D, 1''+, the )alate ourist and Development Corporation () DCA filed a !omplaint for de!laratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary in8un!tion andEor temporary restraining order ( %<A with the %egional rial Court (% CA of )anila, $ran!h ' impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of )anila (the CityA represented by )ayor @im. ) DC prayed that the <rdinan!e, insofar as it in!ludes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be de!lared invalid and un!onstitutional. ) DC !laimed that as owner and operator of the Fi!toria Court in )alate, )anila it was authoriGed by =residential De!ree (=.D.A &o. +D' to admit !ustomers on a short time basis as well as to !harge !ustomers wash up rates for stays of only three hours. hey !ontend that the assailed <rdinan!e is an invalid e(er!ise of poli!e power. II. o students of 8urispruden!e, the fa!ts of this !ase will re!all to mind not only the re!ent City of Manila ruling, but our 1'4> de!ision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. Ermita-Malate !on!erned the City ordinan!e re0uiring patrons to fill up a pres!ribed form stating personal information su!h as name, gender, nationality, age, address and o!!upation before they !ould be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. his earlier ordinan!e was pre!isely ena!ted to minimiGe !ertain pra!ti!es deemed harmful to publi! morals. - purpose similar to the annulled ordinan!e in City of Manila whi!h sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the 9rmita-)alate area. ,owever, the !onstitutionality of the ordinan!e in Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court. he !ommon thread that runs through those de!isions and the !ase at bar goes beyond the singularity of the lo!alities !overed under the respe!tive ordinan!es. -ll three ordinan!es were ena!ted with a view of regulating publi! morals in!luding parti!ular illi!it a!tivity in transient lodging establishments. his !ould be des!ribed as the middle !ase, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the servi!es offered by these establishments have been severely restri!ted. -t its !ore, this is another !ase about the e(tent to whi!h the State !an intrude into and regulate the lives of its !itiGens.


T$e "e7" o( ' *'li) or)i&'&ce i7 well e7"'8li7$e). A lo&% li&e o( )eci7io&7 i&clu)i&% City of Manila $'7 $el) "$'" (or '& or)i&'&ce "o 8e *'li), i" #u7" &o" o&ly 8e wi"$i& "$e corpor'"e power7 o( "$e loc'l %o*er&#e&" u&i" "o e&'c" '&) p'77 'ccor)i&% "o "$e proce)ure pre7cri8e) 8y l'w, i" #u7" 'l7o co&(or# "o "$e (ollowi&% 7u87"'&"i*e reCuire#e&"7I ,1! #u7" &o" co&"r'*e&e "$e Co&7"i"u"io& or '&y 7"'"u"e+ ,9! #u7" &o" 8e u&('ir or oppre77i*e+ ,3! #u7" &o" 8e p'r"i'l or )i7cri#i&'"ory+ ,2! #u7" &o" pro$i8i" 8u" #'y re%ul'"e "r')e+ ,1! #u7" 8e %e&er'l '&) co&7i7"e&" wi"$ pu8lic policy+ '&) ,6! #u7" &o" 8e u&re'7o&'8le . A. =oli!e power, while in!apable of an e(a!t definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to unders!ore its !omprehensiveness to meet all e(igen!ies and provide enough room for an effi!ient and fle(ible response as the !onditions warrant. =oli!e power is based upon the !on!ept of ne!essity of the State and its !orresponding right to prote!t itself and its people.=oli!e power has been used as 8ustifi!ation for numerous and varied a!tions by the State. hese range from the regulation of dan!e halls, movie theaters, gas stations, and !o!kpits. he awesome s!ope of poli!e power is best demonstrated by the fa!t that in its hundred or so years of presen!e in our nation1s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. he apparent goal of the <rdinan!e is to minimiGe if not eliminate the use of the !overed establishments for illi!it se(, prostitution, drug use and alike. hese goals, by themselves, are unimpea!hable and !ertainly fall within the ambit of the poli!e power of the State. . he primary !onstitutional 0uestion that !onfronts us is one of due pro!ess, as guaranteed under Se!tion 1, -rti!le *** of the Constitution. Due pro!ess evades a pre!ise definition. he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental en!roa!hment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. he due pro!ess guaranty serves as a prote!tion against arbitrary regulation or seiGure. 9ven !orporations and partnerships are prote!ted by the guaranty insofar as their property is !on!erned. he due pro!ess guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distin!t restri!tions on government, Hpro!edural due pro!essH and Hsubstantive due pro!ess.H =ro!edural due pro!ess refers to the pro!edures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. =ro!edural due pro!ess !on!erns itself


with government a!tion adhering to the established pro!ess when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. 9(amples range from the form of noti!e given to the level of formality of a hearing. Substantive due pro!ess !ompletes the prote!tion envisioned by the due pro!ess !lause. *t in0uires whether the government has suffi!ient 8ustifi!ation for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. he 0uestion of substantive due pro!ess, more so than most other fields of law, has refle!ted dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the e(panded a!!eptan!e of fundamental freedoms. =oli!e power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now !onfronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it !an be upheld. he vitality though of !onstitutional due pro!ess has not been predi!ated on the fre0uen!y with whi!h it has been utiliGed to a!hieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. *nstead, the due pro!ess !lause has a!0uired poten!y be!ause of the sophisti!ated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its appli!ation. C. he general test of the validity of an ordinan!e on substantive due pro!ess grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 3 test laid down by the ?.S. Supreme Court in !.". v. Carolene #roducts. #ootnote 3 of the Carolene #roducts !ase a!knowledged that the 8udi!iary would defer to the legislature unless there is a dis!rimination against a B)i7cre"e '&) i&7ul'rD #i&ori"y or i&(ri&%e#e&" o( ' B(u&)'#e&"'l ri%$"D. Conse0uently, two standards of 8udi!ial review were established: 7"ric" 7cru"i&y (or l'w7 )e'li&% wi"$ (ree)o# of the mind or restri!ting the politi!al pro!ess, and the r'"io&'l 8'7i7 7"'&)'r) o( re*iew (or eco&o#ic le%i7l'"io&. - third standard, denominated as $ei%$"e&e) or i##e)i'"e 7cru"i&y, was later adopted by the ?.S. Supreme Court for evaluating !lassifi!ations based on gender and legitima!y, *mmediate s!rutiny was adopted by the ?.S. Supreme Court in Craig, after the Court de!lined to do so in $eed v. $eed. 7hile the test may have first been arti!ulated in e0ual prote!tion analysis, it has in the ?nited States sin!e been applied in all substantive due pro!ess !ases as well. 7e ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of e0ual prote!tion !hallenges. ?sing the rational basis e(amination, laws or ordinan!es are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. ?nder intermediate review, governmental interest is e(tensively e(amined and the availability of less


restri!tive measures is !onsidered. -pplying stri!t s!rutiny, the fo!us is on the presen!e of !ompelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absen!e of less restri!tive means for a!hieving that interest. *n terms of 8udi!ial review of statutes or ordinan!es, stri!t s!rutiny refers to the standard for determining the 0uality and the amount of governmental interest brought to 8ustify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Stri!t s!rutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of spee!h, gender, or ra!e as well as other fundamental rights as e(pansion from its earlier appli!ations to e0ual prote!tion. he ?nited States Supreme Court has e(panded the s!ope of stri!t s!rutiny to prote!t fundamental rights su!h as suffrage, 8udi!ial a!!ess and interstate travel. *f we were to take the myopi! view that an <rdinan!e should be analyGed stri!tly as to its effe!t only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint imposed by the law whi!h we are !apa!itated to a!t upon is the in8ury to property sustained by the petitioners, an in8ury that would warrant the appli!ation of the most deferential standard I the rational basis test. Jet as earlier stated, we re!ogniGe the !apa!ity of the petitioners to invoke as well the !onstitutional rights of their patrons I those persons who would be deprived of availing short time a!!ess or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in 0uestion. %. *t !annot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinan!e is the !urtailment of se(ual behavior. he City asserts before this Court that the sub8e!t establishments :have gained notoriety as venue of Kprostitution, adultery and forni!ations1 in )anila sin!e they Kprovide the ne!essary atmosphere for !landestine entry, presen!e and e(it and thus be!ame the Kideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.1; 7hether or not this depi!tion of a mise-en-scene of vi!e is a!!urate, it !annot be denied that legitimate se(ual behavior among willing married or !onsenting single adults whi!h is !onstitutionally prote!ted will be !urtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila !ase. <ur holding therein retains signifi!an!e for our purposes: 7e !annot dis!ount other legitimate a!tivities whi!h the <rdinan!e would pros!ribe or impair. here are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twi!e a day. 9ntire families are known to !hoose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. *n transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. *ndeed any person or groups of persons in need of !omfortable private spa!es for a span of a few hours with purposes other


than having se( or using illegal drugs !an legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a !onvenient alternative. E. .ur"$er, i" i7 'pp're&" "$'" "$e Or)i&'&ce c'& e'7ily 8e circu#*e&"e) 8y #erely p'yi&% "$e w$ole )'y r'"e wi"$ou" '&y $i&)r'&ce "o "$o7e e&%'%e) i& illici" 'c"i*i"ie7. Moreo*er, )ru% )e'ler7 '&) pro7"i"u"e7 c'& i& ('c" collec" Bw'7$ r'"e7D (ro# "$eir clie&"ele 8y c$'r%i&% "$eir cu7"o#er7 ' por"io& o( "$e re&" (or #o"el roo#7 '&) e*e& 'p'r"#e&"7. T$e Or)i&'&ce &ee)le77ly re7"r'i&7 "$e oper'"io& o( "$e 8u7i&e77e7 o( "$e pe"i"io&er7 '7 well '7 re7"ric"i&% "$e ri%$"7 o( "$eir p'"ro&7 wi"$ou" 7u((icie&" Au7"i(ic'"io&. T$e Or)i&'&ce r'7$ly eCu'"e7 w'7$ r'"e7 '&) re&"i&% ou" ' roo# #ore "$'& "wice ' )'y wi"$ i##or'li"y wi"$ou" 'cco##o)'"i&% i&&ocuou7 i&"e&"io&7. o be !andid about it, the oft-0uoted -meri!an ma(im that :you c'&&o" le%i7l'"e #or'li"yD is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, sin!e as e(plained by Calabresi, that phrase is more a!!urately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at varian!e with publi! attitudes about right and wrong. <ur penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely a!!epted distin!tions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented. 0HERE.ORE, the =etition is :RA-TE/. <rdinan!e &o. >>>3 is hereby de!lared ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL -n <rdinan!e re0uiring the motels in 9rmita-)alate area to transfer to another pla!e in the City of )anila as well as prohibiting ,9 9S -$@*S,)9& <% <=9%- *<& <# $?S*&9SS9S =%<F*D*&2 C9% -*& #<%)S <# -)?S9)9& , 9& 9% -*&)9& , S9%F*C9S -&D #-C*@* *9S *& ,9 9%)* --)-@- 9 -%9- was held un!onstitutional CITY O. MA-ILA, HO-. AL.RE/O S. LIM '7 "$e M'yor o( "$e Ci"y o( M'&il', e" 'l *7. HO-. 5ER.ECTO A.S. LA:3IO, JR., '7

9 -%9-. GR No..alls 11. &ight Clubs 4. i& "$e Er#i"'GM'l'"e 're' bounded by eodoro ).9%9<#. =%9SC%*$*&2 =9&-@ *9S #<% F*<@. )assage =arlors . )otels 1+.*<& . Dan!e . S9%F*C9S -&D #-C*@* *9S *& .ACTSI he City Coun!il of )anila ena!ted on ' )ar!h 1''. -&D #<% < . Malaw Sr. aft -venue in the 9ast.I . Fito CruG Street in the South and %o(as $oulevard in the 7est. su!h as but not limited to: 1. + T$e Ci"y M'yor. Day Clubs >. '&y 8u7i&e77 pro*i)i&% cer"'i& (or#7 o( '#u7e#e&". Street in the &orth.*<& <# $?S*&9SS9S =%<F*D*&2 C9% -*& #<%)S <# -)?S9)9& . e&"er"'i&#e&". an Ordinance is entitledI -& <%D*&-&C9 =%<. 9& 9% -*&)9& . *nns S9C.D. p'r"&er7$ip. -ny provision of e(isting laws and ordinan!es to the !ontrary notwithstanding. J. pursuant to =.)9& <% <=9%. he Ordinance is reprodu!ed in full. 7er*ice7 '&) ('cili"ie7 w$ere wo#e& 're u7e) '7 "ool7 i& e&"er"'i&#e&" '&) w$ic$ "e&) "o )i7"ur8 "$e co##u&i"y. corpor'"io& or e&"i"y 7$'ll. Super Clubs /.9 9%)* --)-@. Sauna =arlors +. RTC. hereunder: S9C *<& 1.16 5re7i)i&% Ju)%e.*$* *&2 . 2005 TI-:A.6 )ar!h 1''. Cabarets 16. or (ro# %r'&"i&% lice&7e7 '&) 'ccep"i&% 16 . &o per7o&.9% =?%=<S9S. 3'' 8e 'llowe) or 'u"$oriJe) "o co&"r'c" '&) e&%'%e i&. M'&il' '&) MALATE TO3RIST /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO-. and approved by petitioner City )ayor on . $eerhouses D. April 12. '&) ')*er7ely '((ec" "$e 7oci'l '&) #or'l wel('re o( "$e co##u&i"y. 118127. '&&oy "$e i&$'8i"'&"7. Maraoke $ars 3. Dis!othe0ues '. "$e Ci"y Tre'7urer or any person a!ting in behalf of the said offi!ials 're pro$i8i"e) (ro# i77ui&% per#i"7. "e#por'ry or o"$erwi7e.9 9S -$@*S.

or devoted to.9@D: T$e "e7"7 o( ' *'li) or)i&'&ce 're well e7"'8li7$e). heaters engaged in the e(hibition. Curio or anti0ue shop +. su!h as but not limited to: 1. Ow&er7 '&)Kor oper'"or o( e7"'8li7$#e&"7 engaged in.3! #u7" &o" 8e p'r"i'l or )i7cri#i&'"ory+ .1! #u7" 8e %e&er'l '&) co&7i7"e&" wi"$ pu8lic policy+ '&) . e(!ept new warehouse or open-storage depot. . 16. he <rdinan!e was 0uestioned as an invalid e(er!ise of poli!e power and violative of the due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion !lause of the 1'/> Constitution.. it must also !onform to the following substantive re0uirements: . art e(hibitions. . -rt galleries D. #lower shops '. stage and theatri!al plays. do!k or yard.3! #o&"$7 (ro# "$e )'"e o( 'ppro*'l o( "$i7 or)i&'&ce wi"$i& w$ic$ "o wi&) up 8u7i&e77 oper'"io&7 or "o "r'&7(er "o '&y pl'ce ou"7i)e o( "$e Er#i"'GM'l'"e 're' or co&*er" 7'i) 8u7i&e77e7 "o o"$er Li&)7 o( 8u7i&e77 'llow'8le wi"$i& "$e 're'. %estaurants >. 11. . the businesses enumerated in Se!tion 1 hereof are hereby %i*e& "$ree . S9C. %e!ords and musi! shops 4. gasoline servi!e station. Souvenir Shops . $usinesses allowable within the law and medium intensity distri!ts as provided for in the Goning ordinan!es for )etropolitan )anila. it must not only be within the !orporate powers of the lo!al government unit to ena!t and must be passed a!!ording to the pro!edure pres!ribed by law. is subordinate to the !onstitutional limitations thereon" and is sub8e!t to the limitation that its e(er!ise must be reasonable and for the 11 .9! #u7" &o" 8e u&('ir or oppre77i*e+ . The Ordinan e ontra!ene" the Con"tit#tion he poli!e power of the City Coun!il.11 p'y#e&"7 (or "$e oper'"io& o( 8u7i&e77 e&u#er'"e) i& "$e prece)i&% 7ec"io&.6! #u7" &o" 8e u&re'7o&'8le.long line of de!isions has held that for an ordinan!e to be valid. light industry with any ma!hinery. Coffee shops /. with well-defined a!tivities for wholesome family entertainment that !ater to both lo!al and foreign !lientele..1! #u7" &o" co&"r'*e&e "$e Co&7"i"u"io& or '&y 7"'"u"e+ . or funeral establishments. !on!erts and the like. not only of motion pi!tures but also of !ultural shows.andi!rafts display !enters 3. . motor repair shop.2! #u7" &o" pro$i8i" 8u" #'y re%ul'"e "r')e+ . )usi! lounge and sing-along restaurants. however broad and farrea!hing.

and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the en8oyment by all the people of the blessings of demo!ra!y. . T$e Ordinan e i&(ri&%e7 "$e /ue 5roce77 Cl'u7e he !onstitutional safeguard of due pro!ess is embodied in the fiat :(&Ao person shall be deprived of life. S9C. . he guaranty serves as a prote!tion against arbitrary regulation. he State re!ogniGes the role of women in nation-building. D. and destru!tion without a trial and !onvi!tion by the ordinary mode of 8udi!ial pro!edure" and to se!ure to all persons e0ual and impartial 8usti!e and the benefit of the general law. liberty or property without due pro!ess of law. S9C. *t furnishes though a standard to whi!h governmental a!tion should !onform in order that deprivation of life. . usually !alled :pro!edural due pro!ess. the ena!tment of the Ordinance was an invalid e(er!ise of delegated power as it is un!onstitutional and repugnant to general laws. be valid. 13. A. nor shall any person be denied the e0ual prote!tion of laws. *n the !ase at bar. as the phrase implies. and as su!h it is a limitation upon the e(er!ise of the poli!e power. '. Classi! pro!edural due pro!ess issues are !on!erned with 1+ . liberty or property. his standard is aptly des!ribed as a responsiveness to the suprema!y of reason. he relevant !onstitutional provisions are the following: S9C. he maintenan!e of pea!e and order. within the s!ope of the guaranty insofar as their property is !on!erned. liberty. Se!. liberty or property without due pro!ess of law. from seiGure. forfeiture.. 1.. refers to the pro!edures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life. liberty and property of individuals" to se!ure the individual from the arbitrary e(er!ise of the powers of the government. obedien!e to the di!tates of 8usti!e. unrestrained by the established prin!iples of private rights and distributive 8usti!e" to prote!t property from !onfis!ation by legislative ena!tments. in ea!h appropriate !ase. the prote!tion of life. or property. he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent governmental en!roa!hment against the life. and :substantive due pro!ess. =ro!edural due pro!ess. and shall ensure the fundamental e0uality before the law of women and men. and private !orporations and partnerships are :persons. and property. here is no !ontrolling and pre!ise definition of due pro!ess. &o person shall be deprived of life. liberty. =rivate property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation.1+ publi! good. his !lause has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on government.

#or e(ample. $ut if it is an area where stri!t s!rutiny is used. liberty. what kind of noti!e and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a parti!ular a!tion. asks whether the government has an ade0uate reason for taking away a person1s life. *ndividual rights. Substantive due pro!ess. if a law is in an area where only rational basis review is applied.S. substantive due pro!ess is met so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Su!h power !annot be e(er!ised whimsi!ally. or property. reCuire '& i&"er(ere&ce wi"$ pri*'"e ri%$"7. Case law in the ?nited States (?. '&) "o (ree i" (ro# "$e i#pu"'"io& o( co&7"i"u"io&'l i&(ir#i"y. substantive due pro!ess looks to whether there is a suffi!ient 8ustifi!ation for the government1s a!tion. su!h as for prote!ting fundamental rights. '7 )i7"i&%ui7$e) (ro# "$o7e o( ' p'r"icul'r cl'77. A re'7o&'8le rel'"io& #u7" e@i7" 8e"wee& "$e purpo7e7 o( "$e police #e'7ure '&) "$e #e'&7 e#ploye) (or i"7 'cco#pli7$#e&". Re$#i"ite" for the !alid e%er i"e of &oli e &o'er are not (et To 7ucce77(ully i&*oLe "$e e@erci7e o( police power '7 "$e r'"io&'le (or "$e e&'c"#e&" o( "$e Ordinan e. it bears emphasis. . &o" o&ly #u7" i" 'ppe'r "$'" "$e i&"ere7"7 o( "$e pu8lic %e&er'lly. 1.A tells us that whether there is su!h a 8ustifi!ation depends very mu!h on the level of s!rutiny used. arbitrarily or despoti!ally as its e(er!ise is sub8e!t to a 0ualifi!ation. (or e*e& u&)er "$e %ui7e o( pro"ec"i&% "$e pu8lic i&"ere7". L'cLi&% ' co&curre&ce o( "$e7e "wo reCui7i"e7. "$e police #e'7ure 7$'ll 8e 7"rucL )ow& '7 '& 'r8i"r'ry i&"ru7io& i&"o pri*'"e ri%$"7 '&) ' *iol'"io& o( "$e )ue proce77 cl'u7e. limitation or restri!tion demanded by the respe!t and regard due to the pres!ription of the fundamental law.1. per7o&'l ri%$"7 '&) "$o7e per"'i&i&% "o pri*'"e proper"y will &o" 8e per#i""e) "o 8e 'r8i"r'rily i&*')e). as that phrase !onnotes. may be adversely affe!ted only to the e(tent that may fairly be re0uired by the legitimate demands of publi! interest or publi! welfare. Due pro!ess re0uires the intrinsi! validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life. he poli!e power granted to lo!al government units must always be e(er!ised with utmost observan!e of the rights of the people to due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion of the law. I" #u7" 8e e*i)e&" "$'" &o o"$er 'l"er&'"i*e (or "$e 'cco#pli7$#e&" o( "$e purpo7e le77 i&"ru7i*e o( pri*'"e ri%$"7 c'& worL. liberty and property. *n other words. 8u" "$e #e'&7 ')op"e) #u7" 8e re'7o&'8ly &ece77'ry (or "$e 'cco#pli7$#e&" o( "$e purpo7e '&) &o" u&)uly oppre77i*e upo& i&)i*i)u'l7. then the government will meet substantive due pro!ess only if it !an prove that the law is ne!essary to a!hieve a !ompelling government purpose. parti!ularly those forming part of the $ill of %ights.

*n Se!tion . the means employed for the a!!omplishment thereof were unreasonable and unduly oppressive. but not to the detriment of liberty and priva!y whi!h are !ovenants. Mean" e(ployed are on"tit#tionally infir( he Ordinance disallows the operation of sauna parlors. they unwittingly punish even the proprietors and operators of :wholesome. there are other means to reasonably a!!omplish the desired end. *f the City of )anila so desires to put an end to prostitution. he Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the !ore issues of morality. whi!h provide a ne!essary atmosphere for !landestine entry. !abarets. thereof. a!!ordingly. bars. beerhouses. *n other words. motels and inns in the 9rmita-)alate area. there is a !lear invasion of personal or property rights. personal in the !ase of those individuals desirous of owning. adultery and forni!ation in )anila tra!eable in great part to e(isten!e of motels. premiums and blessings of demo!ra!y. forni!ation and other so!ial ills. karaoke bars. ry as the Ordinance may to shape morality. hotels and motels. Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila had already taken 8udi!ial noti!e of the :alarming in!rease in the rate of prostitution. *n the instant !ase. establishments. girlie houses. day !lubs. super !lubs. the promotion and prote!tion of the so!ial and moral values of the !ommunity. he City Coun!il instead should regulate human !ondu!t that o!!urs inside the establishments.. night !lubs. dis!othe0ues. :inno!ent. it should not foster the illusion that it !an make a moral man out of it be!ause immorality is not a thing.. =etitioners insist that even the Court in the !ase of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association. massage parlors. presen!e and e(it and thus be!ome the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.13 he Ordinance was ena!ted to address and arrest the so!ial ills purportedly spawned by the establishments in the 9rmita-)alate area whi!h are allegedly operated under the de!eptive veneer of legitimate. 7hile petitioners1 earnestness at !urbing !learly ob8e!tionable so!ial ills is !ommendable. karaoke bars. operating and patroniGing those motels and property in terms of the investments made and the salaries to be paid to those therein employed. he ob8e!t of the Ordinance was. it !an instead impose reasonable regulations su!h as daily inspe!tions of the establishments for any violation of the !onditions of their li!enses or permits" it may e(er!ise its authority to suspend or revoke their li!enses for these violations" and it may even impose in!reased li!ense fees. li!ensed and ta(-paying night!lubs. 2ranting for the sake of argument that the ob8e!tives of the Ordinance are within the s!ope of the City Coun!il1s poli!e powers. dan!e halls. !o!ktail lounges. owners andEor operators of the enumerated 13 . a building or establishment" it is in the hearts of men.

instru!ts its ownersEoperators to wind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or !onvert said businesses into allowed businesses.. -n ordinan!e whi!h permanently restri!ts the use of property that it !an not be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond regulation and must be re!ogniGed as a taking of the property without 8ust !ompensation. the Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive as it substantially divests the respondent of the benefi!ial use of its property.. art gallery or musi! lounge without essentially destroying its 1D . it is unreasonable. should be borne by the publi! as a whole.B>/C *t is intrusive and violative of the private property rights of individuals. Se!tion '. his is a restri!tion on the general power of the government to take property. it states in Se!tion 3 that in !ases of subse0uent violations of the provisions of the <rdinan!e. .B>>C he Ordinance in Se!tion 1 thereof forbids the running of the enumerated businesses in the 9rmita-)alate area and in Se!tion . it merely relo!ates it. infringes on the !onstitutional guarantees of a person1s fundamental right to liberty and property.. &ot only is this impra!ti!al. he !onversion into allowed enterprises is 8ust as ridi!ulous. in all fairness and 8usti!e. the governmental interferen!e itself. he Constitution e(pressly provides in -rti!le ***. Modality e(ployed i" #nla'f#l ta)in* *n addition. onerous and oppressive.A months from the date of approval of the Ordinance within whi!h :to wind up business operations or to transfer to any pla!e outside the 9rmita-)alate area or !onvert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area. *n every sense. *f the government takes away a person1s property to benefit so!iety. the :premises of the erring establishment shall be !losed and padlo!ked permanently. he proffered solution does not put an end to the :problem. he prin!ipal purpose of the guarantee is :to bar the 2overnment from for!ing some people alone to bear publi! burdens whi!h.B>'C he se!ond option instru!ts the owners to abandon their property and build another one outside the 9rmita-)alate area.ow may the respondent !onvert a motel into a restaurant or a !offee shop.1D establishments are given three (. *n part too.. he provision is the most important prote!tion of property rights in the Constitution. that :private property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation. it 0ualifies as a taking without 8ust !ompensation with an additional burden imposed on the owner to build another establishment solely from his !offers. he !onstitutional provision is about ensuring that the government does not !onfis!ate the property of some to give it to others. *t is readily apparent that the means employed by the Ordinance for the a!hievement of its purposes. it is about loss spreading. #urther. then so!iety should pay.

inns. pension houses. *n this regard.B161C @egislative bodies are allowed to !lassify the sub8e!ts of legislation. nay. The Ordinan e !iolate" .B166C *t limits governmental dis!rimination. he foregoing premises show that the Ordinance is an unwarranted and unlawful !urtailment of property and personal rights of !itiGens. #or being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade. even under the guise of e(er!ising poli!e power. even without !ompensation.A *t must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only. all are !ommer!ial establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other servi!es for the publi!. =etitioners !annot therefore order the !losure of the enumerated establishments without infringing the due pro!ess !lause. he !lassifi!ation in the instant 14 .<1. . +. so as to give undue favor to some and un8ustly dis!riminate against others. we take a resolute stand to uphold the !onstitutional guarantee of the right to liberty and property. lodging houses or other similar establishments. i" #u7" co&(or# "o "$e (ollowi&% reCuire#e&"7I 1A *t must be based on substantial distin!tions. &o" 8e 'r8i"r'ry. $y definition. Similar sub8e!ts. "$e l'w #'y oper'"e o&ly o& 7o#e '&) &o" 'll o( "$e people wi"$ou" *iol'"i&% "$e eCu'l pro"ec"io& cl'u7e. lodging houses or other similar establishments. should not be treated differently. &o reason e(ists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension houses. To 8e *'li). I( "$e cl'77i(ic'"io& i7 re'7o&'8le. it !annot.. there are no substantial distin!tions between motels. hese lawful establishments may be regulated. B''C he :e0ual prote!tion of the laws is a pledge of the prote!tion of e0ual laws.3= T$e cl'77i(ic'"io& #u7".B163C *n the Court1s view. +A *t must be germane to the purposes of the law. but not prevented from !arrying on their business. hotels. be upheld as valid.14 propertyN his is a taking of private property without due pro!ess of law.B'/C he guarantee means that no person or !lass of persons shall be denied the same prote!tion of laws whi!h is en8oyed by other persons or other !lasses in like !ir!umstan!es. his is a sweeping e(er!ise of poli!e power that is a result of a la!k of imagination on the part of the City Coun!il and whi!h amounts to an interferen!e into personal and private rights whi!h the Court will not !ountenan!e.$#al &rote tion Cla#"e 90ual prote!tion re0uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. 3A *t must apply e0ually to all members of the !lass. '7 '& i&)i7pe&7'8le reCui7i"e. both as to rights !onferred and responsibilities imposed. hotels. he e0ual prote!tion !lause e(tends to artifi!ial persons but only insofar as their property is !on!erned. in other words.

CITY :OVER-ME-T O.1> !ase is invalid as similar sub8e!ts are not similarly treated.ICHO-: VS. (ree o( c$'r%e. ERICTA. he Court likewise !annot see the logi! for prohibiting the business and operation of motels in the 9rmita-)alate area but not outside of this area. his is oppressive and unreasonable sin!e the owner of the animals is denied due pro!ess of law and the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or Chairman of the &ational )eat Commission is given so mu!h dis!retion as the law is not !omplete in itself nor is there a standard to guide the offi!ial. HER-A-/E>. MC VS. /E LA CR3> establishment does not be!ome any less no(ious if lo!ated outside the area. . 199 SCRA 19+ . 126 SCRA 619" the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or the Chairman if the &ational )eat Commission :may dispose of the !arabaos or !arabeef. . 193 SCRA 169 . 11111! -o" ' *'li) e@erci7e o( police powerI '.A& Or)i&'&ce o( 4oc'ue. f. both as to rights !onferred and obligations imposed. Y-OT VS.D T$e loc'l %o*er&#e&" u&i"7 coul) &o" *'li)ly p'77 "o pri*'"e ce#e"erie7 "$eir o8li%'"io& u&)er "$e Loc'l :o*er&#e&" Co)e "o pro*i)e ce#e"erie7 "o "$eir co&7"i"ue&"7! b. 4ul'c'& pro$i8i"i&% "$e oper'"io& o( &i%$"clu87 i7 u&co&7"i"u"io&'l. T$i7 i7 7o 8ec'u7e &i%$"clu87 're &o" ille%'l per 7e. IAC.. 1. 5ARAS. !onfis!ated for violating the e(e!utive order prohibiting the inter-provin!ial transport of said animals without prior permit issued by the government :to !haritable agen!ies as he may deem fit.1 5$il. *t is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distin!tions bearing a 8ust and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance. I" i7 &o" ' *'li) e@erci7e o( police power. c. i7 '& i&*'li) e@erci7e o( police power. to promote the e!onomi! se!urity of the people. I" co&7"i"u"e7 B"'Li&% o( ' pri*'"e proper"y (or pu8lic u7e wi"$ou" Au7" co#pe&7'"io&.ReCuiri&% pri*'"e ce#e"erie7 "o 7e" '7i)e ' por"io& o( "$eir l'&) 're' "o 8e %i*e& '7 8uri'l pl'ce (or Bp'uper7D. Differen!es and similarities 1> . T$ey c'& 8e re%ul'"e) 8u" &o" pro$i8i"e)! power of eminent domain po'er of ta%ation +.

property rights of private individuals are sub8e!ted to restraints and burdens in order to se!ure the general !omfort. @imitations in the e(er!ise of said powers ests for a valid e(er!ise of poli!e power a. is a 8udi!ial fun!tion (9=O. ET AL. /E-R SEC. -s su!h. Dulay. *n su!h !ase. en8oyment of a property is restri!ted be!ause the !ontinued use thereof would be in8urious to publi! welfare. 1/ . @ikewise. no !ompensation shall be paid. 1. health and prosperity of the state. 3. in the e(er!ise of poli!e power. =roperties !ondemned under poli!e power are usually no(ious or intended for no(ious purpose" hen!e . the end does not 8ustify the means. ELISEA :O>3.. . he determination of 8ust !ompensation. . the interests of the publi!. 261 SCRA 166 Chi!o-&aGario..6DA and initial determinations on 8ust !ompensation by the e(e!utive department and Congress !annot prevail over the !ourt1s findings. however. <therwise.VS.vs. he power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to !ondemn or to take private property for publi! use upon payment of 8ust !ompensation while poli!e power is the power of the state to promote publi! welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property without !ompensation" +. payment of 8ust !ompensation is re0uired. *n short.3L MEA-SA.. material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for whi!h the property was intended su!h as the establishment of an easement. 7hile the power of eminent domain often results in the appropriation of title to or possession of property.3L S34JECTA b. there should be !ompensable taking if it would result to publi! use. aking may in!lude trespass without a!tual evi!tion of the owner.LA0. it need not always be the !ase. the means employed is reasonably ne!essary for the a!!omplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals. . not mere parti!ular !lass.1/ /I/I5IO EARTH SAVERS M3LTI 53R5OSE ASSOCIATIO. 13' SC%. there is no !ompensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the publi!. 5.. an imposition of burden over a private property through easement (by the governmentA is !onsidered taking" hen!e. re0uire the e(er!ise of poli!e power" (LA0. *n the e(er!ise of poli!e power.

:. <n 5anuary. in the !ase of !arabaos" .R.1' Illu7"r'"io&I L'w(ul 7u8Aec" 8u" "$e #e'&7 e#ploye) i7 ille%'l RESTIT3TO Y-OT VS. #a!ts: 1. no !arabaos regardless of age. -fter trial of the !ase. *loilo for alleged violation of 9(e!utive <rder &o.M'rc$ 9. !onfis!ated by the =oli!e Station Commander of $arato! &uevo. 5. and to deserving farmers through the dispersal of the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry. however.. hat Se!tion 1 of the said law provides that Hhen!eforth. the 5udge upheld the validity of the a!t of the =oli!e Station Commander in !onfis!ating the !arabaos. *ssues: 1' . the !ourt ordered the !onfis!ation of the bond. se( physi!al !ondition or purpose and no !arabeef shall be transported from one provin!e to another. THE ITERME/IATE A55ELLATE CO3RT. he !ourt refused to rule on the !onstitutionality of the said 9(e!utive <rder on the ground of la!k of authority to do so and also be!ause of its presumed validity" D.4+4" +. he petitioner appealed to the *-C but the said !ourt upheld the de!ision of the rial Court. Jnot was ordered to returned the !arabaos but sin!e he !ould not do so. he si( !arabaos.en!e this petition for review on !ertiorari before the Supreme Court where J&< !laimed that the penalty of !onfis!ation is *&F-@*D the same was imposed without a!!ording the owner the right to be heard before a !ompetent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by due pro!ess. Jnot transported si( !arabaos by using a pumpboat from )asbate to *loilo.66" 3. he !arabao or !arabeef transported in violation of the said law shall be sub8e!ted to !onfis!ation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed to !haritable institution and similar institutions as the Chairman of the &ational meat inspe!tion Commission may see fit in the !ase of the !arabeef. .. were.. 1. Jnot filed a suit for re!overy and the !arabao were returned to him upon the issuan!e of a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersede as bond in the amount of =1+. 221 .whi!h prohibits the interprovin!ial transporting of !arabaos and !arabeefs whi!h does not !omply with the provisions of 9(e!utive &o. 196 CruG.666. -o. 1'/3. 4+4-.

se(. it is !on!eded that the 9(e!utive <rder meets the first test---. modify or affirm on appealH or !ertiorari as the rules of !ourt may provide. his simply means that lower !ourts may de!lare whether or not a law is !onstitutional.H he reasonable !onne!tion between the means employed and the purpose sought to be a!hieved by the 0uestion measure is missing.*9% )<F9)9& .9 S-)9 7. F***. providing that Hno !arabao regardless of age. 7e do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provin!ial transport !an prevent their +6 . )ay a lower !ourt (like the ) C. 7hile the lower !ourts should observe a be!oming modesty in e(amining !onstitutional 0uestion. reverse. . his is so be!ause under Se!tion D. 7as there an undue delegation of legislative powerN . of the Court of -ppealsA de!lare a law un!onstitutionalN +. of the 1'/> Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to Hreview.+6 1. final 8udgments and orders of the lower !ourts in all !ases involving the !onstitutionality of !ertain measures. physi!al !ondition or purpose and no !arabeef shall be transported from one provin!e to another. 4+4-. % C. "$e #e'&7 e#ploye) i7 l'w(ul. *s 9(e!utive <rder &o. revise. i" #u7" #ee" "wo "e7"7I '. Sin!e the prohibition of the slaughtering of !arabaos e(!ept where they are at least > years old when male and at least 11 years old when female is in furtheran!e of the publi! interest sin!e said !arabaos are very useful to the work at the farm. I& or)er "$'" ' #e'7ure or l'w #'y 8e Au7"i(ie) u&)er "$e police power o( "$e 7"'"e.imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughtering of !arabaos $? <& . 4+4-. $ut does the law meets the se!ond re0uisite or test whi!h is lawful methodN 9(e!utive <rder &o. 7as it a valid poli!e power measureN b.9&9F9% 7-%%-& has lawful sub8e!t. -rt. +.eld: 1. B+(aAC.9J -%9 &< =%9F9& 9D #%<) %9S<@F*&2 .!onstitutionalN Sub-issues under this are: a. "$e 7u8Aec" #u7" 8e l'w(ul+ '&) 8. sub8e!t only to review by the supreme !ourt.

-F9 . 9%)* --)-@. and even graft and !orruption. retaining a !arabao in one provin!e will not prevent their slaughter there.<D 9)=@<J9D < C<&S9%F9 C-%-$-<S *S &< %9-S<&-$@J &9C9SS-%J < .9D $9C-?S9 .9 S?==<S9D <##9&D9% *S C@9-% 9&C%<-C. -lso.+1 indis!riminate slaughter !onsidering that they !an be killed any where.9 %*2.<%* J < *)=<S9 .9 @-7 -&D. any more than moving them to another provin!e will make it easier to kill them there. )-J<% <# )-&*@-.-D . there is no reasonable guidelines or bases of the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or the Chairman of the &. 7<%S9 *S ?&D?@J <==%9SS*F9. D?9 =%<C9SS *S F*<@. %ead: a. < $9 .<%* *9S (like the poli!eA <# .9D. he 9(e!utive <rder is.< 9@ FS. -&D <&@J -# 9% %*-@ -&D C<&F*C *<& <# . thus denying him the !enturies-old guarantee of elementary fair play.*C.9 -CC?S9D.9 <7&9% <# .9 2?*@ <# .9-%D *& . 5)) =romotions vs. -lso. +46 SC%. Sin!e the 9(e!utive <rder in 0uestion is a penal law. invalid and un!onstitutional and not a valid poli!e power measure be!ause the )9 .9 -? .9 C<&#9%)9& <& .*<& <# =<79%S.9 -D)*&*S %. therefore. -@<&9 7<?@D . with no less diffi!ulty in one provin!e than in the other.9@J C<&D9)&9D -&D =?&*S. 7.. then violation thereof should be pronoun!e not by the poli!e $? $J C<?% <# 5?S *C9. there is undue delegation of legislative power to the offi!ers mentioned therein (Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry and .9 =%9SC%*$9D =9&-@ J.*S D9#9&S9 -&D *S *))9D*.*F9 -? . he law is un!onstitutional be!ause it stru!k at on!e and poun!ed upon the petitioner without giving him a !han!e to be heard.9S -2-*&S .9 =?%=<S9 <# . C-. <bviously.9 .*<&-@ )eat *nspe!tion Commission in the disposition of the !arabaos or !arabeef other than what Hthey may see fitH whi!h is very dangerous and !ould result to opportunities for partiality and abuse.1' b. .9D *S D9&*9D . D. 5uly .)9& <# 5?D*C*-@ #?&C *<&S -&D )*@* .9 =<79% < -D5?D29 .ead of the &ational )eat CommissionA be!ause they were given unlimited dis!retion in the distribution of the property !onfis!ated.9 =%<=9% J C<&#*SC. 1'4>" +1 .1.9 D<C %*&9 <# S9=-%.

19 SCRA 399 #ernando. -2?S *& FS.*@@ FS. %-##9% J.'c"7I 1.9%&-&D9O.' imposing Hthe penalties of fine. C. of the day after the holiday. *C. !onfis!ation of vehi!le and !an!ellation of registration on owners of the above-spe!ified found violating su!h letter of *nstru!tionsH" . 9D?.RE/O J3I-IO. =resident )ar!os issued @etter of *nstru!tion &o.m. F9@-SC< FS. ET prohibiting the use of .FS. 1'>'.. )otor vehi!les of the following !lassifi!ations are however. // SC%. ---. .m. of the holiday to D:66 a. he banning of . S----servi!e" +. D=@--Diplomati!" 3.eavy Fehi!lesA and 9. )onday morning. CC---Consular Corps" and D. )?&*C*=-@ C<?&C*@. =<)-%. dis!riminatory. . and 9.?%C. and arbitrary and thus !ontravenes the 9R?-@ =%< 9C *<& C@-?S9" and ++ . =9<=@9 FS. 1'>'.ru!k" . (. -Q*C-$ <=9%. 161 =hil. /4' prohibiting the use of private motor vehi!les with . 1+> SC%. 33> f. AL.eavy and 9(tra .eavy Fehi!les on weekends and holidays when there is energy !risis is a valid poli!e power measure.1'D 8.5. <n )ay .. 11DD d. h. F*@@92-S.<&2 FS.m. or 1:66 a. +3 =hil. D/6 e. C. %<)9< 9D? issued Cir!ular &o. . the then Commissioner of @and ransportation. ?S FS. 1'/. <n 5une 11. 34 =hil. 5?*&*<. (9(tra . vehi!les is unfair.ourist Cars +.. 11' SC%. Saturday morning to D:66 a. e(empted: 1. $-? *S . <%*$*<.. 3>1 i.+ =hil. $< .<%S FS. MARY CO-CE5CIO-G4A3TISTA VS. C--.D'> k. $autista is 0uestioning the !onstitutionality of the @<* and the *mplementing Cir!ular on the grounds that: a.eavy Fehi!lesA on week-ends and holidays from 1+:66 a. . #ebruary 1. *@<*@< *C9 P C<@D S <%-29 FS.++ !.m.+' . /D g. 1D =hil.

outings on week-ends and holidays. . or whatever restri!tions !ast on some in the group is held e0ually binding on the rest. his is so be!ause there is a valid !lassifi!ation in this !ase. Definitely. S9C%9 -%J <# -2%-%*-& %9#<%). herefore. 9%*C -. he petitionersS !laim that their right to e0ual prote!tion was violated is without basis. he Cir!ular violates the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power be!ause the @<* does not impose the penalty of !onfis!ation. &ot a valid e(er!ise of poli!e power C* J 2<F9%&)9& SC%. vehi!les are treated in the same fashion. +. S-& D*92<. he @<* denies the owners of . -SS<C*. m.A&T.. . publi! morals. September +1. and 9. b. vehi!les of due pro!ess.R //012.3.' has no statutory basis. C-S -&9D-. while those not in!luded in the prohibition are en8oying unrestri!ted freedom" !. *t must be pointed out that the @<* was promulgated to solve the oil !risis whi!h was besetting the !ountry at that time.FS.>D' <# R?9O<& C* J FS. *t was therefore a valid poli!e power measure to ensures the !ountrySs e!onomy as a result of spiralling fuel pri!es. the latter must be given leeway. *f all the owner of .. n. publi! safety and general welfare. and 9. &ROC. he poli!e power is intended to promote publi! health. D9CS FS. he penalty of -i(po#ndin*.eavy vehi!les !onsume more gasoline that the other kinds of vehi!les and it is but proper to regulate the use of those whi!h !onsumes more gasoline. *n the interplay of $autistaSs right to due pro!ess and the e(er!ise of poli!e power by the State.+. .33 +.eavy and 9(tra-. HEL/I 1. more spe!ifi!ally of their right to use and en8oy their private property and of their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings. l. F*@@-&?9F. 1++ C. it is not valid being an Hultra viresH..the vehi!le as embodied in Cir!ular &o. 1'/> D-a. . reunions. there is no violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause.*<& <# S)-@@ @-&D<7&9%S FS.D. 1/6 SC%. 1>D SC%.

?&2-@-<. D9#9&S<%.4E /E-IE/ EM3AL 5ROTECTIO.*9&O-. b. .+3 Sec"io& 1GGG-O 5ERSO. &ROC.F-@9&C*-... Due pro!ess is a law whi!h hears before it !ondemns. ). liberty or property. -OR SHALL A-Y 5ERSO. *n short.SHALL 4E /E5RIVE/ O. C. 5%.E.. . Illu7"r'"i*e c'7eI 12.O. D-&*@< 9. substantive due pro!ess---re0uires the intrinsi! validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life. Minds of Due =ro!ess: a. Due pro!ess before 8udi!ial bodies or 8udi!ial due pro!ess" Due pro!ess before administrative bodies" Due pro!ess before the labor tribunals" and Due pro!ess involving students. I( "$e procee)i&% i7 &o" co*ere) 8y '&y o( "$e '8o*e. LI4ERTY OR 5RO5ERTY 0ITHO3T /3E 5ROCESS O. 5%. THE LA0S. +. whi!h pro!eeds upon in0uiry and renders 8udgment only after trial (=er Daniel 7ebster in the /ARTMO3TH COLLE:E CASE! Due pro!ess have different re0uisites in: 1. %<D<@#< 2. S<@<)<& %. )ue proce77 #'y &o" 8e i&*oLe) i( o&e w'7 B&o" %i*e& "$e ri%$" "o 8e $e'r)D. S?-%9O.33 5<S9 @. it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental ob8e!tive like for the interest of the publi! as against mere parti!ular !lass. 3.*-S F. =ro!edural due pro!ess---one whi!h hears before it !ondemns as pointed out by Daniel 7ebster. S-@F-C*<& +3 . LA0. LI.

.: <n 5uly D. )9@F*& 2. $ut petitioner 5ose @. 5r. . +664 ele!tions and ordered the holding of a new ele!tion under C<)9@9C supervision. *t annulled the )ar!h +. he held the position of @= president in a holdover !apa!ity until new offi!ers were ele!ted. !laiming that he made the announ!ement without !onsulting his party. C<)9@9C. -tienGa also said that the amendments to the original @= Constitution. J. announ!ed his party1s withdrawal of support for the administration of =resident 2loria )a!apagal--rroyo.)-C?S* and 9@9-O-% =. )-&?9@ %<Q-S **... %espondent Drilon immediately filed a petition with the Commission on 9le!tions (C<)9@9CA to nullify the ele!tions. partially granting respondent Drilon1s petition. the C<)9@9C issued a resolution. the &ational 9(e!utive Coun!il (&9C<A and the &ational =oliti!al Coun!il (&-=<@C<A. &9%9?S -C<S .e !laimed that it was illegal !onsidering that the party1s ele!ting bodies. had not been properly ratified. <n -pril 1>. he ele!tion of new offi!ers on that o!!asion !ould be likened to :people power. through the ma8ority. 1//'+6 A4A/. sin!e the amendments to the Salonga Constitution had not been properly ratified. then the president of the @iberal =arty (@=A. $ut.. Drilon . were not properly !onvened. R?*& < vs. hus.%. +66D respondent #ranklin ). Drilon1s term may be deemed to have ended.%. *t held that the ele!tion of petitioner -tienGa and the others with him was invalid sin!e the ele!ting assembly did not !onvene in a!!ordan!e with the Salonga Constitution. <n )ar!h +. petitioner -tienGa !laimed that the ma8ority of the @=1s &9C< and &-=<@C< attended the )ar!h +. he Court held. @= Chairman. <n the other hand. &o. +664 <n <!tober 1. party offi!ers were ele!ted to a fi(ed three-year term that was yet to end on &ovember . Conse0uently. with -tienGa as @= president. when !onvened. +664 petitioner -tienGa hosted a party !onferen!e to supposedly dis!uss lo!al autonomy and party matters but. . -tienGa.-%@*& C-S --$-J<&.+D O-@D*F-%-=9%9O. the term of Drilon and the other offi!ers already ended on 5uly +3. 2. Drilon also !laimed that under the amended @= Constitution. +66> a divided Court issued a resolution. $oth sides of the dispute went to the Supreme Court to !hallenge the C<)9@9C rulings. giving @= offi!ers a fi(ed three-year term. or the Salonga Constitution. wherein the @= ma8ority removed respondent Drilon as president by dire!t a!tion. and a number of party members denoun!ed Drilon1s move. #%-&M@*& D%*@<& and 5. +664 assembly. granting respondent Drilon1s petition and denying that of petitioner -tienGa.6. the assembly pro!eeded to de!lare all positions in the @=1s ruling body va!ant and ele!ted new offi!ers. +66>. that the C<)9@9C had 8urisdi!tion over the +D . +664.

+66/ petitioners -tienGa. =etitioners -tienGa. like petitioner Defensor. he party1s 46th -nniversary Souvenir =rogram !ould not be used for determining the &9C< members be!ause supervening events !hanged the body1s number and !omposition. Ruinto. Drilon and 5. Chungalao. also !omplained that -tienGa. %odolfo 2. )elvin 2. or had gone on leave after a!!epting positions in the government. Falen!ia. members. )a!usi. !laiming that the &9C< assembly whi!h ele!ted him was invalidly !onvened. Salva!ion Oaldivar-=ereG. <n 5anuary 11. 5r.+4 intra-party leadership dispute" that the Salonga Constitution had been validly amended" and that. Subse0uently. respondent Drilon1s term as @= president was to end only on &ovember .%. et al. et al. where %o(as was ele!ted without noti!e to -tienGa1s allies. hey 0uestioned the e(isten!e of a 0uorum and !laimed that the &9C< !omposition ought to have been based on a list appearing in the party1s 46th -nniversary Souvenir =rogram. voluntarily resigned. -tienGa. <n the other hand. the @= held a &9C< meeting to ele!t new party leaders before respondent Drilon1s term e(pired.arlin Cast--bayon. %o(as ** (%o(asA as the new @= president. 9ventually. Some &9C< members had died. $efore the ele!tion. *n other words. during the meeting. making them ineligible to serve as &9C< members. <thers had lost their re-ele!tion bid or did not run in the )ay +66> ele!tions. the pro!eedings. &ereus <. @= members who got ele!ted to publi! offi!e also be!ame part of the &9C<. as a !onse0uen!e. that meeting installed respondent )anuel -. several persons asso!iated with petitioner -tienGa sought to !larify their membership status and raised issues regarding the !omposition of the &9C<. $oth -tienGa and Drilon adopted that list as !ommon e(hibit in the earlier !ases and it showed that the &9C< had 16. . +66>. !laimed that %o(as1 ele!tion as @= president faithfully !omplied with the provisions of the amended @= Constitution. filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory in8un!tion before the C<)9@9C against respondents %o(as. #ifty-nine &9C< members out of the /> who were supposedly 0ualified to vote attended. -tienGa1s allies allegedly raised these issues but respondent Drilon arbitrarily thumbed them down and :railroaded. the party se!retary general. sought to en8oin %o(as from assuming the presiden!y of the @=.. SuareG. and 9leaGar =. Defensor. Danilo 9. were given the status of :guests. the in!umbent party !hairman. respondents %o(as. was not invited to the &9C< meeting and that some members. however. the &9C< membership was not fi(ed or stati!" it !hanged due to supervening !ir!umstan!es. +4 . . Solomon %.6. Certain persons of national stature also be!ame &9C< members upon respondent Drilon1s nomination. )atias F. -!osta.e suspended the meeting and moved it to another room. et al. a privilege granted the @= president under the amended @= Constitution.

Court of Industrial $elations. therefore.N7 co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$" "o )ue proce77 8y "$e l'""erN7 e@pul7io& (ro# "$e p'r"y. 7ithout filing a motion for re!onsideration of the C<)9@9C resolution. like petitioners Defensor. his was pursuant to a )ar!h 13. he C<)9@9C treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its 8urisdi!tion to resolve. et al. Falen!ia. filed this petition for certiorari under %ule 4D.ouse of %epresentatives. et al. *iol'"e) pe"i"io&er7 A"ie&J'. . and Cast--bayon resigned for holding the illegal ele!tion of @= offi!ers on )ar!h +. *SS?9 0$e"$er or &o" re7po&)e&"7 Ro@'7.1s petition. <n 5une 1/. governors and mayors members of that body. +664 &-=<@C< resolution that &9C< subse0uently ratified. members of the . also !laimed that the party deemed petitioners -tienGa. +66' the C<)9@9C issued the assailed resolution denying petitioners -tienGa. argue that their e(pulsion from the party is not a simple issue of party membership or dis!ipline" it involves a violation of their !onstitutionally-prote!ted right to due pro!ess of law. hat some lost or won these positions in the )ay +66> ele!tions affe!ted the &9C< membership.9@D: =etitioners -tienGa. forfeited their party membership when they ran under other politi!al parties during the )ay +66> ele!tions. hey !laim that the &-=<@C< and the &9C< should have first summoned them to a hearing before summarily e(pelling them from the party. hey were dropped from the roster of @= members. and SuareG. =etitioners failed to prove that the &9C< whi!h ele!ted %o(as as @= president was not properly !onvened. et al. +664. Oaldivar-=ereG.+> %espondents %o(as. +> . et al. et al. -s for the validity of petitioners -tienGa.1s e(pulsion as @= members. !ertain &9C< members. )eanwhile. pro!eedings on party dis!ipline are the e0uivalent of administrative pro!eedings and are. the C<)9@9C observed that this was a membership issue that related to dis!iplinary a!tion within the politi!al party. !overed by the due pro!ess re0uirements laid down in Ang &i'ay v. et al. petitioners -tienGa.. et al. -!!ording to -tienGa. et al. *t noted that the )ay +66> ele!tions ne!essarily !hanged the !omposition of the &9C< sin!e the amended @= Constitution e(pli!itly made in!umbent senators.

if any. 7hile the 0uestion of party leadership +/ . "o ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 8o)ie7 he !onstitutional limitations on the e(er!ise of the state1s powers are found in -rti!le *** of the Constitution or the $ill of %ights. $ut even when re!ourse to !ourts of law may be made. I& "$e l'""er c'7e. !ourts will ordinarily not interfere in membership and dis!iplinary matters within a politi!al party. he $ill of %ights. pursuant to its !onstitutionally-prote!ted right to free asso!iation. in relation to other party members. not a state instrument. et al. *n "inaca v. )embers whose rights under their !harter may have been violated have re!ourse to !ourts of law for the enfor!ement of those rights. he only rights. a!!ording to the free !hoi!e of the people. 8u" &o" (ro# 'c"7 co##i""e) 8y pri*'"e i&)i*i)u'l7 or e&"i"ie7. as against the state. property. T$e )ue proce77 7"'&)'r)7 7e" i& An* Ti4ay co*er o&ly ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 8o)ie7 cre'"e) 8y "$e 7"'"e '&) "$rou%$ w$ic$ cer"'i& %o*er&#e&"'l 'c"7 or (u&c"io&7 're per(or#e). T$e ri%$" "o )ue proce77 i7 #e'&" "o pro"ec" or)i&'ry ci"iJe&7 '%'i&7" 'r8i"r'ry %o*er&#e&" 'c"io&. whi!h guarantees against the taking of life. Mula. o !on!lude. the C<)9@9C did not gravely abuse its dis!retion when it upheld %o(as1 ele!tion as @= president but refused to rule on the validity of -tienGa. 'pply "oo.1s e(pulsion from the party. A& ')#i&i7"r'"i*e '%e&cy or i&7"ru#e&"'li"y Bco&"e#pl'"e7 '& 'u"$ori"y "o w$ic$ "$e 7"'"e )ele%'"e7 %o*er&#e&"'l power (or "$e per(or#'&ce o( ' 7"'"e (u&c"io&. whi!h is a !ontra!t among the party members. -lthough politi!al parties play an important role in our demo!rati! set-up as an intermediary between the state and its !itiGens. liberty or property within the meaning of the due pro!ess !lause. or liberty without due pro!ess under Se!tion 1 is generally a limitation on the state1s powers in relation to the rights of its !itiGens. -n individual has no vested right. that party members may have. to be a!!epted or to prevent his removal by a politi!al party. . !orrespond to those that may have been freely agreed upon among themselves through their !harter. but not as a due pro!ess issue against the government or any of its agen!ies. "$e 7peci(ic 7"'"u"e7 "$'" pro*i)e relie(7 (ro# 7uc$ pri*'"e 'c"7 'pply. T$e ri%$" "o )ue proce77 %u'r)7 '%'i&7" u&w'rr'&"e) e&cro'c$#e&" 8y "$e 7"'"e i&"o "$e (u&)'#e&"'l ri%$"7 o( i"7 ci"iJe&7 '&) c'&&o" 8e i&*oLe) i& pri*'"e co&"ro*er7ie7 i&*ol*i&% pri*'"e p'r"ie7. *t is also !onsistent with the state poli!y of allowing a free and open party system to evolve. he dis!ipline of members by a politi!al party does not involve the right to life. the Court said that 8udi!ial restraint in internal party matters serves the publi! interest by allowing the politi!al pro!esses to operate without undue interferen!e. it is still a private organiGation.politi!al party is free to !ondu!t its internal affairs.D T$e co&7"i"u"io&'l li#i"'"io&7 "$'" %e&er'lly 'pply "o "$e e@erci7e o( "$e 7"'"eN7 power7 "$u7.+/ $ut the re0uirements of administrative due pro!ess do not apply to the internal affairs of politi!al parties.

. here must be an impartial !ourt or tribunal !lothed with 8udi!ial power to hear and de!ide the matter before it" +.>46. given the limited s!ope of its power over politi!al parties. <n 5une +>. otherwise known as the -nti-2raft and Corrupt =ra!ti!es -!t before the Sandiganbayan" 3. the =2. 1''/ IMELDA R. the #irst Division of the Sandiganbayan failed to !omply with the legal re0uirement that all the ..ospital #oundation (=2. in whi!h the C<)9@9C !annot intervene. *)9@D. a. 1''/ =urisima. 4A-CO ES5A-OL VS. she and Dans were !harged of alleged violation of Se!tion .. D. 991 ReCui7i"e7I 1.1s e(pulsion from the @=. -fter petitioner1s husband was deposed as =resident of the =hilippines. SANDI AN!A"AN. . Su!h e(pulsion is for the moment an issue of party membership and dis!ipline. -fter trial . 5AMARA.)-%C<S FS. MARCOS VS. et al. :ALMA. he defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard" 3. <!tober 4.(the 1st !aseA b. %e0uisites of :8udi!ial due pro!ess. #a!ts: 1.61'. 5.1'/3. 3 5$il.666.66 per month for +D years" +. BgC of %. 5urisdi!tion must be lawfully a!0uired over the person of the defendant or over the property sub8e!t of the pro!eedings" .)-%C<S and 5<S9 D-&S. 1+4''D.. 8usti!es must be unanimous in its De!ision be!ause 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena and 5usti!e 5ose $ala8adia voted for the !onvi!tion of both a!!used while 5usti!e &ar!iso -tienGa voted to a!0uit them" +' . the same !annot be said of the issue pertaining to -tienGa. <n 5une /.+' has impli!ations on the C<)9@9C1s performan!e of its fun!tions under Se!tion +. <!tober 4.R.3. *)9@D. 5ALA-CA.66 per month to the ransnational Constru!tion Corporation represented by one *gna!io 5umeneG" .property in =asay City for =16+. -rti!le *Q-C of the Constitution. as Chairman and Fi!e Chairman of the @ight %ailway ransit -uthority (@% -A entered into a @ease Contra!t with the =hilippine 2eneral .#*A involving an @% .#* subleased the said property for =>. &o.VS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&. '. 1'/3. 5udgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.

. <n 5une +'. <n September +3. .66 per monthA and the sub-lease rental (=>. 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena dissolved the division of D allegedly be!ause he and 5usti!e $ala8adia had agreed to the opinion of 5usti!e del %osario" >.66 manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government in the absen!e of any eviden!e using rentals of ad8a!ent properties showing that the rentals in the property sub8e!t of the lease agreement is indeed very low.>46. both substantive and pro!edural. -s su!h. <n September +1.. <n the same date. as a result of the fa!t that she was !onvi!ted as a result of the alleged disparity of the rentals agreed upon with =2.6 .66 per monthA does not ne!essarily render the monthly rate of =16+. the prose!ution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner reasonable doubt.9 %9& -@ %. 1''/. Hel)I he petitioner is hereby a!0uitted.. .-+ affirmed the !onvi!tion of the petitioner but a!0uitted D-&S" '. was violated: a..3. =etitioner then filed a )otion for %e!onsideration and at the same time prayed that her )otion be heard by the Supreme Court en ban! !laiming that her right to due pro!ess of law. 1.#* and ransnational Constru!tion Corporation" and b.9 <# -D5-C9& =%<=9% *9S.666.. +//-'. 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena as =residing 5usti!e issued -dministrative <rder &o. the #irst Division !onvi!ted her after 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena dissolved the Spe!ial Division of D after a lun!h in a RueGon City restaurant where they agreed to !onvi!t her in one !ase and a!0uit her in her other !ases. he great disparity between the rental pri!e of the lease agreement signed by the petitioner (=16+.. BgC of %. 1''. he said meeting was attended by another 8usti!e who is not a member of the #irst Division or the Spe!ial Division in violation of the %ules of the Sandiganbayan whi!h re0uires that sessions of the !ourt shall be done only in its prin!ipal offi!e in )anila and that only 8usti!es belonging to the division should 8oin the deliberations. the hird Division of the Supreme Court by a vote of . a De!ision was rendered !onvi!ting the petitioner and Dans of violation of Se!.61'" /. &< 9F*D9&C9 7. hereafter.9 =%<S9C? *<& %92-%D*&2 . however. 1''.S<9F9% 7-S =%9S9& 9D $J .6 D.#* and the subse0uent sub-lease !ontra!t between =2. 5usti!e -mores wrote 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena that he be given 1D days his )anifestation.>46. !onstituting a Spe!ial Division of five and designating 5usti!es -ugusto -mores and Cipriano del %osario" 4.

ACTSI 1. C?9%F<. J'&u'ry 99. 122 SCRA 192 JAVIER VS. CA. 1999 . Davide... he petitioner 9velio 5avier and the private respondent -rturo =a!ifi!ador were !andidates in -nti0ue for the $atasang =ambansa ele!tion in )ay 1'/3" 9. (&< 9: he vote was '-D for -!0uittal.. 5EO5LE VS. CA. 1'/3. 963 SCRA 29. /45 VS.A c. C5 &arvasa. -nother ground therefore for the a!0uittal of the petitioner is that she was denied *)=-% *-@ %*-@ before the Sandiganbayan. here is therefore no !ompelling reason why the !ase should still be remanded to the lower !ourt when all the eviden!e are already with the Supreme Court. and =anganiban voted for !onvi!tion while 5usti!e Fitug was the only 5usti!e who voted for the return of the !ase to the Sandiganbayan :to allow the !orre!tions of the per!eived Kirregularities1 in the pro!eedings below.. 1'/4 . <n )ay 1/. &o. 5usti!es %egalado. Said 8usti!e asked 1>' 0uestions to the witness as against the prose!utor who !ross-e(amined the witness and asked >. 5r. misleading and baseless hypotheti!al 0uestions of said 8usti!e to %-)<& #..@. his is one reason why the !ase !ould no longer be remanded to the Sandiganbayan espe!ially so that the other Sandiganbayan 5usti!es in the Spe!ial Division of D have retired. the Se!ond Division of the C<)9@9C dire!ted the provin!ial board of !anvassers to pro!eed with the !anvass but to suspend the pro!lamation of the winning !andidate until further orders" . Alle%i&% 7eriou7 '&o#'lie7 i& "$e co&)uc" o( "$e elec"io&7 '&) "$e c'&*'77 o( "$e elec"io& re"ur&7. Said number of 0uestions !ould no longer be des!ribed as :!larifi!atory 0uestions.>'-/1+. MAT3:3I-A VS. e. 969 SCRA 219 (.1 +. %omero.1 . CA. he !ourt notes likewise the bias and pre8udi!e of =residing 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena against the petitioner as shown by his leading. COMELEC.4/. J'*ier we&" "o "$e COMELEC "o pre*e&" "$e i#pe&)i&% procl'#'"io& o( $i7 ri*'l+ . witness for the petitioner. September ++.Repe'"e) ('ilure o( ' p'r"y "o pre7e&" e*i)e&ce Au7"i(ie7 "$e cour" "o co&7i)er "$e c'7e 7u8#i""e) (or )eci7io& '&) $ol) "$'" "$e p'r"y $'7 w'i*e) "$e ri%$" "o pre7e&" e*i)e&ce! ). JAVIER VS.%.. COMELEC 2.

C. se!s. $e the sole 8udge of all !ontests relating to the ele!tion. <n !ertiorari with the S. Constitution are -rt. 1'/3 pro!laiming =a!ifi!ador the winner in the ele!tion N -==@*C-$@9 =%<F*S*<&S <# . he Commission on 9le!tions may sit en ban! or in three divisions. authoriGed to promulgate its de!ision of 5uly +. %espondents: <nly H!ontestsH need to be heard and de!ided e& 8'&c.H C<& 9& *<&S <# . the same Se!ond Division ordered the board to immediately !onvene and to pro!laim the winner without pre8udi!e to the out!ome of the petition filed by 5avier with the C<)9@9C" D. Q**-C. 1'/3..9 C<&S* ? *<&: he appli!able provisions of the 1'>. whi!h provide: HSe!tion +. <n 5une >. w$ic$ 7$'ll 8e $e'r) '&) )eci)e) e& 8'&c .day period of appeal. 1'/3 the Se!ond Division itself pro!laimed =a!ifi!ador the ele!ted assemblyman of -nti0ue.. whi!h the petitioner seasonably made" 4. ISS3E: 7as the Se!ond Division of the C<)9@9C. All elec"io& c'7e7 #'y 8e $e'r) '&) )eci)e) 8y )i*i7io&7 e@cep" co&"e7"7 i&*ol*i&% #e#8er7 o( "$e 4'"'7'&% 5'#8'&7'. ?nless otherwise provided by law.+ . all ele!tion !ases shall be de!ided within ninety days from the date of their submission for de!ision.+ 3.H HSe!tion .. .. 7$oul) 8e G (ile) wi"$ '&) )eci)e) o&ly 8y '&y o( "$e "$ree )i*i7io&7.9 =-% *9S: =etitioner: he pro!lamation made by the Se!ond Division is invalid be!ause all !ontests involving members of the $atasang =ambansa !ome under the 8urisdi!tion of the Commission on 9le!tions e& 8'&c. having been made before the lapse of the D . <n 5uly +. + and .. returns and 0ualifi!ations of all members of the $atasang =ambansa and ele!tive provin!ial and !ity offi!ials. 'll o"$er c'7e7 c'& 8e G i& ('c". the pro!lamation made by the $oard of Canvassers was set aside as premature.

as in this !ase. he S. !onsonant with Se!.C. . here are times when we !annot grant the latter be!ause the issue has been settled and de!ision is no longer possible a!!ording to law.C. and even if 5avier had already died in the meantime.. Constitution. his was be!ause of its desire for this !ase to serve as a guidan!e for the future. d.. in!luding those arising before the pro!lamation of the winners. held on the main issue that in making the C<)9@9C the sole 8udge of all !ontests involving the ele!tion. then. he word H!ontestsH should not be given a restri!tive meaning" on the !ontrary.. but also for the guidan!e of and as a restraint upon the future. -s employed in the 1'>. . Constitution !ould not have therefore been intended to have divided !ontests between pre and post pro!lamation when that Constitution was written in 1'>. he two are not always the same. $ut there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared. =re-pro!lamation !ontroversies be!ame known and designated as su!h only be!ause of Se!. here is a differen!e between H!ontestsH and H!asesH and also a differen!e between Hpre-pro!lamation !ontroversiesH and Hele!tion protestsH. he S. the Constitution intended to give it full authority to hear and de!ide these !ases from beginning to end and on all matter related thereto. he 1'>. he pre-pro!lamation !ontroversy between the petitioner and the private respondent was not yet a !ontest at the time and therefore !ould be validly heard by a mere division of the Commission on ele!tions. he !itiGen !omes to us in 0uest of law but we must also give him 8usti!e. though gone. not only for the vindi!ation of the outraged right. it nevertheless !ries out to be resolved. 5usti!e demands that we a!t. !. returns and 0ualifi!ations of the members of the $atasang =ambansa and ele!tive provin!ial and !ity offi!ials. he de!ision rendered by the Se!ond Division alone was therefore set aside as violative of the Constitution. he !ase should have been de!ided e& 8'&c. 1>D of the 1'>/ 9le!tion Code.H b. HEL/: a.. hus it said: H he Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal 0uestions but also the !ons!ien!e of the government. it should re!eive the widest possible s!ope !onformably to the rule that the words used in the Constitution should be interpreted liberally. the term should be understood as . he issue at that stage was still administrative and !ould be resolved by a division.. de!ided to resolve the !ase even if the $atasang =ambansa had already been abolished by the -0uino government.

.3 referring to any matter involving the title or !laim of title to an ele!tive offi!e. A. MAYOR ALO-TE VS. T$ere w'7 'l7o ' )e&i'l o( )ue proce77. <ne of the members of the Se!ond Division. CASTRO. 5A/ERA-:A VS. presided over by the respondent 8udge. his !ase was transferred to % C $ran!h D. -LRC. whether or not the !ontestant is !laiming the offi!e in dispute. CLAVE. A>3L VS.3 . 119 SCRA 313 o. the petitioner filed a motion for bail. A->AL/O VS. AM3ILI>A-. o bolster that re0uirement we have held that the 8udge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assuran!e to the parties that his de!ision will be 8ust. /AVI/ VS. the prose!ution submitted an -##*D-F* <# D9S*S -&C9 signed by the private !omplainant 5?F*9-@J& =?&<&2$-J-& where she prayed for the withdrawal of the !ase be!ause she is no longer interested in pursuing the same with no intention of re-filing the said !ase in the future. 5. . CA. 136 SCRA 966 i. 92 SCRA .VS. >AM4ALES CHROMITE MI-I-: VS.e denied the motion to dis0ualify him from hearing the !ase. A>3RA. %. -fter the petitioner1s arraignment. 119 SCRA 313 #. CLAVE.. as a result of a petition for a transfer of venue filed by the prose!ution and granted by the SC. 2&' SCRA 2() Fitug. 133 SCRA 9 1 $. =ending resolution of the said motion to withdraw. . . )anila. )ayor -lonte of $inan. LORE->A-A VS. he same was not resolved despite several motions filed by the petitioner to resolve the same.owever.re7po&)e&" w'7 &o" ' p'r"y "o "$e eAec"#e&" c'7e! 7o "o e&(orce "$e )eci7io& o& $er *iol'"e7 $er ri%$" "o )ue proce77 o( l'w L. made before or after the pro!lamation of the winner. 96 SCRA 921 MA"OR !A"ANI ALON#E VS. he Court has repeatedly and !onsistently demanded O"$e col) &eu"r'li"y o( '& i#p'r"i'l Au)%eO '7 "$e i&)i7pe&7'8le i#per'"i*e o( )ue proce77. A->AL/O VS. $%D E SAVELLANO. J3/:E SAVELLA-O. Commissioner 5aime <pinion was a law partner of =a!ifi!ador. CAYETA-O. SI-:SO. @aguna was !harged of rape before $ran!h +D. % C of @aguna. 92 SCRA 961 l. e. 6 SCRA 261 . 9 3 SCRA 916 &.

1'> SC%. <n De!ember 1/. -s long as there is a noti!e to a party in the hearing of a motion on the !ustody of their !hildren in a De!laration of &ullity of )arriage !ase.J. 16 139. there is no violation of the right to due pro!ess. -o. 1''>. the !ourt or tribunal trying the !ase is !lothed with 8urisdi!tion to hear and determine the matter before it" +.*7. 9.. he De!ision rendered is &?@@ -&D F<*D for want of due pro!ess. that the a!!used is given the opportunity to be heard" and 3. JESSE TA-. the following re0uisites must be !omplied with before a de!ision is rendered: 1. *ssue: 7hether or not the petitioner was denied his right to due pro!ess of law. re!eived a noti!e from the respondent 8udge notifying him of the promulgation of the de!ision in this !ase despite the fa!t that the prose!ution and the defense have not presented their eviden!e in !ourt. . S3SIE CHA-GTA.. . !ounsel for the petitioner.R.eld: *n order that an a!!used in a !riminal pro!eedings is deemed to have been given the right to due pro!ess of law.. =.e8ru'ry 91. that 8udgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing (=9<=@9 FS. . the respondent 8udge issued a De!ision !onvi!ting the petitioner of rape and senten!ed to suffer a penalty of %9C@?S*<& =9%=9 ?-.*@*= S*2#%*D #<% ?&.D <n De!ember 1>. D-=* -&. 1''>. *SS?9: .>/A he a!t of the respondent 8udge in rendering a de!ision without even giving the petitioner the right to addu!e eviden!e in his behalf is a gross violation of his right to due pro!ess of law.D . that 8urisdi!tion was lawfully a!0uired by it over the person of the a!!used" . :.1.

among others. respe!tfully informs the . who appeared for petitioner.9@D: =etitioner !ontends she was denied due pro!ess when her !ounsel failed to file pleadings and appear at the hearings for respondent1s omnibus motion to amend the partial 8udgment as regards the !ustody of the !hildren and the properties in her possession. -ttempts to !all petitioner have failed. . )ay +663: ?ndersigned Counsel. filing motion after motion. . we have reason to believe the negligen!e in pursuing the !ase was on petitioner1s end. he trial 8udge was left with no other re!ourse but to pro!eed with the hearings and rule on the motion based on the eviden!e presented by respondent. she !annot say she was denied her day in !ourt. !ustody of the !hildren. 7e also ruled in &uason that noti!e sent to the !ounsel of re!ord is binding upon the !lient and the negle!t or failure of the !ounsel to inform the !lient of an adverse 8udgment resulting in the loss of the latter1s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a 8udgment valid and regular on its fa!e. =etitioner !annot now !ome to this Court !rying denial of due pro!ess. a!tively parti!ipated in the pro!eedings below. %espondent stresses neither petitioner nor her !ounsel appeared in !ourt at the hearings on respondentSs omnibus motion or on petitioner1s motion to dismiss. ?ndersigned !ounsel regrets therefore that she is unable to respond in an intelligent manner to the )otion (<mnibus )otionA filed by respondent.onorable Court that she has not heard from petitioner sin!e .. petitioner showed utter disinterest in the hearings on respondent1s omnibus motion seeking. as may be gleaned from her !ounsel1s manifestation dated .oly 7eek. #urther. through !ounsel. petitioner !annot !laim that she was denied due pro!ess. %e!ords show petitioner. Clearly.6 )ar!h +663 de!ision and the 1> )ay +663 resolution of the trial !ourt giving !ustody to their !hildren have attained finality despite the alleged denial of due pro!ess sin!e she was not present during the hearing. 7hile she may have lost her right to present eviden!e due to the supposed negligen!e of her !ounsel. Contrary to petitioner1s allegation of negligen!e of her !ounsel. in the nullity pro!eedings.4 . =etitioner !laims the trial !ourt issued the 1> )ay +663 resolution relying solely on the testimony of respondent. despite her !ounsel1s efforts to rea!h her.4 =etitioner raises the 0uestion of whether the .

> T$e ri%$" o( "$e 'ccu7e) "o )ue proce77 o( l'w w'7 *iol'"e) w$e& "$e Au)%e i77ue) ' w'rr'&" (or $er 'rre7" e*e& "$ou%$ 7$e $'7 &o" recei*e) '&y &o"ice (or $er 'rr'i%&#e&" 8e(ore "$e Mu&icip'l Tri'l Cour" o( 4'%uio Ci"y 8ec'u7e "$e &o"ice w'7 'c"u'lly 7e&" "o $er "$rou%$ "$e C$ie( o( 5olice o( MueJo& Ci"y. +66> against 5udge )aria Clarita Casuga. 6. as proven by %egistry %e!eipt &o..666. for the arraignment and preliminary !onferen!e in Criminal Case &o. ++. $ran!h 3.--. *t is true that the return on the !ourtSs <rder dated -ugust /. 11/4+/. +664. her staff sent by registered mail the !ourtSs <rder dated -ugust /. Complainant alleges that she was deeply aggrieved and embarrassed by the issuan!e of the warrant for her arrest despite the fa!t that she was never notified of her arraignment. she did not re!eive any !opy of the <rder and up to the present has not seen the same" hen!e. J!%+E MA$IA CLA$I&A CA"!+A&A I(. M&J-. +664 an <rder dire!ting her to appear before the !ourt on <!tober 16. &A( *". the !omplainant. =&=. 11/4+/. 1163. relative to Criminal Case &o. issued by the ) CC $aguio City. . respondent answered: She issued the warrant of arrest be!ause when the !ase was !alled for appearan!e.1 #-C S: &oryn S.> . ?pon verifi!ation.m. respondent issued a warrant for her arrest./0-. 0.. Complainant prayed that the appropriate investigation be !ondu!ted as to the undue issuan!e of a warrant for her arrest. *t was sent by mail to =&= RueGon City for servi!e to her.6 a. +664 had not yet been made by the RC =oli!e on or before <!tober . She also found out that there was no proof of servi!e of the <rder or any noti!e to her of the arraignment.abin (respondentA of the )uni!ipal rial Court in Cities () CCA. =rior to the issuan!e of the warrant of arrest. +66>. She was detained at the RueGon City .owever. +664 for arraignment. A. she learned that respondent issued on -ugust /. RueGon City.. J.A3STRIAGMARTI-E>. +664 at /:. (O$)( ". the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A RueGon City =oli!e Distri!t (RC=DA served her a warrant of arrest dated <!tober 1. January 0.16. an (!omplainantA filed a Complaint dated -pril +. $ran!h 3. *t was only then that she learned for the first time that a !riminal !ase was filed against her before the !ourt. dire!ting !omplainant to appear on <!tober 16. Complainant avers: <n &ovember '.M. as a!!used therein. presided by respondent. she was not able to attend her arraignment. *n her Comment dated 5uly D.. +664. failed to appear.66 before the <ffi!e of the 9(e!utive 5udge of the %egional rial Court (% CA of RueGon City for her temporary release. (o. +664 addressed to !omplainant :through the Chief of =oli!e.all Comple( =oli!e <ffi!e and had to post bail of =1. 11/4+/ for alleged violation of atas #am'ansa lg. his notwithstanding. $aguio City for denial of due pro!ess relative to Criminal Case &o.

So basi! and fundamental is a personSs right to liberty that it should not be taken lightly or brushed aside with the presumption that the poli!e through whi!h the noti!e had been sent. 4ue5on City. .. whi!h in turn 8ustifies the issuan!e of a warrant for her arrest. 16 P 1+. of %ule 1. respondent !laims that the issuan!e of a warrant for the arrest of !omplainant was 8ustified. +664. 7hile it is true that the %ules of Court provides for presumptions. was sent to !omplainant : t2roug2 t2e C2ief of #olice. She issued the warrant in the honest belief that her a!t was in !omplian!e with the rules. &onetheless.. 1+ of the 1'/. She has nothing personal against !omplainant and did not want to embarrass or humiliate her. unless the a!!used fails to appear whenever re0uired. after the lapse of a little over two months. he warrant of arrest she issued was meant to implement this provision. however. . whi!h was not repealed by the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure./ 16. *f her interpretation was erroneous. his is !learly provided in Se!tion 14 of the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure whi!h states: Se!. (9mphasis suppliedA *n this !ase. offi!ial duty had been regularly performed and a letter duly dire!ted and mailed had been re!eived in the regular !ourse of mail" and (bA Se!. the !ourt was entitled to presume that on <!tober 16. of the 1'/. she (respondentA believes that an administrative san!tion for su!h error would be harsh and unsympatheti!. that a !opy of the <rder dated -ugust /./ . %ule on Summary =ro!edure in Spe!ial Cases provides that bail may be re0uired where the a!!used does not reside in the pla!e where the violation of the law or ordinan!e was !ommitted. when su!h noti!e was not a!tually addressed to her residen!e but to the poli!e in her !ity. Arrest of accused. in relation to Se!. she issued the warrant of arrest in good faith and upon the following grounds: (aA under Se!. %ule on Summary =ro!edure in Spe!ial Cases. . 14. 14 of the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure be made for the guidan!e of the ben!h and bar.9@D: 7henever a !riminal !ase falls under the Summary =ro!edure. sin!e !omplainant is a resident of RueGon City and not of $aguio City. the general rule is that the !ourt shall not order the arrest of the a!!used. sin!e !omplainant failed to appear during the arraignment in spite of an order re0uiring her to do so. su!h presumption should not be the sole basis of a magistrate in !on!luding that a person !alled to !ourt has failed to appear as re0uired.. . .. %espondent admits. +664. +664.1 of the %ules of Court. #(#. a!tually served the same on !omplainant whose address was not even spe!ified. one of whi!h is that offi!ial duty has been regularly performed.3.T$e cour" 7$'ll &o" or)er "$e 'rre7" o( "$e 'ccu7e) e@cep" (or ('ilure "o 'ppe'r w$e&e*er reCuire). She prays that the !ase against her be dismissed and that a ruling on the interpretation of Se!s. %elease of the person arrested shall either be in bail or on re!ogniGan!e by a responsible !itiGen a!!eptable to the !ourt.

:. 9.e8ru'ry 19. "$e ri%$" "o ' $e'ri&% w$ic$ i&clu)e7 "$e ri%$" "o pre7e&" e*i)e&ce+ 8. a.D ReCui7i"e7: '. D*%9C <%.66 to be proper in this !ase. 6. "$e e*i)e&ce #u7" 8e 7u87"'&"i'l+ e. 5roce)ur'l )ue proce77 8e(ore ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 8o)ie7 *$-J FS. &@%C.. 5EO5LE. +4. "$e )eci7io& #u7" $'*e 7o#e"$i&% "o 7uppor" i"7el(+ ). !. CA. SC%/EL:A/O VS.+/> )-&*@. D. 4. $er ri%$" "o )ue proce77 w'7 *iol'"e) '&) "$ere(ore e&"i"le) "o ' &ew "ri'l. re&)er i"7 )eci7io& i& 7uc$ ' #'&&er "$'" "$e p'r"ie7 "o "$e procee)i&%7 c'& L&ow "$e *'riou7 i77ue7 i&*ol*e). .9@9C %*C C<)=-&J FS. Considering that this is respondentSs first administrative infra!tion in her more than / years of servi!e in the 8udi!iary. "$e "ri8u&'l or 8o)y #u7" 'c" o& i"7 ow& i&)epe&)e&" co&7i)er'"io& o( "$e l'w or ('c"7+ %. e.' he Court has held that a 8udge !ommits grave abuse of authority when she hastily issues a warrant of arrest against the a!!used in violation of the summary pro!edure rule that the a!!used should first be notified of the !harges against him and given the opportunity to file his !ounter-affidavits and !ountervailing eviden!e . 4> SC%.. b.' . "$e 8o'r) or 8o)y 7$'ll i& 'll co&"ro*er7i'l Cue7"io&7. 1 9269. 5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS.666. the Court holds the imposition of a fine in the amount of =16.en!e. !omplainant1s right to due pro!ess was violated. "$e "ri8u&'l #u7" co&7i)er "$e e*i)e&ce pre7e&"e)+ c. . 1966 I( '& 'ccu7e) w'7 repre7e&"e) 8y ' &o&Gl'wyer )uri&% "$e "ri'l . C*%. -o. whi!h serves to mitigate her liability. "$e )eci7io& #u7" 8e 8'7e) o& "$e e*i)e&ce pre7e&"e) )uri&% "$e $e'ri&%+ (. 4' =hil.."$ou%$ 7$e "$ou%$" "$'" $e i7 ' l'wyer!.R. -)9%*C-& <$-CC< FS.9 .1 ). -o*e#8er 1.

THE COMMISSIO.A:3ILAR.9@D: <n the matter of a!!used-appellant1s !laim of having been denied due pro!ess. 1>. 36 . he has sin!e been represented by a member of the =hilippine bar.%. . a!!used-appellant was represented by -tty. 19 96. SC%.0IL. JAMES 5A3L 43-:343-:. i& $i7 c'p'ci"y '7 5re7i)i&% Ju)%e o( 4r'&c$ 36.36 *SS?9: 7hether or not appellant was denied due pro!ess having been represented by a fake lawyer during arraignment.. /ece#8er 19. +666. hereafter. %eyes. an e(amination of the re!ords shows that while a!!usedappellant was represented by -tty. E/3CATIOC3LT3RE A-/ S5ORTS. who :seems not a lawyer. :.RE/O /. HO-.R. =ro!edural due pro!ess in dis!iplinary a!tions against students -!ademi! freedom" due pro!ess in dis!iplinary a!tions involving students /E LA SALLE 3-IVERSITY VS. Sin!e the a!!used-appellant was already represented by a member of the =hilippine $ar who prin!ipally handled his defense. 1'/'. 9.. hat appellant1s first !ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa!t that appellant prevented &elia and !ompany from pro!eeding to their destination. >.+3.. the latter withdrew her appearan!e with the !onformity of the former as early as 5uly +/. 5o!elyn =. +3'. #urther. REYES. who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant1s brief. THE /E5ARTME-T O. 4.. &o. #eople v. pre-trial and presentation of prin!ipal witnesses for the prose!ution. Re%io&'l Tri'l Cour" o( M'&il'. it is observed that he was !hosen by the a!!used himself and that his representation does not !hange the fa!t that 9lesterio was undeniably !arrying an unli!ensed firearm when he was arrested.. approved by the % C in its <rder dated -ugust 3.'>1. RICHAR/ REVERE-TE '&) RO4ERTO VAL/ES. then he !annot now be heard to !omplain about having been denied of due pro!ess. +666 and subse0uently. -t any rate. albeit unsu!!essfully. during the early stages of trial. A55EALS. ALVI. %ainald C.OHI:HER E/3CATIO-. JR. )ay '. CO3RT O. -o. 1 B3C 2. appellant was afforded !ompetent representation by the =ubli! -ttorneys1 <ffi!e during the presentation by the prose!ution of the medi!o-legal offi!er and during the presentation of his eviden!e.. Elesterio1B3C enlightens: :-s for the !ir!umstan!e that the defense !ounsel turned out later to be a non-lawyer. =aggao from the =ubli! Defender1s (-ttorney1sA <ffi!e of )akati City.

5r.<9.31 REYES. 5r. 31 . %i!hard %everente and %oberto Faldes.T. $o'ert $. while the alleged assailants. 6 ". he ne(t day. J. )ar!h .. #ascual. %i!hard %everente and %oberto Faldes. $ic2ard $everente 6A -M+&7-.:/9 and Malvin A.-+D1+1. Cano. private respondents -lvin -guilar..00/9. 9ri!son Cano.6. hus. and )i!hael =ereG.. *aldes. !ases entitled :%e La "alle !niversity and College of "t. are members of au 2amma =hi #raternity who were e(pelled by the De @a Salle ?niversity (D@S?A and College of Saint $enilde (CS$A 5oint Dis!ipline $oard be!ause of their involvement in an offensive a!tion !ausing in8uries to petitioner 5ames Jap and three other student members of Domino @u( #raternity. he mauling in!idents were a result of a fraternity war. #apio 6A -M+&7-08. $ungubung and Faldes. namely: petitioner 5ames Jap and Dennis =as!ual. a rival fraternity.9 respondents -lvin -guilar."M7-. 5r. 3 arising from t2e ?ritten complaints of James )ap. and Ericson ). he vi!tims. James #aul ungu'ung 6A -#"M7-0:33.I THE .. R.8:..89. Jr.80. Alvin Aguilar 6A . 5ames =aul $ungubung. %ennis C. and %everente informing them of the !omplaints and re0uiring them to answer.ACTSI =%*F. he Dire!tor of the D@S? Dis!ipline <ffi!e sent separate noti!es to private respondents -guilar. Similar !omplaints were also filed by Dennis =as!ual and 9ri!son Cano against -lvin @ee and private respondents Faldes and %everente. Alvin Lee 6E%%7-3<0:089. Said noti!es issued by De @a Salle Dis!ipline $oard uniformly stated as follows: #lease 'e informed t2at a =oint and e>panded %iscipline oard 2ad 'een constituted to 2ear and deli'erate t2e c2arge against you for violation of CHE% Order (o. 1''D. enilde v. were do!keted as Dis!ipline Case &o. petitioner Jap lodged a !omplaint with the Dis!ipline $oard of D@S? !harging private respondents with :dire!t assault.. 5ames =aul $ungubung. '3'D-."-A#M7-0:8. =rivate respondents filed their respe!tive answers.:9. are members of the :Domino @u( #raternity. are members of : au 2amma =hi #raternity.

Connon Hall for you and your ?itnesses to give testimony and present evidence in your 'e2alf./. 3 and thereby orders their automati! e(pulsion.336. %9F9%9& 9 (-$-)2 E'1D.-. private respondents interposed the !ommon defense of alibi. if desired" (..--8 at -1. 5-)9S =-?@ $?&2?$?&2 (-$-=S)E'+. *n ')#i&i7"r'"i*e c'7e7. !onsidering all the foregoing. 3. <n )ay . B<"=$ere 're wi"$'l #i&i#u# 7"'&)'r)7 w$ic$ #u7" 8e #e" 8e(ore "o 7'"i7(y "$e )e#'&)7 o( proce)ur'l )ue proce77 and these are: that (1A the students must be informed in writing of the nature and !ause of any a!!usation against them" (+A they shall have the right to answer the !harges against them and with the assistan!e if !ounsel.9D <rder &o.-%D F.m. at t2e ro.. 1''D. )2 E'+D1++>A.A. I SS3E 7ere private respondents a!!orded due pro!ess of law be!ause there was no full-blown hearing nor were they allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against themN H E L /I 5ri*'"e re7po&)e&"7N ri%$" "o )ue proce77 o( l'w w'7 &o" *iol'"e).3+ )ou are directed to appear at t2e 2earing of t2e oard sc2eduled on April . a. he dispositive part of the resolution reads: 7. the D@S?-CS$ 5oint Dis!ipline $oard issued a %esolution finding private respondents guilty. hey were meted the supreme penalty of automati! e(pulsion pursuant to C.A they shall be informed of the eviden!e against them" (3A they shall have the right to addu!e eviden!e in their own behalf" and (DA the eviden!e must be duly !onsidered by the investigating !ommittee or offi!ial designated by the s!hool authorities to hear and de!ide the !ase.9%9#<%9. &o fullblown hearing was !ondu!ted nor the students allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against them. )ou may 'e assisted 'y a la?yer ?2en you give your testimony or t2ose of your ?itnesses.. 7uc$ '7 i&*e7"i%'"io&7 o( 7"u)e&"7 (ou&) *iol'"i&% 7c$ool )i7cipli&e. -@F*& @99 (9DDE'34+.9D <rder &o. the $oard a!0uits him of the !harge. During the pro!eedings before the $oard on -pril 1' and +/. *n the !ase of respondent )-@F*& -.+D6A and %*C. the $oard finds respondents -@F*& -2?*@-% (-$-$S)E'1D+16DA.>A guilty of having violated C. 1''D. . 3+ =-=*< (-$- .

the right to whi!h is among the primary rights that must be respe!ted even in administrative pro!eedings. private respondents were given the right to addu!e eviden!e on their behalf and they did. he pro!eedings in student dis!ipline !ases may be summary" and !ross e(amination is not.VS. -ATIO-AL 3-IVERSITY 2. @astly. submitted their respe!tive answers.3. 1'/4 3. an opportunity to e(plain one1s side or an opportunity to seek re!onsideration of the a!tion or ruling !omplained of. &oti!e and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due pro!ess. 5uly 11. =rivate respondents were duly informed in writing of the !harges against them by the D@S?-CS$ 5oint Dis!ipline $oard through petitioner Sales. @-4/+//. . his argument was already re8e!ted in +u5man v. or as applied to administrative pro!eedings.%. does not only mean presentation of testimonial eviden!e in !ourt I one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is a!!orded. ( ( ( an essential part thereof. he !annot !omplain of deprivation of due pro!ess. : o be heard. .. hey were also informed of the eviden!e presented against them as they attended all the hearings before the $oard. -nd it bears stressing that due pro!ess in dis!iplinary !ases involving students does not entail pro!eedings and hearings similar to those pres!ribed for a!tions and pro!eedings in !ourts of 8usti!e. the Dis!ipline $oard !onsidered all the pie!es of eviden!e submitted to it by all the parties before rendering its resolution in Dis!ipline Case &o. &o. hey were given the opportunity to answer the !harges against them as they. =rivate respondents !annot !laim that they were denied due pro!ess when they were not allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against them. essential to due pro!ess I it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to e(plain their respe!tive sides of the !ontroversy and to present supporting eviden!e on whi!h a fair de!ision !an be based. :3>MA. there is no denial of due pro!ess. at all times and in all instan!es.-+D1+1. So long as the party is given the opportunity to advo!ate her !ause or defend her interest in due !ourse. (ational !niversityC where this Court held that :( ( ( the imposition of dis!iplinary san!tions re0uires observan!e of pro!edural due pro!ess.formal trial-type hearing is not. in fa!t. he essen!e of due pro!ess is simply an opportunity to be heard. 7here a party was afforded an opportunity to parti!ipate in the pro!eedings but failed to do so. )oreover. '3'D-. it !annot be said that there was denial of due pro!ess.

H he petitioner were denied of this right. 11> SC%. or violation of dis!iplinary regulations. he s!hool !laims that their s!holasti! standing is poor and that they have been involved in a!tivities that have disrupted !lasses and had !ondu!ted mass a!tions without the re0uired permits. that it is illegal of a s!hool to impose san!tions on students without !ondu!ting due investigation. I" $'7 'lre')y 8ee& $el) i& $erina vs.D/1. *t is apparent that despite the a!!usations of alleged violations hurled by the s!hool against the petitioners. -lso apparent is the omission of respondents to !ite any duly published rule of theirs by whi!h students may be e(pelled or refused re-enrollment for poor s!holasti! standing.H 33 . students have the right Hto freely !hoose their field of study sub8e!t to e(isting !urri!ula and to !ontinue their !ourse therein up to graduation. b. !ondu!ted without prior permit from s!hool authorities. 9QC9= in !ase of a!ademi! defi!ien!y. he )anual of %egulations for =rivate S!hools provides that: HL L he s!hool rules governing dis!ipline and the !orresponding san!tions therefor must be !learly spe!ified and defined in writing and made known to the students andEor their parents or guardians. <f !ourse. the fa!t is that it had never !ondu!ted pro!eedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or parti!ipated Hin a!tivities within the university premises. *n fa!t the maintenan!e of good s!hool dis!ipline is a duty spe!ifi!ally en8oined on every private s!hool. HEL/I a. and were being dis!iplined without due pro!ess. ?nder the 9du!ation -!t of 1'/+. all s!hools have the power to adopt and enfor!e its rules. that disturbed or disrupted !lasses thereinH. S!hools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate su!h rules and regulations as they may deem ne!essary from time to time effe!tive as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise spe!ified.33 . =hilippine )aritime *nstitute. !.ACTSI =etitioners who are students of the &ational ?niversity were barred from enrolment. in violation of the admonition in the )anual of %egulations for =rivate S!hools that Hno penalty shall be imposed upon any student e(!ept for !ause as defined in LLL (theA )anuel andEor in the s!hool rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after )ue i&*e7"i%'"io& 7$'ll $'*e 8ee& co&)uc"e).

&@%C. +4. +43 SC%.1>3 S-)*@@-&< FS. &@%C.6. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and !ause of any a!!usation against them" +. September . &@%C.FS.443 =hilippine Savings $ank vs.. the eviden!e must be duly !onsidered by the investigating !ommittee or offi!ial designated by the s!hool authorities to hear and de!ide the !ase. said that the following minimum standards must be met to satisfy the demands of pro!edural due pro!ess: 1. +4D SC%. +.D/' 7-@@9) )-%* *)9 S9%F*C9S FS. they shall be informed of the eviden!e against them" 3. g. !ross-e(amination is not an essential part thereof.earing )22 )arine Servi!es vs. they shall have the right to addu!e eviden!e in their own behalf" D. &@%C.. =)*. &oti!e" and . the pro!eedings may be summary" !.FS. &@%C. +43 SC%. f. he imposition of dis!iplinary san!tions re0uires observan!e of pro!edural due pro!ess. with the assistan!e of !ounsel" .>// S <@ -&*9@S9& FS. e. +D' SC%. b. $ut the S.+41 /.6> 2-%C*. &@%C. 1'/+ Due pro!ess in the dismissal of employees ReCui7i"e7 o( /ue 5roce77 8e(ore "$e -LRC 1. SC%. Due pro!ess in dis!iplinary !ases involving students : a.3D d. a. &@%C. 9ffe!t of a )otion for %e!onsideration to violation of the right to due pro!ess 3D . d.C. +41 SC%. +41 SC%.36' %-JC<% -*% C<& %<@ FS. $9%*&. they shall have the right to answer the !harges against them. a. !. need not entail pro!eedings and hearing similar to those pres!ribed for a!tions and pro!eedings in !ourt of 8usti!e" b.

9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J. whi!h provides that a respondent in an administrative !ase should be assisted by !ounsel in order that the pro!eedings therein is !onsidered valid.%A %egion *.. :.MACALI-:AY. 1''' !harged petitioner with Dishonesty and 2rave )is!ondu!t for using a government vehi!le in spite of his re!eipt of the monthly transportation allowan!e and for !ertifying 34 .D b. 969 SCRA 191 here is no law.46 dated 5uly 1. A)#i&i7"r'"i*e /ue 5roce77 8e(ore Ci*il Ser*ice Co##i77io& )oe7 reCuire cro77Ge@'#i&'"io& o( co#pl'i&'&" '&) $i7 wi"&e77e7 8y re7po&)e&". ROMEO ERECE VS. +>4 SC%.9. that. 9.FS. whether the Civil Servi!e -!t or the -dministrative Code of 1'/>.uman %ights (C. +>4 SC%- C<%D9&*@@< FS. @a ?nion. &ot only. 1''/ against petitioner alleging that he denied them the use of the offi!e vehi!le assigned to petitioner. C-S?9@. %espondent employees of the C. LY. 4. EEE-EA.R.4D+ '.% %egion * filed an -ffidavitComplaint dated <!tober +.34 a. ET AL.6 THE . whose offi!e is lo!ated in San #ernando City. does due pro!ess re0uire that B1C a party be assisted by !ounsel and B+C be able to !ross-e(amine the witnessesN L3MIM3E/ VS. when in fa!t he did. %espondent filed his answer denying the allegations against him.ACTSI =etitioner is the %egional Dire!tor of the Commission on . "$e &o" "$e "$e ATTY. ''-1. <##*C9 <# .9 <)$?DS)-&. -o. April 99. that petitioner still !laimed transportation allowan!e even if he was using the said vehi!le. 1666. -fter a fa!t-finding investigation. *n administrative pro!eedings. petitioner herein was given the opportunity several times to engage the servi!es of a lawyer to assist him but he !onfidently informed the investigators that he !ould prote!t himself. the CSC =roper in CSC %esolution &o.. in order to !olle!t transportation allowan!e. and that he !ertified that he did not use any government vehi!le.

+66+. %omeo @. -ny of these pleadings interposed by the respondent shall be !onsidered as an -nswer and shall be evaluated as su!h.-A in the amount of =3. <n his -nswer. when in fa!t. the CSC issued %esolution &o. he did. @ikewise. he foregoing fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es indi!ate that government servi!e has been pre8udi!ed by the a!ts of 9re!e. the memorandum re!eipt of the vehi!le(sA now still in your name"1 . =ertinent portions of the formal !harge read: 1.that he did not use any government vehi!le for the !orresponding month.3> that he did not use any government vehi!le. hat despite the regular re!eipt of 9re!e of his monthly %epresentation and ransportation -llowan!e ( whi!h you are entitled monthly.666. as follows: Kto regulariGe your re!eipt of the transportation allowan!e !omponent of the %. he is advised of his right to the assistan!e of !ounsel of his !hoi!e. +B3C Id. he should indi!ate whether he ele!ts a formal investigation or waives his right thereto. at . 7. 6+61+3. preferably one of your lawyers. 3> . re0uest for !larifi!ation or $ills of =arti!ulars shall not be entertained by the Commission.9%9#<%9. he still prioritiGes himself in the use of the offi!e vehi!le ( amaraw #QA in spite of the dire!tive from the Central <ffi!e that he !annot use the servi!e vehi!le for offi!ial purposes and at the same time re!eive his transportation allowan!e" +..uman %ights Dire!tors. he is given five (DA days from re!eipt hereof to submit his -nswer under oath and affidavits of his witnesses. hat he !ertified in his monthly li0uidation of his %. if any. dated 5anuary +3.+B3C -fter a formal investigation of the !ase.%-%egion *.66. in order to re!eive the transportation allowan!e. -!!ordingly.D-. whi!h is not true be!ause he is the regular user of the government vehi!le issued to C.. finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and !ondu!t pre8udi!ial to the best interest of the servi!e and penaliGing him with dismissal from the servi!e.4. to the Civil Servi!e Commission-Cordillera -dministrative %egion (CSC-C-%A. hat 9re!e did not !omply with the dire!tive of the Central <ffi!e addressed to all %egional . 9re!e is hereby formally !harged with Dishonesty and 2rave )is!ondu!t. you are hereby dire!ted to immediately transfer to any of your staff. -ny )otion to Dismiss.

this petition. but moved to submit their position paper and formal offer of eviden!e.3/ =etitioner filed a petition for review of the CSC %esolution with the C-.. *n administrative pro!eedings. %espondents then submitted their =osition =aper and #ormal <ffer of 9(hibits.en!e. the dispositive portion of whi!h reads: 0HERE. respondents did not present their eviden!e. in order to prevent delay in the disposition of the !ase. he Court agrees with the C. . his may be allowed only if he e(pressly waived said right. the petition is /E-IE/ and the assailed %esolutions of the Civil Servi!e Commission are hereby A. I S S 3 EI =etitioner raised the issue of violation of his right to due pro!ess be!ause he was denied the right to !ross-e(amine the respondents on their affidavit-!omplaint. still petitioner should not be deemed to have lost his right to !ross-e(amine his a!!users and their witnesses. +66D. in view of the foregoing. *n the De!ision promulgated on 5anuary >. . -fter he rested his !ase.upheld the CSC %esolution. it should not be !onstrued as a waiver of his right to !rosse(amine the !omplainants.e stated that at his instan!e. he was allowed to present eviden!e first to support the allegations in his Counter--ffidavit. -lthough the order of presentation of eviden!e was not in !onformity with the pro!edure. the essen!e of due pro!ess is simply the opportunity to e(plain one1s side.ORE. *ele5 v. the C. =etitioner submits that although he was allowed to present eviden!e first.that petitioner was not denied due pro!ess when he failed to !ross-e(amine the !omplainants and their witnesses sin!e he was given the opportunity to be heard and present his eviden!e. whi!h motion was granted by the CSC over his (petitioner1sA ob8e!tion. %e *era it was held that : 3/ . H E L /I =etitioner !ontends that he was denied due pro!ess as he was not afforded the right to !ross-e(amine his a!!users and their witnesses.IRME/.

for a trial in !ourt is not always essential to due pro!ess. T$e ri%$" "o cro77Ge@'#i&e i7 &o" '& i&)i7pe&7'8le '7pec" o( )ue proce77. =etitioner won by 1>. B4C he assailed %esolutions state :@oria. +66> by the =rovin!ial $oard of Canvassers as the duly ele!ted %epresentative of the said !ongressional distri!t. it is otherwise in administrative pro!eedings sin!e they rest upon different prin!iples. respondent filed with the .. the Se!retary of the . <n 5une 13. he !onstitutional re0uirement of due pro!ess is met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative agen!y or tribunal.DB4C amnag (#o'lacionA. .%9 !aused the servi!e of summons3BDC upon petitioner "$rou%$ re%i7"ere) #'il at #uro@ @osaria. -o. here is violation of the right to due pro!ess of law if a party he is de!lared as having waived the right to file his answer despite improper servi!e of summons. . <n )ay . hus.R. 7hile a day in !ourt is a matter of right in 8udi!ial pro!eedings. *t is not essential that hearings be had before the making of a determination if thereafter.HRET!. :.1. +66> national ele!tions. /ece#8er 16.6 LEO-AR/OG/E CASTRO. RE5RESE-TATIVES ELECTORAL TRI43-AL . )ontilla (private respondentA were !ongressional !andidates for the #irst Distri!t of Sultan Mudarat during the )ay 13. J..I Datu =a( =akung S.B3C !ontesting the results of the ele!tions and the pro!lamation of petitioner.3' Due pro!ess of law in administrative !ases is not identi!al with :8udi!ial pro!ess. <ne ade0uate hearing is all that due pro!ess re0uires. 3' . pp.%9 a =etition of =rotest (Ad CautelamA. 3 D B3C BDC Id. >>. HO3SE O. )angudadatu (petitionerA and -ngelo <. p. 1 9613. . there is available trial and tribunal before whi!h all ob8e!tions and defenses to the making of su!h determination may be raised and !onsidered.. 31->4. . &or is an a!tual hearing always essential. . +66>. the right to a noti!e or hearing are not essential to due pro!ess of law.3D1 votes and was pro!laimed on )ay ++. . +66>. . Id. 9.. /AT35AE MA-:3/A/AT3 VS. in !ertain pro!eedings of administrative !hara!ter. he dismissal of the petitioner from the government is valid. but the Summons and %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card !orre!tly state :@osaria. he due pro!ess !lause guarantees no parti!ular form of pro!edure and its re0uirements are not te!hni!al.

$aldenas>B/C ($aldenasA re!eived the summons on 5une +>. B11C $ollo. )eanwhile. -nd assuming that he had authoriGed her. petitioner informally learned of respondent1s protest. *n the same %esolution. .%9 %ules.%9 ." it should be :$aldenas. he assailed %esolutions state :$aldena. +66> at 11:66 a.%9 issued %esolution &o. the summons re!eived by her was never brought to his attention. the . . his lawyers entered their appearan!e on September 3. hereafter. D6 .%9 !onsidered petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations of the protest. +66>. based on the %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card.6. the . orders and resolutions pertaining to the protest. petitioner denied that $aldenas was a member of his household or his employee. B1+C Id.D6 @utayan. <n September 16. B'C See &ote +. days from 5une +>. +66>. or the petition for Cuo ?arranto within the period fi(ed in these %ules. petitioner filed a )otion to %e!onsider16B11C %esolution &o. re0uiring petitioner to file an -nswer to the protest within ten (16A days from re!eipt thereof. +66>. 6>-1>' and )otion to -dmit -nswer with Counter-=rotest.%9 set the preliminary !onferen!e on September +>. prompting petitioner to re0uest his lawyers to verify the same from the re!ords of the . the . B16C %?@9 +>. the .>. 6>-1>'/B'C whi!h noted the aforementioned %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card and that despite the fa!t that 3.m. +66> had passed sin!e $aldenas re!eived the summons..%9 re!eived the %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card. +66>.4B>C showing that a !ertain -ileen %. +66>. petitioner had not filed an answer in a!!ordan!e with %ule +>'B16C of the +663 . *n an <rder dated -ugust 1>. p. +66> and re0uested that they be furnished with !opies of the petition of protest as well as noti!es. Sultan Mudarat. p. I *f no answer is filed to the protest. <n 5uly 11. Aailure to Ans?erB Effect.%9 . >/.e further !laimed that she was not authoriGed to re!eive any important do!uments addressed to him. alleging that he never re!eived the summons issued by the . 4 > B>C B/C / ' 16 11 $ollo. *n his affidavit 11B1+C atta!hed to the motion. !ounter-protest. a general denial shall be deemed to have been entered. <n -ugust 14. pp. +4-.

*n his !omment. the . respondent !laimed that %ule 13..%9 from further pro!eeding with .%9 %ules and therefore should not be given suppletory appli!ation to . D1 . . 6>-1>' and 6>-..66. this petition.66 dated September 1'.en!e.. 6>- . +66>.D1 .%9 pro!eedings.1.%9 did not !ommit grave abuse of dis!retion in issuing %esolution &os. =etitioner !ontended that the .B13C *n his !ase.B13C B1. hus. p. as the !ase may be.%9 %ules merely states that :the Se!retary of the ribunal shall issue the !orresponding summons to the protestee or respondent.C See &ote .%9 for issuing %esolution &os. +66>.e argued that %ule ++ of the +663 .%9 %ules.%9 never a!0uired 8urisdi!tion over his person be!ause of the absen!e of a valid servi!e of summons.e posited then that the intent of the .1+.6>-6+1.C <n September 1'. issued %esolution &o. $ollo.%9 Case &o. respondent !ountered that the .e argued that a substitute servi!e of summons is made only :when the defendant !annot be served personally at a reasonable time after efforts to lo!ate him have failed. . .66 1+B1.%9 denying for la!k of merit. then the substituted servi!e was improper and invalid.%9 %ules provides: 1+ 1. +66> and 6>-.e also prayed for a temporary restraining order andEor a writ of preliminary in8un!tion for this Court to en8oin the . . 6>-1>' dated -ugust 14. .%9 in not e(pressly spe!ifying personal servi!e of summons on the protestee or respondent was to give it a reasonable dis!retion or leeway in serving the summons by other means su!h as registered mail.9@D: %ule ++ of the +663 . #urther. =etitioner filed the instant petition imputing grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k of 8urisdi!tion on the part of the . servi!e of summons on petitioner through registered mail did not violate %ule ++ of the +663 . Se!tions 4 and > of the %ules of Court were in!onsistent with %ule ++ of the +663 . sin!e the pro!ess server1s return failed to show on its fa!e the impossibility of personal servi!e.

%ule /613B1DC of the +663 . as the !ase may be. re0uiring him within ten (16A days from re!eipt thereof to file his answer.A De!isions of the 9le!toral ribunals. he +663 . or. Applica'ility. the summons shall be served handling a !opy thereof "o "$e )e(e&)'&" i& per7o&. servi!e may be effe!ted ('A 8y le'*i&% copie7 o( "$e 7u##o&7 '" "$e )e(e&)'&"N7 re7i)e&ce wi"$ 7o#e per7o& o( 7ui"'8le '%e '&) )i7cre"io& "$e& re7i)i&% "$erei&. resolutions and de!isions of the ribunal. *n view of the failure of the . I *f the petition is not summarily dismissed in a!!ordan!e with %ule +1 of these %ules. namely: (1A he %ules of Court" (+A De!isions of the Supreme Court" (. %ule 13. for 8ustifiable !auses. S9C.%9 %ules provides that the 1''> %ules of Civil =ro!edure applies by analogy or suppletorily in so far as the latter may be appli!able and not in!onsistent therewith as well as with the orders. whi!h state: S9C. >. together with a !opy of the petition. 1''> %ules of Civil =ro!edure.D+ %?@9 ++. 8y "e&)eri&% i" "o $i#. if in ordinary !ivil !ases (whi!h involve only private and proprietary interestsA personal servi!e of summons is preferred and servi!e by registered mail is not allowed on 8urisdi!tional and due pro!ess grounds. Signifi!antly. *ndeed. with more reason should ele!tion !ases (whi!h involve publi! 13 B1DC %?@9 /6. or (8A 8y le'*i&% copie7 '" )e(e&)'&"N7 o((ice or re%ul'r pl'ce o( 8u7i&e77 wi"$ 7o#e co#pe"e&" per7o& i& c$'r%e "$ereo(. whi!h is &o" among the allowed modes of servi!e under %ule 13 of the %ules of Court.%9 %ules to spe!ify the authoriGed modes of servi!e of summons. if he refuses to re!eive and sign for it. *n the !ase at bar. the servi!e of the summons was made through registered mail. I he following shall be appli!able by analogy or in suppletory !hara!ter and effe!t in so far as they may be appli!able and are not in!onsistent with these %ules and with the orders.%9 %ules on summons is silent on how the summons should be served on the protestee. 4. "ervice in person on defendant.%9 . resolutions and de!isions of the . I 7henever pra!ti!able. D+ . the Se!retary of the ribunal shall issue the !orresponding summons to the protestee or respondent. "ummons. I *f. "u'stituted service. the defendant !annot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the pre!eding se!tion. resort then is ne!essary to Se!tions 4 and >.

filed before the Department of 9du!ation. or alternatively. !omposed of three Dep9d offi!ials from the provin!e. /ece#8er 16. :.6 he fa!tual ba!kground of the !ase is as follows: <n )ar!h 11. 1''4. delegate the matter to the pro!ess server of a !ourt with territorial 8urisdi!tion over the pla!e of residen!e of the respondentEprotestee in the ele!tion !ase. /E5ARTME-T O. :O/O.13. to !ondu!t a formal investigation.. Co&7i)eri&% "$'" "$e proper 7er*ice o( 7u##o&7 o& "$e re7po&)e&"Kpro"e7"ee i7 ' Auri7)ic"io&'l reCuire#e&" '&) %oe7 "o $e'r" o( )ue proce77. @ily $or8a and Charo Castro. ***A. *** (D9CS-%< &o. at the e(pense of the petitionerEprotestant. . we !annot allow servi!e of summons by a method not san!tioned by the . on behalf of their respe!tive minor daughters. he Court sees no reason why the . -!ting on the !omplaints. *n view of the foregoing.arassment and Condu!t ?nbe!oming a =ubli! <ffi!er against Cuanan.VS. Culture and Sports . @abrador !onstituted an *nvestigating Committee. *** %egional Dire!tor Filma @.D. @uGviminda $or8a and 5uliana Castro. 9.%9 !annot make use of its own pro!ess servers to personally serve the summons. #ollowing the D. interest and the will of the ele!torateA stri!tly follow the hierar!hy of modes of servi!e of summons under the %ules of Court.%egional <ffi!e &o. Cabanatuan City. D9CS-%< &o. two separate administrative !omplaints for Se(ual . E/3CATIO.%9 %ules in relation to the %ules of Court. he right to due pro!ess on the part of the respondent was violated when the Civil Servi!e Commission re!onsidered its earlier de!ision in favor of the former based on a )otion for %e!onsideration wherein said respondent was not furnished a !opy thereof nor given the !han!e to !omment on it. 169.R. &ueva 9!i8a. we find that the . -o.RE/O C3A-A-.%9 !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion in !onsidering petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations in respondent1s petition of protest and in denying his motion to re!onsider as well as his motion to admit answer with !ounter-protest. then =rin!ipal of @awang Mupang 9lementary S!hool in San -ntonio.

+66. the CSC sent another !opy of the resolution to the Dep9d for its referen!e. Cuanan was reinstated to his former position as s!hool D3 . <n 5uly +'. whi!h set aside the 5une 1'. *n a 1st *ndorsement. Sometime in )ar!h +66. +66. 1'''.. +66.. *n an <rder dated -pril 1. the Distri!t Supervisor re!ommended appropriate a!tion. &onetheless.. %egional Dire!tor %i!ardo . +66. +66... +666. !opies of the resolution were duly sent to the parties... 6. +66. the *nvestigating Committee submitted its *nvestigation %eport dated De!ember 13. <n )ay ..1. pursuant to Division Spe!ial <rder &o. +66. then Dep9d Se!retary 9dilberto C. Cuanan re0uested his reinstatement as 9lementary S!hool =rin!ipal * . Cuanan filed a =etition for %e!onsideration thereof. the CSC informed the Dep9d that a !opy of the re0uested resolution was duly sent to it on 5anuary +. 2as!on sent a letter to the CSC re0uesting a !opy of CSC %esolution &o... +666. <n -pril 11. @usung (SuperintendentA re!ommended that Cuanan be reinstated to duty as S!hool =rin!ipal of San -ntonio Distri!t upon finality of the de!ision of the CSC . 6. *n a De!ision dated 5anuary +/. -gain. finding Cuanan guilty of se(ual harassment and re!ommending his for!ed resignation without pre8udi!e to benefits.664' dated 5anuary +6. Subse0uently. +66.664' on 5anuary .. +666. then Dep9d Se!retary -ndrew 2onGales affirmed the De!ision of %egional Dire!tor @abrador. 661 series of +66. +66. Se!retary De 5esus filed a Supplemental =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration reiterating the prayer for reversal of the resolution. *n a @etter dated #ebruary 16.. Cuanan re!eived a !opy of %esolution &o. de 5esus filed a =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration with the CSC. *n a +nd *ndorsement dated #ebruary 3. Sibug informed the Superintendent that Cuanan !ould not be immediately reinstated to the servi!e until an order of implementation was re!eived from the Department Se!retary. <n 5anuary +.. but the same was denied for la!k of merit by Se!retary 2onGales in a %esolution dated 5une 1'. +66. the CSC issued %esolution &o. S!hools Division Superintendent Dios!orides D. +666. %egional Dire!tor @abrador !on!urred in the findings of the *nvestigating Committee and meted out the penalty of for!ed resignation to Cuanan without pre8udi!e to benefits.. . Dep9d ?nderse!retary 5ose @uis )artin C...D3 investigation. he Dep9d re!eived said referen!e !opy on )ar!h +/. 6. dated 5une 1/. Cuanan elevated his !ase to the CSC. <n 5anuary +6. +66. +66. *n a @etter dated )ar!h +D. in!luding the Dep9d . +66. +666 %esolution of Se!retary 2onGales and e(onerated Cuanan from the !harge of se(ual harassment.6. *n a @etter dated #ebruary . &o !opy of the pleading was served upon Cuanan. no !opy of the pleading was served upon Cuanan..664' .

given a !opy of the said petition" that the Dep9d failed to establish that the resolution was not yet final and e(e!utory when it filed its petition for reviewEre!onsideration. Cuanan re!eived a !opy of the %esolution on &ovember '. +66. hirteen days later.rendered a De!ision granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside CSC %esolution &o. +663 .en!e. Cuanan filed a petition for certiorari with the C. *t found Cuanan guilty of Se(ual . +663. nor was he re0uired by the CSC to file a !omment thereon. the C. +66. alleging that the CSC should not have entertained the petition for reviewEre!onsideration sin!e the Dep9d was not the !omplainant or the party adversely affe!ted by the resolution" that the petition for reviewEre!onsideration was filed out of time" and that Cuanan was not furnished !opies of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d in violation of pro!edural due pro!ess. +66. Dep9d filed a )otion for %e!onsideration but the C.seeking to annul %esolution &o. 63113> setting aside CSC %esolution &o. dated 5uly /.owever. of the %ules of Court. <n )ay 14. the mode of review from a de!ision of the CSC being a petition for review under %ule 3.held that while a motion for re!onsideration and a petition for review under %ule 3. +663.arassment. +663. 63113>. CuananSs re!ourse to a petition for certiorari was warranted. *n Division Spe!ial <rder &o.denied the same in its %esolution dated 5uly 1/.664' dated 5anuary +6. !an!ellation of his servi!e eligibility. or on &ovember ++. Cuanan was dire!ted to return to duty . he Dep9d sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground of improper remedy. 2rave )is!ondu!t and Condu!t 2rossly =re8udi!ial to the $est *nterest of the Servi!e and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the servi!e with forfeiture of retirement benefits. he C. +66D. 6. the present petition on the following grounds: * DD . series of +66. whi!h the Division S!hool Superintendent of &ueva 9!i8a duly endorsed on &ovember >. +66.. . +/D. were available remedies. sin!e he was not duly notified of the petition for reviewEre!onsideration. 63113> dated <!tober 1+.. the CSC issued %esolution &o. $ased thereon.6. mu!h less. .DD prin!ipal effe!tive -pril . Cuanan re0uested payment of salaries and his in!lusion in the payroll. . and perpetual dis0ualifi!ation from holding publi! offi!e. on <!tober ++. sin!e the a!t !omplained of was patently illegal" that the CSC gravely abused its dis!retion in granting the petition for reviewEre!onsideration filed by the Dep9d without regard for CuananSs fundamental right to due pro!ess. +66D.

even if not the !omplainant. on the other hand. . Cuanan. !ontends that the Dep9d !annot file a motion for re!onsideration from the CSC %esolution e(onerating him. />3''. sin!e it is not the !omplainant in the administrative !ase and therefore not a party adversely affe!ted by the de!ision therein" that even if Dep9d may seek re!onsideration of the CSC %esolution. (9mphasis suppliedA D4 .9 S-)9 &< $9*&2 . Jr . 63113> D.9D <C <$9% ++.9 C<?% <# -==9-@S 2%-F9@J 9%%9D <& . *n a long line of !ases. 6+1466 allows the dis!iplining authority to appeal from a de!ision e(onerating an erring employee. +663. Coverage and %efinition of &erms.9 =9 * *<& *& C--2. D?9 %9S=9C . S= &<. +arcia. to first resolve the 0uestion of whether the Dep9d !an seek re!onsideration of the CSC %esolution e(onerating Cuanan. 63113> D. he Court finds it ne!essary. .. the petition for reviewEre!onsideration was filed out of time" and that Cuanan1s right to due pro!ess was violated when he was not given a !opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d or given the opportunity to !omment thereon. who !an file an appeal of a 8udgment of e(oneration in an administrative !ase.-F*&2 C<))* 9D 2%-F9 -$?S9 <# D*SC%9 *<& *& *SS?*&2 %9S<@? *<& &<. D?9 %9S=9C .R?9S *<& <# @-7 *& -M*&2 C<2&*O-&C9 <# . . Dep9d !ontends that the C.%. before delving on the grounds relied upon by the Dep9d in support of the petition. and reiterated in #2ilippine (ational an@ v. CSC %esolution &o. ** 7* . may 0uestion the resolution of the CSC" that Cuanan failed to prove that the CSCSs petition for reviewEre!onsideration was not seasonably filed" that even if Cuanan was not served a !opy of the pleadings filed by the petition for review under %ule 3. I ( ( ( (lA =-% J -DF9%S9@J -##9C 9D refers to the respondent against whom a de!ision in a dis!iplinary !ase has been rendered or "o "$e )i7cipli&i&% 'u"$ori"y i& '& 'ppe'l (ro# ' )eci7io& e@o&er'"i&% "$e 7'i) e#ployee. %acoycoy .R?9S *<& <# @-7 *& -D5?D2*&2 CSC -S ." that the filing of a motion for re!onsideration was a pre!ondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under %ule 4D" that the Dep9d.D4 7* . beginning with Civil "ervice Commission v. +663 .9 C<?% <# -==9-@S 2%-F9@J 9%%9D <& . the Court has maintained that the dis!iplining authority 0ualifies as a party adversely affe!ted by the 8udgment.should have dismissed outright the petition for certiorari be!ause CSC de!isions are appealable to the C. the CSC was not bound by pro!edural rules. thus: Se!tion +.9 =%<=9% %9)9DJ *& -SS-*@*&2 CSC %9S<@? *<& &<.9D <C <$9% ++.

6. to wit: (aA when publi! welfare and the advan!ement of publi! poli!y di!tates" (bA when the broader interest of 8usti!e so re0uires" .664' -. #urthermore. immediate re!ourse to the e(traordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order is a patent nullity. -s will be shown forthwith. whi!h in the present !ase !learly failed to dis!harge the same . &onetheless.. unless !ontradi!ted .664' were duly sent to the parties.1. in!luding Dep9d. on 5anuary +. the presumption stands that CSC %esolution &o. CuananSs e(oneration under CSC %esolution &o. +663. the Court finds none. 6. or thirteen (1. Conse0uently. while the Dep9d re0uested a !opy sometime in )ar!h +66. hese e(!eptions find appli!ation to CuananSs petition for certiorari in the C-. 6. there are e(!eptions to this rule..!ould be treated as a petition for review. the burden of proving the irregularity in offi!ial !ondu!t -that is. as to the merits of Dep9dSs arguments.c! w$e& "$e wri"7 i77ue) 're &ull '&) *oi)" or (dA when the 0uestioned order amounts to an oppressive e(er!ise of 8udi!ial authority . %e!ourse to a petition for certiorari under %ule 4D renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. non-re!eipt of the duly sent !opy of CSC %esolution &o.664' dated 5anuary +6. his presumption in!ludes that of regularity of servi!e of 8udgments. or about two months later. +66. final orders or resolutions. it is presumed that offi!ial duty has been regularly performed. hus. 6. CSC %esolution &o. of the %ules of Court within fifteen days from noti!e of the resolution. Su!h move would be in a!!ordan!e with the liberal spirit pervading the %ules of Court and in the interest of substantial 8usti!e . as the appointing and dis!iplining authority. is a real party in interest. . +663 of CSC %esolution &o.664' has long be!ome final and e(e!utory. 6. while a motion for re!onsideration is a !ondition pre!edent to the filing of a petition for certiorari. the petition having been filed on &ovember ++. *t must be noted that the re!ords show that !opies of CSC %esolution &o.664' may be sub8e!t to a motion for re!onsideration by the Dep9d whi!h.D> . -t any rate. #urthermore. +66. D> . Cuanan re!eived a !opy thereof on 5anuary .en!e. !learly within the 1D-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review .A days from re!eipt on &ovember '.is on the part of the Dep9d. CuananSs petition for certiorari before the C. e(!eption (!A applies to the present !ase. he remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under %ule 3. 63113>. ?nder the %ules of 9viden!e. as where the !ourt a Cuo has no 8urisdi!tion" where petitioner was deprived of due pro!ess and there is e(treme urgen!y for relief" where the pro!eedings in the lower !ourt are a nullity for la!k of due pro!ess" where the pro!eeding was e> parte or one in whi!h the petitioner had no opportunity to ob8e!t . &ow.

(9mphasis suppliedA D/ . while it is true that administrative tribunals e(er!ising 0uasi8udi!ial fun!tions are free from the rigidity of !ertain pro!edural re0uirements. he said motion should be submitted within five (DA days from re!eipt of a !opy of the original pleading and it is dis!retionary upon the Commission to allow the same or not or even to !onsider the averments therein. and that. #urthermore. the 8udgments or orders of !ourts must be!ome final at some definite time fi(ed by law" otherwise.D/ +66. this Court held: &othing is more settled in law than that on!e a 8udgment attains finality it thereby be!omes immutable and unalterable. Co#rt of /nd#"trial Relation" "$'" 'll ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 8o)ie7 c'&&o" i%&ore or )i7re%'r) "$e (u&)'#e&"'l '&) e77e&"i'l reCuire#e&"7 o( )ue proce77. had already be!ome final and e(e!utory when the Dep9d filed its =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration on -pril 11. 7$'ll 8e copy (ur&i7$e) "$e o"$er p'r"y wi"$ proo( o( 7er*ice (ile) wi"$ "$e Co##i77io&. -ny supplemental pleading to supply defi!ien!ies in aid of an original pleading but whi!h should not entirely substitute the latter !an be filed only upon a favorable a!tion by the Commission on the motion of a party to the !ase. at the risk of o!!asional errors... even if the modifi!ation is meant to !orre!t what is per!eived to be an erroneous !on!lusion of fa!t or law. they are bound by law and pra!ti!e to observe the fundamental and essential re0uirements of due pro!ess in 8usti!iable !ases presented before them .All ple')i&%7 (ile) 8y "$e p'r"ie7 wi"$ "$e Co##i77io&. Se!tion 3.of the ?niform %ules in -dministrative Cases in the Civil Servi!e provides: Se!tion 3.-. he do!trine of finality of 8udgment is grounded on fundamental !onsiderations of publi! poli!y and sound pra!ti!e. *t may no longer be modified in any respe!t. +66. T$e rel'"i*e (ree)o# o( "$e CSC (ro# "$e ri%i)i"ie7 o( proce)ure c'&&o" 8e i&*oLe) "o e*')e w$'" w'7 cle'rly e#p$'7iJe) i& "$e l'&)#'rL c'7e o( An* Ti4ay !. the winning party also has the !orrelative right to en8oy the finality of the resolution of his !ase. it be!omes immutable and !an no longer be amended or modified. more than two months later. there would be no end to litigations. +allardo . thus setting to naught the main role of !ourts of 8usti!e whi!h is to assist in the enfor!ement of the rule of law and the maintenan!e of pea!e and order by settling 8usti!iable !ontroversies with finality .. Ailing of "upplemental #leadings. *t is elementary that on!e 8udgment has be!ome final and e(e!utory. . )oreover. and regardless of whether the modifi!ation is attempted to be made by the !ourt rendering it or by the highest !ourt of the land.. 5ust as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the pres!ribed period. *n +allardoCorro v.

e had no opportunity to parti!ipate in the pro!eedings for the petition for reviewE re!onsideration filed by the Dep9d. $o!aue. D' . 9. =ulilan.ORE. he parties !omplied with the C<)9@9C1s order.6.IRME/. :. />3'' are A. J. the parties presented their other eviden!e. he revision was !ondu!ted at the C<)9@9C1s offi!e in *ntramuros. 0HERE. the petition is /E-IE/. -o.%. sin!e no !opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d were served upon him or his !ounsel" nor was he even re0uired by the CSC to file his !omments thereon.5 he petitioner and the respondent vied for the position of 2overnor of the =rovin!e of $ula!an in the )ay 13. San %afael and San 5ose del )onte soon followed. Considering that pleadings filed by the Dep9d were not served upon Cuanan. they may be treated as mere s!raps of paper whi!h should not have merited the attention or !onsideration of the CSC. Oc"o8er 11. =andi. he assailed De!ision and %esolution of the Court of -ppeals in C--2. "$e COMELEC we&" "o )eli8er'"e o& "$e c'7e '" "$e Se&'"e Elec"or'l Tri8u&'l u7i&% "$e 8'llo"7 "$erei& i& "$e proce77 wi"$ou" &o"ice "o "$e pe"i"io&er.. T$e c'7e w'7 "$ere'("er 7u8#i""e) (or re7olu"io&. he respondent seasonably filed an ele!tion protest with the C<)9@9C. &orGagaray. he C<)9@9C approved the parties1 formal offer of eviden!e and then re0uired the parties to submit their respe!tive memoranda. %evision of ballots involving the protested and !ounter-protested pre!in!ts in -ngat. S= &o. +66>-33. 2uiginto.9 4RIO-. whi!h was raffled to the Se!ond Division and do!keted as 9=C &o. JOSELITO ME-/O>A VS. DoTa %emedios rinidad. COMELEC '&) RO4ERTO 5A:/A-:A-A-. . =laridel. )alolos. =aombong. he petitioner was pro!laimed winning !andidate and assumed the offi!e of 2overnor.R. Calumpit. 1663. -fter revision. +66> ele!tions.. leading to the parties1 formal offer of their respe!tive eviden!e.D' Cuanan undoubtedly was denied pro!edural due pro!ess. )ey!auayan. T$ere i7 &o *iol'"io& o( "$e pe"i"io&erN7 ri%$" "o )ue proce77 w$e& '("er "$e elec"io& pro"e7" '%'i&7" $i# w'7 'lre')y 7u8#i""e) (or )eci7io& '&) "$e 8'llo"7 "r'&7(erre) "o "$e Se&'"e Elec"or'l Tri8u&'l.

agle. it !on!luded that it would !ontinue the pro!eedings after proper !oordination with the S9 . a letter dated 5une 16. Bemphasis suppliedC14B. +66' to !onfirm the vera!ity of the reported !ondu!t of pro!eedings. in!luding those involved in the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. *rene 2uevarra.C See =etition. +/1+ dated 1> <!tober 1''D. +66'.46 <n )ar!h +. 5usti!e -ntonio . Carpio. $asis of su!h grant is Se!tion . the petitioner1s !ounsel wrote the S9 Se!retary. "$e 'ppreci'"io& o( 8'llo"7 I on the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest at the S9 offi!es--whi!h the C<)9@9C did without informing the petitioner. 46 . p.. +66' as follows: ( ( ( please be informed that the !ondu!t of pro!eedings in C<)9@9C 9=C &o.1DB+C he S9 Se!retary responded on 5une 1>. +66>-33 (=agdanganan vs. )endoGaA within the ribunal =remises was authoriGed by then -!ting Chairman of the ribunal. +66'.. -llegedly alarmed by information on C<)9@9C a!tion on the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest ?it2in t2e "E& premises ?it2out notice to 2im and ?it2out 2is participation. *n light of this development. 1+. but the C<)9@9C1s Se!ond Division denied the motion in its <rder of )ay +4. hese interrelated %esolutions led to the C<)9@9C1s !ontinued a!tion I 7peci(ic'lly. he syn!hroniGation of revision of 'allots shall be su!h that the e(peditious disposition of the respe!tive protest !ase shall be the primary !on!ern. upon formal re0uest of the <ffi!e of Commissioner @u!enito &.C ISS3EI 1DB+C 14B. it 2as 'een t2e practice of t2e &ri'unal to allo? t2e conduct of ot2er proceedings in local election protest cases ?it2in its premises as may 'e reCuested. $ollo. the petitioner moved to suspend further pro!eedings. D2ile t2e said provision spea@s only of revision. +66' the C<)9@9C transferred the $ula!an ballot bo(es. . to the Senate 9le!toral ribunal ("E&A in !onne!tion with the protest filed by -0uilino =imentel *** against 5uan )iguel Oubiri. Comele! %esolution &o. 3D. p. stating that :(tAhe ribunals. he C<)9@9C1s Se!ond Division denied the petitioner1s motion in its <rder of -pril +'. ruling that the C<)9@9C has plenary powers to find alternative methods to fa!ilitate the resolution of the ele!tion protest" thus. he petitioner moved to re!onsider this <rder. -tty. the Commission and the Courts shall !oordinate and make arrangement with ea!h other so as not to delay or interrupt the revision of ballots being !ondu!ted.

.9@D: he petition is an!hored on the alleged !ondu!t of pro!eedings in the ele!tion protest I following the !ompleted revision of ballots I at the S9 1>B3C 1/BDC 5. . as not2ing derived from t2e anomalous and unconstitutional clandestine and unilateral proceedings s2ould ever 'e part of any decision t2at t2e COMELEC may su'seCuently render.. too. he !laims. <n this basis. Constitutional La?. p. +66D. He 2as a rig2t to 'e notified of every incident of t2e proceeding and to 'e present at every stage t2ereof so t2at 2e may 'e 2eard 'y 2imself and counsel for t2e protection of 2is interest.e further asserts that he had the legitimate e(pe!tation that no further pro!eedings would be held or !ondu!ted in the !ase after its submission for de!ision.e was therefore denied his day in !ourt. (aA opportunity to be heard and (bA that 8udgment be rendered only after lawful hearing I apply. that a 8udi!ial pro!eeding held without noti!e to the parties !ould be des!ribed as a lawful hearing. &2e poisonous fruits 6derived from t2e proceedings9 s2ould 2ave no part and s2ould not 'e admitted for any purpose and7or in any =udicial proceeding. *. the due pro!ess element of the right to have 8udgment only after lawful hearing is absent. >1/->1'. 13. he !laims. here is no way. pp.e further !ites 5usti!e *sagani -. &oti!es in 8udi!ial dispute. CruG. Constitutional "tructure and #o?ers of +overnment. when the C<)9@9C !ondu!ted the e(amination and appre!iation of ballots. are not really 8ust a matter of !ourtesy" they are elementary fundamental element of due pro!ess. +66. its sub8e!t matter involves him and the people of the =rovin!e of $ula!an who ele!ted him. he !laims entitlement to noti!e and parti!ipation in all matters that involve or are related to the ele!tion protest. . he petitioner argues that the ele!tion protest involves his ele!tion as 2overnor" thus. the stri!tures of 8udi!ial due pro!ess I spe!ifi!ally.1>B3C the petitioner argues that the pro!eedings before the C<)9@9C in ele!tion protests are 8udi!ial in nature and !hara!ter. 41 . $ernas. he !laims. Citing the !ommentaries of #ather 5oa0uin $ernas. he petitioner !laims that without noti!e to him of the pro!eedings.1/BDC who wrote: ( ( ( Every litigant is entitled to 2is day in court. espe!ially a pro!eeding whi!h has as its sub8e!t matter the sovereign will of an entire provin!e. should be nullified. they are part and par!el of a right of a party to be heard. he pro!eedings should be stopped and de!lared null and void" its future results. 0HETHER OR -OT THE COMELEC VIOLATE/ /3E 5ROCESS 4Y CO-/3CTI-: 5ROCEE/I-:S 0ITHO3T :IVI-: /3E -OTICE TO THE 5ETITIO-ER. . hus.41 A. CruG.

7e take this opportunity to !larify that 8udi!ial power in our !ountry is Evested in one 3#pre(e Co#rt and in suc2 lo'er o#rt" as may 'e esta'lis2ed 'y la?. and re!all. :the !ondu!t of pro!eedings.. %ule 43 of the %ules of Court. (+A 9(er!ise e(!lusive original 8urisdi!tion over all !ontests relating to the ele!tions. 4+ .finding of due pro!ess violation. +1B16C Se!tion 1 (first paragraphA. %ule 43. hirty (. *n !ontrast with the above definitions. 1'B/C +6B'C "upra note .. and !ity offi!ials. or involving ele!tive 'arangay offi!ials by trial !ourts of limited 8urisdi!tion. be!ause of the inherent arbitrariness it !arries.+6B'C he substantive issue we are primarily !alled upon to resolve is whether there were pro!eedings within the S9 premises.F thus !onstitutionally lo!ating the situs of the e(er!ise of 8udi!ial power in the !ourts. among others. Se!tion +. referendum. ne!essarily amounts to grave abuse of dis!retion..4+ premises without noti!e to and without the parti!ipation of the petitioner. whi!h were denied to him" in other words. plebis!ite.1'B/C -s the issues raised show I the petitioner1s fo!us is not really on the C<)9@9C <rders denying the suspension of pro!eedings when the ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials pertinent to the ele!tion !ontest were transferred to the S9 " t2e focus is on ?2at t2e COMELEC did after to t2e issuance of t2e $esolutions. See Se!tion . . and appellate 8urisdi!tion over all !ontests involving ele!tive muni!ipal offi!ials de!ided by trial !ourts of general 8urisdi!tion. +66'. he filed a motion for e(tension of time to file the petition.. provin!ial. the issue is whether the petitioner1s right to due pro!ess has been violated. Signifi!antly. 7e read the petition in this !onte(t as these C<)9@9C <rders are now unassailable as the period to !hallenge them has long passed. +66'. .. initiative. as follows: (1A 9nfor!e and administer all laws and regulations relative to the !ondu!t of an ele!tion. -rti!le F*** of the Constitution whi!h further states that EJudicial po?er includes t2e duty of t2e o#rt" of 6#"ti e to settle actual controversies involving rig2ts ?2ic2 are legally demanda'le and enforcea'le. returns and 0ualifi!ations of all ele!tive regional. -rti!le *Q(CA of the Constitution lists the C<)9@9C1s powers and fun!tions. entitling the petitioner to noti!e and parti!ipation. he petition !annot but be late be!ause of the remainder rule under Se!tion .. he petitioner re!eived the C<)9@9C %esolution denying his motion for re!onsideration on 5une 1. 1'/> Constitution. -s a preliminary matter. -rti!le F***. we note that the petitioner has !laimed that C<)9@9C e(er!ises =udicial po?er in its a!tion over provin!ial ele!tion !ontests and has argued its due pro!ess position from this view. is !onfirmed by the S9 Se!retary in the letter we 0uoted above.+1B16C his e(!lusive grant of authority to the 5udi!iary is reinfor!ed under the se!ond paragraph of Se!tion 1.6A days later or on 5uly 1.

&o. /. whi!h in!ludes the right of the party interested or affe!ted to present his own !ase and submit eviden!e in support thereof.D>/. '44/1. Court of Appeals. De!isions. COMELEC. +663. +63 SC%.. provin!ial and !ity offi!ials and appellate 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion !ontests of other lower ranking offi!ialsA. COMELEC.0<7189 0uoted below: (1A he first of these rights is the right to a hearing. Court of Industrial $elations. appointment of ele!tion offi!ials and inspe!tors. &o. SC%.. final orders. and 0uasi-legislative (rulemaking on all 0uestions affe!ting ele!tions and the promulgation of its rules of pro!edureA. IAC.4 SC%. 2.%.36.. and in the !ourse of the e(er!ise of its 8urisdi!tion.A De!ide.B1+C !tutalum v. C<)9@9C is not a tribunal within the 8udi!ial bran!h of government and is not a !ourt e(er!ising 8udi!ial power in the !onstitutional sense"+DB13C hen!e. )ar!h 14. 2. or rulings of the Commission on ele!tion !ontests involving ele!tive muni!ipal and 'arangay offi!ials shall be final.3/" Midland Insurance Corporation v. See: #residential Anti-%ollar "alting &as@ Aorce v.4. 1'4D. all 0uestions affe!ting ele!tions. and registration of voters. ?nder these terms.%. B+666C.C Despite the e(er!ise of dis!retion that is essentially 8udi!ial in !hara!ter.C See: CariGo v. are those outlined in the seminal !ase of Ang &i'ay v. -ugust 1. 2..3D. ot2er t2an a court. De!ember . on the a!tivities en!ompassed by the e(er!ise of 0uasi-8udi!ial power. &o. and on the basis of all these de!ides on the merits of the !ase and renders 8udgment.%..e. +DB13C See: Cipriano v.6. vested with authority to de!ide ele!tion !ontests. 4. -ugust 16. 2. +3B1.D (1'36A. is 0uasi8udi!ial. its ad8udi!ative fun!tion. 1'/'.%. to hold hearings and e(er!ise dis!retion of a 8udi!ial nature"+. &o.3D/. 1'/4. @->1'6D. @-+D. in!luding determination of the number and lo!ation of polling pla!es. 1D SC%. e(!ept those involving the right to vote.++B11C 0uasi-8udi!ial (to e(er!ise original 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion !ontests of regional. e(e!utory. (. to enfor!e and administer ele!tion lawsA. . +4B14C 4' =hil. &o. 1D//. Commission on Human $ig2ts.+. as an administrative or 0uasi-8udi!ial tribunal. 3. the C<)9@9C under our governmental stru!ture is a !onstitutional administrative agen!y and its powers are essentially e(e!utive in nature (i. !iting "andoval v. ((( ++B11C +. e(er!ised as it is in the !ourse of administration and enfor!ement. he appropriate due pro!ess standards that apply to the C<)9@9C.3'. he C<)9@9C1s ad8udi!ative fun!tion is 0uasi-8udi!ial sin!e it is a !onstitutional body.+3B1. De!ember +. . as!ertain the fa!ts from these submissions. 1''1.B1+C it re!eives eviden!e. 13. SC%. Commission on Elections. 4. and not appealable. determine the law and the legal rights of the parties.34D.3/. parti!ularly with respe!t to ele!tion !ontests. 1>1 SC%.

he essen!e of this aspe!t of due pro!ess. a pla!e when dire!tly atta!hed. *t means su!h relevant eviden!e as a reasonable mind might a!!ept as ade0uate to support a !on!lusion.H (DA he de!ision must be rendered on the eviden!e presented at the hearing. (. and the reasons for the de!isions rendered. Comelec. therefore. <!tober +.A 7hile the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to de!ide right. 43 . 1D3>'4-'>. .+>B1>C formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instan!es essential" in the !ase of C<)9@9C. +>B1>C autista v. (>A he Court of *ndustrial %elations should. or at least !ontained in the re!ord and dis!losed to the parties affe!ted. hese are now !ommonly referred to as c'r)i&'l pri#'ry ri%$"7 in administrative pro!eedings. and not simply a!!ept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a de!ision. that of having something to support its de!ision. in all !ontroversial 0uestions.. %ule 1> of its %ules of =ro!edure defines the re0uirements for a hearing and these serve as the standards in the determination of the presen!e or denial of due pro!ess. 2. +66.+''. he performan!e of this duty is inseparable from the authority !onferred upon it.. render its de!ision in su!h a manner that the parties to the pro!eeding !an know the various issues involved. &os. an opportunity to e(plain one1s side or an opportunity to seek a re!onsideration of the a!tion or ruling !omplained of. but the eviden!e must be Hsubstantial.43 (+A &ot only must the party be given an opportunity to present his !ase and to addu!e eviden!e tending to establish the rights whi!h he asserts but the tribunal must !onsider the eviden!e presented. must a!t on its or his own independent !onsideration of the law and fa!ts of the !ontroversy. (4A he Court of *ndustrial %elations or any of its 8udges. we have !onsistently held. HSubstantial eviden!e is more than a mere s!intilla. or as applied to administrative pro!!ision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity.. it does imply a ne!essity whi!h !annot be disregarded. he first of the enumerated rights pertain to the substantive rights of a party at $e'ri&% 7"'%e of the pro!eedings. (3A &ot only must there be some eviden!e to support a finding or !on!lusion. namely. 313 SC%. is simply the opportunity to be heard.%.

third. must 'e 'ased on su'stantial evidence. *n the first pla!e. -pril /. t2e tri'unal must consider t2e totality of t2e evidence presented ?2ic2 must all 'e found in t2e records of t2e case 6i. -rti!le F***.. we see no fa!tual and legal basis for the petitioner to !omplain of denial of his hearing stage rights. fourth. the last re0uirement. Se!tion 13" See "olid Homes. as the de!ision-maker de!ides on the eviden!e presented during the hearing. duly presented his eviden!e. 1446D1. *n the present !ase. 7e dis!uss all these allegations below. Laserna. the petitioner invokes both the due pro!ess !omponent rights at the hearing and deliberative stages and alleges that these !omponent rights have all been violated. and summed up his !ase through a memorandum. relating to the form and substan!e of the de!ision of a 0uasi-8udi!ial body. C<&S * ? *<&. T$e Ri%$" "o -o"ice '&) "o 8e He'r). t2ose presented or su'mitted 'y t2e parties9B t2e conclusion. so to speak.41.+/B1/C #inally. and to ensure that the de!ision will be thought through by the de!ision-maker. $ased on the pleadings filed. further !omplements the hearing and de!isionmaking due pro!ess rights and is similar in substan!e to the !onstitutional re0uirement that a de!ision of a !ourt must state distin!tly the fa!ts and the law upon whi!h it is based.4D he se!ond. he does not dispute that he fully parti!ipated in the pro!eedings of the ele!tion protest until the !ase was deemed submitted for resolution" he had representation at the revision of the ballots. hese standards set forth the guiding !onsiderations in deliberating on the !ase and are the material and substantial !omponents of de!ision-making. +/B1/C "upra note 1>.+'B1'C -s a !omponent of the rule of fairness that underlies due pro!ess.%. A" "$e He'ri&% '&) Re*i7io& o( 4'llo"7. *n these pro!eedings. the petitioner stood head-to-head with the respondent in an adversarial !ontest where both sides were given their respe!tive rights to speak. both parties had their day in !ourt. to e(pose the reason to publi! s!rutiny and !riti!ism. Inc.e. '. this is the Eduty to give reasonF to enable the affe!ted person to understand how the rule of fairness has been administered in his !ase. sub8e!t only to established C<)9@9C rules of pro!edures. fifth. 2. v. riefly. &o. +'B1'C 4D . ?nder these undisputed fa!ts. and !ontrovert ea!h other1s submission. and neither one !an !omplain of any denial of noti!e or of the right to be heard. hese various phases of the pro!eedings !onstitute the hearing proper of the ele!tion !ontest and the C<)9@9C has more than satisfied the opportunity to be heard that the Ang &i'ay hearing stage rights re0uire.. +66/. and si(th aspe!ts of the Ang &i'ay re0uirements are reinfor!ements of the right to a hearing and are the inviolable rights appli!able at the )eli8er'"i*e 7"'%e. make their presentations. reac2ed 'y t2e decision-ma@er 2imself and not 'y a su'ordinate. DD6 SC%.

upon the formal re0uest of the <ffi!e of Commissioner @u!enito &.owever. !landestine and surreptitious..6B+6C whi!h were :unilateral. within the premises of the S9 ... -s the C<)9@9C stated in its Comment and without any !ontrary or disputing !laim in the petitioner1s %eply:. it has been the pra!ti!e of the ribunal to allow the !ondu!t of other pro!eedings in lo!al ele!tion protest !ases within its premises as may be re0uested. . A" "$e B5rocee)i&%7D '" "$e SET.+B++C C<)9@9C Comment" rollo. we hold that the !ontested pro!eedings at the S9 (:contested proceedingsA are no longer part of the adversarial aspe!ts of the ele!tion !ontest that would re0uire noti!e of hearing and the parti!ipation of the parties. would not only be strange and unusual but would indi!ate a gross violation of due pro!ess rights. 1. C<)9@9C %esolution &o. 1+.. 5usti!e -ntonio .44 8. publi! respondent in the appre!iation of the !ontested ballots in 9=C &o. to the S9 . *n the petition.!riti!al 0uestion to be answered in passing upon due pro!ess 0uestions at this stage of the ele!tion !ontest is the nature of the so-!alled :pro!eedings. the S9 and the !ourts :so as not to delay or interrupt the re!i"ion of 4allot" being !ondu!ted. ballots and ele!tion materials whose possession and !ustody have been transferred. !ontrary to the !laim of petitioner.. and !iting as basis the authority of -!ting S9 Chairman. pp. no mention whatsoever was made of the kind of pro!eedings taking pla!e.1B+1C -tta!hed to the petition was the letter of the Se!retary of the S9 !onfirming the :!ondu!t of pro!eedings. p. . and !iting Se!tion . 7hile the S9 letter made the reservation that :7hile the said provision speaks only of revision. in the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. 44 .. the petitioner alleged that there were :strange pro!eedings.1B+1C $ollo...6B+6C . Id.+B++C :. Carpio. on :do!uments. after the ballots and other materials pertinent to the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest were transferred to the S9 . *t was at this point that this Court intervened. 661-6> is not . in response to the petitioner1s prayer for the issuan!e of temporary in8un!tive relief. agle. p. -fter !onsideration of the respondents1 Comments and the petitioner1s petition and %eply. any further revision of ballots or other adversarial pro!eedings after the !ase has been submitted for resolution. and the :petitioner was &9F9% <##*C*-@@J &< *#*9D of the strange on-goings. at the S9 . through the issuan!e of a Status Ruo <rder with a non-e(tendible dire!tive for the respondents to file their !omments on the petition" for indeed. >+-S and >+. +66>-33 simultaneously with the S9 in S9 Case &o. +/1+ dated 1> <!tober 1''D on the !oordination envisioned among the C<)9@9C.

whi!h re0uire utmost se!re!y. no basis e(ists to apply the Ang &i'ay deliberative stage rights" there is nothing for us to test under the standards of the due pro!ess deliberative stages rights before the C<)9@9C renders its de!ision. no illegal pro!eeding ever took pla!e that would bear the :poisonous fruits../3 SC%.%. we see no point in dis!ussing any alleged violation of the deliberative stage rights. in !oordinating with the S9 .4> !ondu!ting :further pro!eedings. 1. 4> . the rights to noti!e and to be heard are not material !onsiderations in the C<)9@9C1s handling of the $ula!an provin!ial ele!tion !ontest after the transfer of the ballot bo(es to the S9 " no pro!eedings at the instan!e of one party or of C<)9@9C has been !ondu!ted at the S9 that would re0uire noti!e and hearing be!ause of the possibility of pre8udi!e to the other party. &o. *n other words.. 5uly '. here is no revision or !orre!tion of the ballots be!ause 9=C &o. 2.1D+.. 9(pressed in terms of our standard of review. hese deliberations are no different from 8udi!ial deliberations whi!h are !onsidered !onfidential and privileged. &eedless to state. re0uiring noti!e to the parties. what took pla!e at the S9 were the internal deliberations of the C<)9@9C. we see no grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion !ommitted by the C<)9@9C in its deliberation on the $ula!an ele!tion !ontest and the appre!iation of ballots this deliberation entailed. we have as yet no basis to determine the e(isten!e of any grave abuse of dis!retion.C 7e find it signifi!ant that the private respondent1s Comment fully supported the C<)9@9C1s position and disavowed any parti!ipation in the !ontested pro!eeding the petitioner !omplained about. that the petitioner fears. in the !ourse of appre!iating the eviden!e presented and de!iding the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest on the merits. on the other hand. Se!ondly. is simply resolving the submitted protest !ase before it. +66>-63 was already submitted for resolution. +66+. he C<)9@9C is under no legal obligation to notify either party of the steps it is taking in the !ourse of deliberating on the merits of the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. he petitioner. Alle%e) Viol'"io&7 o( /eli8er'"io& S"'%e Ri%$"7. o !on!lude. . in the absen!e of the results of the C<)9@9C deliberations through its de!ision on the ele!tion protest. #irst. the a!tual de!ision-making pro!ess is supposed to be !ondu!ted only by the designated members of the Se!ond Division of the publi! respondent in stri!t !onfidentiality. #u'lic Estates Aut2ority.+D6..B+. =ubli! respondent.. as a 0uasi-8udi!ial body. .C See C2ave5 v. has not shown that the private respondent was ever present in any pro!eeding at the S9 relating to the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. he parties ne!essarily take no part in said deliberation.B+. *n the !onte(t of our standard of review for the petition. <n the basis of the above !on!lusion.

Our Lady of #eace "c2ool. &ovember 16. provin!ial and !ity ele!tion !ontests for the C<)9@9CA.ouse of %epresentatives 9le!toral ribunal" Commission on 9le!tions" and %egional rial Courts. +/1+. as well as over the parties. saw it fit to lay down the rule on the :order of preferen!e in the custody and revision of 'allots and other do!uments !ontained in the ballot bo(es. 31 SC%. Central an@ of t2e #2ilippines.3B+3C hus. D. 163 SC%.D4D" eng5on v. the C<)9@9C. SC%. 1'/3.+3/" alta5ar v. @-+'. &o.36/. the 8urisdi!tion of the C<)9@9C over provin!ial ele!tion !ontest e(ists side by side with the 8urisdi!tion of the Senate 9le!toral ribunal. be!ause of the transmittal of the provin!ial ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials to the S9 . -fter its 8urisdi!tion atta!hed. with ea!h tribunal being supreme in their respe!tive areas of !on!ern (the Senate ele!tion !ontests for the S9 .D+. he C<)9@9C in this !ase has lawfully a!0uired 8urisdi!tion over the sub8e!t matter. as the petitioner seems to imply. &os. $ut while no pre!eden!e in 8urisdi!tion e(ists. 7e state at the outset that the C<)9@9C did not lose 8urisdi!tion over the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest.3B+3C See: $amos v. 1'/4. .. Inciong. @-3/>64-6>.e. and with neither one being higher than the other in terms of pre!eden!e so that the 8urisdi!tion of one must yield to the other. 13D SC%. he order. M&C H Lega5pi City. i. this 8urisdi!tion !annot be ousted by subse0uent events su!h as the temporary transfer of eviden!e and material re!ords of the pro!eedings to another tribunal e(er!ising its own 8urisdi!tion over another ele!tion !ontest pursuant to the Constitution. #residing Judge. .. 5une +'. +. the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. vowing to the reality that only a single ballot e(ists in an ele!tion for national and lo!al offi!ials. he Constitution !onferred upon the C<)9@9C 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion protests involving provin!ial offi!ials. 16>'. '1 SC%. and the regional.. De!ember +4..4/ Co&)uc" o( COMELEC /eli8er'"io&7 '" "$e SET 5re#i7e7 7e turn to the issue of the propriety of the C<)9@9C1s !onsideration of the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest (spe!ifi!ally its appre!iation of the !ontested ballotsA at the S9 premises and while the same ballots are also under !onsideration by the S9 for another ele!tion !ontest legitimately within the S9 1s own 8urisdi!tion. &o. 1. runs: 1. in terms of the ad8udi!atory tribunal and as provided in C<)9@9C %esolution &o. &o. 1'>1.. his is the rule of adheren!e of 8urisdi!tion. @-DD'D6. =residential 9le!toral ribunal" Senate 9le!toral ribunal" . 4/ . <!tober 3.>31" Lee v. @-4/>/'. CA.41' B1'/1C" $amos v. 3.

169696.R. of %epubli! -!t &o. M3I-TO '&) :ERI-O TOLE-TI-O.ORE. '.DB+DC his is parti!ularly true in $ula!an1s !ase as no revision had to be undertaken.4'. premises !onsidered.4' his order of preferen!e di!tated that the ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials in $ula!an1s provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. we /ISMISS the petition for !ertiorari for la!k of merit. ELEA>AR 5.T the STAT3S M3O OR/ER we issued. he transfer to the S9 . VS. 9. :. .Re*er7i&% "$e /ece#8er 1. . Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and Se!tion 3(aA of C<)9@9C %esolution &o. +66>-33. did not mean that the $ula!an provin!ial ele!tion !ontest I at that time already submitted for de!ision I had to be suspended as the C<)9@9C held in its <rders of +' -pril +66' and +4 )ay +66' in 9=C &o. C*A+#ER III . the Supreme Court held that the 0uestioned provisions of the above-mentioned laws are un!onstitutional for being violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause.DB+DC $ollo. he laws !onsidering appointed offi!ials of the government who filed their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y :!onsidered resigned. pp.e8ru'ry 99. the revision having been already terminated. C5 he main issue in this !ase is whether or not the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. 9. #*E E-%AL +RO#EC#ION CLA%SE Sec.9 E& 4'&c /eci7io&! =uno. .1. e((ec"i*e i##e)i'"ely. <n De!ember 1. +'-. JR.3. COMELEC. 4' . 7e a!!ordingly LI. had to be transferred to the S9 when the latter needed these materials for its revision of ballots. /4>/. providing that appointive offi!ials are deemed automati!ally resigned from their 8obs upon the filing of their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y (while the ele!ted offi!ials are notA is un!onstitutional mainly on the ground that they violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth.. however. 0HERE. +66'.. 1P&or 7$'ll '&y per7o& 8e )e&ie) "$e eCu'l pro"ec"io& o( "$e l'w7. while ele!ted offi!ials are not does not violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. -o.

as publi! safety and interest demand su!h reversal. and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. of %epubli! -!t (%-A '. respondent C<)9@9C and movants-intervenors submit the following arguments: (1A he assailed De!ision is !ontrary to. and (bA they limit these !ivil servants1 a!tivity regardless of whether they be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter. be!ause su!h differential treatment rests on material and substantial distin!tions and is germane to the purposes of the law" (.A Congress has not shown a !ompelling state interest to restri!t the fundamental right of these publi! appointive offi!ials. and the se!ond >6 . the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. muni!ipal or 'arangay level" and (.>6 <n )otion for %e!onsideration.4'. *n support of their respe!tive motions for re!onsideration. 7e grant the motions for re!onsideration. andEor violative of. he assailed De!ember 1. or whether they be in the national. +66' De!ision stru!k down Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/.A he assailed provisions do not suffer from the infirmity of overbreadth" and (3A here is a !ompelling need to reverse the assailed De!ision. the Supreme Court re!onsidered its earlier De!ision and de!lared the above laws and C<)9@9C %esolution !onstitutional. on the following grounds: (1A hey violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution be!ause of the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offi!es and those holding ele!tive positions" (+A hey are overbroad insofar as they prohibit the !andida!y of all !ivil servants holding appointive posts: (aA without distin!tion as to whether or not they o!!upy highEinfluential positions in the government. the !onstitutional pros!ription against the parti!ipation of publi! appointive offi!ials and members of the military in partisan politi!al a!tivity" (+A he assailed provisions do not violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause when they a!!ord differential treatment to ele!tive and appointive offi!ials. Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. 7e find the foregoing arguments meritorious. 7e &ow rule that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/.

>1 proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. he e0ual prote!tion of the law !lause in the Constitution is not absolute.'.'riQ'7 thus brought an e0ual prote!tion !hallenge against Se!tion 13. +66' De!ision.a". !.%e #ti!e 3e retary. failed muster. :ari. *f the groupings are !hara!teriGed by substantial distin!tions that make real differen!es. that the legal di!hotomy !reated by the @egislature is a reasonable !lassifi!ation. i. that the repeal of Se!tion 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code pertaining to ele!tive offi!ials gives undue benefit to su!h offi!ials as against the appointive ones and violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the !onstitution. the !ontention that Se!tion 13 of the #air 9le!tion -!t. that it unduly dis!riminates against appointive offi!ials. et al. et al. to both ele!ted and appointive offi!ials. E@ecu"i*e Secre"'ry. but is sub8e!t to reasonable !lassifi!ation.. among others. -s Se!tion 13 repealed Se!tion 4> (i. the limitation on appointive offi!ials !ontinues to be operative I they are deemed resigned when they file their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y. in relation to Se!tions 44 and 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. he petitioners in . with the end in view of having the deemed-resigned provisions :apply e0ually. i7 Co&"rolli&% *n truth. Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. 7e ruled: he petitionersS !ontention. however.4' are not un!onstitutional. Conse0uently.'riQ'7. *n .4' are not violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution.'. 7e held. as there are material and signifi!ant distin!tions between the two !lasses of offi!ials.'riQ'7. 7e now hold that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/. the !onstitutionality of Se!tion 13 of the #air 9le!tion -!t. et al. of %. and a!!ordingly re*er7e our De!ember 1. infringed on the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. was assailed on the ground. *n !ontrast. et al. he Court has e(plained the nature of the e0ual prote!tion guarantee in this manner: >1 . *. is tenuous.e. one !lass may be treated and regulated differently from the other. ele!ted offi!ials are no longer !onsidered ipso facto resigned from their respe!tive offi!es upon their filing of !ertifi!ates of !andida!y. of %. sin!e Se!tion 44 was not repealed. in relation to Se!tions 44 and 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. . the deemed-resigned provision in respe!t of ele!ted offi!ialsA of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. and the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. this Court has already ruled s0uarely on whether these deemedresigned provisions !hallenged in the !ase at bar violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution in .

ele!tive offi!ials. itle *. or offi!ers or employees holding politi!al offi!es. appointive offi!ials. >+ . -nother substantial distin!tion between the two sets of offi!ials is that under Se!tion DD. T$e (or#er occupy "$eir o((ice 8y *ir"ue o( "$e #'&)'"e o( "$e elec"or'"e. Civil Servi!e Commission. are stri!tly prohibited from engaging in any partisan politi!al a!tivity or take 6sic9 part in any ele!tion e(!ept to vote. are obviously e(pressly allowed to take part in politi!al and ele!toral a!tivities. ?nder the same provision. +'+A. $ook F of the -dministrative Code of 1'/> (9(e!utive <rder &o. Su87"'&"i'l )i7"i&c"io&7 cle'rly e@i7" 8e"wee& elec"i*e o((ici'l7 '&) 'ppoi&"i*e o((ici'l7. *t is not intended to prohibit legislation whi!h is limited either in the ob8e!t to whi!h it is dire!ted or by territory within whi!h it is to operate. T$ey 're elec"e) "o '& o((ice (or ' )e(i&i"e "er# '&) #'y 8e re#o*e) "$ere(ro# o&ly upo& 7"ri&%e&" co&)i"io&7. the legislators deemed it proper to treat these two !lasses of offi!ials differently with respe!t to the effe!t on their tenure in the offi!e of the filing of the !ertifi!ates of !andida!y for any position other than those o!!upied by them. under like !ir!umstan!es and !onditions both as to privileges !onferred and liabilities enfor!ed. and reasonable grounds e(ist for making a distin!tion between those who fall within su!h !lass and those who do not. Chapter /.>+ he e0ual prote!tion of the law !lause is against undue favor and individual or !lass privilege. Some appointive offi!ials hold their offi!e in a permanent !apa!ity and are entitled to se!urity of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. if it applies alike to all persons within su!h !lass. he e0ual prote!tion !lause is not infringed by legislation whi!h applies only to those persons falling within a spe!ified !lass. *t does not demand absolute e0uality among residents" it merely re0uires that all persons shall be treated alike. as well as hostile dis!rimination or the oppression of ine0uality. <n the other hand. $y repealing Se!tion 4> but retaining Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. appointive offi!ials hold their offi!e by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Subse!tion -. as offi!ers and employees in the !ivil servi!e.

1 J A decision ?2ic2 t2e case could 2ave turned on is not regarded as o'iter dictum merely 'ecause. by reason of other points in the !ase. o?ing to t2e disposal of t2e contention. . &o decide differently ?ould raise a feeling of resentment and ?rong in my 'reastB it ?ould 'e an infringement. ele!ted offi!ials vis-U-vis appointive offi!ials. mandates that on!e a !ase has been de!ided one way. i. -!t &o. made on some other ground" or even though. not infringed. nor !an >. *t would be a gross in8usti!e to de!ide alternate !ases on opposite prin!iples. on the parti!ular point. it ?as necessary to consider anot2er Cuestion. his do!trine. the result rea!hed might have been the same if the !ourt had held.>. * shall look for the same 8udgment today if * am plaintiff. -gain. the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution is. whi!h is really <adheren e to pre edent". then another !ase involving e(a!tly the same point at issue should be de!ided in the same manner. his do!trine is one of poli!y grounded on the ne!essity for se!uring !ertainty and stability of 8udi!ial de!isions. material and moral. and to any statement as to the matter on whi!h the de!ision is predi!ated. *. is an!hored upon material and signifi!ant distin!tions and all the persons belonging under the same !lassifi!ation are similarly treated. Jr.e. Sin!e the !lassifi!ation 8ustifying Se!tion 13 of %ep. he !ase at bar is a !rass attempt to resurre!t a dead issue. -s we held in Vill'&ue*'. Cour" o( Appe'l7. the parties e(pe!t the same de!ision. thus. otherwise than it did. of my rig2ts. <ur ... :*f a group of !ases involves the same point. a point e(pressly de!ided does not lose its value as a pre!edent be!ause the disposition of the !ase is. *f a !ase was de!ided against me yesterday when * was a defendant. -s the renowned 8urist $en8amin CardoGo stated in his treatise T$e -'"ure o( "$e Ju)ici'l 5roce77: *t will not do to de!ide the same 0uestion one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. #or that reason.'riQ'7 ruling on the e0ual prote!tion impli!ations of the deemedresigned provisions !annot be minimaliGed as mere o'iter dictum. 7e ought to be guided by the do!trine of stare decisis et non Cuieta movere. et al. *t is trite to state that an ad8udi!ation on any point within the issues presented by the !ase !annot be !onsidered as o'iter dictum. it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this !lassifi!ation. he mira!le is that our assailed De!ision gave it new life.I Ad2erence to precedent must t2en 'e t2e rule rat2er t2an t2e e>ception if litigants are to 2ave fait2 in t2e even2anded administration of =ustice in t2e courts. his rule applies to all pertinent 0uestions that are presented and resolved in the regular !ourse of the !onsideration of the !ase and lead up to the final !on!lusion. '664. or might have been.

also. Cla""ifi ation Ger(ane to the &#rpo"e" of the =a' he . (itali!s suppliedA ii.: V #or e(ample. *t. 7hat it simply re0uires is e0uality among e0uals as determined a!!ording to a valid !lassifi!ation. third and fourth re0uisites of reasonableness.. interior and lo!al government. t2e case as an aut2oritative precedent as to every point decided. brought forward after the !ase has been disposed of on one ground. 7ith the fa!t that they both head e(e!utive offi!es. any one of whi!h is suffi!ient to determine the ultimate issue. !ould wield the same influen!e as the Fi!e-=resident who at the same time is appointed to a Cabinet post (in the re!ent past. nor does a de!ision on one proposition make statements of the !ourt regarding other propositions di!ta. <ur assailed De!ision readily a!knowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy the first. so!ial welfare development. but the !ourt a!tually de!ides all su!h points. the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain. and one point s2ould not 'e denied aut2ority merely 'ecause anot2er point ?as more d?elt on and more fully argued and considered.>3 an additional reason in a de!ision. proffers the dubious !on!lusion that the differential treatment of appointive offi!ials vis-U-vis ele!ted offi!ials is not germane to the purpose of the law.A *t is not limited to e(isting !onditions only" and (3A *t applies e0ually to all members of the same !lass. and none of suc2 points can 'e regarded as 2aving t2e status of a dictum. ele!ted Fi!e-=residents were appointed to take !harge of national housing.'riQ'7 ruling on the e0ual prote!tion !hallenge stands on solid ground even if ree(amined. or any )ember of the Cabinet for that matter. there is no valid 8ustifi!ation to treat them differently when both file their BCertifi!ates of Candida!yC >3 . the 9(e!utive Se!retary. where a !ase presents two (+A or more points. however. and foreign affairsA. So. vi5. o start with. be!ause :whether one holds an appointive offi!e or an ele!tive one. whi!h has four re0uisites: (1A he !lassifi!ation rests on substantial distin!tions" (+A *t is germane to the purposes of the law" (. the e0ual prote!tion !lause does not re0uire the universal appli!ation of the laws to all persons or things without distin!tion. be regarded as di!ta. he test developed by 8urispruden!e here and yonder is that of reasonableness.

*n the !ase at bar. <ur assailed De!ision was likewise silent as a sphin( on this point even while we submitted the following thesis: . by itself. let us say.. it may 8ustifiably be said that they were e(!luded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respe!t for the mandate of the sovereign will. here is no !onstitutional re0uirement that regulation must rea!h ea!h and every !lass to whi!h it might be applied" that the @egislature must be held rigidly to the !hoi!e of regulating all or none. Considering that ele!ted offi!ials are put in offi!e by their !onstituents (or ' )e(i&i"e "er#. the @egislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at on!e" it may pro!eed :one step at a time. ?nder the present state of our law. !omplete deferen!e is a!!orded to the will of the ele!torate that they be served by su!h offi!ials until the end of the >D . running this time. thereby !reating some ine0uity as to those in!luded or e(!luded. the Fi!e=resident. in the e(ample. it must invariably draw lines and make !hoi!es.e must refute all possible rational bases for the differing treatment. &evertheless. unwise.>D for the ele!tions.. underin!lusive. is there a rational 8ustifi!ation for e(!luding ele!ted offi!ials from the operation of the deemed resigned provisionsN * submit that there is. is under in!lusive will not render it un!onstitutionally arbitrary or invidious. Stated differently. su!h that the !onstitutionality of the law must be sustained even if the reasonableness of the !lassifi!ation is :fairly debatable. we must find that there is no reasonably rational reason for the differing treatment. retains his position during the entire ele!tion period and !an still use the resour!es of his offi!e to support his !ampaign. *n other words. this !on!lusion !onveniently ignores the long-standing rule that to remedy an in8usti!e. 7e may not strike down a law merely be!ause the legislative aim would have been more fully a!hieved by e(panding the !lass.. *t involves the !hoi!e or sele!tion of !andidates to publi! offi!e by popular vote. B*Ct is not suffi!ient grounds for invalidation that we may find that the statute1s distin!tion is unfair.. hus. are not e(!eeded. Sad to state. *n the instant !ase. as long as :the bounds of reasonable !hoi!e. -n ele!tion is the embodiment of the popular will. the !ourts must defer to the legislative 8udgment. the fa!t that a legislative !lassifi!ation. or not the best solution from a publi!-poli!y standpoint" rather.. *n addressing a so!ietal !on!ern. any person who poses an e0ual prote!tion !hallenge must !onvin!ingly show that the law !reates a !lassifi!ation that is :palpably arbitrary or !apri!ious. perhaps the purest e(pression of the sovereign power of the people. whether or not the @egislature !ited those bases as reasons for the ena!tment. . for =resident. the petitioners failed I and in fa!t did not even attempt I to dis!harge this heavy burden.

*t is the @egislature that is given the authority. '&) )i7cipli&e o( "$e pu8lic 7er*ice+ "$e Le%i7l'"ure. w$o7e wi7)o# i7 ou"7i)e "$e ru8ric o( Au)ici'l 7cru"i&y. his was a de!ision of the #irst Cir!uit of the ?nited States Court of -ppeals promulgated in )ar!h 1'>. iii. relying on M'&cu7o. our assailed De!ision. there is no su!h e(pe!tation insofar as appointed offi!ials are !on!erned. with two fundamental freedoms I freedom of e(pression and asso!iation" >4 . he absurdity of that position is self-evident. M'&cu7o *. it would favor a situation in whi!h the evils are un!onfined and vagrant. (emphasis in the originalA *n fine. )r. Suffi!e it to say that the remedy lies with the @egislature. our assailed De!ision adverted to. should it later de!ide that the evils sought to be prevented are of su!h fre0uen!y and magnitude as to tilt the balan!e in favor of e(panding the !lass. over another in whi!h a signifi!ant portion thereof is !ontained. under our !onstitutional system. the assailed De!ision would have us :e0ualiGe the playing field. !laimed: (1A he right to run for publi! offi!e is :ine(tri!ably linked. ?nder the prete(t of e0ual prote!tion. =atheti!ally.a" +een O!err#led #inding no =hilippine 8urispruden!e to prop up its e0ual prote!tion ruling. .. T'(". e((icie&cy. 5usti!e &a!hura. in his dissent. whi!h stru!k down as un!onstitutional a similar statutory provision. T$e )ic$o"o#iJe) "re'"#e&" o( 'ppoi&"i*e '&) elec"i*e o((ici'l7 i7 "$ere(ore %er#'&e "o "$e purpo7e7 o( "$e l'w. to balan!e !ompeting interests and thereafter make poli!y !hoi!es responsive to the e(igen!ies of the times. e(isting at the behest of both appointive and ele!ted offi!ials. 'l7o "$ou%$" i" wi7e "o 8'l'&ce "$i7 wi"$ "$e co#pe"i&%. by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. *t is !ertainly within the @egislature1s power to make the deemed-resigned provisions appli!able to ele!ted offi!ials. and e(tensively !ited. he !on!ern. is indeed a matter worth e(ploring I but &o" by this Court.or "$e l'w w'7 #')e &o" #erely "o pre7er*e "$e i&"e%ri"y. ye" eCu'lly co#pelli&%. T'(" . *n !ontrast. to say the least. voi!ed by our esteemed !olleague. i&"ere7" o( )e(erri&% "o "$e 7o*erei%& will. his Court !annot and should not arrogate unto itself the power to as!ertain and impose on the people the best state of affairs from a publi! poli!y standpoint.>4 term for whi!h they were ele!ted. that ele!ted offi!ials (vis-U-vis appointive offi!ialsA have greater politi!al !lout over the ele!torate. M'&cu7o *.

and 4ro')ricL. et al. had already stri!ken down a similar measure for being un!onstitutionalB.A 7hile the state has a !ompelling interest in maintaining the honesty and impartiality of its publi! work for!e. herefore. *n 3&i"e) S"'"e7 Ci*il Ser*ice Co##i77io&.>> (+A -ny legislative !lassifi!ation that signifi!antly burdens this fundamental right must be sub8e!ted to stri!t e0ual prote!tion review" and (. the limitation on spee!h is not un!onstitutional" and (ivA the @egislature is to be given some fle(ibility or latitude in as!ertaining whi!h positions are to be !overed by any statutory restri!tions.. et al. Fiolation of these provisions results in dismissal from employment and possible !riminal san!tions. et al. *t held that (iA in regulating the spee!h of its employees. the 8udgment of Congress. the state as employer has interests that differ signifi!antly from those it possesses in regulating the spee!h of the !itiGenry in general" (iiA the !ourts must therefore balan!e the legitimate interest of employee free e(pression against the interests of the employer in promoting effi!ien!y of publi! servi!es" (iiiA if the employees1 e(pression interferes with the maintenan!e of effi!ient and regularly fun!tioning servi!es. from whom we !opied the provision in 0uestion. *. -'"io&'l A77oci'"io& o( Le""er C'rrier7 A. the 9(e!utive. the ?nited States Supreme Court was fa!ed with the issue of whether statutory provisions prohibiting federal and state employees from taking an a!tive part in politi!al management or in politi!al !ampaigns were un!onstitutional as to warrant fa!ial invalidation. S"'"e o( OLl'$o#'. the deemed-resigned provisions pursue their ob8e!tive in a far too heavy-handed manner as to render them un!onstitutional. a means-end s!rutiny that e(amines the !loseness of fit between the governmental interests and the prohibitions in 0uestion.C it is high-time that we. et al. insofar as government employees are !on!erned. Le""er C'rrier7 elu!idated on these prin!iples. he Court de!lared these provisions !ompliant with the e0ual prote!tion !lause. 7e !annot blink away the fa!t that the ?nited States Supreme Court effe ti!ely o!err#led M'&cu7o three months after its promulgation by the ?nited States Court of -ppeals. as follows: ?ntil now. and the !ountry appears to have been that partisan politi!al a!tivities by federal employees must be limited if the 2overnment is to operate effe!tively and fairly. *t then !on!luded with the e(hortation that sin!e :the -meri!ans. and employees themselves are to be >> . the !orre!t standard of review is an interest-balan!ing approa!h. !. should follow suit.LGCIO.. too. <ur assailed De!ision1s relian!e on M'&cu7o is !ompletely mispla!ed. ele!tions are to play their proper part in representative government.

ethni!.at!h -!t is that to serve this great end of 2overnment-the impartial e(e!ution of the laws-it is essential that federal employees. here is another !onsideration in this 8udgment: it is not only important that the 2overnment and its employees in fa!t avoid pra!ti!ing politi!al 8usti!e. or points of view. . groups. *t seems fundamental in the first pla!e that employees in the 9(e!utive $ran!h of the 2overnment. ?e t2in@ t2e 'alance it 2as so far struc@ is sustaina'le 'y t2e o'viously important interests soug2t to 'e served 'y t2e limitations on partisan political activities no? contained in t2e Hatc2 Act. ut.L Alt2oug2 Congress is free to stri@e a different 'alance t2an it 2as. he restri!tions so far imposed on federal employees are not aimed at parti!ular parties. &or do they seek to !ontrol politi!al opinions or beliefs. hey dis!riminate against no ra!ial. t2e government 2as an interest in regulating t2e conduct and Kt2e speec2 of its employees t2at differ6s9 significantly from t2ose it possesses in connection ?it2 regulation of t2e speec2 of t2e citi5enry in general. oard of Education.>/ suffi!iently free from improper influen!es. not take formal positions in politi!al parties. or those working for any of its agen!ies. and not run for offi!e on partisan politi!al ti!kets. >/ . 'ut it is also critical t2at t2ey appear to t2e pu'lic to 'e avoiding it. as t2e Court 2eld in #ic@ering v. rat2er t2an in accordance ?it2 t2eir o?n or t2e ?ill of a political party. &2e pro'lem in any case is to arrive at a 'alance 'et?een t2e interests of t2e 6employee9. as an employer. should administer t2e la? in accordance ?it2 t2e ?ill of Congress. in promoting t2e efficiency of t2e pu'lic services it performs t2roug2 its employees. but apply e0ually to all partisan a!tivities of the type des!ribed. for e(ample. if it so c2ooses.ma8or thesis of the . if confidence in t2e system of representative +overnment is not to 'e eroded to a disastrous e>tent. &2ey are e>pected to enforce t2e la? and e>ecute t2e programs of t2e +overnment ?it2out 'ias or favoritism for or against any political party or group or t2e mem'ers t2ereof. as a citi5en. #orbidding a!tivities like these will redu!e the haGards to fair and effe!tive government. or religious minorities. not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan politi!al !ampaigns. in commenting upon matters of pu'lic concern and t2e interest of t2e 6government9. or to interfere with or influen!e anyoneSs vote at the polls.

in our view. &or.: >' . #or e(ample. *t may be urged that prohibitions against !oer!ion are suffi!ient prote!tion" but for many years the 8oint 8udgment of the 9(e!utive and Congress has been that to prote!t the rights of federal employees with respe!t to their 8obs and their politi!al a!ts and beliefs it is not enough merely to forbid one employee to attempt to influen!e or !oer!e another.'. &2at ?as t2e conviction t2at t2e rapidly e>panding +overnment ?or@ force s2ould not 'e employed to 'uild a po?erful. so as to comport ?it2 constitutional limitations.1 =erhaps Congress at some time will !ome to a different view of the realities of politi!al life and 2overnment servi!e" but that is its !urrent view of the matter. ( ( ( As ?e see it. .4 and 1'.. &either the right to asso!iate nor the right to parti!ipate in politi!al a!tivities is absolute in any event. . our tas@ is not to destroy t2e Act if ?e can. and this remains as important as any other. and at t2e same time to ma@e sure t2at +overnment employees ?ould 'e free from pressure and from e>press or tacit invitation to vote in a certain ?ay or perform political c2ores in order to curry favor ?it2 t2eir superiors rat2er t2an to act out t2eir o?n 'eliefs. (itali!s suppliedA 4ro')ricL likewise definitively stated that the assailed statutory provision is !onstitutionally permissible. vi5. he e(perien!e of the 1'.related !on!ern. paid for at publi! e(pense. if consistent ?it2 t2e ?ill of Congress. for that matter-using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employees. invinci'le. the Chairman of the Civil Servi!e Commission stated that Kthe prohibitions against a!tive parti!ipation in partisan politi!al management and partisan politi!al !ampaigns !onstitute the most signifi!ant safeguards against !oer!ion . and we are not now in any position to dispute it. 'ut to construe it.>' -nother ma8or !on!ern of the restri!tion against partisan a!tivities by federal employees was perhaps the immediate o!!asion for ena!tment of the . and per2aps corrupt political mac2ine. to man its politi!al stru!ture and politi!al !ampaigns. does the Constitution forbid it. was to further serve the goal that employment and advancement in t2e +overnment service not depend on political!h -!t in 1'. . at the hearings in 1'>+ on proposed legislation for liberaliGing the prohibition against politi!al a!tivity./ !ampaigns !onvin!ed Congress that these dangers were suffi!iently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in power-or the party out of power.

they are set out in terms that the ordinary person e(er!ising ordinary !ommon sense !an suffi!iently understand and !omply with. !andida!y or other politi!al purpose1 and taking part Kin the management or affairs of any politi!al party or in any politi!al !ampaign.S ( ( ( (((( B-ppellantsC nevertheless maintain that the statute is overbroad and purports to rea!h prote!ted. 7e have little doubt that s /1/ is similarly not so vague that Kmen of !ommon intelligen!e must ne!essarily guess at its meaning. the goals of s /1/ may be.1 or Ktake part in.1 7hatever other problems there are with s /1/. *n the plainest language. free from t2e vicissitudes of t2e elective process. and must therefore be stru!k down on its fa!e and held to be in!apable of any !onstitutional appli!ation. failing to distinguish between !ondu!t that may be pros!ribed and !ondu!t that must be permitted. without sa!rifi!e to the publi! interest.1 *t forbids soli!itation of !ontributions Kfor any politi!al!h -!t is not impermissibly vague. as well as unprote!ted !ondu!t. $ut what was said in Letter Carriers./6 -ppellants do not 0uestion <klahomaSs right to pla!e evenhanded restri!tions on the partisan politi!al !ondu!t of state!h -!t. there may be disputes over the meaning of su!h terms in s /1/ as Kpartisan. it prohibits any state !lassified employee from being Kan offi!er or member1 of a Kpartisan politi!al !lub1 or a !andidate for Kany paid publi! offi!e.1 7ords inevitably !ontain germs of un!ertainty and.1 %ather. appellants assert that the si(th and seventh paragraphs of s /1/ are void in toto and !annot be enfor!ed against them or anyone else. Appellants freely concede t2at suc2 restrictions serve valid and important state interests. appellants maintain that however permissible. 7e do not believe /6 . as with the . its language is un!onstitutionally vague and its prohibitions too broad in their sweep. and 'y protecting t2em from Kpolitical e>tortion. is appli!able here: Kthere are limitations in the 9nglish language with respe!t to being both spe!ifi! and manageably brief. 7e have held today that the . #or these and other reasons. it is all but frivolous to suggest that the se!tion fails to give ade0uate warning of what a!tivities it pros!ribes or fails to set out Ke(pli!it standardsS for those who must apply it. and it seems to us that although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any !ost. particularly ?it2 respect to attracting greater num'ers of Cualified people 'y insuring t2eir =o' security. even !ommendable.1 or Kaffairs of1 politi!al parties.

strong medi!ine.. ?it2 confidence. that fa!ial over-breadth ad8udi!ation is an e(!eption to our traditional rules of pra!ti!e and that its function. !nli@e ordinary 'reac2-of-t2e peace statutes or ot2er 'road regulatory acts. manifestly. assertedly. -ppli!ation of the overbreadth do!trine in this manner is. ?e 'elieve t2at t2e over'readt2 of a statute must not only 'e real. a limited one at t2e outset. at political e>pression ?2ic2 if engaged in 'y private persons ?ould plainly 'e protected 'y t2e Airst and Aourteent2 Amendments./1 that the overbreadth do!trine may appropriately be invoked in this manner here. s . is directed. t2e fact remains t2at s .. suc2 statutes 2ave in t2e past 'een su'=ect to a less e>acting over'readt2 scrutiny. =ustify invalidating a statute on its face and so pro2i'iting a "tate from enforcing t2e statute against conduct t2at is admittedly ?it2in its po?er to proscri'e. regulates a su'stantial spectrum of conduct t2at is as /1 . t2ere comes a point ?2ere t2at effect-at 'est a predictioncannot. 'ut su'stantial as ?ell. As indicted. ( ( ( ( ( ( $ut the plain import of our !ases is. see@s to regulate political activity in an even-2anded and neutral manner. if too 'roadly ?orded. *t has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort. directed at particular groups or vie?points. may deter protected speec2 to some un@no?n e>tent.. Moreover.. particularly ?2ere conduct and not merely speec2 is involved. ut at t2e same time.. Alt2oug2 suc2 la?s. at the very least. may not be applied.. &o put t2e matter anot2er ?ay. (((( he !onse0uen!e of our departure from traditional rules of standing in the #irst -mendment area is that any enfor!ement of a statute thus pla!ed at issue is totally forbidden until and unless a limiting !onstru!tion or partial invalidation so narrows it as to remove the seeming threat or deterren!e to !onstitutionally prote!ted e(pression. attenuates as t2e ot2er?ise unprotected 'e2avior t2at it for'ids t2e "tate to sanction moves from Kpure speec2L to?ard conduct and that !ondu!t-even if e(pressive-falls within the s!ope of otherwise valid !riminal laws that refle!t legitimate state interests in maintaining !omprehensive !ontrols over harmful. s . !onstitutionally unprote!ted !ondu!t. *t is our view that s /1/ is not substantially overbroad and that whatever overbreadth may e(ist should be !ured through !ase-by-!ase analysis of the fa!t situations to whi!h its san!tions. rat2er. 'y its terms. is not a censorial statute. &2e statute. =udged in relation to t2e statuteMs plainly legitimate s?eep.

that these !ases !annot be interpreted to mean a reversal of M'&cu7o. or candidates for any paid pu'lic office" taking part in the management or affairs of any politi!al partySs partisan politi!al !ampaign" serving as delegates or alternates to !au!uses or !onventions of politi!al parties" addressing or taking an a!tive part in partisan politi!al rallies or meetings" soli!iting votes or assisting voters at the polls or helping in a partisan effort to get voters to the polls" parti!ipating in the distribution of partisan !ampaign literature" initiating or !ir!ulating partisan nominating petitions" or riding in !aravans for any politi!al party or partisan politi!al !andidate. is valid at least insofar as it for'ids !lassified employees from: soli!iting !ontributions for partisan !andidates.. state. he plaintiffs desired to !ampaign for !andidates for publi! offi!e. t2erefore. the plaintiffs alleged that the Civil Servi!e Commission was enfor!ing. his mu!h was established in !nited #u'lic Dor@ers v. sin!e they :pertain to different types of laws and were de!ided based on a different set of fa!ts.. the . is not su'stantially over'road and it not.... . or lo!al !ommittees of politi!al parties. (itali!s suppliedA *t bears stressing that. or threatening to enfor!e. ut.. vi5. Mitc2ell.. t2ere is no Cuestion t2at s . )r. to en!ourage and get federal employees to run for state and lo!al offi!es. "ection . *n roadric@. ?e do not 'elieve t2at s . in his Dissenting <pinion. !nder t2e decision in Letter Carriers.. may 'e suscepti'le of some ot2er improper applications. or other partisan politi!al purposes" be!oming members of national. and to hold offi!e in a politi!al !lub. the appellants sought the invalidation for being vague and overbroad a provision in the 6sic9 <klahoma1s )erit System of =ersonnel -dministration -!t restri!ting the /+ . or offi!ers or !ommittee members in partisan politi!al !lubs. to parti!ipate as delegates in party !onventions. nonetheless. politi!al parties. and has been unhesitatingly reaffirmed today in Letter Carriers. must 'e discarded in toto 'ecause some personsL argua'ly protected conduct may or may not 'e caug2t or c2illed 'y t2e statute.e would hold... as presently construed./+ manifestly su'=ect to state regulation as t2e pu'lic peace or criminal trespass. 5usti!e &a!hura )oe7 &o" )e&y the prin!iples enun!iated in Le""er C'rrier7 and 4ro')ricL. ( ( ( It may 'e t2at suc2 restrictions are impermissi'le and t2at s .1 *n Letter Carriers. unconstitutional on its!h -!t1s prohibition against :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns.

ome %ule Charter. that his position is belied by a plain reading of these !!h -!t pros!ribed partisan politi!al a!tivities of federal employees. filed as a !andidate for nomination as representative to the %hode *sland 2eneral -ssembly. on the other hand. among others. . running in lo!al ele!tions for offi!es su!h as s!hool board member. as the above-!ited ?S !ases pertain to different types of laws and were de!ided based on a different set of fa!ts. the appellants a!tively parti!ipated in the 1'>6 reele!tion !ampaign of their superior. !ity !oun!il member or mayor" /. involves. politi!al a!tivities of the State1s !lassified !ivil servants. in mu!h the same manner as the ./. with respe!t to !ertain defined a!tivities in whi!h they desired to engage. and for re!eiving and distributing !ampaign posters in bulk. he plaintiffs relevant to this dis!ussion are (aA he &ational -sso!iation of @etter Carriers. he )ayor of Cranston then began the pro!ess of enfor!ing the resign-to-run provision of the City . the . 4ro')ricL '&) M'&cu7o all co&cer&e) "$e co&7"i"u"io&'li"y o( re7i%&G"oGru& l'w7.: (1A M'&cu7o involved a !ivil servi!e employee who filed as a !andidate for nomination as representative to the %hode *sland 2eneral -ssembly. an automati! resignation provision. whi!h alleged that its members were desirous of. ( ( ( (itali!s in the originalA 7e hold. however. or threatening to enfor!e.ome %ule Charter. a full time poli!e offi!er and !lassified !ivil servi!e employee of the City of!h -!t1s prohibition against :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns. Letter Carriers and roadric@ !annot be interpreted to mean a reversal of Mancuso. Menneth )an!uso. as aforesaid. Contrary to his !laim.6'(!A of the City . whi!h prohibits :continuing in t2e classified service of t2e city after 'ecoming a candidate for nomination or election to any pu'lic office. Clearly. Mancuso. . (+A Le""er C'rrier7 involved plaintiffs who alleged that the Civil Servi!e Commission was enfor!ing. and were administratively !harged for asking other Corporation Commission employees to do !ampaign work or to give referrals to persons who might help in the !ampaign. for soli!iting money for the !ampaign..e assailed the !onstitutionality of W13. Le""er C'rrier7. =rior to the !ommen!ement of the a!tion. vi5.

and that he would do so e(!ept for fear of losing his 8ob by reason of violation of the ./3 (bA =laintiff 2ee. file as a !andidate for the offi!e of $orough Coun!ilman in his lo!al !ommunity for fear that his parti!ipation in a partisan ele!tion would endanger his 8ob" and (!A =laintiff )yers. Fiolation of Se!tion /1/ results in dismissal from employment. he . possible !riminal san!tions and limited state employment ineligibility. $y no stret!h of the imagination !ould M'&cu7o /3 .at!h -!t. it !annot be denied that Le""er C'rrier7 and 4ro')ricL effe!tively overruled M'&cu7o. Se!tion /1/ (>A. the paragraph relevant to this dis!!h -!t defines :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns. by !ross-referring to the rules made by the Civil Servi!e Commission. county. he fa!t that !andida!y. he prohibition against politi!al a!tivity e(tends not merely to formal announ!ement of !andida!y but also to the preliminaries leading to su!h announ!ement and to !anvassing or soli!iting support or doing or permitting to be done any a!t in furtheran!e of !andida!y. (.A 4ro')ricL was a !lass a!tion brought by !ertain <klahoma state employees seeking a de!laration of un!onstitutionality of two subparagraphs of Se!tion /1/ of <klahoma1s )erit System of =ersonnel -dministration -!t. who alleged that he desired to. but did not. Conse0uently. *ndiana. Candidacy for local office: Candidacy for a nomination or for election to any (ational. he rule pertinent to our in0uiry states: . or municipal office is not permissi'le. "tate. is merely passive is immaterial" if an employee a!0uies!es in the efforts of friends in furtheran!e of su!h !andida!y su!h a!0uies!en!e !onstitutes an infra!tion of the prohibitions against politi!al a!tivity. who alleged that he desired to run as a %epubli!an !andidate in the 1'>1 partisan ele!tion for the mayor of 7est @afayette. states that :NnOo employee in t2e classified service s2all 'e J a candidate for nomination or election to any paid pu'lic officeJ .6. (itali!s suppliedA Se!tion '(bA re0uires the immediate removal of violators and forbids the use of appropriated funds thereafter to pay !ompensation to these persons.

"ooL "$e po7i"io& "$'" Man #"o $') 7i&ce lo7" co&7i)er'8le *i"'li"y. %uled the !ourt: he 0uestion before us is whether =awtu!ketSs !harter provision. whi!h bars a !ity employeeSs !andida!y in even a nonpartisan !ity ele!tion. he firemen brought an a!tion against the !ity offi!ials on the ground that that the provision of the !ity !harter was un!onstitutional. -s we priorly e(plained: M'%ill involved =awtu!ket. )e(erri&% "o "$e Au)%#e&" o( Co&%re77. as it was reasonable for the !ity to fear. w'7 ' po7i"io& w$ic$ w'7 &o lo&%er *i'8le. the violation being punished by removal from offi!e or immediate!h -!t. Civil "ervice CommMn v. *t must be noted that the Court of -ppeals ruled in this manner even though the ele!tion in M'%ill was !hara!teriGed as &o&p'r"i7'&. (ully co%&iJ'&" o( =etter Carrier" '&) +roadri ). O@la2oma. prohibits !ity employees from engaging in a broad range of politi!al a!tivities.ir7" A#e&)#e&" ri%$"7. '&) 'pplyi&% ' B8'l'&ci&%D "e7" "o )e"er#i&e w$e"$er li#i"7 o& poli"ic'l 'c"i*i"y 8y pu8lic e#ployee7 7u87"'&"i'lly 7er*e) %o*er&#e&" i&"ere7"7 w$ic$ were Bi#por"'&"D e&ou%$ "o ou"wei%$ "$e e#ployee7N . $e!oming a !andidate for any !ity offi!e is spe!ifi!ally pros!ribed.(i&)i&% "$'" "$e %o*er&#e&"N7 i&"ere7" i& re%ul'"i&% 8o"$ "$e co&)uc" '&) 7peec$ o( i"7 e#ployee7 )i((ere) 7i%&i(ic'&"ly (ro# i"7 i&"ere7" i& re%ul'"i&% "$o7e o( "$e ci"iJe&ry i& %e&er'l! $') %i*e& li""le wei%$" "o "$e 'r%u#e&" "$'" pro$i8i"io&7 '%'i&7" "$e coercio& o( %o*er&#e&" e#ployee7 were ' le77 )r'7"ic #e'&7 "o "$e 7'#e e&)./D still be held operative. I" o87er*e) "$'" "$e *iew "$'" poli"ic'l c'&)i)'cy w'7 ' (u&)'#e&"'l i&"ere7" w$ic$ coul) 8e i&(ri&%e) upo& o&ly i( le77 re7"ric"i*e 'l"er&'"i*e7 were &o" '*'il'8le. under the !ir!umstan!es of that !ase. the ?nited States Supreme Court. as Le""er C'rrier7 and 4ro')ricL (iA !on!erned virtually identi!al resign-to-run laws. *t was thus not surprising for the #irst Cir!uit Court of -ppeals I the same !ourt that de!ided M'&cu7o I to hold c'"e%oric'lly '&) e#p$'"ic'lly in M'%ill *. 7i&ce "$e Supre#e Cour" . %hode *sland firemen who ran for !ity offi!e in 1'>D. he issue !ompels us to e(trapolate two re!ent Supreme Court de!isions. is !onstitutional. =awtu!ket1s :@ittle . and (iiA were de!ided by a superior !ourt. "$e cour". Ly&c$ that M'&cu7o i7 &o lo&%er %oo) l'w. Howe*er. (atMl AssMn of Letter Carriers and roadric@ v. $oth dealt /D . that politi!ally a!tive bureau!rats might use their offi!ial power to help politi!al friends and hurt politi!al foes.

&aft. upholding the !onstitutionality of the . *t appears that the government may pla!e limits on !ampaigning by publi! employees if the limits substantially serve government interests that are HimportantH enough to outweigh the employeesS #irst -mendment rights./4 with laws barring !ivil servants from partisan politi!al a!tivity. Letter Carriers reaffirmed !nited #u'lic Dor@ers v. ( ( ( (itali!s suppliedA /4 . as the distri!t !ourt re!ogniGed. ?e assumed t2at proscriptions of candidacy in nonpartisan elections ?ould not 'e constitutional. 7e !annot be more pre!ise than the hird Cir!uit in !hara!teriGing the CourtSs approa!h as Hsome sort of Sbalan!ingS pro!essH. )it!hell HunhesitatinglyH reaffirmed. against !onstitutional atta!k. $roadri!k sustained <klahomaSs :@ittle .at!h -!t as to federal employees. &aft t2an remains after Letter Carriers. but the Court gave little weight to the argument that prohibitions against the !oer!ion of government employees were a less drasti! means to the same end. limiting its holding to <klahomaSs !onstru!tion that the -!t barred only a!tivity in partisan politi!s. (((( 7hat we are obligated to do in this !!h -!t. In Mancuso v. Letter Carriers and roadric@ compel ne? analysis. Mitc2ell. is to apply t2e CourtLs interest 'alancing approac2 to t2e @ind of nonpartisan election revealed in this re!ord. deferring to the 8udgment of the Congress. De 2ave particular reference to our vie? t2at political candidacy ?as a fundamental interest ?2ic2 could 'e trenc2ed upon only if less restrictive alternatives ?ere not availa'le. t2e Court in Letter Carriers recogni5ed t2at t2e governmentMs interest in regulating 'ot2 t2e conduct and speec2 of its employees differs significantly from its interest in regulating t2ose of t2e citi5enry in general. D2ile t2is approac2 may still 'e via'le for citi5ens ?2o are not government employees. &ot only was ?nited =ubli! 7orkers v. De 'elieve t2at t2e district court found more residual vigor in our opinion in Mancuso v.

5ust as the Court in Letter Carriers identified a se!ond governmental interest in the avoidan!e of the appearan!e of Hpoliti!al 8usti!eH as to poli!y. Goning. muni!ipal !ontra!ts and pur!hasing./> ?pholding thus the !onstitutionality of the law in 0uestion. hiring. ta( assessments. the !ity might reasonably fear that politi!ally a!tive bureau!rats would use their offi!ial power to help politi!al friends and hurt politi!al foes. as here. !on!essions.C the first interest identified by the Court was that of an effi!ient government. and inspe!tions. for neither friend nor foe is as easily identified. but into the parti!ulars of administration favoritism in minute de!isions affe!ting welfare. party support is a key to su!!essful !!ond ma8or governmental interest identified in Letter Carriers was avoiding the danger of a powerful politi!al ma!hine. li!ensing. . so there is an e0uivalent interest in avoiding the appearan!e of politi!al preferment in privileges. faithful to the Congress rather than to party. his observation undoubtedly has substan!e insofar as allegian!e to broad poli!y positions is !on!erned. 7here. he distri!t !ourt dis!ounted this interest. $ut a different kind of possible politi!al intrusion into effi!ient administration !ould be thought to threaten muni!ipal government: not into broad poli!y de!isions. his is not to say that the !itySs interest in visibly fair and effe!tive administration ne!essarily 8ustifies a blanket prohibition of all employee !ampaigning" if parties are not heavily involved in a !ampaign. the danger of favoritism is less. and benefits. the M'%ill !ourt detailed the ma8or governmental interests dis!ussed in Le""er C'rrier7 and applied them to the =awtu!ket provision as follows: *n Letter CarriersB. he appearan!e (or realityA of favoritism that the !harterSs authors evidently feared is not e(or!ised by the nonpartisan !hara!ter of the formal ele!tion pro!ess. he Court had in mind the large and growing federal /> . and party rivalry is the norm. reasoning that !andidates in a lo!al ele!tion would not likely be !ommitted to a state or national platform.

he distri!t // . and party endorsements proved to be highly effe!tive both in determining who would emerge from the primary ele!tion and who would be ele!ted in the final ele!tion. he !harterSs authors might reasonably have feared that a politi!ally a!tive publi! work for!e would give the in!umbent party. ?nder the prevailing !ustoms. the small siGe of the ele!torate and the limited powers of lo!al government may inhibit the growth of interest groups powerful enough to outbalan!e the weight of a partisan work for!e. where parties are a !ontinuing presen!e in politi!al !ampaigns. isolated government employees may seek to influen!e voters or their !o-workers improperly" but a more real danger is that a !entral party stru!ture will mass the s!attered powers of government workers behind a single party platform or slate. an unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. $ut in fa!t !andidates sought party endorsements. a !arefully or!hestrated use of !ity employees in support of the in!umbent partySs !andidates is possible. he danger is s!ar!ely lessened by the openness of =awtu!ketSs nominating pro!edure or the la!k of party labels on its ballots. 9ven when nonpartisan issues and !andida!ies are at stake. $ut party dis!ipline eliminates this diversity and tends to make abuse systemati!. and the in!umbent workers. <!!asional misuse of the publi! trust to pursue private politi!al ends is tolerable. known party affiliation and support were highly signifi!ant fa!tors in =awtu!ket ele!tions. *n =awtu!ket. *nstead of a handful of employees pressured into advan!ing their immediate superiorSs politi!al ambitions.// bureau!ra!y and its partisan potential. espe!ially be!ause the politi!al views of individual employees may balan!e ea!h other out. he third area of proper governmental interest in Letter Carriers was ensuring that employees a!hieve advan!ement on their merits and that they be free from both !oer!ion and the prospe!t of favor from politi!al a!tivity. he distri!t !ourt felt this was only a minor threat sin!e parties had no !ontrol over nominations. *n muni!ipal ele!tions espe!ially. the entire government work for!e may be e(pe!ted to turn out for many !andidates in every ele!tion.

the government may !onstitutionally restri!t its employeesS parti!ipation in nominally nonpartisan ele!tions if politi!al parties play a large role in the !ampaigns. $ut we think that the possibility of !oer!ion of employees by superiors remains as strong a fa!tor in muni!ipal ele!tions as it was in Letter Carriers. !li0ues. *n short. 7hile the employeesS #irst -mendment rights would normally outbalan!e these diminished interests. the interests identified by the Letter Carriers Court lose mu!h of their for!e. should an employee gather substantial politi!al support. on the other hand. *n the absen!e of substantial party involvement. but looked only to the possibility of a !ivil servant using his position to influen!e voters. <n!e again. =oliti!al oppression of publi! employees will be rare in an entirely nonpartisan system. we do not suggest that they would always do so. an interest that looms larger in the !onte(t of muni!ipal ele!tions than it does in the national ele!tions !onsidered in Letter Carriers./' !ourt did not address this fa!tor. are !onsiderable. 9ven when parties are absent. and held this to be no more of a threat than in the most nonpartisan of ele!tions. it is the systemati! and !oordinated e(ploitation of publi! servants for politi!al ends that a legislature is most likely to see as the primary threat of employeesS rights. he possibilities of internal dis!ussion. -n employee of a federal agen!y who seeks a Congressional seat poses less of a dire!t !hallenge to the !ommand and dis!ipline of his agen!y than a fireman or poli!eman who runs for mayor or !ity !oun!il. and politi!al bargaining. he !ity !ould reasonably fear the prospe!t of a subordinate running dire!tly against his superior or running for a position that !onfers great power over his superior. but without party offi!ials looking over their shoulders most supervisors will prefer to let employees go their own ways. (!itations omittedA /' . many employee !ampaigns might be thought to endanger at least one strong publi! interest. Some superiors may be in!lined to ride herd on the politi!s of their employees even in a nonpartisan !onte(t.

?nder roadric@. an over'readt2 c2allenger 2as a '6 . and they were sub8e!t to dis!ipline under a law pros!ribing a wide range of a!tivities. inter alia. he se!ond diffi!ulty is not so easily disposed of. he fa!ts of this !ase are so similar that we may rea!h the same result without worrying unduly about the sometimes opa0ue distin!tion between spee!h and !ondu!t. 7e are spared the first in0uiry by roadric@ itself. and how to define HsubstantialH overbreadth.. remanded the !ase to the distri!t !ourt for further pro!eedings in respe!t of the petitioners1 overbreadth !harge. when one who !hallenges a law has engaged in !onstitutionally unprote!ted !ondu!t (rather than unprote!ted spee!hA and when the !hallenged law is aimed at unprote!ted !ondu!t. however. Measuring t2e su'stantiality of a statuteMs over'readt2 apparently reCuires. Hthe overbreadth of a statute must not only be real. but substantial as well. he Court found that this !ombination re0uired a substantial overbreadth approa!h. &2e Cuestion is a matter of degreeB it ?ill never 'e possi'le to say t2at a ratio of one invalid to nine valid applications ma@es a la? su'stantially over'road.H wo ma8or un!ertainties attend the do!trine: how to distinguish spee!h from !ondu!t. mu!h less to be taken in the dark. whi!h introdu!ed the do!trine of HsubstantialH overbreadth in a !losely analogous !ase. =awtu!ket has gone further. &oting that invalidating a statute for being overbroad is :not to be taken lightly. 8udged in relation to the statuteSs plainly legitimate sweep. he plaintiffs in that !ase had soli!ited support for a !andidate. roadric@ found no substantial overbreadth in a statute restri!ting partisan !ampaigning. "till.'6 he !ourt. in!luding soli!iting !ontributions for politi!al !andidates and be!oming a !andidate. a roug2 'alancing of t2e num'er of valid applications compared to t2e num'er of potentially invalid applications. the !ourt held: he governing !ase is roadric@. "ome sensitivity to reality is neededB an invalid application t2at is far-fetc2ed does not deserve as muc2 ?eig2t as one t2at is pro'a'le. banning parti!ipation in nonpartisan !ampaigns as well.

$e'*ily relie) upo& 8y "$e ponen ia. had already stri!ken down a similar measure for being un!onstitutionalB. (itali!s supplied. from whom we !opied the provision in 0uestion. state. Taft. are endorsed by the lo!al Demo!rati! !ommittee. is mispla!ed and unwarranted. -!!ordingly. S!hool !ommittee !andidates. should follow suit.'1 duty to provide t2e court ?it2 some idea of t2e num'er of potentially invalid applications t2e statute permits. <ften. with two fundamental freedoms I those of '1 . every one of the !ity. !itations omittedA Cle'rly. '&) Ma*ill )e#o&7"r'"e 8eyo&) )ou8" "$'" Man #"o !. $ut this !ase is different. t2e candidacy for ?2ic2 'y municipal employees ?ould not pose t2e possi'le t2reats to government efficiency and integrity ?2ic2 Letter Carriers. <n the other hand. $'7 e((ec"i*ely 8ee& o*errule). &2e state of t2e record does not permit us to find over'readt2B indeed suc2 a step is not to 'e ta@en lig2tly. muc2 less to 'e ta@en in t2e dar@. the entire fo!us below.C it is high-time that we. -s it is no longer good law. deems significant. we remand for !onsideration of plaintiffsS overbreadth !laim. -!!ordingly. 'ut t2ey s2ould 'e afforded t2e opportunity to demonstrate t2at t2e c2arter forecloses access to a significant num'er of offices. for e(ample. as ?e 2ave interpreted it. Certainly the re!ord suggests that parties play a ma8or role even in !ampaigns that often are entirely nonpartisan in other !ities. in the short period before the ele!tion was held. too. our assailed De!ision1s submission that the right to run for publi! offi!e is :ine(tri!ably linked. simply reading the statute in the light of !ommon e(perien!e or litigated !ases will suggest a number of probable invalid appli!ations. the ponenciaLs e(hortation that :Bsin!eC the -meri!ans. or federal ele!tions in =awtu!ket is a!tively !ontested by politi!al parties. 7hether the statute is overbroad depends in large part on the number of ele!tions that are insulated from party rivalry yet !losed to =awtu!ket employees. was on the !onstitutionality of the statute as applied. +roadri ). #or all the re!ord shows. =etter Carrier". =laintiffs may very well feel that further efforts are not 8ustified.

'7 )i7"i&%ui7$e) (ro# 'll o"$er7. 5usti!e &a!hura !ites Cle#e&"7 *. he resign-to-run provisions in these !ases were upheld not be!ause they referred to spe!ified or parti!ular offi!ials (vis-U-vis a general !lassA" the 0uestioned provisions were found valid preci7ely 8ec'u7e "$e Cour" deferred "o le%i7l'"i*e Au)%#e&" '&) (ou&) "$'" ' re%ul'"io& i7 &o" )e*oi) o( ' r'"io&'l pre)ic'"e 7i#ply 8ec'u7e i" $'ppe&7 "o 8e i&co#ple"e. 4'r" *. absent any allegation that. u&)er ' cl'77i(ic'"io& "$'" i7 %er#'&e "o "$e purpo7e7 o( "$e l'w. )oreover. hese resign-to-run legislations were &o" e@pre77e) i& ' %e&er'l '&) 7weepi&% pro*i7io&. while others are not. the se!ond re0uisite for a valid !lassifi!ation. Ju)ici'ry Co##i77io& o( "$e S"'"e o( Loui7i'&'. by running for an ele!tive position. to buttress his dissent. are not violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause.S. Tel(or) pointedly stated that :BtChe #irst -mendment does not in terms !onfer a right to run for publi! offi!e. =res!inding from these premises.. . *n fa!t. and this !ourt has held that it does not do so by impli!ation either.'7$i&% and Mori'l. !ourts. hus. in subse0uent !ases. the e0ual prote!tion !hallenge in Cle#e&"7 revolved around the !laim that the State of e(as failed to e(plain why "o(e publi! offi!ials are sub8e!t to the resign-to-run provisions. is &o" entitled to !onstitutional prote!tion.e. one is advan!ing the politi!al ideas of a parti!ular set of voters. we find it 0uite ironi! that )r. and thus )i) &o" *iol'"e "$e "e7" o( 8ei&% %er#'&e "o "$e purpo7e o( "$e l'w. one !annot bring one1s a!tion under the rubri! of freedom of asso!iation. %uled the ?nited States Supreme Court: '+ . he e(plains: V?. they were not overly en!ompassing as to be overbroad. '7 "o i&*oLe ' ri%orou7 7"'&)'r) o( re*iew. he deemed-resigned provisions substantially serve governmental interests (i. Dire!ted. one1s interest in seeking offi!e. -meri!an !ase law has in fa!t &e*er reco%&iJe) ' (u&)'#e&"'l ri%$" "o e@pre77 o&eN7 poli"ic'l *iew7 "$rou%$ c'&)i)'cy. (emphasis in the originalA his reading is a regrettable misrepresentation of Cle#e&"7 and Mori'l. as to poli!y" (iiiA avoidan!e of the danger of a powerful politi!al ma!hine" and (ivA ensuring that employees a!hieve advan!ement on their merits and that they be free from both !oer!ion and the prospe!t of favor from politi!al a!tivityA.'+ e(pression and asso!iation I lies on barren ground. 8y i"7el(. et al. (iA effi!ient !ivil servi!e faithful to the government and the people rather than to party" (iiA avoidan!e of the appearan!e of :politi!al 8usti!e. En passant.. sustained the !onstitutionality of resign-to-run provisions when applied to 7peci(ie) or p'r"icul'r o((ici'l7. et al. *. as they were. to parti!ular offi!ials. it is !rystal !lear that the provisions !hallenged in the !ase at bar. hese are interests that are important enough to outweigh the non-fundamental right of appointive offi!ials and employees to seek ele!tive offi!e. )aintaining that resign-to-run provisions are valid only when made appli!able to spe!ified offi!ials.

A regulation is not devoid of a rational predicate simply 'ecause it 2appens to 'e incomplete. *n that year. a'sent an invidious purpose. ?e conclude t2at P <8 survives a c2allenge under t2e ECual #rotection Clause unless appellees can s2o? t2at t2ere is no rational predicate to t2e classification sc2eme. W 4D. he two provisions. -rti!le QF*. or P <8.-. of !ourse. serve essentially the same state interests. Q*. is not t2e sort of malfunctioning of t2e "tateMs la?ma@ing process for'idden 'y t2e ECual #rotection Clause. &2at t2e "tate did not go furt2er in applying t2e automatic resignation provision to t2ose office2olders ?2ose terms ?ere not e>tended 'y P . of the e(as Constitution provides that the holders of !ertain offi!es automati!ally resign their positions if they be!ome !andidates for any other ele!ted offi!e. 'ecause &e>as 2as failed to e>plain sufficiently ?2y some elected pu'lic officials are su'=ect to P <8 and ?2y ot2ers are not. unless the une(pired portion of the !urrent term is one year or less. he provisionSs language and its history belie any notion that W 4D serves the invidious purpose of denying a!!ess to the politi!al pro!ess to '. he 90ual =rote!tion Clause does not forbid e(as to restri!t one ele!ted offi!eholderSs !andida!y for another ele!ted offi!e unless and until it pla!es similar restri!tions on other offi!eholders. hus. however. the automati! resignation provision in e(as is a !reature of the StateSs ele!toral reforms of 1'D/. he provision also staggered the terms of other offi!es so that at least some !ounty and lo!al offi!es would be !ontested at ea!h ele!tion. he automati! resignation proviso to W 4D was not added until 1'D/. t2e classification system cannot survive eCual protection scrutiny. but be!ause of the manner in whi!h the offi!es are !lassified. Se!tion 11 allows home rule !ities the option of e(tending the terms of muni!ipal offi!es from two to up to four years.'. As ?it2 t2e case of P . &2e 2istory 'e2ind P <8 s2o?s t2at it may 'e up2eld consistent ?it2 t2e Ione step at a timeI approac2 t2at t2is Court 2as underta@en ?it2 regard to state regulation not su'=ect to more vigorous scrutiny t2an t2at sanctioned 'y t2e traditional principles. Se!tion 4D e(tended the terms of those offi!es enumerated in the provision from two to four years. W 11. According to t2e %istrict Court. . Se!tion 4D was ena!ted in 1'D3 as a transitional provision applying only to the 1'D3 ele!tion. a similar automati! resignation provision was added in -rt. not be!ause of the nature or e(tent of the provisionSs restri!tion on !andida!y. whi!h applies to offi!eholders in home rule !ities who serve terms longer than two years. he burdens that W 4D imposes on !andida!y are even less substantial than those imposed by W 1'.. he Distri!t Court found W 4D defi!ient.

out of !onte(t. -nd a State !an hardly be faulted for attempting to limit the positions upon whi!h su!h restri!tions are pla!ed. Our 2olding is necessarily narro?ed 'y t2e met2odology employed to reac2 it. as ea!h e0ual prote!tion !hallenge would ne!essarily have to involve weighing governmental interests vis-U-vis the spe!ifi! prohibition assailed. re0uirement that a state 8udge resign his offi!e prior to be!oming a !andidate for non-8udi!ial offi!e bears a reasonably ne!essary relation to the a!hievement of the stateSs interest in preventing the a!tuality or appearan!e of 8udi!ial impropriety. Sec"io& 13 o( RA 9369. there is no blanket approval of restri!tions on the right of publi! employees to be!ome !andidates for publi! offi!e.'3 identifiable !lasses of potential !andidates. (!itations omitted and itali!s suppliedA #urthermore. the Mori'l !ourt even 0uoted 4ro')ricL and stated that: *n any event. (itali!s suppliedA *ndeed. it is unfortunate that the dissenters took the Mori'l line that :there is no blanket approval of restri!tions on the right of publi! employees to be!ome !andidates for publi! offi!e. Sec"io& 2. the legislature must have some leeway in determining whi!h of its employment positions re0uire restri!tions on partisan politi!al a!tivities and whi!h may be left unregulated. '&) Sec"io& 66 o( "$e O#&i8u7 Elec"io& Co)e /o -o" Su((er (ro# O*er8re')"$ '3 .!orre!t reading of that line readily shows that the Court only meant to !onfine its ruling to the fa!ts of that !ase. (!itations omittedA V. *n todaySs de!ision. . &or do we approve any general restri!tions on the politi!al and !ivil rights of 8udges in parti!ular. he Court held: he interests of publi! employees in free e(pression and politi!al asso!iation are un0uestionably entitled to the prote!tion of the first and fourteenth amendments.'! o( Re7olu"io& 66 6. &othing in todaySs de!ision should be taken to imply that publi! employees may be prohibited from e(pressing their private views on !ontroversial topi!s in a manner that does not interfere with the proper performan!e of their publi! duties. Su!h a re0uirement offends neither the first amendmentSs guarantees of free e(pression and asso!iation nor the fourteenth amendmentSs guarantee of e0ual prote!tion of the laws.

?alid -!!ording to the assailed De!ision. or in the national. Se!tion 1. i.'D -part from nullifying Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/. Jet it would be de!idedly foolhardy to dis!ount the e0ually (if not moreA realisti! and dangerous possibility that su!h seemingly dis8ointed attempts. so as to give itself and its in!umbent workers an :unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. we have to revise our assailed De!ision. yet e0ually plausible.: (1A he assailed provisions limit the !andida!y of all !ivil servants holding appointive posts without due regard for the type of position being held by the employee seeking an ele!tive post and the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto" and (+A he assailed provisions limit the !andida!y of any and all !ivil servants holding appointive positions without due regard for the type of offi!e being sought. the !hallenged provisions of law are overly broad be!ause they apply indis!riminately to all !ivil servants holding appointive posts. our assailed De!ision stru!k them down for being overbroad in two respe!ts. Su!h a myopi! view obviously fails to !onsider a different. whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter. when taken together. threat to the government posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureau!ra!y: the danger of systemati! abuse perpetuated by a :powerful politi!al ma!hine. of %'. vi5. -s elu!idated in our prior e(position: -ttempts by government employees to wield influen!e over others or to make use of their respe!tive positions (apparentlyA to promote their own !andida!y may seem tolerable I even inno!uous I parti!ularly when viewed in isolation from other similar attempts by other government employees.4'. =i(itation on Candida y Re*ardle"" of /n #(4ent Appointi!e Offi ial>" &o"ition. -gain. *ts underlying assumption appears to be that the evils sought to be prevented are e(tant only when the in!umbent appointive offi!ial running for ele!tive offi!e holds an influential post. that has amassed :the s!attered powers of government workers. muni!ipal or 'arangay level. on se!ond look. and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code on e0ual prote!tion ground. !onstitute a veiled effort on the part of an emerging !entral party stru!ture to advan!e its own agenda through 'D .. without due regard for the type of position being held by the employee running for ele!tive offi!e and the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto.

a !areful study of the !hallenged provisions and related laws on the matter will show that the alleged overbreadth is more apparent than real. -gain. +616 &ational and @o!al 9le!tions.perusal of %esolution /4>/ will immediately dis!lose that the rules and guidelines set forth therein refer to the filing of !ertifi!ates of !andida!y and nomination of offi!ial !andidates of registered poli"ic'l p'r"ie7. +616 &ational and @o!al 9le!tions. hus. were issued spe!ifi!ally for purposes of the )ay 16. so that restri!tions on !andida!y akin to those imposed by the !hallenged provisions !an validly apply only to situations in whi!h the ele!tive offi!e sought is partisan in !hara!ter. these rules and guidelines. are de!idedly partisan in !hara!ter. whi!h !ould give an emerging politi!al ma!hine an :unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. it is !lear that the restri!tion in Se!tion 3(aA of %. o the e(tent. -'"io&'l '&) Loc'l Elec"io&7.. in!luding the restri!tion in Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/. his erroneous ruling is premised on the assumption that :the !on!erns of a truly partisan offi!e and the temptations it fosters are suffi!iently different from those involved in an offi!e removed from regular party politi!s Bso asC to warrant distin!tive treatment. whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter.1. <ur e(position on this issue has not been repudiated. or in the national../4>/ applies only to the !andida!ies of appointive offi!ials vying for partisan ele!tive posts in the )ay 16. (!itations omittedA ii. vi5. that su!h restri!tions are said to pre!lude even !andida!ies for nonpartisan ele!tive offi!es. it must be noted. <n this s!ore. is reason enough to impose a restri!tion on the !andida!ies of all appointive publi! offi!ials without further distin!tion as to the type of positions being held by su!h employees or the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto. the !hallenged restri!tions are to be !onsidered as overbroad. 9. !oming from various levels of the bureau!ra!y. therefore.'4 a :!arefully or!hestrated use of Bappointive andEor ele!tiveC offi!ials. whi!h. ?alid he assailed De!ision also held that the !hallenged provisions of law are overly broad be!ause they are made to apply indis!riminately to all !ivil servants holding appointive offi!es. i& co&&ec"io& wi"$ "$e M'y 1. =i(itation on Candida y Re*ardle"" of Type of Offi e 3o#*ht. VB Che avoidan!e of su!h a :politi!ally a!tive publi! work for!e. <bviously. without due regard for the type of ele!tive offi!e being sought.: . muni!ipal or 'arangay level. the '4 .

provincial or national official or employee. and later reiterated in the proviso of Se!tion 1.4'. it is well to note that from as far ba!k as the ena!tment of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code in 1'/D. of %.'. the overbreadth !hallenge raised '> . he only ele!tions whi!h are relevant to the present in0uiry are the ele!tions for barangay offi!es.'. will !onfirm that these provisions are likewise not intended to apply to ele!tions for nonpartisan publi! offi!es. a !onsidered review of Se!tion 1.'> overbreadth !hallenge leveled against Se!tion 3(aA is !learly unsustainable. in!luding a separate rule on deemed resignations whi!h is found in Se!tion . under the present state of law. sin!e these are the only ele!tions in this !ountry whi!h involve nonpartisan publi! offi!es. #or this reason. s2all 'e considered automatically resigned upon t2e filing of certificate of candidacy for a 'arangay office. Certifi!ate of Candida!y. in !on8un!tion with other related laws on the matter.4' and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. *n this regard. to any ele!tion other than a partisan one. Said provision states: Se!tion . of %.'. there would be no o!!asion to apply the restri!tion on !andida!y found in Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. including t2ose in government-o?ned or-controlled corporations. city. (((( Any elective or appointive municipal. Similarly.' of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. Sin!e 'arangay ele!tions are governed by a separate deemed resignation rule. or t2ose in t2e civil or military service. I &o person shall be ele!ted punong 'arangay or @aga?ad ng sangguniang 'arangay unless he files a sworn !ertifi!ate of !andida!y in tripli!ate on any day from the !ommen!ement of the ele!tion period but not later than the day before the beginning of the !ampaign period in a form to be pres!ribed by the Commission. he !andidate shall state the barangay offi!e for whi!h he is a !andidate. Congress has intended that these nonpartisan 'arangay ele!tions be governed by spe!ial rules.

8udged in relation to the statute1s plainly legitimate sweep. the overbreadth !hallenge would still be futile. :!ondu!t.4' must also fail. some sensitivity to reality is needed" an invalid appli!ation that is farfet!hed does not deserve as mu!h weight as one that is probable. even if we were to assume. that Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and the !orresponding provision in Se!tion 1. but substantial as well. $orrowing from the words of Magill v. we e(plained: *n the first pla!e.1 '/ . be!ause the general proposition of the relevant ?S !ases on the matter is simply that the government has an interest in regulating the !ondu!t and spee!h of its employees that differs signifi!antly from those it possesses in !onne!tion with regulation of the spee!h of the !itiGenry in general. indeed. *n this regard. in order to have a statute de!lared as un!onstitutional or void on its fa!e for being overly broad. of %. *n any event. for the sake of argument. a rough balan!ing of the number of valid appli!ations !ompared to the number of potentially invalid appli!ations. the number of ele!tions that were insulated from party rivalry but were nevertheless !losed to appointive employeesA that may in all probability result from the enfor!ement of the statute. among other things. -gain. assuming for the sake of argument that the partisan-nonpartisan distin!tion is valid and ne!essary su!h that a statute whi!h fails to make this distin!tion is sus!eptible to an overbreadth atta!k. however. )oreover. he state of the re!ord. does not permit us to find overbreadth. the overbreadth !hallenge presently mounted must demonstrate or provide this Court with some idea of the number of potentially invalid ele!tions (i. measuring the substantiality of a statute1s overbreadth would entail.'/ against Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and the pertinent proviso in Se!tion 1. *n operational terms. mu!h less to be taken in the dark. hus. is involved. of %. the overbreadth must not only be real. and not :pure spee!h.'.e.4' are general rules that apply also to ele!tions for nonpartisan publi! offi!es. espe!ially sin!e an overbreadth finding in this !ase would effe!tively prohibit the State from Kenfor!ing an otherwise valid measure against !ondu!t that is admittedly within its power to pros!ribe.'. Lync2. parti!ularly where. he 0uestion is a matter of degree. as in this !ase. su!h a step is not to be taken lightly. the view that Congress is limited to !ontrolling only partisan behavior has not re!eived 8udi!ial imprimatur.

!laims of fa!ial overbreadth have been entertained only where. and where there are readily apparent !onstru!tions that would !ure. whi!h merely reiterate Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. who. a!t as Fi!e-Chairmen of the respe!tive $oards of Canvassers. and has for more than 166 years been. he 5udi!iary has not been spared.'' his Court would do well to pro!eed with tiptoe !aution. in turn. for a %egional rial Court 5udge in the South has thrown his hat into the politi!al arena. #a!ial overbreadth has likewise not been invoked where a limiting !onstru!tion !ould be pla!ed on the !hallenged statute. even as they a!tively pursue ele!tive posts. we now rule that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/ and Se!tion 1. the alleged overbreadth of the statute. or at least substantially redu!e. are not un!onstitutionally overbroad. the !on!eivably impermissible appli!ations of the !hallenged statutes I whi!h are. parti!ularly when it !omes to the appli!ation of the overbreadth do!trine in the analysis of statutes that purportedly attempt to restri!t or burden the e(er!ise of the right to freedom of spee!h. 9ven the Se!retary of 5usti!e had filed her !ertifi!ate of substitution for representative of the first distri!t of RueGon provin!e last De!ember 13.'. *n the !ase at bar. *n his )otion for %e!onsideration. '' . *ndeed. the probable harm to so!iety in permitting in!umbent appointive offi!ials to remain in offi!e. un0uestionably within its power and interest to pros!ribe. in the 8udgment of the !ourt. the more prudent approa!h would be to deal with these !on!eivably impermissible appli!ations through !ase-by-!ase ad8udi!ation rather than through a total invalidation of the statute itself. 7e !annot allow the tilting of our ele!toral playing field in their favor.4'. for su!h approa!h is manifestly strong medi!ine that must be used sparingly. of %. Several C<)9@9C ele!tion offi!ers had likewise filed their Certifi!ates of Candida!y in their respe!tive provin!es. the possibility that prote!ted spee!h of others may be muted and per!eived grievan!es left to fester (due to the possible inhibitory effe!ts of overly broad statutesA outweighs the possible harm to so!iety in allowing some unprote!ted spee!h or !ondu!t to go unpunished. intervenor Drilon stated that a number of highranking Cabinet members had already filed their Certifi!ates of Candida!y without relin0uishing their posts. at best. #or the foregoing reasons. *nstead. bold predi!tions I !annot 8ustify invalidating these statutes in toto and prohibiting the State from enfor!ing them against !ondu!t that is. *n this light. and only as a last resort. *n the ?nited States. the anomalies spawned by our assailed De!ision have taken pla!e. +66' I even as her position as 5usti!e Se!retary in!ludes supervision over the City and =rovin!ial =rose!utors. far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably prote!ted !andida!ies blo!ked by the possible inhibitory effe!t of a potentially overly broad statute.

C-.166 I. the Court %9S<@F9S to 2%-& the respondent1s and the intervenors1 )otions for %e!onsideration" %9F9%S9 and S9 -S*D9 this Court1s De!ember 1. and (. d. b.4'./3. 1'/' 3. . a.. of -grarian reform.. 90ual prote!tion of the law. <!tober >. C-. SC%. =. 3. -sso!iation of Small @andowners vs. 1. C'y'". +66' De!ision" D*S)*SS the =etition" and *SS?9 this %esolution de!laring as not ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@ (1A Se!tion 3(aA of C<)9@9C %esolution &o.. '.A Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. vs. 1. Se!.61 SC%. /4>/. %e0uisites for a valid !lassifi!ation%ead: 1. of %epubli! -!t &o. .+44 . *)9@D. 166 .VIE0 0HEREO. Fera. 3+6 +. D4 +. 66 5$il. he s!ope of the e0ual prote!tion !lause. 'D SC%+. !. 1''3 he fa!t that poli!emen !harged with a !riminal offense punishable by more than 4 years are to be suspended during the entire duration of the !ase unlike other government employees is valid sin!e it rests on valid !lassifi!ation be!ause poli!emen !arry weapons and the badge of the law whi!h !an be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. +>/ SC%.+>/ ( here is real and substantial distin!tion between business inside the Subi! Spe!ial 9!onomi! Oone and outside wherein those inside are e(empt from other ta(es as a result of the poli!y of the government to a!!elerate the development of the portion of Subi! left by the -meri!ansA . 4D =hil. %ead again. 19 here must be real and substantial distin!tions" *t must be germane tot he purposes of the law" *t must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only" and *t must apply e0ually to all members of the same !lass. 90ual prote!tion in general%ead: 1. (+A the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. *? FS.*)-2-& FS.)-%C<S FS. 5uly 13. 5eople *7. =9<=@9.

e@cep" (or repre7e&"'"io& '&) "r'&7por"'"io& 'llow'&ce7+ clo"$i&% '&) l'u&)ry 'llow'&ce7+ 7u87i7"e&ce 'llow'&ce o( #'ri&e o((icer7 '&) crew o& 8o'r) %o*er&#e&" *e77el7 '&) $o7pi"'l per7o&&el+ $'J'r) p'y+ 'llow'&ce7 o( (orei%& 7er*ice per7o&&el 7"'"io&e) '8ro')+ '&) 7uc$ o"$er '))i"io&'l co#pe&7'"io& &o" o"$erwi7e 7peci(ie) $erei& '7 #'y 8e )e"er#i&e) 8y "$e /4M. D9=-% )9& <# $?D29 -&D )-&-29)9& . $ut it e(empted !ertain additional !ompensations that the employees may be re!eiving from su!h !onsolidation. 2.+44. 8ei&% recei*e) 8y i&cu#8e&"7 o&ly '7 o( July 1. 1D.161 here is no violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause when the Compensation and Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' in!ludes !ertain allowan!es and fringe benefits into the standardiGed salaries of most government employees but not to poli!e and military personnel. 7$'ll 8e )ee#e) i&clu)e) i& "$e 7"'&)'r)iJe) 7'l'ry r'"e7 $erei& pre7cri8e). &o.%. VICTORIA C. !alled the Compensation and =osition Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' to rationaliGe the !ompensation of government employees. +616 A4A/.: hese !onsolidated !ases 0uestion the in!lusion of !ertain allowan!es and fringe benefits into the standardiGed salary rates for offi!es in the national government. et al vs. Suc$ o"$er '))i"io&'l co#pe&7'"io&. hus: Sec"io& 19. 161 . *ts Se!tion 1+ dire!ted the !onsolidation of allowan!es and additional !ompensation already being en8oyed by employees into their standardiGed salary rates.-. Co&7oli)'"io& o( Allow'&ce7 '&) Co#pe&7'"io&. )ar!h 1/. and lo!al government units as re0uired by the Compensation and =osition Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' and implemented through the !hallenged &ational Compensation Cir!ular D' (&CC D'A while the said allowan!es and other fringe benefits are not in!luded insofar as members of the poli!e and military are !on!erned. 2? *9%%9O. state universities and !olleges. J. T$e . 1969 &o" i&"e%r'"e) i&"o "$e 7"'&)'r)iJe) 7'l'ry r'"e7 7$'ll co&"i&ue "o 8e 'u"$oriJe).A 4>D/. GG All 'llow'&ce7.'c"7 '&) "$e C'7e Congress ena!ted in 1'/' %epubli! -!t (%. w$e"$er i& c'7$ or i& Li&).

T$e Cour"N7 Ruli&% -t the heart of the present !ontroversy is Se!tion 1+ of %. $ut. . !ost of living refers to :the level of pri!es 16+ . *n #2ilippine #orts Aut2ority Employees Hired After July . . the Court has ruled that while Se!tion 1+ !ould be !onsidered self-e(e!uting in regard to items (1A to (4A. it was not so in regard to item (>A. -s will be noted from the first senten!e above.16+ T$e I77ueI 0$e"$er or &o" "$e %r'&" o( COLA "o #ili"'ry '&) police per7o&&el "o "$e e@clu7io& o( o"$er %o*er&#e&" e#ployee7 *iol'"e7 "$e eCu'l pro"ec"io& cl'u7e. Commission on Audit. 4>D/ as 0uoted above. C<@. *t is not payment in !onsideration of the fulfillment of offi!ial duty. it also authoriGed the D$) to identify su!h other additional !ompensation that may be granted over and above the standardiGed salary rates..A (3A (DA (4A (>A representation and transportation allowan!es" !lothing and laundry allowan!es" subsisten!e allowan!es of marine offi!ers and !rew on board government vessels" subsisten!e allowan!es of hospital personnel" haGard pay" allowan!es of foreign servi!e personnel stationed abroad" and su!h other additional !ompensation not otherwise spe!ified in Se!tion 1+ as may be determined by the D$). *t was only upon the issuan!e and effe!tivity of the !orresponding implementing rules and regulations that item (>A !ould be deemed legally !ompleted. not in the nature of an allowan!e intended to reimburse e(penses in!urred by offi!ials and employees of the government in the performan!e of their offi!ial fun!tions. :'ll 'llow'&ce7. were deemed integrated into the standardiGed salary rates e(!ept the following: (1A (+A (.v.. while the provision enumerated !ertain e(!lusions. -s defined.-. he D$) still needed to amplify item (>A sin!e one !annot simply assume what other allowan!es were e(!luded from the standardiGed salary rates.

to military and poli!e to the e(!lusion of other government employees violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution.A.A. *n any event. $owe*er.A. A'il '&) (ire )ep'r"#e&"7 o( "$e loc'l %o*er&#e&" u&i"7 prior "o "$e police i&"e%r'"io&. $ut as respondents pointed out. he fundamental right of e0ual prote!tion of the laws is not absolute. Military and &oli e &er"onnel. but is sub8e!t to reasonable !lassifi!ation. 7u87i7"e&ce 'llow'&ce. G T$e 8'7e p'y o( u&i(or#e) per7o&&el o( "$e Ar#e) .. All e@i7"i&% "ype7 o( 'llow'&ce7 'u"$oriJe) (or u&i(or#e) per7o&&el o( "$e Ar#e) .orce7 o( "$e 5$ilippi&e7 '&) I&"e%r'"e) -'"io&'l 5olice 7uc$ '7 co7" o( li*i&% 'llow'&ce. C<@. 6626. 6626I 5ro*i)e).orce7 o( "$e 5$ilippi&e7 '&) "$e I&"e%r'"e) -'"io&'l 5olice 7$'ll 8e '7 pre7cri8e) i& "$e 7'l'ry 7c$e)ule (or "$e7e per7o&&el i& R. *t is a!tually this provision whi!h allows the uniformed personnel to !ontinue re!eiving their C<@. T$'" "$e lo&%e*i"y p'y o( u&i(or#e) per7o&&el o( "$e I&"e%r'"e) -'"io&'l 5olice 7$'ll i&clu)e "$o7e 7er*ice7 re&)ere) '7 u&i(or#e) #e#8er7 o( "$e police. lo&%e*i"y p'y. 4>D/. $ased on this premise. clo"$i&% 'llow'& a benefit intended to !over in!reases in the !ost of living. 16.16. . Cu'r"er7 'llow'&ce. &othing is more settled than that the !onstitutionality of a statute !annot be atta!ked !ollaterally be!ause !onstitutionality issues must be pleaded dire!tly and not !ollaterally. 6636 '&) R. he !lassifi!ation must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same !lass. they are in fa!t atta!king the very !onstitutionality of Se!tion 11 of %. '&) R. 3 91 '&) R. =etitioners !ontend that the !ontinued grant of C<@.A. or :the !ost of pur!hasing those goods and servi!es whi!h are in!luded in an a!!epted standard level of !onsumption.A. $'J'r) p'y '&) o"$er 'llow'&ce7 7$'ll co&"i&ue "o 8e 'u"$oriJe). *f the groupings are !hara!teriGed by substantial distin!tions that make real differen!es. 1132 '7 '#e&)e) 8y R. hus.-. it is and should be integrated into the standardiGed salary rates. 6636.A. thus: Sec"io& 11. the Court is not persuaded that the !ontinued grant of C<@to the uniformed personnel to the e(!lusion of other national government offi!ials run afoul the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. while it may appear that petitioners are 0uestioning the !onstitutionality of these issuan!es.over and above their basi! pay. T$e lo&%e*i"y p'y o( "$e7e per7o&&el 7$'ll 8e '7 pre7cri8e) u&)er R. relating to a range of everyday items. one !lass may be treated and regulated differently from another.

*@*==*&9S. 2.2umabon vs. Dire!tor of =risons.*@*==*&9 5?D29S -SS<C*. #*@*=*&-S S. the military is governed by %. &o.> SC%.*<& FS. and high-!ost areas.3+6 +-b. +-. &ovember 11. $-SC< FS.9@@ and C-@ 9Q =. =9 %<&. . 4'>D. the !ontinued grant of C<@.-. S #<?&D.-D vs. 1''1 &o violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause if Congress would legaliGe !o!k-fighting and horse ra!ing sin!e poli!e power !ould regulate gambling. they are e(pe!ted to be stationed virtually anywhere in the !ountry. =%-D<. =-2C<%.9 S9C%9 -%J <# D9=-% )9& <# 9&9%2J. as amended by %. as amended by %. 5<M9% -%%<J<. &ovember intended to help them offset the effe!ts of living in higher !ost areas. @oss of revenue is not a valid ground unless it would be withdrawn to all government offi!es. 1''' +-b-1. =?&<. ./.46. hus.-. )ay 13. 9&%*R?9 2-%C*-. . 5. 163 . #%-&C*SC< F*%-J. 1+>/4>. the !lassifi!ation must satisfy the following re0uirements: (1A it must rest on substantial distin!tions" (+A it must be germane to the purpose of the law" (.. $eing in !harged of the a!tual defense of the State and the maintenan!e of internal pea!e and order. . 7*2$9% < -&-D-.*<& vs. 44. =. here is no valid distin!tion for a law removing the franking privilege of the 8udi!iary while leaving the same to the 9(e!utive and @egislative despite the fa!t that there is !onsiderable volume of mails from the !ourts.%.-. %. &o. Certainly. #@-2 . hey are likely to be assigned to a variety of low. '144 while the poli!e is governed by %. 5anuary +6.-. . 443/. *t is !lear from the first paragraph of Se!tion 11 that Congress intended the uniformed personnel to be !ontinually governed by their respe!tive !ompensation laws.<&. 1+3. =-&#*@< @-CS<& FS. moderate. 2. Sin!e their basi! pay does not vary based on lo!ation. &ovember D. 1''> 9DC9@ @-2)-&. 1''.A it must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only" and (3A it must apply e0ually to all members of the same !lass.163 o be valid and reasonable. #%-&C*SC< . S-&D*2-&$-J-&. there are valid reasons to treat the uniformed personnel differently from other national government offi!ials.<&.?)-& %*2. %?$9& <%%9S. 1''>.


hese petitions !hallenge the !onstitutionality of %epubli! -!t &o. /1/6 entitled :-n -!t Deregulating the Downstream <il *ndustry and for <ther =urposes;. %- /1/6 seeks to end +4 years of government regulation of the downstream oil industry.
he fa!ts: 1. =rior to 1'>1, no government agen!y was regulating the oil industry. &ew players were free to enter the oil market without any government interferen!e. here were four (3A refining !ompanies at that time. S,9@@, C-@ 9Q, $- --& %9#*&*&2 C<)=-&J and #*@<*@ )-%M9 *&2 and si( (4A petroleum marketing !ompanies: 9SS<, #*@<*@, C-@ 9Q, 29 J, )<$*@ and S,9@@" +. *n 1'>1, the !ountry was driven to its knees by the !rippling oil !risis and in order to remedy the same, the <*@ *&D?S %J C<))*SS*<& -C was ena!ted %92?@- *&2 the oil industry " .. <n &ovember ', 1'>., then =resident )ar!os !reated the =hilippine national <il Corporation (=&<CA t break the !ontrol of the foreigners to the oil industry. *t a!0uired ownership of 9SS< =hilippines and #iloil and likewise bought !ontrolling shares of the $ataan %efining Corporation. =&<C then operated under the business name =9 %<& C<%=<%- *<& and for the first time, there was a #ilipino presen!e in the =hilippine oil market" 3. *n 1'/3, =res. )ar!os through se!tion / of =D 1'D4 !reated the <*@ =%*C9 S -$*@*O- *<& #?&D (<=S#A to !ushion the effe!ts of fre0uent !hanges in the pri!e of oil !aused by the e(!hange rate ad8ustments or in!rease of the world market pri!es !rude oil and imported petroleum produ!ts" D. $y 1'/D, only three (.A oil !ompanies were left operating in the !ountry. hese are: C-@ 9Q, #*@*=*&-S S,9@@ and =&<C" 4. *n )ay, 1'/>, =res. CoraGon -0uino signed 9(e!utive <rder &o. 1>+ !reating the 9&9%2J %9?@- <%J $<-%D to regulate the business of importing, e(porting, shipping, transporting, pro!essing, refining, marketing and distributing energy resour!es :7,9& 7-%%-& 9D -&D <&@J 7,9& =?$@*C &9C9SS* J %9R?*%9S;. he $oard was empowered to :fi( and regulate the pri!es of petroleum produ!ts and other related mer!handise" >. *n )ar!h, 1''4, Congress ena!ted %- /1/6 deregulating the <il *ndustry not later than )ar!h, 1''>. he law re0uires that the implementation of the regulation, shall as far as pra!ti!able be made at a time 7,9& ,9 =%*C9S <# C%?D9 <*@ -&D =9 %<@9?) =%<D?C S *& ,9 7<%@D -%9 D9C@*&*&2 -&D


7,9& ,9 9QC,-&29 %- 9 <# ,9 =9S< *& %9@- *<& < ,9 ?S D<@@-%" *S S -$@9" /. <n #ebruary /, 1''>, 9(e!utive <rder &o. .>+ was issued by =resident #idel %amos implementing full deregulation <& ,9 2%<?&D ,- ,9 <=S# #?&D ,-S $99& D9=@9 9D" '. he petitioners 0uestioned the !onstitutionality of %/1/6 on the following grounds: a. Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution" b. he imposition of different tariff rates does not deregulate the oil industry and even bars the entry of other players in the oil industry but instead effe!tively prote!ts the interest of the oil !ompanies with e(isting refineries. hus, it runs !ounter to the ob8e!tive of the law :to foster a truly !ompetitive market;" he in!lusion of Se!. D BbC providing for tariff differential violates Se!tion +4 B1C of -rt. F* of the 1'/> Constitution whi!h re0uires every law to have only one sub8e!t whi!h should be e(pressed in the title thereof" !. Se!tion 1D of %- /1/6 and 9< &o. .'+ are un!onstitutional for undue delegation of legislative power to the =resident and the Se!retary of 9nergy" d. 9< .'+ implementing the full deregulation of the oil industry is un!onstitutional sin!e it is arbitrary and unreasonable sin!e it was ena!ted due to the alleged depletion of the <=S# fund, a !ondition whi!h is not found in %- &o. /1/6" e. Se!tion 1D of %- /1/6 is un!onstitutional for it allows the formation of a de fa!to !artel among three e(isting oil !ompanies in violation of the Constitution prohibiting against monopolies, !ombination in restraint of trade and unfair !ompetition. he provisions of the law being 0uestioned as un!onstitutional are Se!tion D BbC and Se!tion 1D whi!h provide: E"ection 8 N'O Any la? to t2e contrary not?it2standing and starting ?it2 t2e effectivity of t2is Act, tariff duty s2all 'e imposed and collected on imported crude oil at t2e rate of :Q and imported refined petroleum products at t2e rate of seven 6/Q9 percent, e>cept fuel oil and L#+, t2e rate for ?2ic2 s2all 'e t2e sameB #rovided, t2at 'eginning on January ., 0,,3, t2e tariff rate on imported crude oil and refined petroleum products s2all 'e t2e sameB #rovided, furt2er, t2at t2is provision may 'e amended only 'y an Act of Congress.F (((



E"ection .8. Implementation of full deregulation. #ursuant to "ection 8 NeO of $A /<:;, t2e %OE, upon approval of t2e #resident, implement full deregulation of t2e do?nstream oil industry not later t2an Marc2, .--/. As far as practica'le, t2e %OE s2all time t2e full deregulation ?2en t2e prices of crude oil and petroleum products in t2e ?orld mar@et are declining and ?2en t2e e>c2ange rate of t2e peso in relation to t2e !" dollar is sta'le.F

T$e i77ue7 'reI
5roce)ur'l I77ue7I a. 7hether or not the petitions raise 8usti!iable !ontroversy" and b. 7hether or not the petitioners have the standing to 0uestion the validity of the sub8e!t law and e(e!utive order. Su87"'&"i*e I77ue7: a. 7hether or not Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the one titleXone sub8e!t re0uirement of the Constitution" b. 7hether or not Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution" !. 7hether se!tion 1D violates the !onstitutional prohibition on undue delegation of legislative power" d. 7hether or not 9< .'+ is arbitrary and unreasonable" and e. 7hether or not %- /1/6 violates the !onstitutional prohibition against monopolies, !ombinations in restraint of trade and unfair !ompetition. ,9@D: 1. 5udi!ial power in!ludes not only the duty of the !ourts to settle !ontroversies involving rights but also the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion on the part of any agen!y or bran!h of the government. he !ourts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute ena!ted by the legislature trans!ends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. 7hen the statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right of the 8udi!iary to de!lare su!h a!t as un!onstitutional and void. +. he 0uestion of lo #" "tandi must likewise fall . -s held in M-=- *%-& &2 )2- &-2@*@*&2M<D S- =-)-,-@--& &2 =*@*=*&-S, *&C. FS. -&, it was held that:


:<b8e!tions to ta(payer1s suit for la!k of suffi!ient personality, standing, or interest are , however, in the main pro!edural matters. C<&S*D9%*&2 ,9 *)=<% -&C9 <# ,9 C-S9S < ,9 =?$@*C, -&D *& M99=*&2 7* , ,9 C<?% 1S D? J < D9 9%)*&9 7,9 ,9% <% &< ,9 < ,9% $%-&C,9DS <# 2<F9%&)9& ,-F9 M9= ,9)S9@F9S 7* ,*& ,9 @*)* S <# ,9 C<&S * ? *<& -&D ,9 @-7S -&D ,,9J ,-F9 &< -$?S9 ,9 D*SC%9 *<& 2*F9& < ,9), ,9 C<?% ,-S $%?S,9D -S*D9 9C,&*C-@* *9S <# =%<C9D?%9 -&D ,-S -M9& C<2&*O-&C9 <# ,9S9 =9 * *<&S.;

T$ere i7 &o )i7'%ree#e&" o& "$e p'r" o( "$e p'r"ie7 '7 "o "$e ('rGre'c$i&% i#por"'&ce o( "$e *'li)i"y o( RA 616;. T$u7, "$ere i7 &o %oo) 7e&7e i& 8ei&% $yperG"ec$&ic'l o& "$e 7"'&)i&% o( "$e pe"i"io&er7 (or "$ey po7e i77ue7 w$ic$ 're 7i%&i(ic'&" "o our people '&) w$ic$ )e7er*e our (or"$ri%$" re7olu"io&.
.. *t is !ontended that Se!tion DBbB of %- /1/6 on tariff differentials violates the Constitutional prohibition re0uiring every law to have only one sub8e!t whi!h should be e(pressed in its title. 7e do not !on!ur with this !ontention. -s a poli!y, the Court has adopted a liberal !onstru!tion of the one title---one sub8e!t rule. 7e have !onsistently ruled that the title need not mirror, fully inde( or !atalogue all !ontents and minute details of a law. - law having a single general sub8e!t indi!ated in the title may !ontain a number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not in!onsistent with or foreign to the general sub8e!t, and may be !onsidered in furtheran!e of su!h sub8e!t by providing for the method and means of !arrying out the general sub8e!t. 7e hold that Se!tion D providing for tariff differential is germane to the sub8e!t of %/1/6 whi!h is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. 3. he !ontention that there is undue delegation of legislative power when it authoriGed the =resident to determine when deregulation starts is without merit. he petitioners !laim that the phrases :as far as pra!ti!able;, :de!line of !rude oil pri!es in the world market; and :stability of the peso e(!hange rate to the ?S dollar; are ambivalent, un!lear and in!on!rete in meaning and !ould not therefore provide the :determinate or determinable standards; whi!h !an guide the =resident in his de!ision to fully deregulate the oil industry. he power of Congress to delegate the e(e!ution of laws has long been settled by this Court in 1'14 in the !ase of C<)=-&*- 29&9%-@ D9 -$-C<S D9 #*@*=*&FS. ,9 $<-%D <# =?$@*C ? *@* J C<))*SS*<&9%S 7,9%9 * 7-S ,9@D ,- :


: he true distin!tion is between the delegation of power to make the law , whi!h ne!essarily involves a dis!retion as to what it shall be, and !onferring authority or dis!retion as to its e(e!ution, to be e(er!ised under and in pursuan!e of the law. he first !annot be done" to the latter, no valid ob8e!tion !an be made.; wo tests have been developed to determine whether the delegation of the power to e(e!ute laws does not involve the abdi!ation of the power to make law itself. 7e delineated the metes and bounds of these tests in 9-S 9%) S,*==*&2 @*&9S FS. =<9-, thus: here are two a!!epted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power , viG: the !ompleteness test and the suffi!ien!y of standard test. ?nder the first test, the law must be !omplete in all its terms and !onditions when it leaves the legislative su!h that when it rea!hes the delegate, the only thing he will do is enfor!e it. ?nder the suffi!ient standard test, there must be ade0uate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate1s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. $< , 9S S -%9 *& 9&D9D < =%9F9& < -@ %-&S#9%9&C9 <# @92*S@- *F9 -? ,<%* J < ,9 D9@92- 9, 7,< *S &< -@@<79D < S 9= *& < ,9 S,<9S <# ,9 @92*S@- ?%9 -&D 9Q9%C*S9 =<79% 9SS9& *-@@J @92*S@- *F9.;

T$e *'li)i"y o( )ele%'"i&% le%i7l'"i*e power i7 &ow ' Cuie" 're' i& our co&7"i"u"io&'l l'&)7c'pe 8ec'u7e 7uc$ $'7 8eco#e '& i&e*i"'8ili"y i& li%$" o( "$e i&cre'7i&% co#ple@i"y o( "$e "'7L o( %o*er&#e&". I& ('c", i& HIRA4AYASHI VS. 3-ITE/ STATES, "$e Supre#e Cour" "$rou%$ Ju7"ice ISA:A-I CR3> $el) "$'" Be*e& i( "$e l'w )oe7 &o" e@pre77ly pi&poi&" "$e 7"'&)'r), THE CO3RTS 0ILL 4E-/ 4ACF0AR/ TO LOCATE THE SAME ELSE0HERE I- OR/ER TO S5ARE THE STAT3TE+ I. IT CA-, .ROM CO-STIT3TIO-AL I-.IRMITY.D
D. 9< &o. .'+ failed to follow faithfully the standards set by %- /1/6 when it !onsidered the e(traneous fa!tor of depletion of the <=S# #und. he misappli!ation of this e(tra fa!tor !annot be 8ustified. he e(e!utive is bereft of any right to alter either by addition or subtra!tion the standards set by %- /1/6 for it has no power to make laws. o !ede to the e(e!utive the power to make laws would invite tyranny and to transgress the separation of powers. he e(er!ise of delegated power is given a stri!t s!rutiny by !ourts for the delegate is a mere agent whose a!tion !annot infringe the terms of the agen!y.



Se!tion 1' of -rti!le Q** of the Constitution provides:

: he state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the publi! interests so re0uires. &o !ombinations in restraint of trade or unfair !ompetition shall be allowed.; - monopoly is a privilege or pe!uliar advantage vested in one or more persons or !ompanies, !onsisting of the e(!lusive right or power to !arry on a parti!ular business or trade, manufa!ture a parti!ular arti!le or !ontrol the sale or the whole market stru!ture in whi!h one or only a few firms dominate the total sales of a produ!t or servi!e. <n the other hand, a !ombination in restraint of trade is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons, in the form of !ontra!t, trust, pool, holding !ompany, for the purpose of unduly restri!ting !ompetition, monopoliGing trade and !ommer!e in a !ertain !ommodity, !ontrolling its produ!tion, distribution and pri!e or otherwise interfering with freedom of trade without statutory authority. Combination in restraint of trade refers to means while monopoly refers to the end. %espondents aver that the 3Y tariff differential is designed to en!ourage new entrants to invest in refineries. hey stress that the inventory re0uirement is meant to guaranty !ontinuous domesti! supply of petroleum and to dis!ourage fly-by-night operators. hey also !laim that the prohibition against predatory pri!ing is intended to prote!t prospe!tive entrants. he validity of the assailed provisions of %- /1/6 has to be de!ided in the light of the letter and spirit of Se!tion 1', -rt. Q** of the Constitution. 7hile the Constitution embra!ed free enterprise as an e!onomi! !reed, it did not prohibit per se the operation of monopolies whi!h !an, however, be regulated in the publi! interest. his distin!t free enterprise system is di!tated by the need to a!hieve the goals of our national e!onomy as defined under Se!tion 1, -rt. Q** of the Constitution whi!h are: more e0uitable distribution of opportunities, in!ome and wealth" a sustained in!rease in the amount of goods and servi!es produ!ed by the nation for all, espe!ially the underprivileged . *t also !alls for the State to prote!t #ilipino enterprises against unfair and trades pra!ti!es. he provisions on 3Y tariff differential, predatory pri!ing and inventory re0uirement blo!ks the entry of other players and give undue advantage to the . oil !ompanies resulting to monopolies or unfair !ompetition. his is so be!ause it would take billions for new players to !onstru!t refineries, and to have big inventories. his would effe!tively prevent new players.



*n the !ase at bar, it !annot be denied that our oil industry is operated and !ontrolled by an oligopoly (dominated by a handful of playersA and a foreign oligopoly at that. -s the dominant players, S,9@@, C-@ 9Q P =9 %<& boast of e(isting refineries of various !apa!ities. he tariff differential of 3Y works to their immense advantage. Jet, this is only one edge on tariff differential. ,9 < ,9% 9D29 C? S -&D C? S D99= *& ,9 ,9-% <# ,9*% C<)=9 * <%S. * 9%9C S ,*2, $-%%*9%S < &9 =@-J9%S. &ew players in order to e0ualiGe must build their refineries worth billions of pesos. hose without refineries had to !ompete with a higher !ost of 3Y. hey will be !ompeting on an uneven field. he provision on inventory widens the advantage of =9 %<&, S,9@@ -&D C-@ 9Q against prospe!tive new players. he three (.A !ould easily !omply with the inventory re0uirement in view of their numerous storage fa!ilities. =rospe!tive !ompetitors again find !omplian!e oft his re0uirement diffi!ult be!ause of prohibitive !ost in !onstru!ting new storage fa!ilities. he net effe!t would be to effe!tively prohibit the entran!e of new players. &ow !omes the prohibition on predatory pri!ing or :selling or offering to sell any produ!t at a pri!e unreasonably below the industry average !ost so as to attra!t !ustomers to the detriment of the !ompetitors;. -!!ording to ,<F9&M-)=: : he rationale for predatory pri!ing is the sustaining of losses today that will give a firm monopoly profits in the future. he monopoly profits will never materialiGe, however, if the market is flooded with new entrants as soon as the su!!essful predator attempts to raise its pri!e. =redatory pri!ing will be profitable only if the market !ontains signifi!ant barriers to new entry.; Coupled with the 3Y tariff differential and the inventory re0uirement, the predatory pri!ing is a signifi!ant barrier whi!h dis!ourage new players to enter the oil market thereby promoting unfair !ompetition, monopoly and restraint of trade whi!h are prohibited by the Constitution. +-d.@-CS<& FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 5anuary +6, 1''' .. a(i!ab <perators vs. $< , September .6,l'/+ 3. $autista vs. 5uinio,1+> SC%- .+' D. Dumlao vs. C<)9@9C, 'D SC%- .'+ 4. Fillegas vs. ,iu, /4 SC%- +>6 >. CeniGa vs. C<)9@9C, 'D SC%- >4. /. ?&*D< vs. C<)9@9C, 163 SC%- ./ '. &uneG vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SC%- 3..(%ead also the dissenting opinion of 5usti!e )akasiar


16. Sison vs. -n!heta, 1.6 SC%- 4D3 11. CitiGens Surety vs. =uno, 11' SC%- +14 1+. =eralta vs. C<)9@9C, /+ SC%- .6 1.. ,awaiian-=hil. Co. vs. -so!ia!ion, 1D1 SC%- .64 13. <rmo! Sugar Co. vs. <rmo! City, ++ SC%- 46. 1D. #lores vs. C<)9@9C, 1/3 SC%- 3/3 CHA5TER IV G THE SEARCH A-/ SEI>3RE 5ROVISIO-

"ection 0. &2e rig2t of t2e people to 'e secure in t2eir persons, 2ouses, papers and effects against unreasona'le searc2es and sei5ures of ?2atever nature and for any purpose s2all 'e inviola'le, and no searc2 ?arrant or ?arrant of arrest s2all issue e>cept upon pro'a'le cause to 'e determined personally 'y t2e =udge after e>amination under oat2 or affirmation of t2e complainant and t2e ?itnesses 2e may produce, and particularly descri'ing t2e place to 'e searc2ed and t2e persons or t2ings to 'e sei5ed. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the ,uman Se!urity -!tE-ntierrorism @aw, %epubli! -!t &o. '.>+, -pproved on )ar!h 4, +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D, +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e . 18. =eriod of detention without 8udi!ial warrant of arrest.- he provisions of -rti!le 1+D of the %evised =enal Code, notwithstanding, any poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel, w$o, $'*i&% 8ee& )uly 'u"$oriJe) i& wri"i&% 8y "$e A&"iGTerrori7# Cou&cil has taken !ustody of a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism shall, 7* ,<? *&C?%%*&2 -&J C%*)*&-@ @*-$*@* J #<% D9@-J *& ,9 D9@*F9%J <# D9 -*&9D =9%S<&S < ,9 =%<=9% 5?D*C*-@ -? ,<%* *9S, D9@*F9% S-*D C,-%29D <% S?S=9C 9D =9%S<& < ,9 =%<=9% 5?D*C*-@ -? ,<%* J 7* ,*& - =9%*<D <# ,%99 (.A D-JS !ounted from the moment said !harged or suspe!ted person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into !ustody by the said poli!e, or law enfor!ement personnel: =rovided, hat the arrest of those suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism must result from the surveillan!e under Se!tion > and e(amination of bank deposits under Se!tion +> pf this -!t.


he poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel !on!erned shall, before detaining the person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism, present him or her before any 8udge at the latter1s residen!e or offi!e nearest the pla!e where the arrest took pla!e at any time of the day or night. *t shall be the duty of the 8udge, among other things, to as!ertain the identity of the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her, to in0uire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by 0uestioning and personal observation whether or not the sub8e!t has been sub8e!ted to any physi!al, moral or psy!hologi!al torture by whom and why. he 8udge shall then submit a written report of what heEshe had observed when the sub8e!t was brought before him to the proper !ourt that has 8urisdi!tion over the !ase of the person thus arrested. he 8udge shall forthwith submit his report within . !alendar days from the time the suspe!t was brought to hisEher residen!e or offi!e. *mmediately after taking !ustody of a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism, the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel shall notify in writing the 8udge of the !ourt nearest the pla!e of apprehension or arrest" provided, hat where the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after offi!e hours, the written noti!e shall be served at the residen!e of the 8udge nearest the pla!e where the a!!used was arrested. he penalty of 16 years and 1 day to 1+ years imprisonment shall be imposed upon the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel who fails to notify any 8udge as provided in the pre!eding paragraph. 3e tion 1@. =eriod of Detention in the event of an a!tual or imminent terrorist atta!k.- *n the vent of an a!tual or imminent terrorist atta!k,, suspe!ts may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a muni!ipal, !ity, provin!ial or regional offi!ial of a ,uman %ights Commission, or 8udge of the muni!ipal, regional trial !ourt, the Sandiganbayan or a 8usti!e of the Court of -ppeals nearest the pla!e of arrest. *f the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, or after offi!e hours, the arresting poli!e of law enfor!ement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residen!e of any of the offi!ials mentioned above that is nearest the pla!e where the a!!used was arrested. he approval in writing of any of the said offi!ials shall be se!ured by the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel !on!erned within five days after the date of the detention of the persons

or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e. he a!!used or suspe!t may withdraw su!h sums as are reasonably needed by his family in!luding the servi!es of his !ounsel and his family1s medi!al needs upon approval of the !ourt. transfer or !onveyan!e for purposes that are inimi!al to the safety and se!urity of the people or in8urious to the interest of the State. moneys. hat within three days after the detention the suspe!ts whose !onne!tion with the terror atta!k or threat is not established. transportation and !ommuni!ation e0uipment. 113 .. assets. supplies and other implements.'. and re!ords in any bank or finan!ial institution. !omputers. trust a!!ounts. se0uestered. . Sec"io& 2. pla!ements. -shall be seiGed. he seiGed. Se!tion . however. 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: • Detained under house arrest" • %estri!ted from traveling" andEor • =rohibited from using any !ellular phones. and froGen in order to prevent their use.e or she may also use any of his property that is under seiGure or se0uestration or froGen be!ause of hisEher indi!tment as a terrorist upon permission of the !ourt for any legitimate reason.113 !on!erned" =rovided. SeiGure and Se0uestration. se0uestered and froGen bank depositsV shall be deemed property held in trust by the bank or finan!ial institution and that their use or disposition while the !ase is pending shall be sub8e!t to the approval of the !ourt before whi!h the !ase or !ases are pending. businesses. asso!iation or group of persons. shall be released immediately..he deposits and their outstanding balan!es. and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: • o any person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" • to a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" • to a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation.

.9 =@-C9 S .9D *& . -&D 7-S &< 7. 9ssentials of a valid sear!h warrant. !. he filing of an appeal or motion for re!onsideration shall not stay the release of said funds from seiGure. &arvasa. he pla!e to be sear!hed as indi!ated in the warrant is !ontrolling #EO#LE *".11D Sec"io& 21. any eviden!e obtained from the pla!e sear!hed whi!h is different from that indi!ated in the sear!h warrant is inadmissible in eviden!e for any purpose and in any pro!eeding..9 F-@*D* J <# .9 S9-%C. what the 5udge who issued the warrant had in mind. se0uestration and freeGing.9 C<?% *SS?*&2 .9 7-%%-& * S9@#. %e0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant %ead: a. but a !lear !ase of a sear!h of a pla!e 11D .. 0-. *f !onvi!ted.13D SC%>.9 -==@*C-& S .-D *& . CA... Falidity of a sear!h warrant and the admissibility of eviden!e obtained in violation thereof. said seiGed.9 7-%%-& . *f the person suspe!ted as terrorist is a!0uitted after arraignment or his !ase dismissed before his arraignment by a !ompetent !ourt.S9-%C. it was not 8ust a !ase of :obvious typographi!al error.' b. -s su!h. S..9 =%<<#S . C5 *n applying for a sear!h warrant. -s su!h. however. 7. <% . the poli!e offi!ers had in their mind the first four (3A separate apartment units at the rear of -$*2-*@ F-%*9 J S <%9 in RueGon City to be the sub8e!t of their sear!h. "C$A 3. se0uestered and froGen assets shall automati!ally forfeited in favor of the government. &< 7.-D %9=%9S9& 9D *& . he same was not.7-S ?@ *). 7-%%-& . the seiGureVshall be lifted by the investigating body or the !ompetent !ourt and restored to him without delay.<?2.9*% . *S .*S ). his is so be!ause it is neither li!it nor fair to allow poli!e offi!ers to sear!h a pla!e different from that stated in the warrant on the !laim that the pla!e a!tually sear!hed---although not that spe!ified in the sear!h warrant---is e(a!tly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demar!ated in their supporting eviden!e.9@J D9SC%*$9D *& .9J S?$)* 9D < .9%*-@ *& D9 9%)*&*&2 .

)< *<& )-J $9 #*@9D #<% .9 *SS?*&2 C<?% <% .9% .*& 7.. she was pointed to by the informer.9 #*%S *)9 *& 9* . She was arrested without a warrant.. 4.eld: 7arrantless sear!h is allowed in the following instan!es: 1. 114 . d. . near %iGal -ve.D kilos of mari8uana. D.9 *SS?*&2 C<?% ---S?C. -fter trial. &ote the two (+A !onfli!ting de!isions of the Supreme Court.)< *<& < R?-S. 5EO5LE VS. 966 SCRA 696 <n De!ember 1..9 %?@9 .9 C%*)*&-@ =%<C99D*&2 *S =9&D*&2. * *S &< . +. 7hen the a!!used got off. !ustoms sear!hes" sear!hes of moving vehi!le" seiGure of eviden!e in plain view" !onsented sear!hes" sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest" and stop and frisk measures. the poli!emen waited for a Fi!tory $us from $aguio City near the =&$ <longapo.9 7-%%-& (or to retrieve the things seiGedA )-J $9 #*@9D <&@J *& . -s a result of the tip. She was not a!ting suspi!iously. -bello of the <longapo =&= was tipped off by an informer that -ling %osa would be arriving from $aguio City the following day with a large volume of mari8uana. . he bag allegedly !ontained /. *ssue: 7hether or not the mari8uana allegedly taken from the a!!used is admissible in eviden!e. =E@t. . &< 9: Fery *mportant: 7here a sear!h warrant is issued by one !ourt and the !riminal a!tion base don the results of the sear!h is afterwards !ommen!ed in another !ourt.114 different from that !learly and without ambiguity identified in the sear!h warrant. She was !arrying a traveling bag at that time. 3. she was !onvi!ted and imposed a penalty of life imprisonment. AR3TA. Falidity of a warrantless sear!h and seiGure as a result of an informer1s tip. 1'//.*C. .

for being !ontrary to law.3 <n 5une 1'. and =9<=@9 FS. 9&C*&-D-. 5EO5LE VS. his is so be!ause if a sear!h is first undertaken. at about + p. 962 SCRA . it logi!ally follows that the subse0uent sear!h is similarly illegal. 1''3. he essential re0uisite of probable !ause must still be satisfied before a warrantless sear!h and seiGure !an be lawfully !ondu!ted. it must be based on reasonable ground of suspi!ion or belief a !rime has been !ommitted or is about to be !ommitted.. he mari8uana obtained as a result of a warrantless sear!h is inadmissible as eviden!e for the following reasons: a. *n order that the information re!eived by the poli!e offi!ers may be suffi!ient to be the basis of probable !ause. -)*&&?D*&. he arrest was made only after the a!!used was pointed to by the informant at a time when she was not doing anything suspi!ious. and an arrest effe!ted based on the eviden!e produ!ed by the sear!h. should not be!ome unbridled li!enses for law enfor!ement offi!ers to trample upon the !onditionally guaranteed and more fundamental right of persons against unreasonable sear!h and seiGures. the a!!used in this !ase was sear!hed while inno!ently !rossing a street Conse0uently. he informer likewise informed them that he !ould re!ogniGe said person. it being not in!idental to a lawful arrest. Cavite =&= were informed by an *&#<%)9% that a drug !ourier would be arriving in $arangay Salitran. there being no probable !ause and the a!!used1s not having been legally arrested. S=<1 alingting and S=<1 Clarin of the Dasmarinas. both su!h sear!h and arrest would be unlawful. there was no legal basis for the poli!e to effe!t a warrantless sear!h of the a!!used1s bag. his !ase is similar tot he !ase of =9<=@9 FS. the poli!emen had suffi!ient time to apply for a sear!h warrant but they failed to do so" b.11> he above e(!eptions to the re0uirement of a sear!h warrant. MO-TILLA. Sin!e there was no valid warrantless arrest. with an undetermined amount of mari8uana. however. Dasmarinas. Cavite. from $aguio City. he arresting offi!ers do not have personal knowledge that the a!!used was !ommitting a !rime at that time. the a!!used1s identity was previously as!ertained so applying for a warrant should have been easy" d. 11> .m. the a!!used was not a!ting suspi!iously" !.

-n arresting offi!er has the right to validly sear!h and seiGe from the offender (1A dangerous weapons" and (+A those that may be used as proof of the !ommission of the offense. *ssue: 7as the warrantless arrest validN .11/ -t about 3 in the morning of 5une +6. upon being pointed to by the informer. the poli!emen re0uested the a!!used to open and show them the !ontents of his bag and the !artoon he was !arrying and he voluntarily opened the same and upon !ursory inspe!tion. he trial !ourt !onvi!ted the appellant for transporting mari8uana based on the testimonies of the -bove-named poli!e offi!ers without presenting the alleged informer. . 3. the subse0uent sear!h on his person is 8ustified. the poli!e !ould not have se!ured a warrant from a 8udge. 11/ . it was found out that it !ontains mari8uana. *n the !ase at bar. D. +. the appellant was arrested by the above-named poli!e offi!ers while alighting from a passenger 8eepney near a waiting shed in Salitran. 1''3 and therefore. he said !ontention is without merit !onsidering that the information given by the informer is too sket!hy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the !orresponding arrest or sear!h warrant. . Cavite. 4. 1''3. he arrest was without warrant. upon being pointed to by the informer as the drug !ourier. warrantless sear!h is allowed in the following instan!es: 1. !ustoms sear!hes" sear!hes of moving vehi!le" seiGure of eviden!e in plain view" !onsented sear!hes" sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest" and stop and frisk measures. 7hile there is indi!ation that the informer knows the !ourier. #urthermore.. he poli!emen re!overed +/ kilos of dried mari8uana leaves.eld: he a!!used !laims that the warrantless sear!h and seiGure is illegal be!ause the alleged information was re!eived by the poli!e on 5une 1'. <n bare information. Dasmarinas.en!e the arrest. the re!ords do not show that he knew his name. Sin!e the a!!used was arrested for transporting mari8uana. they !ould have applied for a sear!h warrant.

9&C*&-D-. $?%2<S. :. 5EO5LE O. from informers !onstitute probable !ause for a warrantless arrest or sear!h *S . S5O3 SA-:FI ARA..C. there was no probable !ause for this poli!emen to think that he was !ommitting a !rime. sear!h and seiGure in :buy-bust operations. 14.D-&29%<?S =%9C9D9& -&D =@-C9S *& 2%9. /ece#8er 93. e" 'l.11. <n -ppeal. +66> De!ision of the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2. 1''>" =9<=@9 FS. Mi@e &ali' y Mama.11' he a!!used insists that it is normal for a person traveling with a bag and !artoon whi!h should not eli!it the slightest suspi!ion that he was !ommitting a !rime.I his is an appeal from the De!ember 1. 133 SC%. ++6 SC%-A. Jordan Musa y 11' . he said !ontention was !onsidered without merit by the Supreme Court !onsidering the fa!t that he !onsented to the sear!h as well as the fa!t that the informer was a reliable one who had supplied similar information to the poli!e in the past whi!h proved positive. (=9<=@9 FS. he !ase is similar to the !ase of =eople vs. -)*&&?D*&.e is merely a !orroborative witness to the arresting offi!ers.... JR. he sear!h yielded a plasti! pa!kage !ontaining mari8uana. J. SC%.%. "#O: "ang@i Ara y Mirasol.. 161. 7arrantless -rrest. A 5?S *C9 =-&2-&*$-&: o say that :reliable tips. . THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. -o.. (&< 9: he SC held that the non-presentation of the informer does not affe!t the !ase for the prose!ution be!ause he is not even the best witness. 9.9 D<C %*&9S @-*D D<7& *& )-&J D9C*S*<&S )-D9 $J . 666+D$ entitled #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. )9&2< 9.1" =9<=@9 FS. <!tober +. 9n!imada where the appellant was sear!hed without a warrant while disembarking from a ship on the strength of a tip from an informer re!eived by the poli!e the previous afternoon that the appellant would be transporting prohibited drugs. C%-.59<=-%DJ . *n short.R.36+" =9<=@9 FS. the SC reversed the de!ision of !onvi!tion and held that 9n!inada did not manifest any suspi!ious behavior that would ne!essarily and reasonably invite the attention of the poli!e. &o.9 VELASCO.*S C<?% .

plea.ydro!hloride or :shabu. During their arraignment. he driver of the !ar. -ra.9 '%'i&7" Ar' hat on or about De!ember +6. S=<1 %iGalino -0uino.. . S=<. +66+. he two men approa!hed the vehi!le and the C* talked briefly with an old man in the front seat. unlawfully and !ons!iously traded. who thereupon gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the !ar door. S=<+ -rturo @as!aTos. $ran!h ' in Davao City. he team pro!eeded to the s!hool where =<1 -yao and the C* waited by the gate. whi!h affirmed the De!ision of the %egional rial Court (% CA. -ra took out several sa!hets with !rystalline granules from his po!ket and handed them to =<1 -yao. the above-named a!!used. a!!used-appellants all gave a :not guilty.4D4. Ver7io& o( "$e 5ro7ecu"io& *n the morning of De!ember +6.. with the aggravating !ir!umstan!e of trading. =<+ %onald @ao. Sr.0. !onvi!ting a!!used-appellants of violation of %epubli! -!t &o. transporting and delivering said +4.e was instru!ted to go that same morning to St.. %eynaldo Capute.onorable Court.einous Crime *nvestigation Se!tion (. C<& %-%J < @-7. =eter1s College at oril.A suspe!ted drug pushers had !onta!ted him for a deal involving si( (4A plasti! sa!hets of s2a'u. S=<+ 5im an.. =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . =<1 -yao was then told to get in the ba!k seat as a!!used-appellant )ike alib opened the door. +66+. =<+ Fiven!io 5umawan. later identified as a!!used-appellant S=<. S=<1 $ienvenido #urog. 5r.4D4. (%-A '14D or the Compre2ensive %angerous %rugs Act of 0. asked =<1 -yao if he had the money and the latter replied in the positive. 11. immediately formed a buy-bust team !omposed of S=<. whi!h is a dangerous drug. S=<3 )ario 2alendeG. 5r. he old man. within 166 meters from BtheC s!hool St. grams of )ethamphetamine .m. Davao City. in the City of Davao. who would a!t as poseur-buyer. Davao City and look for an orange &issan Sentra !ar. and =<1 9nri0ue -yao. grams of :shabu. a !onfidential informant (C*A !ame to the .C*SA of the Davao City =oli!e Department and reported that three (. -ntonio $alolong.'c"7 Cri#i&'l C'7e -o. an orange &issan Sentra bearing plate number ?2% D16 stopped in front of them. transported and delivered +4.2 1G9. T$e .. =oli!e Chief *nspe!tor #ulgen!io =avo. without being authoriGed by law.. willfully.1+6 ayan. =eter1s College of oril. -t around /:3D a. later identified 1+6 .

-ra did not know that they were near St..DD' gram.4D4. -ra was in Cotabato City. alib alighted from the !ar and -ra transferred to the front seat.4 million in retirement benefits. +66. 7hile alib was getting into the ba!k seat. he was surprised to see another man. at the house of his daughter )arilyn. in the front seat of the !ar when he woke up.. #orensi! Chemist -ustero. )usa e(plained that alib had hit!hed a ride on a bridge they had passed. pointed his .+ years. . -ra insisted that he was not holding anything and that the s2a'u taken from him was planted.C*S and the seiGed items indorsed to the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A Crime @aboratory for e(amination. weighing 6. so they stopped. from )usa by S=<1 #urog" and a small sa!het. he three suspe!ts were brought to the . with a spotless re!ord.e saw that guns were also pointed at his !ompanions. weighing 13. =<1 -yao then asked -ra to get out of the vehi!le. . -s the group were being arrested. 7hen they arrived in oril. from alib by =<+ @ao. weighing +4.e was set to go that day to the <mbudsman1s Davao City offi!e for some paperwork in preparation for his retirement on 5uly /.+'.e asserted that the only time he saw s2a'u was on television. grams. +66+.3D !aliber pistol at -ra even if he was not doing anything.4 grams. who said that he had been a member of the =&= for . %e!overed from the group were plasti! sa!hets of white !rystalline substan!e: si( (4A big sa!hets. 9arly that morning. S=<. . from -ra by =<1 -yao" five (DA big sa!hets. he told =<1 -yao that he was also a poli!e offi!er. past three o1!lo!k. and ordered him to get off the vehi!le. who !ondu!ted the e(amination. he ba!k-up team appeared and S=<1 #urog held on to )usa while =<+ @ao restrained alib. -ra noti!ed the !ar to be overheating. -s he was feeling weak.1+1 as a!!used-appellant 5ordan )usa. he and )usa headed for Davao City on board the latter1s !ar. -ra slept in the ba!k seat. <n De!ember +6. =eter1s College sin!e he was not familiar with the area.e re!ounted e(pe!ting at least =h= 1. ?pon rea!hing Davao City. =<1 -yao !ame out of nowhere. wife of his !o-a!!used )usa. Ver7io& o( "$e /e(e&7e he defense offered the sole testimony of -ra. . found that the !onfis!ated sa!hets all tested positive for s2a'u. )ike alib. tried to drive away but =<1 -yao was able to swit!h off the !ar engine in time. T$e Ruli&% o( "$e Tri'l Cour" he dispositive portion of the % C De!ision reads: 1+1 .

D1. the provision of se!tion D paragraph . . Conformably with #eople v. -rti!le ** of %.%99 .'14D 0uoted above. '14D.J $-J-&.e is hereby senten!ed to suffer a penalty of @*#9 *)=%*S<&)9& and #*&9 of #<?% . in!luding absolute perpetual dis0ualifi!ation from any publi! offi!e. is found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt.666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto.666.1++ 7. 11. T$e I77ue 1++ . is hereby found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt. Sin!e the prose!ution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the !rime was !ommitted in the area whi!h is only five (DA to si( (4A meters away from the s!hool. married and a resident of Cotabato City. D. we.e is hereby imposed the D9. =9&-@ J and #*&9 of 9& )*@@*<& =9S<S (=h= 16. the a!!used herein S-&2M* -%. 11. premised on the foregoing the Court finds the following: *n Criminal Case &o. ordered the transfer of the !ase to the C-. . *n Criminal Case &o.'14D was applied in the imposition of the ma(imum penalty against the herein a!!used.666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto. D1.<?S-&D =9S<S (=h= .9%9#<%9. and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime of violation of Se!.6 years old.. -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o. . however. the a!!used herein )*M9 -@*$ y )-)-. *n Criminal Case &o.?&D%9D .-+66+ the a!!used herein 5<%D-& )?S.e is hereby imposed a penalty of *mprisonment of S*Q 99& (14A J9-%S and a fine of . widower. Cotabato City. a resident of Mabuntalan.66. Mateo. DD years old. the !ase went on automati! review before this Court. of legal age. is hereby found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime for Fiolation of Se!.rd paragraph. S< <%D9%9D. #ilipino. . D1. 1st paragraph of %epubli! -!t '14D.?&D%9D .3>+-+66+. single and a resident of =arang.3>. #ilipino.666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto. and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime of violation of Se!.3>1-+66+. Cotabato. -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t '14D. .<?S-&D =9S<S (=h= 366. 1st paragraph.J )-S<@. in view of the provision of se!tion +/ of %. #ilipino. -s the death penalty was imposed on -ra.

hus. is a!tually !ommitting. therefore. . -s the appellate !ourt noted. *n fa!t. a!!used-appellants de!ry their arrest without probable !ause and the violation of their !onstitutional rights. here is. he illegal sale of s2a'u inside a!!usedappellants1 vehi!le was afterwards !learly established. of the %ules of Court is when a person has !ommitted. must only be based on reasonable ground of suspi!ion or belief that a !rime has been !ommitted or is about to be !ommitted. *t is erroneous as well to argue that there was no probable !ause to arrest a!!used-appellants. *t is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first se!ure a warrant of arrest given that the ob8e!tive of the operation was to apprehend the a!!used-appellants in flagrante delicto. the trial !ourt !orre!tly denied the )otion to Suppress or 9(!lude 9viden!e. in warrantless sear!hes. here is no hard and fast rule or fi(ed formula for determining probable !ause. hey !laim that the buy-bust team had more than a month to apply for an arrest warrant yet failed to do so. 7e need not reiterate that the eviden!e was not e(!luded sin!e the buy-bust operation was shown to be a legitimate form of entrapment. no basis for the assertion that the trial 1+. *t is a form of entrapment employed as an effe!tive way of apprehending a !riminal in the a!t of !ommission of an offense. one of the situations !overed by a lawful warrantless arrest under Se!tion D(aA. =robable !ause was provided by information gathered from the C* and from a!!used-appellants themselves when they instru!ted =<1 -yao to enter their vehi!le and begin the transa!tion.1+. for its determination varies a!!ording to the fa!ts of ea!h !ase. )oreover. as we have previously held. =robable !ause. 7hether the Court of -ppeals erred in holding that the arrest of the a!!used-appellants was valid based on the affidavits of the !omplaining witnesses 0'rr'&"le77 Arre7" '&) SeiJure V'li) *n !alling for their a!0uittal. the arresting offi!ers were 8ustified in making the arrests as a!!used-appellants had 8ust !ommitted a !rime when -ra sold s2a'u to =<1 -yao. he pie!es of eviden!e thus seiGed therein were admissible. 7e have ruled that a buy-bust operation !an be !arried out after a long period of planning. alib and )usa were also frisked for !ontraband as it may be logi!ally inferred that they were also part of -ra1s drug a!tivities inside the vehi!le. <wing to the spe!ial !ir!umstan!es surrounding the drug trade. it was within legal bounds and no anomaly was found in the !ondu!t of the buy-bust operation. his inferen!e was further strengthened by )usa1s attempt to drive the vehi!le away and elude arrest. or is attempting to !ommit an offense in the presen!e of a pea!e offi!er or private person. %ule 11. a buy-bust operation has long been held as a legitimate method of !at!hing offenders. he period of planning for su!h operation !annot be di!tated to the poli!e authorities who are to undertake su!h operation.

here must be !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e of an a!tual intention to relin0uish the right. 9. VS.666..1+3 !ourt1s order denying said motion was biased and !ommitted with grave abuse of dis!retion. either !onstru!tive or a!tual.7-*F9% $J *)=@*C. -re the things admissible in eviden!eN Can they be sued for damages as a result of the said warrantless sear!h and seiGureN .eld: he right against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures is a personal right whi!h may be waived e(pressly or impliedly. ELI L3I. knowingly and intelligently in order that the said is to be valid. hereafter. e. hey were in possession of a mission order but later on !laimed that the owner of the house gave his !onsent to the warrantless sear!h. 7aiver of the right against an unreasonable sear!h and seiGure.2 %ight against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures" )ission <rder does not authoriGe an illegal sear!h. he sear!h was therefore held illegal and the members of the sear!hing party held liable for damages in a!!ordan!e with the do!trine laid down in @im vs. of the e(isten!e of said right" !. Diokno. =on!e de @eon and ). here must be proof of the following: a.66 owned by the employer. the waiver must be made voluntarily.*<& C-&&< $9 =%9S?)9D. they !onfis!ated different personal properties therein whi!h were allegedly part of those stolen from the employer.5une 1'.= 2arments vs. *n sear!h of the allegedly missing amount of =3D. Stonehill vs. that the right e(ists" b. C-. MATILLA-O. that the person involved had knowledge. M'y 9 . the residen!e of a relative of the suspe!t was for!ibly open by the authorities by ki!king the kit!hen door to gain entry into the house. 2eneral or roving warrants %ead: 1. $? .1'4> 1+3 . #inally. that the said person had an a!tual intention to relin0uish the right. ET AL.

1+D Con!ep!ion. dire!ting the pea!e offi!er to sear!h the persons above-named andEor the premises of their offi!es. -s to the sear!hes made on their offi!es.9 =9 * *<&9%S )-J &< F-@*D@J <$59C < . typewriters and other do!uments or papers showing all business transa!tions in!luding disbursement re!eipts. he warrants were issued to fish eviden!e in the deportation !ases against them" d. C. -%*## -&D C?S <)S @-7S. vou!hers. he petitioners !laim that the sear!h warrants are void being violative of the Constitutional provision on sear!h and seiGure on the ground that: a. ledgers. !orresponden!e. *& 9%&-@ %9F9&?9 C<D9 -&D . finan!ial re!ords. -n ob8e!tion to an unlawful sear!h and seiGure *S =?%9@J =9%S<&-@ -&D C-&&< $9 -F-*@9D <# $J . 8ournals. books and things to be seiGed" b.9 %9F*S9D =9&-@ C<D9. C<&S9R?9& @J. the sear!hes and seiGures were made in an illegal manner" e.9 ?S9 *& 1+D . I77ueI 7ere the sear!hes and seiGures made in the offi!es and residen!es of the petitioners validN a. . to wit: H$ooks of a!!ounts. !ash money not mentioned in the warrant were a!tually seiGed" !. the things seiGed were not delivered to the !ourt to be disposed of in a manner provided for by law.*%D =-% *9S. they !ould not 0uestion the same in their personal !apa!ities be!ause the !orporations have a personality separate and distin!t with its offi!ers.5. he sear!h warrants did not parti!ularly des!ribe the do!uments. warehouses and to seiGe and take possession of the following personal property. balan!e sheets and profit and loss statementsH sin!e they are the sub8e!t of the offense of violating the C9& %-@ $-&M @-7S. re!eipts. he petitioners are 0uestioning the validity of a total of 3+ sear!h warrants issued on different dates against them and the !orporations in whi!h they are offi!ers.

SC%. < 7. IT 0AS IM5OSSI4LE . the same may not be used in eviden!e against them be!ause the warrants issued were in the nature of a general warrant for failure to !omply with the !onstitutional re0uirement that: 1. . Feloso.9 -F9%)9& S .5ROVISIO. BA SCATTERGSHOT 0ARRA-T is a sear!h warrant 1+4 .61 3. )ar!os..9% 7<%DS.errera. FillaluG.1+ (.9*% *&D*F*D?-@ C-=-C* J.-D $99& -@@929D *& S-*D -==@*C.ORME/ 5ARTIC3LAR ACTS.1'>4 >.9 <##*C9S -&D =%9)*S9S <# .*<&S. Se!retary vs.9 C<%=<%. $a!he vs. 1'/D '. -pril 1+.161.DD. 5uly 13. +14 SC%. . COM5ETE-T 5ROO.> SC%. 3/ =hil.O3-/ THE EEISTE-CE O. %9S=9C < . -pril . =-=9%S -&D . AS A CO-SEM3E-CE.9 C<%=<%.sear!h warrant for estafa. falsifi!ation. to be determined by the 8udge in the manner set forth in said provision" and +. >.*&2S S9*O9D #%<) . ta( evasion and insuran!e fraud is a general warrant and therefore not validA 4.*<&S. O3R CRIMI-AL LA0S. =eople vs. Castro vs. that no warrant shall issue but upon probable !ause. 5RO4A4LE CA3SE.9 <##*C9%S *& =%<C99D*&2S -2-*&S . 1''D" =9<=@9 FS. Colle!tor vs.9) <# . %uiG.. *& < .OR THE SAME 5RES355OSES THE I-TRO/3CTIO.9) *& . C-. VIOLATI-: A :IVE. -sian Surety vs. =9<=@9. .O. +. &one of these re0uirements has been !omplied with in the !ontested warrants.9%9<# 7* .1+4 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S .l'>4 D./+. DiGon vs. -&D )-J &< $9 *&F<M9D $J . >4 SC%. &< S=9C*#*C <##9&S9 . OR COMMITTE/ S5ECI. b..9 S9*O9D 9##9C S $9@<&2.6. =abalan. THAT THE 5ARTY A:AI-ST 0HOM IT IS SO3:HT HAS 5ER. .9 <##9&S9 C<))* 9D 79%9 A4STRACT.OR THE J3/:E 0HO ISS3E/ THE 0ARRA-TS TO HAVE . /. -s to the do!uments seiGed in the residen!es of the petitioners.IC OMISSIO-S. hey were issued upon appli!ations stating that the natural and 8uridi!al persons therein named had !ommitted a violation of Central bank @aws. -)$-S9& FS. *nternal revenue Code and %evised =enal Code.9 D<C?)9& S. D3 SC%.O. that the warrant shall parti!ularly des!ribe the things to be seiGed. ariff and Customs @aws. 14' 16. 5une 1/. Fiduya vs. Castro.<) . Ferdiago. .

7ho determines probable !auseN a. *t ordered that the !ase may be transferred from the % C of )asbate to the % C of )akati. hereafter. -O.12G1 ! 9& $-&C 2? *9%%9O.6> D9 @<S S-& <S FS. Define probable !ause. four separate informations to that effe!t were filed with the % C of )asbate with no bail re!ommended. a warrant of arrest was issued on 5uly . . informations were !omplete in form in substan!e . issued a %esolution affirming the finding of a prima fa!ie !ase against the petitioners but ruled that a !ase of )urder for ea!h of the killing of the four vi!tims and a physi!al in8uries !ase for infli!ting gunshot wound on the survivor be filled instead against the suspe!ts. hey were initially !harged. with three others. 1'/'. <n &ovember +1. 99. with the !rime of multiple murder with frustrated murder. designated to review the !ase. robbery. #a!ts: -------=etitioners are suspe!ts of the slaying of Congressman )oises 9spinosa. filed by the petitioners was granted by the SC.SR. Sr./D VICE-TE LIM. -fter !ondu!ting a preliminary investigation. hey likewise filed a motion to order the transmittal of initial re!ords of the preliminary investigation !ondu!ted by the muni!ipal 8udge of $arsaga of )asbate. C-. 1'/'. +D3 SC%. 5%. A-/ MAYOR S3SA-A LIM VS.1. 1'/'. =etitioners then moved that another hearing ba !ondu!ted to determine if there really e(ists a prima fa!ie !ase against them in the light of do!uments showing re!antations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. and three of his se!urity es!orts and the wounding of another. $ail was fi(ed at =+66.. <n September ++. theft and 0ualified theft.1+> issued for more than one spe!ifi! offense like one for estafa. and there was 1+> .:. a motion for !hange of venue.A f. )<& 9S-. hese motions were however denied by the !ourt be!ause the prose!ution had de!lared the e(isten!e of probable !ause.HO-. b.R.ELIE . +3> SC%. -. %<$9% S FS. #is!al -lfane. 5.666.

he 8udge !ommitted a grave abuse of dis!retion. the !ertifi!ation does not bind the 8udge to !ome out with the warrant of arrest.S vs. Constitution.owever. the Court noted that the addition of the word personally after the word determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1'>.eld: ----1. de!ided under the 1'/> Constitution. his de!ision interpreted the Hsear!h and seiGureH provision of the 1'>. issue a warrant of arrest. )akasiar. the s! ruled that a 8udge may rely upon the fis!alSs !ertifi!ation of the e(isten!e of a probable !ause and on the basis thereof.7hat the Constitution unders!ores is the e(!lusive and personal responsibility of the issuing 8udge to satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause. *n the !ase of Soliven vs.en!e it found it 8ust and proper to rely on the prose!utors !ertifi!ation in ea!h information. the 8udge finds no probable !ause. he may disregard the fis!alSs report and re0uire the submission of supporting 1+/ . . the 8udge must satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause before issuing a warrant of order of arrest. . Fillanueva.1+/ no defe!t on its fa!e. his has been the rule sin!e ?. -bbas. *f on the fa!e of information. <!ampo and -marga vs. issue a warrant of arrest" (+A *f on the basis thereof he finds no probable !ause. Constitution to issue warrants to other respondent offi!ers as to may be authoriGed by law does not re0uire the 8udge to personally e(amine the !omplainant and his witness in his determination of probable !ause for the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest. #ollowing established do!trine and pro!edures. +. ISS3EI GGGGGGGGGG 7hether or not a 8udge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prose!utions !ertifi!ation and re!ommendation that a probable !ause e(istsN . *n the !ase of =la!er vs. on the basis thereof. he may disregard the fis!alSs !ertifi!ation and re0uire the submission of the affidavits of witness to aid him at arriving at a !on!lusion as to the e(isten!e of a probable !ause. ?nder this provision. he shall: (1A personally evaluate the reports and the supporting do!uments submitted by the fis!al regarding the e(isten!e of probable !ause and.

he !ase of =eople vs. and all other supporting do!uments behind the prose!utorSs !ertifi!ation whi!h are material in assisting the 8udge to make his determination. he determination was made by the provin!ial prose!utor. the respondent 8udge relies solely on the !ertifi!ation of the prose!utor. <nly the 8udge alone makes this detemination. *t is not for the =rovin!ial #is!al or =rose!utor nor for the 9le!tion Supervisor to as!ertain. *t merely assist him to make the determination of probable !ause.A =reliminary in0uiry should be distinguished from the preliminary investigation proper. the prose!utorSs !ertifi!ation of probable !ause is ineffe!tual. FillaluG. (+A he preliminary in0uiry made by the prose!utor does not bind the 8udge. . 1'/D. *n the present !ase..1+' affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a !on!lusion as to the e(isten!e of probable !ause. 7hile the former seeks to determine probable !ause for the issuan!e of warrant of arrest. *nting reiterates the following do!trines: (1A he determination of probable !ause is a fun!tion of the 8udge. the !ourt ruled that 8udges of % C no longer have authority to !ondu!t preliminary investigations: his authority was removed from them by the 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure. he re!ords of the preliminary investigation !ondu!ted by the )uni!ipal Court of )asbate and reviewed by the respondent #is!al were still in )asbate when the respondent #is!al issued the warrant of arrest against the petitioners. here was no basis for the respondent 8udge to make his personal determination regarding the e(isten!e of probable !ause from the issuan!e of warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. effe!tive on 5anuary 1. he 8udge does not have to follow what the prose!utorSs present to him. he !onstitutional re0uirement had not been satisfied. the trans!ripts of stenographi! notes.onorable 9nri0ue $. . D.e !ould not have possibly known what has transpired in )asbate as he had nothing but a !ertifi!ation. the affidavits. 3. he has not personally determined the e(isten!e of probable !ause. *t is the report. -lthough the 8udge does not have to personally e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses (for the prose!utor !an perform the same fun!tions as !ommissioner for taking of eviden!eA there 1+' . *n the !ase of Castillo vs. the latter as!ertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. (. . $y itself. Considering that all the re!ords of the investigation are in )asbate.

Sy Chi Siong. >. -bbas.3. '/ =hil.D>/. 2% &o.6 should be a report and ne!essary do!uments supporting the #is!alSs bare !ertifi!ation..1'/> 3. Ju&e 1.D J3A.VS.4 SC%. vs. 1''1 +. -marga vs.. 1.34> 1-!. he =residential -nti-Dollar Salting ask #or!e vs. 1''1 1-h. olentino vs. 99163. Ruintero vs. -s su!h. ?mil vs. 5uly '. vs. >3 SC%. *t is suffi!ient if the 8udge is !onvin!ed of the e(isten!e of probable !ause upon reading the affidavits or deposition of the !omplainant and his witnesses. 1. /. Due pro!ess" right to bail" probable !ause for the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest (&ote: his might be useful also in your Criminal @awA &arvasa. Department of .5O-CE E-RILE VS. %amos. 1+4 SC%..ealth vs.++4 D. MAFASIAR. &$*. C-. %amos. (<nly a 8udge has the power to determine probable insofar as the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest is !on!ernedA . 199. =endon vs.' 1-a. 1. -pril 1'.4DD 1-b. 14. 14+ SC%. =.3/4 >.5uly +>.. et al. :. +6th Century #o( vs. 5uly +D.34. there is no need to e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses fa!e to fa!e. 143 SC%. *nting. 2% &o. J3/:E JAIME SALA>AR. 1'/' SOLIVE. )ar!h 14.6 . C-.34D +-b. CruG vs. &ov. 1'/' +-a. 1DD SC%. ET AL. 1''6 1-g. 5. C-.1. 16 SCRA 393 he word Bper7o&'lly. 116 SC%. 2atan. 2eronimo vs. =. 1''6 1-f. Fillanueva. FillaluG. 1''6 with the %esolution of the )otion for %e!onsideration in &ovember. =la!er vs. after the word determined does not ne!essarily mean that the 8udge should e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses personally before issuing the sear!h warrant or warrant of arrest but the e(!lusive responsibility on the part of said 8udge to satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause. =. *n!.R. Drilon.. Fillanueva. -ll of these should be before the 8udge.-O. <laes vs. /D+/'. #ebruary +6. 1-e. =aderanga vs.

-@S< C<&S * ? 9 C<))<& C%*)9S <# 2%-F9 <% @9SS 2%-F9 C.ernandeG Do!trine and adopt the dissenting opinion of 5usti!e )ontemayor that Hrebellion !annot absorb more serious !rimesH" +. $ran!h 16. or as ne!essary means for the !ommission. $? &< < -C S C<))* 9D *& .1 . Senator 9nrile was taken to and held overnight at the &$* . . 5-*)9 S-@-O-%.ead0uarters on aft -ve. %egional trial Court. petitioner through !ounsel filed a petition for .9@D: he partiesS oral and written arguments presented the following options: 1. or having been: a.-%-C 9%" 1.. denied the right to bail" and d. RueGon City in Criminal Case &o.%9$9@@*<& 7.*<& -&D &<&9 #*Q9D *& .9 C<?%S9 <# . -bandon the .*C.-F*&2 $99& %9C<))9&D9D *& . hen!e. he was denied due pro!ess" !.abeas Corpus alleging that he was deprived of his !onstitutional rights in being. and 2regorio . 1''6. .onasan with the !rime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly !ommitted during the period of the failed !oup attempt from &ovember +' to De!ember 16. Senator 5uan =on!e 9nrile was arrested by law enfor!ement offi!ers led by &$* Dire!tor -lfredo @im on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the respondent 8udge. &<&9 .. )anila. !harged with a !riminal offense in an information for whi!h no !omplaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was !ondu!ted.ernandeG Do!trine appli!able only to offenses !ommitted in furtheran!e. the spouses %ebe!!o and 9rlinda =anlilio.<&. held to answer for a !riminal offense whi!h does not e(ist in the statute books" b.<? $-*@. arrested or detained on the strength of warrant issued without the 8udge who issued it first having personally determined the e(isten!e of probable !ause. '6-16'31. 7* .1.9 *&#<%).old .9 7-%%-& <# -%%9S .1 <n #ebruary +>. 1''6. of rebellion. <n #ebruary +/. he warrant was issued on an information signed and filed earlier in the day by Senior State =rose!utor -?%9@*< %-)=9 !harging Senator 9nrile. . 1''6.

<n the se!ond option.-@@9&29S -&D &< &97 <&9S -%9 =%9S9& 9D .ernandeG. <n the issues raised by the petitioner: a. < . < 7-%%-& . the Court ruled that the information filed against the petitioner does in fa!t !harge an offense despite the ob8e!tionable phrasing that would !omple( rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. 13+-.S <<D -@@ S?$S9R?9& C.ernandeG. b. his is so be!ause of the fa!t that the in!umbent =resident (e(er!ising legislative powers under the 1'/4 #reedom ConstitutionA repealed =D &o. 7. either as a means ne!essary to its !ommission or as unintended effe!t of an a!tivity that !onstitutes rebellion. parti!ularly -rt. $y a vote of 11-. the . )?S . +. *n thus a!ting.whi!h sought to nullify if not repealed the . that indi!tment is to be read as !harging S*)=@9 %9$9@@*<&. 1. . whether or not ne!essary to its !ommission or in furtheran!e thereof.ernandeG Do!trine as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses !ommitted in its !ourse.ernandeG Do!trine.1. *n view of the ma8ority.&*C-@@J C<%%9C S< #-% -S . the information does indeed !harge the petitioner with a !rime defined and punished by the %evised =enal Code: S*)=@9 %9$9@@*<&.+ .%9$9@@*<& )-J &< $9 C<)=@9Q9D 7* .9 %?@*&2 %9)-*&S 2<<D @-7. wo members felt that the do!trine should be re-e(amined. <# %.9%9<#.. '3+ whi!h added a new provision of the %evised =enal Code.9% <##9&S9S C<))* 9D <& .9 <CC-S*<& . )aintain .*@9 9C.ernandeG Do!trine remains a binding do!trine operating to prohibit the !omple(ing of rebellion with any other offense !ommitted on the o!!asion thereof.9%9#<%9 $9 D*S)*SS9D -S )9%9 #@*2. the Supreme Court was unanimous in voting to re8e!t the same though four 8usti!es believe that the arguments in support thereof is not entirely devoid of merit. .. * S S?$S -& *F9 -&D @92-@ $-S9S .C<)=@9 9 %9F9%S-@. <n the first option..+ .9 <%*C. absent any suffi!iently powerful reason against so doing.9%9 =9%S?-S*F9 9&<?2. he Court !an do no less than a!!ord it the same re!ognition. 7as the petitioner !harged without a !omplaint having been initially filed andEor preliminary investigation !ondu!tedN he re!ord shows that a 1.9 C<?% %?@9D . the =resident in effe!t by legislative fiat reinstated the . %ead in the !onte(t of .-F9 7* .ernandeG as a binding do!trine with the effe!t of law. 11 8usti!es voted -2-*&S abandoning . he petitionerSs !ontention that he was !harged with a !rime that does not e(ist in the statute books. 7ith the re8e!tion of the first two options.

&< 9S: his might be useful also in your %emedial @aw. 7as a petition for ..C<%%9C =%<=<S* *<&. !.*F9@J $%*9# =9%*<D 7* .-D &< .9%9& @J *%%92?@-% <% C<& %-%J < @-7 *& #*@*&2 -2-*&S . the petitioner !laims that the respondent 8udge issued the warrant for his arrest without first personally determining the e(isten!e of probable !ause by e(amining under oath or affirmation the !omplainant and his witnesses. *n the light of the CourtSs affirmation of ..%9S=<&D9& -& *&D?C )9& #<% -& <##9&S9 D*##9%9& #%<) 7. Se!tion +.9%9 *S &< . and of the logi!al and ne!essary !orollary that the information against him should be !onsidered as !harging only the !rime of simple rebellion whi!h is bailable before !onvi!tion. < C<)=@J 7* .*&2 *&.-F9.-%29D *& . in violation of -rt. .. =etitioner also !laims that he is denied of his !onstitutional right to bail.*C. .*S C.. C<&S*D9% <&@J %9@.9 S?==<% *&2 D<C?)9& S?$)* 9D $J .*& 7.S*&2@9 C*%C?)S -&C9 S?##*C9 < <F9%C<)9 .9 =%9@*)*&-%J *&F9S *2..<%J C<)=@-*& . ***. *# 7-%%-& 9D $J . he petitioner !laims that the warrant issued is void be!ause it was issued barely one hour and twenty minutes after the !ase was raffled to the respondent 8udge whi!h !ould hardly gave him suffi!ient time to personally go over the voluminous re!ords of the preliminary investigation.-D 7. )9%9$J $9C-?S9 S-*D %9S=<&D9& 5?D29 .*&2 .D? J .*<&.. d..9 *&* *.9 9F*D9&C9 D9F9@<=9D D?%*&2 . 2*F9S &< %9-S<& < -SS?)9 .abeas Corpus before the Supreme Court the appropriate vehi!le for asserting a right to bail or vindi!ating its denialN 1.. of the Constitution.9 .ernandeG as appli!able to petitionerSs !ase.1. <% C<?@D &< .9 =%<S9C? <%. his Court has already ruled that it is not unavoidable duty of the 8udge to make su!h a personal e(amination.<##*C*-@ D? J . .9 %9=<% -&D . .-S $99& %92?@-%@J =9%#<%)9D. -lso. S< C<)=@*9D" &<% D<9S .)?S &<7 $9 -CC9= 9D -S .S<)9 )*2. it being suffi!ient that he follows established pro!edure by =9%S<&-@@J 9F-@?.9 @92-@ =%9S?)= *<& . !omplaint for simple rebellion against petitioner was filed by the &$* Dire!tor and that based on the strength of said !omplaint a preliminary investigation was !ondu!ted by the respondent prose!utors !ulminating in the filing of the 0uestioned information.

Smith and 7essor revolver was !onfis!ated from the a!!used and several days later. )anila" +. 9ven assuming that the petitionerSs premise that the information !harges a non-e(istent !rime would not e(!use or 8ustify his improper !hoi!e of remedies.9 %9@*9# 7-S -@S< -F-*@-$@9 . 7hen the surveilan!e team arrived therein. 1999. he !orre!t !ourse was for the petitioner to invoke that 8urisdi!tion by filing a petition to be admitted to bail.9%9.. g. they were unable to es!ape" .R. ME-:OTE.9 C<?% <# -==9-@S *# -==%<=%*. 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures--when valid or not.9 %9F*97 5?%*SD*C *<& <# . SCRA 1 2 7arrantless sear!h and seiGure CruG. the 7estern =oli!e Distri!t re!eived a telephone !all from an informer that there were three suspi!ious-looking persons at the !orner of 5uan @una and &orth $ay $lvd.3 he Supreme Court held that the !riminal !ase before the respondent 8udge is the normal venue for invoking the petitionerSs right to have provisional liberty pending trial and 8udgment.9 S?=%9)9 C<?% $9 *&F<M9D.. <&@J -# 9% . they saw the a!!used Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomenH. an information for violation of =D 1/44 was filed against him" 1.1. a .. #a!tsZ 1.. in ondo./ !al. Ju&e. *s H<peration MapkapH validN %ead: 5EO5LE VS.19.<?@D . hey appro!hed these persons and identified themselves as poli!ement that is why they tried to ran away be!ause of the other lawmen. 91.3 .9&. :.%9)9DJ 7-S D9&*9D $J . &< 7* . 6 . 1'/>.9 %*-@ C<?% S. !laiming a right to bail per se or by reason of the weakness of the eviden!e against him. the obvious re!ourse would have been a motion to 0uash brought in the !riminal a!tion before the respondent 8udge. -o. 5.<? #*%S -==@J*&2 < . -&D 9F9& . <n -ugust /. ?nder either hypothesis. -fter their arrest.

-rti!le 11.eld: here is no 0uestion that eviden!e obtained as a result of an illegal sear!h or seiGure is inadmissible in any pro!eeding for any purpose. (!A of Se!tion D is obviously inappli!able as )engote was not an es!apee from a penal institution when he was arrested. ( ( ( 7e have !arefully e(amined the wording of this %ule and !annot see how we we !an agree with the prose!ution.D 3. in his presen!e. B+C.pea!e offi!er or private person may.. his is the !elebrated e(!lusionary rule based on the 8ustifi!ation given by 5usti!e @earned . or is attempting to !ommit an offense" (bA 7hen an offense has in fa!t 8ust been !ommitted. -rrest without warrant" when lawful. of the Constitution. is a!tually !ommitting. and he has personal knowledge of fa!ts indi!ating that the person to be arrested has !ommitted it" and (!A 7hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has es!aped from a penal establishment or pla!e where he is serving final 8udgment or temporarily !onfined while his !ase is pending. Se!tion . knows that it !annot profit by their wrong will the wrong be repressed.D . whi!h itself !ontrols the seiGing offi!ials. (aA or =ar. without warrant. of the %ules of Court provides: Se!. hat is the absolute prohibition of -rti!le ***.1. D.en!e this automati! appeal. the person to be arrested has !ommitted. or has es!aped while being transferred from one !onfinement to another.and that Honly in !ase the prose!ution. (bA of this Se!tion. )engote was !onvi!ted of having violated =D 1/44 and was senten!ed to suffer reclusion perpetua based on the alleged gun as the prin!ipal eviden!e. -fter trial. 7e therefore !onfine ourselves to determining the lawfulness of his arrest under either =ar. =ar.. 1.H Se!tion D. arrest a person: (aA 7hen. . *ssue: 7as there a valid warrantless sear!h and seiGureN .

$ut he was arrested at 11:.H a!!ording to the arresting offi!ers themselves. if at all. the a!!used-appellant was merely Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomen. why hiseyes were darting from side to sideand he was holding his abdomen. 7hat offenseN 7hat offense !ould possibly have been suggested by a person Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomenH and in apla!e not e(a!tly forsaken. like a darkened alley at . all of them innoent. *t might have been different if )engote had been apprehended at an unholy hour and in a pla!e where he had no reason to be. hese are !ertainly not sinister a!ts. he 0uestion is. or was at least being attempted in their presen!e. as the prose!ution suggests. -nd the setting of the arrest made them less so. <n the other hand. there !ould have been a number of reasons.. he Soli!itor 2eneral submits that the a!tual e(isten!e of an offense was not ne!essary as long as )engoteSs a!ts !reated a reasonable suspi!ion on the part of the arresting offi!ers and indu!ed in them the belief that an offense had been !ommitted and that a!!used-appellant had !ommitted itH. . oS!lo!k in the morning.1.4 . *f they e(!ited suspi!ion in the minds of the arresting offi!ers. or was a!tually being !ommitted. ((( he !ase before us is different be!ause there was nothing to support the arresting offi!ersS suspi!ion other than )engoteSs darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen.<: "C$A 3. it has nevertheless not been shown what their suspi!ion was all about. here was apparently no offense that had 8ust been !ommitted or was being a!tually !ommitted or at least being attempted by )engote in thie presen!e. here was nothing !landestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaGe of the noonday sun. (aA re0uires that the person be arrested (1A after he has !ommitted or while he is a!tually !ommitting or is at least attempting to !ommit an offense.4 =ar. AMMI(!I%I(. hese re0uirements have not been established in the !ase at bar. (+A in the presen!e of the arresting offi!er.e was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the !lear light of day. -t the time of the arrest in 0uestion.6 in the morning and in a !rowded street shortly after alighting from a passenger 8eep with his !ompanion.0 where the Court held that a warrantless arrest of the a!!used was 1. $y no stret!h of the imagination !ould it have been inferred from these a!ts that an offense had 8ust been !ommitted. his is similar to #EO#LE vs.

urgos. he offense must also be !ommitted in his presen!e or within his view.1. thus: *f the arrest was made under %ule 11. *t is not enough to suspe!t that a !rime may have been !ommitted.33 "C$A . what was that !rimeN here is no allegation in the re!ord of su!h a falsifi!ation. to all appearan!es no less inno!ent than the other disembarking passengers. he fa!t of the !ommission of the offense must be undisputed. (bA is no less appli!able be!ause its no less stringent re0uirements have also not been satisfied. -ll they had was hearsay information from the telephone !aller. ((( *n arrests without a warrant under Se!tion 4(bA. he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. this Court de!lared: ?nder Se!tion 4(aA of %ule 11. it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has !ommitted a !rime.. or 8ust !ommitted.. as the prose!ution in!orre!tly suggested. . dispensed with the !onstitutional re0uirement of a warrant. and about a !rime that had yet to bem !ommitted.!rime must in fa!t or actually have been !ommitted first. hat a !rime has a!tually been !ommitted is an essential pre!ondition. t2e officer ma@ing t2e arrest 1. Castro. heprose!ution has not shown that at the time of )engoteSs arrest an offense had in fa!t been !ommitted and that the arresting offi!ers had personal knowldge of fa!ts indi!ating that )engote had !ommitted it. CHIEA OA #OLICE. being !ommitted.. #2il.8-9. 1D1 SC%. Se!tion D. or is about to !ommit an offense must have personalknowledge of that fa!t.e was not even a!ting suspi!iously. ((( *n the landmark !ase of #eople vs. his do!trine was affirmed in -lih vs. . . 6"A)O vs. =ar.e had not !ommitted nor was a!tually !ommitting or attempting to !ommit an offense in the presen!e of the arresting offi!ers.> . the offi!er arresting a person who has 8ust !ommitted. . *n short. it may be observed that under the %evised %ule 11. however. of the %ules of Court in !onne!tion with a !rime about to be !ommitted. is !ommitting..+>'.> un!onstitutional. . .. =arentheti!ally. there was no probable !ause that. Se!tion D(bA. his was effe!ted while he was !oming down the vessel..

"$e pro7ecu"io& ')#i""e) "$'" "$ere w'7 &o w'rr'&" o( 'rre7" i77ue) '%'i&7" 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" w$e& "$e l'""er w'7 "'Le& i&"o cu7"o)y. 5. resulting in their disregard of the re0uirements of a valid sear!h and seiGure that rendered inadmissible the eviden!e they had invalidly seiGed. the prose!ution of the a!!usedappellant might have su!!eeded. urgos. 311 SCRA 926 )endoGa. T$e police#'& 'rre7"e) "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" o& "$e 8'7i7 7olely o( w$'" Rey&'l)o C'7"ro $') "ol) $i# '&) &o" 8ec'u7e $e 7'w "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" co##i" "$e cri#e c$'r%e) '%'i&7" $i#. ironi!ally enough. es!aping the !lut!hes of the law. :ALVE>. worse.1. they allowed their over Gealousness to get the better of them. heir impulsiveness may be the very !ause of the a!0uittal of persons who deserve to be !onvi!ted. if any person !ould be summarily arrested and sear!hed 8ust be!ause he is holding his abdomen. *t would be a sad day. his should be a lesson to other pea!e offi!ers. indeed. be!ause./ . ((( he !ourt feels that if the pea!e offi!ers had been more mindful of the provisions of the $ill of %ights. 7arrantless arrest" no personal knowledge of the arresting offi!er 5EO5LE VS. his is not a poli!e state where order is e(alted over liberty or. 1. his simply !annot be done in a free so!iety. personal mali!e on the part ofthe arresting offi!er may be 8ustified in the name of se!urity. $i7 'rre7" wi"$ou" ' w'rr'&" c'&&o" 8e Au7"i(ie). Co&7i)eri&% "$'" "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" w'7 &o" co##i""i&% ' cri#e '" "$e "i#e $e w'7 'rre7"e) &or )i) "$e 'rre7"i&% o((icer $'*e '&y per7o&'l L&owle)%e o( ('c"7 i&)ic'"i&% "$'" 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" co##i""e) ' cri#e. 0$e& ille%'l 'rre7" i7 )ee#e) w'i*e). even if it be possibly be!ause of a stoma!h-a!he. I&)ee). -s it happened./ must 2ave personal @no?ledge of t2e ground t2erefor as stressed in t2e recent case of #eople vs. or if a pea!e offi!er !ould !lamp hand!uffs on any person with a shifty look on suspi!ion that he may have !ommitted a !riminal a!t is a!tually !ommitting or attempting it. it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enfor!e it.

1 SCRA 66 0'rr'&"le77 7e'rc$e7 '&) 7eiJure7 8y pri*'"e i&)i*i)u'l7 +. < C<&F*C .+ of the Civil Code.9 <$59C *<& *S D99)9D 7-*F9D. 0'rr'&"le77 Se'rc$ '&) 7eiJure 8y ' pri*'"e per7o&. 1'//. %<29@*< S<@? -..9 -%%9S 7-S *@@92-@ D<9S &< %9&D9% . he same was affirmed by the Court of -ppeals.9 #-C . g-1.9 9& 9%S .*S *& 9%&. the a!!used-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. -fter trial.*S =@9-. < . 9 -@. J. (Falid sin!e the !onstitutional provision is not appli!able to him" when it is not validA %ead: 1.owever.< 9@.9& -@@ . * *S &<7 S9 @9D . *&C. the respondents filed a !ase for )ali!ious =rose!ution against the petitioner for violation of -rt. ME-/O>A.' .<$59C *<& < . and prostitution. se!urity offi!ers of the plaintiff entered the union offi!e despite ob8e!tions thereto by for!ibly opening the same.' .. 5EO5LE VS.9 S .*C. S*@-. . 1. . by entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment. -fter their a!0uittal.446 C'rpioGMor'le7. 3/+ SC%.C<?% -CR?*%9S 5?%*SD*C *<& <F9% .*<&-@ . 3. while the respondent union offi!er was opening the ?nion <ffi!e.9 C?@=-$*@* J <# .. dollar smuggling.9 2?*@ J 7. . <n!e inside the union offi!e they started to make sear!hes whi!h resulted in the !onfis!ation of a plasti! bag of mari8uana.9 #-C S =<*& < .9 =9%S<& <# -& -CC?S9D )?S $9 )-D9 $9#<%9 .9 =%<C9D?%9 $J 7.9 <# * S %*2.1. he petitioner suspe!ts that the respondents who are offi!ers of the Silahis *nternational . .9%7*S9. -n information for violation of the dangerous drugs a!t was filed against the respondent before the % C of )anila whi!h a!0uitted them on the ground that the sear!h !ondu!ted was illegal sin!e it was warrantless and without !onsent by the respondents.9 -CC?S9D. the %egional rial Court held that petitioners are liable for damages as a result of an illegal sear!h. FS. hey arrived at the said !on!lusion through surveillan!e.9 S?$S9R?9& =%<C99D*&2S F<*D -&D D9=%*F9 . *n the morning of 5anuary 11.otel ?nion were using the ?nion <ffi!e lo!ated inside the hotel in the sale or use of mari8uana.7-%%-& <# -%%9S <% .

owever later. then they should have applied for a sear!h warrant.136 *ssue: 7hether the warrantless sear!h !ondu!ted by the petitioners (private individual and !orporationA on the union offi!e of the private respondents is valid. 1991 7arrantless Sear!h and seiGure by a private person $idin. ?pon opening. !o-owner and husband of -nita opened the bo(es for final inspe!tion. is admissible. . a !riminal !ase. 61161. the issue in )arti is whether the eviden!e obtained by a private person a!ting in his private !apa!ity without the parti!ipation of the State. . #-C S: -ndre )arti and his !ommon-law wife. allegedly in violation of one1s !onstitutional rights may be invoked against the State. *f indeed there was surveillan!e made. he alleged reports that the said union offi!e is being used by the union offi!ers for illegal a!tivities does not 8ustify their a!ts of barging into the said offi!e without the !onsent of the union offi!ers and without a sear!h warrant. )arti refused. Shirley %eyes went to )anila =a!kaging and 9(port #orwarders to send four (3A pa!kages to Ouri!h. re!eived said goods and asked if she !ould e(amine and inspe!t it. 5ob %eyes. following standard operating pro!edure. the issue was whether an a!t of a private individual.+ of the Civil Code. ?pon further perusal. a pe!uliar odor emanated from the bo( that was supposed to !ontain gloves. owner of the pla!e (no relation to ShirleyA. 5. 3. 5EO5LE O. J'&u'ry 16. he fa!t that the union offi!e is part of the hotel owned by the petitioners does not 8ustify the warrantless sear!h. he felt and saw a dried 136 .R. before delivering it to the $ureau of Customs andEor $ureau of =osts. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. A-/RE MARTI :. SwitGerland. -O. *n other words. he ruling in =eople vs. -nita %eyes. .eld: he sear!h is not valid and they are !ivilly liable under -rt. -ndre )arti is not appli!able here be!ause in )arti.

)arti was later invited by the &$* to shed light on the attempted shipment of the dried leaves.+1(bA of said %-. *n the presen!e of the &$* agents. 7as the eviden!e pro!ured from the sear!h admissibleN Hel)I 1. he told them that the bo(es to be shipped were still in his offi!e. Sin!e -rt.131 leaves inside the bo(. the !onstitutional provision against unreasomable sear!hes and seiGure was intended as a restraint upon the a!tivities of the sovereign authority and &< intended against private persons. wo other bo(es. in ?S !ases.en!e. %eyes opened the bo( and dis!overed that the odor !ame from the fa!t that the dried leaves were a!tually those of the mari8uana flowering tops. SC !ases as likewise do!trinal in this 8urisdi!tion. the prote!tion against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures !annot be e(tended to a!ts !omitted by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion. violate a!!usedSs right against unreasonable sear!hes seiGures and invo!able against the stateN +. hereafter an information was filed against the appellant for violating %. he Spe!ial Criminal Court of )anila !onvi!ted a!!used )arti of violating se!. *f a sear!h was initiated by a private person the provision does not apply sin!e it only pros!ribes government a!tion. 5ob %eyes then brought samples to the &$*. ISS3ESI 1. ***. .43+D or the Dangerous Drugs -!t. the SC may !onsider ?S #ed.marked as !ontaining books and taba!alera !igars" also revealed bri!ks or !ase-like mari8uana leaves and dried mari8uana leaves respe!tively. Case at bar will show that it was 5ob %eyes[ initiative that perpetrated the sear!h.e opened the pa!kages and took the samples to 131 . &o. his view is supported by the deliberations by the 1'/4 Constitutional Commission. Did the sear!h !ondu!ted by a private person. *n short. .+ of the 1'/> !onstitution is almost verbatim from the ?nited States !onstitution. !onstitutional prote!tion on sear!h and seiGure is imposable only against the state and not to private persons.

-go Chi.+' sw +d 1.?& M* . -s su!h. !ases !ited: $urdeau v. $arnes v. =9<=@9 FS. 1+ =hil. the sear!h of his house nearby is not a valid sear!h in!idental to a valid arrestA 5EO5LE VS.sear!h in!idental to a valid arrest must be done at the pla!e where the a!!used is arrested.DA. there is no valid sear!h in!idental to a valid arrest if she will be brought to her residen!e and thereafter sear!h the said pla!eA f. +D4 SC%.D// (*f the a!!used was arrested in the street during a buy-bust operation.446 !.' d. 1. Sear!h made in!idental to a valid arrest a. 312 SCRA 336 7here the gun tu!ked in a person1s waist is plainly visible to the poli!e. without a sear!h warrant in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion 1+. =-&<. state v. C-. )oreno vs.S. Chadwi!k v. -rt. (?. the eviden!e from therein is admissible eviden!e. :O. 3. %ule 1+4. #igueroa. his is a valid sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest. $ryan (3D> p +d 441 B1'4/C. -&2 C.' SC%. -s a !onse0uen!e of the a!!used1s valid warrantless arrest inside the night!lub.*** B+C. VALI/ 0ARRA-TLESS SEARCH A-/ SEI>3REI 1. if a!!used was arrested while inside a 8eepney.D.w +d 1+1 B1'4'CA. =9<=@9 FS.4>' e.' b. his did not !onvert it to a sear!h as !ontemplated by the !onstitution. 7alker v. state (3+' s.D31 (. it being one of the re!ogniGed e(!eptions under the %ules. &o warrant is ne!essary in su!h a situation. +D1 SC%. +.>. @?-. +3/ SC%. no sear!h warrant is ne!essary and in the absen!e of any li!ense for said firearm. state (. =9<=@9 FS. # +d D1> B1'4>CA. Jes. us (. +// SC%. he may be arrested at on!e as he is in effe!t !ommitting a !rime in the presen!e of the poli!e offi!ers. 9S=-&< FS. on the admissibility of eviden!e in violation of the right against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures. -ll the &$* agents did was to observe and look in plain sight. &<@-SC< FS. sin!e the sear!h was valid.13+ &$*. 13+ . he may be lawfully sear!hed for dangerous weapons or anything whi!h may be used as proof of the !ommission of an offense. )!Dowell (+D4 us 34D B1'+1C. likewise applies only to the government and its agen!ies and not to private persons.

@< .ACTSI *n 5uly 1'/>. head of oplan sharon //>. 193 SCRA 199 . -ppellant @o .+ !. LO HO 0I-:. . -s su!h. )-@)S 9D 1'/ SC%. <ne su!h agent was %eynaldo ia (the di!hargedEa!!usedA.. =. the two pro!eeded to 2uangGhou in mainland China. )-%*-C<S. ia was introdu!ed to his !o-a!!used @im Cheng . %. the items do not fall under the e(!lusionary rule and the unli!ensed firearms. C-./4 f.o 7ing and ia left for . //61>A 5anuary +1.-F9 $99& )-D9 D?%*&2 -& *@@92-@ S9-%C. 161 SC%. Sear!h of moving vehi!les a.13. the Spe!ial <perations 2roup of the C*S re!eived a tip from one of its informers about an organiGed group engaged in importation of illegal drugs and smuggling of !ontraband items. while the other was 13. FS. 2. +616 b. =9<=@9 FS. 1''1 d. &o. C#*. =9<=@9 FS. in turned informed the Dan gerous Drugs $oard of iaSs a!tivities. the later turning out to be iaSs intended !ompanion. &o. +. #rom .ongkong. +4> ?S 1. =9<=@9 FS. )?S -&2 @?)$9% FS. ia was introdu!ed to =eter @o (alias of a!!usedEappellant @o . of a drug paraphernalia and shabu. 1'/>. the subse0uent dis!overy in his !ar whi!h was parked in a distant pla!e from where the illegal possession of firearm was !ommitted Bafter he re0uested that he will bring his !ar to the =oli!e Station after his warrantless arrestA .o 7ingA.3. ia telephoned Capt. they re!ruited !onfidential men and Hdeep penetration agentsH under <=@-& S.o 7ing bought si( (4A !ans of tea. 5une 14.ongkong on <!tober 3.361 %. C-&&< $9 S-*D < . ia offered his servi!es and was hired by @im. ?S. @im wanted a male travelling !ompanion for his business trips abroad. =almera that they would return to the =hilippines on <!tober 4. they went to @o . <ne was fi(ing the tea bags. 5EO5LE VS.6 e. Carrol vs. he submitted regular reports of under!over a!tivities of suspe!ted syndi!ates.uat by another agent named 2eorge. (2. +D> SC%. appeallant @o .%. o infiltrate the !rime syndi!ate. !an be used as eviden!e against the a!!used. 1//411.< 7*&2. @ater. hat evening. et al. -s an agent. *n fa!t.-%<& //>. C-= -*& =-@)9%-. drug paraphernalia and the shabu.o 7ingSs room and he saw two other men with him. ia saw these 4 bags when they were opened for e(amination. here.

he C*S men who first saw @o . ***. for!ing the ta(i driver to stop his vehi!le. *SS?9S: 1. the C*S !ar overtook the ta(i ridden by @o . they were later !aptured.o 7ing and @im Cheng . he ne(t day en route to )anila.tin !an of tea was taken out of the !ompartment. Crystalline white powder resmbling !rushed alum !ame out. . he C*S team asked the ta(i driver to open the baggage !ompartment.o 7ing 8oined the se!ond man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning substan!e. Sgt. -long *melda -venue. Suspe!ting the !rystalline powder to be a dangerous drug.9@D: 1.o 7ing and ia were !leared.1D of the Dangerous Drug -!t. -ppelant @o .o 7ing what !argo they would bring to )anila. he had the three travelling bags opened for inspe!tion.o 7ing and ia boarded a ta(i from the airport and loaded their luggage in the ta(iSs !ompartment. Samples from the bag tested positive for metamphetamine. Sin!e the bags were not !losely e(amined. 7hen ia asked @o . the latter replied that they would be bringing Chinese drugs. he C*S team asked permission to sear!h their luggage.o 7ing and ia .owever. hey were met by @im Cheng . Cayabyab of the C*S pried the lid open and pressed it in the middle to pull out the !ontents. -ppellant @o .uat. *n )anila. se!. !ustoms e(aminers inspe!ted the bags !ontaining the tin !ans of tea. he three suspe!ts were indi!ted for violating -rt. 7as the warrantless sear!h validN +.o and ia followed them. )eanwhile. )eamwhile.133 burning a substan!e on a pie!e of aluminum foil using a lighter. %eynaldo ia was dis!harged as a state witness. @im Cheng . -ppellant @o . appellant @o . o 133 . a team !omposed by Capt.uat sped in attempt to es!ape. the se!ond ta(i !arrying @im Cheng .uat followed them in another ta(i. he trial !ourt gave full !reden!e to the testimonies of government agents sin!e the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duties were in their favor. -re the effe!ts taken admissible as eviden!eN . -ll the bags threshed out a total of si( tin !ans. ia and appellant were taken to the C*S head0uarters for 0uestioning. =almera positioned themselves in strategi! areas around the airport. .uat were senten!ed to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of =+D.666 ea!h. his is a !ase of sear!h on a moving vehi!le whi!h is one of the well-known e(!eptions to the valid warrantless sear!h and seiGure.

Said tenant himself should give the !onsent in order to be valid. +4D SC%. d. @9S-&2*&. 1// SC%. =9<=@9 FS. SC%.D1> =9<=@9 FS. b.+1. a. 9(ample: he landlady !ould not give a valid !onsent to the sear!h of a room o!!upied by a tenant. <!tober '. )-@-C.>+1 SeiGe of eviden!e in plain view . De 2ar!ia vs.FS. 919 SCRA (*n order that there is a valid waiver to a warrantless sear!h.13D stilol get a sear!h warrant from a 8udge would allow the a!!used go s!otfree. . C-. +1+ SC%. +. ?S.. S <= -&D #%*SM. the waiver or !onsent should be given by the person affe!ted. he sear!h is validA d. 1''+ b. )-&-@*@* FS. 1''>. !./D> =a!is vs. (*f the owner of the house allowed the poli!emenEsoldiers to enter his house be!ause they are sear!hing for rebel soldiers but on!e inside the house. an unli!ensed firearm was !onfis!ated. 7hen there is waiver of right or gives his !onsent" a. LAYA:3E. =<S-D-S.D3> =9<=@9 FS.arris vs. =eople vs.+// !. SeiGure of goods !on!ealed to avoid dutiesEta(es (FalidA =apa vs.14 . d. =amaran. the eviden!e obtained is admissible as eviden!e in any pro!eeding. )ago. @o!sin.. R?9. ()ere suspi!ions not suffi!ient to validate warrantless arrestA 13D . 5EO5LE VS. -s the poli!emen ran after them. Commissioner to the effe!t that it !ould be given by any o!!upant of a hotel room being rented by the respondent is deemed abandonedA d. +/.D =9<=@9 FS.A 4.3 =9<=@9 FS. he do!trine in @opeG vs. 4/' b. D4 SC%. b. /AMASO. +D+ SC%.. @opeG vs. SCRA 9 . D. +D+ SC%. . VEROY VS. )engote. 4D =hil.4 !. 4D SC%.1. =9<=@9. a. ( he poli!emen saw several suspi!ious looking men at dawn who ran when they went near them. F9@<S<. D-)-S<. a. 3. Commissioner. 91. Sin!e the sear!h and seiGure are valid. not 8ust anybody. ++ SC%.'6 ?S +. 5une.1D'.*O<& FS. they instead seiGed an unli!ensed firearm. !. C-. +4D SC%.

Se!. ET AL. -rt. E//IE :3A>O-. :R -O.6. 199. or)ere) "o 7"rip )ow& "o "$eir 8rie(7 '&) e@'#i&e) (or "'""oo #'rL7+ "$'" w$ile e@'#i&'"io& o( "$e 8o)ie7 o( "$e #e& 're 8ei&% co&)uc"e). 7$ou"i&%.134 6. invasion or rebellion ( ( ( (((( he =resident shall have !ontrol of all the e(e!utive departments. VS. 5r. "$e o"$er #ili"'ry #e& co&)uc" 7e'rc$ '&) 7eiJure7 "o e'c$ '&) e*ery $ou7e wi"$ou" ci*ili'& wi"&e77e7 (ro# "$e &ei%$8or7+ 7o#e *ic"i#7 co#pl'i&e) "$'" "$eir #o&ey '&) o"$er *'lu'8le7 were lo7" '7 ' re7ul" o( "$e7e ille%'l oper'"io&7. he respondents !laim that they have legal authority to !ondu!t saturation drives under -rt. F**. LicLi&% "$eir )oor7 ope& . . F** of the Constitution 2utierreG. police '&) #ili"'ry o((icer7 wi"$ou" '&y 7e'rc$ w'rr'&" cor)o& '& 're' o( #ore "$'& o&e re7i)e&ce '&) 7o#e"i#e7 "$e w$ole 8'r'&%'y..e shall ensure that the laws are faithfully e(e!uted. 6. RE-ATO /E VILLA. i& "$e )e') o( "$e &i%$" or e'rly #or&i&% $our7. bureaus and offi!es... T$e 21 pe"i"io&er7 cl'i# "$'" "$e 7'"ur'"io& )ri*e7 co&)uc"e) 8y "$e #ili"'ry i7 i& *iol'"io& o( "$eir $u#'& ri%$"7 8ec'u7e wi"$ &o 7peci(ic "'r%e" $ou7e i& #i&). 7arrantless sear!hes" HGoningsH and Hsaturation drivesH Se!tion 1>. he may !all out su!h armed for!es to prevent or suppress lawless violen!e. 1> of the Constitution whi!h provides: he respondents would want to 8ustify said military operation on the following !onstitutional provisions: he =resident shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed for!es of the =hilippines and whenever it be!omes ne!essary. MAJ.1. Mo7" o( "$e# 're i& ci*ili'& clo"$e7 '&) wKo &'#epl'"e7 or i)e&"i(ic'"io& c'r)7+ "$'" "$e r'i)er7 ru)ely rou7e re7i)e&"7 (ro# "$eir 7leep 8y 8'&%i&% o& "$e w'll7 '&) wi&)ow7 o( "$eir $o#e7. ET AL. 134 . J'&u'ry 3. #a!ts: T$i7 i7 ' pe"i"io& (or 5ro$i8i"io& wi"$ preli#i&'ry i&Au&c"io& "o pro$i8i" #ili"'ry '&) police o((icer7 (ro# co&)uc"i&% OAre'l "'r%e" Jo&i&%7O or O7'"ur'"io& )ri*eO i& Me"ro M'&il' p'r"icul'rly i& pl'ce7 w$ere "$ey 7u7pec" "$'" "$e 7u8*er7i*e7 're $i)i&%. 5. :E-.)e7"royi&% 7o#e! '&) or)eri&% "$e re7i)e&"7 "o co#e ou"+ "$e re7i)e&"7 're $er)e) liLe cow7 '" "$e poi&" o( $i%$ powere) %u&7.

C<)9@9C. ***.4DD. *f the military wants to flush out subversive and !riminal elements.3>'" 9D? FS. *t is basi!ally for the e(e!utive department and the trial !ourts. 4D SC%. . . 2onGales. in!luding the essential and legitimate ones. 9%*C -.owever. . of the Constitution is very !lear as e(plained in %oan vs. 31 SC%. .uman %ights. the same must be !onsistent with the !onstitutional and statutory rights of the people.>6+" =.owever. he problem is appropriate for the Commission of .owever. California. he petition was therefore remanded to the %egional rial Courts of )anila. .3+ ?S 14DA. he government !annot adopt the same reprehensible methods of authoritarian systems both of the right and of the left. he Court believes it highly probable that some violations were a!tually !ommitted. 46. the a!ts violative of human rights alleged by the petitioners as !ommitted during the poli!e a!tions are 9&5<*&9D until su!h time as permanent rules to govern su!h a!tions are promulgated. ." <@9& *&< FS. of for!e is sometimes ne!essary as long as the rights of people are prote!ted and not violated. *n the meantime. 55. . '+ =. $ut the remedy is not to stop all poli!e a!tions. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL CruG.D SC%. 7e have held that te!hni!al ob8e!tions may be brushed aside where there are !onstitutional 0uestions that must be met (%<D%*2?9O FS. the poli!e a!tion of the nature des!ribed by the petitioners would be illegal and blatantly violative of the $ill of %ights.*@.*@C<&S. 5*)9&9O. his is so be!ause -rt. nowhere in the Constitution !an we see a provision whi!h prohibits the Chief 9(e!utive from ordering the military to stop unabated !riminality. rising lawlessness and alarming !ommunist a!tivities. the remedy of the petitioners is not an original a!tion for prohibition sin!e not one vi!tim !omplains and not one violator is properly !harged. -lso. =adilla and Sarmiento. )alabon and =asay City where the petitioners may present eviden!e supporting their allegations so that the erring parties may be pinpointed and prose!uted. it must be pointed out that poli!e a!tions should not be !hara!teriGed by methods that offend oneSs sense of 8usti!e (%o!hin vs.3/1" 2<&O-@9S FS. 143 SC%. 13D SC%4/> and Century #o( vs. Dissenting he ruling of the ma8ority that the petitioners are not proper parties is a spe!ious prete(t for ina!tion. +> 13> .13> .eld: here !an be no 0uestion that under ordinary !ir!umstan!es. all poli!e a!tions are governed by the limitations of the $ill of %ights. Se!tion . Court of -ppeals. C<)9@9C.FS.

*f the offense !ommitted is a serious one like that obtaining in this !ase for murder.9& . *& . then he may not issue said warrant.13/ SC%..9 =9 * *<& #<% .FS.*&2 9Q=9D* *<&S S *2). .*O9D $J @-7 -&D D<C %*&9 Q Q Q * submit that this !ourt should instead !ategori!ally and emphati!ally that these saturation drives are violative of human rights and individual liberty and should be stopped immediately. 1D3 SC%. the Court should also make it !lear that )etro )anila is not su!h a battleground. :O>O VS. %<@-&D< D?%-@ and %9&. #9@*C* -S S9S9 FS. *f the 8udge finds that thereSs probable !ause.S9-%C. and !ompanion !ases. if the !ourt believes that the presen!e of the a!!used !ould be had even without a warrant of arrest.<? 7-%%-& . SAM3L/E VS. &o. -@$-.9 C<&C9= <# .9J C<)9 ?&D9% .D" @-2?&O-D FS. 9 -@. every person is a proper party even if he may not be dire!tly in8ured.9 -CC9= 9D *&S -&C9S 7. %ead: 1. &ote: his !ase involves a minor offenseA +. *** of the !onstitution is very !lear: ?nreasonable sear!hes and seiGures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose is prohibited. Se!tion +. -s su!h. 1966 (&o be!ause a warrant is issued in order to have 8urisdi!tion of the !ourt over the person of an a!!used and to assure the !ourt of his presen!e whenever his !ase is !alled in !ourt. SE5TEM4ER 96. *t is not only the owner of a burning house who has the right to !all the firemen. )-&<@* .< F*@@-&?9F-. 7here liberty is involved. 1''6 (-n &=. @oGada was in fa!t an aberration. SALVA-I.?)*@ and &*C-&<% D?%-@. 3.9 ). <% -& -%%9S )-J $9 )-D9 7* . /1D4>. #*D9@ %-)<S.-$9-S C<%=?S <# %<$9% < ?)*@. C-. must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of !ourseN See the distin!tions. >. TACGA-. 9a!h of us has a duty to prote!t liberty and that alone makes him a proper party. the 5udge must issue a warrant of arrest after determining the e(isten!e of probable !auseA 13/ . Saturation drives are &< -)<&2 . 7hile they may be allowed in the a!tual theater of military operations against the insurgents. 2.+6/A. 5uly '. SCRA 961.1''" D9)9 %*. -rt.13/ SC%.may be arrested without warrant while sleeping or being treated in a hospital be!ause his being a !ommunist rebel is a !ontinuing !rimeA h./.9 #*S.%.9% <# .

. *n his appli!ation for sear!h warrant. . =E@t. a Sunday and -ll Saints Day. his is a petition to annul and set aside the <rder of respondent 5udge D9&J*&2 the motion of the petitioner to 0uash Sear!h 7arrant &o. 1'/>. hand grenades and ammunition intended to be used as the means of !ommitting an offense ( ( (" H+. &9)9S*< =%?D9& 9 FS. $ran!h . the sear!h warrant was enfor!ed by some +66 7=D operatives led by Col. Chief of the *ntelligen!e Spe!ial -!tion Division (*S-DA of the 7estern =oli!e Distri!t (7=DA filed with the %egional rial Court of )anila. hat he has been informed and has good and suffi!ient reasons to believe that &9)9S*< =%?D9& 9 who may be found at the =olyte!hni! ?niversity of the =hilippines ( ( ( has in his !ontrol or possession firearms. 1'/>. hat the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fa!t ( ( ( H. )anila P =eople of the =hilippines.. an appli!ation for the issuan!e of a Sear!h 7arrant for violation of =D 1/44 against the petitioner" +. *n support of said appli!ation. . #loren!io -ngeles e(e!uted a HDeposition of 7itness dated <!tober . #a!ts: 1.9 . e(plosives. 9dgar Dula orre and )a8or )aganto" 13' . 5.. 2% &o. />13 as well as its <rder denying the petitionerSs )otion for %e!onsideration. =E)a8or -lladin Dimagmaliw. % C ..<&. 1'/> . De!ember 13. =E)a8or Dimagmaliw alleged that: H1. 1'/' (9n $an!A Sear!h and seiGure" re0uirementsEre0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant" sear!hing 0uestions =adilla..1. 9Q9C? *F9 5?D29 -$9@-%D< ). D-J%* .13' i. presided by the respondent 5udge. /+/>6.1. Sear!hing 0uestions %ead: D%. <n &ovember 1. <n <!tober .

=rudenteSs offi!e a bulging brown envelope with three live fragmentation hand grenades separately with old newspapers" D. .1D6 3.eld: a. 1'//. the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e. a member of the sear!hing team e(e!uted an affidavit alleging that he found in the drawer of a !abinet inside the wash room of Dr. and parti!ularly des!ribing the pla!e to be sear!hed and the persons or things to be seiGed. 4. there must be probable !ause. before issuing the warrant. <n )ar!h '. -ngeles had no personal knowledge of the fa!ts whi!h formed the basis for the issuan!e of the sear!h warrant" b. the !omplainantSs lone witness. the respondent 8udge denied the motion to 0uash and on -pril +6. %i!ardo -bando. in writing and under oath. *ssue: 7as the Sear!h 7arrant issued by the respondent 8udge validN 7as there probable !auseN . whi!h is to be determined by the 8udge. he Hprobable !auseH for a valid sear!h warrant. the sear!h warrant was a general warrant. the warrant was issued in violation of Cir!ular &o. <n &ovember 4. the petitioner moved to 0uash the sear!h warrant on the grounds that: a. @t. has been defined Has su!h fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es whi!h would lead a reasonably dis!reet and 1D6 . personally e(amine in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers. 1'/>. he probable !ause must be in !onne!tion with one spe!ifi! offense and the 8udge must. 1'/4. <n &ovember +. the e(amination of said witness was not in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers" !. #or a valid sear!h warrant to issue. 1'/>. the same 8udge denied petitionerSs motion for re!onsideration. on fa!ts personally known to them and atta!h to the re!ord their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. for the reason that it did not parti!ularly des!ribe the pla!e to be sear!hed and that it failed to !harge one spe!ifi! offense" and d. after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e.en!e this petition. 1' of the Supreme Court in that the !omplainant failed to allege that the issuan!e of the sear!h warrant on a Saturday was urgent.

*@.e might have !larified this point if there had been sear!hing 0uestions and answers. *n -@F-%9O FS. his probable !ause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the !omplainant or the witnesses he may produ!e and not based on mere hearsay. *t is !lear from the foregoing that the appli!ant and his witness .9 #-C S -&D C*%C?)S -&C9S whi!h be!ame the basis for issuing the 0uestioned sear!h warrant.9& S-*D -==@*C-& F9%*#*9D . do not !ome up to the level of fa!ts based on his personal 1D1 ..-D &< =9%S<&-@ M&<7@9D29 <# .<7 <% *&D*C. C#*. FS. -ngeles de!lared that as a result of !ontinuous surveillan!e for several days. &$*. (Ruintero vs. 5une +. D44A. Despite the fa!t that )a8or Dimagmaliw stated in his affidavit that Hhe verified the information he had earlier re!eived and found it to be a fa!t. the re!ords yield no 0uestions and answers. not of the fa!ts merely reported by a person whom one !onsiders to be reliable.*@.<7 -&D 7. the allegation of the witness.*@. +/ =.9 9-%@*9% *&#<%).9 . (=. . and that the ob8e!ts sought in !onne!tion with the offense are in the pla!e sought to be sear!hedH. C#*. 1'//A. vis-a-vis the said appli!ant. J9 .. @t. )a8or Dimagmaliw de!lared that Hhe has been informedH that &emesio =rudente Hhas in his !ontrol and possessionH the firearms and e(plosivees des!ribed therein.*&2 *& . whether sear!hing or not.H <n the other hand. -DD*S<&.1D1 prudent man to believe that an offense has been !ommitted. but a!0uired knowledge thereof only through information from other sour!es or persons.H ested by the above standards. he oath re0uired must refer to the truth of the fa!ts within the personal knowledge of the appli!ant of a sear!h warrant andEor his witnesses. 44>" -@F-%9O FS.*) -S < 5?S *#J .*@. *n his affidavit.*<& -CR?*%9D $J ." ?S FS. 43 =.. but there were none. SJ 5?C<.*S C<&C@?S*<&.9 %9C<%D < S. they Hgathered information1s from verified sour!esH that the holders of said firearms and e(plosives are not li!ensed t possess them. 43 =. @t. -ngeles. 43 =. *n fa!t.9%9 *S &< . and that he Hhas verified the report and found it to be a fa!t. . it was held that the following test must be !omplied with in an appli!ation for sear!h warrant or in a supporting deposition based on personal knowledge or notH he true test of suffi!ien!y of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuan!e of a sear!h warrant is whether it was drawn in a manner that per8ury !ould be !harged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage !aused.. .

his 0uestions were too brief and short and did not e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers.4'3. the warrant des!ribed the pla!e to be sear!hed as the premises of the =?=. here was also no sear!hing 0uestions asked by the respondent 8udge be!ause as shown by the re!ord.*@. $esides. -s held in Ruintero vs. 1'//. D9 @9<&. 13D SC%. d. 2onGales.H he Court avails of this de!ision to reiterate the stri!t re0uirements for determination of probable !ause in the valid issuan!e of a sear!h warrant as enun!iated in earlier !ases. the 0uestions asked were leading as they !alled for a simple HyesH or HnoH answer. 5une +. <n the !ontrary. Hmere affidavits of the !omplainant and his witnesses are thus insuffi!ient. respondent 8udge did not take the deposition of the appli!ant as re0uired by the %ules of Court. &emesio =rudente. *n the !ase at bar. +3> SC%. Hthe 0uestions propounded are not suffi!iently sear!hing to establish probable !ause. C*%C?@-% &<.1D+ knowledge so mu!h so that he !annot be held liable for per8ury for su!h allegations in !ausing the issuan!e of the 0uestioned sear!h warrant.. F9@<S<. he rule is. !. -sking of leading 0uestions to the deponent in an appli!ation for sear!h warrant and !ondu!ting of e(amination in a general manner would not satisfy the re0uirements for the issuan!e of a valid sear!h warrant.4D6 1D+ . &$*.9 S?=%9)9 C<?% merely provides for a guideline.H b. . here is also no violation of the Hone spe!ifi! offenseH re0uirement !onsidering that the appli!ation for a sear!h warrant e(pli!itly des!ribed the offense: illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under =D 1/44. rue. 1/6A. he e(amining 8udge has to take the depositions in writing of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e and atta!h them to the re!ord. -s held in %oan vs. departure from whi!h would not ne!essarily affe!t the validity of the sear!h warrant provided the !onstitutional re0uirements are !omplied with. more parti!ularly the offi!es of the Department of S!ien!e and a!ti!s as well as the <ffi!e of the =resident. this re0uirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that the !onstitutional right of the individual against unreasonable sear!h and seiGure shall remain both meaningful and effe!tive. a. 3/ =. that a des!ription of a pla!e to be sear!hed is suffi!ient if the offi!er with the warrant !an with reasonable effort as!ertain and identify the pla!e intended (= FS. 1' <# .?$9% 79$$ FS.

5. %ead also: 1. 1+/ SC%. 5uly 4.> SC%. 43 =hil.1. 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures--when valid or not.1'/> (7hen the statements in the affidavits of witnesses are mere generalities.D31 /. (7hen the 0uestions asked to the appli!ant for a sear!h warrant was pre-typed. Chief of Staff.. De )ulata vs.1'/4 11.. #a!ts: 1. =9&D<& FS. C-. -lvareG vs.// (Depositions of the appli!ants and witnesses should be atta!hed to the re!ord of the !aseA >. 13> SC%. :E. 1D. &ovember 14. )arinas vs. Cesar. 13D 4/> 4. 5uly .3+. @una vs. $ayona. .. 1'/>. Sep"e#8er 99./66 16. =. <n 5anuary +6. RICAR/O VALMO-TE VS. 1.D'' .1D. vs. 2onGales. -pril 1D. . (7hen the appli!ant is basing his knowledge from an informant. -minnudin J -hni. 163 SC%. &olas!o vs =ano. -ber!a vs. +4 SC%. the &C%DC installed !he!kpoints in various parts of FalenGuela. C#*. Fer. 1D' SC%..+16 3. Corro vs. September 13. )etro )anila. $urgos vs. %oan vs. *gnalaga. =. . SC%.1. the warrant is not validA 1.. -s part of its duty to maintain pea!e and order. :R -o. =anganiban vs.1'// 1+.1'// +. the same is not valid sin!e there !ould have been no sear!hing 0uestionsA 8.D6' '. 63966. 4+ SC%. Sio!hi. =onsi!a vs. 1''6. and not positive statements of parti!ular a!ts. $urgos. 1969 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures" validity of !he!kpoints =adilla. )ata vs. the &ational Capital %egion Distri!t Command (&C%DCA was a!tivated with the mission of !ondu!ting se!urity operations within its area of responsibility for the purpose of maintaining pea!e and order. vs. 1. D.. the same is not validA +. @ising. mere !on!lusions of law. *riGari. =laGa.RE-ATO /E VILLA.. %ead: 1.

7here. !apri!ious and whimsi!al disposition of the military authorities manning the !he!kpoints !onsidering that their !ars and vehi!les are being sub8e!ted to regular sear!hes and !he!k-ups. Commonwealth. the supply offi!er of the )uni!ipality of FalenGuela was gunned down in !old blood by the military men manning the !he!kpoints for ignoring or refusing to submit himself to the !he!kpoint and for !ontinuing to speed off inspite of several warning shots fired in the air. 1D3 . *ssue: 7hether or not the e(isten!e of said !he!kpoints as well as the periodi! sear!hes and seiGures made by the military authorities without sear!h warrant validN . espe!ially at night or dawn. 2aina. 1'// at dawn. these do not !onstitute unreasonable sear!h.A. the offi!er merely draws aside the !urtain of a va!ant vehi!le whi!h is parked on a publi! fair grounds (=eople vs. Case.. for e(ample. <n 5uly '.eld: =etitionersS !on!ern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the !he!kpoints are not suffi!ient grounds to de!lare the !he!kpoints as per se illegal. the residents of FalenGuela. +. hose whi!h are reasonable are not forbidden. )etro )anila may be !onsidered as se!urity measure to effe!tively maintain pea!e and order and to thwart plots to destabiliGe the government. the apprehensions of the residents of FalenGuela in!reased be!ause $en8amin =arpon.1D3 =etitioners !laim that be!ause of these !he!kpoints. he setting up of !he!kpoints in FalenGuela. the Court may take 8udi!ial noti!e of the shift to urban !enters and their suburbs of the insurgen!y movement. )) are worried of being harassed and of their safety being pla!ed at the arbitrary. or flashes a light therein (%owland vs. 1'6 )7 +/'A.reasonable sear!h is not to be determined by any fi(ed formula but is to be resolved a!!ording to the fa!ts of ea!h !ase. '> S9 4+A.H not to mention the abundan!e of unli!ensed firearms. &ot all sear!hes and seiGures are prohibited. or simply looks into a vehi!le (State vs. . *n this !onne!tion. without the benefit of a sear!h warrant andEor !ourt order. so !learly refle!ted in the in!reased killings in !ities of poli!e and military men by &=-Ss Hsparrow units. +D' S7 .

RESOL3TIOOTHE MOTIORECO-SI/ERATIO-. Cendana. -ugust 4.9S9 -$&<%)-@ *)9S -%9 =-% <# . 1''6 1-!. the military !he!kpoints in )etro )anila were temporarily lifted and a review and refinement of the rules in the !ondu!t of the poli!e and military manning the !he!kpoints upon order of the &C%DC Chief.9 C* *O9&.9%9& %*2.-. $i5al Ali2 vs..9 =%*C9 79 =-J #<% -& <%D9%@J S<C*9 J -&D =9-C9#?@ C<))?&* J.-@@ =%9F-*@. 55. Castiller. Howe*er. %ead also: 1-a. <# .. dissenting: he bland de!laration by the ma8ority that individual rights must yield to the demands of national se!urity ignores the fa!t that the $ill of %ights was intended pre!isely to limit the authority of the State even if asserted on the ground of national se!urity.OR .*<& < . . D*SC<)#<% -&D 9F9& *%%* . June 0:. 1''6 1DD . 7. held that military and poli!e !he!kpoints are not illegal as these measures to prote!t the government and safeguards the lives of the people. +en. .1DD $9 799& . -OT 4O/ILY SEARCH. rue.9 < =%< 9C * S 9Q*S 9&C9 -&D =%<)< 9 =?$@*C 79@#-%9 -&D -& *&D*F*D?-@SS %*2. . = s.*C.9 C<S <# <CC-S*<&-@ *&C<&F9&*9&C9.9 S .9CM=<*& S D?%*&2 .7-%%-& @9SS S9-%C. $? .<79F9% %9-S<&-$@J C<&D?C 9D. #inally. 1'//. J3-E 11. the manning of these !he!kpoints by the military is sus!eptible of abuse by the men in uniform. "$e Supre#e Cour" $el) (ur"$er "$'" "$e #ili"'ry o((icer7 #'&&i&% "$e c$ecLpoi&"7 #'y co&)uc" VIS3AL SEARCH O-LY. *S . in the same manner that all governmental power is sus!eptible to abuse. vs./ 1-b. 199. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril.9 C. 1''6. it must be emphasiGed that on 5uly 1>. he !he!kpoints are legal as where the survival of the organiGed government is on the balan!e.9 *&. Castro. <!tober 1>. -2-*&S . CruG and Sarmiento. =. Fery *mportant: he Supreme Court in its %esolution of the )otion for %e!onsideration dated 1D 5une.9 #<%)9% S.

4D SC%. 5uly . 2. hereafter. CruG.1'// +.1D4 1-d.D4+ . /1D16. 7arrantless sear!hes and arrests 1D4 . -r!a. )ago.. July 1. 1''6 +. Claudio. =a!is vs.%. /EL ROSARIO. Fivo./D> .DD/ m. . vs. (-fter the informant was given by the poli!e the amount of =166.. as +. . 5une +4.D /.1'/D %ules on Crimial =ro!edure.+'' 3./4 D. C-. )ay a non-8udi!ial offi!er issue a warrant of arrestN (&<A %ead: 1. =. said gun is inadmissible in eviden!e. &<. @im vs. D4 SC%. he arrest is not valid sin!e it does not fall under Se!tion D %ule 11.' SC%1D+ '. Se!. =residential -nti\Dollar Salting ask #or!e vs. = vs. 1992.A @ikewise. =ano.434 ( here is a valid warrantless sear!h when a &-%C<) (now =D9-A offi!er arrests the person who owns a bag whi!h !ontains mari8uana whi!h he found out when he smelled the same. <laes.S-@-O-% FS.4 >. C-..arvey vs. he went to buy mari8uana from the a!!used then returned to the poli!e head0uarters with said arti!le. =apa vs. 161 SC%.6.4 3. +. )ar!h 14. 1'/' l. 146 SC%. +// SC%. )oreno vs. vs.. = vs. )ar!h 13. 1''6 (9n ban!A D.ere .. =amaran. 13> SC%. %ule 1+4. there is a probable !ause sin!e he has personal knowledge due to his e(pertise on drugsA 11. Commisioner.66.14 4. =roperties sub8e!t to seiGure %ead: 1 amended 2 1. . ++ SC%. . +6 SC%. C#*. the poli!emen went to arrest the a!!used without warrant.D6' P 1.. 14D SC%.<% 9&C*.1.-C<S<. =on!e de @eon. 5EO5LE VS. =. 4D SC%. 9S=-&< FS. 44 SC%. %oldan vs.<& <)-S -C. after se!uring a sear!h warrant authoriGing the seiGure of shabu and its paraphernalia and an unli!ensed firearm was seiGed instead. @opeG vs. k.. )iriam Defensor-Santiago. &olas!o vs.

5anuary 1/.+ ($uy-bust operationA . +46 SC%. 1''6 1-g. =. %ule 11. 1''6 1-e. I&)ee). =9<=@9 FS.1+1 SC%. =osadas vs. 311 SCRA 926 )endoGa. C-. 5r. Su!ro. 1'/' 1-b. De!. 1''1 +-e. 2at!halian vs. +D/ SC%.. 5. =9<=@9 FS.> SC%43> 1-!. =9<=@9 FS. vs./ +-a. = vs.. $urgos. Co&7i)eri&% "$'" "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" w'7 &o" co##i""i&% ' cri#e '" "$e "i#e $e w'7 'rre7"e) &or )i) "$e 'rre7"i&% o((icer $'*e '&y per7o&'l L&owle)%e o( ('c"7 i&)ic'"i&% "$'" 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" co##i""e) ' cri#e. C-.+DD +-f. -ug. C-. %olito 2o vs. C?*S<&. 1'//. $ati. =eople vs. =. "$e pro7ecu"io& ')#i""e) "$'" "$ere w'7 &o w'rr'&" o( 'rre7" i77ue) '%'i&7" 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" w$e& "$e l'""er w'7 "'Le& i&"o cu7"o)y.. =9<=@9 FS.1. =on!e 9nrile.. de la CruG. as amended n. $oard. :ALVE>. -ugust +>. )orales vs. 1D> .1// +-i. T$e police#'& 'rre7"e) "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" o& "$e 8'7i7 7olely o( w$'" Rey&'l)o C'7"ro $') "ol) $i# '&) &o" 8ec'u7e $e 7'w "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" co##i" "$e cri#e c$'r%e) '%'i&7" $i#. 1''6 1-a. =. 2% &o. De la CruG 1-f. +D4 SC%. 1''6 (Compare with =. <=<S-D-S FS.3> P 1. )aspil. )ay . +. supraA 1-d. vs. 5uly 4.1D> %ead: 1. =. 1''+ 1-h. +1+ SC%.D. =eople vs.D. -minnudin.-&. Se!. vs.D3> +-h. 11. if the arrest was illegal. 5udge irso Felas!o. vs. ortiG.+D +-g.. 2ar!ia-=adilla vs.. =eople vs. /3444. ( he alleged illegality of the arrest is deemed waived upon posting of the bond by the a!!usedA 5EO5LE VS. 1+1 SC%. vs. vs. 9ffe!t posting bail or entering a plea during the arraignment. #eb. $i7 'rre7" wi"$ou" ' w'rr'&" c'&&o" 8e Au7"i(ie). 133 SC%.314 +-!. 5?. 1''1 +. -ugust +6. D-)-S<. )ar!h 1/. 1''1 +-d. +4+ SC%. . 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure. )anuel et al. #ebruary '.1 +-b. 9nrile. 1/3 SC%. 4. S<@-J-<. )ati.

9%7*S9. Callanta vs.3'1 o . @-=?%-.33 SC%. +DD SC%. 5udi!ial pronoun!ements on illegally seiGed .+++ =9<=@9 FS. D.9 #-C S =<*& < . =enalty for illegal arrest %ead: =alon vs.9 2?*@ J 7.9 <# * S %*2.9& -@@ . &-=<@C<).133 ?J FS. ./D =9<=@9 FS.9 S . +46 SC%. Fillanueva.9 -CC?S9D.. >> SC%. $*%.C<?% -CR?*%9S 5?%*SD*C *<& <F9% . )ay +/. S*@-&.9 =9%S<& <# -& -CC?S9D )?S $9 )-D9 $9#<%9 . * *S &<7 S9 @9D . < C<&F*C . by entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment..7-%%-& <# -%%9S <% . &-O-%9&<.+D4 #*@< 9< FS.9 C?@=-$*@* J <# . C-. 1'/' p.*S =@9-. +>.9 -%%9S 7-S *@@92-@ D<9S &< %9&D9% . +46 SC%.. 7hat is the status of a do!ument obtained through subpoenaN %ead: Dianalan vs. . SC%. &ov.. the a!!used-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. . 143 SC%. C<@?)$*. he e(!lusionary rule. +41 SC%.. .4 1D/ eviden!e.9 S?$S9R?9& =%<C99D*&2S F<*D -&D D9=%*F9 .3'3 n.9 9& 9%S . +D3 SC%.1DD SC%.+D4 =9<=@9 FS. 1''6 r. 3. &-O-%9&<. < . . +4. <ffi!e of the anodbayan. =ros.4 0. C-. +..>> =9<=@9 FS..4DD ( he master !opy of the allegedly pirated tape should be presented before the 8udge in order to !onvin!e him of the e(isten!e of probable !auseA +. 164 SC%- . %ead: 1. Century #o( vs. S-&D*2-&$-J-&.owever.<$59C *<& < . 4.=*C ?%9S FS.9 =%<C9D?%9 $J 7. Sear!h warrant for pirated video tapes 1.1D/ .9 <$59C *<& *S D99)9D 7-*F9D.*C.9 #-C .

-==@*9S <&@J 7. *n this !ase. . .*&2 <$59C . *n determining probable !ause. with reasonable effort. . he warrant issued must parti!ularly des!ribe the pla!e to be sear!hed and the person or things to be seiGed. $e &ee) &o" 8e i& $i7 $o#e or o((ice. THE SEARCH 0ARRA-T IS SE5ARA4LE.. wi"$i& ' (e&ce) y'r) or pri*'"e pl'ce. Ju7" 8ec'u7e "$e #'riAu'&' pl'&"7 were (ou&) i& '& u&(e&ce) lo" )oe7 &or pre*e&" "$e 'ppell'&" (ro# i&*oLi&% "$e pro"ec"io& '((or)e) 8y "$e Co&7"i"u"io&.*&2 #<% 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S . he warrant must be issued upon probable !ause" +. 0ITHO3T /ESTROYI-: THE 0HOLE 0ARRA-T.or ' per7o& "o 8e i##u&e '%'i&7" u&re'7o&'8le 7e'rc$e7 '&) 7eiJure7. most of the items listed in the warrants fail to meet the test of parti!ularity. espe!ially sin!e the witness had furnished the 8udge photo!opies of the do!uments sought to be seiGed. vague or doubtful basis of fa!t.9 -CC?S9D. w$ic$ #'y Au7"i(y ' 7e'rc$ wi"$ou" w'rr'&". T$e Eplain vie?F doctrine. $-?@-.33 SC%. w$ic$ i&clu)e7 $i7 re7i)e&ce.44. T$e ri%$" '%'i&7" u&re'7o&'8le 7e'rc$ '&) 7eiJure i7 "$e i##u&i"y o( o&eN7 per7o&. nor on mere suspi!ion or belief.9%9 . the 8udge must e(amine under oath and affirmation the !omplainant and su!h witnesses as the latter may produ!e" and 3. 321 SCRA 91 T$e pro"ec"io& '%'i&7" u&re'7o&'8le 7e'rc$ '&) 7eiJure co*er7 8o"$ i&&oce&" '&) %uil"y 'liLe '%'i&7" '&y (or# o( $i%$$'&)e)&e77 o( l'w e&(orce7. p'per7 '&) o"$er po77e77io&7. as!ertain and identify the pla!e intended and distinguish it from other pla!es in the !ommunity.9 =<@*C9 <##*C9% *S &< S9-%C.1D' he following are the re0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant: 1. 5EO5LE VS.des!ription of the pla!e to be sear!hed is suffi!ient if the offi!er with the warrant !an. Sear!h warrants are not issued on loose. =9<=@9 FS. A-/ THOSE ITEMS -OT 5ARTIC3LARLY /ESCRI4E/ MAY 4E C3T O. he probable !ause must be determined by the 8udge himself and not by appli!ant or any other person" .. $? *&-DF9% 9& @J C<)9S -C%<SS -& *&C%*)*&. VAL/E>. 1D' .

! A& 'lle%e) co&7e&" "o ' w'rr'&"le77 7e'rc$ '&) 7eiJure c'&&o" 8e 8'7e) #erely o& "$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y i& "$e per(or#'&ce o( o((ici'l )u"y. or w$e& pu8lic 7'(e"y or or)er reCuire7 o"$erwi7e '7 pre7cri8e) 8y l'w.5EO5LE VS..9 %*2.uman Se!urity -!tE-nti.. . 9Q*S S" . it is fundamental that to !onstitute waiver.I-/IVI/3AL. THE 5RES3M5TIO. . of the e(isten!e of su!h right. A-/ >EAL I.-D M&<7@9D29. %epubli! -!t &o.THE 53RS3IT O... +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA =lease observe the pro!edure in obtaining the BT$e 0'rr'&" <or Or)er= o( Sur*eill'&ceD. T$e pri*'cy o( co##u&ic'"io& '&) corre7po&)e&ce 7$'ll 8e i&*iol'8le e@cep" upo& l'w(ul or)er o( "$e cour". 9* . CRIMI-ALS CA--OT E--O4LE THE 3SE O.9 =9%S<&S *&F<@F9D . 9.errorism @aw.3EROA. CHA5TER IV THE RI:HT TO 5RIVACY Sec"io& 3.-%29D <# 9%%<%*S) 146 . -pproved on )ar!h 4.9% -C ?-@ <% C<&S %?C *F9. A. S?%F9*@@-&C9 <# S?S=9C S -&D *& 9%C9= *<& -&D %9C<%D*&2 <# C<))?&*C. '. July 6. +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D.>+.*<&S <# S?S=9C S <% C. -ei"$er w'7 "$e 7e'rc$ i&ci)e&"'l "o ' *'li) w'rr'&"le77 'rre7". * )?S -==9-% .ITSEL. CA--OT 5REVAIL A:AI-ST THE CO-STIT3TIO-ALLY 5ROTECTE/ RI:HTS O. not found in the 1'/> =hilippine Constitution. T$e "$ir) co&)i"io& )i) &o" e@i7" i& "$e i&7"'&" c'7e.4Y ITSEL.I. A&y e*i)e&ce o8"'i&e) i& *iol'"io& o( "$i7 or "$e prece)i&% 7ec"io& 7$'ll 8e i&')#i77i8le (or '&y purpo7e i& '&y procee)i&%.146 I& c'7e o( co&7e&"e) 7e'rc$e7 or w'i*er o( "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l %u'r'&"ee '%'i&7" o8"ru7i*e 7e'rc$e7. A4HORS. AR4ITRARY METHO/S THAT THE CO-STIT3TIO. %ead: %ead: &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the .

the original appli!ation of the appli!ant. Surveillan!e of suspe!ts and inter!eption and re!ording of !ommuni!ations. !onversations. or spoken or written words of any person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism. to e(tend or renew the same. and re!ord !ommuni!ations. a poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial and the members of his team may. =rovided. inter!eption and re!ording of !ommuni!ations between lawyers and !lients. or spoken or written words between members of a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation.he written order of the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals to tra!k down. 141 . #ormal -ppli!ation for 5udi!ial -uthoriGation.3+66 (-nti-7iretapping @awA to the !ontrary notwithstanding. he written order granted by the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals as well as its order. message. inter!ept and re!ord. hat surveillan!e. form or kind or type of ele!troni! or other surveillan!e e0uipment or inter!epting and tra!king devi!es. or is about to be !ommitted" • hat there is probable !ause to believe based on personal knowledge of fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that eviden!e whi!h is essential to the !onvi!tion of any !harged or suspe!ted person for. shall only be granted by the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals ?=<& -& 9Q-=-% 9 written appli!ation of a poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial who has been duly authoriGed in writing by the -ntierrorism Coun!il !reated in Se!tion D. dis!ussions. or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose. 3e tion 8. or is being !ommitted.. asso!iation. in!luding his appli!ation to e(tend or renew. !onversation. of this -!t to file su!h e(-parte appli!ation. @. do!tors and patients. listen. 3e . with the use of any mode. he provisions of %. tap.141 3e tion 7. messages. 8ournalists and their sour!es and !onfidential business !orresponden!e shall not be authoriGed. inter!ept. Classifi!ation and Contents of the <rder of the Court. upon a written order of the Court of -ppeals. or to the solution or prevention of any su!h !rimes. and upon e(amination under oath and affirmation of the appli!ant and the witnesses who may produ!e to establish: • hat there is probable !ause to believe based on personal knowledge of fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that the said !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism has been !ommitted. will be obtained" and • hat there is no other effe!tive means readily available for a!0uiring su!h eviden!e. if any. or group of persons or of any person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism. listen to. dis!ussion. any !ommuni!ation.

in !ase of radio. and the written authoriGations of the -nti. the appli!ant poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial shall immediately notify the person sub8e!t of the surveillan!e. and re!ording of the termination of the said 14+ • • • . if known. listened to. su!h person shall be sub8e!t to !ontinuous surveillan!e provided there is reasonable ground to do so" he identity (name and address.6 days from the e(piration of the original periodV he e(-parte appli!ation for renewal has been duly authoriGed by the -nti-terrorism Coun!il in writing. he written order of the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppeals shall spe!ify the following: • he identity. su!h as name and address. or being !ommitted. !onversations. bugged or re!orded by law enfor!ement authorities has the right to be informed of the a!ts done by the law enfor!ement authorities in the premises or to !hallenge. !onversations. if he or she intends to do so. tapped. of the !harged of suspe!ted persons whose !ommuni!ations. messages. and re!orded and their lo!ations if the person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism is not fully known. inter!epted or re!orded and. dis!ussions. 10. the legality of the interferen!e before the Court of -ppeals whi!h issued said written order. and re!ord the !ommuni!ations. 3e tion. !onversations. inter!ept. or spoken or written words" he offense or offenses !ommitted. or spoken or written words.errorism Coun!il shall be deemed and are hereby de!lared as !lassified information: =rovided. 9ffe!tive =eriod of 5udi!ial -uthoriGation.6-day period. listened to. messages. inter!eption.may e(tend or renew the said authoriGation for another non-e(tendible period. spoken or written words and effe!ts have been monitored. listen to. messages. tapped. whi!h shall not e(!eed . inter!epted. or spoken or written words are to be tra!ked down.6 days from the date of re!eipt of the written order of the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppeals by the appli!ant poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial. listened to. papers. hat the person being surveilled or whose !ommuni!ations. !onversations. the ele!troni! transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tra!ked down. or telephone (whether wireless or otherwiseA !ommuni!ations. whi!h shall not e(!eed . letters. he C. dis!ussions. *f no !ase is filed within the . or sought to be prevented" and he length of time whi!h the authoriGation shall be used or !arried out. ele!troni!. messages. dis!ussions. tap. -ny authoriGation granted by the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppealsV shall only be effe!tive for the length of time spe!ified in the written order of the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals. and the poli!e or law enfor!ement organiGationA of the members of his team 8udi!ially authoriGed to tra!k down.14+ if any. dis!ussions.

trust a!!ounts.designated as spe!ial !ourt to handle antiterrorism !ases after satisfying themselves of the e(isten!e of probable !ause in a hearing !alled for that purpose that: • • • . messages. and re!ords from a bank or finan!ial institution. @92*S@. 8udi!ial authoriGation re0uired to e(amine bank deposits. <% .person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation. R?-S*-5?D*C*-@.*S -C . may authoriGe in writing any poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!er and the members of his team duly authoriGed in writing by the anti-terrorism !oun!il to: 1.TO EEAMI-E 4A-F /E5OSITS. when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of -ppeals. pla!ements. J3/ICIAL A3THORI>ATIO. a!!ounts and re!ords. trust a!!ounts. gather or !ause the gathering of any relevant information about su!h deposits. -ppli!ation to e(amine deposits. . . inter!eption and re!ording. B=enalty to be imposed on the poli!e offi!ial who fails to inform the person sub8e!t of surveillan!e of the termination of the surveillan!e. the deposits.authoriGing the e(amination of bank deposits. A-/ RECOR/S O. assets and re!ords: 14.9-%*&2. a!!ounts and re!ords. 3e tion 15. he bank or finan!ial institution shall not refuse to allow su!h e(amination or to provide the desired information. asso!iation or group of persons. surveillan!e. pla!ements. and re!orded !ommuni!ations. S. inter!eption and re!ording shall be penaliGed to 16 years and 1 day to 1+ years.*F9. he 8usti!es of C. ACCO3-TS. =%<C99D*&2. <% -D)*&*S %. inter!epted. and re!ords in a bank or finan!ial institution" and +. *&R?*%J.-@@ -$S<@? 9@J &< $9 -D)*SS*$@9 -&D ?S-$@9 -S 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S -&J$<DJ *& -&J 5?D*C*-@.-F9 $99& S9C?%9D *& F*<@.14.*C. he written order of the C. assets. 9videntiary Falue of Deposited )aterials.*<&. 28.*F9 *&F9S *2. assets. pla!ements. monitoring. !onversationsV7.*<& <# . -ny listened to. trust a!!ounts.9 =9% *&9& =%<F*S*<&S <# . 3e . e(amine or !ause the e(amination of. S3S5ECTE/ OR CHAR:E/ TERRORISTS Se!tion +>.

September 1'..-@@ <&@J $9 2%-& 9D $J . assets and re!ords of: • • • ..9##9C <# .143 • • • . work sheets.9 -? . CA. D6+ SC%. trust a!!ounts. assets and re!ords: • • • <f . 0uasi-8udi!ial. summaries. 3e tion A5.?=<& -& 9Q-=-% 9 -==@*C. e(!erpts. asso!iation or group of persons. . notes. memoranda.*<& < .<%*O*&2 D*F*S*<& <# . asso!iation or group of persons. legislative or administrative investigation.e8ru'ry 1.person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation.person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation.=<@*C9 <% @-7 9&#<%C9)9& <##*C*-@ who has been duly authoriGed by the -nti. +664. pla!ements. in a bank or finan!ial institution-S. pro!eeding or hearing.-ny information. 1. C-$-@R?*& <. 1996 143 .person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation. shall absolutely not be admissible and usable as eviden!e against anybody in any 8udi!ial. reports or do!uments a!0uired from the e(amination of the bank deposits. >3L3ETA VS. in0uiry. -whi!h have been se!ured in violation of the provisions of this -!t. pla!ements. asso!iation or group of persons. trust a!!ounts. data.31' 9.errorism Coun!il to file su!h e(-parte appli!ation and upon e(amination under oath or affirmation of the appli!ant and his witnesses he may produ!e to establish the fa!ts that will 8ustify the need and urgen!y of e(amining and freeGing the bank deposits. 9videntiary value of deposited bank materials..9 C. =9<=@9 FS.

affe!ts the life and liberty of every #ilipino !itiGens and foreign residents and therefore. he -< was 0uestioned by Senator <ple on the following grounds: 1. he appropriation of publi! funds for the implementation of the said -< is un!onstitutional sin!e Congress has the e(!lusive authority to appropriate funds for su!h e(penditure" and . 1996 =uno.*<& %9#9%9&C9 SJS 9). July 93. is !on!erned with the work of applying poli!ies and enfor!ing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. %-)<S issued -dministrative <rder &o. he establishment of the =%& without any law is an un!onstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of the Congress of the =hilippines" +. -dministrative =ower.6/ entitled :-D<= *<& <# . O5LE VS. whi!h is supposed to be e(er!ised by the =resident. she used the same in their legal separation !ase. TORRES.&<@<2J . hereafter. then =resident #*D9@ F. . 1''4. 3. not by an -dministrative <rder issued by the =resident. . his is so be!ause the intima!ies of husband and wife does not 8ustify the breaking of !abinets to determine marital infidelity. he -< violates the !itiGen1s right to priva!y prote!ted by the $ill of %ights of the Constitution..&. *t enables the =resident to fi( a uniform standard of administrative effi!ien!y and !he!k the offi!ial !ondu!t of his agents. Said do!uments are inadmissible in eviden!e.6/ involves a sub8e!t that is not appropriate to be !overed by an -dministrative <rder. -< .14D he wife for!ibly opened the drawers at the !lini! of her do!torhusband and took diaries.eld: 1. he -< establishes a system of identifi!ation that is all-en!ompassing in s!ope.. he -< seeks to have all #ilipino !itiGens and foreign residents to have a =opulation %eferen!e &umber (=%&A generated by the &ational Statisti!s <ffi!e (&S<A through the use of $*<)9 %*CS 9C. =res!inding from the foregoing pre!epts. it is supposed to be a law passed by Congress that implements it. !he!ks and greeting !ards of his alleged paramours. 5. -n administrative order is an ordinan!e issued by 14D .*<&-@ C<)=? 9%*O9D *D9& *#*C. #a!ts: <n De!ember 1+.

. ET AL. *t must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and !arrying out the legislative poli!y. +664 4AYA.. 7* . *t is the !onfirmation of an individual1s identity through a fingerprint. 9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J 9D?-%D< 9%)* -. 9. may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes" but the e(isten!e of this vast reservoir of personal information !onstitutes a !overt invitation to misuse.<? #9-% <# S-&C *<& <% =9&-@ J. <% 7<%S9. -& *& %?D9%.9F9% =?%=<S9.9 -CC9SS C<D9 <# . -< &o. C-& )-M9 ?S9 <# .M3-A VS.6/ is un!onstitutional sin!e it falls short of assuring that personal information gathered about our people will be used only for spe!ified purposes thereby violating the !itiGen1s right to priva!y. the government offi!es has the !han!e of building a huge and formidable information base through the ele!troni! linkage of the files of every !itiGen. the -< does not even tells us in !lear and une0uivo!al terms how these informations gathered shall be handled.9 SJS 9). hese fa!tors are essential to safeguard the priva!y and guaranty the integrity of the information. M*@?S-&2 )-J< ?&< FS.9 =-% *C?@-% C<)=? 9% SJS 9) *S $%<M9&. -pril 1'. hrough the =%&...9 D.S <%9D 7* . . he sub8e!t of -< .&<@<2J. . he -< likewise violates the right to priva!y sin!e its main purpose is to provide a :!ommon referen!e number to establish a linkage among !on!erned agen!ies through the use of $*<)9 %*CS 9C. #urther.#<% 7. he data.144 the =resident whi!h relates to spe!ifi! aspe!ts in the administrative operation of the government.6 144 . )-&*=?@. *t does not provide who shall !ontrol and a!!ess the data and under what !ir!umstan!es and for what purpose.9 C<& %<@ =%<2%-)S <# . however.9 D.9& . April 19. +.6/ therefore is beyond the power of the =resident to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative power. hand geometry or fa!ial features.. retinal s!an. +664 P 5une +6.. he !omputer linkage gives other government agen!ies a!!ess to the information.. J9 .*& .*<&S. 9 -@. 9.9 .9%9 -%9 &< C<& %<@S < 2?-%D -2-*&S @9-M-29 <# *&#<%). $iometry is the s!ien!e of the appli!ation of statisti!al methods to biologi!al fa!ts" a mathemati!al analysis of a biologi!al data. EEEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA. a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist.6 H Ju&e 9. 7..

3DDA. 29.%.*@C<)S. 1>3. Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu!ed =hilippine Senate %esolution &o. of the =etition in 2. %amos that the same is un!onstitutional be!ause :a national *D !ard system re0uires legislation be!ause it !reates a new national data !olle!tion and !ard issuan!e system.'c"7I <n #ebruary +6. :OR/O-. 1>3. it infringes on the !itiGen1s right to priva!y .A. SA4IO *7. CAMILO L.6/.6/B&ational !omputeriGed *dentifi!ation %eferen!e SystemC issued by then =resident #idel F.. Mul"iGpurpo7e I)e&"i(ic'"io& Sy7"e# 8y 'll :o*er&#e&" A%e&cie7 i& "$e E@ecu"i*e /ep'r"#e&". he Supreme Court likewise held that 9< . "$'" #'&)'"e7 "$e A)op"io& o( ' 3&i(ie). his is so despite the fa!t that the Supreme Court held in an 9n $an! de!ision in 1''/ <=@9 FS. +664. &o. where none e(isted before.36. $ased on the <ple ruling. and =.4B3C -nne( :9.14> Carpio.4 B3C :dire!ting an in0uiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses in!urred by the =hilippines <verseas ele!ommuni!ations Corporation (=< CA. &o. 5... . usurpation of legislative powers" and b.CA due . =resident 2loria )a!apagal--rroyo issued 5re7i)e&"i'l 5rocl'#'"io& -o. 9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J %?$9& <%%9S -dministrative <rder &o.6/ as un!onstitutional for it violates the !itiGen1s right to priva!y. 3+6 is un!onstitutional on two (+A grounds: a. =hilippine Communi!ations Satellite Corporation (=. 2.eld: he said 9(e!utive <rder &o. 3+6 does not violate the !itiGen1s right to priva!y sin!e it does not re0uire all the !itiGens to be issued a national *D as what happened in -< . &o.oldings Corporation (=. 5.1/. D63 SC%.%. <!tober 1>. <nly those dealing or employed with the said government entities who are re0uired to provide the re0uired information for the issuan!e of the said *D.>63 Sandoval-2utierreG. the petitioners !laimed that =ro!lamation &o.*@C<)S. 14> . T$e . +664. 3DD (Senate %es.

O. of the =etition in 2. /+ 9DS-. any form of intrusion is impermissible unless e(!used . &o. inviting him to be one of the resour!e persons in the publi! meeting 8ointly !ondu!ted by the Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices.%. <n )ay /. &o. 14/ .1/. 1 earlier 0uoted. of the =etition in 2. one of the herein petitioners.en!e. +664. -o. &o.14/ to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe!tive $oard of Dire!tors. 1>3. he purpose of the publi! meeting was to deliberate on Senate %es. Chief of Staff %io C. *no!en!io.. <n September 1+. 3DD./B>C A" "$e 7'#e "i#e..>B4C . -nne( :2. &o.. Sabio of the =C22./B>C -nne( :#. -rroyo and )embers. )a8or 2eneral $ala8adia arrested Chairman Sabio in his offi!e at *%C $uilding.1/.. . +664. under the authority of Senator %i!hard 5.>B4C <n )ay '..%.8! o( E. 2ordon. )andaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained. their Chairmen. wrote Chairman Camilo @.m. 1>3. at around 16:3D a.'B34C 7ithin these Gones. Senators %i!hard 2ordon and 5oker =. Chairman Sabio filed with the Supreme Court a petition for 2a'eas corpus against the Senate Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices. I S S 3 E SI *s the investigation !ondu!ted on the petitioners violative of their right to priva!yN H E L /I Oones of priva!y are re!ogniGed and prote!ted in our laws. +664. Chairman Sabio and other !ommissioners of the =C22 de!lined the invitation be!ause of prior !ommitment. "$ey i&*oLe) Sec"io& 2.

to ?2om and ?2en information a'out 2imself s2all 'e disclosed. !iting *.d . '4 Cal.d +. %ptr. %ptr. Sec"io& 3 renders inviolable the :pri*'cy o( co##u&ic'"io& '&) corre7po&)e&ce.14' by law and in a!!ordan!e with !ustomary legal pro!ess. -!ademy of -S9-& @aw and 5urispruden!e. &o. See Sat5 v. Srivda (1'>1A D Cal.%. *t highlights a person1s :rig2t to 'e let alone. D+' = +d D'6 (1'>3A. +d 3D>.7B89 <ur $ill of %ights. ++ SC%. and :the rig2t most valued 'y civili5ed men.oldin*" Corporation e%hi4it a rea"ona4le e%pe tation of pri!a yC+ '&) 7eco&).. parti!ularly Bo& "$e '&o#'lou7 lo77e7 i&curre) 8y "$e 5$ilippi&e O*er7e'7 . *&S9% . D63 =. D+1.S.uman %ights. Sison.1.uman %ights whi!h mandates that./>. and :everyone 2as t2e rig2t to t2e protection of t2e la? against suc2 interference or attac@s. See Morfe v. &o. !nited states (1'4>A. . 1.. // S. 1. provides at least two guarantees that e(pli!itly !reate Gones of priva!y. did the *o!ern(ent !iolate "# h e%pe tationR he answers are in the negative. > (1'>6A.16D Cal.-4+3. 3/4 =. p'per7 '&) e((ec"7 '%'i&7" u&re'7o&'8le 7e'rc$e7 '&) 7eiJure7 o( w$'"e*er &'"ure '&) (or '&y purpo7e. =etitioners were invited in the Senate1s publi! hearing to deliberate on Senate %es. .3. B3/C -rti!le 1+ of the ?niversal De!laration of . . enshrined in -rti!le *** of the Constitution. 1''6. 4+. 2. .errera1s .36B3>C but also from our adheren!e to the ?niversal De!laration of .D6-.%. Mutuc &o. Cortes. the important in0uiries are: (ir7". 2o? muc2. 1'4/. %esierto. 5anuary . 14' . 1' @.d 4+.D>.>>+. . a !ourt must determine whether a person has e(hibited a reasonable e(pe!tation of priva!y and. he meti!ulous regard we a!!ord to these Gones arises not only from our !onvi!tion that the right to priva!y is a :constitutional rig2t.BD6C -pplying this determination to these !ases. See also -rti!le 1> (1A and (+A of the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights.. "uperior Court of "an ernardino County. 9d.'B34C 36B3>C 31 MarCue5 v. BD6C 3. and further !autions that : '&y e*i)e&ce o8"'i&e) i& *iol'"io& o( "$i7 or "$e prece)i&% 7ec"io& 7$'ll 8e i&')#i77i8le (or '&y purpo7e i& '&y procee)i&%. he Constitutional #oundations of =riva!y. *n evaluating a !laim for violation of the right to priva!y./' ?. or the :rig2t to determine ?2at. Ct. $ou7e7.43. @-+6./. :no one s2all 'e su'=ected to ar'itrary interference ?it2 2is privacy. Sear!h and SeiGure.andbook on -rrest. +d 1+4+" / Cal. 3DD. urro?s v. B3'C 3+ Constitutional and @egal Systems of -S9-& Countries.F3.3+3.D' SC%. +d D>4" #eople v. if so.. at ++1. +661. Cal. . did the dire tor" and offi er" of &hil o("at . whether that e(pe!tation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.3+B3'C Sec"io& 9 guarantees :"$e ri%$" o( "$e people "o 8e 7ecure i& "$eir per7o&7.3>. .D//+. . 5une +>. D6>.D+.

+D4 (1'/'A 1>6 . "$e Me#8er7 o( "$e (or#er 4'"'7'&% 5'#8'&7' e&Aoy ' #ore li#i"e) ri%$" "o pri*'cy '7 co#p're) "o or)i&'ry i&)i*i)u'l7.S. to !urtail and minimiGe the opportunities for offi!ial !orruption. and promote morality in publi! administration.oldings Corporations. and the !onspiratorial parti!ipation of the =C22 and its offi!ials are co#pelli&% re'7o&7 for the Senate to e(a!t vital information from the dire!tors and offi!ers of =hil!omsat .5HILCOMSAT!. 5$ilippi&e Co##u&ic'"io&7 S'"elli"e Corpor'"io& .387529 employed the rational basis relationship test when it held that there was no infringement of the individual1s right to priva!y as the re0uirement to dis!losure information is for a valid purpose. Cer"'i&ly. Justice #uno..C *n *almonte v. $oe. the in0uiry fo!us on petitioners1 a!ts !ommitted in the dis!harge of their duties as offi!ers and dire!tors of the said !orporations. 3+' ?.5HC! )ue "o "$e 'lle%e) i#proprie"ie7 i& "$e oper'"io&7 8y "$eir re7pec"i*e 8o'r) o( )irec"or7.D <bviously. i. ranging in millions of pesos.e. it follows that their right to priva!y has not been violated by respondent Senate Committees. Co&7eCue&"ly. 3DD. 46.337519 the Court. 1>6 SC%. T$i7 %oe7 "o 7$ow "$'" "$e ri%$" "o pri*'cy i7 &o" '87olu"e w$ere "$ere i7 '& o*erri)i&% co#pelli&% 7"'"e i&"ere7". *n Morfe v. and their a!tions are sub8e!t to !loser s!rutiny. as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in !rafting the ne!essary legislation to prevent !orruption and formulate remedial measures and poli!y determination regarding =C221s effi!a!y. parti!ularly =hil!omsat .1>6 Teleco##u&ic'"io&7 Corpor'"io& .. D/' (1'>>A. p.C 3>BD3C "upra. ?nder the present !ir!umstan!es. the Court ruled that the right of the people to a!!ess information on matters of publi! !on!ern prevails over the right to priva!y of finan!ial transa!tions.C and =< C. "$ey $'*e &o re'7o&'8le e@pec"'"io& o( pri*'cy o*er #'""er7 i&*ol*i&% "$eir o((ice7 i& ' corpor'"io& w$ere "$e %o*er&#e&" $'7 i&"ere7".*@C<)S.5OTC!. Mutuc. 33BD1C 3DBD+C 34BD. maintain a standard of honesty in publi! servi!e.34BD. =. the alleged anomalies in the =. '&) 5$ilco#7'" Hol)i&%7 Corpor'"io&7 . aking this into !onsideration. 7uc$ #'""er7 're o( pu8lic co&cer& '&) o*er w$ic$ "$e people $'*e "$e ri%$" "o i&(or#'"io&. elmonte. &o. here being no reasonable e(pe!tation of priva!y on the part of those dire!tors and offi!ers over the sub8e!t !overed by Senate %es. @e!ture on @egislative *n0uiry and %ight to =riva!y.oldings Corporation. in line with D2alen v.3/75B9 the Court remarked that as pu8lic (i%ure7.

*n fine. %epubli! -!t &o. CHA5TER V G .errorism @aw. EE5RESSIO-. +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: • Detained under house arrest" • %estri!ted from traveling" andEor • =rohibited from using any !ellular phones. &i!asio Conti. o( e@pre77io&. S5EECH. -o l'w 7$'ll 8e p'77e) '8ri)%i&% "$e (ree)o# o( 7peec$. or o( "$e pre77. and ereso 5avier" and )anuel -ndal and 5ulio 5alandoni. !omputers. like Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners.oldings Corporation. to respe!t the dignity of the Congress and its Committees. or "$e ri%$" o( "$e people pe'ce'8ly "o '77e#8le '&) pe"i"io& "$e %o*er&#e&" (or "$e re)re77 o( "$eir %rie*'&ce7.uman Se!urity -!tE-nti. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the . -pproved on )ar!h 4. +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D. e"c. and to testify fully with respe!t to matters within the realm of proper investigation. or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e.1>1 @et it be stressed at this point that so long as the !onstitutional rights of witnesses. will be respe!ted by respondent Senate Committees. #u7" co#ply wi"$ "$e 3#4poenae Ad Te"tifi and#( i77ue) 8y re7po&)e&" Se&'"e Co##i""ee7 )irec"i&% "$e# "o 'ppe'r '&) "e7"i(y i& pu8lic $e'ri&%7 rel'"i*e "o Se&'"e Re7olu"io& -o. Sec"io& 2. it their duty to !ooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the fa!ts needed for intelligent legislative a!tion. &ar!iso &ario. =C22 Chairman Camilo Sabio and Commissioners %i!ardo -b!ede.>+. '. he unremitting obligation of e*ery ci"iJe& is to respond to subpoenae. 1. %ule on !riti!isms against a!ts of publi! offi!ers 1>1 . as well as its dire!tors and offi!ers. 5RESS.REE/OM O. =C221s nominees to =hil!omsat . 211.

'6 =hil.LA4O. i& $er colu#& BI& '&) Ou" o( 4'%uioD #')e "$e (ollowi&% co##e&"7I BO( 'll "$e c'&)i)'"e7 (or M'yor o( 4'%uio Ci"y!. "$e E)i"orGi&GC$ie(. =ereG. C#*.A pu8lic o((ici'l 7$oul) &o" 8e o&io&G 7Li&&e) wi"$ re(ere&ce "o co##e&"7 upo& $i7 o((ici'l 'c"7.1 . +.. #reedom of the press. D'' 3. T$e i&"ere7" o( "$e %o*er&#e&" '&) "$e 7ocie"y )e#'&)7 (ull )i7cu77io& o( pu8lic '(('ir7A .'. .. 1966 colu#& '" "$e CourierI BI $e'r) "$'" "$e S/u#p"y i& "$e E%%N i7 c'#p'i%&i&% (or Cor"e7. 1>+ . in general %ead: 4A:3IO MI/LA-/ CO3RIER H CECILLE A. Cecille A('8le. 9spuelas vs. #-C S: 1. -o" ('ir. CO3RT O. JR.2= #reedom of 9(pression" the publi! has the right to be informed on the mental.D 9. 3D =hil.. D+3 +.> =hil.1>+ %ead: 1.. 5eople woul) '7LI Bc'& $e re') '&) wri"eDR 0$y i7 $e 'lw'y7 "'lLi&% '8ou" $i7 J'p'&e7e ('"$erGi&Gl'wR I7 $e re'lly ' J'p'&e7 Se&'"or or ' 8'rrio F'pi"'&R I7 i" "rue "$'" $e will 7e&) 516M 'i) "o 4'%uioR So#e8o)y w'&"e) "o pu" '& ')*er"i7e#e&" o( L'8o i& "$e Mi)l'&) Courier 8u" w'7 re(u7e) 8ec'u7e $e $'7 &o" ye" p'i) $i7 'ccou&" o( "$e l'7" "i#e $e w'7 ' c'&)i)'"e (or Co&%re77. >.. o&ly. I& "$e 7'#e colu#&. 9.. moral and physi!al fitness of !andidates for publi! offi!e. A55EALS H RAMO. =. 1966 i77ue o( "$e 4'%uio Mi)l'&) Courier . $ustos.. L'8o $'7 "$e #o7" i#po&)er'8le7 '8ou" $i#.4MC!. 222 SCRA 96 <-o*e#8er 91. I& "$e J'&u'ry 3. =eople. vs. 114 SC%. 0e will 'ccep" 'll ')*er"i7e#e&"7 (or $i# i( $e p'y7 $i7 ol) 'ccou&" (ir7". )er!ado vs. So#e re'l )oc"or7 're 'l7o 8u7y c'#p'i%&i&% '%'i&7" L'8o 8ec'u7e $e $'7 &o" 'l7o p'i) "$eir #e)ic'l 7er*ice7 wi"$ "$e#. I( $e wi&7. Si&ce $e i7 )o&'"i&% #illio&7 $e 7$oul) 'l7o 7e""le $i7 7#'ll )e8"7 liLe "$e repor"e)ly i&7i%&i(ic'&" '#ou&" o( 59 .A4LE VS. Cecille A('8le wro"e "$e (ollowi&% co##e&"7 i& $er J'&u'ry 1. ?S vs.

1999. . Jr.. 7e*er'l "e'c$er7 were 7i%&i(yi&% "o re7i%& '&) le'*e 4'%uio (ore*er.. )i7#i77e) L'8oN7 co#pl'i&" (or )'#'%e7 o& "$e %rou&) "$'" "$e 'r"icle o( pe"i"io&er A('8le w'7 pri*ile%e) '&) co&7"i"u"e) ('ir co##e&" o& #'""er7 o( pu8lic i&"ere7" '7 i" )e'l" wi"$ "$e i&"e%ri"y. I" i7 u&8elie*'8le "$'" L'8o c'#p'i%&e) (or $i7 oppo&e&" '&) '%'i&7" 1>. T$e Re%io&'l Tri'l Cour". )'#'%e7 i& "$e "o"'l '#ou&" o( 531. $owe*er.. were '8le "o pro*e "$'" L'8o $'7 '& u&p'i) o8li%'"io& "o "$e Courier i& "$e '#ou&" o( 59 .. T$i7 i7 7o 8ec'u7e "$e 'r"icle 7"'"e) "$'" BT$e /u#p"y i& "$e E%% i7 c'#p'i%&i&% (or Cor"e7D. Jr. '&) 5'&%'7i&'& will 8e "$e (r'&c'GliCu' o( 4'%uio.. He liLewi7e (ile) ' 7ep'r'"e cri#i&'l co#pl'i&" 8e(ore "$e O((ice o( "$e Ci"y 5ro7ecu"or o( 4'%uio 8u" w'7 )i7#i77e)+ 2. R'#o& L'8or. '&o"$er c'&)i)'"e (or #'yor '&) oppo&e&" o( L'8o $i#7el(.1>..D 3. O& J'&u'ry . "$e 5e"i"io& "o "$e Supre#e Cour".. (or "$e ')7 pl'ce) 8y $i7 c'#p'i%&er7 (or "$e 1962 4'"'7'&% 5'#8'&7' elec"io&7+ 6. (ile) ' co#pl'i&" (or /'#'%e7 8e(ore "$e re%io&'l "ri'l Cour" o( 4'%uio Ci"y '7 $e cl'i#e) 7'i) 'r"icle7 were li8elou7. T$e pe"i"io&er7. T$e Cour" o( Appe'l7 i7 wro&% w$e& i" $el) "$'" L'8o i7 "$e B/u#p"y i& "$e E%%D i& "$e Cue7"io&e) 'r"icle. ISS3ESI Da" =a4o the <1#(pty in the .. repu"'"io& '&) $o&e7"y o( pri*'"e re7po&)e&" L'8o w$o w'7 ' c'&)i)'"e (or M'yor o( 4'%uio Ci"y+ . L'8o cl'i#e) "$'" "$e 7'i) 'r"icle7 were "'i&"e) wi"$ #'lice 8ec'u7e $e w'7 'lle%e)ly )e7cri8e) '7 B/u#p"y i& "$e E%%D or o&e Bw$o i7 ' ('ilure i& $i7 8u7i&e77D w$ic$ i7 ('l7e 8ec'u7e $e i7 ' *ery 7ucce77(ul 8u7i&e77#'& or "o #e'& BJero or ' 8i% lieD+ "$'" $e i7 ' B8'l'7u8'7D )ue "o $i7 'lle%e) ('ilure "o p'y $i7 #e)ic'l e@pe&7e7+ 1. A7 ' re7ul" o( "$e '8o*e 'r"icle7. He&ce. 199.**E de" ri4ed in the $#e"tioned arti leF Dere the arti le" "#46e t of the a"e li4elo#" or pri!ile*edF HEL/I 1. "$e Cour" o( Appe'l7 re*er7e) "$e RTC /eci7io& '&) or)ere) "$e pe"i"io&er7 "o p'y R'#o& L'8o.211. '("er co&clu)i&% "$'" "$e B/u#p"y i& "$e E%%D re(er7 "o &o o&e 8u" L'8o $i#7el(. i& i"7 /eci7io& )'"e) Ju&e 12. 4r'&c$ 6. 4'%uio Ci"y..


$i#7el(. Al"$ou%$ 7uc$ %r'ciou7 '""i"u)e o& "$e p'r" o( L'8o woul) $'*e 8ee& co##e&)'8le, i" i7 co&"r'ry "o co##o& $u#'& e@perie&ce. A7 poi&"e) ou" 8y "$e pe"i"io&er7, $') $e )o&e "$'", i" i7 )ou8"(ul w$e"$er $e coul) $'*e wo& '7 Ci"y M'yor o( 4'%uio i& "$e 1966 elec"io&7, w$ic$ $e 'c"u'lly )i). I& li&e wi"$ "$e )oc"ri&e i& 4ORJAL VS. CA, 31; SCRA 1, "$'" Si" i7 'l7o &o" 7u((icie&" "$'" "$e o((e&)e) p'r"y reco%&iJe) $i#7el( '7 "$e per7o& '""'cLe) or )e('#e), 8u" i" #u7" 8e 7$ow& "$'" '" le'7" ' 3r) per7o& coul) i)e&"i(y $i# '7 "$e o8Aec" o( "$e li8elou7 pu8lic'"io&N, "$e c'7e 7$oul) 8e )i7#i77e) 7i&ce L'8o u""erly ('ile) "o )i7po7e o( "$i7 re7po&7i8ili"y. +. L'8o cl'i#7 "$'" "$e pe"i"io&er7 coul) &o" i&*oLe Bpu8lic i&"ere7"D "o Au7"i(y "$e pu8lic'"io& 7i&ce $e w'7 &o" ye" ' pu8lic o((ici'l '" "$'" "i#e. T$i7 'r%u#e&" i7 wi"$ou" #eri" 7i&ce $e w'7 'lre')y ' c'&)i)'"e (or Ci"y #'yor o( 4'%uio. A7 7uc$, "$e 'r"icle i7 7"ill wi"$i& "$e #'&"le o( pro"ec"io& %u'r'&"ee) 8y "$e (ree)o# o( e@pre77io& pro*i)e) i& "$e Co&7"i"u"io& 7i&ce i" i7 "$e pu8licN7 ri%$" "o 8e i&(or#e) o( "$e #e&"'l, #or'l '&) p$y7ic'l (i"&e77 o( c'&)i)'"e7 (or pu8lic o((ice. T$i7 w'7 reco%&iJe) '7 e'rly '7 "$e c'7e of ?S FS. S9D-&<, 13 =hil. ../ B1'6'= '&) "$e c'7e o( &97 J<%M *)9S FS. S?@@*F-&, .>4 ?.S. +D3 w$ere "$e 3S Supre#e Cour" $el)I BPi" i7 o( "$e u"#o7" co&7eCue&ce "$'" "$e people 7$oul) )i7cu77 "$e c$'r'c"er '&) Cu'li(ic'"io&7 o( c'&)i)'"e7 (or "$eir 7u((r'%e7. T$e i#por"'&ce "o "$e S"'"e '&) "o 7ocie"y o( 7uc$ )i7cu77io&7 i7 7o *'7", '&) "$e ')*'&"'%e7 )eri*e) 7o %re'", "$'" "$ey #ore "$'& cou&"er8'l'&ce "$e i&co&*e&ie&ce o( pri*'"e per7o&7 w$o7e co&)uc" #'y 8e i&*ol*e), '&) occ'7io&'l i&Aury "o "$e repu"'"io&7 o( i&)i*i)u'l7 #u7" yiel) "o "$e pu8lic wel('re, 'l"$ou%$ '" "i#e7 7uc$ i&Aury #'y 8e %re'". T$e pu8lic 8e&e(i" (ro# pu8lici"y i7 7o %re'" '&) "$e c$'&ce o( i&Aury "o pri*'"e c$'r'c"er 7o 7#'ll, "$'" 7uc$ )i7cu77io& #u7" 8e pri*ile%e). B Cle'rly, "$e Cue7"io&e) 'r"icle7 co&7"i"u"e ('ir co##e&" o& ' #'""er o( pu8lic i&"ere7" '7 i" )e'l" wi"$ "$e c$'r'c"er o( "$e pri*'"e re7po&)e&" w$o w'7 ru&&i&% (or "$e "op elec"i*e po7" i& 4'%uio Ci"y '" "$'" "i#e. &A+=/TO ?. 3AN/1A1 ?3. COM,=,C, 2.%. &<. '6/>/, 5anuary +', 1''6 #reedom of e(pression and of the press )edialdea, 5.


#a!ts: 1. <n <!tober +., 1'/', %- 4>44, entitled H-& -C =%<F*D*&2 #<% -& <%2-&*C -C #<% ,9 C<%D*@@9%- -? <&<)<?S %92*<&H was ena!ted into law" +. =ursuant to said law, the City of $aguio and =rovin!es of $enguet, -bra, )t. =rovin!e, *fugao and Malinga--payao, all !omprising the autonomous region shall take part in a plebis!ite originally s!heduled for De!ember +>, 1'/' but was reset to 5anuary .6, 1''6 spe!ifi!ally for the ratifi!ation or re8e!tion of the said a!t" .. $y virtue of the 1'/> Constitution and the <mnibus 9le!tion Code ($= //1A, the Comele! issued Comele! %esolution &o. +14>, Se!tion 1' of whi!h provides: HSe!tion 1'. =rohibition on !olumnist, !ommentators or announ!ers.- During the plebis!ite !ampaign period, on the day before and on plebis!ite day, no mass media !olumnist, !ommentator, announ!er or personality shall use his !olumn or radio or television time to !ampaign for or against the plebis!ite issues.H 3. <n &ovember +6, 1'/', petitioner =-$@* < F. S-&*D-D who is a !olumnist (H<F9%F*97HA for the $aguio )idland Courier, a weekly newspaper !ir!ulated in the City of $aguio and the Cordilleras, filed a petition for =rohibition with prayer for the issuan!e of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary in8un!tion against the Comele! to en8oin the latter from enfor!ing Se!tion 1' of resolution &o. +14>. =etitioner !laims that the said provision is violative of his !onstitutional freedom of e(pression and of the press and it also !onstitutes a prior restraint be!ause it imposes subse0uent punishment for those who violate the same" D. <n &ovember +/, 1'/', the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order en8oining the respondent from enfor!ing Se!tion 1' of %esolution &o. +14>" 4. <n 5anuary ', 1''6, Comele! through the Soli!itor 2eneral filed its Comment and moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that Se!tion 1' of %esolution &o. +14> does not absolutely bar the petitioner from e(pressing his views be!ause under Se!tion '6 and '+ of $= //1, he may still e(press his views or !ampaign for or against the a!t through the Comele! spa!e and airtime. ,eld:


7hat is granted by -rt. *Q-C of the Constitution to the Comele! is the power to supervise and regulate the use and en8oyment of fran!hises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other publi! utilities to the end that e0ual opportunity, time and spa!e, and the right to reply, in!luding reasonable, e0ual rates therefor, for publi! information !ampaigns and forums among !andidates are insured. he evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a fran!hise holder may favor or give undue advantage to a !andidate in terms of advertising time and spa!e. his is also the reason why a !olumnist, !ommentator or announ!er is re0uired to take a leave of absen!e from his work during the !ampaign period if he is a !andidate. ,<79F9%, &9* ,9% -% *C@9 *Q-C <# ,9 C<&S * ? *<& &<% S9C *<& 11($A, +&D =-%. <# %- 4434 C-& $9 C<&S %?9D < )9-& ,- ,9 C<)9@9C ,-S -@S< $99& 2%-& 9D ,9 %*2, < S?=9%F*S9 -&D %92?@- 9 ,9 9Q9%C*S9 $J )9D*- =%-C * *<&9%S ,9)S9@F9S <# ,9*% %*2, < 9Q=%9SS*<& D?%*&2 ,9 =@9$*SC* 9 =9%*<DS. )edia pra!titioners e(er!ising their freedom of e(pression during the plebis!ite periods are neither the fran!hise holders nor the !andidates. *n fa!t, there are no !andidates in a plebis!ite. 7hile it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred from !ampaigning for or against the <rgani! -!t, said fa!t does not !ure the !onstitutional infirmity of Se!tion 1', Comele! %esolution &o. +14>. his is so be!ause * *S S *@@ - %9S %*C *<& <& ,*S C,<*C9 <# ,9 #<%?) 7,9%9 ,9 )-J 9Q=%9SS ,*S F*97. =lebis!ite issues are matters of publi! !on!ern and importan!e. he peopleSs right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a de!ision would be better served by a!!ess to an unabridged dis!ussion of the issues, *&C@?D*&2 ,9 #<%?). he people affe!ted by the issues presented in a plebis!ite should not be unduly burdened by restri!tions on the forum where the right to e(pression may be e(er!ised. -CC<%D*&2@J, Se!tion 1' of Comele! %esolution &o. +14> is hereby de!lared ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@. %ead also: 1. +. .. 3. D. *n re: %amon ulfo,)ar!h 1', 1'' *n re: -tty. 9mil 5urado, 5uly 1+, 1''6 $urgos vs. Chief of Staff, 1.. SC%- /66 Corro vs. @ising, 1.> SC%- 33/ $abst vs. &*$, 1.+ SC%- .14


4. 9liGalde vs. 2utierreG,>4 SC%- 33/ ,I& or)er "$'" '&y &ew7 i"e# rel'"i&% "o ' Au)ici'l procee)i&% will &o" 8e 'c"io&'8le (or 8ei&% li8elou7, "$e 7'#e #u7" 8e <'= ' "rue '&) ('ir repor" o( "$e 'c"u'l procee)i&%7+ <8= #u7" 8e )o&e i& %oo) ('i"$+ '&) <c= &o co##e&"7 &or re#'rL7 7$'ll 8e #')e 8y "$e wri"er. >. =oli!arpio vs. )anila imes, D SC%- 13/ /. @opeG vs. C-, .3 SC%- 114 '. &ew Jork imes vs. Sullivan,.>4 ?.S.+D3 16. @iwayway =ublishing vs. =C22, -pril 1D,l'// .. #reedom of e(pression in general %ead: 1. %-&DJ D-F*D FS. -%%<J<, )ay ., +664, 3/' SC%- 146" +. -diong vs. Comele!, )ar!h .1, 1''+ (pu""i&% o( )ec'l7 '&) 7"icLer7 i& o&eN7 c'r i7 wi"$i& "$e pro"ec"e) (ree)o# o( e@pre77io&! .. &ational =ress Club vs. Comele!, )ar!h D, 1''+. %eal also the dissenting and separate opinions of the 8usti!es. (5re*e&"i&% c'#p'i%&7 "$rou%$ r')io, TV '&) &ew7p'per7 i7 *'li) i& or)er "o e*e& "$e pl'yi&% (iel) 8e"wee& ric$ '&) poor c'&)i)'"e7! 3. Oaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 2% &o. >'46->6> P Oaldivar vs. 2onGales, 2% &o. /6D>/, #ebruary 1, 1'/' D. 9astern $road!asting vs. Dans,1.> SC%- 4+/ 4. &ewsweek vs. *-C, 13+ SC%- 1>1 >. Mapisanan vs. Camara Shoes, 11 SC%- 3>> /. *& %9: -tty. ipon, >' SC%- .>+ '. @a!sa vs. *-C, )ay +.,1'// 16. Mapunan vs. De Filla, De!ember 4, 1'// 3. &ot within the prote!tion of the freedom of Constitution 1. <bs!enity" test of %ead: b. a. =. vs. Mottinger, 3D =hil. .D+ = vs. 2< =*&, -ugust /, 1'DD e(pression !lause of the

Te7"7I '. 0$e"$er "$e '*er'%e per7o& 'pplyi&% "o co&"e#por'ry co##u&i"y 7"'&)'r)7 woul) (i&) "$e worL 'ppe'l7 "o prurie&" i&"ere7"+



8. 0$e"$er "$e worL )epic"7 or )e7cri8e7 ' p'"e&"ly o((e&7i*e 7e@u'l co&)uc"+ c. 0$e"$er "$e worL '7 ' w$ole l'cL7 7eriou7 li"er'ry , 'r"i7"ic, poli"ic'l or 7cie&"i(ic *'lue. !. )iller vs. California, .> @. 9d. +d 31' d. 2insberg vs. &ew Jork,.'6 ?.S. 4+' e. 5i"' *7. CA, 1 6 SCRA 369 (- City )ayor may not order the warrantless seiGure of magaGines whi!h he believes to be obs!ene" otherwise, he will be!ome the !omplainant, prose!utor and 8udge at the same time. ,e should obtain a sear!h warrant from a 8udgeA +. @ibel or slander" test of%ead: a. @opeG and )anila imes !ases, supra b. Ruisumbing vs. @opeG, '4 =hil. D16 .. Cases undersub-8udi!e %ead: a. =. vs. -lar!on, 4' =hil. +4D D. #reedom of assembly and to petition the government grievan!es I-TE:RATE/ 4AR O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. MA-ILA MAYOR JOSE BLITOD ATIE->A, :.R. -o. 1 1921, .e8ru'ry 92, 9;1; CAR5IO MORALES, J.I =etitioners *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines (*$=A and lawyers ,. ,arry @. %o0ue and 5oel %. $utuyan appeal the 5une +/, +664 De!ision and the <!tober +4, +664 %esolution of the Court of -ppeals that found no grave abuse of dis!retion on the part of respondent 5ose :@ito; -tienGa, the then mayor of )anila, in granting a permit to rally in a venue other than the one applied for by the *$=. <n 5une 1D, +664, the *$=, through its then &ational =resident 5ose -nselmo CadiG (CadiGA, filed with the <ffi!e of the City )ayor of )anila a letter appli!ation for a permit to rally at the foot of )endiola $ridge on 5une ++, +664 from +:.6 p.m. to D:.6 p.m. to be parti!ipated in by *$= offi!ers and members, law students and multi-se!toral organiGations.

for redress of


%espondent issued a permit dated 5une 14, +664 allowing the *$= to stage a rally on given date but indi!ated therein =laGa )iranda as the venue, instead of )endiola $ridge, whi!h permit the *$= re!eived on 5une 1', +664. -ggrieved, petitioners filed on 5une +1, +664 before the Court of -ppeals a petition for !ertiorari do!keted as C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3'. he petition having been unresolved within +3 hours from its filing, petitioners filed before this Court on 5une ++, +664 a petition for !ertiorari do!keted as 2.%. &o. 1>+'D1 whi!h assailed the appellate !ourt1s ina!tion or refusal to resolve the petition within the period provided under the =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D. he Court, by %esolutions of 5uly +4, +664, -ugust .6, +664 and &ovember +6, +664, respe!tively, denied the petition for being moot and a!ademi!, denied the relief that the petition be heard on the merits in view of the penden!y of C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3', and denied the motion for re!onsideration. he rally pushed through on 5une ++, +664 at )endiola $ridge, after CadiG dis!ussed with =ESupt. -rturo =aglinawan whose !ontingent from the )anila =oli!e Distri!t ()=DA earlier barred petitioners from pro!eeding thereto. =etitioners allege that the parti!ipants voluntarily dispersed after the pea!eful !ondu!t of the program. he )=D thereupon instituted on 5une +4, +664 a !riminal a!tion, do!keted as *.S. &o. 64*-1+D61, against CadiG for violating the =ubli! -ssembly -!t in staging a rally at a venue not indi!ated in the permit, to whi!h !harge CadiG filed a Counter--ffidavit of -ugust ., +664. *n the meantime, the appellate !ourt ruled, in C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3', by the first assailed issuan!e, that the petition be!ame moot and la!ked merit. he appellate !ourt also denied petitioners1 motion for re!onsideration by the se!ond assailed issuan!e. ,en!e, the filing of the present petition for review on !ertiorari, to whi!h respondent filed his Comment of &ovember 1/, +66/ whi!h merited petitioners1 %eply of <!tober +, +66'. *SS?9: he main issue is whether the appellate !ourt erred in holding that the modifi!ation of the venue in *$=1s rally permit does not !onstitute grave abuse of dis!retion. =etitioners assert that the partial grant of the appli!ation runs !ontrary to the =ubi! -ssembly -!t and *iol'"e7 "$eir co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$" "o (ree)o# o( e@pre77io& '&) pu8lic '77e#8ly.



,9@D: he Court shall first resolve the preliminary issue of mootness. ?ndoubtedly, the petition filed with the appellate !ourt on 5une +1, +664 be!ame moot upon the passing of the date of the rally on 5une ++, +664. - moot and a!ademi! !ase is one that !eases to present a 8usti!iable !ontroversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a de!laration thereon would be of no pra!ti!al use or value. 2enerally, !ourts de!line 8urisdi!tion over su!h !ase or dismiss it on ground of mootness. ,owever, even in !ases where supervening events had made the !ases moot, this Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or !onstitutional issues raised to formulate !ontrolling prin!iples to guide the ben!h, bar and publi!. Moreo*er, '7 '& e@cep"io& "o "$e rule o& #oo"&e77, cour"7 will )eci)e ' Cue7"io& o"$erwi7e #oo" i( i" i7 c'p'8le o( repe"i"io&, ye" e*')i&% re*iew. *n the present !ase, the 0uestion of the legality of a modifi!ation of a permit to rally will arise ea!h time the terms of an intended rally are altered by the !on!erned offi!ial, yet it evades review, owing to the limited time in pro!essing the appli!ation where the shortest allowable period is five days prior to the assembly. he sus!eptibility of re!urren!e !ompels the Court to definitively resolve the issue at hand. Se!tion 4 of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t reads: Se!tion 4. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application (aA *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order, publi! safety, publi! !onvenien!e, publi! morals or publi! health. (bA he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed, failing whi!h, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit, said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. (!A *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit, he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter.


(dA he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!ation BsicC within twenty-four hours. (eA *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law. (fA *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court, the )uni!ipal rial Court, the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court, the %egional rial Court, or the *ntermediate -ppellate Court, its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within fortyeight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. - de!ision granting su!h permit or modifying it in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall, be immediately e(e!utory. (gA -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this Se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or, in his absen!e, to the ne(t in rank. (hA *n all !ases, any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. (iA elegraphi! appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. (unders!oring suppliedA *n ayan, Sarapatan, Silusang Mag'u'u@id ng #ilipinas 6SM#9 v. Ermita, the Court reiterated: ( ( ( #reedom of assembly !onnotes the right of the people to meet pea!eably for !onsultation and dis!ussion of matters of publi! !on!ern. *t is entitled to be a!!orded the utmost deferen!e and respe!t. I" i7 &o" "o 8e li#i"e), #uc$ le77 )e&ie), e@cep" o& ' 7$owi&%, '7 i7 "$e c'7e wi"$ (ree)o# o( e@pre77io&, o( ' cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er o( ' 7u87"'&"i*e e*il "$'" "$e 7"'"e $'7 ' ri%$" "o pre*e&". 9ven prior to the 1'.D Constitution, 5usti!e )al!olm had o!!asion to stress that it is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of our republi!an institutions and !omplements the right of free spee!h. o paraphrase the opinion of 5usti!e %utledge, speaking for the ma8ority of the -meri!an Supreme Court in &2omas v. Collins, it was not by a!!ident or !oin!iden!e that the rights to freedom of spee!h and of the press were !oupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people pea!eably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievan!es. -ll these rights, while not


identi!al, are inseparable. *n every !ase, therefore, where there is a limitation pla!ed on the e(er!ise of this right, the 8udi!iary is !alled upon to e(amine the effe!ts of the !hallenged governmental a!tuation. T$e 7ole Au7"i(ic'"io& (or ' li#i"'"io& o& "$e e@erci7e o( "$i7 ri%$", 7o (u&)'#e&"'l "o "$e #'i&"e&'&ce o( )e#ocr'"ic i&7"i"u"io&7, i7 "$e )'&%er, o( ' c$'r'c"er 8o"$ %r'*e '&) i##i&e&", o( ' 7eriou7 e*il "o pu8lic 7'(e"y, pu8lic #or'l7, pu8lic $e'l"$, or '&y o"$er le%i"i#'"e pu8lic i&"ere7" . (emphasis suppliedA he Court in ayan stated that the provisions of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D pra!ti!ally !odified the 1'/. ruling in $eyes v. agatsing. *n 8u(taposing Se!tions 3 to 4 of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t with the pertinent portion of the $eyes !ase, the Court elu!idated as follows: ( ( ( B he publi! offi!ial !on!erned shallC appraise whether there may be valid ob8e!tions to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another publi! pla!e. *t is an indispensable !ondition to su!h refusal or modification that the !lear and present danger test be the standard for the de!ision rea!hed. *f he is of the view that there is su!h an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the appli!ants must be heard on the matter. hereafter, his de!ision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. hus if so minded, they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority. (itali!s and unders!oring suppliedA *n modifying the permit outright, re7po&)e&" %r'*ely '8u7e) $i7 )i7cre"io& w$e& $e )i) &o" i##e)i'"ely i&(or# "$e I45 w$o 7$oul) $'*e 8ee& $e'r) (ir7" o& "$e #'""er o( $i7 percei*e) i##i&e&" '&) %r'*e )'&%er o( ' 7u87"'&"i*e e*il "$'" #'y w'rr'&" "$e c$'&%i&% o( "$e *e&ue. T$e oppor"u&i"y "o 8e $e'r) prece)e7 "$e 'c"io& o& "$e per#i", 7i&ce "$e 'pplic'&" #'y )irec"ly %o "o cour" '("er '& u&('*or'8le 'c"io& o& "$e per#i". %espondent failed to indi!ate how he had arrived at modifying the terms of the permit against the 7"'&)'r) o( ' cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "e7" w$ic$, i" 8e'r7 repe'"i&%, i7 '& i&)i7pe&7'8le co&)i"io& "o 7uc$ #o)i(ic'"io&. &othing in the issued permit adverts to an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, whi!h :blank; denial or modifi!ation would, when granted imprimatur as the appellate !ourt would have it, render illusory any 8udi!ial s!rutiny thereof. *t is true that the li!ensing offi!ial, here respondent )ayor, is not devoid of dis!retion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. *t is not, however, unfettered dis!retion. 7hile pruden!e re0uires that there be a realisti! appraisal not of what may possibly o!!ur but of what may pro'a'ly o!!ur, given all the relevant !ir!umstan!es, still the assumption I espe!ially so where the assembly is s!heduled for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e I is that the permit must be for

*t is thus reversible error for the appellate !ourt not to have found su!h grave abuse of dis!retion.. T$e ('c" "$'" "$e co&*e&"io&'l "er# B7"riLeD w'7 &o" u7e) 8y "$e 7"riLi&% e#ployee7 "o )e7cri8e "$eir co##o& cour7e o( 'c"io& i7 1/.1/. w$ic$ "e#por'rily )i7rup"e) cl'77e7 i& Me"ro M'&il' 8u" "$ey cl'i#e) "$'" "$ey were &o" o& 7"riLe.D I" i7 u&)i7pu"e) ('c" "$'" "$ere w'7 ' worL 7"opp'%e '&) "$'" pe"i"io&er7N purpo7e w'7 "o re'liJe "$eir )e#'&)7 8y wi"$$ol)i&% "$eir 7er*ice7. 199. worL w$ic$ i" w'7 "$e "e'c$er7N )u"y "o per(or#. T$e pe"i"io&er7 ')#i""e) "$'" "$ey p'r"icip'"e) i& co&cer"e) #'77 'c"io&7 i& Me"ro M'&il' (ro# Sep"e#8er "o "$e (ir7" $'l( o( Oc"o8er. the assembly being held there. i& "$e l'&%u'%e o( Ju7"ice Ro8er"7. T$ey cl'i#e) "$'" "$ey were #erely e@erci7i&% "$eir co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$" "o pe'ce'8ly '77e#8le '&) pe"i"io& "$e %o*er&#e&" (or re)re77 o( "$eir %rie*'&ce7.D1 . respondent failed to indi!ate in his Comment any basis or e(planation for his a!tion. 7pe'Li&% (or "$e A#eric'& Supre#e Cour". he Court D9C@-%9S that respondent !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion in modifying the rally permit issued on 5une 14. 9. *t sma!ks of whim and !apri!e for respondent to 8ust impose a !hange of venue for an assembly that was slated for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e. i7 &o" "o 8e O'8ri)%e) o& "$e ple' "$'" i" #'y 8e e@erci7e) i& 7o#e o"$er pl'ce .VS. LA:3IO. T$e e@erci7e o( 7uc$ ' ri%$". u&)er"'Le& (or e77e&"i'lly eco&o#ic re'7o&7. or '87e&ce (ro#. +664 insofar as it altered the venue from )endiola $ridge to =laGa )iranda. w'7 ' 7"riLe or &o" $'7 8ee& )eci)e) i& "$e c'7e o( MA-ILA 534LIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATIO. T$u7. HEL/I T$e i77ue o( w$e"$er or &o" "$e #'77 'c"io& l'u&c$e) 8y "$e pu8lic 7c$ool "e'c$er7 )uri&% "$e perio) (ro# Sep"e#8er up "o "$e 17" $'l( o( Oc"o8er. C<?% <# -==9-@S. SCRA 393 w$ere i" w'7 $el) "$'" B"$e7e #'77 'c"io&7 were "o 'll i&"e&"7 '&) purpo7e7 ' 7"riLe+ "$ey co&7"i"u"e) ' co&cer"e) '&) u&'u"$oriJe) 7"opp'%e o(. . vs. 29S* 9 et al. 199. "$ey #'y &o" 8e pe&'liJe) ')#i&i7"r'"i*ely.ree)o# o( pu8lic 7c$ool "e'c$er7 "o pe'ce'8ly '77e#8le '&) pe"i"io& "$e %o*er&#e&" (or re)re77 o( %rie*'&ce7+ ri%$" o( pu8lic 7c$ool "e'c$er7 "o (or# u&io&.D (emphasis and unders!oring suppliedA &otably. 333 SC%.

w'lLou"7 '&) o"$er (or#7 o( #'77 'c"io&7 "$'" will le') "o "e#por'ry 7"opp'%e or )i7rup"io& o( pu8lic 7er*ice. T$e ri%$" o( %o*er&#e&" e#ployee7 "o or%'&iJe IS LIMITE/ TO THE . +664 A>C3-A. 1/3 . 3-IO-S OR ASSOCIATIO-S O-LY. 14'/. in 2..1/3 i&co&7eCue&"i'l. 0ITHO3T I-CL3/I-: THE RI:HT TO STRIFE.4'&%'li7'& *7.. -CR5O Chief M'A. LOMI4AO. he first petitioners. in 2. +66D. ART3RO M. FIL3SA-: MA:4343FI/ -: 5ILI5I-AS . 4AYA-. martial rule. and 7estern =oli!e Distri!t Chief :e&. FARA5ATA-.%./. 14'/3/. &o. . THE SIT3ATIO-. CA. &o. #'77 le'*e7. 2. e" 'l. 14'/3/.ORMATIO-S O. who allege that they were in8ured.'c"7I =etitioners !ome in three groups. allege that they are !itiGens and ta(payers of the =hilippines and that their rights as organiGations and individuals were violated when the rally they parti!ipated in on <!tober 4. in his !apa!ity as 9(e!utive Se!retary. e" 'l. '&) :A4RIELA vs.=. VI/AL M3EROL. 9 6 SCRA 619! he petitioners are not therefore entitled to their salaries during their suspension be!ause the general proposition is that a publi! offi!ial is not entitled to any !ompensation if he had not rendered any servi!e.I T$e . e#ployee7 i& "$e pu8lic 7er*ice #'y &o" e&%'%e i& 7"riLe7. Chief of the =hilippine &ational =oli!e. arrested and detained when a pea!eful mass a!tion they held on September +4.FM5!. /e7pi"e "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$" "o (or# '77oci'"io&7 u&)er "$e Co&7"i"u"io&. 0ILL 4E /EEME/ CO-TROLLI-:. )anila City )ayor LITO ATIE->A. E/3AR/O ERMITA. +66D was violently dispersed by poli!emen implementing $atas =ambansa ($. and the protest was likewise dispersed violently and many among them were arrested and suffered in8uries. 4'y'&. :e&. 5E/RO 43LAO-:. J. a group they parti!ipated in mar!hed to )ala!aTang to protest issuan!es of the =ala!e whi!h. +66D was preempted and violently dispersed by the poli!e. &o. they !laim. Je77 )el 5r')o. A-/ -OT ITS A55EARA-CE. hey further assert that on <!tober D. SI-CE THE S34STA-CE O.A &o. 2en. put the !ountry under an :unde!lared. )ay.%. he se!ond group !onsists of +4 individual petitioners.%. //6.

no rally. a rally M)? !osponsored was to be !ondu!ted at the )endiola bridge but poli!e blo!ked them along C. I #or purposes of this -!t: 1/D . o this end. &o. 14'//1. : he =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D. $. +66D. (C=%A being followed to implement it.%. %eclaration of policy. the State shall ensure the free e(er!ise of su!h right without pre8udi!e to the rights of others to life. hey were then for!ibly dispersed. D. 1+. petitioners in 2. some of them in toto and others only Se!tions 3. and 13(aA. FM3. !ausing in8uries to several of their members. a multi-se!toral rally whi!h M)? also !o-sponsored was s!heduled to pro!eed along 9spaTa -venue in front of the ?niversity of Santo omas and going towards )endiola bridge. as well as the poli!y of C=%. Filu7'&% M'yo 3&o . e" 'l.. are affe!ted by $atas =ambansa &o.). I he !onstitutional right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. e" 'l. S9C.(aA. +. hey seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the :no permit. //6.. allege that they !ondu!t pea!eful mass a!tions and that their rights as organiGations and those of their individual members as !itiGens. I -ssembly -!t of 1'/D.FM3!. spe!ifi!ally the right to pea!eful assembly. liberty and e0ual prote!tion of the law. +66D.1/D he third group. %efinition of terms. &itle . .. !laim that on <!tober 3. //6 -n -!t 9nsuring he #ree 9(er!ise $y he =eople <f heir %ight =ea!eably o -ssemble -nd =etition he 2overnment B-ndC #or <ther =urposes e it enacted 'y t2e atasang #am'ansa in session assem'led1 S9C *<& 1. 1. !ausing in8uries on one of them. hey further allege that on <!tober 4. 4.. =oli!e offi!ers blo!ked them along )orayta Street and prevented them from pro!eeding further. -ll petitioners assail $atas =ambansa &o..=. poli!y and the C=% poli!y re!ently announ!ed. &o. provides: $atas =ambansa $lg. hree other rallyists were arrested. %e!to and @epanto Streets and for!ibly dispersed them. his -!t shall be known as : he =ubli! S9C. //6 and the poli!y of :Calibrated =reemptive %esponse. //6.

or in the !ampus of a government-owned and operated edu!ational institution whi!h shall be sub8e!t to the rules and regulations of said edu!ational institution.owever. =oliti!al meetings or rallies held during any ele!tion !ampaign period as provided for by law are not !overed by this -!t. road. S9C. means the highest degree of restraint that the military. boulevard. S9C. park. the transport and the publi! address systems to be used. time and duration thereof. . in whi!h !ase only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired. andEor any open spa!e of publi! ownership where the people are allowed a!!ess. plaGa s0uare. whi!h must be duly a!knowledged in writing. D.written permit shall be re0uired for any person or persons to organiGe and hold a publi! assembly in a publi! pla!e. shall in!lude any highway. avenue.-. #ermit ?2en reCuired and ?2en not reCuired.-ll appli!ations for a permit shall !omply with the following guidelines: 1.-. he appli!ation shall be filed with the offi!e of the mayor of the !ity or muni!ipality in whose 8urisdi!tion the intended a!tivity is to be held. the offi!e of the !ity or muni!ipal mayor shall !ause the same to immediately be posted at a !onspi!uous pla!e in the !ity or muni!ipal building. (!A :)a(imum toleran!e. he appli!ations shall be in writing and shall in!lude the names of the leaders or organiGers" the purpose of su!h publi! assembly" the date. at least five (DA working days before the s!heduled publi! assembly. ?pon re!eipt of the appli!ation. +. poli!e and other pea!e keeping authorities shall observe during a publi! assembly or in the dispersal of the same. 3. bridge or other thoroughfare. he appli!ation shall in!orporate responsibility of appli!ant under Se!tion / hereof. 3.1/4 (bA :=ubli! pla!e. I 1/4 . S9C. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application.. street. Application reCuirements. and pla!e or streets to be used for the intended a!tivity" and the probable number of persons parti!ipating. 4.. the duty and . no permit shall be re0uired if the publi! assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinan!e or in private property.

the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law.%. said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within forty-eight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme 1/> . C=%. the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court.. to the ne(t in rank. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or. 14'/3/. *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit. &o. D. or the *ntermediate -ppellate !ourt. shown in -nne( :-. the %egional rial Court. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. +. +66D. . de!ision granting su!h permit or modifying if in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall be immediately e(e!utory. 4. he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!aBntC within twenty-four hours. the permit shall be deemed granted. /. publi! !onvenien!e. Court. in his absen!e. >. *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit. thus: *n all !ases. *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order. on the other hand. the )uni!ipal rial Court. 3. publi! safety. *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court. he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed. failing whi!h. is a poli!y set forth in a press release by )ala!aTang dated September +1. -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours from date of filing.1/> 1. to the =etition in 2. publi! morals or publi! health. he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit.

based on the rule of law. we have instru!ted the =&= as well as the lo!al government units to stri!tly enfor!e a :no permit. 1// .1// )ala!aTang )anila. +66D STATEME-T O. =etitioners 4'y'&. T$e 'u"$ori"ie7 will &o" 7"'&) '7i)e w$ile "$o7e wi"$ ill i&"e&" 're $er)i&% ' wi""i&% or u&wi""i&% #'77 o( people '&) i&ci"i&% "$e# i&"o 'c"io&7 "$'" 're i&i#ic'l "o pu8lic or)er. sow disorder and in!ite people against the duty !onstituted authorities. '&) "$e pe'ce o( #i&) o( "$e &'"io&'l co##u&i"y. e" 'l. #urthermore. &o. ?nlawful mass a!tions will be dispersed. =hilippines %elease &o. he words :lawful !ause. i& lieu o( #'@i#u# "oler'&ce. //6 is !learly a violation of the Constitution and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights and other human rights treaties of whi!h the =hilippines is a signatory.=. //6 re0uires a permit before one !an stage a publi! assembly regardless of the presen!e or absen!e of a !lear and present danger. !ontend that $atas =ambansa &o. *t also !urtails the !hoi!e of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of e(pression !lause as the time and pla!e of a publi! assembly form part of the message for whi!h the e(pression is sought. poli!y. T$e rule o( c'li8r'"e) pree#p"i*e re7po&7e i7 &ow i& (orce. he =resident1s !all for unity and re!on!iliation stands. 7e appeal to the detra!tors of the government to engage in lawful and pea!eful !ondu!t befitting of a demo!rati! so!iety. no rally. hey argue that $. EEEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA On !nla?ful Mass Actions *n view of intelligen!e reports pointing to !redible plans of antigovernment groups to inflame the politi!al situation. + <ffi!ial &97S September +1. he ma8ority of lawabiding !itiGens have the right to be prote!ted by a vigilant and proa!tive government. disperse groups that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violating the laws of the land as well as ordinan!es on the proper !ondu!t of mass a!tions and demonstrations... it is not !ontent-neutral as it does not apply to mass a!tions in support of the government.

suggest the e(position of some !ause not espoused by the government. e" 'l. #inally. that the government takes a!tion even before the rallyists !an perform their a!t.(aA and 13(aA thereof. >146: -re these !ontent-neutral or !ontent-based regulationsN -re they void on grounds of overbreadth or vaguenessN Do they !onstitute prior restraintN -re they undue delegations of powers to )ayorsN Do they violate international human rights treaties and the ?niversal De!laration of . they argue that it is preemptive.ur"$er#ore. &o. "$e l'w )ele%'"e7 power7 "o "$e M'yor wi"$ou" pro*i)i&% cle'r 7"'&)'r)7. D. 3. and that no law. //6. &o. +.=. -nd even assuming that the legislature !an set limits to this right. 1. //6 !annot put the prior re0uirement of se!uring a permit. the phrase :ma(imum toleran!e. argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to assembly and therefore $. it !ontravenes the ma(imum toleran!e poli!y of $. D. / " " # e "5 3. 1+ 1. Se!ond. shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government be!ause they are being tolerated. petitioners FM3.1/' :opinion.. it !annot pass the stri!t s!rutiny test. allowing the )ayor to deny the permit on !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e of a !lear and present danger is too !omprehensive. . %egarding the C=% poli!y. -s a !ontent-based legislation. :protesting or influen!ing. -s to the C=% poli!y. the limits provided are unreasonable: #irst.cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er '&) i##i&e&" '&) %r'*e )'&%er! 're i&co&7i7"e&".uman %ightsN D. and %epubli! -!t &o. aside from being void for being vague and for la!k of publi!ation. <n the !onstitutionality and legality of the poli!y of Calibrated =reemptive %esponse (C=%A: 1/' .. //6.=. it is void for being an ultra vires a!t that alters the standard of ma(imum toleran!e set forth in $. &o. -lso. <n the !onstitutionality of $atas =ambansa &o. 4. . T$e "wo 7"'&)'r)7 7"'"e) i& "$e l'w7 . #urthermore.. the five-day re0uirement to apply for a permit is too long as !ertain events re0uire instant publi! assembly. //6 and violates the Constitution as it !auses a !hilling effe!t on the e(er!ise by the people of the right to pea!eably assemble. spe!ifi!ally Se!tions 3.=. ordinan!e or e(e!utive order supports the poli!y. otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane.

1'6 1. he first point to mark is that the right to pea!eably assemble and petition for redress of grievan!es is. *s the poli!y void on its fa!e or due to vaguenessN *s it void for la!k of publi!ationN *s the poli!y of C=% void as applied to the rallies of September +4 and <!tober 3. or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es. &o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h. in !. hey have. in fa!t. Apurado. D and 4. of e(pression.=. #or these rights !onstitute the very basis of a fun!tional demo!rati! polity. this Court in !.". %espondents. Apurado already upheld the right to assembly and petition. 3. as early as the onset of this !entury. CA. vs. . parti!ularly Se!tions 3 and / of the $ill of %ights. together with freedom of spee!h. 5urispruden!e abounds with hallowed pronoun!ements defending and promoting the people1s e(er!ise of these rights. v. the Court. as well as to engage in pea!eful !on!erted a!tivities. +. Se!tion 3 of -rti!le *** of the Constitution provides: S9C. +66DN H e l )I =etitioners1 standing !annot be seriously !hallenged. and of the press. of e(pression. for that matter. as guaranteed by the Constitution. Se!tion +(DA of -rti!le *Q. //6 whi!h re0uires a permit for all who would publi!ly assemble in the nation1s streets and parks. hese rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution. &o. on the other hand. have !hallenged su!h a!tion as !ontrary to law and dispersed the publi! assemblies held without the permit. a right that en8oys prima!y in the realm of !onstitutional prote!tion. to organiGe or form asso!iations for purposes not !ontrary to law. and Se!tion .. purposely engaged in publi! assemblies without the re0uired permits to press their !laim that no su!h permit !an be validly re0uired without violating the Constitutional guarantee.". or of the press. -s early as the onset of this !entury. already upheld the right to assembly and petition and even went as far as to a!knowledge: 1'6 . as follows: here is no 0uestion as to the petitioners1 rights to pea!eful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievan!es and. heir right as !itiGens to engage in pea!eful assembly and e(er!ise the right of petition. of -rti!le Q***. -s stated in Jacinto v. is dire!tly affe!ted by $. without whi!h all the other rights would be meaningless and unprote!ted.

this Court said: he right to freedom of spee!h. su!h as towns. the grievan!e and the more intense the feeling. *n #rimicias.1'1 :*t is rather to be e(pe!ted that more or less disorder will mark the publi! assembly of the people to protest against grievan!es whether real or imaginary. -gain. and it may be delegated to politi!al subdivisions. are fundamental personal rights of the people re!ogniGed and guaranteed by the !onstitutions of demo!rati! !ountries. and the greater. and to pea!efully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es. as follows: 1'1 . nor in8urious to the rights of the !ommunity or so!iety. however. to promote the health. the Court likewise sustained the prima!y of freedom of spee!h and to assembly and petition over !omfort and !onvenien!e in the use of streets and parks.. as a rule will be the dis!iplinary !ontrol of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor. Augoso. he power to regulate the e(er!ise of su!h and other !onstitutional rights is termed the sovereign :poli!e power. $ut if the prose!ution be permitted to seiGe upon every instan!e of su!h disorderly !ondu!t by individual members of a !rowd as an e(!use to !hara!teriGe the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities. is not absolute. whi!h is the power to pres!ribe regulations. then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievan!es would e(pose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment. edu!ation. his sovereign poli!e power is e(er!ised by the government through its legislative bran!h by the ena!tment of laws regulating those and other !onstitutional and !ivil rights. pea!e. morals. muni!ipalities and !ities by authoriGing their legislative bodies !alled muni!ipal and !ity !oun!ils ena!t ordinan!es for purpose $eyes v. but the utmost dis!retion must be e(er!ised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious !ondu!t and between an essentially pea!eable assembly and a tumultuous uprising. in #rimicias v. the less perfe!t. it must be remembered that the right. $ut it is a settled prin!iple growing out of the nature of well-ordered !ivil so!ieties that the e(er!ise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it shall not be in8urious to the e0ual en8oyment of others having e0ual rights. and general welfare of the people. good order or safety. &e(t. agatsing further e(pounded on the right and its limits. if the purposes whi!h they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prose!uting authorities.. be!ause on su!h o!!asions feeling is always wrought to a high pit!h of e(!itement. *f instan!es of disorderly !ondu!t o!!ur on su!h o!!asions. while sa!rosan!t.

may be identified with the liberty to dis!uss publi!ly and truthfully any matter of publi! !on!ern without !ensorship or punishment. or any other legitimate publi! interest. *t is not to be limited. as is the !ase with freedom of e(pression. o paraphrase the opinion of 5usti!e %utledge. +. *t is entitled to be a!!orded the utmost deferen!e and respe!t. mu!h less denied. are inseparable. it was not by a!!ident or !oin!iden!e that the rights to freedom of spee!h and of the press were !oupled in a single guarantee with the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievan!es. or of the press. 9ven prior to the 1'. #ree spee!h. here is to be then no previous restraint on the !ommuni!ation of views or subse0uent liability whether in libel suits. *n every !ase. &owhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of e(pression and pea!eable assembly better e(pressed than in this e(!erpt from an opinion of 5usti!e #rankfurter: :*t must never be forgotten. *t was in order to avert for!e and e(plosions due to restri!tions upon rational modes of !ommuni!ation that the guaranty of free spee!h was given a generous s!ope. publi! morals. *t must always be 1'+ . of a !lear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. arising from the denial of a permit. -ll these rights. or !ontempt pro!eedings unless there be a :!lear and present danger of a substantive evil that Bthe StateC has a right to prevent. that the $ill of %ights was the !hild of the 9nlightenment. he sole 8ustifi!ation for a limitation on the e(er!ise of this right. of a serious evil to publi! safety. where there is a limitation pla!ed on the e(er!ise of this right. #reedom of assembly !onnotes the right of the people to meet pea!eably for !onsultation and dis!ussion of matters of publi! !on!ern. 5usti!e )al!olm had o!!asion to stress that it is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of our republi!an institutions and !omplements the right of free spee!h. *t is thus !lear that the Court is !alled upon to prote!t the e(er!ise of the !ognate rights to free spee!h and pea!eful assembly. being in a !onte(t of violen!e. he Constitution is 0uite e(pli!it: :&o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h. while not identi!al. e(!ept on a showing. $ut utteran!e in a !onte(t of violen!e !an lose its signifi!an!e as an appeal to reason and be!ome part of an instrument of for!e. however.D Constitution. 7hat was rightfully stressed is the abandonment of reason. like free press. so fundamental to the maintenan!e of demo!rati! institutions. the utteran!e. the 8udi!iary is !alled upon to e(amine the effe!ts of the !hallenged governmental a!tuation.. Su!h utteran!e was not meant to be sheltered by the Constitution. Collins. $a!k of the guaranty of free spee!h lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the pea!eful means for gaining a!!ess to the mind. speaking for the ma8ority of the -meri!an Supreme Court in homas v.. or a!tion for damages. therefore. of a !hara!ter both grave and imminent. or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the 2overnment for redress of grievan!es.1'+ 1. prose!ution for sedition. whether verbal or printed. is the danger.. publi! health.

' vintage of.. been a part of the privileges. hat is to ensure a true ferment of ideas. rights and liberties of !itiGens. absent the e(isten!e of a !lear and present danger of a substantive evil. in8ury to property. he privilege of a !itiGen of the ?nited States to use the streets and parks for !ommuni!ation of views on national 0uestions may be regulated in the interest of all" it is not absolute. !ommuni!ating thoughts between !itiGens. o give free rein to one1s destru!tive urges is to !all for !ondemnation. =rimi!ias made e(pli!it what was impli!it in )uni!ipality of Cavite v. time out of mind. -purado: :*t is rather to be e(pe!ted that more or less disorder will mark the publi! assembly of the people to protest against grievan!es whether real or imaginary. here are. as a rule. of 1'. he utmost !alm though is not re0uired.ague v. %o8as. of !ourse. penned in 1'6> to be pre!ise.. be!ause on su!h o!!asions feeling is always wrought to a high pit!h of e(!itement. *ts value may lie in the fa!t that there may be something worth hearing from the dissenter. and the greater the grievan!e and the more intense the feeling. -s pointed out in an early =hilippine !ase. 7hat is guaranteed is pea!eable assembly. on the !hoi!e of @uneta as the pla!e where the pea!e rally would start. riotous !ondu!t. C*<: :7henever the title of streets and parks may rest. and in !onsonan!e with pea!e and good order" but must not. Su!h use of the streets and publi! pla!es has. he =hilippines is !ommitted to the view e(pressed in the plurality opinion. *t bears repeating that for the !onstitutional right to be invoked. a 1'1D de!ision. and a!ts of vandalism must be avoided.1'. *t is to make a mo!kery of the high estate o!!upied by intelle!tual liberty in our s!heme of values. ?nited States v. have been used for purposes of assembly. <ne may not advo!ate disorder in the name of protest. *t means more than 8ust the right to be heard of the person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. remembered that this right likewise provides for a safety valve. immunities. will be the dis!iplinary !ontrol of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. even if !ontrary to the prevailing !limate of opinion. and dis!ussing publi! 0uestions. in the guise of respondents. resort to non-pea!eful means may be the only alternative. &or is this the sole reason for the e(pression of dissent. be abridged or denied. he Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly. #ugoso. the less perfe!t. they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the publi! and. allowing parties the opportunity to give vent to their views. mu!h less prea!h rebellion under the !loak of dissent. where this Court !ategori!ally affirmed that plaGas or parks and streets are outside the 1'. here !an be no legal ob8e!tion. #or if the pea!eful means of !ommuni!ation !annot be availed of. well-defined limits. but relative. from an!ient times. %esort to for!e is ruled out and outbreaks of violen!e to be avoided. and must be e(er!ised in subordination to the general !omfort and !onvenien!e. he above e(!erpt was 0uoted with approval in =rimi!ias v. 5usti!e %oberts in . .

it !annot be disregarded by the attempted e(er!ise of some !ivil right whi!h in other !ir!umstan!es would be entitled to prote!tion. whi!h !ertainly is not the only purpose that it !ould serve.1'3 !ommer!e of man and thus nullified a !ontra!t that leased =laGa Soledad of plaintiff-muni!ipality. ((( 1'3 . 3.. he authority of a muni!ipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and !onvenien!e of the people in the use of publi! highways has never been regarded as in!onsistent with !ivil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon whi!h they ultimately depend. with a view to !onserving the publi! !onvenien!e and of affording an opportunity to provide proper poli!ing. *n holding that the then )ayor #ugoso of the City of )anila should grant a permit for a publi! meeting at =laGa )iranda in Ruiapo. L L L. held that Ka statute re0uiring persons using the publi! streets for a parade or pro!ession to pro!ure a spe!ial li!ense therefor from the lo!al authorities is not an un!onstitutional abridgment of the rights of assembly or of freedom of spee!h and press. 7here a restri!tion of the use of highways in that relation is designed to promote the publi! !onvenien!e in the interest of all. and are not invested with arbitrary dis!retion to issue or refuse li!ense.ampshire. this Court !ategori!ally de!lared: :<ur !on!lusion finds support in the de!ision in the !ase of 7illis Co( v. as the statute is !onstrued by the state !ourts. the li!ensing authorities are stri!tly limited. #ugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the matter. the statute of &ew .ughes affirming the 8udgment of the State Supreme Court.ampshire as not !onferring upon the li!ensing board unfettered dis!retion to refuse to grant the li!ense. !hap. &either !an there be any valid ob8e!tion to the use of the streets to the gates of the ?S embassy. *n that !ase. State of &ew .1+ ?. imply the e(isten!e of an organiGed so!iety maintaining publi! order without whi!h liberty itself would be lost in the e(!esses of unrestri!ted abuses. where.ampshire =.ughes in a subse0uent portion of the opinion be ignored: :Civil liberties.S. . pla!e.. D4'. %eferen!e was made to su!h plaGa :being a promenade for publi! use. to a !onsideration of the time. in its de!ision (1'31A penned by Chief 5usti!e .@. se!tion +. there !an be no valid reason why a permit should not be granted for the proposed mar!h and rally starting from a publi! park that is the @uneta. 13D. hardly two blo!ks away at the %o(as $oulevard. =rimi!ias v. o repeat.. -nd the Supreme Court of the ?nited States. he !ontrol of travel on the streets of !ities is the most familiar illustration of this re!ognition of so!ial need. providing that no parade or pro!ession upon any ground abutting thereon. shall be permitted unless a spe!ial li!ense therefor shall first be obtained from the sele!tmen of the town or from li!ensing !ommittee. in the issuan!e of li!enses.1 was !onstrued by the Supreme Court of &ew . and manner of the parade or pro!ession. :&or should the point made by Chief 5usti!e . and held valid. as guaranteed by the Constitution.

even more so than on the other departments I rests the grave and deli!ate responsibility of assuring respe!t for and deferen!e to su!h preferred rights. &onetheless. "$e 'pplic'&"7 #u7" 8e $e'r) o& "$e #'""er. w$e"$er ('*or'8le or ')*er7e. 7hile pruden!e re0uires that there be a realisti! appraisal not of what may possibly o!!ur but of what may probably o!!ur. is not to be :abridged on the plea that it may be e(er!ised in some other pla!e. <(= T$ere'("er. dispense with what has been so feli!itously termed by 5usti!e . #ree spee!h and pea!eable assembly. however. given all the relevant !ir!umstan!es. <c= Suc$ 'pplic'"io& 7$oul) 8e (ile) well '$e') i& "i#e "o e&'8le "$e pu8lic o((ici'l co&cer&e) "o 'ppr'i7e w$e"$er "$ere #'y 8e *'li) o8Aec"io&7 "o "$e %r'&" o( "$e per#i" or "o i"7 %r'&" 8u" '" '&o"$er pu8lic pl'ce. $y way of a summary.. *t is not. is not as to the auspi!es under whi!h the meeting is held but as to its purpose" not as to the relations of the speakers. o&ly "$e co&7e&" o( "$e ow&er or "$e o&e e&"i"le) "o i"7 le%'l po77e77io& i7 reCuire). *t !annot be too strongly stressed that on the 8udi!iary.olmes :as the sovereign prerogative of 8udgment. ( ( (. speaking for the -meri!an Supreme Court. in the language of 5usti!e %oberts. hus if so minded. hat would deprive it of its pea!eful !hara!ter. &o verbal formula. he e(er!ise of su!h a right. they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority. -. is not devoid of dis!retion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. here !ould be danger to publi! pea!e and safety if su!h a gathering were marked by turbulen!e.. along with the other intelle!tual freedoms. unfettered dis!retion. *t is true that the li!ensing offi!ial.. here respondent )ayor. en8oying as they do pre!eden!e and prima!y. ( ( ( he prin!iple under -meri!an do!trines was given utteran!e by Chief 5usti!e . $i7 )eci7io&. <'= T$e 'pplic'&"7 (or ' per#i" "o $ol) '& '77e#8ly 7$oul) i&(or# "$e lice&7i&% 'u"$ori"y o( "$e )'"e. <8= I( i" were ' pri*'"e pl'ce. <)= I" i7 '& i&)i7pe&7'8le co&)i"io& "o 7uc$ re(u7'l or #o)i(ic'"io& "$'" "$e cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "e7" 8e "$e 7"'&)'r) (or "$e )eci7io& re'c$e). the presumption must be to in!line the weight of the s!ales of 8usti!e on the side of su!h rights. if the rights of free spee!h and pea!eable assembly are to be preserved. 1'D . still the assumption I espe!ially so where the assembly is s!heduled for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e I is that the permit must be for the assembly being held there. "$e pu8lic pl'ce w$ere '&) "$e "i#e 'hen i" will "'Le pl'ce.ughes in these words: : he 0uestion. of !ourse. <e= I( $e i7 o( "$e *iew "$'" "$ere i7 7uc$ '& i##i&e&" '&) %r'*e )'&%er o( ' 7u87"'&"i*e e*il.1'D 4. ((( /. are highly ranked in our s!heme of !onstitutional values. #u7" 8e "r'&7#i""e) "o "$e# '" "$e e'rlie7" oppor"u&i"y. no san!tifying phrase !an. but whether their utteran!es trans!end the bounds of the freedom of spee!h whi!h the Constitution prote!ts.

//6 was ena!ted after this Court rendered its de!ision in $eyes. &o. *f he is of the view that there is su!h an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil.=..%. the appli!ants must be heard 4. no permit shall be re0uired if the publi! assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinan!e or in private property.written permit shall be re0uired for any person or persons to organiGe and hold a publi! assembly in a publi! pla!e.1'4 $. *t is an indispensable !ondition to su!h refusal or modifi!ation that the !lear and present danger test be the standard for the de!ision rea!hed.DD. D4'A /. 3. =oliti!al meetings or rallies held during any ele!tion !ampaign period as provided for by law are not !overed by this -!t.owever. or in the !ampus of a governmentowned and operated edu!ational institution whi!h shall be sub8e!t to the rules and regulations of said edu!ational institution. 1+D SC%.=.44.. Application reCuirements. in whi!h !ase only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired. &o.. @-4D. Su!h appli!ation should be filed well ahead in time to enable the publi! offi!ial !on!erned to appraise whether there may be valid ob8e!tions to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another publi! pla!e. he provisions of $. he appli!ants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the li!ensing authority of the date.5. $y way of a summary. 1'/. S9C. D. #ermit ?2en reCuired and ?2en not reCuired. 4'%'"7i&% (2. *f it were a private pla!e. S9C. 66. &ovember '. //6 pra!ti!ally !odify the ruling in $eyes: Reye7 *. . only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired.--ll appli!ations for a permit shall !omply with the following guidelines: (aA he appli!ations shall 1'4 . -o. the publi! pla!e where and the time ?2en it will take pla!e.-. &o.

the transport and the publi! address systems to be used. hereafter. S9C. publi! safety.1'> on the matter. and pla!e or streets to be used for the intended a!tivity" and the probable number of persons parti!ipating. be in writing and shall in!lude the names of the leaders or organiGers" the purpose of su!h publi! assembly" the date. at least five (DA working days before the s!heduled publi! assembly. his de!ision. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application. must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. (bA he appli!ation shall in!orporate the duty and responsibility of appli!ant under Se!tion / hereof. whether favorable or adverse. (dA ?pon re!eipt of the appli!ation. they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority. whi!h must be duly a!knowledged in writing. time and duration thereof. publi! 1'> . hus if so minded. the offi!e of the !ity or muni!ipal mayor shall !ause the same to immediately be posted at a !onspi!uous pla!e in the !ity or muni!ipal building. I (aA *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order. (!A he appli!ation shall be filed with the offi!e of the mayor of the !ity or muni!ipality in whose 8urisdi!tion the intended a!tivity is to be held. 4.

(eA *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit. the permit shall be deemed granted.1'/ !onvenien!e. the %egional rial Court. the )uni!ipal rial Court. publi! morals or publi! health. the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law. (dA he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!aBntC within twenty-four hours. (fA *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court. the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit. failing whi!h. he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter. (bA he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed. or the *ntermediate -ppellate 1'/ . (!A *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit. said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.

p. 1. ('&. (gA -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours from date of!ision granting su!h permit or modifying it in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall be immediately e(e!utory.fair and impartial reading of $.R. his was adverted to in OsmeGa v.3' .1'' Court.e/t to t0e r87e5 and re487ation5 of 5aid ed8/ationa7 in5tit8tion. No. (hA *n all !ases. &o. <Se/. i7 &o" '& '87olu"e 8'& o( pu8lic '77e#8lie7 8u" ' re7"ric"io& "$'" 7i#ply re%ul'"e7 "$e "i#e. . 111&. No. Ibid. pl'ce '&) #'&&er o( "$e '77e#8lie7.22. pla!e. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. 66. therefore.+. (iA elegraphi! appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. 2&& SCRA (('. -o. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or. in his absen!e. ( of !.1.3/ where the Court referred to it as a :!ontent-neutral. *t is very !lear. w0i/0 are 4o9erned b6 t0e E7e/tion Code and ot0er e7e/tion re7ated 7aw5: and p8b7i/ a55emb7ie5 in t0e /amp85 of a 4o9ernment. and manner of holding publi! assemblies. he referen!e to :lawful !ause.owned and operated ed8/ationa7 in5tit8tion. &&0?. Comelec. w0i/0 50a77 be 58b. w0i/0 are 4o9erned b6 t0e Labor Code and ot0er 7abor 7aw5: po7iti/a7 meetin4 or ra77ie5 0e7d d8rin4 an6 e7e/tion /ampai4n period. does not make it !ontent-based 3/ 3' D6 . that 4. .1.=. regulation of the time.=a> and Se/. 1'' . Mar/0 . E2/ept pi/3etin4 and ot0er /on/erted a/tion in 5tri3e area5 b6 wor3er5 and emp7o6ee5 re587tin4 from a 7abor di5p8te. //6 thus readily shows that it refers to 'll kinds of publi! assembliesD6 that would use publi! pla!es. its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within forty-eight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. to the ne(t in rank.

promote 0ea7t0 and 5afet6. and t0o5e w0i/0 are e55entia7 to t0e promotion of t0e 4enera7 we7fare. I 9very !ity and muni!ipality in the !ountry shall within si( months after the effe!tivity of this -!t establish or D1 #0e Lo/a7 t085A o9ernment Code. &either are the words :opinion. and :influen!ing. B E9er6 7o/a7 4o9ernment 8nit 50a77 e2er/i5e t0e power5 e2pre5576 4ranted. 1D. #inally. otherwise they would not be :pea!eable. publi! safety. the law provides a pre!ise and suffi!ient standard I the !lear and present danger test stated in Se!. a5 we77 a5 power5 ne/e55ar6. #urthermore. sin!e they !an refer to any sub8e!t. impro9e p8b7i/ mora75. here is. en0an/e t0e ri40t of t0e peop7e to a ba7an/ed e/o7o46. and pre5er9e t0e /omfort and /on9enien/e of t0eir in0abitant5.+66 be!ause assemblies really have to be for lawful !auses. -ei"$er i7 "$e l'w o*er8ro'). 1@. 4(!A substantially means the same thing and is not an in!onsistent standard. !ome from the wording of the Constitution. sin!e the !ontent of the spee!h is not relevant to the regulation. -s to whether respondent )ayor has the same power independently under %epubli! -!t &o. -s to the )ele%'"io& o( power7 "o "$e #'yor. t0o5e ne/e55ari76 imp7ied t0erefrom. appropriate. he words :petitioning the government for redress of grievan!es. or in/identa7 for it5 effi/ient and effe/ti9e 4o9ernan/e. Se!tion 1D of the law provides for an alternative forum through the !reation of freedom parks where no prior permit is needed for pea!eful assembly and petition at any time: S9C.. and was not pursued by the parties in their arguments. :protesting. for those who !annot wait. Se/tion 1@ 5tatin4 t0e 4enera7 we7fare /7a85e. Spe/ifi/a776. publi! !onvenien!e. his is a re!ogniGed e(!eption to the e(er!ise of the right even under the ?niversal De!laration of . *t regulates the e(er!ise of the right to pea!eful assembly and petition only to the e(tent needed to avoid a !lear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. maintain pea/e and order.8ri5di/tion5.uman %ights and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights. he referen!e to :imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. so its use !annot be avoided. en/o8ra4e and 58pport t0e de9e7opment of appropriate and 5e7f. 7o/a7 4o9ernment 8nit5 50a77 en58re and 58pport amon4 ot0er t0in45.85ti/e. and entitled to prote!tion. in Se!. #inally.re7iant 5/ientifi/ and te/0no7o4i/a7 /apabi7itie5. t0e pre5er9ation and enri/0ment of /87t8re. &o prior re7"r'i&". Cit0in t0eir re5pe/ti9e territoria7 . SEC. >146D1 is thus not ne!essary to resolve in these pro!eedings. publi! morals or publi! health. likewise. +66 . the permit !an only be denied on the ground of !lear and present danger to publi! order. in the definition of publi! assembly !ontent based. Areedom par@s. 4(aA. en0an/e e/onomi/ pro5perit6 and 5o/ia7 . ma(imum toleran!e is for the prote!tion and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the !ontent of the e(pressions in the rally. General Welfare. promote f877 emp7o6ment amon4 t0eir re5ident5.

the ma(imum amount of toleran!e re0uired is dependent on how pea!eful or unruly a mass a!tion is. his !ould only mean that :ma(imum toleran!e. )any have taken it to mean ina!tion on the part of law enfor!ers even in the fa!e of mayhem and serious threats to publi! order. ?nfortunately. *t should be emphasiGed that the poli!y of ma(imum toleran!e is provided under the same law whi!h re0uires all pubi! assemblies to have a permit. the phrase :ma(imum toleran!e.=. *n the !ities and muni!ipalities of )etropolitan )anila.=. has departed from its real essen!e under $. //6. &o. * only wanted to disabuse the minds of the publi! from the +61 . poli!e and other pea!ekeeping authorities shall observe during a publi! assembly or in the dispersal of the same. -s stated earlier. $lg. whi!h is the :highest degree of restraint that the military. hus.+61 designate at least one suitable :freedom park. whi!h allows the dispersal of rallies without a permit. Clearly. as far as pra!ti!able. or mall in their respe!tive 8urisdi!tions whi!h. the Soli!itor 2eneral has !on!eded that the use of the term should now be dis!ontinued. shall be !entrally lo!ated within the pobla!ion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. and whi!h re!ogniGes !ertain instan!es when water !annons may be used. other felt that they need not bother se!ure a permit when holding rallies thinking this would be :tolerated. the popular !onnotation of :ma(imum toleran!e. submitted by the Soli!itor 2eneral.=. thus: he truth of the matter is the poli!y of :!alibrated preemptive response. has a!0uired a different meaning over the years. the respe!tive mayors shall establish the freedom parks within the period of si( months from the effe!tivity this -!t. no rally poli!y. <ur law enfor!ers should !alibrate their response based on the !ir!umstan!es on the ground with the view to preempting the outbreak of violen!e.. his is stated in the -ffidavit of respondent 9(e!utive Se!retary 9duardo 9rmita. is in !onsonan!e with the legal definition of :ma(imum toleran!e. )ore so. sin!e it does not mean anything other than the ma(imum toleran!e poli!y set forth in $. however. (!A of $. is not in !onfli!t with a :no permit. //6. //6. or with the dispersal and use of water !annons under !ertain !ir!umstan!es for indeed. under Se!tion . when * stated that !alibrated preemptive response is being enfor!ed in lieu of ma(imum toleran!e * !learly was not referring to its legal definition but to the distorted and mu!h abused definition that it has now a!0uired. + he Court now !omes to the matter of the C=%.. $lg.

=. &o.ORE. :ma(imum toleran!e. and C'li8r'"e) 5ree#p"i*e Re7po&7e ..1 4. -rreGa vs. Fillar vs. &avarro vs. *t merely !onfuses our people and is used by some poli!e agents to 8ustify abuses. /6 =hil. 9la. -raneta ?niversity #oundation. '. the petitions are :RA-TE/ in part.>.D SC%. standard. 1. Fillegas.C5RA.>. 1+4 SC%.> SC%. San!heG. $.. . vs.. $agatsing. 1+D SC%."see guidelines /. not the government.1/' >.. %amento. E?e 2ave instructed t2e #(# as ?ell as t2e local government units to strictly enforce a no permit. .from using it and to STRICTLY O4SERVE the re0uirements of ma(imum toleran!e.F &one of these is at loggerheads with the letter and spirit of $atas =ambansa $lg. De la CruG vs.. //6.4/D 1+. pla!e and manner of assemblies. %uiG vs. is for the benefit of rallyists.. Re')I 1.3 and >3+ +. %ight of assembly. 1D3 SC%.D3+ 1. 1+' SC%. #ar from being insidious. 9arnshaw. &estleS =hils. <n the other hand. espe!ially freedom of e(pression and freedom of assembly. unla?ful mass actions ?ill 'e dispersed.+. =hilippine $looming )ills Case. 9vangelista vs. '' =hil. 1. the so-!alled !alibrated preemptive response poli!y has no pla!e in our legal firmament and must be stru!k down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. #or this reason. //6 !annot be !ondemned as un!onstitutional" it does not !urtail or unduly restri!t freedoms" it merely regulates the use of publi! pla!es as to the time. . #uguso.34 D. is -3LL and VOI/ and respondents are E-JOI-E/ to RE. arrest all persons violating t2e la?s of t2e land . D> =hil +DD .'3 +6+ . Carpio vs. is valid be!ause it is sub8e!t to the !onstitutionally-sound :!lear and present danger.>6D 16. *n sum.RAI. *=. . )alabanan vs. this Court reiterates its basi! poli!y of upholding the fundamental rights of our people. 2ordon. 2uevara. =rimi!ias vs.D1 SC%.1 SC%.1 SC%. 0HERE. he delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally :permits. insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of ma(imum toleran!e. .D' 11. hus * said. no rally policy . * wanted to send a message that we would no longer be la( in enfor!ing the law but would hen!eforth follow it to the letter. *t is thus absurd for !omplainants to even !laim that * ordered my !orespondents to violate any law. 164 SC%. %eyes vs.+6+ notion that law enfor!ers would shirk their responsibility of keeping the pea!e even when !onfronted with dangerously threatening behavior. .DD. >1 3.

he property is owned by C$S Development Corporation (CDCA. is owned by the family of respondent )ayor Dy.A and Consolidated $road!asting System. H1 9211. *d.D3B/C <n D 5uly 1''4. :. *n 1''4. *S-$9@-. runs Star #) D7* Cauayan (:Star #).A. C$S. 9. April 9.9 <&@J < . 1>'311A. CA3AYA-. he servi!e areas of DO&C and Star #) e(tend from the provin!e of *sabela to throughout %egion ** and the Cordillera region. RACMA . 4A:-OS MAEIMO. (:C$S.B>C <n +/ 5une 1''4.ER-A-/E>G:ARCIA '&) THE CITY O. also operating out of Cauayan City. *d. airing on the #) band. &ewsounds !ommen!ed relo!ation of its broad!asting stations. B>C D3 B/C $ollo (2.9% S . &o.9 *&2-.ELICISIMO :. J. -mong the stations run by &ewsounds is $ombo %adyo DO&C Cauayan (DO&CA. in turn. MEER.: $ombo %adyo =hilippines (:$ombo %adyo.ousing and @and ?se %egulatory $oard (. .9 .*<& <=9%.*&2 *& C-?-J-& C* J. the . CEASAR :.HO-. #reedom from prior restraint Closing a radio station is definitely prior restraint -E0SO3-/S 4ROA/CASTI-: -ET0ORF I-C. 1. *d. DDB'C +6. *n!. '&) CO-SOLI/ATE/ 4ROA/CASTI-: SYSTEM. at '1. parti!ularly petitioners &ewsounds $road!asting &etwork. Cauayan City. at '6. an -) radio broad!ast station operating out of Cauayan City..D.D+B4C . I-C. management offi!e and transmitters on property lo!ated in )inante +.. hese stations are operated by !orporations organiGed and in!orporated by $ombo %adyo. 4. 1 . *sabela. -o7. *n!. CDC was issued by the then muni!ipal government of Cauayan a building permit authoriGing the !onstru!tion of a !ommer!ial establishment on the property.@?%$A issued a Ooning De!ision !ertifying the property as !ommer!ial.A. p.DDB'C hat same day. /Y. *sabela.+6.A operates several radio stations under the -) and #) band throughout the =hilippines. an affiliate !orporation under the $ombo %adyo network whi!h holds title over the properties used by $ombo %adyo stations throughout the !ountry.R. the <ffi!e of the )uni!ipal =lanning and Development Coordinator (<)=DCA of Cauayan affirmed that the D+ B4C D. . (:&ewsounds.%.

9 re0uisite Goning !learan!e needed for the issuan!e of the mayor1s permit be!ause there was allegedly no D-% De!ision !onverting said land from agri!ultural to !ommer!ial. noting as well that the lo!ation :is !lassified as a Commer!ial area.C 46 B13C 41 B1DC *d. he following day.building was !onse0uently ere!ted on the property. *d. .9%9-# 9%. at 1/-1'. at 16.-116.9 2%<?&D . *d.. representatives of petitioners formally re0uested then City Ooning -dministrator-Designate $agnos )a(imo ()a(imoA to issue a Goning !learan!e for the property.*<&S $-S9D <& .+63 !ommer!ial stru!ture to be !onstru!ted by CDC !onformed to lo!al Goning regulations. *d.D>B11C . petitioners applied for the renewal of the mayor1s permit. at '/-16+. in!luding mayor1s permits from 1''> to +661.41B1DC )a(imo.C -ll that !hanged beginning in +66+..D/B1+C During that period.4+B14C =etitioners had never been re0uired to submit su!h papers before. the City -ssessor1s <ffi!e in Cauayan City noted on CDC1s De!laration of %eal =roperty filed for +66+ !onfirmed that based on the e(isting file. DO&C and Star #) operated as radio stations. *d.D'B1. CDC paid real property ta(es on the property based on the !lassifi!ation of the land as !ommer!ial. *d. . $oth stations su!!essfully se!ured all ne!essary operating do!uments. and from 1''4 to +661.-'>.46B13C <n +/ 5anuary.9 =9 * *<&9%S #-*@9D < S?$)* . *d.. <n 1D 5anuary of that year. CDC1s property was !lassified as :!ommer!ial. at 16. at '+. at 111..D4B16C Similar !ertifi!ations would be issued by <)=DC from 1''> to +661. the <)=DC had !onsistently !ertified that the property had been !lassified as !ommer!ial.9 )?&*C*=-@ <##*C*-@S =-D@<CM9D . and therefrom. re0uired petitioners to submit :either an approved land !onversion papers from the Department of -grarian %eform (D-%A showing that the property was !onverted from prime agri!ultural land to !ommer!ial land. 4+ B14C +63 .. at '. however. D4 B16C D> B11C D/ B1+C D' B1.9 %-D*< S . or an approved resolution from the "angguniang ayan or "angguniang #anglungsod authoriGing the re-!lassifi!ation of the property from agri!ultural to !ommer!ial land.

or a!tion for damages. COMELEC. Se!.+C #ree spee!h and free press may be identified with the liberty to dis!uss publi!ly and truthfully any matter of publi! interest without !ensorship and punishment.%. of e(pression or the press. with the % C of Cauayan City. %ollo (2..rival -) radio 4.B.DC . &o. *n their tale.&o.netEin0uireropinionEletterstotheeditorEview E+66/6/61-1D1'D6E*sabela- B. +6-1>1. prose!ution for sedition. . $ombo %adyo :was aggressive in e(posing the widespread ele!tion irregularities in *sabela that appear to have favored respondent Dy and other members of the Dy politi!al dynasty.3C %espondent Ceasar Dy is the brother of #austino Dy. 3'+ (1'4'A. at http:EEopinion.> =hil.3C 44 the !losure of the petitioners1 radio stations -rti!le . a former assistant station manager at petitioners1 own DO&C $ombo %adyo. hey admit that in +661.44B. this !ase before the Supreme Court. See 5 $urgonio. 3>1. =hilippine Daily *n0uirer (1 -ugust +66/A. 1>6+>6A.DC +6D .en!e. he petition was a!!ompanied by an appli!ation for the issuan!e of temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory in8un!tion. 1. B. 5r. +on5ales v. there is undeniable politi!al !olor. here is to be no previous restraint on the !ommuni!ation of views or subse0uent liability whether in libel suits. +>. p. * S S ? 9: *s !onstitutionalN HEL/I he !losure !onstitutes prior restraint.. the petition was dismissed by the % C as well as the Court of -ppeals.C 4D B.4. :Isa'ela gov ?2o ended a dynasty ?ins $M pri5e. or !ontempt pro!eedings unless there be a !lear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. do!keted as SC. hereafter. 3.4DB..C =etitioners have taken great pains to depi!t their struggle as a te(tbook !ase of denial of the right to free spee!h and of the press...in0uirer.. both provisional reliefs being denied by the % C through an <rder dated +6 -pril +663. he fundamental !onstitutional prin!iple that informs our analysis of both petitions is the freedom of spee!h. $ran!h +6 to !ompel the muni!ipality to allow the radio stations to operate. governor of *sabela from +661 until he was defeated in his re-ele!tion bid in +663 by 2ra!e =ada!a.+C 43 B.+6D =etitioners filed a petition for mandamus.43B.

&o. &o.%.. et al. meaning that governmental a!tion dire!ted at e(pression must satisfy a greater burden of 8ustifi!ation than governmental a!tion dire!ted at most other forms of behavior. e(pression or of the press.%. that have impeded the ability of petitioners to freely broad!ast.>+B31C 7e gov-who-ended-a-dynasty-wins-%)-priGe 4> B. 1>. 14/. &o. 14/. >1. +on5ales. D3D SC%.9%.. here is a long-standing tradition of spe!ial 8udi!ial soli!itude for free spee!h. &o. at '43./C >6 $ollo (2. C2ave5 v.. and had been doing so for some years undisturbed by lo!al authorities. $ollo (2.. respondents in their offi!ial !apa!ities have taken a!tions. +d /++.D.331. 9d. 3'+. 2. 7ithout taking into a!!ount any e(tenuating !ir!umstan!es that may favor the respondents. . 36.%. +on5ales. 5rior re7"r'i&" re(er7 "o o((ici'l %o*er&#e&"'l re7"ric"io&7 o& "$e pre77 or o"$er (or#7 o( e@pre77io& i& ')*'&ce o( 'c"u'l pu8lic'"io& or )i77e#i&'"io&. if not broad!ast at all. >1 B36C >+ B31C B. C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 (13th ed.S. p. "ocial Deat2er "tations.4C =etitioners likewise dire!t our attention to a +6 #ebruary +663 arti!le printed in the =hilippine Daily *n0uirer where Dy is 0uoted as intending :to file disenfran!hisement pro!eedings against DO&C-). 2?& . +64 . hese a!tions have ranged from withholding permits to operate to the physi!al !losure of those stations under !olor of legal authority. D>1. +661A.+64 station in Cauayan City.>C 4' B. D3D SC%.>C he following undisputed fa!ts bring the issue of free e(pression to fore. >13.%. p. D/D (+661A" !iting (e? )or@ &imes v. Inc. 7hile on!e petitioners were able to broad!ast freely. 1>6+>6A./. =etitioners are authoriGed by law to operate radio stations in Cauayan City. 1D #ebruary +66/. +' @. whatever may be the motive. 13+. 1>'311A.4>B..4C 4/ B. D7DJ.. 1<2.69<36= 0$ile '&y 7y7"e# o( prior re7"r'i&" co#e7 "o cour" 8e'ri&% ' $e'*y 8ur)e& '%'i&7" i"7 co&7"i"u"io&'li"y. we !an identify the bare a!ts of !losing the radio stations or preventing their operations as an a!t of prior restraint against spee!h. -n elementary s!hool !hild with a basi! understanding of !ivi!s lessons will re!ogniGe that free spee!h animates these !ases. 1D #ebruary +66/.'C C2ave5 v.4/B. 2. is owned and operated by the Dy family.<39= &o" 'll prior re7"r'i&"7 o& 7peec$ 're i&*'li). 3'1.= hat the a!ts imputed against respondents !onstitute a prior restraint on the freedom of e(pression of respondents who happen to be members of the press is !lear enough. !nited "tates. ?.331. $eginning in +66+. 36' =hil. v. /+3 (1'>1A. COMELEC. the weight of government has sin!e bore down upon them to silen!e their voi!es on the airwaves.

the restri!tion is based on the sub8e!t matter of the utteran!e or spee!h. 1D #ebruary +66/. 3'.+6> had said in "D" v.1. . the a!t of an @2? re0uiring a business of proof that the property from whi!h it operates has been Goned for !ommer!ial use !an be argued. 7ith spe!ifi! referen!e to DO&C. *d. as !ontent-neutral sin!e su!h a regulation would presumably apply to any other radio station or business enterprise within the @2?. Kany system of prior restraints of e(pression !omes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its !onstitutional validity.. +on5ales. et al. C2ave5 v.%. &ewsounds. petitioners make the following relevant allegations: 4. and under well defined standards" and a co&"e&"G8'7e) restraint or !ensorship.1 here is thus a reversal of the normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation. >.>.owever. &o. merely !on!erned with the in!idents of the spee!h. he 2overnment Sthus !arries a heavy burden of showing 8ustifi!ation for the enfor!ement of su!h restraint.e. and the people1s !orollary right to freedom of spee!h.C >D B33C >4 B3DC "D" v.. i. at 'D>... the !ondu!t of publi! offi!ials that are detrimental to the !onstituents of *sabela. in!luding Cauayan City.B3+C -t the same time. the !ir!umstan!es of this !ase di!tate that we view the a!tion of the respondents as a !ontent-based restraint..'.. e(pression and petition the government for redress of grievan!es. i. . B3+C >3 B3. Corollarily./. 8urispruden!e distinguishes between a co&"e&"G &eu"r'l regulation.331. DO&C has always been at the forefront of the struggle to maintain and uphold freedom of the press. when applied to a radio station. +6> . are sub8e!t to lesser but still heightened s!rutiny. among others.e. to this date. or one that merely !ontrols the time. COMELEC. *ndeed.>4B3DC <stensibly. .>3B3. pla!e or manner. supra note 33. *n their petition for mandamus filed with the % C. DO&C has been a primary medium for the e(er!ise of the people of *sabela of their !onstitutional right to free spee!h. . is engaged in dis!ussing publi! issues that in!lude. D3D SC%. 14/. and the press.9%. COMELEC: :$e!ause of the preferred status of the !onstitutional rights of spee!h.>DB33C Content-neutral regulations of spee!h or of !ondu!t that may amount to spee!h. 2?& . 2.C Content-based laws are generally treated as more suspe!t than !ontentneutral laws be!ause of 8udi!ial !on!ern with dis!rimination in the regulation of e(pression. *n view of its wide !overage. e(pression. su!h a measure is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. supra note .

+. *t must be pointed out that in the +661 ele!tions. *d.>'BD. he !losure !omes at a most !riti!al time when the people are set to e(er!ise their right of suffrage.+6/ 4. Su!h statement manifests and !onfirms that respondents1 denial of petitioners1 renewal appli!ations on the ground that the =roperty is !ommer!ial is merely a prete(t and that their real agenda is to remove petitioners from Cauayan City and suppress the latter1s voi!e. +66+A that the )ayor1s <ffi!e started 0uestioning petitioners1 appli!ations for renewal of their mayor1s permits. p. at 1>/-1>'. Su!h timing emphasiGes the ill motives of respondents.+.C he fa!ts !onfronting us now !ould have easily been drawn up by a !onstitutional law professor eager to provide a plain e(ample on how free spee!h may be violated.>/B3>C -ll those !ir!umstan!es lead us to believe that the steps employed by respondents to ultimately shut down petitioner1s radio station were ultimately !ontent-based.D.>> B34C (((( . D7DJ. $ombo %adyo was aggressive in e(posing the widespread ele!tion irregularities in *sabela that appear to have favored respondent Dy and other members of the Dy politi!al dynasty.. al.D. he timing of respondents1 !losure of petitioners1 radio stations is also very telling. respondent Dy was 0uoted as saying that he will :disenfran!hise the radio station. 2?& .C $ollo (2. &o. *n an arti!le found in the =hilippine Daily in0uirer dated +6 #ebruary +663.9% et. .. . supra note 33. . *t is 8ust too !oin!idental that it was only after the +661 ele!tions (i.1. &ewsound1s only rival -) station in Cauayan and the rest of *sabela. %espondents !losure of petitioners1 radio stations is !learly tainted with ill motives. +6/ ..e.%.D. his is a blatant violation of the petitioners1 !onstitutional right to press freedom.. 1>'311A. is owned and operated by the family of respondent Dy.. the test whi!h we >> B34C >/ B3>C >' BD.D. 1>6. he Court is of the position that the a!tions of the respondents warrant heightened or stri!t s!rutiny from the Court. he ?nited States Supreme Court generally treats restri!tion of the e(pression of a parti!ular point of view as the paradigm violation of the #irst -mendment.

7e turn to the issue of damages. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: ( ( ( ( (+A #reedom of spee!h" /6 BD3C /1 BDDC See D2ite Lig2t v. &o. gender.+6' have deemed appropriate in assessing !ontent-based restri!tions on free spee!h. 2. >11 (1''/A. hat re0uirement. or any private individual. or to the !ourts. who dire!tly or indire!tly obstru!ts.%. -ny publi! offi!er or employee. +6' .. should only obtain upon !lear proof that the property from where the business would operate was !lassified as agri!ultural under the @2?1s land use plan or Goning ordinan!es and other relevant laws. =1 )illion in e(emplary damages. or ra!e as well as other fundamental rights as e(pansion from its earlier appli!ations to e0ual prote!tion. . test is that the burden falls upon respondents as agents of government to prove that their a!tions do not infringe upon petitioners1 !onstitutional rights. *t is thus evident that respondents had no valid !ause at all to even re0uire petitioners to se!ure :approved land !onversion papers from the D-% showing that the property was !onverted from prime agri!ultural land to !ommer!ial land. . OsmeGa v. as well as for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restri!ting the politi!al pro!ess.D1 =hil. the right to damages from respondents is s0uarely assured by -rti!le . +6 5anuary +66'./6BD3C he immediate impli!ation of the appli!ation of the :stri!t s!rutiny. &o eviden!e to that effe!t was presented by the respondents either to the petitioners. whi!h provides: -rt. . let us now turn to the appropriate reliefs that should be granted. COMELEC. =etitioners had sought to re!over from respondents =/ )illion in temperate damages.+. and =1 )illion in attorney1s fees. assuming that it !an be demanded by a lo!al government in the !onte(t of approving mayor1s permits./1BDDC the burden lies with the government to establish su!h !ompelling reason to infringe the right to free e(pression. defeats. 1++/34.aving established that respondents had violated petitioners1 legal and !onstitutional rights. -s !ontent regulation !annot be done in the absen!e of any !ompelling reason. Court of Appeals. 4'+.+ (+A of the Civil Code. 2iven respondents1 !lear violation of petitioners1 !onstitutional guarantee of free e(pression. of laws dealing with the regulation of spee!h.

petitioners have maintained before this Court the same amount. from the nature of the !ase..!omEar!hiveE newEstationprofile Ebombo!auayanEinde(.. ''1.bomboradyo.+16 7e noted in Lim v./3B/>C he e(isten!e of pe!uniary in8ury at bar !annot be denied. /4>+6. Inc. >4./+B/DC he appli!ation of -rti!le . B9(emplary damagesC are an antidote so that the poison of wi!kedness may not run through the body politi!. it likewise serves noti!e to publi! offi!ers and employees that any violation on their part of any person1s guarantees under the $ill of %ights will meet with final re!koning.. despite that fa!t.. See also MH# +arments. B/4C /3 B/>C /D $ollo (2.++>./>B'6C %espondents. 4 )ar!h +66'A /4 B/'C /> B//C See C*F*@ C<D9. /+ (1'/+A. 1661 (1'>DA. et!.. but the a!tions of respondents led to the !losure of their radio stations from 5une +663 until this Court issued a writ of preliminary in8un!tion in 5anuary +664. 1/. &o.%. B'6C +16 . +++3../DB//C he lost potential in!ome during that one and a half year of !losure !an only be presumed as substantial enough. possibly unanti!ipated when the original amount for !laimed temperate damages was !al!ulated. 2. +. -!!ording to an arti!le posted on the offi!ial website of $ombo %adyo. Still. the amount of whi!h nevertheless being diffi!ult to prove. B/4C emperate damages avail when the !ourt finds that some pe!uniary loss has been suffered but its amount !an not.D.+ of the Civil CodeC is to put an end to offi!ial abuse by plea of the good faith./4B/'C 9(emplary damages !an be awarded herein.%. he present prayer for temperate damages is premised on the e(isten!e of pe!uniary in8ury to petitioner due to the a!tions of respondents.. =ubli! offi!ers who violate the Constitution they are sworn to uphold embody :a poison of wi!kedness that may not run through the body politi!. Octot v. +++D. + September 1''3. /. v. for temperate damages. sin!e temperate damages are available. DO&C a!!ordingly resumed broad!ast on / #ebruary +664. See http:EEwww. )'aGe5. by purposely denying the !ommer!ial !hara!ter of the property in order to deny petitioners1 the e(er!ise of their !onstitutional rights and their business.htm (last visited. et al. &o. +. See C*F*@ C<D9./. 1'> =hil. -rt.4 SC%. #once de Leon that :BpCubli! offi!ials in the past have abused their powers on the prete(t of 8ustifiable motives or good faith in the performan!e of their dutiesV BandC the ob8e!t of B-rti!le .. manifested bad /+ B/DC 146 =hil. -rt. p. =/ )illion. he said amount is :reasonable under the !ir!umstan!es. 1>'311A.+ not only serves as a measure of pe!uniary re!overy to mitigate the in8ury to !onstitutional rights. =etitioners had no way of knowing it when they filed their petition. Court of Appeals . be proved with !ertainty.

0HERE. NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas..+11 faith in a wanton. at /D" !iting Ong )iu v. fraudulent. '7 well '7 $i7 ow& TV 5ro%r'# $el) &o" prior re7"r'i&".. fraudulent. wo days after. before the ) %C$. 7e likewise deem the prayer for =1 )illion in attorney1s fees as suitable under the !ir!umstan!es. masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae o di 'a. at around 16:66 p. o di 'aT O. supra note />. Hon.R. 162 61. "a'i ng lola @o masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. are hereby reversed and set aside./'B'+C and the sought for amount of =1 )illion is more than appropriate. )'aGe5. -O.++. 2alapon and seven other private respondents. JR. aired on ?& F . +4 -pril 1'/'.. 4RO. CA.+. %espondent )i!hael ).. masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. re!kless.9 VELASCO. as host of the program Ang %ating %aan. +11 . made the following remarks: Le2itimong ana@ ng demonyoB sinungalingB +ago @a talaga Mic2ael. +663. "o'ra ang @asinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. ELISEO SORIA-O VS. A5RIL 99.>. petitioner.4OAR/. who felt dire!tly alluded to in petitioner1s remark. all members of the *glesia ni Cristo (*&CA. Su7pe&7io& (or "$ree . /' B'+C B'1C #atricio v. 9. &o. Leviste. oppressive and malevolent manner. oppressive or malevolent manner. against petitioner in !onne!tion with the above broad!ast. J. he assailed de!isions of the Court of -ppeals and the %egional rial Court of Cauayan City.ORE. Sandoval.I <n -ugust 16. was then a minister of *&C and a regular host of the F program Ang &amang // :B he award of e(emplary damagesC would be allowed only if the guilty party a!ted in a wanton.%. separate but almost identi!al affidavit-!omplaints were lodged by 5essie @. 2. //B'1C he amount of e(emplary damages need not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages. Octot v..m. the petitions are :RA-TE/. :. $ran!h +3.ICATIO.3! #o&"$7 o( TV Ho7". MOVIE A-/ TELEVISIOREVIE0 A-/ CLASSI. '1 SC%. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a. @-D1/.

to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued. +663. *n 2. he following day.. finding respondent Soriano liable for his utteran!es and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (. @aguardia and two other members of the ad8udi!ation board re!use themselves from hearing the !ase.%. B4C *d. +663 in relation to the alleged use of some !uss words in the -ugust 16.'1B3C -fter a preliminary !onferen!e in whi!h petitioner appeared.C B3C *d. at 1D+-1D3. 'DB/C do!keted as 2. B/C *d. (=DA 1'/4.. +663 episode of Ang %ating %aan. at .'6B. %ule F** of the ) %C$ %ules of =ro!edure.9D 14 -?2?S +663 -2-*&S . %ules of =ro!edure in the Condu!t of .%.9 <%D9% <# =%9F9& *F9 S?S=9&S*<& =%<)?@2. preventively suspended the showing of Ang %ating %aan program for +6 days.B4C wo days after. <n September +>. +663. by <rder of -ugust 14.. !reating the ) %C$. >. B'C *d.C #orthwith.'4B'C =etitioner then filed this petition for !ertiorari and prohibition with prayer for in8un!tive relief. +1+ . at 11+-11. in relation to Se!.A months suspension from his program.'. petitioner raises the following issues: . 143>/D. in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion .9%9#<%9.(dA of =residential De!ree &o. the ) %C$ issued a de!ision.earing for Fiolations of =D 1'/4 and the *%%.>/. in -dm. 143>/D.9D $J %9S=<&D9& B) %C$C D. the ) %C$ sent petitioner a noti!e of the hearing on -ugust 14. disposing as follows: 7. S< <%D9%9D. 61-63. at 131-1D1. &o. BDC *d. :-ng Dating Daan. followed by the filing with this Court of a petition for !ertiorari and prohibition. =rivate %espondents1 )emorandum. however. praying that Chairperson ConsoliGa =. Case &o. 14D4.4. Chapter Q*** of the +663 *mplementing %ules and %egulations (*%%A of =D 1'/4 and Se!. a De!ision is hereby rendered. B>C *d. do!keted as 2. &o. at 144-+D+.'+BDC he same order also set the !ase for preliminary investigation. &o.+1+ %aan. petitioner sought to withdraw'3B>C his motion for re!onsideration. *d. the ) %C$. '3 'D '4 B.9 9@9F*S*<& =%<2%-) A(+ %A&I(+ %AA( ( ( ( *S &?@@ -&D '6 '1 '+ '. in view of all the foregoing. . at 116. at '+3.%. petitioner sought re!onsideration of the preventive suspension order.

+1.9%9 <.9 S-)9" C<&S9R?9& @J.S?$S9R?9& =?&*S.*<&S.9.9 ) %C$ =?%S?-& . -S -==@*9D < =9 * *<&9%.9 *SS?-&C9 <# =%9F9& *F9 S?S=9&S*<& <%D9%S" ($A $J %9-S<& <# @-CM <# D?9 . S=99C.9 @-7" C<&S9R?9& @J..)9& C?% -*@*&2 .9D 1' <C <$9% +663.9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ 2?-%-& 99 <# #%99D<) <# %9@*2*<&. +1. at 1/+. %?@9S <# =%<C9D?%9.9D 1' <C <$9% +663.9 C-S9 $9&C.*F9 <# 9R?-@ =%< 9C *<& ?&D9% ." ** S9C *<& . .9 B*%%C *S *&F-@*D *&S<#-% -S * =%<F*D9S #<% .9-%*&2 *& .4. -S -==@*9D < =9 * *<&9%. petitioner relies on the following grounds: S9C *<& . 2%-F9 -$?S9 <# D*SC%9 *<& -)<?& *&2 < @-CM <% 9QC9SS <# 5?%*SD*C *<& (-A $J %9-S<& .9 B*%%C.(CA <# B=DC 1'/4.9 ) %C$ =?%S?-& ." -&D *** '> B16C *d. D9C*S*<& D.9 C-S9 $9&C. %?@9S <# =%<C9D?%9. -&D <##*C*-@ -C S <# .9%9 <.9 @-7" (DA #<% $9*&2 F*<@..: * S9C *<& . -&D 9Q=%9SS*<&.9 *)=@9)9& *&2 %?@9S -&D %92?@.*F9 <# #%99D<) <# S=99C.(CA <# B=DC 1'/4. . F<*D #<% $9*&2 *SS?9D 7* .9 C-S9 . *S =.%. *.$9&C..*F9 <# #%99D<) <# %9@*2*<&" -&D (9A #<% $9*&2 F*<@. *. 14D4. -&D 9Q=%9SS*<& -S * =-% -M9S <# .(CA <# B=DC 1'/4." (CA #<% $9*&2 F*<@.9D +> S9= 9)$9% +663 -&D <%D9% D.9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ 2?-%-& 99 <# D?9 =%<C9SS <# @-7 -&D 9R?-@ =%< 9C *<& ?&D9% .9& @J ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@ -&D 9&-C 9D 7* .<? <% *& 9QC9SS <# 5?%*SD*C *<& ( ( ( C<&S*D9%*&2 . -%9 @*M97*S9 C<&S * ? *<&-@@J *&#*%) -S -==@*9D *& . -&D <##*C*-@ -C S <# .'>B16C *n 2. D9C*S*<& D. ?&D?@J *&#%*&29S <& .9D +> S9= 9)$9% +663 -&D <%D9% D..9 &. ?&D?@J *&#%*&29S <& .9. . &o. -%9 @*M97*S9 C<&S * ? *<&-@@J *&#*%) -S -==@*9D *& .?%9 <# .

De!ember 1'.perusal of the ) %C$1s basi! mandate under =D 1'/4 reveals the possession by the agen!y of the authority. or 0uasi8udi!ial. *.C -nd in determining whether an agen!y has !ertain powers.9 =9&-@ *9S #<% F*<@.9D +> S9= 9)$9% +663 -&D <%D9% D.'/B11C :. -&D <##*C*-@ -C S <# . 166 B1. 14+ SC%. COMELEC. the authority given should be liberally !onstrued. &o.*F9 @-7 (+66DA" !iting Matien5on v.9 B*%%C.%. A5arcon v.*<& <# @92*S@. A'ellera.S?##*C*9& S -&D-%D #<% * S *)=@9)9& . 1'//. '/ '' *d.9D 1' <C <$9% +663. 2.%.9 ) %C$ =?%S?-& .*<&S <# * S =%<F*S*<&S. 1''>. -dministrative agen!ies have powers and fun!tions whi!h may be administrative.*<& . at 34.166B1..* D<9S &< =%<F*D9 #<% .9%9 <.9%9$J %9S?@ *&2 *& -& ?&D?9 D9@92. regarding the assailed order of preventive suspension. >>4. 1146. 5une /.9. e(pressly or impliedly. %?@9S <# =%<C9D?%9.>4'. 161 B13C -gpalo.%. *t is petitioner1s threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant *%% provision authoriGing it are invalid inasmu!h as =D 1'/4 does not e(pressly authoriGe the ) %C$ to issue preventive suspension. -nd this authority stems naturally from. albeit impliedly. -D)*&*S %. 161 SC%.>3>. its power of regulation and supervision. or a mi( of the five.9 C-S9 $9&C. +4/ SC%. &os.1. although its implementability had already been overtaken and veritably been rendered moot by the e0ually assailed September +>. &o. 1'/6. "andigan'ayan.R. 2.161B13C . the in0uiry should be from the law itself.. investigatory. &o. 162 61 7e shall first dispose of the issues in 2.. C<&S9R?9& @J.+13 B=DC 1'/4 *S &< C<)=@9 9 *& * S9@# -&D D<9S &< =%<F*D9 #<% . to issue the !hallenged order of preventive suspension. 0uasi-legislative.*F9 =<79% $J %9-S<& . and is ne!essary for the e(er!ise of. D9C*S*<& D. by law. +663 de!ision..C #imentel v. $ut on!e as!ertained as e(isting.+. #ebruary +4. =etitioner1s !ontention is untenable. B1+C B11C +13 . 143>/D. @-D. regulatory. . as may be !onferred by the Constitution or by statute. -%9 @*M97*S9 C<&S * ? *<&-@@J *&#*%) -S -==@*9D *& .''B1+C hey have in fine only su!h powers or authority as are granted or delegated.D/1-/. -o.

X he have the following fun!tions. regulate. whi!h empowers the ) %C$ to :supervise. television programs and publi!ity materials sub8e!t of the pre!eding paragraph. programs and materials as are determined by the $<-%D to +1D $<-%D shall . inde!ent. reprodu!ed. (9mphasis added. deny or !an!el. permits for the ( ( ( produ!tion. whi!h. powers and duties: (((( !A o approve or disapprove. and grant. sold. e@$i8i"io&. deny or !an!el.+1D Se!. re%ul'"e. permits for the ( ( ( e(hibition. television programs and publi!ity materials.. sale. lease. television programs and publi!ity materials. in the 8udgment of the board applying !ontemporary #ilipino !ultural values as standard. !opied. and grant. andEor television broad!ast of all motion pi!tures. distribution. as 0uoted above. are ob8e!tionable for being immoral. to the end that no su!h pi!tures.(dA. or with a dangerous tenden!y to en!ourage the !ommission of violen!e or of wrong or !rime su!h as but not limited to: (((( viA hose whi!h are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person. !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms. leased. delete ob8e!tionable portions from andEor prohibit the ( ( ( produ!tion. . ( ( ( e(hibition andEor television broad!ast of the motion pi!tures. '&)Kor "ele*i7io& 8ro')c'7" of all motion pi!tures.A he issuan!e of a preventive suspension !omes well within the s!ope of the ) %C$1s authority and fun!tions e(pressly set forth in =D 1'/4. !opying. more parti!ularly under its Se!. distributed. =owers and #un!tions. . e@$i8i"e) '&)Kor 8ro')c'7" 8y "ele*i7io&" (((( kA o e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the purposes and ob8e!tives of this -!t ( ( (. of =D 1'/4 pertinently provides the following: Se!tion . pro%r'#7 '&) #'"eri'l7 as are determined by the $<-%D to be ob8e!tionable in a!!ordan!e with paragraph (!A hereof shall be ( ( ( produ!ed. in8urious to the prestige of the %epubli! of the =hilippines or its people. "o "$e e&) "$'" &o 7uc$ pic"ure7. whether living or dead" (((( (dA o 7uper*i7e.

4/'. and in order to prevent or stop further violations or for the interest and welfare of the publi!. 116D'6.%. 114/61. !able F station ( ( ( provided that the temporaryEpreventive order thus issued shall have a life of not more than twenty (+6A days from the date of issuan!e. he preventive suspension was a!tually done in furtheran!e of the law. =reventive suspension. &o. &o.II-ny time during the penden!y of the !ase. as petitioner insinuates. 16+ B1DC -nd the power to dis!ipline and impose penalties. -pril 4.16. is not a penalty by itself. empower itself to impose preventive suspension through the medium of the *%% of =D 1'/4. 1''+. 2./6" e=a v. preventive suspension authority of the ) %C$ springs from its powers !onferred under =D 1'/4. to prevent further violations as it investigates. outrun its authority under the law. he ) %C$ did not. *asCue5. would not work to deprive the ) %C$ a basi! dis!iplinary tool. %e!all that the ) %C$ is e(pressly empowered by statute to regulate and supervise television programs to obviate the e(hibition or broad!ast of. Lastimoso v.%. . 1''D. among others. the Chairman of the $oard may issue a =reventive Suspension <rder mandating the preventive ( ( ( suspension of the permitEpermits involved. Surely. )ar!h . Chapter Q*** of the *%% provides: Se!. during su!h investigation. supervise. -ny other !onstrual would render its power to regulate. su!h as preventive suspension. imposed pursuant. #ar from it. Contrary to petitioner1s assertion. Se!. andEor !losure of the ( ( ( television network. +6> SC%. $ut the mere absen!e of a provision on preventive suspension in =D 1'/4. by imposing the assailed preventive suspension. 1''D. . or dis!ipline illusory. if granted. Capulong... &o. *t is true that the matter of imposing preventive suspension is embodied only in the *%% of =D 1'/4. being merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. it ought to be noted.1. Alon5o v.%. 2. 2. the power to issue preventive suspension forms part of the ) %C$1s e(press regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and dis!iplinary authority subsumed in or implied from su!h mandate. =%9F9& *<& S?S=9&S*<& <%D9%. B14C B1DC +14 . '>13'. to the ) %C$1s duty 16+ 16. . Court of Appeals. to preventively suspend the person sub8e!t of the !omplaint. !orollarily. +3. SC%. of the *%% neither amended =D 1'/4 nor e(tended the effe!t of the law.B14C o reiterate. +33 SC%. the afore0uoted Se!. to repeat.. &either did the ) %C$. )ay 16.+14 be ob8e!tionable in a!!ordan!e with paragraph (!A hereof shall be ( ( ( e(hibited andEor broad!ast by television. inde!ent or immoral materials and to impose san!tions for violations and.3'>. !arries with it the power to investigate administrative !omplaints and. without more.

?nder Se!. supra note 1+.4 P +'+3>. albeit impliedly. implied powers are those that !an be inferred or are impli!it in the wordings or !onferred by ne!essary or fair impli!ation of the enabling a!t. 143>/DA. =etitioner1s restri!tive reading of =D 1'/4. 7hat the a!ronym ) %C$ stands for would suggest as mu!h. appeared before that $oard for a hearing on private respondents1 !omplaint. : o e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the purposes and ob8e!tives of this -!t ( ( (.%.(!A and (dA of =D 1'/4 finds appli!ation to the present !ase. would give the agen!y little leeway to operate.'. 1'>3.. 2. 16D B1/C 4. 7e !annot agree with petitioner1s assertion that the afore0uoted *%% provision on preventive suspension is appli!able only to motion pi!tures and publi!ity materials. 143D+>. the ) %C$ would regretfully be rendered ineffe!tive should it be sub8e!t to the restri!tions petitioner envisages. stifling and rendering it inutile. we reiterate. v. -nd while the law makes spe!ifi! referen!e to the !losure of a television network. (ational Housing Aut2ority . the power to impose preventive suspension is one of the implied powers of ) %C$. suffi!ient to authoriGe the ) %C$1s assailed a!tion.3'. +'D+'4" !iting A5arcon. . 1+. Chapter Q*** of the 163 B1>C C2ave5 v.16DB1/C Clearly. &o less than petitioner admitted that the order was issued after the ad8ournment of the hearing.(kA. &o. the suspension of a television program is a far less punitive measure that !an be undertaken. 1>> (1'. with the purpose of stopping further violations of =D 1'/4. Chapter Q*** of the +663 *%% merely formaliGed a power whi!h =D 1'/4 bestowed. *n the final analysis. . D/ SC%. Se!. in response to a written noti!e. 5ust as untenable is petitioner1s argument on the nullity of the preventive suspension order on the ground of la!k of hearing. limiting the ) %C$ to fun!tions within the literal !onfines of the law. he s!ope of the ) %C$1s authority e(tends beyond motion pi!tures. provides. at >41" $adio Communications of t2e #2ilippines. "antiago. D. -ugust +1. when a general grant of power is !onferred or a duty en8oined. every parti!ular power ne!essary for the e(er!ise of one or the performan!e of the other is also !onferred by ne!essary impli!ation.6 SC%.%.+1> of regulating or supervising television programs. @+'+. . .D. &os.(kA of =D 1'/4 !learly intends to grant the ) %C$ a wide room for fle(ibility in its operation. when Se!. +66>. -ugust 1D.. -s distinguished from e(press powers. -s it were.. p. +1> . pending a determination of whether or not there has a!tually been a violation. Se!. 3'>. &o. Se!.+. 1.. the ) %C$ handed out the assailed order after petitioner. on ) %C$. .164B1'C proving that he had already appeared before the ) %C$. 164 B1'C $ollo (2. the power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of ) %C$. Inc. -gain. =hil. Electoral Commission.4A.163B1>C -s we held in Angara v. *ndeed.

. B+1C B+6C +1/ .C *t guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile dis!rimination. for one. 16> 16/ *d. #or another. this does not be!ome a deprivation of the e0ual prote!tion guarantee.*@*==*&9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 +>3 (+66. .. Melgar. *d. 1'''. under like !ir!umstan!es and !onditions both in the privileges !onferred and liabilities imposed. at '3. he argument has no merit. 116 B+. at 'D.116B+. #ebruary 1. adding that words like :putang 'a'ae. =etitioner ne(t in8e!ts the notion of religious freedom. supra note 14" Espiritu v. =. are. 166/>3.C 1 De @eon. =etitioner1s position does not persuade. it was done after ) %C$ duly apprised petitioner of his having possibly violated =D 1'/416>B+6C and of administrative !omplaints that had been filed against him for su!h violation.111B+3C Surely. use language similar to that whi!h he used in his own. in their F programs. 11DD (1'D>A and other !ases. he Court need not belabor the fa!t that the !ir!umstan!es of petitioner. &o. are not fa!ing administrative !omplaints before the ) %C$. as hosts of Ang &amang %aan.16'B++C =etitioner ne(t faults the ) %C$ for denying him his right to the e0ual prote!tion of the law. simply too different to even !onsider whether or not there is a prima facie indi!ation of oppressive ine0uality. 16' B++C e=a. 5anuary +6.61 SC%. +uingona. 2.+1/ *%% of =D 1'/4.%.A.+D4. ne!essitating the ) %C$1s dis!iplinary a!tion.+>/" !iting Ic2ong v. *f the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his !riti!s. within the purview of this !ase. on one hand. +64 SC%.16/B+1C -t any event. petitioner !annot. that preventive suspension !an validly be meted out even without a hearing. arguing that. on the other. pla!e himself in the same shoes as the *&C ministers. 2. preventive suspension shall issue :BaCny time during the penden!y of the !ase. he e0ual prote!tion !lause demands that :all persons sub8e!t to legislation should be treated alike. 1+>316. as host of Ang %ating %aan. Hernande5. submitting that what he uttered was religious spee!h. under the premises.. &o. *n this parti!ular !ase. 1''+. were said in e(er!ise of his religious freedom.%. 161 =hil. 111 B+3C &iu v. he offers no proof that the said ministers. who. he was unable to answer the !riti!isms !oming from the *&C ministers. and the *&C ministers. owing to the preventive suspension order.

11. he se!tion reads as follows: &o law shall be made respe!ting the establishment of a religion. be it in the form of prior restraint. @D'. tends to present its own problems in the area of free spee!h prote!tion. 1. its Se!.11. Sala? Satig'a@. #acifica Aoundation. en8oying a lesser degree of prote!tion./ ?. B+4C Eastern roadcasting Corporation v.B+4C 5ust as settled is the rule that restri!tions. 1. of e(pression. here is nothing in petitioner1s statements sub8e!t of the !omplaints e(pressing any parti!ular religious belief.1" Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans. and motion pi!tures !ome within the broad prote!tion of the free spee!h and e(pression !lause. supra note +D" !iting ACC v. television.11+B+DC 9a!h method though.4 =etitioner urges the striking down of the de!ision suspending him from hosting Ang %ating %aan for three months on the main ground that the de!ision violates.>1>.%. or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!e. Jr. nothing furthering his avowed evangeli!al mission.+1' he Court is at a loss to understand how petitioner1s utteran!es in 0uestion !an !ome within the pale of Se!. *** of the Constitution. 3. #aramount #ictures. with broad!ast media. -rti!le *** of the 1'/> Constitution on religious freedom. shall forever be allowed. 5uly 1'. . -rt. e. . be!ause of its dissimilar presen!e in the lives of people and a!!essibility to !hildren. 3. 1'/D. without dis!rimination or preferen!e. 14D4. &o. he fa!t that he !ame out with his statements in a televised bible e(position program does not automati!ally a!!ord them the !hara!ter of a religious dis!ourse. &o. @-4'D66. his freedom of spee!h and e(pression guaranteed under Se!. D..+'. . 5uly ++.3 ?. apart from his religious freedom. 8udi!ial in8un!tion against publi!ation or 11+B+DC !" v.. or prohibiting the free e(er!ise thereof.(!A in parti!ular. >+4" +on5ales v. &o. whi!h reads: &o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h.. 2.S.S. &o religious test shall be re0uired for the e(er!ise of !ivil or politi!al rights. %ans. *t is settled that e(pressions by means of newspapers. =lain and simple insults dire!ted at another person !annot be elevated to the status of religious spee!h. or of the press. he free e(er!ise and en8oyment of religious profession and worship.4+/..e would also have the Court de!lare =D 1'/4. 1. of all forms of !ommuni!ation.> SC%. 1'/D. un!onstitutional for reasons arti!ulated in this petition. radio.> SC%. Jr. +1' .g.

3C $ernas. whether in libel and damage suits. $oyo !omes this line: :B Che freedom to e(press one1s sentiments and belief does not grant one the li!ense to vilify in publi! the honor and integrity of another.11'B. the limits of the freedom of e(pression are rea!hed when the e(pression tou!hes upon matters of essentially private !on!ern. determining whi!h of the !lashing interests should be advan!ed. !nited "tates. 11> B.11DB+/C *n the oft-0uoted e(pression of 5usti!e .33 SC%. %e +on5ales.1C :there are !ertain well-defined and narrowly limited !lasses of spee!h that are harmful.1C .C $eing of little or no value. at +3/.11/B.. @-..+C -gpalo. not absolute.9 C<&S * ? *<& <# . supra note . 1+6B. 1'>'. -ugust 4. prose!ution for sedition.2.3>4. supra note +>. =etitioner asserts that his utteran!e in 0uestion is a prote!ted form of spee!h.. at +3/. "oto vda. =rior restraint means offi!ial government restri!tions on the press or other forms of e(pression in advan!e of a!tual publi!ation or dissemination.spee!h would fall under the unprote!ted type if the utteran!es involved are :no essential part of any e(position of ideas.5. B+>C ++6 . <!tober .6. supra note +>. 3'6. S. the prevention and punishment of whi!h has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problems.1" !ited in $ernas. some forms of spee!h not being prote!ted. $ernas.olmes. D4/ (1'3+A. +63 (1'1'A" !ited in $ernas. he Court rules otherwise. "tate of (e? Hamps2ire.6C *ndeed. there is.11>B. and are of su!h slight so!ial value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is !learly outweighed by the so!ial interest in order and morality.. 114 B+'C &ro2?er@ v.1D ?.6C 2.++6 threat of !an!ellation of li!enseEfran!hise. as with the other freedoms en!ased in the $ill of %ights.3/1.. some forms of spee!h are not prote!ted by the Constitution. +666. *t has been established in this 8urisdi!tion that unprote!ted spee!h or low-value e(pression refers to 113 5.+644.*@*==*&9S: C<))9& -%J +6D (1''4A. is. . '+ SC%. 1+1B. *n net effe!t. 11/B. 1. however. &o.S.3C or. the !onstitutional guarantee :obviously was not intended to give immunity for every possible use of language.+C . meaning that restri!tions on unprote!ted spee!h may be de!reed without running afoul of the freedom of spee!h !lause. with like effe!t.. +3' ?. in dealing with or regulating them.9 =. . or !ontempt pro!eedings.D/ (+664A.113B+>C he freedom of e(pression.9 %9=?$@*C <# . -s has been held. 11D B+/C Lagunsad v.1+1B. supra at +1/.41/D.. they being essentially modes of weighing !ompeting values. or subse0uent liability. as noted in C2aplins@y v. =.*@*==*&9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 .114B+'C #rom Lucas v.C C2aplins@y. *t may be regulated to some e(tent to serve important publi! interests. 11'B. &o.1+6B. no imperative !all for the appli!ation of the !lear and present danger rule or the balan!ing-of-interest test.S.%. -ny sentiments must be e(pressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others. are anathema to the freedom of e(pression.

( ( ( 7hat remains !lear is that obs!enity is an issue proper for 8udi!ial determination and should be treated on a !ase to !ase basis and on the 8udge1s sound dis!retion.1+.B. the utteran!es :+ago @a talaga > > >. it would be a serious misreading of Miller to !on!lude that the trier of fa!ts has the unbridled dis!retion in determining what is :patently offensive. unprote!ted spee!h. may not !onstitute obs!ene but merely inde!ent utteran!es. !hildren !ould hardly be e(pe!ted to have the 1++ 1+. appeals to the prurient interest" (bA whether the work depi!ts or des!ribes. . in a patently offensive way. or for general viewership. but nonetheless stated the ensuing observations on the matter: T$ere i7 &o per(ec" )e(i&i"io& o( Bo87ce&i"yD 8u" "$e l'"e7" wor) i7 "$'" o( Miller !. *n Aernando v. and in a time slot that would likely rea!h even the eyes and ears of !hildren. false or misleading advertisement.DC #ollowing the !onte(tual lessons of the !ited !ase of Miller v. insulting or :fighting words. taken as a whole. B.S. 1D'>D1. Court of Appeals. obs!enity or pornography. in that !onte(t. he problem with the !hallenged statements is that they were uttered in a F program that is rated :2. to wit: (aA whether to the average person. they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult.. D16 SC%.. artisti!.++1 libelous statements. &o. .1++B.. o di 'aT.e. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a. masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae > > >. hey !an be viewed as figures of spee!h or merely a play on words. California.4C a patently offensive utteran!e would !ome within the pale of the term o'scenity should it appeal to the prurient interest of an average listener applying !ontemporary standards. .4C 2. politi!al.en!e. or s!ientifi! value. he Court finds that petitioner1s statement !an be treated as obs!ene. se(ual !ondu!t spe!ifi!ally defined by the appli!able state law" and (!A whether the work. ++1 . applying !ontemporary standards would find the work. those whi!h by their very utteran!e infli!t in8ury or tend to in!ite an immediate brea!h of pea!e and e(pression endangering national se!urity. the Court e(pressed diffi!ulty in formulating a definition of o87ce&i"y that would apply to all !ases. *n the !onte(t they were used. la!ks serious literary. 31.DC B. NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas. $ut. it is.46-.D1. +664.41. taken as a whole.%.!ursory e(amination of the utteran!es !omplained of and the !ir!umstan!es of the !ase reveal that to an average adult.. 7hile adults may have understood that the terms thus used were not to be taken literally. 1D. California w$ic$ e7"'8li7$e) 8'7ic %ui)eli&e7. at least with respe!t to the average !hild. i. De!ember 4. ?.

he term :putang 'a'ae./C 3. still the Court rules that petitioner !annot avail himself of the !onstitutional prote!tion of free spee!h. #ebruary 1D. the unbridled use of su!h language as that of petitioner in a television broad!ast !ould !orrupt impressionable young minds./ ?. it being the first time that inde!ent spee!h !ommuni!ated via television and the appli!able norm for its regulation are. B. -nd upon learning the meanings of the words used. 7ith respe!t to the young minds. means :a female prostitute. where !hildren had the opportunity to hear petitioner1s words. ?ndeniably the sub8e!t spee!h is very suggestive of a female se(ual organ and its fun!tion as su!h. Said statements were made in a medium easily a!!essible to !hildren. when speaking of the average person in the test for obs!enity.%. #oremost of these relates to inde!ent spee!h without prurient appeal !omponent !oming under the !ategory of prote!ted spee!h 1+3 1+D 1+4 B. >+4. D3D SC%. : ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a./.1+4B. he average !hild may not have the adult1s grasp of figures of spee!h. then stating that Sandoval was worse than that by using his mouth in a similar manner. from their end. a term wholly inappropriate for !hildren. we find petitioner1s utteran!es obs!ene and not entitled to prote!tion under the umbrella of freedom of spee!h. said utteran!es are to be treated as unprote!ted spee!h.. this !ase is veritably one of first impression. hey may be in0uisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. in this 8urisdi!tion. view this kind of inde!ent spee!h as obs!ene. and words may !onvey more than the literal meaning. Supra note +D. +on5ales./C and C2ave5 v. Jr. we are speaking of the average !hild. made the fo!al point..331. also without pla!ing the phrase in !onte(t.>C a 1'>/ -meri!an landmark !ase !ited in Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. &o doubt what petitioner said !onstitutes inde!ent or offensive utteran!es. +++ . *n this sense. Children !ould be motivated by !uriosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said.1+DB.+++ same dis!ernment. $ut while a 8urisprudential pattern involving !ertain offensive utteran!es !onveyed in different mediums has emerged. and may la!k the understanding that language may be !olorful. may. +66/.. 7ithout parental guidan!e.>C B. 9ven if we !on!ede that petitioner1s remarks are not obs!ene but merely inde!ent spee!h. without the guidan!e of an adult.S. 14/. #acifica Aoundation. *n this parti!ular !ase. =etitioner further used the terms. not the average adult. missing the !onte(t within whi!h it was used. making referen!e to the female se(ual organ and how a female prostitute uses it in her trade. Aederal Communications Commission (ACCA v. %ans. who !ould look it up in a di!tionary and 8ust get the literal meaning.1+3B. if they take these words literally and use them in their own spee!h or form their own ideas on the matter. young minds. &o.'C 2.'C is a ri!h sour!e of persuasive lessons.

albeit it did not e(pound and identify a !ompelling state interest in putting #CC1s !ontentbased regulatory a!tion under s!rutiny. the suspension ) %C$ imposed under the premises was. permissible restri!tion. Sala? Satig'a@. a pervasive medium that. ergo.. in one perspe!tive.'. fu!k. . within a parti!ular !onte(t. and :i&)ece&". irresistibly suggesting that. Supra note . sus!eptible to restri!tion. piss. tits. the ?S Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. whereas a !ontent-neutral restraint intends to regulate the time. in gist.++. et!. and manner of the e(pression under well-defined standards tailored to serve a !ompelling state interest. referring. ?nder Se!.!ontent-based restraint is aimed at the !ontents or idea of the e(pression. owing to two spe!ial features of the broad!ast medium.. though not ne!essarily obs!ene. #CC de!lared the language used as :p'"e&"ly o((e&7i*e. rated program. he Court in C2ave51+/B31C elu!idated on the distin!tion between regulation or restri!tion of prote!ted spee!h that is !ontent-based and that whi!h is !ontent-neutral. under a prohibiting law. meaning that the :material for television ( ( ( in the 8udgment of the $<-%D. however. pla!e. to an afternoon radio broad!ast when !hildren were undoubtedly in the audien!e. *n ACC.. to wit: (1A radio is a pervasive medium and (+A broad!asting is uni0uely a!!essible to !hildren. a show for general patronage is :BsCuitable for all ages. ++.1+'B3+C easily :rea!hes every home where there is a set Band whereC B!Children will likely be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown. . su!h inde!ent spee!h may validly be !ategoriGed as unprote!ted. to borrow from +on5ales v." second. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-based restraint to stri!t s!rutiny. 7e make this disposition against the ba!kdrop of the following interplaying fa!tors: Airst. 7ith the view we take of the !ase. #CC added. petitioner uttered his spee!h on a :2. or :for general patronage. B3+C Supra note +4. hastened to add that the monologue would be prote!ted spee!h in other !onte(ts. he ?S Court. +(-A of Chapter *F of the *%% of the ) %C$. words1+>B36C earlier re!orded in a monologue by a satiri! humorist later aired in the afternoon over a radio station owned by =a!ifi!a #oundation. however. without restraint on the message of the e(pression. seven of what were !onsidered :filthy. that its de!laratory order was issued in a :spe!ial fa!tual !onte(t. ?pon the !omplaint of a man who heard the pre-re!orded monologue while driving with his son. -!ting on the 0uestion of whether the #CC !ould regulate the sub8e!t utteran!e. the inde!ent spee!h was made via television. depending on the !onte(t within whi!h it was made. does not !ontain anything 1+> 1+/ 1+' B36C B31C :Shit. the broad!ast was aired at the time of the day when there was a reasonable risk that !hildren might be in the audien!e" and t2ird.

view has been advan!ed that unprote!ted spee!h refers only to pornography. he do!trine. he words petitioner used were./. -s the Court has been impelled to re!ogniGe e(!eptions to the rule against !ensorship in the past. supra. another instan!e of unprote!ted spee!h. or to have serious and substantial deleterious !onse0uen!es on the +on5ales v. Healt2 "ecretary Arancisco &.1.B34C ?nder the do!trine..-m 5ur. 1.++4. #2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v.olmes.1.6. +d Constitutional @aw Se!. 1. 3// SC%.++3 unsuitable for !hildren and minors. .+ B3DC ayan v. this parti!ular !ase !onstitutes yet another e(!eption. 1. Ermita.3B3>C *t was originally designed to determine the latitude whi!h should be given to spee!h that espouses anti-government a!tion. first formulated by 5usti!e .D SC%. would not avail him any relief. -s it were.3B3>C $ernas.C ++3 . 3'.. <!tober '.1B33C 1. $ut this list is not. 14'/.+B3DC =etitioner1s invo!ation of the !lear and present danger do!trine. +664.1. petitioner asserts that his utteran!es must present a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent and su!h danger must be grave and imminent. for the appli!ation of said test is un!alled for under the premises.%. said do!trine evolved in the !onte(t of prose!utions for rebellion and other !rimes involving the overthrow of government. it may be stated without fear of !ontradi!tion that ?S de!isional law goes beyond the aforesaid general e(!eptions.1. !reated by the ne!essity of prote!ting the welfare of our !hildren.S. at +1'-++6.6B3. 7here a language is !ategoriGed as inde!ent. 7ithout going into spe!ifi!s. as in petitioner1s utteran!es on a generalpatronage rated F program. %uCue III.C false or misleading advertisement.3. as some members of the Court would submit. e(!lusive or !arved in stone. 2. Sala? Satig'a@. 1>. &o.%. freedom of spee!h and of press is sus!eptible of restri!tion when and only when ne!essary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests whi!h the government may lawfully prote!t. -s unprote!ted spee!h. +66>.. !nited "tates.B34C 14.1B33C advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion. and may be viewed without adult guidan!e or supervision. by any !iviliGed norm. petitioner1s utteran!es !an be sub8e!ted to restraint or regulation. arguably the most permissive of spee!h tests. a!!ords prote!tion for utteran!es so that the printed or spoken words may not be sub8e!t to prior restraint or subse0uent punishment unless its e(pression !reates a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil whi!h the government has the power to prohibit. !learly not suitable for !hildren. Despite the settled ruling in ACC whi!h has remained undisturbed sin!e 1'>/.6B3. -pril +D." "c2enc@ v.1.+4D. 1. 2. +3' ?. it may be readily pros!ribed as unprote!ted spee!h. &o. D. and e(pression endangering national se!urity. 3>. supra note +>.

4B3'C 1.'BD+C and +on5ales v./BD1C Supra note +D. &o. however. !onditional. 1>6 SC%.4B3'C -s a standard of limitation on free spee!h and press.D. at 4. @-+>/.DB3/C he !lear and present danger rule has been applied to this 8urisdi!tion. however. 1'4'./6. 1.++D se!urity and publi! order of the !ommunity. COMELEC. COMELEC. 1. and the regulation results in an indire!t. +> SC%.1. 2. 146 SC%. COMELEC. 1. &os. absent proof of imminent !atastrophi! disaster.%. +on5ales v.1. 1'/'.%. 1. 1. COMELEC. elu!idated in his Separate <pinion that :where the legislation under !onstitutional atta!k interferes with the freedom of spee!h and assembly in a more generaliGed way and where the effe!t of the spee!h and assembly in terms of the probability of realiGation of a spe!ifi! danger is not sus!eptible even of impressionisti! !al!ulation.. . v.D.. 5anuary +/.131BD3C then the :balan!ing of interests. 136 BD. 16. COMELEC. 2enerally.C applied the balan!ing of interests test. the duty of the !ourts is to determine whi!h of the two !onfli!ting interests demands the greater prote!tion under the parti!ular !ir!umstan!es presented. the !lear and present danger do!trine is not the only test whi!h has been applied by the !ourts. A "-C ( roadcasting Corp.1.. >'4'6->6> P /6D>/.'D4. &o. undertake the :deli!ate and diffi!ult task ( ( ( to weigh the !ir!umstan!es and to appraise the substantiality of the reasons advan!ed in support of the regulation of the free en8oyment of rights ( ( (.C Supra note 3/. SC%/11" Adiong v. @-/+. the !lear and present danger test :does not lend itself to a simplisti! and all embra!ing interpretation appli!able to all utteran!es in all forums. he Court e(plained also in +on5ales v. Capulong1./../BD1C o be sure. partial abridgment of spee!h.136BD.>BD6C -s we observed in Eastern roadcasting Corporation. test !an be applied.'BD+C &o.DB3/C ++D .1.>1+. 2.3/4. therefore. test: 7hen parti!ular !ondu!t is regulated in the interest of publi! order. #ormer Chief 5usti!e #red %uiG Castro. #ebruary 1. "andigan'ayan. Sin!e not all evils !an be measured in terms of :pro(imity and degree./41.. 1. ( ( ( 7e must. COMELEC the :balan!ing of interests. &o. 2. -pril 1/.>BD6C Ualdivar v. +666. )ar!h .%. in +on5ales v. in several !asesXAyer #roductions v. +6> SC%. the Court. 1''+. the !lear and present danger test is not a magi! in!antation that wipes out all problems and does away with analysis and 8udgment in the testing of the legitima!y of !laims to free spee!h and whi!h !ompels a !ourt to release a defendant from liability the moment the do!trine is invoked.1. 131 BD3C Supra at /'/. 1'//.+. said do!trine is applied to !ases involving the overthrow of the government and even other evils whi!h do not !learly undermine national se!urity. -pril +'.

BD4C 13+BDDC ++4 . then the !ourt will find the legislation valid. the balan!e-ofinterests theory rests on the basis that !onstitutional freedoms are not absolute. *n short.9 1'/> C<&S * ? *<& <# . BD4C Supra at /''-'66.. .++4 *n enun!iating standard premised on a 8udi!ial balan!ing of the !onfli!ting so!ial values and individual interests !ompeting for as!endan!y in legislation whi!h restri!ts e(pression.133BD>C o the mind of the Court. 13. $riefly stated.A. it appears that the publi! interest served by restri!tive legislation is of su!h nature that it outweighs the abridgment of freedom. a wide range of fa!tors are ne!essarily relevant in as!ertaining the point or line of e0uilibrium. whether the restri!tion is dire!t or indire!t.. (1'44A" !ited in +on5ales v. not on the basis of abstra!tions. ((( -lthough the urgen!y of the publi! interest sought to be se!ured by Congressional power restri!ting the individual1s freedom. test re0uires a !ourt to take !ons!ious and detailed !onsideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation. on balan!e. Mauper.S. S. test whi!h has found appli!ation in more re!ent de!isions of the ?. 13. whether or not the persons affe!ted are few" (!A the value and importan!e of the publi! interest sought to be se!ured by the legislationIIthe referen!e here is to the nature and gravity of the evil whi!h Congress seeks to prevent" (dA whether the spe!ifi! restri!tion de!reed by Congress is reasonably appropriate and ne!essary for the prote!tion of su!h publi! interest" and (eA whether the ne!essary safeguarding of the publi! interest involved may be a!hieved by some other measure less restri!tive of the prote!ted freedom. and the free e(pression !lause affe!ted by it. to balan!e one against the other and arrive at a 8udgment where the greater weight shall be pla!ed.*@*==*&9S: . rests on the theory that it is the !ourt1s fun!tion in a !ase before it when it finds publi! interests served by legislation. COMELEC. and the so!ial importan!e and value of the freedom so restri!ted..2. Supreme Court. i. C*F*@ @*$9% *9S -&D .13+BDDC his balan!ing of interest test.C<))9& -%J (+66. supra note 3/" also !ited in 5. to borrow from =rofessor Mauper. $ernas. the balan!ing of interest do!trine is the more appropriate test to follow. on the one hand. and that they may be abridged to some e(tent to serve appropriate and important interests. 133 BD>C *d. not even those stated in the free spee!h and e(pression !lause. *f.9 %9=?$@*C <# . the :balan!ing.5.9 =. :are to be 8udged in the !on!rete. -mong these are (aA the so!ial value and importan!e of the spe!ifi! aspe!t of the parti!ular freedom restri!ted by the legislation" (bA the spe!ifi! thrust of the restri!tion. on the other.9 C<&S * ? *<& 11. the !ourt in %ouds laid the basis for what has been !alled the :balan!ing-of-interests.e.

intelle!tual. to promote and prote!t the physi!al. intelle!tual. approved on se!ond reading by the Constitutional Commission. and so!ial well-being of the youth to better prepare them fulfill their role in the field of nation-building. and pra!ti!es whi!h may foster ra!ial. prote!t their !hildren1s minds from e(posure to undesirable materials and !orrupting e(perien!es. and progressive demo!rati! state would be diffi!ult to attain. religious or other forms of dis!rimination. e(ploitation. !ruelty. stable. therefore. and immorality whi!h may pollute inno!ent minds. for without the en8oyment of su!h right. e(ploitation. e(plained that the State shall :e(tend so!ial prote!tion to minors against all forms of negle!t. he -rti!le on youth. one of the fundamental and most vital rights granted to !itiGens of a State is the freedom of spee!h or e(pression. no less. -fter a !areful e(amination of the fa!tual milieu and the arguments raised by petitioner in support of his !laim to free spee!h..A-month suspension was slapped on him for brea!h of ) %C$ rules. ** of the 1'/> Constitution. id.. spiritual. i##or'li"y. he Constitution has. at /1. -rrayed against the freedom of spee!h is the right of the youth to their moral. he Constitution.. 1. **. )oreover. 1. supra note +>. and so!ial being whi!h the State is !onstitutionally tasked to promote and prote!t. petitioner used inde!ent and obs!ene language and a three (. the State has a !ompelling interest in e(tending so!ial prote!tion to minors against all forms of negle!t. through regulatory me!hanisms. Se!. a free. *t has a !ompelling interest in helping parents.134BD'C *n the same way. as earlier indi!ated. &o doubt. C<&S * ? *<&. moral. the assertion by petitioner of his en8oyment of his freedom of spee!h is ranged against the duty of the government to prote!t and promote the development and welfare of the youth.. imposed the sa!red obligation and responsibility on the State to provide prote!tion to the youth against illegal or improper a!tivities whi!h may pre8udi!e their general well-being. in fa!t en8oins the State. -rt. effe!tive.++> *n the !ase at bar.. B46C *d.13DBD/C *ndisputably. ++> . Se!. spiritual. *n this setting.13>B46C 13D 134 13> BD/C BD'C $ernas. the Court rules that the government1s interest to prote!t and promote the interests and welfare of the !hildren ade0uately buttresses the reasonable !urtailment and valid restraint on petitioner1s prayer to !ontinue as program host of Ang %ating %aan during the suspension period. -rt. the State is also mandated to re!ogniGe and support the vital role of the youth in nation building as laid down in Se!. the State is mandated to support parents in the rearing of the youth for !ivi! effi!ien!y and the development of moral !hara!ter. 1+.

)oreover. are sus!eptible of being !orrupted or pre8udi!ed by offensive language. ++/ . thus: B$Croad!asting is uni0uely a!!essible to !hildren. may be prohibited from making inde!ent material available to !hildren. o reiterate. television rea!hes every home where there is a set. even those too young to read. (e? )or@ that the government1s interest in the :well-being of its youth. -s was observed by Cir!uit Court of -ppeals 5udge 5erome #rank. for e( statements !ould have e(posed !hildren to a language that is una!!eptable in everyday use. 8ustified the regulation of otherwise prote!ted e(pression. the welfare of !hildren and the State1s mandate to prote!t and !are for them. 7e held in +ins'erg v. his is so be!ause unlike motion pi!tures where the patrons have to pay their way. -s su!h. *t !annot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is !alled upon to manifest an attitude of !aring for the welfare of the young. Sala? Satig'a@ likewise stressed the duty of the State to attend to the welfare of the young: ( ( ( *t is the !onsensus of this Court that where television is !on!erned. <ther forms of offensive e(pression may be withheld from the young without restri!ting the e(pression at its sour!e. +on5ales v.C.13'B4+C he !ompelling need to prote!t the young impels us to sustain the regulatory a!tion ) %C$ took in the narrow !onfines of the !ase. a less liberal approa!h !alls for observan!e. $ookstores and motion pi!ture theaters. he ease with whi!h !hildren may obtain a!!ess to broad!ast material. as parens patriae. amply 8ustify spe!ial treatment of inde!ent broad!asting. at >+'. and in supporting :parents1 !laim to authority in their own household. =a!ifi!a1s broad!ast !ould have enlarged a !hild1s vo!abulary in an instant. ACC 8ustified the restraint on the F broad!ast grounded on the following !onsiderations: (1A the use of television with its uni0ue 13/ 13' B41C B4+C *d.13/B41C !onstitute a substantial and !ompelling government interest in regulating petitioner1s utteran!es in F broad!ast as provided in =D 1'/4. Supra note +4. was easily a!!essible to the !hildren. it is hardly the !on!ern of the law to deal with the se(ual fantasies of the adult population. ACC e(plains the duty of the government to a!t as parens patriae to prote!t the !hildren who. .++/ =etitioner1s offensive and obs!ene language uttered in a television broad!ast. Children then will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown. without doubt. -lthough Cohen1s written message. !oupled with the !on!erns re!ogniGed in +ins'erg. be!ause of age or interest !apa!ity. might have been in!omprehensible to a first grader. B:#u!k the Draft.

statutes imposing prior restraints on spee!h are generally illegal and presumed un!onstitutional brea!hes of the freedom of spee!h. *t is the kind of spee!h that =D 1'/4 pros!ribes ne!essitating the e(er!ise by ) %C$ of statutory dis!iplinary powers. the e(er!ise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obs!ene. however. . in !on!lusion. the !ourt takes sto!k of and !ites with approval the following e(!erpts from ACC: *t is appropriate.r*o.++' a!!essibility to !hildren. and radio ++' .. or a tele!ast of an 9liGabethan !omedy. in!ludes prior restraint. is reasonably restrained or even removed from the :parlor. a :pig in the parlor. (Citation omitted. his !ase does not involve a two-way radio !onversation between a !ab driver and a dispat!her. in the graphi! language of ACC. *t is the kind of spee!h that the State has the inherent prerogative. to regulate and prevent should su!h a!tion served and further !ompelling state interests. television.1 7e simply hold that when the B#CCC finds that a pig has entered the parlor. or offensive words on television when unsuspe!ting !hildren are in the audien!e is. A("er ' re*iew o( "$e ('c"7. rating of the Ang %ating %aan program. he !on!ept re0uires !onsideration of a host of variables. as a medium of broad!ast of a patently offensive spee!h" (+A the time of broad!ast" and (. <ne who utters inde!ent. -nd in agreeing with ) %C$. nay duty. 7e have not de!ided that an o!!asional e(pletive in either setting would 8ustify any san!tion. to emphasiGe the narrowness of our holding.A-month suspension is either prior restraint or subse0uent punishment that. he e(!eptions to prior restraint are movies. insulting.A the :2. ( ( ( he B##C1sC de!ision rested entirely on a nuisan!e rationale under whi!h !onte(t is all important. like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.A here !an be no 0uibbling that the remarks in 0uestion petitioner uttered on prime-time television are blatantly inde!ent if not outright obs!ene. he time of day was emphasiGed by the B##CC. albeit indire!tly. =ubli! interest would be served if the :pig. o !larify.. he !ontent of the program in whi!h the language is used will affe!t the !omposition of the audien!e ( ( (. 5usti!e Sutherland wrote a Knuisan!e may be merely a right thing in the wrong pla!e. =etitioner theoriGes that the three (. pe"i"io&erN7 o((e&7i*e '&) i&)ece&" l'&%u'%e c'& 8e 7u8Aec"e) "o prior re7"r'i&". -s )r. "$e Cour" (i&)7 "$'" w$'" MTRC4 i#po7e) o& pe"i"io&er i7 '& ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 7'&c"io& or 7u87eCue&" pu&i7$#e&" (or $i7 o((e&7i*e '&) o87ce&e l'&%u'%e i& An* 1atin* 1aan.

we upheld this setup in "otto vs... viG: : he use of the mails by private persons is in the nature of a privilege whi!h !an be regulated in order to avoid its abuse.6 . in8urious to the prestige of the %epubli! of the =hilippines or its people. rebellion or sedition.1D6B4. Speaking through Chief 5usti!e %eynato S. he power of ) %C$ to regulate and even impose some prior restraint on radio and television shows. in!luding the young who must be insulated from the pre8udi!ial effe!ts of unprote!ted spee!h. inde!ent. he Court iterates the rule that the e(er!ise of religious freedom !an be regulated by the State when it will bring about the !lear and present danger of some substantive evil whi!h the State is duty bound to prevent. or :tend to undermine the faith and !onfiden!e of the people in their government andEor duly !onstituted 1D6 B4. =uno.6 broad!ast !ensorship in view of its a!!ess to numerous people. =ersons possess no absolute right to put into the mail anything they please. ( ( ( ((( 7hile the thesis has a lot to !ommend itself. +. !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms. $ui5. -s far ba!k as 1'+1. we are not ready to hold that B=D 1'/4C is un!onstitutional for Congress to grant an administrative body 0uasi-8udi!ial power to preview and !lassify F programs and enfor!e its de!ision sub8e!t to review by our !ourts. 1''4.C $ernas adds: ?nder the de!ree a movie !lassifi!ation board is made the arbiter of what movies and television programs or parts of either are fit for publi! !onsumption.C 2. *ts publi! broad!ast on F of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. was upheld in Iglesia (i Cristo v. =D 1'/4 was passed !reating the $oard of %eview for )otion =i!tures and elevision (now ) %C$A and whi!h re0uires prior permit or li!ense before showing a motion pi!ture or broad!asting a F program. &o. the Court wrote: 7e thus re8e!t petitioner1s postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by the respondent $oard. 11'4>. +D' SC%. publi! morals.+.D+'. regardless of its !hara!ter.e. D33.%. and what :tend to in!ite subversion. 5uly +4. Court of Appeals. elevision is a medium that rea!hes even the eyes and ears of !hildren. he $oard !an !lassify movies and television programs and !an !an!el permits for e(hibition of films or television broad!ast. DD+.. i. serious detriment to the more overriding interest of publi! health. *t de!ides what movies are :immoral. or publi! welfare. even religious programs.. insurre!tion..

(iA of =D 1'/4 and the remedies that may be availed of by the aggrieved private party under the provisions on libel or tort.1D1B43C )oreover. .2 i& $i7 "ele*i7io& pro%r'#. he stations e(pli!itly agreed to this regulatory s!heme" otherwise. )oreover. -nd the imposition is separate and distin!t from the !riminal a!tion the $oard may take pursuant to Se!. their right to en8oy their freedom of spee!h is sub8e!t to that re0uirement. *n this s!heme. like suspension or !an!ellation of permit.. station owners and broad!asters in effe!t waived their right to the full en8oyment of their right to freedom of spee!h in radio and television programs and impliedly agreed that said right may be sub8e!t to prior restraintXdenial of permit or subse0uent punishment. petitioner is deemed to have yielded his right to his full en8oyment of his freedom of spee!h to regulation under =D 1'/4 and its *%% as television station owners. 9. program produ!ers. An* 1atin* 1aan. in M&$C v. +. the san!tion imposed is not per se for petitioner1s e(er!ise of his freedom of spee!h via television. -s lu!idly e(plained by 5usti!e Dante <. "$e 7u7pe&7io& i7 i& "$e (or# o( per#i77i8le ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 7'&c"io& or 7u87eCue&" pu&i7$#e&" (or "$e o((e&7i*e '&) o87ce&e re#'rL7 $e u""ere) o& "$e e*e&i&% o( Au%u7" 1. among others.1 . but for the inde!ent !ontents of his utteran!es in a :2. government regulations through the ) %C$ be!ame :a ne!essary evil.3! #o&"$7 7u7pe&7io& i& "$i7 c'7e i7 &o" ' prior re7"r'i&" o& "$e ri%$" o( pe"i"io&er "o co&"i&ue wi"$ "$e 8ro')c'7" o( An* 1atin* 1aan '7 ' per#i" w'7 'lre')y i77ue) "o $i# 8y MTRC4 (or 7uc$ 8ro')c'7". 2. 1DD+/+. 33/ SC%. and hosts 1D1 1D+ B43C B4DC Supra note D4.%. et!. )ore importantly.D. at +. with the government taking the role of assigning bandwidth to individual broad!asters. the imposition of san!tions on broad!asters who indulge in profane or inde!ent broad!asting does not !onstitute forbidden !ensorship. !haos would result in the television broad!ast industry as !ompeting broad!asters will interfere or !o-opt ea!h other1s signals. R'"$er.+. T$e "$ree . 5anuary 1>. rated F program. hus. *t is a san!tion that the ) %C$ may validly impose under its !harter without running afoul of the free spee!h !lause. all broad!ast networks are regulated by the ) %C$ sin!e they are re0uired to get a permit before they air their television programs. A "-C ( roadcasting Corporation. if appli!able. &o.. -s ACC tea!hes.D>D. inga. Conse0uently.1D+B4DC it was held that the power of review and prior approval of ) %C$ e(tends to all television programs and is valid despite the freedom of spee!h guaranteed by the Constitution.1 authorities.. +66D. its de!isions are e(e!utory unless stopped by a !ourt. @est it be overlooked.

petitioner argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power. as =D 1'/4 does not provide for the range of imposable penalties that may be applied with respe!t to violations of the provisions of the law. however. Fiewed in its proper !onte(t. rated program is not a!!eptable. whi!h would not be effe!tive if its punitive a!tions would be limited to mere fines. in M&$C . *t is definitely a lesser punishment than the permissible !an!ellation of e(hibition or broad!ast permit or li!ense. the suspension meted was simply part of the duties of the ) %C$ in the enfor!ement and administration of the law whi!h it is tasked to implement. !onsidering the ease with whi!h they !an be a!!essed.+ have impliedly a!!epted the power of ) %C$ to regulate the broad!ast industry..+ .+. as a regulatory agen!y. he argument is without merit.B44C sustained the power of the ) %C$ to penaliGe a broad!ast !ompany for e(hibitingEairing a pre-taped F episode without $oard authoriGation in violation of Se!. 1D. :the freedom of television and radio broad!asting is somewhat lesser in s!ope than the freedom a!!orded to newspaper and print media. #or viewed in its proper perspe!tive. > of =D 1'/4. must have the wherewithal to enfor!e its mandate.1D. -ny simplisti! suggestion. +. -s made !lear in Eastern roadcasting Corporation. #inally. *n fine. elevision broad!asts should be sub8e!t to some form of regulation. he suspension of a violating television program would be a suffi!ient punishment and serve as a deterrent for those responsible. he prevention of the broad!ast of petitioner1s television program is 8ustified. and !raft 8urispruden!e to refle!t these times. and violations of the regulations must be met with appropriate and proportional dis!iplinary a!tion. and does not !onstitute prohibited prior restraint. 7hile not on all fours. rated F program" it does not bar future spee!h of petitioner in other television programs" it is a permissible subse0uent administrative san!tion" it should not be !onfused with a prior restraint on spee!h. the Court. *t behooves the Court to respond to the needs of the !hanging times. that the ) %C$ would be !rossing the limits of its authority were it to regulate and even restrain the prime-time television broad!ast of inde!ent or obs!ene spee!h in a :2. &either !an petitioner1s virtual inability to speak in his program during the period of suspension be plausibly treated as prior restraint on future spee!h. the suspension is in the nature of an intermediate penalty for uttering an unprote!ted form of spee!h. B44C Supra note 4D. the suspension sought to penaliGe past spee!h made on prime-time :2. he ) %C$.

whi!h implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of prin!iple and lays down fundamental poli!y.+6'4. who is to do it. he legislature does not abdi!ate its fun!tions when it des!ribes what 8ob must be done. penalties 1D3 B4>C &o.3/1. the Court dis!ussed the matter of undue delegation of legislative power in the following wise: *t is a fundamental prin!iple flowing from the do!trine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other bran!hes of the government. . marks its limits. <therwise. whi!h !onstitutionally may not be done.distin!tion has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make laws whi!h ne!essarily involves a dis!retion as to what it shall be. the e(e!utive or administrative offi!e designated may in pursuan!e of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. he Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the ne!essary resour!es of fle(ibility and pra!ti!ability. *t indi!ates the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h the legislative !ommand is to be effe!ted. and what is the s!ope of his authority. we&" 8eyo&) "$e "er#7 o( "$e l'w. o determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power. pre7cri8i&% ' 7c$e)ule o( pe&'l"ie7 (or *iol'"io& o( "$e pro*i7io&7 o( "$e )ecree. to whi!h no valid ob8e!tion !an be made. o avoid the taint of unlawful delegation. that may indeed be the only way in whi!h the legislative pro!ess !an go forward. or authoriGe the ) %C$ to impose. hereafter.. sub8e!t to the e(!eption that lo!al governments may over lo!al affairs parti!ipate in its e(er!ise. the !harge of !omplete abdi!ation may be hard to repel. *n Edu v. the in0uiry must be dire!ted to the s!ope and definiteness of the measure ena!ted. Ericta.1D3B4>C $ased on the foregoing pronoun!ements and analyGing the law in 0uestion. there must be a standard. and delegation of authority or dis!retion as to its e(e!ution to be e(er!ised under and in pursuan!e of the law.+. #or a !omple( e!onomy. <!tober +3. maps out its boundaries and spe!ifies the publi! agen!y to apply it. Hi7 "$e7i7 i7 "$'" MTRC4.. +. .D SC%. the first assumption being that =D 1'/4 does not pres!ribe the imposition of. *t is the !riterion by whi!h legislative purpose may be !arried out. . 3'4-3'>. =etitioner1s posture is flawed by the erroneous assumptions holding it together. i& pro#ul%'"i&% "$e IRR o( 5/ 1966. pe"i"io&erN7 pro"e7"'"io& '8ou" u&)ue )ele%'"io& o( le%i7l'"i*e power (or "$e 7ole re'7o& "$'" 5/ 1966 )oe7 &o" pro*i)e (or ' r'&%e o( pe&'l"ie7 (or *iol'"io& o( "$e l'w i7 u&"e&'8le. @-.standard thus defines legislative poli!y. 1'>6. . 7hat !annot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them" the test is the !ompleteness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.

v. and publi!ity materials to the end that no su!h ob8e!tionable pi!tures.+.%.. . 4. '&y *iol'"io& o( 5/ 1966 '&) i"7 I#ple#e&"i&% Rule7 '&) Re%ul'"io&7 %o*er&i&% #o"io& pic"ure7. the investiture of supervisory. =hil. -nd Chapter Q***.. F*<@.34..' (1'. and proved. and the a!!omplishment of its purposes and ob8e!tives ( ( (. ( ( ( B7Chen the statute does not spe!ify the parti!ular method to be followed or used by a government agen!y in the e(er!ise of the power vested in it by law. 1''3. 1. it stands to reason that the power of the ) %C$ to regulate and supervise the e(hibition of F programs !arries with it or ne!essarily implies the authority to take effe!tive punitive a!tion for violation of the law sought to be enfor!ed. Inc. "ele*i7io& pro%r'#7.II7ithout pre8udi!e to the immediate filing of the appropriate !riminal a!tion and the immediate seiGure of the pertinent arti!les pursuant to Se!tion 1. Se!. '++/D. )ar!h +/.. 2.1DDB4/C 2iven the foregoing perspe!tive. Complementing this provision is Se!. -s earlier indi!ated.(kA of the de!ree authoriGing the ) %C$ :to e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the purpose and ob8e!tives of Bthe lawC. Electoral Commission. atario. said agen!y has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to !arry out its fun!tion. '&) rel'"e) pro#o"io&'l #'"eri'l7 7$'ll 8e pe&'liJe) wi"$ 7u7pe&7io& or c'&cell'"io& o( per#i"7 '&)Kor lice&7e7 1DD Supra note 1>" !iting Angara v. -s the Court said in C2ave5 v. !harged. &o.*F9 S-&C *<&S. B4/C +.1 SC%. or !an!eling permits for the e(hibition andEor television broad!ast of all motion pi!tures. however. every parti!ular power ne!essary for the e(er!ise of the one or the performan!e of the other is also !onferred. television programs. -nd would it not be logi!al too to say that the power to deny or !an!el a permit for the e(hibition of a F program or broad!ast ne!essarily in!ludes the lesser power to suspendN he ) %C$ promulgated the *%% of =D 1'/4 in a!!ordan!e with Se!. 1 of the *%% providing: Se!tion 1.3 .. for referen!e.4A" #rovident &ree Aarms. by e(press and dire!t !onferment of power and fun!tions. regulatory. -s earlier e(plained.3 for violators of =D 1'/4. granting. and dis!iplinary power would surely be a meaningless grant if it did not !arry with it the power to penaliGe the supervised or the regulated as may be proportionate to the offense !ommitted. and materials shall be e(hibited andEor broad!ast by television.(aA whi!h. provides that agen!y with the power :BtoC promulgate su!h rules and regulations as are ne!essary or proper for the implementation of this -!t. (ational Housing Aut2ority: ( ( ( B7Chen a general grant of power is !onferred or duty en8oined. is !harged with supervising and regulating. denying. +.*<&S -&D -D)*&*S %. programs. . Jr. the ) %C$.

.C ( ( (. a!!ording it ample latitude in fi(ing. Maceren. he ) %C$ !annot shirk its responsibility to regulate the publi! airwaves and employ su!h means as it !an as a guardian of the publi!. 3D/. (or &ow$ere i& "$'" i77u'&ce. (9mphasis added. i"7 )eci7io& "o 7u7pe&) pe"i"io&er #u7" 8e #o)i(ie). he ) %C$ may evaluate motion pi!tures.3D6.A his is.D .+144.1D>B>6C -dministrative regulations or :subordinate legislation. and publi!ity materials :applying !ontemporary #ilipino !ultural values as standard. !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms. $ut even as we uphold the power of the ) %C$ to review and impose san!tions for violations of =D 1'/4. and apply the san!tions it deems proper. >' SC%. along with the standards to be applied to determine whether there have been statutory brea!hes. he lawmaking body !annot possibly provide for all the details in the enfor!ement of a parti!ular statute. one !an already find the permissible a!tions of the ) %C$. determine whether these audio and video materials :are ob8e!tionable for being immoral. @-. 1999 i7 "$e 4o'r) 1D4 1D> 1D/ B4'C B>6C #eople v. !al!ulated to promote the publi! interest are ne!essary be!ause of :the growing !omple(ity of modern life. in the final analysis.1D4B4'C he grant of the rule-making power to administrative agen!ies is a rela(ation of the prin!iple of separation of powers and is an e(!eption to the non-delegation of legislative powers. . *d.1D/B>1C -llowing the ) %C$ some reasonable elbow-room in its operations and.(dA and (kA. &o. +. *n Se!. the multipli!ation of the sub8e!ts of governmental regulations. Contrary to what petitioner implies. and.+. television programs. p'r"icul'rly "$e powerG)e(i&i&% Sec. he $oard re!ogniGes the e(isting able of -dministrative =enalties atta!hed without pre8udi!e to the power of the $oard to amend it when the need arises.. Bet!. 1'>>. in the e(er!ise of its statutory dis!iplinary fun!tions. and the in!reased diffi!ulty of administering the law. *n the meantime the e(isting revised able of -dministrative =enalties shall be enfor!ed. as the !ase may be. by way of an appropriate issuan!e.D i77ue) 8y "$e 4o'r) andEor with the imposition of fines and other administrative penaltyEpenalties. 3 &or i& "$e MTRC4 Sc$e)ule o( A)#i&i7"r'"i*e 5e&'l"ie7 e((ec"i*e J'&u'ry 1. no more than a measure to spe!ifi!ally implement the afore0uoted provisions of Se!.(!A. inde!ent. from there. <!tober 1/. administrative penalties with due regard for the severity of the offense and attending mitigating or aggravating !ir!umstan!es. B>1C *d. would be !onsistent with its mandate to effe!tively and effi!iently regulate the movie and television industry. the *%% does not e(pand the mandate of the ) %C$ under the law or partake of the nature of an unauthoriGed administrative legislation..

ICATIO. -s thus modified. what petitioner obviously advo!ates is an unrestri!ted spee!h paradigm in whi!h absolute permissiveness is the norm. but it may not suspend television personalities.4 .9%9#<%9. his only re!ogniGes the importan!e of freedoms of spee!h and e(pression. T$e 7u7pe&7io& 7$oul) co*er o&ly "$e "ele*i7io& pro%r'# o& w$ic$ pe"i"io&er 'ppe're) '&) u""ere) "$e o((e&7i*e '&) o87ce&e l'&%u'%e. under the guise of free spee!h.3! MO-THS S3S5E-SIOo& "$e "ele*i7io& pro%r'#. or e*e& 7'yi&% B$elloD "o *iewer7. T$e 7u7pe&7io& pre*e&"7 pe"i"io&er (ro# e*e& reci"i&% "$e Lor)N7 5r'yer. the de!ision of the ) %C$ in -dm. w$ic$ 7'&c"io& i7 w$'" "$e l'w '&) "$e ('c"7 o8"'i&i&% c'll (or. <nly persons. may prohibit the broad!ast of su!h television programs or !an!el permits for e(hibition. he suspension bars the publi! airing of petitioner1s F +. in view of all the foregoing. +663 is hereby A. imposing a penalty of THREE .4 e#powere) "o 7u7pe&) "$e pro%r'# $o7" or e*e& "o pre*e&" cer"'i& people (ro# 'ppe'ri&% i& "ele*i7io& pro%r'#7. * dissent be!ause the three-month suspension of petitioner1s F program Ang %ating %aan !onstitutes an un!onstitutional prior re7"r'i&" on freedom of e(pression. +663 and the subse0uent order issued pursuant to said de!ision must be modified.+. to be sure. =etitioner1s flawed belief that he may simply utter gutter profanity on television without adverse !onse0uen!es.ORE.. for su!h would be beyond its 8urisdi!tion.of limiting the suspension to the program Ang %ating %aan. *n ending. i& $i7 TV pro%r'#. the reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the person !harged with violating the statute and for whom the penalty is sought. does not lend itself to a!!eptan!e in this 8urisdi!tion. 0HERE. the fallo of the ) %C$ shall read as follows: 7. /ISSE-TI-: O5I-IO-. An* 1atin* 1aan. offenses. the ) %C$1s de!ision in -dministrative Case &o. 7e repeat: freedoms of spee!h and e(pression are not absolute freedoms. sub8e!t of the instant petition. -nd when it e(ists. and penalties !learly falling !learly within the letter and spirit of =D 1'/4 will be !onsidered to be within the de!ree1s penal or dis!iplinary operation. Ju7"ice A&"o&io C'rpio. he ) %C$. a De!ision is hereby rendered. hus. and indi!ates the ne!essity to !arefully s!rutiniGe a!ts that may restrain or regulate spee!h. he ) %C$ !annot e(tend its e(er!ise of regulation beyond what the law provides. Case &o. is not to say that any a!t that restrains or regulates spee!h or e(pression is per se invalid. o say :any a!t that restrains spee!h should be greeted with furrowed brows. 61-63 dated September +>.IRME/ with the MO/I. 61-63 dated September +>.

Su!h suspension is the !ensorship that the Constitution outlaws when it states that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h. imprisonment or damages libelous language already #ttered or p#4li"hed. *ndeed. %evised =enal Code" -rti!le .1@1=. he 2overnment has no power under the Constitution to so braGenly suppress freedom of e(pression. Constitution. of e(pression.-. Civil Code. our libel and tort laws do not allow the filing of a suit to en8oin or punish an e(pression that has yet to be uttered or written. both our libel and tort laws never impose a gag order on f#t#re e%pre""ion be!ause that will !onstitute prior restraint or !ensorship. 1D'B1C Se!tion 3. in his F program. or even from talking about nothingness.D'. human and politi!al rights possible.> . <therwise. his is also similar to suspending for three months the !olumn of a newspaper !olumnist for using the e(pletive :putang ina mo. *n the present !ase.D. he publi! airing of the entire F program. +. his is like suspending the publi!ation of the #2ilippine %aily InCuirer for three months if its editorial des!ribes a private person as :masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae. whether for fear of possible libelous utteran!e or publi!ation.+. Civil Code.. hus.1)1=1> he remedy of any aggrieved person is to file a libel or tort !ase after the utteran!e or publi!ation of su!h !usswords.C -rti!le +4. many of the radio and F politi!al programs will have to be banned for the fre0uent use of !usswords and other libelous language. his Court should never give its imprimatur to su!h a blatant violation of a fundamental !onstitutional right. is totally suppressed for three months. or the rallies themselves will have to be banned.1@0=2> <ur tort laws also allow re!overy of damages for tortious spee!h already #ttered or p#4li"hed. regardless of its !ontent.owever. or from talking about the birds and the bees.. be!ause politi!ians often use !usswords and other profanities during politi!al rallies. or anyone else.> . 146B+C -rti!le . 9ven politi!ians will have to be barred from addressing politi!al rallies. there !an never be a prior re"traint on future e(pression.> program regardless of whatever sub8e!t matter petitioner. -rti!le ***. the three-month preventive suspension of petitioner1s F program bars petitioner from talking about the weather. 141B.. whi!h has been des!ribed as the one basi! right that makes all other !ivil. <ur libels laws punish with fine. or as a punishment for past libelous utteran!e or publi!ation.. or of the press ( ( (. wishes to dis!uss in petitioner1s F program. in his !olumn.

14>B'C Iglesia ni Cristo 6I(C9 v. ++D (1'/DA.%./ 5rior Re7"r'i&" o& E@pre77io& he well-settled rule is there !an be no prior restraint on e(pression. his rule emanates from the !onstitutional !ommand that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h.6. &o. 11'4>. 14DB>C Eastern roadcasting Corporation v./ . !nited "tates. of e(pression. 2.164[6] ')*oc'cy o( i##i&e&" l'wle77 'c"io&. &o.D+'" (e? )or@ &imes v. advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion.1@'=1> he test to determine the !onstitutionality of prior restraint on pornography. namely: por&o%r'p$y. +D' SC%. and e(pression endangering national se!urity is the cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "e7". 2. All o"$er e@pre77io& i7 &o" 7u8Aec" "o prior re7"r'i&". advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion. ?. and e(pression endangering national se!urity may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. he e(pression sub8e!t to prior restraint must present a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent. however. and su!h danger must be %r'*e '&) i##i&e&".163[5] ('l7e or #i7le')i&% ')*er"i7e#e&". false or misleading advertisement.%.3. *n this 8urisdi!tion. su!h prior restraint is 7"ro&%ly pre7u#e) '7 u&co&7"i"u"io&'l. 1>.1A. >1.ree E@pre77io& Cl'u7e i7 "o pre*e&" prior re7"r'i&" o& e@pre77io&. 36. Minnesota1@2=(> tea!hes us that "$e pri#or)i'l purpo7e o( "$e . the government bears a $e'*y 8ur)e& of 8ustifying su!h prior restraint. he leading -meri!an !ase of (ear v. D.+4D. 14. &o. su!h prior restraint must hurdle a high barrier. we re!ogniGe only four e(!eptions. +4 5uly 1''4. 4'> (1'.1@&=10> 14+B3C +/. he history of freedom of e(pression has been a !onstant struggle against the !ensor1s prior re7"r'i&" on e(pression. ' <!tober +66>. (1'>1A. his well-settled rule. Airst. +++ =hil.D SC%.165[7] '&) )'&%er "o &'"io&'l 7ecuri"y. 1D1 (1'/DA. 144B/C *d.BDC +on5ales v.S. -lthough pornography.. %uCue III. +++ =hil. "econd. is sub8e!t to e(!eptions narrowly !arved out by !ourts over time be!ause of ne!essity. Sala?-Satig'a@.S. or of the press ( ( (. 14/B16C +. %ans. Court of Appeals. 143B4C #2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v.+.1@@=&> <nly in these instan!es may e(pression be sub8e!t to prior restraint.. ?.

Constitution. and tortious spee!h./. 14'/.=1)> are all punishable under the law. .. &os.B1DC -rti!le 1.%. -rti!le QF*. 3// SC%. *f a !ertain e(pression is sub8e!t to prior restraint. 14'B11C Se!tion 11(+A. 14'/3/ and 14'//1. 1>1B1.++4. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-based restraint to stri!t s!rutiny. 2. a!ts of pornography.1@1=11> =rior restraint on e(pression may be either !ontent-based or !ontent-neutral.' he power of Congress to impose prior restraint on false or misleading advertisements emanates from the !onstitutional provision that the :advertising industry is impressed with publi! interest. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-neutral restraint to intermediate s!rutiny. he e(!eptions start with the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. %evised =enal Code. Ermita. pla!e or manner of e(pression in publi! pla!es without any restraint on the !ontent of the e(pression. of e(pression. Content-based prior restraint is aimed at suppressing the message or idea !ontained in the e(pression. 1>6B1+C -rti!le +61./.1'. %evised =enal Code. its utteran!e or publi!ation in violation of the lawful restraint naturally sub8e!ts the person responsible to subse0uent punishment. !ourts again have !arved out narrow e(!eptions to this rule out of ne!essity. hus. Content-neutral restraint on e(pression is restraint that regulates the time.1'0=12> false or misleading advertisement. 1>. 1>3B14C See note +. Su87eCue&" 5u&i7$#e&" o( E@pre77io& he rule is also well-settled that e(pression !annot be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment. his rule also emanates from the !onstitutional !ommand that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h.1')=1'> Defamatory and tortious spee!h.1'1=1. +D -pril +664. %evised =enal Code.1'2=1(> and endangering national se!urity.+.owever.> advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion. wo other e(!eptions are defamation. )ilk Code. 1>DB1>C +.1'(=1@> whi!h in!ludes libel and slander. and shall be regulated by law for the prote!tion of !onsumers and the promotion of the general welfare. ayan v. or of the press ( ( (.C Se!tion 4(aA.. 1>+B13C -rti!le 13+.' .

has far graver ramifi!ations than any possible subse0uent punishment of petitioner. #ighting words are not sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment unless they are defamatory or tortious. still the ideas are disseminated to the publi!. hus. T$reeGMo&"$ Su7pe&7io& i7 ' 5ro$i8i"e) 5rior Re7"r'i&" he three-month suspension of petitioner1s F program is indisputably a prior restraint on e(pression.S. are not sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause by definition they do not !onstitute a !lear and present danger to the State that is grave and imminent. California. Defamation and tortious !ondu!t.ucL "$e )r'("D i7 &o" 7u8Aec" "o 7u87eCue&" pu&i7$#e&". -lthough subse0uent punishment also deters e(pression. 1>>B1'C Co2en v.prior restraint may be 8ustified only if the e(pression falls under any of the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. namely. #ighting words refer to profane or vulgar words that are likely to provoke a violent response from an audien!e.1''=11> -s aptly stated. 7ithout a law punishing the a!tual utteran!e or publi!ation of an e(pression. <n!e defamatory or tortuous spee!h rises to the level of advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion. "$e& wi"$ #ore re'7o& i" c'&&o" 8e 7u8Aec" "o prior re7"r'i&". See note . however. %evised =enal Code. 1>/B+6C *d. are not sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment. an e(pression !annot be sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause su!h e(pression is not unlawful or illegal.1'&=20> I( pro('&e or *ul%'r l'&%u'%e liLe B. =rior restraint prevents even the dissemination of ideas to the publi!. the threemonth suspension of petitioner1s F program. then it may be sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause it is seditious1'@=1&> but not be!ause it is defamatory or tortious. when not dire!ted at any parti!ular person... may be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment. :one man1s vulgarity may be another man1s lyri!./ and 13+. ?. 1D (1'>1A. being a prior restraint on e(pression.. =rior restraint is more deleterious to freedom of e(pression than subse0uent punishment. During the three-month suspension. 36. pornography. petitioner !annot utter a single word in his F program be!ause the program is totally suppressed. +36 . !ivilly or !riminally. . 1>4B1/C -rti!les 1.+36 per se. =rofane or vulgar words like :#u!k the draft. ethni! or religious group.

"a'i ng lola @o masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. hus. he respondents have not presented any !redible 8ustifi!ation to over!ome the strong presumption of un!onstitutionality a!!orded to the three-month suspension order. T$e #'Aori"y opi&io&. after their utteran!e. masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae o di 'a. profane or vulgar petitioner1s words may be. advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion.1'1 =21> Su!h prior restraint must pass the !lear and present danger test. o di 'aT O. what petitioner uttered does not fall under any of the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. or danger to national se!urity. 7hat respondents assail is the following ranting of petitioner: Le2itimong ana@ ng demonyoB sinungalingB +ago @a talaga Mic2ael. Congress may punish su!h offensive or vulgar language. NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas. "o'ra ang @asinungalingan ng mga demonyong itoJ &o matter how offensive. and danger to national se!urity. false or misleading advertisement. <bviously. he a!tual and real effe!t of the three-month suspension is a prior restraint on e(pression in violation of a fundamental !onstitutional right. petitioner1s offensive. masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. profane or vulgar language !annot be sub8e!t to prior restraint but may be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment if defamatory or tortious. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a. advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion. 1>'B+1C See note '. -ny prior restraint is strongly presumed to be un!onstitutional and the government bears a heavy burden of 8ustifying su!h prior restraint. they do not !onstitute pornography.+31 false or misleading advertisement. 9ven Congress !annot validly pass a law imposing a three-month preventive suspension on freedom of e(pression for offensive or vulgar language uttered in the past. with damages. i7 "o"'lly 8ere(" o( '&y )i7cu77io& "$'" pe"i"io&erN7 r'&"i&% po7e7 ' cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "o "$e S"'"e "$'" i7 %r'*e '&) i##i&e&". w$ic$ i#po7e7 ' prior re7"r'i&" o& e@pre77io&. +31 . he three-month suspension !annot be passed off merely as a preventive suspension that does not partake of a penalty. fine or imprisonment but Congress has no power to suspend or suppress the people1s right to speak freely be!ause of su!h past utteran!es.

>1> +. #ebruary 1. or o( "$e pre77. neither !an this Court give its stamp of imprimatur to su!h an un!onstitutional ) %C$ rule or de!ision. &ew Jork imes vs. &ear vs.<. -nd of !ourse. %ead: 1. 1'/' /. 1. >'46->6>P Oaldivar vs.S.S. 2% &o.S. ?. %ead again the %eyes and %uiG !ases. Malaw Matigbak. "$e )u"y o( "$e cour"7 i7 "o )e"er#i&e w$ic$ o( "$e 9 co&(lic"i&% i&"ere7"7 )e#'&) %re'"er pro"ec"io& u&)er "$e circu#7"'&ce7 pre7e&"e)./6 ?.w$e"$er "$e wor)7 u7e) i& 7uc$ circu#7"'&ce7 '&) 're o( 7uc$ ' &'"ure '7 "o cre'"e ' cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "$'" "$ey will 8ri&% '8ou" "$e 7u87"'&"i*e e*il7 "$'" "$e S"'"e $'7 "$e ri%$" "o pre*e&"! >-a. 2onGales vs. %ead again Oaldivar vs.<.. )aryland. 36. 2onGales.! %ead: A)E$ #$O%!C&IO( *". T$e 8'l'&ci&%Go(Gi&"ere7" "e7" .I( "$e wor)7 u""ere) cre'"e ' )'&%erou7 "e&)e&cy w$ic$ "$e S"'"e $'7 "$e ri%$" "o pre*e&". neither !an respondent ) %C$ promulgate a rule or a de!ision suspending for three months petitioner1s !onstitutional right to freedom of e(pression. "$e& 7uc$ wor)7 're pu&i7$'8le! %ead: 1.S. imes #ilm vs. (-ny system of prior restraints of e(pression !omes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its validityA .+3+ *n short. ?. E& AL. ?. 3.S. O"$erwi7e. >1.. Cabansag vs. /6D>/. . #ernandeG. supra . . o( e@pre77io&. )innesota. J!%+E CA#!LO(+. p'r"i'l '8ri)%#e&" o( 7peec$.. 16+ =hil. "C$A . 7uc$ l'w woul) 8e B'8ri)%i&% "$e (ree)o# o( 7peec$. J!A( #O(CE E($ILE.D *f Congress !annot pass su!h a law. 4'> 3. 1D+ +.> SC%. Cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er '&) )'&%erou7 "e&)e&cy rule ..0$e& ' p'r"icul'r co&)uc" i7 re%ul'"e) i& "$e i&"ere7" o( "$e pu8lic or)er. /'&%erou7 "e&)e&cy rule .4D ?. D1 6. Congress may pass a law punishing defamation or tortious spee!h but the punishment !annot be the suspension or suppression of the !onstitutional right to freedom of e(pression. . co&)i"io&'l. +/. +3+ . '&) "$e re%ul'"io& re7ul"7 i& '& i&)irec". #reedman vs. D. 2% &o. Sandiganbayan. City of Chi!ago.

S.+3. Complainant re0uested for an investigation of respondent for living with a man not her husband while she was still legally married and having borne a !hild within this live-in arrangement.6 SCRA 1 =uno. -o l'w 7$'ll 8e #')e re7pec"i&% "$e e7"'8li7$#e&" o( reli%io&. wi"$ou" )i7cri#i&'"io& or pre(ere&ce 7$'ll (ore*er 8e 'llowe).Re7olu"io& o( "$e Mo"io& (or Reco&7i)er'"io&!. %ead also: 1.. @as =inas City. T$e (ree e@erci7e '&) e&Aoy#e&" o( reli%iou7 pro(e77io& '&) wor7$ip. +4/ ?. 2itlow vs. . %espondent is the Court interpreter of % C $ran!h +D.olmes . or pro$i8i"i&% "$e (ree e@erci7e "$ereo(. RELI:IO. SOLE/A/ ESCRITOR. %espondent admitted she started living with @u!iano Ruilapio. 5. 5r. '+ SC%. 2. in!luding this test by 5usti!e .. 4D+. See also Oaldivar !ase above the !riti!ism on CHA5TER VI G THE -O-GESTA4LISHME-T O. ESTRA/A VS. -o reli%iou7 "e7" 7$'ll 8e reCuire) (or "$e e@erci7e o( ci*il or poli"ic'l ri%$"7.CLA3SE Sec"io& 1. thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the !ourt !ondones her a!t. She likewise admitted having a son with Ruilapio but denies any liability for alleged grossly immoral !ondu!t be!ause: • She is a member of the 5ehovah1s 7itnesses and the 7at!h ower So!iety" • hat the !on8ugal arrangement was in !onformity with their religious beliefs" +3. &ew Jork. 299 SCRA 1 . 9strada believes that 9s!ritor is !ommitting a grossly immoral a!t whi!h tarnishes the image of the 8udi!iary. 2onGales.3>4 +. @agunGad vs. more than +6 years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman.

+33 . I" i7 &o" o&ly "$e S"'"e "$'" i7 pro$i8i"e) (ro# i&"er(eri&% i& purely eccle7i'7"ic'l '(('ir7+ "$e C$urc$ i7 liLewi7e 8'rre) (ro# #e))li&% i& purely 7ecul'r #'""er7.<79F9%.9 S . 9s!ritor was therefore held not administratively liable for grossly immoral !ondu!t.9 -%9. <3tron* fen e" (a)e *ood nei*h4or"E.*2. he idea is to delineate the boundaries between two institutions and prevent en!roa!hments by one against the other. he e(isten!e of a Divine being is not ne!essarily inherent in religion" the $uddhists espouses a way of life without referen!e to an omnipotent 2od.*<& <# =@9D2*&2 #-* .9. he Court re!ogniGes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms---in!luding religious freedom---may be en8oyed. he De!laration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the !ongregation all over the world e(!ept in !ountries where divor!e is allowed.9@D: 9s!ritor1s !on8ugal arrangement !annot be penaliGed as she has made out a !ase for e(emption from the law based on her fundamental right to religion. 9s!ritor likewise !laimed that she had e(e!uted a :D9C@-%. -. *& .=%9#9%%9D #%99D<). man must be allowed to subs!ribe to the *nfinite.profession of faith to an a!tive power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.9% . #%99D<) <# %9@*2*<& -any spe!ifi! system of belief. *n the absen!e of a showing that the state interest e(ists. .+33 • hat the !on8ugal arrangement with Ruilapio has the approval of her !ongregation. in a!!ordan!e with her religion whi!h allows members of the 5ehovah1s witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. worship or !ondu!t.#?@&9SS.-& . . )-& S -&DS -CC<?& -$@9 < -& -? .<%* J . often involving a !ode of ethi!s and philosophy. and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so !ompelling that its violation will erode the very fabri! of the state that will also prote!t the freedom. T$e )oc"ri&e cu"7 8o"$ w'y7.<# %9@*2*<?S 9Q9%C*S9 -S .

SC. SC.D SC. F* -@9. *er7e7 (ro# "$e Holy 4i8le 8e re') )'ily wi"$ou" co##e&" 8ec'u7e <# -$*&2 <& FS.LEMO. 3S 1! T$i7 cl'u7e 7eeL7 "o pro"ec"I Volu&"'ri7#GGG#u7" co#e i&"o e@i7"e&ce "$rou%$ "$e *olu&"'ry 7uppor" o( i"7 #e#8er7+ I&7ul'"io& (ro# poli"ic'l proce77?%row"$ "$rou%$ *olu&"'ry 7uppor" o( i"7 #e#8er7 will &o" "'Le pl'ce i( "$ere i7 i&"er*e&"io& (ro# "$e S"'"e. T$ere will 8e &o *iol'"io& o( "$e &o&Ge7"'8li7$#e&" cl'u7e i(I "$e 7"'"u"e $'7 ' 7ecul'r le%i7l'"i*e purpo7e+ i"7 pri&cip'l or pri#'ry e((ec" i7 o&e "$'" &ei"$er ')*'&ce7 &or i&$i8i"7 reli%io&+ '&) i" )oe7 &o" (o7"er '& e@ce77i*e %o*er&#e&" e&"'&%le#e&" wi"$ reli%io&.>3 ?S +3D . F3RT>MA-.<<@ D*S %*C +6. .>6 ?S 3+1A I" i7 u&co&7"i"u"io&'l (or ' 7c$ool "o reCuire "$e 7"u)e&"7 "o reci"e ' pr'yer co#po7e) 8y "$e 4o'r) o( Re%e&"7 '" "$e 7"'r"7 o( "$e )'yN7 cl'77. 33. 2.EVERSO. i" pre(er7 &o&e '&) )i7p'r'%e7 &o&e. I" i7 u&co&7"i"u"io&'l (or ' l'w "o reCuire "$'" '" le'7" 1.REE/OM . E/3CATIO-.<<@ =%-J9% C-S9 (9&29@ FS. or pre(er o&e reli%io& o*er '&o"$er &or (orce &or i&(lue&ce ' per7o& "o %o "o or re#'i& 'w'y (ro# c$urc$ '%'i&7" $i7 will+ or (orce $i# "o pro(e77 ' 8elie( or )i78elie(+ "$'" "$e S"'"e c'&&o" ope&ly or 7ecre"ly p'r"icip'"e i& "$e '(('ir7 o( '&y reli%iou7 or%'&iJ'"io& or %roup '&) *ice *er7'D . . 4OAR/ O. RELI:IO. BI" i7 &o p'r" o( "$e 8u7i&e77 o( %o*er&#e&" "o co#po7e o((ici'l pr'yer7 (or '&y %roup o( "$e A#eric'& 5eople.9)==. .3 3S 6.VS. BAllD $ere 'pplie7 8o"$ "o "$e 8elie*er '&) "$e &o&G8elie*er.VS.ROM RELI:IO-+ THE RI:HT TO 0ORHI5 I-CL3/ES THE RI:HT -OT TO 0ORSHI5.I-CL3/ES .9! T$e %o*er&#e&" i7 &eu"r'l '&) w$ile pro"ec"i&% 'll. .+3D -O-GSTA4LISHME-T CLA3SEI I" 7i#ply #e'&7 B"$'" "$e S"'"e c'&&o" 7e" up ' c$urc$+ &or p'77 l'w7 w$ic$ 'i)7 o&e reli%io&+ 'i) 'll reli%io&.REE/OM O.

ree)o# "o 8elie*e+ '&) . the State may !all all !itiGens to render military or !ivil servi!e. !" . . :08 !" 8<.ESSIO.N.e may not be punished even if he !annot prove what he believes. he a!t of the *llinois Supreme Court denying admission to the bar be!ause of his refusal to take in good faith an oath to support the +34 . =9<=@9 FS. 14>4 -voiding military duties based on religious grounds is not allowed in the =hilippines be!ause of Se!tion 3. his freedom to do so be!omes sub8e!t to the authority of the State.A-/ 0ORSHI5 HAS T0O AS5ECTSI '. *n the se!ond. 8.+34 "$e 7'#e co&7"i"u"e ' reli%iou7 e@erci7e w$ic$ *iol'"e7 "$e &o&G e7"'8li7$#e&" cl'u7e./ <. RI:HT TO RELI:IO3S 5RO. E*E$"O( *". I( $E "!MME$".2.ree)o# "o 'c". he law authoriGing reimbursement of transportation e(penses of s!hool !hildren going to and from paro!hial s!hools is not violative of the non-establishment !lause be!ause it will be the parents who get benefits. *& the first. or none at all. -rti!le **X he state is the prote!tor of the people and it is the prime duty of the people to defend the State and in the fulfillment of this duty. A@2 23 2A8 . if the individual e(ternaliGes what he re0uiring the $oard of 9du!ation to lend te(tbooks free of !harge to all students from grades >-1+ of paro!hial s!hool. not the paro!hial s!hool. OA$% OA E%!CA&IO(. his is !onstitutional sin!e it is not the paro!hial s!hool whi!h gets the benefits but the parents. 9(ample: :2o forth and multiply---!annot marry several times 8ust to !omply. +OAR1 O: . . his is so be!ause religious freedom !an be e(er!ised only with due regard to the rights of others. A==. ::. su!h freedom is absolute.12CAT/ON ?3. . . @-2)-& P O<S-.e may indulge in his own theories about life and death" worship any god he !hooses.

163 SC%.33D +.1 3.4 SC%.+3> Constitution of the State of *llinois whi!h re0uires mandatory servi!e in the military in times of war was reversed by the ?S Supreme Court stating that this !onstitutes a violation of the 1st -mendment whi!h guarantees religious freedom. $efore the C<)9@9C. +3> .D SC%. -o. 164 =hil. otherwise known as the =arty-@ist System -!t. eleron. 43 =hil. 1. /EL CASTILLO. <n -ugust 1>. @2$ s are !onstrained to hide their se(ual orientation" and that Ang Ladlad !omplied with the /point guidelines enun!iated by this Court in Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. he appli!ation for a!!reditation was denied on the ground that the organiGation had no substantial membership base. 1'>/ >. ..'/ A-: LA/LA/ L:4T 5ARTY VS. 161 D. 2ironella.1.R. 9stenGo. J. of 9du!ation. +66'.169. 9. City of )anila. -glipay vs. COMELEC.I his is a =etition for Certiorari under %ule 4D of the %ules of Court. >'31. 164 SC%. Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the C<)9@9C in +664. 2ar!es vs. and violen!e" that be!ause of negative so!ietal attitudes. 9liGalde %ope. 19. %eligious freedom in relation to impairment of the right to 8oin asso!iations. he !ase has its roots in the C<)9@9C1s refusal to a!!redit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organiGation under %epubli! -!t (%-A &o. +66' (the Se!ond -ssailed %esolutionA in S== &o. *n!orporated in +66. D' SC%. 6'-++/ (=@A (!olle!tively. petitioner argued that the @2$ !ommunity is a marginaliGed and under-represented se!tor that is parti!ularly disadvantaged be!ause of their se(ual orientation and gender identity" that @2$ s are vi!tims of e(!lusion.D3 >.D16 . +61 +. or trans-gendered individuals (@2$ sA. 1. Se!. bise(uals. Ang Ladlad is an organiGation !omposed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians.. %ead: 1.. with an appli!ation for a writ of preliminary mandatory in8un!tion. =amil vs. *&M vs. April . 2erman vs. filed by Ang Ladlad @2$ =arty (Ang LadladA against the %esolutions of the Commission on 9le!tions (C<)9@9CA dated &ovember 11. $arangan. 2erona vs. dis!rimination. :. %uiG. +66' (the #irst -ssailed %esolutionA and De!ember 14. Ang Ladlad again filed a =etition for registration with the C<)9@9C. gays. the -ssailed %esolutionsA. &ovember +6. Fi!toriano vs.D13 !ontra!ts and =hil. 11 4. -meri!an $ible So!iety vs.

morals. his definition of the @2$ se!tor makes it !rystal !lear that petitioner tolerates immorality whi!h offends religious beliefs. permit. ob8e!t or purpose is !ontrary to law. obs!ene publi!ations and e(hibitions and inde!ent shows1 as follows: +3/ .. publi! order or publi! poli!y1 are ine(istent and void from the beginning. morals. =etitioner defines the #ilipino @esbian. *t is further indi!ated in par. the %evised =enal Code. publi! order or publi! poli!y. $ise(ual and ransgender (@2$ A Community. +3 of the =etition whi!h waves for the re!ord: K*n +66>. the C<)9@9C (Se!ond DivisionA dismissed the =etition on moral grounds. business.+3/ Commission on Elections.aving Se( with )en or )S)s in the =hilippines were estimated as 4>6. stating that: ( ( ( his =etition is dismissible on moral grounds. !ondition of property. omission. pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and the %evised =enal Code are deemed part of the re0uirement to be !omplied with for a!!reditation. he -&2 @-D@-D apparently advo!ates se(ual immorality as indi!ated in the =etition1s par. or anything else whi!h ( ( ( (. -rt 136' of the Civil Code provides that KContra!ts whose !ause. relationship. good !ustoms. thus: ( ( ( a marginaliGed and under-represented se!tor that is parti!ularly disadvantaged be!ause of their se(ual orientation and gender identity. establishment. )en .A sho!ks. as amended. <n &ovember 11. !lauses. individuals of a different gender. of the same gender. good !ustoms. defies" or disregards de!en!y or morality ( ( ( *t also !ollides with -rti!le 1. penaliGes K*mmoral do!trines. affe!tional and se(ual attra!tion to.64 of the Civil Code: K he !ontra!ting parties may establish su!h stipulations. provided they are not !ontrary to law.666 (2enesis 1' is the history of Sodom and 2omorrahA. after admitting the petitioner1s eviden!e. . or a!!reditation. 4#: KConsensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are already of age1. -&2 @-D@-D !ollides with -rti!le 4'D of the Civil Code whi!h defines nuisan!e as K-ny a!t. +66'.en!e. @aws are deemed in!orporated in every !ontra!t. and outlined its platform of governan!e. Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base !onsisting of individual members and organiGational supporters. #inally to safeguard the morality of the #ilipino !ommunity. or more than one gender. and intimate and se(ual relations with. 2ay. li!ense. terms and !onditions as they may deem !onvenient. and pro!eeded to define se(ual orientation as that whi!h: ( ( ( refers to a person1s !apa!ity for profound emotional.

@arraGabal. shall be imposed upon: 1. and who la!k well-defined politi!al !onstituen!ies but who !ould !ontribute to the formulation and ena!tment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. @u!enito &. stating that: Ladlad is applying for a!!reditation as a se!toral party in the party-list system. %ather. even if so!iety1s understanding. and "$ey will re#'i& ei"$er #'le or (e#'le pro"ec"e) 8y "$e 7'#e 4ill o( Ri%$"7 "$'" 'pplie7 "o 'll ci"iJe&7 'liLe. $ut that is not the intention of the framers of the law. and 9lias %. *mmoral do!trines. or both su!h imprisonment and fine. obs!ene publi!ations and e(hibitions. *f entry into the party-list system would depend only on the ability of an organiGation to represent its !onstituen!ies. Sarmiento.+3' -rt. Se!tion + of the party-list law une0uivo!ally states that the purpose of the party-list system of ele!ting !ongressional representatives is to enable #ilipino !itiGens belonging to marginaliGed and under-represented se!tors. and -rmando Felas!oA. 9ven assuming that it has properly proven its under-representation and marginaliGation. i"7 'pplic'"io& (or 'ccre)i"'"io& u&)er "$e p'r"yGli7" 7y7"e# will re#'i& Au7" "$'". he C<)9@9C Chairman. then all representative organiGations would have found themselves into the party-list ra!e. 3&"il "$e "i#e co#e7 w$e& =adlad i7 '8le "o Au7"i(y "$'" $'*i&% #i@e) 7e@u'l orie&"'"io&7 '&) "r'&7%e&)er i)e&"i"ie7 i7 8e&e(ici'l "o "$e &'"io&. %ene F. hose who shall publi!ly e(pound or pro!laim do!trines openly !ontrary to publi! morals" 7hen Ang Ladlad sought re!onsideration to the C<)9@9C 9& $-&C. organiGations and parties. agle. +61. breaking the tie and speaking for the ma8ority in his Separate <pinion. "$e p'r"yGli7" 7y7"e# i7 ' "ool (or "$e re'liJ'"io& o( '7pir'"io&7 o( #'r%i&'liJe) i&)i*i)u'l7 w$o7e i&"ere7"7 're 'l7o "$e &'"io&N7 I only that their interests have not been brought to the attention of the nation be!ause of their under representation. upheld the #irst -ssailed %esolution. it !annot be said that Ladlad1s e(pressed se(ual orientations per se would benefit the nation as a whole. +3' . he party-list system is not a tool to advo!ate toleran!e and a!!eptan!e of misunderstood persons or groups of persons. three !ommissioners voted to overturn the #irst -ssailed %esolution (Commissioners 2regorio J. and a!!eptan!e of @2$ 1s is elevated. while three !ommissioners voted to deny Ang LadladLs )otion for %e!onsideration (Commissioners &i!odemo .ouse of %epresentatives. #errer. and inde!ent shows. hus. X he penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from si( thousand to twelve thousand pesos. toleran!e. there !an be no denying that Ladlad !onstituen!ies are still males and females. JusophA. to be!ome members of the .

effe!tive immediately and !ontinuing until further orders from this Court. +616. he C. el)erly. *n the meantime. the <S2 later filed a Comment in support of petitioner1s appli!ation. +616.l'8or. +616. *e"er'&7. Co(plian e 'ith the Re$#ire(ent" of the Con"tit#tion and Rep#4li A t No. we granted the C. pe'7'&".9@D: 7e grant the petition.% opined that the denial of Ang LadladLs petition on moral grounds violated the standards and prin!iples of the Constitution. *nstead of filing a Comment. Ang Ladlad filed this =etition. you"$. +616. the ?niversal De!laration of . praying that the Court annul the -ssailed %esolutions and dire!t the C<)9@9C to grant Ang LadladLs appli!ation for a!!reditation. dire!ting the C<)9@9C to !ease and desist from implementing the -ssailed %esolutions.%A filed a )otion to *ntervene or to -ppear as -mi!us Curiae. the <ffi!e of the Soli!itor 2eneral (<S2 was ordered to file its Comment on behalf of C<)9@9C not later than 1+:66 noon of 5anuary 11. $'&)ic'ppe). in order to give C<)9@9C the opportunity to fully ventilate its position. +616 to Comment. -s we e(pli!itly ruled in +D6 . <n 5anuary 1'. and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights (*CC=%A. a temporary restraining order was issued on 5anuary 1+. whi!h had previously announ!ed that it would begin printing the final ballots for the )ay +616 ele!tions by 5anuary +D.uman %ights (C. we re0uired it to file its own !omment. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuan!e e> parte of a preliminary mandatory in8un!tion against the C<)9@9C. wo#e&. (i7$er(olL. %espondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang agong ayani stands for the proposition that only those se!tors spe!ifi!ally enumerated in the law or related to said se!tors . +616. +616. nor is it asso!iated with or related to any of the se!tors in the enumeration.+D6 he C<)9@9C likewise used the . <n 5anuary 3. '&) pro(e77io&'l7A may be registered under the party-list system. . <n 5anuary 4.%1s motion to intervene. hus. due to the urgen!y of the petition. the Commission on . -lso. +616. atta!hing thereto its Comment-in*ntervention. he C<)9@9C.oly $ible and the Moran in denying @adlad1s appli!ation. the <S2 filed a )otion for 9(tension. o*er7e'7 worLer7. through its @aw Department. Somewhat surprisingly. 7@B1 he C<)9@9C denied Ang LadladLs appli!ation for registration on the ground that the @2$ se!tor is neither enumerated in the Constitution and %. re0uesting that it be given until 5anuary 14. filed its Comment on #ebruary +. ur8'& poor.%A. +616.uman %ights (?D. however. on 5anuary 1..>'31. i&)i%e&ou7 cul"ur'l co##u&i"ie7.

he !ru!ial element is not whether a se!tor is spe!ifi!ally enumerated.!ursory perusal of Ang LadladLs initial petition shows that it never !laimed to e(ist in ea!h provin!e of the =hilippines. but whether a parti!ular organiGation !omplies with the re0uirements of the Constitution and %. Ang Ladlad also represented itself to be :a national @2$ umbrella organiGation with affiliates around the =hilippines !omposed of the following @2$ networks:. P ransgender Jouth -sso!iation (2-$-JA 2ay and @esbian -!tivists &etwork for 2ender 90uality (2-@-&2A I )etro )anila 2ay )en1s Support 2roup (2)S2A I )etro )anila 2ay ?nited for =ea!e and Solidarity (2?=SA I @anao del &orte *loilo City 2ay -sso!iation I *loilo City Mabulig 7riter1s 2roup I Camarines Sur @esbian -dvo!ates =hilippines.633 members in its ele!troni! dis!ussion group.>'31. -elred (<S-eA I )etro )anila =?= @-M-& %-D-% =%*D979-% %ainbow %ights =ro8e!t (%-%ightsA.+D1 Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. $ise(ual. (C@*CA I )etro )anila Cebu =ride I Cebu City Cir!le of #riends Dipolog 2ay -sso!iation I Oamboanga del &orte 2ay. *n!.666 persons" that it had 14. *n!. *n!.166 affiliates and members around the !ountry. and 3.I $aguio City )arikina 2ay -sso!iation I )etro )anila )etropolitan Community Chur!h ()CCA I )etro )anila &aga City 2ay -sso!iation I &aga City <&9 $-C-%D* <rder of St. Commission on Elections.                              -bra 2ay -sso!iation -klan $utterfly $rigade (-$$A I -klan -lbay 2ay -sso!iation -rts Center of Cabanatuan City I &ueva 9!i8a $oys @egion I )etro )anila Cagayan de <ro =eople @ike ?s (CD< =@?SA Can1t @ive in the Closet. %ather. . (@9-=A @?)*&. petitioner alleged that the @2$ !ommunity in the =hilippines was estimated to !onstitute at least 4>6. I )etro )anila San 5ose del )onte 2ay -sso!iation I $ula!an Sining Mayumanggi %oyal #amily I %iGal So!iety of ranse(ual 7omen of the =hilippines (S %-=A I )etro )anila +D1 . B"$e e&u#er'"io& o( #'r%i&'liJe) '&) u&)erGrepre7e&"e) 7ec"or7 i7 &o" e@clu7i*eD.

we find that Ang Ladlad has suffi!iently demonstrated its !omplian!e with the legal re0uirements for a!!reditation.D Cle'rly. instead. -s a result. C<)9@9C !laims. -s we held in Estrada v. <ur Constitution provides in Ar"icle III. H%eligious tea!hings as e(pressed in publi! debate may influen!e the !ivil publi! order but publi! moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds arti!ulable in se!ular terms. <therwise stated. lies in Ang LadladLs morality. he differen!e. Sec"io& 1 "$'" B<&=o l'w 7$'ll 8e #')e re7pec"i&% '& e7"'8li7$#e&" o( reli%io&. @ikewise. nowhere in the re!ords has the respondent ever foundEruled that Ang Ladlad is not 0ualified to register as a party-list organiGation under any of the re0uisites under %. family. B%o*er&#e&"'l reli'&ce o& reli%iou7 Au7"i(ic'"io& i7 i&co&7i7"e&" wi"$ "$i7 policy o( &eu"r'li"y.. and pro!reation. *ndeed. or pro$i8i"i&% "$e (ree e@erci7e "$ereo(. what our non-establishment !lause !alls for is B%o*er&#e&" &eu"r'li"y i& reli%iou7 #'""er7. even dislike or distrust of +D+ . not religious as the dissent of )r. if government based its a!tions upon religious beliefs. government will not provide full religious freedom for all its !itiGens. or la!k thereof. 7e are not blind to the fa!t that. homose(ual !ondu!t.e. i. the legitima!y of the -ssailed %esolutions should depend. the resulting poli!ies and morals would re0uire !onformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda.H anathema to religious freedom. %iGal  he @ink I Davao City  ayabas 2ay -sso!iation I RueGon  7omen1s $ise(ual &etwork I )etro )anila  Oamboanga 2ay -sso!iation I Oamboanga City -gainst this ba!kdrop. it would ta!itly approve or endorse that belief and thereby also ta!itly disapprove !ontrary religious or non-religious views that would not support the poli!y. he non-believers would therefore be !ompelled to !onform to a standard of !ondu!t buttressed by a religious belief.H <therwise.D 7e thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment !lause for the C<)9@9C to utiliGe the $ible and the Moran to 8ustify the e(!lusion of Ang Ladlad.+D+  Soul 5ive I -ntipolo. Escritor: ( ( ( he morality referred to in the law is publi! and ne!essarily se!ular. %ather than relying on religious belief.>'31 or the guidelines in Ang agong ayani. on whether the C<)9@9C is able to advan!e some 8ustifi!ation for its rulings beyond mere !onformity to religious do!trine. !onvi!tions about the preservation of marriage.D -t bottom. government must a!t for se!ular purposes and in ways that have primarily se!ular effe!ts. if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating publi! poli!ies and morals. 5usti!e Carpio holds. or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are se!ond-!lass !itiGens. have borne the brunt of so!ietal disapproval. aside from C<)9@9C1s moral ob8e!tion and the belated allegation of non-e(isten!e. through the years. *t is not diffi!ult to imagine the reasons behind this !ensure I religious beliefs. and perhaps homose(uals themselves. to a H!ompelled religion.

do not suggest that the state is wholly without authority to regulate matters !on!erning morality. on the other hand.person may be se(ually attra!ted to a person of the same gender. -rti!le 4'3 of the Civil Code defines a nuisan!e as :any a!t. or more than one gender. and se(ual relations. at worst. *f immoral thoughts !ould be penaliGed.violation of -rti!le +61 of the %evised =enal Code. %espondent1s blanket 8ustifi!ations give rise to the +D. he denial of Ang LadladLs registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homose(uals. without more. *n this. 7e. here is a great divide between thought and a!tion. of !ourse. . *t hardly needs to be emphasiGed that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof. &onetheless. Clearly then. undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions.. and we re!ogniGe that the government will and should !ontinue to restri!t behavior !onsidered detrimental to so!iety. &either has the C<)9@9C !ondes!ended to 8ustify its position that petitioner1s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabri! of so!iety. have not been !onvin!ingly transplanted into the realm of law. therefore. the bare invo!ation of morality will not remove an issue from our s!rutiny. &onetheless. he <S2 argues: ( ( ( . se(uality. defies. C<)9@9C would have its hands full of dis0ualifi!ation !ases against both the :straights. 9vidently.+D. is not a suffi!ient governmental interest to 8ustify e(!lusion of homose(uals from parti!ipation in the partylist system. we re!all that the =hilippines has not seen fit to !riminaliGe homose(ual !ondu!t. but mere attra!tion does not translate to immoral a!ts. or anything else whi!h sho!ks. re0uires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a !riminal !onvi!tion. without bothering to go through the rigors of legal reasoning and e(planation. and a mere blanket invo!ation of publi! morals !annot repla!e the institution of !ivil or !riminal pro!eedings and a 8udi!ial determination of liability or !ulpability. we !annot !ountenan!e advo!ates who. the notion of morality is robbed of all value. or disregards de!en!y or morality.. the remedies for whi!h are a prose!ution under the %evised =enal Code or any lo!al ordinan!e. or why spe!ial prote!tion is re0uired for the youth. 9ven the <S2 agrees that :there should have been a finding by the C<)9@9C that the group1s members have !ommitted or are !ommitting immoral a!ts. $eduction ad a'surdum. 7e also find the C<)9@9C1s referen!e to purported violations of our penal and !ivil laws flimsy. -s su!h. we hold that moral disapproval. !ondition of property. these :generally a!!epted publi! morals. at best" disingenuous. Certainly this is not the intendment of the law. of a different gender. omission.. rather than a tool to further any substantial publi! interest. situate morality on one end of an argument or another. and the gays. a !ivil a!tion. or abatement without 8udi!ial pro!eedings. establishment. %espondent has failed to e(plain what so!ietal ills are sought to be prevented. homose(uals themselves and their per!eived lifestyle. he -ssailed %esolutions have not identified any spe!ifi! overt immoral a!t performed by Ang Ladlad. .

!ourts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on !lassifi!ation. the standard of analysis of e0ual prote!tion !hallenges ( ( ( have followed the Krational basis1 test. I" 8e'r7 7"re77i&% "$'" our (i&)i&% "$'" COMELECN7 'c" o( )i((ere&"i'"i&% L:4T7 (ro# $e"ero7e@u'l7 i&7o('r '7 "$e p'r"yGli7" 7y7"e# i7 co&cer&e) )oe7 &o" i#ply "$'" '&y o"$er l'w )i7"i&%ui7$i&% 8e"wee& $e"ero7e@u'l7 '&) $o#o7e@u'l7 u&)er )i((ere&" circu#7"'&ce7 woul) 7i#il'rly ('il. I&)ee). .. 0e )i7'%ree wi"$ "$e OS:N7 po7i"io& "$'" $o#o7e@u'l7 're ' cl'77 i& "$e#7el*e7 (or "$e purpo7e7 o( "$e eCu'l pro"ec"io& cl'u7e. :90uality.+D3 inevitable !on!lusion that the C<)9@9C targets homose(uals themselves as a !lass. "$e '77er"e) 7"'"e i&"ere7" $ere T "$'" i7. an@o "entral ng #ilipinas. he e0ual prote!tion !lause guarantees that no person or !lass of persons shall be deprived of the same prote!tion of laws whi!h is en8oyed by other persons or other !lasses in the same pla!e and in like !ir!umstan!es. we de!lared that :BiCn our 8urisdi!tion. v. *n Central an@ Employees Association.$#al &rote tion Despite the absolutism of -rti!le ***. Se!tion 1 of our Constitution. :!onsists in the same treatment of similar persons. '&) i" i7 7i#ply u&&ece77'ry "o #'Le 7uc$ ' ruli&% "o)'y. 0e 're &o" prep're) "o 7i&%le ou" $o#o7e@u'l7 '7 ' 7ep'r'"e cl'77 #eri"i&% 7peci'l or )i((ere&"i'"e) "re'"#e&". (ur"$er7 &o le%i"i#'"e 7"'"e i&"ere7" o"$er "$'& )i7'ppro*'l o( or )i7liLe (or ' )i7('*ore) %roup. -o l'w e@i7"7 "o cri#i&'liJe $o#o7e@u'l 8e$'*ior or e@pre77io&7 or p'r"ie7 '8ou" $o#o7e@u'l 8e$'*ior... "$e 5$ilippi&e elec"or'"e $'7 e@pre77e) &o 7uc$ 8elie(. Inc. '&) "$i7 co&7"i"u"e7 7u((icie&" re'7o& "o )i7Cu'li(y "$e pe"i"io&er. said -ristotle. !oupled with a deferential attitude to legislative !lassifi!ations and a relu!tan!e to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a !lear and une0uivo!al brea!h of the Constitution. 5e"i"io&er i"7el( $'7 #erely )e#'&)e) "$'" i" 8e reco%&iJe) u&)er "$e 7'#e 8'7i7 '7 'll o"$er %roup7 7i#il'rly 7i"u'"e). not be!ause of any parti!ular morally reprehensible a!t. e*e& i( we were "o '77u#e "$'" pu8lic opi&io& i7 '7 "$e COMELEC )e7cri8e7 i". %e!ent 8urispruden!e has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspe!t !lass. #or'l )i7'ppro*'l o( '& u&popul'r #i&ori"y T i7 &o" ' le%i"i#'"e 7"'"e i&"ere7" "$'" i7 7u((icie&" "o 7'"i7(y r'"io&'l 8'7i7 re*iew u&)er "$e eCu'l pro"ec"io& cl'u7e. '&) "$'" "$e COMELEC #')e B'& +D3 . '&) i"7 u&7u87"'&"i'"e) cl'i# "$'" An* =adlad c'&&o" co&"ri8u"e "o "$e (or#ul'"io& o( le%i7l'"io& "$'" woul) 8e&e(i" "$e &'"io&. *t is this sele!tive targeting that impli!ates our e0ual prote!tion !lause. T$e COMELEC po7i"7 "$'" "$e #'Aori"y o( "$e 5$ilippi&e popul'"io& co&7i)er7 $o#o7e@u'l co&)uc" '7 i##or'l '&) u&'ccep"'8le. whi!h provides :nor s2all any person 'e denied eCual protection of t2e la?s. we will uphold the !lassifi!ation as long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate government end. T$e COMELECN7 )i((ere&"i'"io&. 0e $'*e &o" recei*e) 7u((icie&" e*i)e&ce "o "$i7 e((ec".. 3&(or"u&'"ely (or "$e re7po&)e&".

Europe'& '&) 3&i"e) -'"io&7 Au)ici'l )eci7io&7 $'*e rule) i& ('*or o( %'y ri%$"7 cl'i#'&"7 o& 8o"$ pri*'cy '&) eCu'li"y %rou&)7. *n the area of freedom of e(pression. and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably re!eived but also to those that offend. it is not for the C<)9@9C or this Court to impose its views on the popula!e. ci"i&% %e&er'l pri*'cy '&) eCu'l pro"ec"io& pro*i7io&7 i& (orei%& '&) i&"er&'"io&'l "e@"7. -bsent any !ompelling state interest. ?nited States !ourts have ruled that e(isting free spee!h do!trines prote!t gay and lesbian rights to e(pressive !ondu!t.D :reedo( of . -ny restri!tion imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. A poli"ic'l %roup 7$oul) &o" 8e $i&)ere) 7olely +DD . wi"$ i"7 *i8r'&" $u#'& ri%$"7 "r')i"io&. or disturb. T$e7e (orei%& 'u"$ori"ie7. e*e& i( 7uc$ i)e'7 #'y 7ee# 7$ocLi&% or u&'ccep"'8le "o "$e 'u"$ori"ie7 or "$e #'Aori"y o( "$e popul'"io&. his position gains even more for!e if one !onsiders that homose(ual !ondu!t is not illegal in this !ountry. To "$e e@"e&" "$'" "$ere i7 #uc$ "o le'r& (ro# o"$er Auri7)ic"io&7 "$'" $'*e re(lec"e) o& "$e i77ue7 we ('ce $ere. 7uc$ Auri7pru)e&ce i7 cer"'i&ly illu#i&'"i&%. #'y &e*er"$ele77 $'*e per7u'7i*e i&(lue&ce o& "$e Cour"N7 '&'ly7i7. for instan!e. w$ile &o" (or#'lly 8i&)i&% o& 5$ilippi&e cour"7. publi! institutions must show that their a!tions were !aused by :something more than a mere desire to avoid the dis!omfort and unpleasantness that always a!!ompany an unpopular viewpoint. the C<)9@9C is !ertainly not free to interfere with spee!h for no better reason than promoting an approved message or dis!ouraging a disfavored one. "$e Europe'& Cour" o( Hu#'& Ri%$"7 . <therwise stated.%pre""ion and A""o iation #reedom of e(pression !onstitutes one of the essential foundations of a demo!rati! so!iety.ECHR! $'7 repe'"e)ly 7"'"e) "$'" ' poli"ic'l p'r"y #'y c'#p'i%& (or ' c$'&%e i& "$e l'w or "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l 7"ruc"ure7 o( ' 7"'"e i( i" u7e7 le%'l '&) )e#ocr'"ic #e'&7 '&) "$e c$'&%e7 i" propo7e7 're co&7i7"e&" wi"$ )e#ocr'"ic pri&ciple7. *t follows that both e(pressions !on!erning one1s homose(uality and the a!tivity of forming a politi!al asso!iation that supports @2$ individuals are prote!ted as well.+DD u&w'rr'&"e) '&) i#per#i77i8le cl'77i(ic'"io& &o" Au7"i(ie) 8y "$e circu#7"'&ce7 o( "$e c'7e. sho!k. i& Europe. 0i"$ re7pec" "o (ree)o# o( '77oci'"io& (or "$e ')*'&ce#e&" o( i)e'7 '&) 8elie(7.. T$e ECHR $'7 e#p$'7iJe) "$'" poli"ic'l i)e'7 "$'" c$'lle&%e "$e e@i7"i&% or)er '&) w$o7e re'liJ'"io& i7 ')*oc'"e) 8y pe'ce(ul #e'&7 #u7" 8e '((or)e) ' proper oppor"u&i"y o( e@pre77io& "$rou%$ "$e e@erci7e o( "$e ri%$" o( '77oci'"io&. *n order to 8ustify the prohibition of a parti!ular e(pression of opinion. O"$er Auri7)ic"io&7 $'*e %o&e 7o ('r '7 "o c'"e%oric'lly rule "$'" e*e& o*erw$el#i&% pu8lic percep"io& "$'" $o#o7e@u'l co&)uc" *iol'"e7 pu8lic #or'li"y )oe7 &o" Au7"i(y cri#i&'liJi&% 7'#eG7e@ co&)uc".

T$ey. none of this suggests the impending arrival of a golden age for gay rights litigants. / dated 5uly +1. O&ly i( ' poli"ic'l p'r"y i&ci"e7 *iole&ce or pu"7 (orw'r) policie7 "$'" 're i&co#p'"i8le wi"$ )e#ocr'cy )oe7 i" ('ll ou"7i)e "$e pro"ec"io& o( "$e (ree)o# o( '77oci'"io& %u'r'&"ee. refle!t a !lear-!ut strong !onsensus favorable to gay rights !laims and we neither attempt nor e(pe!t to affe!t individual per!eptions of homose(uality through this De!ision. the =etition is hereby :RA-TE/. i& 'll liLeli$oo). L:4T7 '&) "$eir 7uppor"er7. 0e )o &o" )ou8" "$'" ' &u#8er o( our ci"iJe&7 #'y 8elie*e "$'" $o#o7e@u'l co&)uc" i7 )i7"'7"e(ul. our )e#ocr'cy preclu)e7 u7i&% "$e reli%iou7 or #or'l *iew7 o( o&e p'r" o( "$e co##u&i"y "o e@clu)e (ro# co&7i)er'"io& "$e *'lue7 o( o"$er #e#8er7 o( "$e co##u&i"y. T$ey 're e&"i"le) "o $ol) '&) e@pre77 "$'" *iew. hat they rrefused to take part in the flag !eremony whi!h in!ludes playing by a band or singing the =hilippine &ational -nthem. ET AL VS. 8elie*e wi"$ eCu'l (er*or "$'" rel'"io&7$ip7 8e"wee& i&)i*i)u'l7 o( "$e 7'#e 7e@ 're #or'lly eCui*'le&" "o $e"ero7e@u'l rel'"io&7$ip7. 1'DD of the D9CS making the flag !eremony !ompulsory in all +D4 . o((e&7i*e. 0HERE. "oo.ORE. ROEL E4RALI-A:. '7 ('r '7 "$i7 Cour" i7 co&cer&e). THE /IVISIOS35ERI-TE-/E-T O.. CE43.1+4D of 5uly 11. 're e&"i"le) "o $ol) '&) e@pre77 "$'" *iew. saluting the =hilippine #lag and re!iting the patrioti! pledge be!ause they !onsidered the flag as an image and they should not worship it e(!ept 2<D" . Howe*er.+D4 8ec'u7e i" 7eeL7 "o pu8licly )e8'"e co&"ro*er7i'l poli"ic'l i77ue7 i& or)er "o (i&) 7olu"io&7 c'p'8le o( 7'"i7(yi&% e*eryo&e co&cer&e). he petitioners are high s!hool and grade s!hools students enrolled in the different publi! s!hools of the =rovin!e of Cebu and who belong to the religious group known as the 5ehovahSs 7itnesses" +. *t well may be that this De!ision will only serve to highlight the dis!repan!y between the rigid !onstitutional analysis of this Court and the more !omple( moral sentiments of #ilipinos. hat be!ause of their refusal to perform the foregoing a!ts as re0uired by %. or e*e& )e(i'&". M'rc$ 1. 1993 2rino---0uino. O& "$e o"$er $'&). even at its most liberal. 1'DD and by Department <rder &o. SCHOOLS O. 7e do not suggest that publi! opinion. #a!ts: 1. <f !ourse. 5.

9*% 99 . they were e(pelled by the respondent s!hool authorities.-<.9. the flag is utterly devoid of any religious signifi!an!e. +'>. <& . sing the national anthem. arangan.< C? . 1'//. %.:8 "C$A 8:. 1'/> ConstitutionA.9 C<&SC*9&C9 <# .9*% %*2.9 $*@@ <# %*2.*= (Se!tion D.+D> edu!ational institutions. S 7.9 where the SC held that: he flag is not an image but a symbol of the %epubli! of the =hilippines. ***. of national unity and !ohesion and of freedom and liberty whi!h it and the Constitution guarantee and prote!t.en!e this petition. "ecretary of Education. ?nder a system of !omplete separation of !hur!h and state in the government.. *S -@*9& < . ..< #2il. re!ite the patrioti! pledge or sing the national anthem in order to follow their religious beliefsN . for it involves the relationship of man and his Creator (Chief 5usti!e #ernandoSs separate opinion in +erman vs. 2?-%-& 99S .eld: he same issue was raised in +erona vs. 6. +D> . . is not lightly to be trifled with. . #2il. he law.9 =%9S9& 29&9%.*C.*<& <# #*@*=*&<S 7. an emblem of national sovereignty. . and re!ite the patrioti! pledge. -rt.9 #%99 9Q9%C*S9 <# %9@*2*<?S =%<#9SS*<& -&D 7<%S. -&D .1+4D was likewise in!orporated in 9(e!utive <rder &o. "ecretary of Education. 0 6. %eligious freedom is a fundamental right whi!h is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest prote!tion among human rights.8. .6-year old de!ision of this Court in 29%<&.. *ssue: -----)ay the petitioners be e(pelled for refusing to salute the flag.upholding the salute law and approving the e(pulsion of students who refuse to obey it. S < #%99 S=99C. he idea that one may be !ompelled to salute the flag. during flag !eremony on pain of being dismissed from oneSs 8ob or be e(pelled in s!hool. <ur task is e(tremely diffi!ult for the . September +1.-8-9 and al'una vs.

9 . 7e hold that a similar e(emption may be a!!orded to the 5ehovahSs 7itnesses with regard to the observan!e of the flag !eremony out of respe!t to their religious beliefs. that the State has the right and duty to presvent. vis. *n *ictoriano vs."C$A 83. Eli5alde $ope Dor@ers !nion.9 %*2. he sole 8ustifi!ation for a prior restraint or limitation on the e(er!ise of religious freedom (a!!ording the #ormer Chief 8usti!e eehankee in his dissenting opinion in 2erman vs. < %-F9@ +D/ . we upheld the e(emption of the members of the *glesia ni Mristo from the !overage of the !losed-shop agreement between the labor union and the !ompany be!ause it would violate the tea!hing of their !hur!h not to 8oin any labor group.9 -==@*C-$@9 =%<F*S*<& <# .?)-& S9C?%* J -C <& . $aranaganA is the e(isten!e of a grave and present danger of a !hara!ter both grave and imminent. 8. of a serious evil to publi! safety. pu8lic 7'(e"y. freedom to believe and freedom to a!t on oneSs belief. -bsent su!h a threat to publi! safety. '7 #'y 8e pro*i)e) 8y l'w. -ei"$er 7$'ll "$e ri%$" "o "r'*el 8e i#p'ire) e@cep" i& "$e i&"ere7" o( &'"io&'l 7ecuri"y. publi! health or any other legitimate publi! interest. the e(pulsion of the petitioners from the s!hools is not 8ustified sin!e they are not doing anything that !ould warrant their e(pulsion sin!e during flag !eremonies. publi! morals. T$e li8er"y o( '8o)e '&) o( c$'&%i&% "$e 7'#e wi"$i& "$e li#i"7 pre7cri8e) 8y l'w 7$'ll &o" 8e i#p'ire) e@cep" upo& l'w(ul or)er o( "$e cour".. he se!ond is sub8e!t to regulation where the belief is translated into e(ternal a!ts that affe!t the publi! welfare. or pu8lic $e'l"$. &< 9: . however HbiGarreH those beliefs may seem to others CHA5TER VII G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO TRAVEL Sec"io& 6. he first is absolute as long as the belief is !onfined within the realm of the thought.+D/ he right to religious profession has a two-fold aspe!t. they 8ust 0uietly stand at attention to show their respe!t for the rights of others who !hoose to parti!ipate in the solemn pro!eedings.

:. HO-. +D' 1+' SC%- . his is a petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the Supreme Court to <rder the respondents to issue travel do!uments to the petitioners and to en8oin the implementation of the =residentSs de!ision to bar their return to the =hilippines. 1969 right to travel" liberty of abode and Hright to returnH 9n ban! Cortes. ET AL. Sep"e#8er 11. VS.R.+D' 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: • Detained under house arrest" • %estri!ted from traveling" andEor • =rohibited from using any !ellular phones. RA3L MA-:LA53S. 66911. ?pon appli!ation of the prose!utor. 1969 '&) "$e Re7olu"io& o( "$e Mo"io& (or Reco&7i)er'"io& )'"e) Oc"o8er 9 . ravel outside of said muni!ipality or !ity. he !onstitutional as well as human right to travel. 5. the suspe!t1s right to travel shall be limited to the muni!ipality or !ity where he resides or where the !ase is pending. without the authoriGation of the !ourt. he !ase for the petitioners is founded on the assertion that their right to return to the =hilippines is guaranteed by the following provisions of the Constitution: Se!tion 1. nor shall any person be denied e0ual prote!tion of the laws. ET AL. 1. in the interest of national se!urity and publi! safety. hese restri!tions shall be terminated upon a!0uittal of the a!!used" or the dismissal of the !ase filed against him" or earlier upon the dis!retion of the !ourt or upon motion of the prose!utor. !omputers.. shall be deemed a violation of the terms and !onditions of the bail whi!h shall then be forfeited as provided in the %ules of Court. %ead: .ER/I-A-/ MARCOS. &o person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due pro!ess of law. or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e. +. -O.

in the e(er!ise of the powers granted in the Constitution. publi! safety or publi! health. the petitioners !laim that under international law. !iting Se!tion 3. -lso. -&D < %9 ?%& < . (+A 9veryone has the right to leave any !ountry.+46 Se!tion 4. whi!h !ould help in the determination of the main issue. under the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights. they argue that the right of the state to national se!urity prevails over individual rights. he sub-issues. hus: Ar". *ssue: 7hether or not. Does the =resident have the power to bar the )ar!oses to return to the =hilippinesN +46 . whi!h had been ratified by the =hilippines. ** of the 1'/> =hilippine Constitution.um8an %ights guaranteed the right of the )ar!oses to return to the =hilippines. -rt. 13 (1A 9veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residen!e within the borders of ea!h state. &or may the =resident impair the right to travel be!ause no law has authoriGed her to do so. provides: Ar". 19 3A &o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own !ountry. he liberty of abode and of !hanging the same within the limits pres!ribed by law shall not be impaired e(!ept in the interest of national se!urity. parti!ularly the ?niversal De!laration of . the =resident may prohibit the )ar!oses from returning to the =hilippines. are: 1. in!luding his own. as may be provided by law. he petitioners !ontend that the =resident has no power to impair the liberty of abode of the )ar!oses be!ause only the Courts may do so Hwithin the limits pres!ribed by lawH. he respondents argue that the issue in this !ase involves a politi!al 0uestion whi!h is therefore beyond the 8urisdi!tion of the Court. #urthermore.*S C<?& %J. @ikewise.

F*** of the Constitution. THE LA0 O. IS 5ART O. rightist !onspira!ies to grab power. A&) i( 7$e $'7 #')e "$'" (i&)i&%.uman %ights and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of the state. A77u#i&% "$'" "$e 5re7i)e&" $'7 "$e power "o 8'r (or#er 5re7. pu8lic 7'(e"y or pu8lic $e'l"$. even the ?niversal de!laration of . *s this a politi!al 0uestionN 9. $'*e "$e reCuire#e&"7 o( )ue proce77 8ee& co#plie) wi"$ i& #'Li&% 7uc$ (i&)i&%R H'7 "$ere 8ee& prior &o"ice "o "$e pe"i"io&er7R . To "$e 5re7i)e&".ICALLY :3ARA-TEE/ 4Y THE 4ILL O. 43T IT IS O3R 0ELLGCO-SI/ERE/ VIE0 THAT THE RI:HT TO RET3RMAY 4E CO-SI/ERE/ AS A :E-ERALLY ACCE5TE/ 5RI-CI5LE O. though related to the right to travel. THE RI:HT TO RET3R. THE LI4ERTY O.TO O-EUS CO3-TRY IS -OT AMO-: THE RI:HTS S5ECI. hese are what the right to travel !onnote. the right to leave a !ountry and the right to enter oneSs !ountry as separate and distin!t rights. "$e pro8le# i7 o&e o( 8'l'&ci&% "$e %e&er'l wel('re '&) "$e co##o& %oo) '%'i&7" "$e e@erci7e o( ri%$"7 o( cer"'i& i&)i*i)u'l7. i& "$e i&"ere7" o( &'"io&'l 7ecuri"y. A4O/E A-/ THE RI:HT TO TRAVEL. @astly. he !ourt !annot !lose its eyes to present realities and pretend that the !ountry is not besieged by the insurgen!y. the =resident !annot be said to have a!ted arbitrarily. 7ith these before her. 0HICH TREATS O-LY O. !apri!iously and whimsi!ally. 8udi!ial power now in!ludes the duty to Hdetermine whether or not there has been a grave +41 . the issue involved in the !ase at bar is not politi!al in nature sin!e under Se!tion 1.+41 a. hus. et!. THE LA-/. T$e power i&*ol*e) i7 "$e 5re7i)e&"U7 RESI/3AL 5O0ER "o pro"ec" "$e %e&er'l wel('re o( "$e people. the right to return to oneSs !ountry.eld: *t must be emphasiGed that the individual right involved in this !ase is not the right to travel from the =hilippines to other !ountries or within the =hilippines. pu8lic wel('re or pu8lic $e'l"$. a totally distin!t right under international law. M'rco7 '&) $i7 ('#ily (ro# re"ur&i&% "o "$e 5$ilippi&e7. 9ssentially. independent from. -rt. 3-/ER O3R CO-STIT3TIO-. RI:HTS. separatist movement in )indanao. $'7 "$e 5re7i)e&" #')e ' (i&)i&% "$'" "$e re"ur& o( "$e pe"i"io&er7 "o "$e 5$ilippi&e7 i7 ' cle'r '&) pre7e&" )'&%er "o &'"io&'l 7ecuri"y. I-TER-ATIO-AL LA0.

hat is not my re!olle!tion of the impressions of the Court after the hearing. #eli!iano. =etitioner %i!ardo )anoto!. *f he !omes home. =C22. S. +. CA. 2an!ay!o.9 =9&-@ J #<% . =adilla. however.<S9 =<79%S $9C-?S9 .H &< 9: he main opinion was !on!urred in by > 8usti!es (C5 #ernan. -maGingly. the ma8ority has !ome to the !on!lusion that there e(ist Hfa!tual bases for the =residentSs de!isionH to bar )ar!osSs return. Seven 8usti!es filed separate dissenting opinions (2utierreG. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 2utierreG. 5r. *n said !ases he was admitted to bail with the #2? *nsuran!e Corporation as surety. 2rino--0uino.9 &.l'/> M'&o"oc *7. CruG... -pril /. De!ember >. the government has the power to arrest and punish him but does it have the power to deny him his right to !ome home and die among familiar surroundingsN ( ( ( he government has more than ample powers under e(isting laws to deal with a person who transgresses the pea!e and imperils publi! safety.*<&. /D1 +. SalaGar. $? ..9 $*@@ <# %*2. dissenting. Mwong vs. 5. +4+ . has 4 !riminal !ases for estafa pending against him. 1''1 %ead also: 1. 7ith all due respe!t for the ma8ority in the Court that the main issue in this !ase is not one of power but one on %*2.errera.+4+ abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k of 8urisdi!tion on the part of any bran!h or instrumentality of the government. &arvasa. Caun!a vs. S S-J S<. $idin and SarmientoA. C-. =aras. 5r. Silverio vs.?% *&2 . .9 D9&*-@ <# %-F9@ =-=9%S *S &< <&9 <# . )edialdea and %egaladoA or a total of / 8usti!es in voting in favor of D*S)*SS*&2 the petition. /+ =hil. )elen!io-.9%9 *S &< @-7 =%9SC%*$*&2 9Q*@9 *& #<%9*2& @-&D -S . 129 SCRA 129 1. he fears e(pressed by its representatives were based on mere !on8e!tures of politi!al and e!onomi! destabiliGation without any single pie!e of !on!rete eviden!e to ba!k up their apprehensions. . 5r.

. H( ( ( the result of the obligation assumed by appellee to hold the a!!used amenable at all times to the orders and pro!esses of the lower !ourt. he S9C re0uested the Commissioner on *mmigration not to !lear petitioner for departure pending disposition of the !ase involving him.l931! !. 3y Tui7i&%.. said orders and pro!esses will be nugatory. he S.. =etitioner !ites the Court of -ppeals !ase of =eople vs. =etitioner subse0uently filed before the trial !ourts a motion entitled Hmotion for permission to leave the !ountryH stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the ?nited States. 1. 1'/6A as authority for his !laim that he !ould travel.C. he !ondition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the !ourt re0uires his presen!e operates as a valid restri!tion on his right to travel.H. d. 2. 3.-2. b.C. otherwise. HEL/I =etition denied.%. and inasmu!h as the 8urisdi!tion of the !ourts from whi!h they issued does not e(tend beyond that of the =hilippines they would have no binding for!e outside of said 8urisdi!tion. !laiming his !onstitutional right to travel and also !ontending that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right. o allow the petitioner to leave the =hilippines without suffi!ient reason would pla!e him beyond the rea!h of the !ourts.e is also involved in a !ase pending before the Se!urities and 9(!hange Commission. Shepherd (C.D6D-%. &o. he motion was denied by the lower !ourts and the matter was elevated to the Court of -ppeals whi!h also denied the same. held however that said !ase is not s0uarely on all fours with the !ase at bar. +. . he same was granted by the Commissioner.!ourt has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the =hilippines. #eb. 61 5$il.-. . be!ause. +. was to prohibit the a!!used from leaving the 8urisdi!tion of the =hilippines. a.5eople *7. Hrelative to his business transa!tions and opportunitiesH. =etitioner brings the matter to the S. his is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of the nature and fun!tion of a bail bond.2 . neither the !ourts whi!h granted him bail nor the S9C would have 8urisdi!tion over his liberty. ?nlike the Shepherd !ase. . petitioner has failed +4.+4.

=hilippine Communi!ations Satellite Corporation (=.. <!tober 1>. '> SC%.A. @ukban. as well as the !onsent of his surety to the proposed travel. >>/ D. +664. Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu!ed =hilippine Senate %esolution &o.*@C<)S. Acce77 "o o((ici'l recor)7P7$'ll 8e '((or)e) "$e ci"iJe& 7u8Aec" "o 7uc$ li#i"'"io&7 '7 #'y 8e pro*i)e) 8y l'w. "$e )ur'"io& "$ereo(. &o.%.%. SA4IO *7. supra. &o.CA due 1/6B3C -nne( :9. %ead: %ight to =riva!y" right to information on matters of publi! !on!ern" CAMILO L. 1>3. 4. 3DDA.+43 to satisfy the !ourts of the urgen!y of his travel..36. 2onGales. '&) "$'" $i7 7ure"ie7 're willi&% "o u&)er"'Le "$e re7po&7i8ili"y o( 'llowi&% $i# "o "r'*el. 1. 5. 1>3. of the =etition in 2.1+1 >. Salonga vs. 1/6 B3C :dire!ting an in0uiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses in!urred by the =hilippines <verseas ele!ommuni!ations Corporation (=< CA.A&T.*@C<)S. 3. T$e . D63 SC%. 2. He #u7" $owe*er co&*i&ce "$e cour"7 o( "$e ur%e&cy o( $i7 "r'*el. 3DD (Senate %es. e. &o.>63 Sandoval-2utierreG. T$e ri%$" o( "$e people "o i&(or#'"io& o& #'""er7 o( pu8lic co&cer& 7$'ll 8e reco%&iJe). the duration thereof. <n #ebruary +6.ermoso. %oan vs. *t may thus be inferred that the fa!t that a !riminal !ase is pending against an a!!used does not automati!ally bar him from travelling abroad. :OR/O-.' =hil.1/. CON3T/T2T/ONA= RI:HT TO I-. +664. . %ead also the #erdinand )ar!os Cases of -ugust 1'/' C.'c"7I P <!tober. .ORMATIOSec"io& .R ?/// G T.oldings Corporation (=. Fillavi!en!io vs. +43 . and =.

+664. the #2ilippine "tar. +664. million had been allegedly advan!ed to C* without any a!!ountability report given to =.en!e. in its 1+ #ebruary +66+ issue reported that the e(e!utive !ommittee of =hil!omsat has pre!ipitately released =+4D million and granted =1+D million loan to a relative of an e(e!utive !ommittee member" to date there have been no payments given. wrote Chairman Camilo @. &o. 2ordon.9%9#<%9. 1>3.%. 1>3.C funds are allegedly siphoned" in 1/ months.. ( C*A. over =>..m. &o. /+ 9DS-." 7. 1 earlier 0uoted. Sabio of the =C22. some board members established wholly owned =. -o.+4D to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe!tive $oard of Dire!tors. at around 16:3D a. o& "$e '&o#'lou7 lo77e7 i&curre) 8y "$e 5$ilippi&e O*er7e'7 Teleco##u&ic'"io&7 Corpor'"io& . in the last 0uarter of +66D.C subsidiary !alled ele!ommuni!ations Center. +4D . 8e i" re7ol*e) "$'" "$e proper Se&'"e Co##i""ee 7$'ll co&)uc" '& i&Cuiry i& 'i) o( le%i7l'"io&. )andaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained. million. . )a8or 2eneral $ala8adia arrested Chairman Sabio in his offi!e at *%C $uilding. *n!. <n September 1+.C and =.1/. as !ompared to the previous year1s mere =164 thousand" 7.9%9-S. &o. 5$ilippi&e Co##u&ic'"io&7 S'"elli"e Corpor'"io& . &o.5OTC!.+D million in +663" 7.1/.8! o( E. inviting him to be one of the resour!e persons in the publi! meeting 8ointly !ondu!ted by the Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices. +664.. where =.9%9-S. $e i&*oLe) Sec"io& 2. <n )ay /.1/+B>C A" "$e 7'#e "i#e. Chairman Sabio de!lined the invitation be!ause of prior !ommitment. one of the herein petitioners.C skyro!keted to =3. he purpose of the publi! meeting was to deliberate on Senate %es. of the =etition in 2. under the authority of Senator %i!hard 5.O. -nne( :2.%. Chief of Staff %io C. '&) 5$ilco#7'" Hol)i&%7 Corpor'"io&7 . 3DD.5HILCOMSAT!. *no!en!io.*@C<)S. of the =etition in 2.1/1B4C <n )ay '.5HC! )ue "o "$e 'lle%e) i#proprie"ie7 i& "$e oper'"io&7 8y "$eir re7pec"i*e 8o'r) o( )irec"or7. he pertinent portions of the %esolution read: 0HEREAS. Chairman Sabio filed with the 1/1B4C 1/+B>C -nne( :#. sub8e!ting the !ompany to an estimated interest in!ome loss of =11. the representation and entertainment e(pense of the =.

193 T$e pe"i"io&er reCue7"e) "$e COMELEC "o pu8li7$ "$e i&)i*i)u'l &o#i&ee7 o( 'll "$e p'r"yGli7" %roup7 i& or)er "$'" "$ey will 8e %ui)e) o& w$'" p'r"yGli7" %roup 7$'ll 8e 7uppor"e) 8y "$e#. &o. 7uc$ li7" o( &o#i&ee7 i7 co&(i)e&"i'l '&) 7$oul) &o" 8e pu8li7$e). T$e COMELEC $el) "$'" u&)er "$e 5'r"yGli7" Ac".36. Senators %i!hard 2ordon and 5oker =. . le%i7l'"i*e or ')#i&i7"r'"i*e procee)i&% co&cer&i&% #'""er7 wi"$i& i"7 o((ici'l co%&iJ'&ce.. their Chairmen. Su!h provision of 9< &o.<. 9 @ D: Jes.1 whi!h was invoked by the petitioners in support of their refusal to testify in the Senate limits the power of legislative in0uiry by e(empting all =C22 members or staff from testifying in any 8udi!ial. 9.%. thus: -o #e#8er or 7"'(( o( "$e Co##i77io& 7$'ll 8e reCuire) "o "e7"i(y or pro)uce e*i)e&ce i& '&y Au)ici'l. -rroyo and )embers. legislative or administrative pro!eeding. +44 . &o. Se!tion 3(bA of 9. COMELEC. I S S 3 E SI *s the refusal of the petitioners to testify in Congress by virtue of 9< &o. Se!tion 3 BbC violates the !onstitutional provision on information on matters of publi! !on!ernN . MAY 2. 1 is un!onstitutional be!ause it violates the !onstitutional provision ensuring the people1s a!!ess to information on matters of publi! 4A-TAY RE534LIC ACT SCRA 1 VS. he !ase was do!keted as 2.+44 Supreme Court a petition for 2a'eas corpus against the Senate Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices. 1. 1>3.

*n the !ase at bar. 293. petitioner Falmonte wrote the respondent asking the latter to furnish him !opies of former members of the $atasang =ambansa who were able to se!ure a H!lean loanH from the 2S*S prior to the #ebruary >. he is e(pe!ted to have e(hausted all means of administrative redress available under the law.eld: 1. the de!ision of the 2eneral )anager of the 2S*S is appealableEreviewable by the 2S*S $oard of rustees. #a!ts: 1. 1'/4. respondent through !ounsel refused to give petitioner a list of said lawmakers who obtained H!lean loansH from 2S*S on the ground that there is a !onfidential relationship between 2S*S and its borrowers and it would be proper for them to preserve same" . VALMO-TE VS. 1'/4 ele!tions" +. 5. 7hether or not the !ase should be dismissed for failure to e(haust administrative remediesN +. =etitioners did not ask the $oard of rustees to review the de!ision of the respondent. the petitioners filed this instant petition. 4ELMO-TE. <n 5une 3. *t is well-settled in our 8urisdi!tion that before a party !an be allowed to resort to the !ourts. T$i7 i7 i& 'ccor)'&ce wi"$ "$e ri%$" "o i&(or#'"io& o& #'""er7 o( pu8lic co&cer& w$ic$ 7$'ll 8e 'ccor)e) "o e*ery ci"iJe&. . *ssues: 1.. <n 5uly 1'. +4> the the the the . 1969 in relation to the %ight to =riva!y Cortes. <n 5une 1>.E4R3ARY 13. 1'/4. 1'/4.. :R -O. 7hether or not the petitioners are entitled to the do!uments sought in a!!ordan!e with their !onstitutional right to informationN .+4> Hel)I T$e COMELEC 7$oul) pu8li7$ "$e li7" o( &o#i&ee7 o( 'll "$e p'r"yGli7" %roup7.

would !ertainly be empty words if a!!ess to information of publi! !on!ern is denied e(!ept under limitations pres!ribed by law. Falen!ia. sub8e!t to su!h limitations as may be provided for by law. -rt. like all the !onstitutional guarantees.+>.6 and ordered the government offi!ers involved to a!t as prayed for by the petitioners. -s su!h.owever. transa!tions ( ( ( shall be afforded the !itiGen.4 SC%.+4/ .. the rule on e(haustion of administrative remedies is not appli!able when only 0uestions of law is involved. he postulate of publi! offi!e is a publi! trust as institutionaliGed in the Constitution (Se!. he funds of the 2S*S assume a publi! !hara!ter and that its obligations are guaranteed by the government. (=as!ual vs. *** whi!h provides: he right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern shall be re!ogniGed. Similarly. he right to information goes hand in hand with the !onstitutional poli!ies of Hfull publi! dis!losureH and Hhonesty in the publi! servi!eH. and papers pertaining to offi!ial a!ts. CSC. he pertinent provision of the Constitution is Se!tion >. =etitioners are members of the media. %amento.+16" )alabanan vs. the StateSs poli!y of full dis!losure is limited to Htransa!tions involving publi! interestH and sub8e!t to Hreasonable !onditions pres!ribed by law. -rt. $ut this is not to say that the right to information is merely an ad8un!t of and therefore restri!ted in appli!ation by the e(er!ise of the freedom of spee!h and of the press. they have both the right to gather and the obligation to !he!k the a!!ura!y of the information they disseminate ( ( ( he right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to spee!h and e(pression. #ar from it. 1. +4/ . we upheld the !itiGenSs right to information as well as in @egaspi vs. and to do!uments. 36 SC%. =rovin!ial $oard. Jet. Q*A to prote!t the people from abuse of governmental power. 344" -guilar vs. 1+' SC%.H he information sought to be obtained by the petitioners affe!t publi! interest sin!e the 2S*S is the trustee of !ontributions from the government and its employees. *t is sub8e!t to limitations provided for by law and the peopleSs right to information is limited to Hmatters of publi! !on!ernH. *n anada vs. uvera.D'. 164 =hil. 1D6 SC%.D. his is not the first time that the !ourt is !onfronted with a !ase involving the right to information. -!!ess to offi!ial re!ords. 1. the right to information is not absolute.

. are not entitled to be furnished !opies of list of alleged members of the $atasang =ambansa who were able to se!ure !lean loans through the inter!essions of =res. /6 =hil. 2. S9C. that undue interferen!e with the duties of the !ustodian of the re!ords may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspe!t the re!ords may be insured B@egaspi vs.%. bureaus. . <Gaeta. and offi!es in!luding those employed in 2overnment <wned and Controlled Corporations. the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various offi!ials of the 9(e!utive Department for them to appear on September +'.9 =%9S*D9& #%-&M@*& D%*@<&.+4' he petitioners are entitled to a!!ess to do!uments sought sub8e!t to reasonable regulations that the respondent may impose relating to manner and hours of e(amination. FS. supra" Subido vs../. +4' . -pril +6. &o. <n September +1 to +. he respondent is therefore ordered to allow petitioners a!!ess to do!uments and re!ords eviden!ing loans granted to members of the $atasang =ambansa.. inter alia. and the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A. however. S9&.9 =.9 <# . to the end that damage or loss of the re!ords may be avoided. sub8e!t to reasonable rules and regulations as the 2S*S may deem ne!essary. +66D. 9 -@.I T$e . summaries and the like in their desire to a!0uire information on matters of publi! !on!ern. the -rmed #or!es of the =hilippines (-#=A. his is so be!ause a!!ess to publi! re!ords does not in!lude the right to !ompel !ustodians of offi!ial re!ords to prepare lists.*@*==*&9S. through its various Senate Committees. !ondu!ts in0uiries or investigations in aid of legislation whi!h !all for. he publi! hearing was sparked by a privilege spee!h of Senator 5uan =on!e 9nrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged overpri!ing and other unlawful provisions of the !ontra!t !overing the &orth %ail =ro8e!t. the Senate of the =hilippines. 14'>>. as petitioners may spe!ify. 9Q9C.'c"7I *n the e(er!ise of its legislative power. represented by S9&. J. 9D?-%D< 9%)* -. )ar!os and the #irst @ady. 9 -@. CSC. +66D as resour!e speakers in a publi! hearing on the railway pro8e!t of the &orth @uGon %ailways Corporation with the China &ational )a!hinery and 90uipment 2roup (hereinafter &orth %ail =ro8e!tA. +664 CAR5IO MORALES. abstra!ts. the attendan!e of offi!ials and employees of the e(e!utive department.C he petitioners.

took effe!t immediately. +66D.he rule of !onfidentiality based on e(e!utive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. or the Code of Condu!t and 9thi!al Standards for =ubli! <ffi!ials and 9mployees provides that =ubli! <ffi!ials and 9mployees shall not use or divulge !onfidential or !lassified information offi!ially known to them by reason of their offi!e and not made available to the publi! to pre8udi!e the publi! interest.9%9&C9 < . I *n a!!ordan!e with -rti!le F*.%. +. he salient provisions of the <rder are as follows: S9C *<& 1. (bA 0$o 're co*ere). Senior offi!ials of e(e!utive departments w$o i& "$e Au)%#e&" o( "$e )ep'r"#e&" $e')7 are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" +. Appearance 'y Heads of %epartments efore Congress. pursuant to Se!tion 4 thereof. 7hen the se!urity of the State or the publi! interest so re0uires and the =resident so states in writing. (ature. :9&S?%*&2 <$S9%F-&C9 <# . Se!tion ++ of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between !o-e0ual bran!hes of the government.9 =%*&C*=@9 <# S9=-%. -&D #<% < . 4>1. )ay 1''DA.<.*F9 *&R?*%*9S *& -*D <# @92*S@. "cope and Coverage of E>ecutive #rivilege.9 %*2. I order: he following are !overed by this e(e!utive 1.*<& ?&D9% .9 C<&S * ? *<&. +. 'll $e')7 o( )ep'r"#e&"7 o( "$e E@ecu"i*e 4r'&c$ o( "$e %o*er&#e&" 7$'ll 7ecure "$e co&7e&" o( "$e 5re7i)e&" prior "o 'ppe'ri&% 8e(ore ei"$er Hou7e o( Co&%re77.. 2.4>. whi!h. S9C *<&. -D.*<& <# =<79%S. 343.. =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A offi!ers with rank of !hief superintendent or higher and su!h other offi!ers who in the 8udgment of the Chief of the =&= are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" +>6 . the appearan!e shall only be !ondu!ted in e(e!utive session. *asCue5. H (aA &ature and S!ope. . 2enerals and flag offi!ers of the -rmed #or!es of the =hilippines and su!h other offi!ers who in the 8udgment of the Chief of Staff are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" . S <# =?$@*C <##*C*-@S -==9-%*&2 *& @92*S@. the =resident of the =hilippines issued 9.9 %?@9 <& 9Q9C? *F9 =%*F*@929 -&D %9S=9C #<% .+>6 <n September +/. &o. #urther. %epubli! -!t &o.9% =?%=<S9S. 'D.

the demand of a !itiGen for the produ!tion of do!uments pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory for!e as a su'poena duces tecum issued by Congress. >3'. however. +>1 . &o. 1>6 SC%. I S S 3 E SI 1.%.+D4.< 343 likewise violates the !onstitutional provision on the right to information on matters of publi! !on!ern. 7hether 9.<. o the e(tent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally !ondu!ted in publi!. hus holds *almonte v. &either does the right to information grant a !itiGen the power to e(a!t testimony from government offi!ials. Ye".1/. "$i7 ope& )i'lo%ue c'& 8e e((ec"i*e o&ly "o "$e e@"e&" "$'" "$e ci"iJe&ry i7 i&(or#e) '&) "$u7 '8le "o (or#ul'"e i"7 will i&"elli%e&"ly.. (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA 1/. is presumed to be a matter of publi! !on!ern. Senior national se!urity offi!ials who in the 8udgment of the &ational Se!urity -dviser are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" and D. <nly when the parti!ipants in the dis!ussion are aware of the issues and have a!!ess to information relating thereto !an su!h bear fruit. any e(e!utive issuan!e tending to unduly limit dis!losures of information in su!h investigations ne!essarily deprives the people of information whi!h.6. being presumed to be in aid of legislation. hese powers belong only to Congress and not to an individual !itiGen. 2. #or one. here are !lear distin!tions between the right of Congress to information whi!h underlies the power of in0uiry and the right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern. elmonte: *t is in the interest of the State that the !hannels for free politi!al )i7cu77io& 8e #'i&"'i&e) "o "$e e&) "$'" "$e %o*er&#e&" #'y percei*e '&) 8e re7po&7i*e "o "$e peopleN7 will. 343 violates the right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern" and H E L /I 9. 1'/'.+>1 3. #ebruary 1. Su!h other offi!ers as may be determined by the =resident. he !itiGens are thereby denied a!!ess to information whi!h they !an use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress X opinions whi!h they !an then !ommuni!ate to their representatives and other government offi!ials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of e(pression.

-0uino-Sarmiento vs. . @llamas.D6+ D. &OD.. &ovember 1. (%ead the dissenting 5usti!e #9%&-&D< in both !asesA C. 7ocie"ie7 (or purpo7e7 &o" co&"r'ry "o l'w 7$'ll &o" 8e '8ri)%e).166 +. *n!iong. uvera.. therefore.l'/. =. he right of self-organiGation of managerial 3. CSC. CHA5TER IE G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO . @anta!o vs./. 1''6 1-d.. #errer. 166 SC%.3> SC%- opinion of +>+ . arnate vs.13 3. EMI-E-T /OMAI. vs. 8ust as dire!t as its violation of the legislature1s power of in0uiry. =.<.3 3. &oriel. 343 is.+>+ he impairment of the right of the people to information as a !onse0uen!e of 9. Dimaano. .'6 employees. *n re: .ASSOCIATIO-S Sec"io& 6. anada vs.D.. Fillar vs. -ug. 16/ SC%.J. $aldoGa vs. /3 SC%. 1-a. i&clu)i&% "$o7e e#ploye) i& "$e pu8lic '&) pri*'"e 7ec"or7.A&T. 5uly ./+ 4. 1D6 SC%. 13. 16/ SC%. #reedom of -sso!iation. -pril +6..'. '77oci'"io&7. >1 SC%. 1''6 1-!.33 . %ead: 1.R O. D. Chang. /6 =hil. vs. 3/ SC%.DD3 +.>'. FaG0ueG. "o (or# u&io&7. Subido vs. D4 SC%. #errer. @egaspi vs. 1.6 1-b. Samahan ng )anggagawa vs. )anuel )orato... he fundamental right of self-organiGation. 134 SC%.16/ SC%.. 9D*@@<&. 166 SC%. T$e ri%$" o( "$e people.R H G T. <Gaeta. Canlas vs. $rilliantes vs. in the sense e(plained above. &oriel. 1''1 +./1 3.ORM A-/ JOI.

9 %-&S#9% -%%-&29)9& <# . <n )otion for %e!onsideration . SC%. THE SAI/ STR3CT3RES.29. 4'r'&%'y M'"ic"ic *7./'>3 shall apply" full payment of 8ust !ompensation before government takes over.*<&-@ -*%=<% =-SS9&29% 9%)*&-@ ** between the =hilippine 2overnment and the =hilippine *nternational -ir erminals Co. J3/:E :I-:OYO-. (=*.ow about a barangayN Jes with the =resident1s approval.OR THE :OVER-ME-T CA. 2 6 SCRA 2 2 inga. he inherent power of eminent domain. 5..44. IT HAS TO COM5E-SATE RES5O-/E-T 5IATCO AS 43IL/ER O. Falue of property e(propriated (or &'"io&'l %o*er&#e&" proAec"7" 7rit of possession when it shall be issued by the !ourt" when %ule 4> of the %ules of Court and when %.'. RE534LIC O.. Sec"io& 9.C<A as well as the amendments thereto is void for being !ontrary to law and publi! poli!y. El8i&i'7. 5ri*'"e proper"y 7$'ll &o" 8e "'Le& (or pu8lic u7e wi"$ou" Au7" co#pe&7'"io& 1.-OT 3-J3STLY E-RICH ITSEL. +. 5IATCO.9 SCRA 619 that the C<&C9SS*<& -2%99)9& #<% . AT THE EE5E-SE O.9 &*&<J -R?*&< *& 9%&. however. %ead: 1. the Supreme Court held that: : his Court. 5IATCO A-/ ITS I-VESTORS.*= *** fa!ility are almost !omplete and that funds have been spent by =*.VS. 7ho may e(er!ise itN . =ro!edure for the e(er!ise of said power" 9(tent of payment to be made before writ of possession shall be issued in favor of the government.C< in their !onstru!tion.M3ST 4E J3ST A-/ IACCOR/A-CE 0ITH LA0 A-/ EM3ITY .+>. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. the Supreme Court held in A:A.A. . 2. SCRA 29. #or the government to take over the said fa!ility. #a!ts: *n +66. THE COM5E-SATIO.D +>.9 $?*@D <=9%. is not unmindful of the reality that the stru!tures !omprising the &-*. 126 SCRA 63 +. *n!.

. THE SAI/ STR3CT3RESD. ISS3ESI 1.. I( Sec"io& 9.+>3 <n De!ember +1. +663 <rder. $oth <rders were 0uestioned by the government as having been issued with grave abuse of dis!retion. on 5anuary 3. the 2overnment filed a !omplaint for e(propriation with the % C of =asay City seeking a writ of possession authoriGing to take immediate possession and !ontrol over &-*. <n the same day. 5udge 2ingoyon issued another <rder dire!ting the appointment of three (. IT HAS TO COM5E-SATE RES5O-/E-T 5IATCO AS 43IL/ER O. %ule 4> when what should be appli!able is %../oc"ri&e w$ic$ pro*i)e7 "$'" B(or "$e %o*er&#e&" "o "'Le o*er "$e 7'i) -AIA 3 ('cili"y..3. I" i7 7u((icie&" "$'" "$e %o*er&#e&" )epo7i"7 "$e '#ou&" eCu'l "o "$e +>3 . Rule7 HEL/I 1.. <n 5anuary >. 5udge 2ingoyon issued another <rder supplementing the De!ember +1. +663.6$ in !ash with @and $ank of the =hilippines representing the assessed value of the terminal1s assessed value for ta(ation purposes. fa!ilities and deposited the amount of =. 5IATCO woul) 8e e&Aoi&e) (ro# recei*i&% "$e Au7" co#pe&7'"io& e*e& i( "$e %o*er&#e&" "'Le7 o*er "$e -AIA 3 ('cili"y. fa!ilities.A Commissioners to determine 8ust !ompensation for the &-*. .>> be released to =*.C< instead of the amount in the De!ember +1. #'y "$e cour" u7e) "$e pro*i7io& o( Rule 6 o& "$e 3 co##i77io&er7 "o )e"er#i&e Au7" co#pe&7'"io&. +66D. 5udge 2ingoyon issued an <rder dire!ting the issuan!e of a writ of possession to the government to :take or enter upon the possession of the &-*. I( RA 69 2 will 8e u7e). Applic'"io& o( Rule 6 woul) *iol'"e "$e A:A. Comple(. +66D..1>D./'>3 and therefore ordered that the amount of ?S]4+.. Rule 6 will 8e 'pplie). *t pointed out that the earlier orders to the amount to be deposited by the government was based on Se!tion +. *t held that it is the ministerial duty of the government to issue writ of possession upon deposit of the assessed value of the property sub8e!t of e(propriation. +663 <rder.owever. 0$'" l'w i7 'pplic'8le i& "$i7 e@propri'"io& c'7eI Rule 6 o( "$e o( Cour" or RA 69 2R 9.

5ust Compensation" -mount to be deposited in !ourt before a 7rit of =ossession may be issued by the !ourt in favor of the government" 7hen to apply %ule 4> and when to apply %. he 8ust !ompensation to be paid by the government shall be determined within 46 days from the finality of the de!ision based on Se!tion 3. 9. ?nder %ule 4>.C< of the preferred value of 8ust !ompensation. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. -o./eci7io& "$'" "$e %o*er&#e&" #u7" p'y (ir7" "$e Au7" co#pe&7'"io& 8e(ore "'Li&% o*er "$e ('cili"ie7. ?pon issuan!e of the writ in favor of the government. %.&o. or :&'"io&'l i&(r'7"ruc"ure proAec"7./'>3 be usedN *n all :-'"io&'l %o*er&#e&" proAec"7. like those !overed by the :$uild-<perate. he rest./'>3 shall be followed. 7rit of =ossession may not be issued in favor of the government ?& *@ -C ?-@ %9C9*= by =*. 1 921./'>3 does not provide for su!h pro!edure. :. /'>3" 7ho owns the interest of the initial amount deposited for the purpose of issuing writ of possession RE534LIC O.. Differen!es between the two laws on e(propriation: a..R.6 THE ./'>3. as in this !ase. fa!ilities..ransfer. however.A !ommissioners to determine 8ust !ompensation may be used sin!e %. the assessed value of the property sub8e!t of e(propriation and !an have a writ of possession over the same while under %. there !an be writ of possession even if the owner of the property has not re!eived a single !entavo while under %.ACTSI +>D . %ule 4> shall apply./'>3.+>D '77e77e) *'lue o( "$e ('cili"ie7./'>3. April 12. HOLY TRI-ITY REALTY /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO-. b. it !ould already e(er!ise a!ts of ownership over the &-*. %... + %ule 4> on the appointment of three (. ?nder %ule 4>. the government :merely deposits. the s!heme of immediate payment (166YA shall be followed. So when shall %ule 4> be used in e(propriation !ases and when shall %. I" woul) *iol'"e "$e pro7crip"io& i& "$e A:A.

an <rder for the *ssuan!e of a 7rit of =ossession. $ula!an. praying that the respondent or its duly authoriGed representative be allowed to withdraw the amount of =++. represented by the oll %egulatory $oard ( %$A.66.en!e. )ar!h +66. an authoriGed government depository.'4/. rehabilitation and e(pansion of the &orth @uGon 9(pressway. %$ filed an ?rgent 9(-=arte )otion for the issuan!e of a 7rit of =ossession.oly rinity %ealty and Development Corporation (. I S S 3 EI 1/3 +>4 . /4'-)-+666 and raffled to $ran!h /D. that is. <n 1/ )ar!h +66+. with the @and $ank of the =hilippines. %espondent . %DC filed with the % C a )otion to 7ithdraw Deposit. on 1' )ar!h +66+. filed with the % C a Consolidated Complaint for 9(propriation against landowners whose properties would be affe!ted by the !onstru!tion. the % C allowed the release of the prin!ipal amount together with the interest to the respondent but on )otion for %e!onsideration of the %$.arbor.arbor $ran!h (@$=-South . manifesting that it deposited a suffi!ient amount to !over the payment of 166Y of the Gonal value of the affe!ted properties. petitioner %epubli! of the =hilippines.364.>66.364. /'>31/3BDC in relation to Se!tion + of %ule 4> of the %ules of Court. %DCA was one of the affe!ted landowners. %$ maintained that sin!e it had already !omplied with the provisions of Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. out of %$1s advan!e deposit of =+/.. <n .66 with @$=-South . the issuan!e of the writ of possession be!omes ministerial on the part of the % C.>66.666. hereafter.+>4 <n +' De!ember +666. i&clu)i&% "$e i&"ere7" w$ic$ 'ccrue) "$ereo&. in the total amount of =+/.66. South . .arborA. this petition of the government before the Supreme Court. . he suit was do!keted as Civil Case &o. he private respondent elevated the issue to the Court of -ppeals whi!h ruled that the respondent is entitled to the interest by way of a!!ession. the determination of 8ust !ompensation. he % C issued. it disallowed the withdrawal of the interest reasoning out that the said issue will be in!luded in the se!ond stage of e(propriation. )alolos.

/'>3 and %ule 4> of the %ules of Court.C he %$ further points out that the e(propriation a!!ount with @$=-South . he said argument is without merit be!ause it failed to distinguish between the e(propriation pro!edures under %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3 whi!h provides. !iting Land an@ of t2e #2ilippines v.<7129 and (ational #o?er Corporation v. and the value of the improvements andEor stru!tures using the repla!ement !ost method. in $epu'lic v. /'>3 and %ule 4>. /4'-)-+666. the determination of the authority to e(er!ise eminent domain and the determination of 8ust !ompensation.1//B13C we held: here are at least two !ru!ial differen!es between the respe!tive pro!edures under %ep. w$ere'7 i& Rule 6 .. hus. -!t &o. %epubli! -!t &o. hus. "$e :o*er&#e&" i7 reCuire) "o #'Le i##e)i'"e p'y#e&" "o "$e proper"y ow&er upo& "$e (ili&% o( "$e co#pl'i&" "o 8e e&"i"le) "o ' wri" o( po77e77io&. /'>3 and %ule 4> of the %ules of Court speak of different pro!edures. 3&)er "$e 7"'"u"e. unlike %ep. )oreover.. the said e(propriation a!!ount in!ludes the !ompensation for the other landowners named defendants in Civil Case &o. +ingoyon. Angas. but of D=7. whi!hever is higher.+>> 7ho has the right over the interest of the amount deposited representing the Gonal value of the property sought to be e(propriatedN he e(propriator or the landownerN HEL/I he petition is without merit. Dycoco. he %$ argues that it is only during the se!ond stage when the !ourt will appoint !ommissioners and determine !laims for entitlement to interest. he %$ !laims that there are two stages1/DB11C in e(propriation pro!eedings.arbor is not in the name of . the market value of the property as stated in the ta( de!laration or the !urrent relevant Gonal valuation of the $ureau of *nternal %evenue ($*%A. "$e :o*er&#e&" i7 reCuire) o&ly "o #'Le '& i&i"i'l )epo7i" wi"$ '& 'u"$oriJe) %o*er&#e&" )epo7i"'ry. %ule 4> pres!ribes that the initial deposit be e0uivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of ta(ation. %DC.1/>B1. and does not e(!lusively belong to respondent. 1/D 1/4 1/> 1// +>> . as the relevant standard for initial !ompensation. -!t &o. with the former spe!ifi!ally governing e(propriation pro!eedings for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts.

or whi!h is in!orporated or atta!hed thereto. ines!apably applies in instan!es when the national government e(propriates property :for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. the % C !orre!tly applied the pro!edure laid out in %epubli! -!t &o. Su!h amount. he !ontroversy. whi!h provides for a pro!edure eminently more favorable to the property owner than %ule 4>. /'>3. /'>3. %DC. Jet by no means does it serve at present as the solitary guideline through whi!h the State may e(propriate private property.364.% DC by virtue of a!!ession.66 total deposit.+>/ (((( %ule 4> outlines the pro!edure under whi!h eminent domain may be e(er!ised by the 2overnment. here is no 0uestion that the pro!eedings in this !ase deal with the e(propriation of properties intended for a national government infrastru!ture pro8e!t. -!t &o. whi!h pertains parti!ularly to .. hus. -nd then there is %ep. 336. sin!e. 7hether the Court of -ppeals was !orre!t in holding that the interest earned by the deposited amount in the e(propriation a!!ount would a!!rue to . %ep. whi!h !overs e(propriation pro!eedings intended for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. either naturally or artifi!ially. #or e(ample. the assessed value standard and the deposit mode pres!ribed in %ule 4> !ontinues to apply.666. herefore. under -rti!le 336 of the Civil Code. hinges on the determination of who a!tually owns the deposited amount. by re0uiring the deposit of the amount e0uivalent to 166Y of the Gonal value of the properties sought to be e(propriated before the issuan!e of a writ of possession in favor of the %epubli!. but as to the ownership of the interest that had sin!e a!!rued on the deposited amount. if e(propriation is engaged in by the national government for purposes other than national infrastru!ture pro8e!ts.66 of the =+/.>66. arises not from the amount of the deposit. -!t &o. the right of a!!ession is !onferred by ownership of the prin!ipal property: -rt. /'>3.'4/. he ownership of property gives the right by a!!ession to everything whi!h is produ!ed thereby. though. Se!tion 1' of the @o!al 2overnment Code governs as to the e(er!ise by lo!al government units of the power of eminent domain through an enabling ordinan!e. was already ordered by the % C to be +>/ . determined to be =++. he prin!ipal property in the !ase at bar is part of the deposited amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7.

whi!h re0uires nothing less than the immediate payment of 166Y of the value of the property. %DC1s )otion to 7ithdraw Deposit with the % C. he Court of -ppeals further re!ogniGed that the deposit of the amount was already deemed a !onstru!tive delivery thereof to . Sin!e B.1'1B1>C he intention of the %$ in depositing su!h amount through D=7. so that it !ould already se!ure a writ of possession over the properties sub8e!t of the e(propriation and !ommen!e implementation of the pro8e!t. %$ did not ob8e!t to . /'>3 to supersede the system of deposit under %ule 4> with the s!heme of :immediate payment. %DC shows (1A that the property is free from any lien or en!umbran!e and (+A that respondent is the absolute owner thereof. based on the !urrent Gonal valuation of the $*%. *n fa!t. !onversely. he !riti!al fa!tor in the different modes of effe!ting delivery whi!h gives legal effe!t to the a!t is the a!tual intention to deliver on the part of the party making su!h delivery. %DC or its authoriGed representative. %DC by virtue of a!!ession. it is deemed to be a :!onstru!tive delivery. %DC is the owner of the deposited amount. was !learly to !omply with the re0uirement of immediate payment in %epubli! -!t &o. then the latter should also be entitled to the interest whi!h a!!rued thereon.1'+B1/C . in !ases involving national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. as a!!ession.!lose s!rutiny of %$1s arguments would further reveal that it does not dire!tly !hallenge the Court of -ppeals1 determinative pronoun!ement that the interest earned by the amount deposited in the e(propriation a!!ount a!!rues to . %DC: 7hen the Bherein petitionerC %$ deposited the money as advan!e payment for the e(propriated property with an authoriGed government depositary bank for purposes of obtaining a writ of possession. he deposit was made in order to !omply with Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. for as long as .7189: *t is the plain intent of %ep. %$ 1/' 1'6 1'1 1'+ +>' . the interest yield. /'>3. /'>3.-. in a bank deposit should likewise pertain to the owner of the money deposited. to the property owner. going ba!k to our ruling in $epu'lic v. hus. -!t &o. of the amount !orresponding to the 166Y Gonal valuation of the e(propriated property. %DCC is entitled thereto and indisputably the owner of the prin!ipal amount deposited by Bherein petitionerC %$.1/'B1DC Sin!e the Court of -ppeals found that the . +ingoyon.+>' released to .

. in support of its argument that the issue on interest is merely part and par!el of the determination of 8ust !ompensation whi!h should be determined in the se!ond stage of the pro!eedings only. and . the appli!able law is -rti!le ++6' of the Civil Code whi!h pres!ribes a 4Y legal interest rate. $y depositing the said amount. he amount earned interest after the deposit" hen!e. 7e agree in %$1s statement sin!e it is e(a!tly how the amount of the immediate payment shall be determined in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o... does not involve interest as damages for delay in payment of 8ust !ompensation. %DC is :entitled only to an amount e0uivalent to the Gonal value of the e(propriated property. Angas and Land an@ of t2e #2ilippines v.+/6 only asserts that . *t !on!erns interest earned by the amount deposited in the e(propriation a!!ount. the implementing agen!y of the government pays 8ust !ompensation twi!e: (1A immediately upon the filing of the !omplaint. an amount e0uivalent to 166Y of the Gonal value of the e(propriated properties. he !ase at bar. %DC. /'>3. we !larified that interests in the form of damages !annot be applied where there is prompt and valid payment of 8ust !ompensation.. -rti!le ++6' of the Civil Code pres!ribing the 4Y interest shall apply. %$ already !omplied therewith by depositing the re0uired amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7. ?nder Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o.owever. 7e ruled in Angas that sin!e the kind of interest involved therein is interest by way of damages for delay in the payment thereof. he interest is paid by @$=-South . 7e find that neither !ase is appli!able herein. nothing more and nothing less. %$ is already !onsidered to have paid the same to .arbor on the deposit. Dycoco. however. . and not as earnings from loans or forbearan!es of money. i... and the %$ !annot !laim that it paid an amount more than what it is re0uired to do so by law. *n Dycoco. 314 whi!h fi(ed the legal rate at 1+Y per annum. where the amount to be paid is 166Y of +/6 .. on the other hand. or Central $ank Cir!ular &o. 7e are not persuaded by %$1s !itation of (ational #o?er Corporation v. the interest should pertain to the owner of the prin!ipal who is already determined as . he issue in Angas is whether or not. Sin!e the respondent is the owner of 599. it is entitled by right of a!!ession to the interest that had a!!rued to the said amount only. in the !omputation of the legal rate of interest on 8ust !ompensation for e(propriated lands.966. /'>3..e. %DC be!ame the owner thereof.arbor. with @$=-South . %DC..

. Co#pl'i&" 7u((icie&" i& (or# '&) 7u87"'&ce+ '&) +/1 .EE5RO5RIATIO..OR THE IMME/IATE E-TRY 4Y THE :OVER-ME-T I.D4+ 53RS3A-T TO SECTIO.666.THE RO4ER. where the implementing agen!y shall pay the owner the differen!e between the amount already paid and the 8ust !ompensation as determined by the !ourt (final payment9 -s a final note.I. . provided that it is able to show (1A that the property is free from any lien or en!umbran!e and (+A that it is the absolute owner thereof.66 from the e(propriation a!!ount. THE 199 R3LES O./EVELO5ME-T CASE. ReCui7i"e7 8e(ore i##e)i'"e po77e77io& or wri" o( po77e77io& #'y 8e i77ue) i& e@propri'"io& c'7e7.FS. %DC pending the latter1s !omplian!e therewith. R3LE 6 O. "$e (ili&% o( ' co#pl'i&" (or e@propri'"io& 7u((icie&" i& (or# '&) 7u87"'&ce+ '&) b. shall retroa!t to the day of the !onstitution of the obligation.D3 SC%. "$e #'Li&% o( ' )epo7i" eCui*'le&" "o "$e ASSESSE/ VAL3E O. $*2@-&2--7. -rti!le 11/> of the Civil Code provides that the :effe!ts of a !onditional obligation to give.+/1 the value of the property based on the !urrent relevant Gonal valuation of the $*% (initial paymentA" and (+A when the de!ision of the !ourt in the determination of 8ust !ompensation be!omes final and e(e!utory. when . CIVIL 5ROCE/3RE A-/ THE /OCTRI-E LAI/ /O0.'4/. .CASES AREI '. 5?D29 $-C-@@-.. i&*ol*i&% loc'l %o*er&#e&" u&i"7 '7 "$e e@propri'"i&% '%e&cyI 1. %DC1s withdrawal of the amount of =++. as determined by the % C in its <rderdated +1 -pril +66. %DC !omplied with the given !onditions. THE O-LY REM3ISITES . he owners of the e(propriated land are entitled to legal interest on the !ompensation eventually ad8udged from the date the !ondemnor takes possession of the land until the full !ompensation is paid to them or deposited in !ourt.en!e. he said !onditions do not put in abeyan!e the !onstru!tive delivery of the said amount to . the effe!ts of the !onstru!tive delivery retroa!ted to the a!tual date of the deposit of the amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7.9. %$ does not ob8e!t to . THE 5RO5ERTY S34JECT TO EE5RO5RIATIO-. on!e the !ondition has been fulfilled.

"$e e@propri'"or #u7" )epo7i" "$e '#ou&" eCui*'le&" "o 11V o( "$e ('ir #'rLe" *'lue o( "$e proper"y "o 8e e@propri'"e) 8'7e) o& i"7 curre&" "'@ )ecl'r'"io&. RTC 99. +/+ ..R. J3/:E LE:AS5I.1. ILOILO VS. lo!ated in @ahug.. //-S7<-+D63+ (@ot &o. THE CITY O. initiated by the %epubli! of the =hilippines (%epubli!A.. the lots were already o!!upied by the ?.ICE *7. "$e l'&)ow&er $'7 "$e ri%$" "o 8uyG8'cL "$e 7'#e. 4u" i( "$e %o*er&#e&" ('il7 "o u7e "$e proper"y e@propri'"e) (or "$e purpo7e (or w$ic$ i" w'7 i&"e&)e). JR. MACTA-GCE43 I-TER-ATIO-AL AIR5ORT A3THORITY '&) AIR TRA-S5ORTATIO. //A. for the e(pansion and improvement of the @ahug -irport. the $ureau of -eronauti!s.61> s0uare meters. -o. -s early as 1'3>. Cebu City. he !ase was filed with the then Court of #irst *nstan!e of Cebu. the !omplaint for e(propriation filed in !ourt is suffi!ient in form and substan!e" and 9. 5'y#e&" o( 11V o( "$e M'rLe" *'lue '7 'ppe'ri&% i& "$e l'"e7" T'@ /ecl'r'"io&.+/+ 9. 9. hey were turned over to the Surplus =roperty Commission. hird $ran!h. T$e e@propri'"or #'y i##e)i'"ely e&"er "$e proper"y 7u8Aec" o( e@propri'"io& procee)i&%7 i( "$e (ollowi&% reCui7i"e7 're pre7e&"I 1. with an area of 1. -rmy. the &ational -irport Corporation and then to the C--. more or less. 1 6691.I Sub8e!t of this !ase is @ot &o. 4ER-AR/O LO>A/A. ILOILO CITY. 222 SCRA 969 %e0uisites before the e(propriator is allowed immediate entry on the property sub8e!t of e(propriation if the e(propriator is a lo!al government unit. J. . ET AL. %-1//1. represented by the then Civil -eronauti!s -dministration (C--A. *ts original owner was -nasta!io Deiparine when the same was sub8e!t to e(propriation pro!eedings. :.S. -ACH3RA.e8ru'ry 91.O. and do!keted as Civil Case &o.

5r. he C-. @oGada.. Sr. +D6D>. as per previous agreement. he affe!ted landowners appealed.66 by way of payment.Dire!tor Fi!ente %ivera. entitled :-n -!t Creating the )a!tan-Cebu *nternational -irport -uthority. // from Deiparine. ad8udged at =. +/. 1'41. // was transferred and registered in the name of the %epubli! under C &o.< would abandon the @ahug -irport. proposed a !ompromise settlement whereby the owners of the lots affe!ted by the e(propriation pro!eedings would either not appeal or withdraw their respe!tive appeals in !onsideration of a !ommitment that the e(propriated lots would be resold at the pri!e they were e(propriated in the event that the . the !losure of the @ahug -irport. the Congress of the =hilippines passed %epubli! -!t (%.61/. <n De!ember +'. upon su!h transfer. hereafter. During the penden!y of the e(propriation pro!eedings. <n &ovember +'. was not pursued. 1'/'. and #or <ther =urposes. formerly C--. @ot &o. with !onse0uential damages by way of legal interest !omputed from &ovember 14. !onta!ted then C-. the -ir ransportation <ffi!e (. however. =ending appeal... a!0uired @ot &o. Conse0uently. ransfer Certifi!ate of itle ( C A &o. airport. //. *t reiterated. pursuant to an established poli!y involving similar !ases. re0uesting to repur!hase the lots. he pro8e!ted improvement and e(pansion plan of the old @ahug -irport. -0uino issued a )emorandum to the Department of ransportation... @oGada did not pursue his appeal. then the poli!y of this <ffi!e is to give priority to the former owners sub8e!t to the approval of the =resident.<A. the assuran!e that :should this <ffi!e dispose and resell the properties whi!h may be found to be no longer ne!essary as an airport. 4'D/. the trial !ourt rendered 8udgment in favor of the %epubli! and ordered the latter to pay @oGada the fair market value of @ot &o. dire!ting the transfer of general aviation operations of the @ahug -irport to the )a!tan *nternational -irport before the end of 1''6 and. ransferring 9(isting -ssets of the )a!tan *nternational -irport and the @ahug -irport to the -uthority.replied that there might still be a need for the @ahug -irport to be used as an emergen!y DC-. @oGada. @oGada re!eived the amount of =. Sometime in 1''6.A &o. however. then =resident CoraGon C. Festing the -uthority with =ower to -dminister and <perate the )a!tan *nternational -irport and the @ahug -irport. 1'3>Xthe time when the lot was first o!!upied by the airport.66 per s0uare meter. with the other landowners. respondent $ernardo @. .-. '63D was issued in @oGada1s name.+/. $e!ause of this promise.

the parties stipulated on the following set of fa!ts: (1A he lot involved is @ot &o. hey spe!ifi!ally denied that the 2overnment had made assuran!es to re!onvey @ot &o. *nstead. *n their -nswer. petitioners asked for the immediate dismissal of the !omplaint. or implemented. the publi! purpose of the said e(propriation (e(pansion of the airportA was never a!tually initiated. a !ommer!ial area. !ontaining an area of <ne housand Seventeen (1. but before trial on the merits. -fter pretrial. (+A (. Cebu City. @ot &o. petitioners initiated a !omplaint for the re!overy of possession and re!onveyan!e of ownership of @ot &o. and was raffled to the %egional rial Court (% CA. therefore. -0uino dire!ted the Department of ransportation and Communi!ation to transfer general aviation operations of the @ahug -irport to the )a!tan-Cebu *nternational -irport -uthority and to !lose the @ahug -irport after su!h transfer. $ran!h D>. //. hus. then =resident CoraGon C. on 5une 3. while a portion thereof was o!!upied by s0uatters. // be!ame the site of a 8ail known as agong u2ay $e2a'ilitation Comple>. situated in the City of Cebu. he old airport was !onverted into what is now known as the -yala *. . =etitioners instead asserted that the 8udgment of !ondemnation was un!onditional. %-1//1" he publi! purpose for whi!h the property was e(propriated was for the purpose of the @ahug -irport" -fter the e(pansion.A (3A (DA +/3 . 1'41 of the C#* of Cebu in Civil Case &o. // to respondents in the event that the property would no longer be needed for airport operations. he !ase was do!keted as Civil Case &o. 1''4. //-S7<-+D63+ of the $anilad 9state. the property was transferred in the name of )C*--" BandC <n &ovember +'. realiGed. 1'/'. more or less" he property was e(propriated among several other properties in @ahug in favor of the %epubli! of the =hilippines by virtue of a De!ision dated De!ember +'. the old airport was !onverted into a !ommer!ial !omple(. =ark. C9$-1//+. not entitled to re!over the e(propriated property notwithstanding non-use or abandonment thereof. and respondents were.+/3 #rom the date of the institution of the e(propriation pro!eedings up to the present.61>A s0uare meters.

$ernardo @. 2odineG. @oGada. denied in the 0uestioned C. and the heirs of %osario )er!ado. Cafaro and %osario ). namely: Fi!ente ). !an!elling C &o. upon payment of the e(propriation pri!e to plaintiffs" and +. Dolores @. // =sd-/+1 (S7<-+. namely. 2a!asan.rendered its assailed De!ision dated #ebruary +/. #lores./6. Firginia @. =etitioners1 motion for re!onsideration was. Cebu City. So!orro @. +664. in the light of the foregoing. Dolores @. -ggrieved. denying petitioners1 appeal and affirming in toto the De!ision of the % C. $ran!h D>. @oGada. 2a!asan. petitioners interposed an appeal to the C-. $ernardo ). ordering the %egister of Deeds to effe!t the transfer of the Certifi!ate of itle from defendantBsC to plaintiffs on @ot &o. @oGada. @oGada.9%9#<%9. @oGada. // for the e(pansion of the @ahug -irport be aborted or abandoned. 5r.+/D <n <!tober ++.%esolution dated #ebruary >. 2odineG. @oGada. 5r. ordering )C*-. this petition arguing that: (1A the respondents utterly failed to prove that there was a repur!hase agreement or !ompromise settlement between them and the 2overnment" (+A the 8udgment in Civil Case &o. Fi!ente ). represented by their attorney-in-fa!t )ar!ia @oGada 2odineG. Firginia @. disposing as follows: 7. -fter the filing of the ne!essary appellate briefs. the % C rendered its De!ision. B//C. 1'''..D> in the name of defendant )C*-and to issue a new title on the same lot in the name of $ernardo @. )ar!ia @.<A: 1.A. @oGada. . +66>. @oGada. Sr. likewise.< to restore to plaintiffs the possession and ownership of their land. @oGada. %-1//1 was absolute and un!onditional. @ot &o. and against defendants Cebu-)a!tan *nternational -irport -uthority ()C*--A and -ir ransportation <ffi!e (. the property would +/D .A the respondents1 !laim of verbal assuran!es from government offi!ials violates the Statute of #rauds. #lores. the C. +6.and . )ario ). &o pronoun!ement as to !osts.. he petition should be denied. and the heirs of %osario )er!ado. =etitioners an!hor their !laim to the !ontroverted property on the supposition that the De!ision in the pertinent e(propriation pro!eedings did not provide for the !ondition that should the intended use of @ot &o. giving title in fee simple to the %epubli!" and (. So!orro @.en!e. )ar!ia @. Sr. $ernardo ). the Court hereby renders 8udgment in favor of the plaintiffs.. Cafaro and %osario ).

it !annot now be doubted. ( ( (. of !ourse. in support of this position. +/4 . of !ourse. Aery v. Mactan-Ce'u International Airport Aut2ority. when the purpose is terminated or abandoned the former owner rea!0uires the property so e(propriated. without any impairment of the estate or title a!0uired. and in that !ase the non-user does not have the effe!t of defeating the title a!0uired by the e(propriation pro!eedings. then. it returns to the former owner. Contrary to the stan!e of petitioners. =etitioners !ite. *f ( ( ( land is e(propriated for a publi! street and the e(propriation is granted upon !ondition that the !ity !an only use it for a publi! street. ( ( (. upon the !ontrary.has brought to our attention a signifi!ant and telling portion in the %ecision in Civil Case &o. of !ourse. however. either by the e(er!ise of eminent domain or by pur!hase. the former owner retains no right in the land. -lthough )a!tan -irport is being !onstru!ted. whi!h de!lared that the 2overnment a!0uires only su!h rights in e(propriated par!els of land as may be allowed by the !hara!ter of its title over the propertiesX *f ( ( ( land is e(propriated for a parti!ular purpose. #rom it air!rafts fly to )indanao and Fisayas and pass thru it on their flights to the &orth and )anila. the land be!omes the absolute property of the e(propriator. being its former owners. *f. and the publi! use may be abandoned. whether it be the State. unless there is some statutory provision to the !ontrary. or the land may be devoted to a different use. %-1//1 validating our dis!ernment that the e(propriation by the prede!essors of respondent was ordered under the running impression that @ahug -irport would !ontinue in operationX -s for the publi! purpose of the e(propriation pro!eeding. thusX )oreover. a provin!e. it does not take away the a!tual usefulness and importan!e of the @ahug -irport: it is handling the air traffi! both !ivilian and military. or any reversion to the former owner. this Court had ruled otherwise in Heirs of &imoteo Moreno and Maria $otea v. Municipality of Ca'anatuan. the de!ree of e(propriation gives to the entity a fee simple title. with the !ondition that when that purpose is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former owner. 7hen land has been a!0uired for publi! use in fee simple. unconditionally. ( ( (.+/4 revert to respondents. or muni!ipality. when the !ity abandons its use as a publi! street. then. then. respondent )C*-.

In t2e a'sence of suc2 s2o?ing. the De!ision in Civil Case &o. *nstead of putting up a publi! market. *ndeed. these meaningful statements in the body of the %ecision warrant the !on!lusion that the e(propriated properties would remain to be so until it was !onfirmed that @ahug -irport was no longer Ein operation.owever. the former owner should then be allowed to rea!0uire the e(propriated property. the rights vis-U-vis the e(propriated @ots &os. we take this opportunity to revisit our ruling in Aery. Claiming that the muni!ipality lost its right to the property taken sin!e it did not pursue its publi! purpose. petitioners herein. respondent Cabanatuan !onstru!ted residential houses for lease on the area. %-1//1 BweC !ould have simply a!knowledged the presen!e of publi! purpose for the e(er!ise of eminent domain regardless of the survival of @ahug -irport. must be e0uitably ad8usted" and (bA the foregoing unmistakable de!larations in the body of the %ecision should merge with and be!ome an intrinsi! part of the fallo thereof whi!h under the premises is !learly inade0uate sin!e the dispositive portion is not in a!!ord with the findings as !ontained in the body thereof. no evidence ?as adduced to s2o? 2o? soon is t2e Mactan Airport to 'e placed in operation and ?2et2er t2e La2ug Airport ?ill 'e closed immediately t2ereafter. . respondent Cabanatuan a!0uired a fee simple title to the lands in 0uestion. 7hile in the trial in Civil Case &o. in 1'1D. the former owner of the lots e(propriated. *t is up to the other departments of the 2overnment to determine said matters. he Court !annot substitute its 8udgment for those of the said departments or agen!ies. sought to re!over his properties.F his inferen!e further implies two (+A things: (aA after the @ahug -irport !eased its undertaking as su!h and the e(propriated lots were not being used for any airport e(pansion pro8e!t.+/> &2en. 8udgment was +/> . wherein it is apparent that the a!0uisition by the %epubli! of the e(propriated lots was sub8e!t to the !ondition that the @ahug -irport would !ontinue its operation. petitioner 5uan #ery. the trial !ourt in its %ecision !hose not to do so but instead prefi(ed its finding of publi! purpose upon its understanding that ELa2ug Airport ?ill continue to 'e in operation. t2e Court ?ill presume t2at t2e La2ug Airport ?ill continue to 'e in operation 6emp2asis supplied9. <n this note. %-1//1 should be read in its entirety. '14 and '+6 as between the State and their former owners. he !ondition not having materialiGed be!ause the airport had been abandoned. whi!h involved an e(propriation suit !ommen!ed upon par!els of land to be used as a site for a publi! market.F Ferily. as he had admitted that.

7u8Aec" "o "$e re"ur& o( "$e '#ou&" o( Au7" co#pe&7'"io& recei*e). the parti!ular publi! purpose for whi!h the property will be devoted. failing whi!h. Coroll'rily. $).". "$e& "$e (or#er ow&er7. fairness. *t is well settled that the taking of private property by the 2overnment1s power of eminent domain is sub8e!t to two mandatory re0uirements: (1A that it is for a parti!ular publi! purpose" and (+A that 8ust !ompensation be paid to the property owner. *n light of these premises. parti!ularly City of Aort Dayne v. and the 8udgment would violate the property owner1s right to 8usti!e. the 8udgment of e(propriation suffers an intrinsi! flaw. &2eodore Drig2t. namely. the title of the e(propriating agen!y being one of fee simple. as it would la!k one indispensable element for the proper e(er!ise of the power of eminent domain. *f not. '&) i7 pere#p"orily '8'&)o&e). hese re0uirements partake of the nature of implied !onditions that should be !omplied with to enable the !ondemnor to keep the property e(propriated. and e0uity.. while petitioners are obliged to re!onvey @ot &o. and $eic2ling v. if the latter desires to rea!0uire the same. <therwise. // to respondents. -!!ordingly. is not a ground for the re!overy of the same by its previous owner. I& 7uc$ ' c'7e. the private property owner would be denied due pro!ess of law. with respe!t to the element of publi! use. the latter must return to the former what they re!eived as 8ust !ompensation for the e(propriation of the property. co&7eCue&" "o "$e :o*er&#e&"N7 e@erci7e o( i"7 power o( e#i&e&" )o#'i&. #'y 7eeL "$e re*er7io& o( "$e proper"y. whi!h ne!essarily resulted in the abandonment of the parti!ular publi! purpose for whi!h the property was taken. i7 'lw'y7 7u8Aec" "o "$e co&)i"io& "$'" "$e proper"y 8e )e*o"e) "o "$e 7peci(ic pu8lic purpo7e (or w$ic$ i" w'7 "'Le&. La@e "2ore V M. we &ow e@pre77ly $ol) "$'" "$e "'Li&% o( pri*'"e proper"y.+// rendered in favor of the muni!ipality. "$e e@erci7e o( "$e power o( e#i&e&" )o#'i& $'7 8eco#e i#proper (or l'cL o( "$e reCuire) ('c"u'l Au7"i(ic'"io&. <bviously. Aery was not de!ided pursuant to our now sa!redly held !onstitutional right that private property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation. plus legal interest to be !omputed from default. )ore parti!ularly. whi!h in this !ase runs from the time petitioners !omply with their obligation to respondents. i( "$i7 p'r"icul'r purpo7e or i&"e&" i7 &o" i&i"i'"e) or &o" '" 'll pur7ue). all uniformly holding that the transfer to a third party of the e(propriated real property. it should file another petition for the new purpose. <n the matter of the repur!hase pri!e. Covington Lum'er Co. McConi2ay v. following -meri!an 8urispruden!e. it is then in!umbent upon the e(propriator to return the said property to its private owner.. i( "$ey 7o )e7ire. the e(propriator should !ommit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for e(propriation filed. Co. +// .

8u" "$e ow&erN7 lo77. . M'rLe" *'lue i7 "$'" 7u# o( #o&ey w$ic$ ' per7o& )e7irou7 8u" &o" co#pelle) "o 8uy. whi!h should be taken into !onsideration. T$e #e'7ure i7 &o" "$e "'LerN7 %'i&. not at the time of the rendition of the 8udgment. 4A-F O. 0HICHEVER COMES . woul) '%ree o& '7 ' price "o 8e %i*e& '&) recei*e) "$ere(ore. T$e Au7" co#pe&7'"io& i7 )e"er#i&e) '7 o( "$e )'"e o( "'Li&% o( "$e proper"y or "$e (ili&% o( "$e co#pl'i&" (or e@propri'"io&.VS. it is the value of the land at the time of the taking. in !omputing the 8ust !ompensation. //. CO3RT O. 222 SCRA 1 6 7hat is the basis of the 8ust !ompensation for e(propriation pro!eedings in !onne!tion with the agrarian reform program of the government. 221 SCRA 63 Ju7" co#pe&7'"io& i& e@propri'"io& c'7e7+ *'lue o( "$e proper"y w$e&R Ju7" co#pe&7'"io& i7 )e(i&e) '7 "$e (ull '&) ('ir eCui*'le&" o( "$e proper"y "'Le& (ro# i"7 ow&er 8y "$e e@propri'"or.IRST. A55EALS. THE 5HILI55I-E ISLA-/S VS. A7 7uc$. LA-/ 4A-F O. 3. THE 5HILI55I-ES. :A4ATI. $asis of 8ust !ompensation %ead: +/' .eld: T$e "'Li&% o( pri*'"e l'&)7 u&)er "$e '%r'ri'& re(or# pro%r'# o( "$e %o*er&#e&" p'r"'Le7 o( "$e &'"ure o( '& e@propri'"io& procee)i&%7. '&) '& ow&er willi&% 8u" &o" co#pelle) "o 7ell.+/' %espondents must likewise pay petitioners the ne!essary e(penses they may have in!urred in maintaining @ot &o. as well as the monetary value of their servi!es in managing it to the e(tent that respondents were benefited thereby.

%amireG. 1. antui!o. )un. /ece#8er 12. Firay then wrote the petitioner and e(pressed willingness to buy the latterSs property at =. 1999 CruG. 1/D SC%. Fi!ente Firay.. then =resident of -polinario -pa!ible S!hool of #isheries.+/1 %ead also: 1.66. stu!k to its original valuation. #a!ts: 1. he petitioner. sent the petitioner a written offer to buy the property of the latter with an area of 16. C-. 1''6 b. 1/. it said that its property had in fa!t appre!iated to as mu!h as =166. )addumba vs.D+/ e.44D f. 1'/+. 1'/. of alisay vs. &=C vs. 1/+ SC%. <!t.436 s0uare meters for its D-year e(pansion program" +. he government likewise sought immediate possession of the property upon deposit of 16Y of the total assessment in a!!ordan!e with =D 3/" +'6 pro!eedings.66 per s0uare meter" D.D>+ d. )un. Firay then re0uested the <ffi!e of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of the =rovin!e of $atangas to appraise the land and the latter fi(ed its market value at =. 1+' SC%. A55EALS A-/ RE534LIC O. 1''6 !.+'6 a. <n <!tober +/.+. 2S*S. <n 5une 1/. 1''+ a-1. )eaning of 8ust !ompensation in eminent domain +' SC%. VS. *-C. $atangas. C-.+. however. SC%. ./4/ $asis of 8ust !ompensation (9(!eptional !aseA 4ERFE-FOTTER. hat the petitioner e(pressed willingness to sell at =D6. THE 5HILI55I-ES. 5..66 per s0uare meter. -nsaldo vs. a government institution in &asugbu. %eubli! vs. &=C vs. CO3RT O. 5o!son. the %epubli! of the =hilippines filed a !omplaint for the e(propriation of the petitionerSs property and invoked the assessment made by the =rovin!ial -ppraisal Committee of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of $atangas in the amount of =. I-C. @ater on.66 per s0uare meter in its reply" . #ebruary +D.66 per s0uare meter" 3. of )akati vs. .+. -ug..

A deeds of sale it e(e!uted in favor of three (.366. the panel reiterated its original re!ommendation of =/D. the market value a!!ording set by the petitioner if we follow the three (.66 per s0uare meter was the appraised value made by the <ffi!e of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of $atangas" and +'1 . he !ourt dire!ted the !ommissioners to !onvene anew and to re!eive additional eviden!e. of the %ules of Court. he petitioner was therefore !onstrained to file this instant petition !laiming that the Court of -ppeals erred in holding that =1'.1/.66 per s0uare meter" '.1/ per s0uare meter" 16.A tra!ts of land similar in topography and ad8a!ent to the property in 0uestion for the unit pri!e of only =1'. in its se!ond report dated -pril 1.+. 1'/>. .66 for the entire area sought to be e(propriated" 11.A different individuals" 1+. he trial !ourt a!ting on this re!ommendation rendered 8udgment re0uiring the %epubli! to pay the petitioner the amount of ='63. m.9 @<79% C<?% SS D9C*S*<& and de!laring that the fair market value whi!h should be the basis in !omputing the amount to be paid by the government to the petitioner shall be =1'.1/ per s0uare meter should be the basis of the !omputation for the 8ust !ompensation of its property be!ause: a. $erkenkotter originally 0uestioned the purpose of the e(propriation but later abandoned this ob8e!tion and !on!entrated only on what it !alled the HunderappraisalH of the sub8e!t land" >. the panel of !ommissioners submitted its report to the trial !ourt and pegged the market value at =/D.A !ontra!ts of sale e(e!uted by the petitioner in 1'/D whereby it sold three (. he government appealed the trial !ourtSs de!ision to the Court of -ppeals whi!h rendered a de!ision %9F9%S*&2 . he % C then appointed a panel of !ommissioners in a!!ordan!e with %ule 4>.owever.366.. Firay even offered the amount of =. e!tion D. to determine the 8ust !ompensation to be paid for the land" /. or a total of ='63.+.+'1 4.66 for the entire area sought to be e(propriated. he %epubli! of the =hilippines ob8e!ted and pointed to three (.66Es0.66 per s0uaremeter as the fair market value" b. 1'/D. <n September +. that =.

9 * C@-&D9S *&9@J -2%99D ?=<& 7* . .1/.9 5?S C<)=9&S.<*S &<7 $J * S <7& =9 -%D. deeds of sale.*2.1/ =9% SR?-%9 )9 9% 7.9% %. then * *S S?%9@J .+'+ !.66 per s0uare meter.9 S-)9. *ssue: 7. he petitionerSs !laim that the value as appearing in the deeds of sale in the three other par!els is not a reliable inde( of 8ust !ompensation Hbe!ause owners usually undervalue the selling pri!e of the property to lower the e(penses they would have to pay for !apital gains ta( and do!umentary stamps ta(H is pra!ti!ally an admission that it did not indi!ate the a!tual !onsideration in the three transa!tions where it was made to appear that the pri!e per s0uare meter was only =1'. whi!h needs the land for a publi! purpose. . ).66ESR. they were ordinary buyers who bought the land for their own private purposes only and not for the publi! purpose invoked by the government..9 $<-%D <# C<))*SS*<&9%S -==<*& 9D $J . +'+ . -&D %*2.9 S9@@*&2 =%*C9 *& -& -D5-C9& @< S<@D $J . *& -CC<%-&C9 7* .9 C<?% < 9F-@?. -S C@-*)9D $J . @J S<.66ESR.9 $?J9%S.9 =9 * *<&9% < .. #<% * C-&&< $9 -@@<79D < =%<#* #%<) * S <7& D9C9= *<& -&D C@-*) .S.*C.9 S?$59C =%<=9% J S.<?@D $9 .+.<?@D $9 -SS9SS9D . he Court is disappointed that the petitioner should demand a higher pri!e from the republi!.9 .*<& <# . he basis in the !omputation of 8ust !ompensation shall be =1'.9 =%<F*&C*-@ -SS9SS<%" =166. <% =1'.9 $-S*S *& . . -S %9C<))9&D9D $J .9 <7&9%" =/D.9 . *f this was the purpose of the petitioner when it e(e!uted the .66ESR.*<&: =.9 -==%-*S-@ <# .1/ per s0uare meter or the pri!e whi!h the petitioner sold its other lots to other individuals.). his is so be!ause there is no showing that the petitioner had any spe!ial reason for granting ea!h of the individual vendees the e(traordinary dis!ount amounting to as mu!h as >DY of its !laimed real value of the land. ).9 C<)=? .eld.+. o all appearan!es.%99 =%*F. 7-S . the !omplaint itself prays that the market value be pegged at =.9 *&D*F*D?-@S.

he measure is not the takerSs gain but the ownerSs loss. when it was willing to a!!ept less from the three individual buyers who had only their private interests to serve. note that as held in the !ase of %epubli! vs. must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair e0uivalent of the proerty sought to be e(propriated 6Association of "mall Lando?ners vs. the market value as re!ommended by the board of !ommissioners appointed by the !ourt were at best only -DF*S<%J -&D =9%S?-S*F9 -&D $J &< )9-&S #*&-@ <% $*&D*&2. p'r"icul'r c'7e o( l'&)7+ 1. to be 8ust.vs.+3D . he fa!t that the petitioner sold the . .1'/> 3.. he market value of the property is the pri!e that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not !ompelled to enter into a !ontra!t of sale. Santos. 131 SC%. "$eir 7iJe. the trial !ourt should first as!ertain the market value of the property. .+'. -pril +'.9 2<<S9 *S -@S< S-?C9 #<% . 9=O. o determine 8ust !ompensation. Dulay. it impliedly admitted that the pri!e for the latter should be the same as the former.. . 1+. #inally.l'/> D. &. +. co7" o( 'cCui7i"io&+ 9. %eyes.vs. C-.1'' 7hen it is !onsidered for Hpubli! useH: +'. C-.1/ per s0uare meter whi!h are admittedly of the same topography as that sub8e!t of this !ase.. "ecretary of Agrarian $eform. )ay +1. "$e "'@ )ecl'r'"io&7 "$ereo&. 1D3 SC%. @agunGad vs.. loc'"io&+ '&) 6./8 "C$A :/..9 2-&D9%.*S S-?C9 #<% . his rule of !onsisten!y is best e(pressed in the familiar saying. other par!els of land at =1'. )anotok vs. to whi!h should be added the !onse0uential benefits whi!h may arise from the e(propriation. "$e curre&" *'lue o( liLe proer"ie7+ 3. SC%.7. 7$'pe. i"7 'c"u'l or po"e&"i'l u7e7+ 2. A#o&% "$e ('c"or7 "o 8e co&7i)ere) i& 'rri*i&% '" "$e ('ir #'rLe" *'lue 'reI 1. surely not unknown to the petitioner. he !ompensation.9.6.

446 %9=?$@*C <# . #a!ts: 1.Cos!ulluela vs. "$e proper"y #u7" 8e )e*o"e) (or pu8lic u7e+ '&) e. C%*S *&.. "$e e&"ry #u7" 8e u&)er w'rr'&" o( color or "i"le+ ). 1D3 SC%.%.*@*==*&9S FS. 1D6 SC%.4' . 2uererro. C'7"ell*i. 143 SC%. the %ep. "$e e@propri'"or #u7" e&"er "$e proper"y+ 8. 1'/' 9(propriation 2an!ay!o. 16+ SC%.. 16 SCRA 336 %e0uisites of taking: '. 166 SC%.3' ( private property whi!h is devoted to publi! use may not be e(propriated for another publi! purpose.D'> 4. %epubli! vs. C-. among them Cristina de Mne!ht together +'3 . &<.. *7.'. *gna!io vs. +.D. C-. <n #ebruary +6. %e0uisite of HtakingH in eminent domain !ases %ead: 1. of the =hilippines initiated an e(propriation pro!eedings against the owners of the houses standing along #ernando %ein-Del =an streets. 2uererro.9 C<?% <# -==9-@S. Chinese Community. C-.+'3 4. "$e ow&er #u7" 8e ou7"e) (ro# 8e&e(ici'l u7e o( $i7 l'&). />. De Mne!ht vs. 2.. &ot a valid e(er!ise of eminent domain %ead: 1. 1D3 SC%. Sumulong vs. 36 =hil.3+/ /.D9 M&9C.9 =. 5. 2ar!ia vs.A +. D. 1'>'. "$e e&"r'&ce #u7" &o" 8e (or Au7" ' #o#e&"'ry perio)+ c. Rep. . -&D . $autista. #ebruary 1+. City of )anila vs.341 >.

1'>' be S9 -S*D9 and the respondent 5udge is permanently en8oined from taking any further a!tion on Civil Case &o. <n September +. and some other fifteen defendants in Civil Case &o. *n 5une. the %epubli! moved for the dismissal of the !ase due to the ena!tment of $= .is arbitraryN +'D .should be e(tended is arbitrary and should not re!eive 8udi!ial approval" /. <n <!tober . 1'>'.6. the %epubli! of the =hilippines prayed for the issuan!e of a writ of possession of the property to be e(propriated on the ground that it had already deposited with the =&$ 16Y of the amount of !ompensation stated in the !omplaint" that on 5une 13.36 e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose. the defendants in Civil Case &o. 1'// issued its de!ision setting aside the <rder appealed from and dismissing the e(propriation pro!eedings before the lower !ourt on the ground that the !hoi!e of the above-mentioned streets as the line through whi!h the 9DS. 1'>' order of the lower !ourt" 3. 1'/. De Mne!ht appealed the <rder dismissing the !ase to the Court of -ppeals who on De!ember +/. 1'/1. he defendants moved for a re!onsideration whi!h the Court denied" >. >661-=" +. <n 5uly 14.+'D with Con!ep!ion Cabarrus. 1'>'..moved for the dismissal of said !ase sin!e the de!ision of the Supreme Court is already final" 4. *ssue: 7hether or not the legislature !ould still pass a law e(propriating the lots of the private respondents despite the e(isten!e of a final de!ision of the Supreme Court whi!h held that !hoi!e of their lot to be used as an e(tension of 9DS. De Mne!ht went to the Supreme Court on a petition for !ertiorari and prohibition dire!ted against the 5une 13. he %epubli! of the =hilippines filed a =etition for %eview with the Supreme Court. the Supreme Court rendered its de!ision granting the petition for !ertiorari and prohibition and dire!ting that the <rder of the respondent 5udge dated 5une 13.. >661. the Court dismissed the !ase. >661-=" D. <n the same date. the @ower Court issued a writ of possession authoriGing the %epubli! to enter into the properties !ondemned and !reated a !ommittee to determine 8ust !ompensation" . <n -ugust /. 1'/6. 1'>'.

9 S?=%9)9 C<?% . $= $ilang .. the $atasang =ambansa passed $= . he %epubli! !ould !ontinue it e(propriation pro!eedings !onsidering the supervening events after the de!ision was rendered.9%9#<%9 9##9C *F9@J S?=9%S9D9D . 7hen on #ebruary 1>.9 -& 9%*<% D9C*S*<& <# . />.36 .+'4 .owever.eld: *t is true that there is already a final de!ision of the Supreme Court to the effe!t that the !hoi!e of the #ernando %ein-Del =an Streets is arbitrary and should not re!eive 8udi!ial approval. 2. C%*S *&. %9=?$@*C <# .9 7*SD<) -&D &9C9SS* J <# 9&-C *&2 $= . it is not be!ause we !on!ede that the lawmakers !an nullify the findings of the Court in the e(er!ise of its dis!retion. * -==9-%S . !on!urring Supervening events have !hanged the fa!tual basis of the SCSs de!ision to 8ustify the subse0uent ena!tment of the statute.9 C<?% -2%99S *& .>64 +'4 . 1'/. the present e(propriation is no longer arbitrary. . 1'/' . 5... C-S9. he so!ial impa!t fa!tor whi!h persuaded the Court to !onsider this e(tension has disappeared be!ause of the fa!t that the residents of the area have been relo!ated and duly !ompensated and only D9 M&9C.<CC?%%9D after the de!ision of the SC in De Mne!ht vs.D*##9%9& S9 <# #-C S. Q ( ( . &<. *t is simply be!ause we ourselves have found that under the !hanged situation..D9 M&9C.9 S-)9 7-S $-S9D <& S?=9%F9&*&2 9F9& S .. 7.%.*S C<?% )?S J*9@D < .9 -#<%9S-*D #*&-@ -&D 9Q9C? <%J D9C*S*<& <# .*C.*S S?$S9R?9& @92*S@.. now is left while her property is only about DY of the area to be e(propriated. SC%. @imitations of the power of e(propriation.9 =.. $autista in 1'/6. *f we are sustaining the legislation.*F9 #*.-a. . #ebruary 1+. 7-S D9C*D9D ?&D9% .. it is e0ually true that the Constitution and our laws may e(propriate private properties after the payment of 8ust !ompensation. -&D . .9 <%*2*&-@ D9 M&9C.?S .36. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL CruG. .36 e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose.*@*==*&9S FS.*S D9C*S*<& *S &< .D.9 C<?% <# -==9-@S. * )?S -DD .%9F9%S-@ <# .

&@%C. '. +'> . 34 SC%. 133 +. 2uido vs. =hil. vs. %ep. &olting. C-%. et al. vs. Faldellon. 1'4/ 16.134 SC%. 3+ =hil. City of $aguio vs.3 D. Clements vs.. Mabiling. 1+. San Diego vs. Del %osario vs. &-7-S-. $aylosis. 1. /3 =hil. %epubli! vs. 1/' SC%. #eb. /. Dimayuga.D1> 11. *lusorio vs. &. /3> >... '+ SC%.+.4+6 . +>... -o l'w i#p'iri&% "$e o8li%'"io& o( co&"r'c"7 7$'ll 8e p'77e). )ar!h .>. C-. '. )ar!h +1.+D >. =&$. 113 SC%.-.D. 2anGon vs. . De los Santos. %utter vs.eirs of -rdona vs.. '4 =hil. 1. 7hen shall we base the !omputation of the value of the property e(propriated: at the time of taking or at the time of the institution of the e(propriation pro!eedingsN /. Co vs. %ead: 1. 1+D SC%. 5aren!io. %eyes. %=-.6D 16. 2ar!ia vs. -r!e vs. in general %ead: 1. )uni!ipality of Daet vs.+'> >. 16+ SC%. #ree a!!ess to the !ourts and 0uasi-8udi!ial bodies and ade0uate legal assistan!e shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.aguisan vs. *nsierto. '3 SC%.6 SC%. 3. 9milia. >6+ . -bella vs. 164 =hil. #eati $ank. )artineG. 341 /.l'/> +. $urgos. SC%.1.136 11. 1D+ SC%. 1> SC%. /6 SC%.. @oGano vs.++6 1+..>1. =F$9? vs. Salas vs. SC%. . )ataas na @upa vs. 9steban.13 Se!tion 11. Commissioner vs.. 5uan. De!ember 1/. C-. =F$. D./3+ 3.1'/6 1. 1.'. 9minent domain !ases. 1'>4 4.6 '. <rtigas vs.+' CHA5TER EI G THE -O-GIM5AIRME-T CLA3SE Sec"io& 1. 2enito. 4/ 4.1 SC%.D6.

*f the person !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel of his or +'/ . of his or her right: 1.uman Se!urity -!tE-nti. Se!ret detention pla!es. %ights of a person under !ustodial detention. in!ommuni!ado. (1A -ny person under investigation for the !ommission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. hese rights !annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of !ounsel. he shall forthwith be informed by the arresting poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ers to whose !ustody the person !on!erned is brought. intimidation or any other means whi!h vitiate the free will shall be used against him. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the .. '. %ights of a person under < #"todial detentionE for one suspe!ted or arrested as a terrorist.+'/ CHA5TER EII G RI:HTS /3RI-: C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIOSe!tion 1+. solitary. (+A &o torture. +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D. violen!e.he moment a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained. %epubli! -!t &o.A -ny !onfession or admission obtained in violation of this or Se!tion 1> hereof shall be inadmissible in eviden!e against him.errorism @aw. he must be provided with one. -pproved on )ar!h 4. threat. *f the person !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel. +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e tion 21.>+. (. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. for!e. to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. to be informed of the nature and !ause of his arrest.

the state of his health and his physi!al !ondition a the time of his initial admission for !ustodial detention" D. des!ription.. date and time of su!h visits" 1+.. the poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ers !on!erned shall immediately !onta!t the free legal assistan!e unit of the *$= or the =ubli! attorney1s offi!e (=-<A. informed of the !ause or !auses of his detention in the presen!e of his legal !ounsel" .. date and time when the detained person re0uested to !ommuni!ate or !onfer with his lawyer" +'' . *t shall be the duty of the free legal assistan!e unit of the *$= or the =-<1s thus !onta!ted to immediately visit the person detained and provide him with legal assistan!e. ReCuire#e&" (or '& o((ici'l cu7"o)i'l lo%8ooL '&) i"7 co&"e&"7. names and addresses of the persons who visited him" 11.+'' her !hoi!e. allowed to !ommuni!ate freely with his legal !ounsel and to !onfer with them at any time without restri!tion" 3. the name and address of the physi!ianEs who e(amined him physi!ally and medi!ally" 3. name. the date and time of his return to his !ell" >. whi!h is hereby de!lared as publi! do!ument and opened and made available for inspe!tion and s!rutiny of the lawyer or lawyers of the person under !ustody or any member of his family or relative by !onsanguinity within the fourth !ivil degree or his physi!ian at any time of the day without any form of restri!tion. Se!tion +. date and e(a!t time of his initial admission for !ustodial arrest and detention" . summary of the physi!al and medi!al findings after ea!h interrogation" '.he poli!e or other law enfor!ement !ustodial unit in whose !are and !ontrol the person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism has been pla!ed under !ustodial arrest and detention shall keep a se!urely and orderly maintained offi!ial logbook. and address of the detained person" +. names and addresses of the members of his family and relatives" 16. allowed freely to avail of the servi!es of a physi!ian or physi!ians of !hoi!e. he logbook shall !ontain a !lear and !on!ise re!ord of: 1. the date and time of ea!h removal of the detained person from his !ell for interrogation or for any purpose" 4. hese rights !annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of the !ounsel of !hoi!e" +.. allowed to !ommuni!ate freely and privately without restri!tions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and be visited by them" and D. name and address of the physi!ian who e(amined him physi!ally and medi!ally" /.

detained.66 1.R. absolutely not admissible and usable as eviden!e in any 8udi!ial.e8ru'ry 1. MAHI-AY. all other important events bearing on all relevant details regarding the treatment of the detained person while under !ustodial arrest or detention./. invited or under !ustodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown a !opy of the warrant of arrest. THE C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO. l'y7 )ow& "$e 5ROCE/3RE. "$e Cour". if any" 9very other warnings. or !oer!ion. l'w7 '&) Auri7pru)e&ce. or psy!hologi!al pressure on the detained person whi!h shall vitiate his free will shall be employed in his investigation and interrogation" otherwise. I-VITI-: OR I-VESTI:ATI-: O. MAFI-: THE ARREST A-/ A:AI. T$e 7u##'ry o( "$e ri%$"7 o( '& 'ccu7e) )uri&% cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io& .ACCOR/A-CE wi"$ "$e Co&7"i"u"io&.AT A-/ /3RI-: THE TIME O.. pro!eeding or hearing. 0uasi8udi!ial.(ro# "$e "i#e o( 'rre7"! u&)er "$e Co&7"i"u"io&. -o. in0uiry. or administrative investigation. :3I/ELI-ES.OR I-TERRO:ATIO. 1999 =er Curiam: Co&7i)eri&% "$e $e'*y pe&'l"y o( )e'"$ and in order to ensure that eviden!e against an a!!used were obtained through lawful means.ICER OR HIS COM5A-IO-S M3ST O4SERVE AT THE TIME O. moral. *t is high time to edu!ate our law enfor!ement agen!ies who negle!t either by ignoran!e or indifferen!e the so-!alled )iranda rights whi!h had be!ome insuffi!ient and whi!h the !ourt must update in the light of new legal developments. Se!tion +3.. A-/ /3TIES 0HICH THE ARRESTI-:. the eviden!e obtained from said detained person Vshall be in its entirety. Auri7pru)e&ce '&) %epubli! -!t &o. the date and time of visits by his legal !ounsel and the date and time of departure" and 13. :. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. .. /ETAI-I-:. intimidation. 199261. >3. and no a!t whi!h will infli!t any form of physi!al pain or torment.66 . legislative. '7 %u'r)i'& o( "$e ri%$"7 o( "$e people. &o threat. &o torture or !oer!ion in *nvestigation and interrogation. he person arrested. 1. or mental.I. THE 5EO5LE O. information or !ommuni!ation must be in a language known to and understood by said person" .

-@@ $9 . he must be informed that it must be done in writing -&D in the presen!e of !ounsel. radio. priest or minister !hosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his !ounsel. any member of his immediate family" or any medi!al do!tor. the right to !ounsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any other time during the pro!ess. the poli!e may not interrogate him if the same had not yet !ommen!ed.*S *S -CC<)=@*S.9 %9S=<&S*$*@* J <# . . hat whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer.e must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily. one will be provided for him" and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf. at any time. or may be appointed by the !ourt upon petition of the person arrested or one a!ting in his behalf" D. letter or messenger---with his lawyer (either retained or appointedA.61 . . * S. he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and !hooses to speak" '.9D" >.e must be informed that if he has no lawyer or !annot afford the servi!es of a lawyer.61 +. he must be informed that no !ustodial investigation in any form shall be !ondu!ted e(!ept in the presen!e of his !ounsel or after a valid waiver has been made" 4.e must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presen!e of an independent and !ompetent lawyer.. preferably of his own !hoi!e" 3. otherwise.e must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as eviden!e against him" . if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer. . knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same" /. he person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent.. *n addition. hat the person arrested must be informed that he may indi!ate in any manner at any time or state of the pro!ess that he does not wish to be 0uestioned with the warning that on!e he makes su!h indi!ation. .9 <##*C9% < 9&S?%9 . . he has the right to !ommuni!ate or !onfer by the most e(pedient means---telephone.. or be visited byE!onfer with duly a!!redited national or international non-governmental organiGation. or the interrogation has begun" 16. he person arrested must be informed that. regardless of .

. +1> and 1>1 B/C in relation to -rti!le 3/ of the %evised =enal Code. in whole or in part. . the a!!used-appellants were !harged of )alversation through #alsifi!ation of Commer!ial Do!uments as defined and penaliGed under -rts. 2 1 SCRA 926 Jnares-Santiago.6+ . -!!used <!hoa interposed an appeal and !laimed that his !onvi!tion was based on his alleged sworn statement and the trans!ript of stenographi! notes of a supposed interview with an &=C personnel and the report of the &$*. 7hile the *nformation !harged the a!!used of will(ul '&) i&"e&"io&'l co##i77io& o( "$e 'c"7 co#pl'i&e) o( while the De!ision found the a!!used %uil"y o( i&e@cu7'8le &e%li%e&ce. . S. . JOSE TI-: LA. -fter trial.e was not assisted by !ounsel nor he was apprised .3Y. not to mention the possible !riminal liability of said persons under e(isting lawsA. e" 'l.'c"7I #or allegedly diverting and !olle!ting funds of the &ational =ower Corporation intended for the pur!hase of ?S Dollars from the ?nited Co!onut =lanters $ank (?C=$A. A 5ERSO./. 5. as the !ase may be. obtained in violation of any of the foregoing./3RI-: C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO%ights during !ustodial investigation" when !ustodial investigation is deemed to have started" right to be informed of the nature and !ause of a!!usation against him. . THE 5EO5LE O. all a!!used were !onvi!ted by the Sandiganbayan.-@@ $9 *&-D)*SS*$@9 *& 9F*D9&C9.. LATEST CASES O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. JR. (&< 9: -ny violation of the foregoing rights of the a!!used shall entitle him to sue for damages against the arresting or investigating offi!ers in a!!ordan!e with %->3. whether in!ulpatory or e(!ulpatory.THE RI:HTS O.e maintains that he signed the sworn statement while !onfined a the =hilippine heart !enter and upon assuran!e that it would not be used against him.6+ whether he may have answered some 0uestions or volunteered some information or statements" 11.e must be informed that any statement <% 9F*D9&C9..

=hil. Clearly. may attempt to legitimiGe !oer!ed e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions and pla!e them beyond the e(!lusionary rule by having an a!!used admit an offense on television (5eople *7. !onvi!tion for malversation through negligen!e may still be ad8udged if the eviden!e ultimately proves that mode of !ommission of the offense. 16. Court of appeals. . he :investigation. the same was not !overed by Se!tion 1+. -ndam. /ue&'7. the !onfession made before a )uni!ipal )ayor was held admissible as eviden!eA. CA. 1 1 SCRA 916!" !onfession to a private individual . +. the rights enumerated by the a!!used are not available $9#<%9 2<F9%&)9& *&F9S *2. he !laim that his affidavit is inadmissible in eviden!e in a!!ordan!e with se!tion 1+ B1C of the $ill of %ights is not tenable. Or)o&o. >uel'.6. 332 SCRA 6 3A" or even to a )ayor approa!hed as a personal !onfidante and not in his offi!ial !apa!ity (5eople *7. . 393 SCRA 169A. E&)i&o. Clearly. !ustodial investigation refers to the !riti!al pre-trial stage when the investigation !eases to be a general in0uiry into an unsolved !rime but has began to fo!us on a parti!ular person as a suspe!t (5eople *7. 939 SCRA 13!" verbal admission made to a radio announ!er who was not a part of the investigation (5eople *7.6.6+ SC%. his was the do!trine laid down in the !ase of Samson vs.9 =*C ?%9. . with the !onnivan!e of uns!rupulous media pra!titioners.<%S 9& 9% . even a videotaped interview where the a!!used willingly admit his guilt in the presen!e of newsmen is not !overed by the said provision though the trial !ourts were warned by the supreme Court to take e(treme !aution in admitting similar !onfessions be!ause of the distin!t possibility that the poli!e.5eople *7..11/A. under said provision refers to :!ustodial investigation where a suspe!t has already been taken into poli!e !ustody and that the investigating offi!ers begin to ask 0uestions to eli!it information and !onfessions or admissions from the suspe!t. therefore. 313 SCRA 3. 296 SCRA 666A. Sandiganbayan. Hel)I 1. he prote!tive mantle of se!tion 1+. (DiaG vs. (&< 9: *n =eople vs.e likewise !laimed that his !onstitutional rights to be informed of the nature and !ause of a!!usation against and due pro!ess were violated. Ju)%e Ay7o&. +>>. of his !onstitutional rights when he e(e!uted the affidavit. -rt.Fi#po *7. the !onfession of the a!!used was obtained during an administrative investigation by &=C and therefore. . *n fa!t. *** of the Constitution. Jr. Su!!in!tly stated. A. arti!le *** does not apply to administrative investigations . 9ven if the information !harges willful malversation..

S'#ol)e.31 SC%. . $-%*R?* . w$e& "$e police i&*e7"i%'"or 7"'r"7 .63 . "ol) "$'" $e $'7 "$e ri%$" "o cou&7el.63 =9<=@9 FS.. S3CH STATEME-TS ARE :OS5EL TR3TH A-/ VOL3-TARILY :IVE-. THIS IS SO EVE. w'r&e) "$'" '&y"$i&% $e 7'y7 c'& 8e '&) will 8e u7e) '%'i&7" $i#+ 3. 're i&')#i77i8le &o" o&ly '%'i&7" "$e /ECLARA-T 8u" wi"$ #ore 7o '%'i&7" 3r) per7o&7. . ' 7u7pec" i& cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io& #u7" 8eI 1. Cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io& 8e%i&7 w$e& i" i7 &o lo&%er ' %e&er'l i&Cuiry i&"o '& u&7ol*e) cri#e 8u" 7"'r"7 "o (ocu7 o& ' p'r"icul'r per7o& '7 ' 7u7pec"..! I" i7 'lw'y7 i&cu#8e&" o& "$e pro7ecu"io& "o pro*e '" "$e "ri'l "$'". 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&" w'7 %i*e& &o #ore "$'& ' per(u&c"ory reci"'"io& o( $i7 ri%$"7. i. . or (ro# "$e "i#e $e i7 7i&%le) ou" '7 ' 7u7pec" i& "$e co##i77io& o( "$e cri#e. July 31. w$e"$er i&culp'"ory or e@culp'"ory. III o( "$e Co&7"i"u"io& 8e%i&7 w$e& ' per7o& i7 "'Le& i&"o cu7"o)y (or i&*e7"i%'"io& o( $i7 po77i8le p'r"icip'"io& i& "$e co##i77io& o( ' cri#e. 9. T$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y o( o((ici'l 'c"7 )oe7 &o" pre*'il o*er "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l pre7u#p"io& o( i&&oce&ce. III. 7i%&i(yi&% &o"$i&% #ore "$'& ' (ei%&e) co#pli'&ce wi"$ "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l reCuire#e&"7. =9<=@9 FS. 'l"$ou%$ &o" ye" i& cu7"o)y. '&) "$'" i( $e i7 i&)i%e&". i&(or#e) o( $i7 ri%$" "o re#'i& 7ile&"+ 9. i& "$e '87e&ce o( proo( "$'" "$e 'rre7"i&% o((icer7 co#plie) wi"$ "$e '8o*e co&7"i"u"io&'l 7'(e%u'r)7.e. e@"r'Au)ici'l 7"'"e#e&"7. I& "$i7 c'7e. Suc$ 7"'"e#e&"7 're u7ele77 EECE5T AS EVI/E-CE A:AI-ST THE VERY 5OLICE A3THORITIES 0HO VIOLATE/ THE S3S5ECTNS RI:HTS.3' 3&)er Ar"..I.466 0$e& cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io& i7 )ee#e) "o $'*e 7"'r"e).. prior "o i&Gcu7"o)y Cue7"io&i&%.D SC%. Sec"io& 19 <1= o( "$e Co&7"i"u"io&. #*2?9%<-. Ar".. T$e pro"ec"io& u&)er Sec"io& 19 . "$e co&(e77'&" w'7 i&(or#e) o( $i7 co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$"7.. ' l'wyer will 8e 'ppoi&"e) "o repre7e&" $i#.5eople *7. #')e )uri&% "$e cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io&. He&ce.

*F9 <# .1. +666. Suc$ ')#i77io&. T$i7 i7 li&e wi"$ "$e pro*i7io&7 o( RA 236 w$ic$ #'Le7 i" 'pplic'8le e*e& w$e& ' per7o& i7 #erely i&*i"e) (or Cue7"io&i&%. 1. S9= . 2.*<& *S &< D9 9%)*&. e*e& w$ile "$ey were 7"ill w'lLi&% 'lo&% "$e $i%$w'y o& "$eir w'y "o "$e police 7"'"io&.%. &<. even if appellant1s !onfession were gospel truth. 1. 2.9 9Q*S 9&C9 <% -$S9&C9 <# C?S <D*-@ *&F9S *2. S9= . 2. 1+/DD1. .D36D.34 SC%. &<F9)$9% +'. . T$u7. 1.. &<.. 2. )-J<%2-.+. To 8e ')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce.9 =<@*C9 -? . wi"$ou" ' *'li) w'i*er o( 7uc$ '77i7"'&ce. upo& "$eir 'rre7" o( 7o#e o( "$e 'ccu7e). w$e& "'Le& wi"$ou" "$e '77i7"'&ce o( cou&7el. +666. D-&<. =9<=@9 FS. '& e@"r'Au)ici'l co&(e77io& #u7" 8eI (iA voluntary" (iiA made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel" (iiiA e(press" and (ivA in writing.9 <&9 -&D )-&&9% <# R?9S *<&*&2 $J . e*e& wi"$ou" "$e '77i7"'&ce o( ' l'wyer. +666" =9<=@9 FS. i##e)i'"ely '7Le) "$e# re%'r)i&% "$eir p'r"icip'"io& i& "$e co##i77io& o( "$e cri#e .9 =@-C9 <# *& 9%%<2.6D i&"erro%'"i&% or e@'c"i&% co&(e77io& (ro# "$e 7u7pec" i& co&&ec"io& wi"$ '& 'lle%e) o((e&7e. &<. "$ere w'7 cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io& w$e& "$e police 'u"$ori"ie7. .*<& $? .' SC%.4. 11>4'6. &<..%. is inadmissible in eviden!e.%. )oe7 &o" *iol'"e 'ppell'&"N7 co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$"7 A-/ THERE. re%'r)le77 o( "$e '87e&ce o( coercio& or "$e ('c" "$'" i" $') 8ee& *olu&"'rily %i*e&..4 SC%. A 7u7pec"N7 co&(e77io&. D-&<.w$o i7 &ei"$er ' police o((icer &or ' l'w e&(orce#e&" '%e&"!. 5?@. )o &o" ('ll u&)er cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io&.' SC%.D1D.3D/.6D . as where appellant orally admitted killing the vi!tim before the barangay !aptain . spontaneous statements voluntarily given. . . w$e"$er *er8'l or &o&G*er8'l.D1D. . . 11>4'6.ORE A/MISSI4LE IEVI/E-CE. =9<=@9 FS.%. S-)<@D9. Howe*er.<%* *9S. +666" =9<=@9 FS.

1. A4A/. 5effrey Datulayta. of the =ubli! -ttorney1s <ffi!e (=-<A who was !onversing with those taken into !ustody for the offense. -tty..: his !ase is about the re0uirements of a valid e(tra8udi!ial !onfession and the establishment of the e(isten!e of corpus delicti in murder !ases.. 7hen -leman said that he had no lawyer. $ased on the findings of the % C..>6. the poli!e offi!er started taking down -leman1s statement.m. offi!er abu!on informed a!!used -leman in Cebuano of his !onstitutional right to remain silent and to the assistan!e of !ounsel of his own !hoi!e and asked him if he was willing to give a statement. 1''+. -!!used -leman said that in the !ourse of a drinking bout with a!!used Datulayta and unia!o at around ' p. and -le( -leman with murder before the %egional rial Court (% CA of 2eneral Santos City in Criminal Case /. :. in the morning of 5une 1. 7hen asked if he had any !omplaint to make. abu!on noted the presen!e of -tty. -!!ording to -leman. 7hen 0ueried if the suspe!ts would be willing to give their statements. -fterwards. $esinga who !laimed that he was assisting all the suspe!ts in the !ase. 9. %uperto $esinga. ROM3LO T3-IACO. on 5une 4. -o. abu!on pointed to -tty.64 %e0uisites of a valid e(tra8udi!ial !onfession 5EO5LE O. ET AL. 5r. -leman said that he had none. T$e . <ffi!er abu!on ne(t took the statement of a!!used -leman. $efore anything else. $esinga said that they were. . -leman answered in the affirmative. Dondon CorteG threatened to report his drinking !ompanions1 illegal a!tivities to the poli!e unless they gave him money for his forth!oming marriage. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7.R.. 161 1. abu!on warned -leman that anything he would say may be used against him later in !ourt. whom he observed to be in good physi!al shape. J'&u'ry 1. 1''+ some poli!e offi!ers from the @agao =oli!e Sub-Station re0uested poli!e offi!er 5aime abu!on of the Central =oli!e Station of 2eneral Santos City homi!ide division to take the statement of a!!used -le( -leman regarding the slaying of a !ertain Dondon CorteG. J. <n his arrival at the sub-station.'c"7 '&) "$e C'7e he !ity prose!utor of 2eneral Santos City !harged the a!!used %omulo unia!o. Some other poli!e offi!er first took the statement of a!!used 5effrey Datulayta..64 .

and a poli!e inspe!tor. 2eneral Santos City. resulting in the dismissal of the !ase against him. he warden !omplied. $esinga. re!anted what he said to the poli!e during the trial. his prompted the !ourt to re0uire the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden to issue a !ertifi!ation regarding -leman1s behavior and mental !ondition while in 8ail to determine if he was fit to stand trial. <n 5une 1D. a!!used Datulayta and -leman led abu!on.e testified that sometime in 1''+. all three a!!used. hen they !overed him with ri!e husks. drew out his single shot homemade )14 pistol and shot CorteG on the head. for making the same threats and now they de!ided to do it. @abangal. -fter taking down the statement. -!!used unia!o used the same gun to pump some bullets into CorteG1s body. as they were walking. South Cotabato. the trial !ourt had -leman sub8e!ted to psy!hiatri! e(amination at the Davao )ental . he trial !ourt senten!ed him to imprisonment of si( years and one day and to pay =D6. . assisted by -tty. !ausing him to fall. <n being arraigned.6> . -leman1s new =-< lawyer raised the defense of insanity.e was later re!aptured. to the dump site where they left their vi!tim1s body.6> Datulayta and unia!o had already planned to kill CorteG in upi. the group found a spot !overed with burnt ri!e husks and a partially burnt body of a man. the !ity prose!utor. shortly after. stating that -leman had been observed to have good mental !ondition and did not !ommit any infra!tion while in 8ail. <n being re-arraigned at his re0uest. on the other hand. some poli!e offi!ers took him from his aunt1s house in =urok =alen. a!!used Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of . a!!used -leman turned on CorteG and stabbed him on the stoma!h. -lthough the prose!ution and defense stipulated that -tty.66 to the vi!tim1s family. the hospital sent word that -leman had es!aped. -fter some sear!h. -bout a foot from the body. however. $esinga assisted a!!used -leman during the taking of his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession. he three a!!used brought CorteG to -popong near the dump site and. #or some reason. 7hen trial in the !ase resumed. hey got CorteG drunk then led him out supposedly to get the money he needed. Datulayta handed over the gun to -leman who fired another shot on CorteG1s head. and brought him to the @agao poli!e . they found the shells of a D. pleaded not guilty to the murder !harge.666. $esinga. . abu!on e(plained the substan!e of it to a!!used -leman who then signed it in the presen!e of -tty. $ut.. -!!used Datulayta.D4 !aliber gun and an armalite rifle.ospital. the latter. -fter the prose!ution rested its !ase. a!!used unia!o filed a demurrer to eviden!e whi!h the Court granted. 1''+ the poli!e brought -leman to the City =rose!utor1s <ffi!e where he swore to his statement before an assistant !ity prose!utor.omi!ide. *n the afternoon.

Corpus delicti has two elements: (aA that a !ertain result has been established. 8ointly and severally. T$e Ruli&%7 o( "$e Cour" 1. -!!used -leman also testified that he !ould not remember having been assisted by -tty.666. +66/. in the amounts of =D6. 7hen he refused.%. -leman further denied prior asso!iation with a!!used unia!o and Datulayta. . for e(ample. foundation.666. that a man has died and (bA that some person is !riminally responsible for it. .66 to the heirs of CorteG. -leman appealed to this Court.666. T$e I77ue7 5re7e&"e) -!!used -leman raises two issues: aA whether or not the prose!ution was able to present eviden!e of corpus delicti" and bA whether or not a!!used -leman1s e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is admissible in eviden!e.e said that he met them only at the !ity 8ail where they were detained for the death of CorteG. he defense !laims that the prose!ution failed to prove corpus delicti sin!e it did not bother to present a medi!al !ertifi!ate identifying the remains found at the dump site and an autopsy report showing su!h remains sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death" and the shells of the guns used in killing the vi!tim. +661 the % C rendered 8udgment.666.e was there asked to admit having taken part in the murder of CorteG.6/ . the !ourt rendered 8udgment on 5anuary +1. or substan!e of a !rime.66 as moral damages" =+D. finding a!!used -leman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime !harged.666. <n appeal to the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2. affirming the de!ision of the % C with the modifi!ation that dire!ted a!!used -leman and Datulayta to indemnify the heirs of CorteG.66 as temperate damages" and =+D. and senten!ed him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. he !ourt also ordered him to pay death indemnity of =>6. he prose!ution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by dire!t eviden!e or by !ir!umstantial or presumptive eviden!e.11. . <n <!tober /.666.66 as !ivil indemnity" =D6. they tortured him until he agreed to sign a do!ument admitting his part in the !rime.66 as e(emplary damages. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body. $esinga during the poli!e investigation. .e even denied ever knowing the lawyer. he eviden!e of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its ba!k would be eviden!e that murder has been !ommitted.. C%-.66 and moral damages of =D6.C 66.6/ station.

his relatives. the poli!e authorities found the remains of CorteG at the pla!e pointed to by a!!used -leman. hese re0uirements were met here.said. . even signed a !ertifi!ation that the investigator suffi!iently e(plained to him his !onstitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement. where he did not institute any !riminal or administrative a!tion against his supposed intimidators. !iting #eople v. !oming after his testimony of the gruesome murder. <ffi!er abu!on testified that he saw a!!used -leman. 8oined by -tty. -tty. his appears to have been done in this ! all these will be !onsidered as indi!ating voluntariness. they are not indispensable proof of su!h in8uries or of the fa!t of death. before the taking of his statement. that long 0uestions followed by monosyllabi! answers do not satisfy the re0uirement that the a!!used is amply informed of his rights. #urther. hat physi!al !onfirmation. that statement must be admissible in eviden!e. *t is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present eviden!e of !ompulsion. !onversing with !ounsel at the poli!e station. . here is no reason for it not to be . -!!used -leman !laims. where no physi!al eviden!e of violen!e was presented. -leman asserts that he was la!king in edu!ation and so he did not fully realiGe the !onse0uen!es of a !onfession. abu!on testified that he spoke to -leman !learly in the language he knew.6' . $esinga. assisted a!!used -leman during the !ustodial investigation. not working with or was not beholden to the poli!e. $ut this does not apply here. . although -leman !laimed that he bore torture marks on his head. Co&(e77io& "o 8e ')#i77i8le #u7" 8e '! *olu&"'ry+ 8! #')e wi"$ "$e '77i7"'&ce o( ' co#pe"e&" '&) i&)epe&)e&" cou&7el+ c! e@pre77+ '&) )! i& wri"i&%. suffi!iently establishes the corpus delicti of the !rime. &or is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable sin!e the physi!al e(isten!e of su!h weapons is not an element of the !rime of murder.ere. $ut as the C.. no law or 8urispruden!e re0uires the poli!e offi!er to as!ertain the edu!ational attainment of the a!!used. -ll that is needed is an effe!tive !ommuni!ation between the interrogator and the suspe!t to the end that the latter is able to understand his rights. $esinga did not dispute this !laim. . or the prose!utor who administered his oath.ere. -leman alleges torture as the reason for the e(e!ution of the !onfession. $esinga. +. he appellate !ourt is !orre!t in ruling that su!h allegation is baseless. -leman. <f !ourse. 7hile su!h report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the in8uries the vi!tim suffered.6' $ut corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead vi!tim1s body or even by the testimony of the physi!ian who e(amined su!h body. +alit. -tty. he never brought this to the attention of his !ounsel.

the prose!ution and the defense stipulated and admitted: (aA the !orre!tness of the findings indi!ated in the medi!al !ertifi!ate of the physi!ian who e(amined ---" (bA that --. :.16 )oreover. Ca'alCuinto. the appellant was a!!used of the !rime of R?-@*#*9D %-=9 allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat on or about the 1Dth day of )ar!h +666. -o. 7hat is more. 166996. <n trial. M'rc$ 11. namely: .A years old when the alleged offense was !ommitted" and (!A that --.A witnesses testified for the prose!ution. it is improbable that the poli!e fabri!ated -leman1s !onfession and 8ust for!ed him to sign the daughter of the appellant. a 1. and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . a!!used Datulayta1s !onfession !orroborate that of -leman in important details. in!luding those of her immediate family or household members. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS.16 .. willfully. muni!ipality of (((. provin!e of $ukidnon. at $arangay (((. su!h !orroboration is !ir!umstantial eviden!e against the person impli!ated in it. yearBsCold minor against her will. "$e e*i)e&ce o8"'i&e) 7$'ll 8e i&')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce. J. A-TO-IO LA3:A. three (.onorable Court. the real name and the personal !ir!umstan!es of the vi!tim. being the father of --. 5ERE>. <n 1+ <!tober +666. did then and there. The :a t" *n an *nformation dated +1 September +666.: Consistent with the ruling of this Court in #eople v. =hilippines. as the lower !ourt noted. During the pre-trial !onferen!e. appellant entered a plea of not guilty. unlawfully and !riminally have !arnal knowledge with his own daughter ---. 5EO5LE O.was only thirteen (1. ?nder the do!trine of interloc@ing confessions. are not dis!losed in this de!ision. with the use of for!e and intimidation.with lewd design. Cu7"o)i'l I&*e7"i%'"io& 8e(ore B4'&"'y 4'y'& Me#8er7 reCuire7 "$'" "$e 7u7pec" 8e i&(or#e) o( $i7 E@p'&)e) Mir'&)' Ri%$"7+ o"$erwi7e. in the evening. and any other information tending to establish or !ompromise her identity.1.R. the above-named a!!used. 9. he !onfession has details that only the person who !ommitted the !rime !ould have possibly known.

only appellant testified for the defense. issued the )edi!al Certifi!ate. -ppellant !laimed he s!olded her for staying out late. the appellant. --.was left alone at home. he admitted to him that he raped --.with him. .ealth <ffi!er of ( ( (.submitted herself to physi!al e(amination. he following day. Dra. after whi!h. -t the poli!e outpost. . )uni!ipal . . $$$ arrived and found --. --.11 . was having a drinking spree at the neighbor1s pla!e. -lsula. a :'antay 'ayan.11 vi!tim ---" her brother $$$" and one )oises $oy $anting. slid inside the blanket !overing --. $ only brother $$$ also went out in the !ompany of some neighbors.!rying. and beats the !hildren as a dis!iplinary measure. 5osefa -rlita @.e went further to narrate how his day was on the date of the alleged rape.and removed her pants and underwear" warned her not to shout for help while threatening her with his fist" and told her that he had a knife pla!ed above her head. )oises $oy $anting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. to whi!h appellant obliged. the trial !ourt gravely erred in finding him guilty as !harged despite the failure of the prose!ution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. in the 'arangay. Soon after.and her brother $$$" (+A his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession before )oises $oy $anting was without the assistan!e of . they sought the assistan!e of )oises $oy $anting. . .be!ause he was unable to !ontrol himself. . --.e believed that the !harge against him was ill-motivated be!ause he sometimes physi!ally abuses his wife in front of their !hildren after engaging in a heated argument. they told their grandmother and un!le of the in!ident. he lone assignment of error in the appellant1s brief is that. he has the habit of mauling ---1s!ounted her harrowing e(perien!e with their father. 7hile on their way to their maternal grandmother1s mother de!ided to leave be!ause when appellant gets drunk.e pro!eeded to mash her breast.e invited appellant to the poli!e station. whi!h reads: hyperemi! vulvae with 3 o1!lo!k P 4 o1!lo!k freshly la!erated hymen" (^A minimal to moderate bloody dis!harges +_ to an alleged raping in!ident <n the other hand.up" removed his pants. ?pon rea!hing their grandmother1s house.. appellant woke --. kiss her repeatedly. -t around 16:66 o1!lo!k in the evening. ---1s father. $$$ de!ided to take --. heir testimonies revealed the following: *n the afternoon of 1D )ar!h +666.. and :inserted his penis inside her vagina. be!ause: (1A there were in!onsisten!ies in the testimonies of --.

. 7hen a!!usedappellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of + 5anuary +661. she was already a suspe!t. in!luding the arangay Chairman.1! '&) . o( "$e Co&7"i"u"io&. . indeed. the 'arangay tanods. therefore. !onfessed to )oises $oy $anting. he !ase of #eople v. *n Malngan. appellant 0uestioned the admissibility of e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions given to the barangay !hairman and a neighbor of private !omplainant. Ad(i""i4ility in .1+ a !ounsel. Se!tion 1+(1A and (. one of the neighbors ( ( ( Bof the private !omplainantC. Malngan is the authority on the s!ope of )iranda do!trine provided for under -rti!le ***. -!!used-appellant1s !onfession to $arangay Chairman ( ( ( was made in response to the Kinterrogation1 made by the latter I admittedly !ondu!ted without first informing a!!used-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in the presen!e of !ounsel. already under !ustodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by ( ( ( BtheC Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. 6Emp2asis supplied9 . in violation of his !onstitutional right" and (.3!. (ay 8e )ee#e) '7 l'w e&(orce#e&" o((icer (or purpo7e7 o( 'pplyi&% Ar"icle III. as well as the lighter found ( ( ( in her bag are i&')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce against her ( ( (.A of Constitution. a!tually the only one. #or this reason. in this parti!ular instan!e.1+ the the her the . hus: Argua'ly. Sec"io& 19.=1 -ppellant !ontests the admissibility in eviden!e of his alleged !onfession with a :'antay 'ayan. ( ( ( B Che !onstitutional safeguards during !ustodial investigations )o &o" 'pply "o "$o7e &o" elici"e) "$rou%$ Cue7"io&i&% 8y "$e police or "$eir '%e&"7 but given in an ordinary manner whereby the a!!used verbally admits ( ( ( as ( ( ( in the !ase at bar when a!!usedappellant admitted to )er!edita )endoGa. and the !redibility of the witnesses for the prose!ution.A ---1s a!!usation was ill-motivated.. B$ut su!h doesC not automati!ally lead to her a!0uittal.%tra6#di ial Confe""ion 4efore a <+antay +ayanE -ppellant argues that even if he. in the fire that destroyed several houses ( ( (. She was. the !onfession was inadmissible in eviden!e be!ause he was not assisted by a lawyer and there was no valid waiver of su!h re0uirement.. his Court distinguished. a :'antay 'ayan. the !onfession of a!!used-appellant. given to $arangay Chairman ( ( (.!iden e of an .

Volu&"'ry '&) 7po&"'&eou7 co&(e77io& o( ' 7u7pec" w$o i7 'lre')y u&)er cu7"o)y o( "$e police i7 ')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce e*e& i& "$e '87e&ce o( cou&7el.3! Me#8er7 o( e@i7"i&% +aran*ayG4'7e) A&"iGCri#e or &ei%$8or$oo) 0'"c$ :roup7 or ' -o& :o*er&#e&" Or%'&iJ'"io& Repre7e&"'"i*e wellGL&ow& i& $i7 co##u&i"y. o"$erwi7e L&ow& '7 "$e Mir'&)' Ri%$"7.1. i7 co&cer&e). find the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of appellant. hus.D -lso... and the spe!ifi! s!ope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a :'antay 'ayan. may be deemed a law enfor!ement offi!er within the !ontemplation of -rti!le ***. . Se!tion 1+ of the Constitution. it may be worthy to !onsider that pursuant to Se!tion 1(gA of 9(e!utive <rder &o. *n #eople of t2e #2ilippines v.6' issued on 11 &ovember 1'/>. he !omposition of the Committee in!ludes. this Court needs to as!ertain whether or not a :'antay 'ayan. without ruling on the legality of the a!tions taken by )oises $oy $anting. parti!ularly on the authority to !ondu!t a !ustodial investigation. 7e. Sec"io& 19 o( "$e Co&7"i"u"io&.D 're reco%&iJe) 8y "$e loc'l %o*er&#e&" u&i" "o per(or# (u&c"io&7 rel'"i&% "o "$e pre7er*'"io& o( pe'ce '&) or)er '" "$e 4aran*ay le*el. among others: (1A the #unong arangay as Chairman" (+A the Chairman of the "angguniang Sa'ataan" (. whi!h was taken without a !ounsel.1.w$ic$ i7= '& 'ccre)i"e) 'u@ili'ry o( "$e @ @ @ 5-5. '&y i&Cuiry $e #'Le7 $'7 "$e color o( ' 7"'"eGrel'"e) (u&c"io& '&) o8Aec"i*e i&7o('r '7 "$e e&"i"le#e&" o( ' 7u7pec" "o $i7 co&7"i"u"io&'l ri%$"7 pro*i)e) (or u&)er Ar"icle III. inadmissible in eviden!e. '7 i& "$e c'7e o( "$e B4antay 4ayan. $e that as it may. a =ea!e and <rder Committee in ea!h 'arangay shall be organiGed :to serve as implementing arm of the CityE)uni!ipal =ea!e and <rder Coun!il at the arangay level. #ollowing the rationale behind the ruling in Malngan.. as amended.. co&*i&ce) "$'" 4aran*ayG8'7e) *olu&"eer or%'&iJ'"io&7 i& "$e &'"ure o( w'"c$ %roup7. . "$ere(ore. uendia.D "$'" i7. 7e agree with the Court of -ppeals that the !onvi!tion of the appellant was not dedu!ed solely from the assailed e(tra8udi!ial !onfession but :from the !onfluen!e of eviden!e showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. T$i7 Cour" i7. therefore. this Court had the o!!asion to mention "$e &'"ure o( ' B4antay 4ayan.A a )ember of the Lupon &agapamayapa" (3A a arangay &anod" and (DA '" le'7" "$ree . . B' %roup o( #'le re7i)e&"7 li*i&% i& <"$e= 're' or%'&iJe) (or "$e purpo7e o( Leepi&% pe'ce i& "$eir co##u&i"y<.

entertaining his guests. S=<3 2enoguin also went to the !rime s!ene after being informed by his !ommander. offered him food. was an(iously waiting for :---.. to attend the fiesta to be held the ne(t day. ..:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon. -t 1:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon. and blood ooGed from . obeyed.. . :---1s. ?pon arrival. in the house of her aunt in arangay :D. =eople had gathered seven to 16 meters away from the dead body. %odrigo pro!eeded to the spe!ified area together with other 'arangay tanods. the appellant who was on his way to arangay :D.-O.19.R.. at around ':66 o1!lo!k in the morning.owever. 7hile personally serving food and drinks to appellant. he saw the !orpse of a little girl behind a big boulder that was about 16 meters away from the trail 8un!tion of the 'arangays.e was also wearing a white sleeveless t-shirt (sandoA. -t that time. :$$$. together with her 16-year old daughter :---. re!eived information that a dead !hild was found in their 'arangay. -t around 3:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon. she no longer returned. S=63 2enoguin noti!ed that the latter was wearing a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. to get a t-shirt for her brother.13 5EO5LE O. -t around . she re!eived information that a dead !hild had been found in arangay :D1. . one of whom was appellant. 1''D. <n -pril +'. from >:66 o1!lo!k to ':66 o1!lo!k in the evening. but no one dared to approa!h. went to the house of their relative in arangay :D. he was seen wearing the same sando and 8ewelry while drinking at the basketball !ourt in arangay :D. 7hile :$$$. <n even date. 1''D.13 body was slanted downward with her legs spread apart and dangling on the sides of the small boulder. :$$$. %odrigo. :. MARCH 1. 9. :---. .. She was no longer wearing short pants and panty. passed by the house of %odrigo <la8e (%odrigoA. hereafter. She pro!eeded to the area where she identified the !hild1s body as that of her daughter. -ppellant even allowed S=<3 2enoguin to put on the bra!elet. -t 11:66 o1!lo!k in the morning. appellant was at the house of :$$$1s. :$$$. 161. to go home to arangay :D1. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. . %odrigo noti!ed appellant wearing a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. also noti!ed that he was dressed in a white sando and that he wore 8ewelry !onsisting of a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. :---.e instru!ted a 'arangay tanod to inform the poli!e about the in!ident.1. aunt. told :---. VICTOR VILLARI-O.ACTSI <n -pril +/. who was the 'arangay !aptain of arangay :D1. S=<3 5esus 2enoguin (S=<3 2enoguinA was in his house in arangay :D. and her younger son :CCC.. lifeless body lay fa!e up with her butto!ks on top of a small ro!k. :$$$.

the poli!e team took a !offee break. panty was found a meter away from her body.66 if he would throw the sando into the sea. ?nperturbed. at $arangay :D1. S=<3 2enoguin re8e!ted the appellant1s offer and reminded him of his right to a !ounsel and that everything the appellant said !ould be used against him in !ourt.. <n the same day. . #eli!idad )abute y @egaspi.onorable Court. @ater. 7hile waiting for a boat ride at 3:66 o1!lo!k in the morning.. with lewd design. <n )ay +.1D . while her short pants was about two meters farther. 1''D. whi!h was positioned near her right ear. <ng. hey also identified the sando on :---1s. the hunt for appellant began. . . )uni!ipality of -lmagro. S=<3 2enoguin was momentarily left alone to guard the appellant. 5ose F. knees. parti!ularly. his briefs revealed bloodstains.e resisted arrest and had to be bodily !arried to the motorboat that would take him to the muni!ipal building in -lmagro. <n -ugust . the above named a!!used. violen!e and intimidation. -t the Calbayog Distri!t . :---. arm as the appellant1s. . asked him not to testify against her son.. 7hen they boarded the motorboat.bra!elet and a pendant were also re!overed from the !rime s!ene. he arresting team made the appellant take off his !lothes sin!e they were wet. =hilippines. . the appellant repeatedly offered to give S=<3 2enoguin =+6. the appellant was found in the house of -urelia Susmena near the seashore of arangay :D1. Senior %esident =hysi!ian Dr..ospital. the appellant1s mother. he *nformation !ontained the following a!!usatory allegations: hat on or about the +'th day of -pril. =rovin!e of Samar. the appellant reiterated his offer. found that appellant1s body had 16 healed abrasions and two linear abrasions or s!rat!hes. identified these pie!es of 8ewelry as those seen on the appellant. :---1s. at about D:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon. that !ould have been !aused by fingernails. unlawfully and feloniously have !arnal knowledge against a minor ten (16A years Bsi!C. on his breast.1D her vagina. the poli!e brought appellant to Calbayog City for medi!al e(amination sin!e he had s!rat!hes and abrasions on his body. was a white sando.e was drunk and violent. an *nformation was filed !harging appellant Fi!tor Fillarino y )abute with the spe!ial !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. Samar.. S=<3 $asilio ). willfully.666. without the latter1s !onsent and against her will. During this short period.owever. hus. and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . . 1''D. as well as right and left ears. %odrigo and :$$$. 7rapped around her right hand. 7hen he !omplied. the poli!e offi!er ignored the offer and instead reported the matter to the Chief of =oli!e of -lmagro. the appellant voluntarily admitted to S=<3 2enoguin that he !ommitted the !rime !harged. by means of for!e.e also told S=<3 2enoguin that he !ould keep the pendant and bra!elet if he would retrieve the t-shirt and throw it into the sea. 1''D. Jabao. did then and there.

&a?at.s.%.omi!ide and senten!ed to Death. C. therefore.14 . but in su!h a !ase it must be given in substan!e (+. &o. .6. he appellant did not deny this a!!usation nor assail its truthfulness. to S=<3 2enoguin.5. otherwise !ompetent as a witness. he de!laration of an a!!used a!knowledging his guilt of the offense !harged may be given in eviden!e against him (Se!. . 4-'A. -n oral !onfession need not be repeated verbatim. 2. any person. trial ensued. whi!h !aused her untimely death.n. he was alone with S=<3 2enoguin. 1'/3.. and no for!e or intimidation was employed against him. 1+' SC%. %ules of CourtA. ISS3EI *s a!!used-appellant1s voluntary !onfession to S=<3 2enoguin admissible in eviden!eN HEL/I *n the instant !ase. 4+/>1.. he !onfession was spontaneously made and not eli!ited through 0uestioning. he % C found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !omple( !rime of %ape with . appellant voluntarily !onfessed to raping and killing :---. +'. is !ompetent to testify as to the substan!e of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. )ay +D. %ule 1. 7hen appellant !onfessed to the !rime. he rule is that. did then and there willfully.e even offered to give the pie!es of 8ewelry to the latter if his sando is thrown into the sea. <!tober 1>. and that the gun he had used in shooting the vi!tim was in his bar whi!h he wanted surrendered to the Chief of =oli!e (t. %y. who heard the !onfession. pp.1A.14 and thereafter. C<& %-%J < @-7. 1'/D. err in holding that !omplian!e with the !onstitutional pro!edure on !ustodial interrogation is not appli!able in the instant !ase. mortal wounds on ( ( ( different parts of her body. unlawfully and feloniously infli!t upon the said :---. the oral !onfession made by the -!!used to =at.S. we held that: Contrary to the defense !ontention. *n #eople v. !ited in #eople v. with deliberate intent to kill. 1'4. is !ompetent eviden!e against him. -fter the termination of the pre-trial !onferen!e. -ppellant pleaded not guilty to the !rime !harged.3. *t may in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae. =adilla that :he had shot a tourist. he trial !ourt did not.

163 SC%. )atos-Fiduya..163 SC%1-a. Caguioa. vs. 1''6 1-a.. &o. @-1'13'. De!. *llinois. 16. but given in an ordinary manner. o be informed of the %ight to remain silent" !ases %ead: 1.>.4 . . Constitutional right to remain silent.. = vs. !annot be held to have erred in holding that !omplian!e with the !onstitutional pro!edure on !ustodial interrogation is not appli!able in the instant !ase. 1'/1. =.>' +-a. 131 SC%. appellant !ould still be !onvi!ted of the !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. 1++ SC%.'1 in parti!ular %ight to !ounsel during !ustodial investigation" while making an e(tra8udi!ial !onfession . -t any rate.1> 7hat was told by the -!!used to =at. -riGona. as the defense alleges in its 9rror F**. )ar!os 5imeneG. )iranda vs. he prose!ution established his !ompli!ity in the !rime through !ir!umstantial eviden!e whi!h were !redible and suffi!ient. Sept.166 . %amos. Duties of the =oli!e or -rresting <ffi!ers %ead: 1.+/' +. even without his !onfession. &aylaran./3 ?S 3.. vs. 13+ SC%. &i!andro.9s!obedo vs.+ 3. 2uidelines for poli!e investigation %ead: 1. and led to the ines!apable !on!lusion that the appellant !ommitted the !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. 11. = vs. =. Duero. (#eople v. therefore. <!tober . 16/ SC%. .>/ ?S 3>/ +.. =adilla was a spontaneous statement not eli!ited through 0uestioning..1.1+ . =eople vs. 7hen !onsidered together. 1''1 9(tra8udi!ial !onfession" !ounsel of !hoi!e ..%. 'D SC%.1> . +. = vs. Duhan.A. the !ir!umstan!es point to the appellant as the !ulprit. = vs. he rial Court. 2. &o written !onfession was sought to be presented in eviden!e as a result of formal !ustodial investigation.

-o..1/ . su!h as" the bathing at the artesian well Has if washing away stains of bloodH" the de!easedSs violent 0uarrels with his !hildren and o!!asions that he had been bo(ed and hit by his !hildren.1/ 5EO5LE VS. he mere presen!e of a lawyer is not suffi!ient !omplian!e with the !onstitutional re0uirement of assistan!e of !ounsel. a!ting upon a report.R. I& ('c". $i7 8o)y '&) $i7 will were i& &o po7i"io& "o r'i7e '&y o8Aec"io& #uc$ le77 "o co#pl'i&" "o "$e I45 l'wyer '8ou" w$'" $e $'7 %o&e "$rou%$.. -ssistan!e of !ounsel must be effe!tive. "$e I45 l'wyer w'7 worLi&% o& '& 'ppe'l i& '&o"$er c'7e w$ile "$e e@"r'Au)ici'l co&(e77io& w'7 8ei&% "'Le&. . 696. 5AT3-:A-.2. 312 SCRA 213 he a!!used was under !oer!ive and un!ounselled !ustodial investigation by the poli!e without a lawyer for + and a half days . )ar!os and %obert. .: #-C S: <n -ugust 1. hey also learned from the persons they interviewed of !ir!umstan!es that drew their suspi!ion to the son.. 1'/D.draft of the !onfession was prepared by the investigating offi!er but )ar!os was . &ot only was the a!!used sub8e!ted to !ustodial investigation without !ounsel. he was likewise denied effe!tive assistan!e of !ounsel during the taking of his e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession. !ommen!ed a day earlier but it was not until the morning of the following day. he poli!e investigators learned that )ar!os. JIME-E> :. hen. 5EO5LE V. !ame upon the !orpse of =elagio 5imeneG below a !liff near a balite tree. /ece#8er 1. 1'/D. -ugust 1. the son of the de!eased =elagio 5imeneG told his mother that his father had not !ome home the previous night: that the sear!h for the de!eased. he was brought to the *$= <ffi!e where a lawyer assisted him in his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession. 5. that de!eased =elagio was finally found who !ould 8ust hear the investigation going on while working on another !ase hardly satisfies the minimum re0uirements of effe!tive assistan!e of !ounsel. 0e 're i&cli&e) "o 8elie*e "$'" w$e& $e w'7 8rou%$" "o "$e I45 O((ice. 1991 &-%F-S-.. vigilant and independent. poli!e authorities. he poli!e had invited the de!easedSs widow and her sons for 0uestioning about the killing. who was living separately from them.

1'/4. )ar!os agreed to !ome ba!k and sign his statement. &o" o&e (oi7"e) o& $i# 8y "$e police i&*e7"i%'"or7 or o"$er p'r"ie7. #urthermore. .en!e.1' not able to sign the same due to the absen!e of the 8udge before whom it is supposed to be sworn and signed. refused to sign his statement. $oth a!!used !ontest su!h ruling. this is far from being substantial !omplian!e with the !onstitutional duty of poli!e investigators during !ustodial interrogation.9 1'/> Constitution de!lares that a person being investigated by the poli!e as a suspe!t in an offense has the right. -rti!le *** <# . noting that the unsigned !onfession is admissible in eviden!e inasmu!h as eviden!e aliunde !orroborated su!h !onfession. (1A to have a !ompetent and independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e and if he !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel. . the supposed waiver made therein of his !onstitutional right to !ounsel of his own !hoi!e. he must be provided with one" and that (+A said right !annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of !ounsel.. and 7ilkins.9@D: &o. %obert. *SS?9: *s the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of )ar!os admissible in eviden!eN .1' . he. but upon his return. *n an order dated 5uly +1. I& "$i7 c'7e. 1'/4. )ar!os. the trial !ourt found )ar!os and %obert guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of parri!ide. the trial !ourt absolved the widow and 7ilkins of any parti!ipation in the filling for la!k of proof. among others. "$e (or#er Au)%e w$o7e '77i7"'&ce w'7 reCue7"e) 8y "$e police w'7 e*i)e&"ly &o" o( M'rco7 Ji#e&eJU ow& c$oice+ 7$e w'7 "$e police o((icer7U ow& c$oice+ 7$e )i) &o" '7L M'rco7 i( w'7 i7 willi&% "o $'*e $er repre7e&" $i#. he typewritten !onfession is unsigned and was in fa!t e(pressly re8e!ted by )ar!os. T$i7 i7 &o" "$e #o)e o( 7olici"'"io& o( le%'l '77i7"'&ce co&"e#pl'"e) 8y "$e co&7"i"u"io&. 7hile she asked him if he had voluntarily given the statements !ontained in the typewritten do!ument. an information for parri!ide was filed against the widow and her sons. T$e l'wyer w$o '77i7"7 "$e 7u7pec" u&)er cu7"o)i'l i&"erro%'"io& 7$oul) 8e o( "$e l'""erU7 ow& c$oice. assisted by a former 8udge whose presen!e was re0uested by the poli!e authorities. the former 8udge was not present when )ar!os was being interrogated by the poli!e. <n De!ember 1+.en!e this appeal. Subse0uently. Se!tion 1+ (1A. . De!ision reversed.

+/4 SC%. O4RERO. )ar!h . the !onfession must be in writing. *n order that a !onfession is admissible. *n view of the inadmissibility in eviden!e of the !onfession. -&D-&. -s su!h. the !onfession must be e(press" and d. if it was made without the assistan!e of !ounsel. are not appli!able when the suspe!t makes an spontaneous statement. 339 SCRA 19. the !onfession must be made with the assistan!e of a !ompetent and independent !ounsel" !. not only be!ause it was obtained in violation of the !onstitution but also be!ause of the prin!iple of res inter alios a!ta.-F*&2 C<))* 9D . he above re0uirements. his was the de!ision of the Supreme Court in the !ase of =9<=@9 FS.9%9$J .9 C%*)9. -&.1''" =9<=@9 FS. and no valid waiver of su!h right to !ounsel have been made. his un!ounselled !onfession is ')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce. =-&#*@< C-$*@9S.9 -CC?S9D <%-@@J -D)* 9D . 1''> when the a!!used made a voluntary and verbal !onfession to the )uni!ipal )ayor that he !ommitted the !rime imputed to him.+6 . 9ven if the !onfession of the a!!used speaks of the truth. not eli!ited through 0uestioning by the authorities. the rest of the eviden!e of the prose!ution is inade0uate to over!ome the presumption of inno!en!e raised by the fundamental law in favor of both the a!!used. the following re0uisites must be present: a. +/3 SC%.. the !onfession must be voluntary" b. $? 2*F9& *& -& <%D*&-%J )-&&9% 7. . his brother %obert.. 5. he interrogation of )ar!os 5imeneG having been !ondu!ted without the assistan!e of !ounsel.+6 &either !an the !onfession pre8udi!e his !o-a!!used.+6> )elo. inadmissible as eviden!e" e(!eption =9<=@9 FS. 9(tra8udi!ial !onfession without the assistan!e of !ounsel. not only the !onfession but also any admissible obtained in the !ourse thereof are inadmissible against him or his !o a!!used. however. 5EO5LE VS. it is inadmissible in eviden!e regardless of the absen!e of !oer!ion or even if it was voluntarily given.

=eople. threat. Camalog. Donato.-a. while being investigated by other poli!emen of the same poli!e station be!ause the interest of the poli!e is naturally adverse to the a!!used.1'4 . =. Cui. $orromeo. vs. 5. Ar". Ju)%e Ay7o&. =. 1/. the SC in the !ase of =9<=@9 FS. =eople vs. +4> SC%. 5-&?-%*<. !onfession whi!h are the produ!t of third degree methods su!h as torture. =.Co&(e77io& #')e "o "$e o((ici'l7 o( 5$ilippi&e Airli&e7 )uri&% '& i&*e7"i%'"io& i7 ')#i77i8le i& e*i)e&ce )e7pi"e "$e ('c" "$'" $e w'7 &o" i&(or#e) o( $i7 ri%$"7 )uri&% cu7"o)i'l i&*e7"i%'"io&7 7i&ce 7'i) o((ici'l7 're &o" 8ou&) 8y "$e reCuire#e&"7 o( Sec"io& 19.3> 1-f.4>D +. 5eople *7. *n fa!t. 1.46/ held that a lawyer applying for a position in the &$* !ould not validly assist an a!!used being investigated then by the &$*. 2amboa vs. 1'/' (*n!luding the duty of =oli!e <ffi!ers in !onne!tion with said rightA >. 4. intimidation" and b. -tty.+44 D. '3 SC%. 2% &o. >>114. =. @overia. De los %eyes. hese are: a. 5une +'.D SC%. 5anuary . III o( "$e Co&7"i"u"io&! 1-d. /D SC%. 1/> SC%. Dra!ulan vs. = vs. vs. &ovember +1.1. 14D SC%. ***. violen!e..4>D 1-e. for!e. .+1 . vs.16' 3. 14+ SC%.++6 . 5r. 1 1 SCRA 916 .ow about if the a!!used gives an spontaneous statement before he !ould be advised of his right to remain silentN %ead: -balle vs. those whi!h are given without the benefit of )iranda 7arnings. 5udge CruG.l'/. 1-b. -legre. = vs. vs.. here is no !omplian!e of the !onstitutional re0uirement of !ompetent and independent !ounsel to assist an a!!used during !ustodial investigation when the a!!used was assisted by the Station Commander of the 7=D. 1''6 1-!.+1 )endoGa. 2alit. Se!tion 1+ of the Constitution.34D . 14+ SC%. -spili. =inla!. here are two (+A kinds of involuntary or !oer!ed !onfessions under -rt. SC%. = vs..

RI:HT TO A COM5ETE-T A-/ I-/E5E-/E-T CO3-SEL O. 5EO5LE O. said lawyer was appointed by the &$* as one of its provided by the investigators to the a!!used during the !ustodial investigation is deemed engaged by the a!!used where he never raised any ob8e!tion against the former1s appointment during the !ourse of the investigation -&D .A T$e &e@" c'7e i7 *ery i#por"'&".. JERE>.9 C..9 S79-%*&2 <##*C9%. -o. *t is obviously a reversal of the &eople !".+41 +. HIS O0. D9 @.9)9& $9#<%9 .++ . J#anerio ruling.43+ 3 . +'3 SC%.<%%9 FS. 5udge CruG. J.1'4 3. C-.. /OMI-:O REYES.. 14+ SC%. 7hen shall the !onstitutional rights of the above demandableN During poli!e line-upN %ead: 1.assan. T$i7 c'7e i7 )i((ere&" (or# "$e pre*iou7 )oc"ri&e7.: ..9%9-# 9% S?$SC%*$9S < . 9.-b.R. = vs.9 F9%-C* J <# . THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. ?sman . (&< 9: *n the !ase of 5EO5LE VS.. ET AL. :.e8ru'ry .++ . M'rc$ 1 .CHOICE.. 1D> SC%. . 2amboa vs. J3A-ERIO. =9<=@9 FS. 961 SCRA 393 .<& he right to !ounsel" a!!used as mentioned 5EO5LE VS.*C<-&-O-%*<. *t diminishes the right to !ounsel during !ustodial investigation and makes the work of the investigator easier to make the !onfession of a suspe!t admissible as eviden!e. 199 . the SC held that a lawyer who was at the &$* <ffi!e applying for a position therein and who was appointed as !ounsel for a suspe!t being then investigated by the &$* !ould not be !onsidered as the !ompetent and independent !ounsel referred to in the Constitution espe!ially so that later on. .9 -CC?S9D .*S S . 1 63.

Cristo.. $ula!an. that during the detention of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymong Jao. at about 11:66 p. by means of for!e and intimidation and with use of firearms.A -le( -lberto.m. Y'o S'&. !ommitted as follows: hat on or about 11:66 p. %ousA and A""y. at Sitio @ambakin. <n 14 5uly 1'''. Jo&' A8'%'"&'& '&% Jo7ep$i&e Or"e' against their will and !onsent on board their )aGda )F= van for the purpose of e(torting money in the amount of #ive )illion =esos (=D. the Jao family. who are still at large. attest to the following: he Jao family is !omposed of Jao San (fatherA. as amended. <n 11 -ugust 1'''.onorable Court. did then and there willfully. )atthew and Charlene (grand!hildrenA.+. A""y. . an *nformation1'. he prose!ution presented as witnesses 5ona -bagatnan (-bagatnanA. =<. willfully and unlawfully strangled C$u' O&% 5i&% Si# '&) R'y#o&) Y'o to death to the damage and pre8udi!e of their heirs in su!h amount as may be awarded to them by this . he a!!usatory portion of the information reads: he undersigned State =rose!utor of the Department of 5usti!e hereby a!!uses Domingo %eyes y =a8e. heir testimonies.+. C$u' O&% 5i&% Si#. Chua <ng =ing Sim (motherA. %obert and %aymond (!hildrenA. he Jao family owns and operates a poultry farm in $arangay Santo Cristo. said a!!used with intent to kill. wife of %obertA. barangay Sto.onorable Court. on board a )aGda )F= van. 3+-3. San 5ose del )onte. !onfederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves together with 5uanito =ataray y Cayaban. Cristo. C$'rle&e Y'o. San 5ose del )onte. . San 5ose del )onte. Jao San. %oberto 5abien.666. $ula!an. . =oli!e <ffi!er .. =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . !arry away and deprive Ro8er" Y'o. Le&&ie Y'o. arrived at the their poultry farm in $arangay Sto. @enny (daughter-in-law. the above-named a!!used !onspiring.66A. on 5uly 14.B3C was filed before the % C !harging appellants with the spe!ial !omple( !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide.B3C %e!ords. taken together. -t this 8un!ture. %obert Jao (%obertA. (=<. #ederi!o =ataray y Cabayan and %ommel @ibarnes y -!e8o. appellant %eyes and a !ertain 5uanito 1'. Ro&'l) M'""$ew Y'o. R'y#o&) Y'o. C'rlo 3#i&%' (-tty.666.m. 1'''. pp. Jao San alighted from the van to open the gate of the farm.lori#o&) Rou7 (-tty. unlawfully and feloniously. -lvin -rnaldo y -vena and 5oselito #lores y Fi!torio of the !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide defined and penaliGed under -rti!le +4> of the %evised =enal Code.. $ula!an. ?mingaA. and 5ona -bagatnan and 5osephine <rtea (housemaidsA.

1'3B4C 1'DB>C 1'4B/C 1'>B'C 1'/B16C S&. %obert. appellants -rnaldo and #lores." S&. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo told -bagatnan to remind Jao San about the ransom demanded. Jao San drove the van towards the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives.3.1'3B4C -fter about . with the other male !ompanion. S&. appellants instru!ted -bagatnan to look for Jao San in the poultry farm.+3 . appellants and their !ohorts tried to !onta!t Jao San regarding the ransom demanded. %aymond and 5ona -bagatnan (-bagatnanA stepped out of the van with appellants %eyes and -rnaldo. +4 <!tober 1'''. 11 -ugust +666. ?pon arriving therein. pp. %aymond and -bagatnan.666.. but the latter !ould not be found. S&. pp. the van stopped again.1'>B'C )eanwhile. $ula!an where they spent the whole night.-13" S&. pp.66A as ransom in e(!hange for the release of Chua <ng =ing Sim.666. /'.1'DB>C -ppellant #lores. poked their guns at Jao San.1'/B16C <n the morning of the following day.6 minutes of traveling on the road. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo and their !ohorts then blindfolded ea!h member of the Jao family inside the van with pa!kaging tape. hereafter. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo and one male !ompanion es!orted -bagatnan in pro!eeding to the poultry farm. hereupon. %aymond and -bagatnan were taken on foot by appellants %eyes and -rnaldo.->" S&. . the van stopped. *d.m. > De!ember 1'''. pp. +/. 11 -ugust +666. p.. %obert. Chua <ng =ing Sim. pp. 14-+. p. drove the van with the remaining members of the Jao family inside the vehi!le. +4 <!tober 1'''. )atthew. 11 -ugust +666. +4 <!tober 1'''. %obert. and dragged him inside the van. all armed with guns. -ppellant #lores took the driver1s seat and drove the van. . at around 3:66 a. -bagatnan sear!hed for Jao San. appellant #lores and his male !ompanion left the van and fled" while Jao San.+3 =ataray (=atarayA approa!hed. hus. arrived and immediately boarded the van. =er order of appellants and their !ohorts. but the latter !ould not be rea!hed. hereafter. . ?pon sensing that the kidnappers had already left. -ppellant %eyes and =ataray also boarded the van. 14-1>" S&. Charlene and 5osephine remained inside the van. >.1'4B/C @ater. %e!ords. =ataray and one male !ompanion to a safe-house situated in the mountainous part of San 5ose Del )onte. +-D" S&. -ppellant #lores and his male !ompanion told Jao San to produ!e the amount of five million pesos (=D. @enny. =ataray and one of their male !ompanions. +1 September +666. pp. . with two male !ompanions. pp. Chua <ng =ing Sim.

C +6+B13C +6. /-'" S&. Jao San !larified to appellants that he did not report the in!ident to the poli!e and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond. .:66 p. appellant -rnaldo surrendered to the =residential -nti-<rganiGed Crime ask #or!e (=-<C #A at Camp Crame. pp. 3->. Jao San left. Jao San waited for appellant1s !all. %e!ords.1''B11C *n the safe-house. > De!ember 1'''. but none !ame. 5uly 1'''. =ataray and a !ertain ata and -key as his !o-parti!ipants in the in!ident.D. appellants abandoned %obert.+66B1+C <n 1/ 5uly 1'''.m. RueGon City. . 1+-13. 16-1+. pp. 11 -ugust +666. S&. 11 -ugust +666. %e!ords.. with the assistan!e of -tty.+D appellants %eyes and -rnaldo and their male !ompanion left -bagatnan in the poultry farm and went ba!k to the safe-house. pp. -ppellants then instru!ted Jao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of =D million at .+D . %obert found Jao San and informed him about the ransom demanded by the appellants.m.+6. appellants !alled Jao San through a !ellular phone and demanded the ransom of =D million for Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond.+63B14C <n +4 5uly 1'''. p. appellants again !alled Jao San via a !ellular phone and threatened to kill Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond be!ause of newspaper and radio reports regarding the in!ident. hereupon. &ovali!hes. RueGon City. -ppellants allowed Jao San to talk with Chua <ng =ing Sim.6 minutes of trekking. hus. *d" S&. ?minga. Jao San arrived at the designated pla!e of the pay-off at 3:66 p.B1DC +63B14C S&.C <n the morning of 1' 5uly 1'''. -ppellant -rnaldo identified appellants %eyes and #lores.+61B1. > De!ember 1'''. p. 11 -ugust +666. and after .B1DC $oth died of asphy(ia by strangulation. pp. %obert and appellants left the safe-house. *d. appellant -rnaldo. #airview. . @ite( %oad. 1D-1>. %obert also told Jao San that Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond were still held by appellants and their !ohorts. 1''B11C +66B1+C +61B1. Jao San a!!eded to appellants1 demand. e(e!uted a written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession narrating his parti!ipation in the in!ident. %obert then ran towards the poultry farm. appellants told %obert that they would release him so he !ould help -bagatnan in lo!ating Jao San. pp. at >-/" S&.+6+B13C <n +. in the ?san dumpsite.D. but none of the appellants or their !ohorts showed up. 13-1D" %e!ords. RueGon City. ?pon arriving at the poultry farm. the !orpses of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond were found at the @a )esa Dam. pp..

pp./. S&. at 34-3/.-13 P .+64B1/C <n 16 -ugust 1'''. -ppellants denied any liability and interposed alibis and the defense of frame-up. 1+. . while he was at the tri!y!le terminal of $rgy. $ula!an.. e(e!uted a written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession detailing his parti!ipation in the in!ident. at 1. Capt. Capt. Captain %amos and by members of the -guirre and $autista families. Colonel )an!ao instru!ted him to identify said persons as responsible for the kidnapping of the Jao family. -ppellant #lores was subse0uently identified in a poli!e line-up by Jao San. $atangas. San 5ose del )onte. %obert and -bagatnan as one of their kidnappers. with the assistan!e of -tty. 4.. -ppellant #lores identified appellants %eyes and -rnaldo. at D. Subse0uently.64. the defense presented the testimonies of appellants.-43 P . appellants -rnaldo and %eyes were identified in a poli!e line-up by Jao San. Cristo.66. *d. %ous.+6/ B. %amos. > 5une +661. are as follows: -ppellant -rnaldo testified that he was an :asset. a poli!e offi!er named @iwanag of the =-<C # approa!hed and invited him to go to Camp Crame to shed light on a kidnapping !ase allegedly !ommitted by a !ertain $rgy. . hereafter. and *sidro -rnaldo. as !orroborated by their witnesses. -fterwards. he pro!eeded to Camp Crame and met therein Colonel Cesar )an!ao *** (Colonel )an!aoA of the =-<C #.6+-. =ataray and a !ertain ata and -key as his !o-parti!ipants in the in!ident.1C +6DB1>C +64B1/C +6>B1'C +6/B. 5r. . appellant %eyes was arrested in Sto. Colonel )an!ao told him that the =-<C # would arrest $rgy.666. . Colonel )an!ao gave him =.+4 -ppellant -rnaldo also des!ribed the physi!al features of his !ohorts and revealed their whereabouts. ?pon arriving thereat. *d. he day after. .e narrated that on +D 5uly 1'''. Jao San promised him that if their kidnappers would be apprehended through his !ooperation.e refused to do so be!ause he feared $rgy. agents of the =-<C # arrested appellant #lores in $alayan. %a!hel C. the latter saw Jao San. P . heir testimonies.e a!!epted Jao San1s offer under the !ondition that he would identify a different set of suspe!ts. %amos and !ertain persons named 2erry $autista and Dadie $autista. of the =-<C #. *rene #lores Celestino.1C *d. %amos.-+1.66. appellant #lores. )arina %eyes. . San 5ose del )onte..+4 . Colonel )an!ao !alled appellant -rnaldo to his offi!e.6.D. $ula!an. %obert and -bagatnan as their kidnappers.666. Cristo. he would give him =D66. . P +3-+/. @ater..e a!!epted the invitation.+6DB1>C Subse0uently. /. 7ilfredo Celestino.+6>B1'C #or its part. Sto.

he was beaten up by =-<C # agents and thereafter in!luded as a!!used with appellants %eyes and #lores for the kidnapping of the Jao family. .e denied having met with -tty.DC +6'B. %ous" that he knew the Jao family be!ause he lived near the family1s poultry farm. . *d. he pointed to appellants %eyes and #lores as his !ohorts in kidnapping the Jao family. . where he was subse0uently tortured" that he knew the Jao family be!ause he worked as a !arpenter in the family1s poultry farm at $rgy.C <n the other hand.-13.DC S&. 4 )ar!h +661. Sto. pp.+C +16B. 16 5uly +661. +3 )ay +661.e impli!ated appellants %eyes and #lores to get even with them.3C #or his part. a !ertain )a8or =aulino utiliGed him as a drug pusher. +1 -ugust +661.+> Subse0uently. . and he used to work therein as a welder" that he had no parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the family" and that appellant -rnaldo impli!ated him in the kidnapping of the family be!ause he and appellant %eyes had mauled appellant -rnaldo several years ago. ?pon failing to remit the pro!eeds of the drug sale. where he was beaten up by poli!emen for refusing to admit involvement in the kidnapping of the Jao family" that after three days of beating. S&. S&.6 5uly 1'''" that he went to her house on 1+ 5uly 1''' be!ause it was the birthday of her !hild" that he worked as a !onstru!tion worker during his stay in his sister1s house" that he was arrested in $atangas and thereafter brought to Camp Crame.+1+B. of 14 5uly 1''' until the morning of the ne(t day" that on the early morning of +4 5uly 1'''. Cristo.. San 5ose del )onte.-16. +-'.e was not assisted by the latter when he was for!ed by the =-<C # to make a written e(tra8udi!ial !onfession on the kidnapping of the Jao family. #urther. pp.+C . $ula!an" that he had no involvement in the kidnapping of the family" and that appellant -rnaldo impli!ated him in the kidnapping of the family be!ause appellant -rnaldo held a grudge against him. he was for!ed to sign a do!ument whi!h he later found out to be a written e(tra8udi!ial !onfession" that he never met nor did he know -tty..3C +1+B.. sin!e the two had previously mauled him after he sold their fighting !o!ks and failed to give them the pro!eeds of the sale.+6'B.m. .+16B. at 16-14" S&. he !laimed that while he was under the !ustody of =-<C #. appellant %eyes testified that he slept in his house with his family from 4:66 p. pp.+> .C +11B. pp.+11B. five poli!emen barged into his house and arrested him" that the poli!emen told him that he was a suspe!t in the kidnapping of the Jao family" that he was mauled by the poli!emen outside his house" that the poli!emen for!ibly brought him to Camp Crame. appellant #lores testified that he stayed in his sister1s house at -ntipolo City from 1+ 5uly 1''' up to . ?minga. .-4.

%e!ords. *d. 3.66 as e(emplary damages. he fallo of the Court of -ppeals1 de!ision states: +1.666.A pi!tures allegedly showing appellant #lores working as a !arpenter in -ntipolo City (9(hibits 1 P + for appellant #loresA. p. as mandated by law. to 8ointly and severally indemnify the heirs of de!eased Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond Jao in the amount of <ne . #urther. sub8e!t to the !orresponding filing fee as a first lien. they are hereby senten!ed ea!h to suffer the supreme penalty of D9. 2. and to pay the !osts of the pro!eedings.+/ he defense proffered do!umentary and ob8e!t eviden!e to buttress their foregoing !laims. Folume F*.9%9#<%9.666. p.owever. -@F*& -%&-@D< y -F9&-.+1DB. it dire!ted appellants to pay 8ointly and severally the Jao family =166.A a!!used D<)*&2< %9J9S y =-59.666.4C (+A !alling !ard of Colonel )an!ao (9(hibit + for appellant -rnaldoA"+13B. =D66.B. Mateo.66. in the amount of #ive .B. &os./C -fter trial.%. the Court of -ppeals promulgated its De!ision affirming with modifi!ations the % C De!ision./C +14B.666. and all the private offended parties or vi!tims. . to wit: (1A prayer booklet of appellant -rnaldo (9(hibit 1 for appellant -rnaldoA"+1. *t also de!reased the amount of !ivil indemnity from =1D6.<)*C*D9 as !harged.66 to =166.>C and (.66 as moral damages and the !osts of the pro!eedings. he appellate !ourt redu!ed the penalty imposed by the % C on ea!h of the appellants from death penalty to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole.. pursuant to our ruling in #eople v. the % C rendered a De!ision dated +4 #ebruary +66+ !onvi!ting appellants of the spe!ial !omple( !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide and senten!ing ea!h of them to suffer the supreme penalty of death. the instant !ase was elevated to us for automati! review.66A...666.'C $y reason of the death penalty imposed on ea!h of the appellants. he dispositive portion of the % C De!ision reads: 7.rollo. .>C +1DB. <n 13 -ugust +664. C. -ppellants were also ordered to pay 8ointly and severally the Jao family =1D6. and 5<S9@* < #@<%9S y F*C <%*< guilty as prin!ipals beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of M*D&-==*&2 #<% %-&S<) 7* .'C +1>B36C %e!ords. . in!luding the heirs of the de!eased.undred housand =esos (=D66.666.436. (D<?$@9A .4C +13B.66A as moral damages. *nde( of 9(hibits.+/ .undred #ifty housand =esos (=1D6.D>.66 as !ivil indemnity. > 5uly +663. finding herein three (.+14B. SC%. 41.+1>B36C we remanded the instant !ase to the Court of -ppeals for proper disposition.666. 13>4>/-/>.

.+1/B31C -ppellants filed a motion for re!onsideration of the Court of -ppeals1 De!ision but this was denied. is hereby -##*%)9D with )<D*#*C. the De!ision of the %egional rial Court of )alolos. however.:IVI-: 0EI:HT A-/ CRE/E-CE TO THE EETRAGJ3/ICIAL CO-.666. be!ause it was obtained in violation of his !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation.LORES+ -ppellant %eyes !laims that his alleged parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the Jao family was based solely on the written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores.3.66 as e(emplary damages.666" and . .. -ppellant #lores argues that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible in eviden!e. torture and without the assistan!e of +1/B31C $ollo.+' 7.ESSIO-S O.*<&S in that: 1A a!!used-appellants are instead senten!ed to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua" +A the award of !ivil indemnity e> delicto is hereby redu!ed to =166. ?minga and -tty. $ula!an. . be!ause they were obtained in violation of his !o-appellants1 !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of their own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation.9%9#<%9. and whether they !ould afford to hire a lawyer" that the agents of the =-<C # suggested the availability of -tty. premises !onsidered. -ppellant %eyes also asseverates that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores !annot be utiliGed against him. 1411-)-'' !onvi!ting a!!used-appellants of the !rime of Midnapping #or %ansom with (DoubleA . -ppellant %eyes alleges that the agents of the =-<C # did not ask his !o-appellants during the !ustodial investigation whether they had a lawyer of their own !hoi!e. in Criminal Case &o. p. $ran!h 1+. that said e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions are inadmissible in eviden!e. A55ELLA-T AR-AL/O A-/ A55ELLA-T . .en!e. +66+. dated #ebruary +4. <ne of the main issues raised is: THE TRIAL CO3RT ERRE/ I. appellants filed their &oti!e of -ppeal on +D -ugust +664. %ous to his !o-appellants" and that -tty. %ous were asso!iates of the =-<C #.e maintains.e insists that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession was eli!ited through for!e. ?minga and -tty.+' . .A a!!used-appellants are further ordered to pay private !omplainants the amount of =166.omi!ide.

e !laims that he was not given freedom to !hoose his !ounsel" that the agents of the =-<C # did not ask him during the !ustodial investigation whether he had a lawyer of his own !hoi!e. @-D4+'1. when the investigating offi!er starts to ask 0uestions to eli!it information andEor !onfessions or admissions from the a!!used. a!!ording to the =-<C #. 13>. +am'oa v.4+4..43+. . /. i. &o. 2. Cru5. . hus. ?minga to him. had assisted him during the !ustodial investigation..C . we have held that an e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is admissible in eviden!e if the following re0uisites have been satisfied: (1! i" #u7" 8e *olu&"'ry+ . #eople v. 41+ (1''DA. +' De!ember 1''D.++1B>6C he right to !ounsel is a fundamental right and is intended to pre!lude the slightest !oer!ion as would lead the a!!used to admit something false. Olermo. #eople v. ase.A. .++6B4'C Su!h right !ontemplates effe!tive !ommuni!ation whi!h results in the sub8e!t understanding what is !onveyed.' (+663A. &o. . 14+ SC%. *f the lawyer is one furnished in behalf of a!!used..3''. he should be !ompetent and independent" that is... 4D. as far as reasonably possible./D =hil. #eople v.6 .e.!ompetent and independent !ounsel is logi!ally re0uired to be present and able to advi!e and assist his !lient from the time the latter answers the first 0uestion asked by the investigator until the signing +1'B4>C ++6B4'C ++1B>6C +++B>1C ++. +D1 SC%.919<6 = he right of an a!!used to be informed of the right to remain silent and to !ounsel co&"e#pl'"e7 "$e "r'&7#i77io& o( #e'&i&%(ul i&(or#'"io& r'"$er "$'& Au7" "$e cere#o&i'l '&) per(u&c"ory reci"'"io& o( '& '87"r'c" co&7"i"u"io&'l pri&ciple. %ous who.B>+C ++3B>. #eople v. 14D (+66. 16.+++B>1C he right to !ounsel atta!hes upon the start of the investigation. +> 5une 1'//.16 =hil.++3B>.%.2! i" #u7" 8e i& wri"i&%. /+3. /6. 4. %eniega.>.%.6 a lawyer. 343 =hil.B>+C he lawyer !alled to be present during su!h investigation should be.e avers that he was not assisted by any lawyer from the time he was arrested until he was !oer!ed to sign the purported !onfession" that he was for!ed to sign it be!ause he !ould not anymore endure the beatings he suffered at the hands of the =-<C # agents" and that he never met or knew -tty. /1D (+666A. "aya'oc. . he must be willing to fully safeguard the !onstitutional rights of the a!!used.C #eople v. 3D3 =hil..++.9! i" #u7" 8e #')e wi"$ "$e '77i7"'&ce o( co#pe"e&" '&) i&)epe&)e&" cou&7el+ . as it was pro!ured in violation of his !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation. and whether he !ould afford to hire a lawyer" and that the agents of the =-<C # suggested the availability of -tty. the !hoi!e of the a!!used. Agustin. D'3. 2.3! i" #u7" 8e e@pre77+ '&) . -ppellant -rnaldo !ontends that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession should be e(!luded as eviden!e.

7hen asked if they had a lawyer of their own. be!ause it appeared ++DB>3C ++4B>DC ++>B>4C ++/B>>C #eople v. )oreover. %ous. ?minga and -tty. they replied in the affirmative. 11' (+66+A. i" w'7 ')op"e) i& our Co&7"i"u"io& "o preclu)e "$e 7li%$"e7" coercio& o& "$e 'ccu7e) "o ')#i" 7o#e"$i&% ('l7e. r'"$er. *elarde. supra note 4>. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores and their respe!tive !ounsels. T$e pre7e&ce o( ' l'wyer i7 &o" i&"e&)e) "o 7"op '& 'ccu7e) (ro# 7'yi&% '&y"$i&% w$ic$ #i%$" i&cri#i&'"e $i#+ 8u". .++/B>>C *ndeed. 3. a lawyer need not !hallenge all the 0uestions being propounded to his !lient. when asked if they understood their said rights. while appellant #lores agreed to be represented by -tty. the lawyer should as!ertain that the !onfession was made voluntarily.. #eople v.1 of the !onfession.. hereafter. S&. ase.1+-. ?minga. appellant -rnaldo replied that he would be assisted by -tty. the foregoing rule is not intended to deter to the a!!used from !onfessing guilt if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires. and that anything they would say may be used against them in a !ourt of law. and that the person under investigation fully understood the nature and the !onse0uen!e of his e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession vis-a-vis his !onstitutional rights. %ous attested to the vera!ity of the afore-!ited fa!ts in their respe!tive !ourt testimonies. pp. ++DB>3C . the =-<C # investigators had informed them that the interrogation about to be !ondu!ted on them referred to the kidnapping of the Jao family.++4B>DC 7e have gone over the re!ords and found that the =-<C # investigators have duly apprised appellants -rnaldo and #lores of their !onstitutional rights to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel of their own !hoi!e during their respe!tive !ustodial investigations. hey were also told that they were entitled to a !ounsel of their own !hoi!e. hereafter. the language spoken and understood by them. -tty. the appraisal of appellants1 !onstitutional rights was not merely perfun!tory. o be an effe!tive !ounsel.1 . the =-<C # agents e(plained to them that they had a !onstitutional right to remain silent.owever.1/. %ous. ?minga and -tty. %e!ords. T$e cou&7el 7$oul) &e*er pre*e&" '& 'ccu7e) (ro# (reely '&) *olu&"'rily "elli&% "$e "ru"$. but to prote!t him from admitting what he is being !oer!ed to admit although untrue. and that they would be provided with one if they had none. also signed and thumbmarked the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions.. -tty. .3 =hil. he #asu'ali00/7789 of appellants -rnaldo and #lores1s written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions !learly shows that before they made their respe!tive !onfessions. +D September +661 and +> September +661. 16+. he appraisal of their !onstitutional rights was done in the presen!e of their respe!tive lawyers and in the &agalog diale!t.

.e instru!ted appellant -rnaldo to read and !omprehend the same !arefully. he read it entirely and thereafter gave it to appellant -rnaldo. hereupon. D-'. . but he found none.++'B>/C #urther.+ . . -tty. %e!ords refle!t that appellants -rnaldo and %eyes were likewise a!!orded their right to !ompetent and independent !ounsel during their respe!tive !ustodial investigations. e(er!ised their fundamental rights after being informed thereof.+ !ertain that appellants had understood and. pp. . -ppellant -rnaldo replied in the negative. ?minga asked him if he had ob8e!tions to !onferen!e with appellant -rnaldo lasted for 1D minutes or more. he and appellant -rnaldo went to a !ubi!le where only the two of them were present. . -tty.e re0uested appellant -rnaldo to remove his shirt for him to !he!k if there were torture marks on his body. . ?pon obtaining su!h !opy. -fter the =-<C # investigators and agents left them. -tty. so that they !ould freely !onverse. -s regards appellant -rnaldo. ?minga testified that prior to the 0uestioning of appellant -rnaldo about the in!ident. -ppellant -rnaldo replied that he wanted to make a !onfession about his parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the Jao family. hereafter. -ppellant -rnaldo agreed. -ppellant -rnaldo answered in the negative. . ?minga re0uested the =-<C # investigators to give him a !opy of appellant -rnaldo1s !onfession. .. and that he was not being for!ed to sign. -tty. he allowed the =-<C # investigators to 0uestion appellant -rnaldo.e warned appellant -rnaldo that he might be senten!ed to death if he !onfessed involvement in the in!ident. +> September +661. -fter the taking of appellant -rnaldo1s !onfession. -ppellant -rnaldo manifested that he would sign his ++'B>/C S&. in fa!t. -ppellant -rnaldo answered that he would fa!e the !onse0uen!es be!ause he was bothered by his !ons!ien!e.e then reminded appellant -rnaldo that the latter !ould still !hange his mind. he asked appellant -rnaldo if the latter would a!!ept his assistan!e as his lawyer for purposes of his !onfession. .e interviewed appellant -rnaldo in the agalog language regarding the latter1s personal !ir!umstan!es and asked him why he was in the =-<C # offi!e and why he wanted a lawyer. -tty. ?minga told the =-<C # investigators and agents to give him and appellant -rnaldo spa!e and priva!y. . -ppellant -rnaldo read his entire written !onfession and handed it to him. ?minga sat beside appellant -rnaldo during the in0uiry and listened to the latter1s entire !onfession.e told appellant -rnaldo to ask him for !larifi!ation and !omment if he did not agree or understand any part of his written !onfession.e also observed that appellant -rnaldo1s appearan!e and movements were normal.e in0uired from appellant -rnaldo if he was harmed or intimidated into giving self-in!riminating statements to the =-<C # investigators.. .

at '-1D... %ous warned appellant #lores that his !onfession would be used against him in a !ourt of law. %ous stayed with appellant #lores while the latter was giving statements to the =-<C # investigators. ?minga testified that he was a former &ational $ureau of *nvestigation (&$*A agent. .6B>'C +. -fterwards.. ?minga and -tty. @ater. -tty. +-13. #eople v.+B/1C *t is true that it was the =-<C # whi!h !onta!ted and suggested the availability of -tty. . -tty. %ous de!lared that before the =-<C # investigators began 0uestioning appellant. -ppellant #lores answered that he was bothered by his !ons!ien!e.+. where only the two of them were present.e asked appellant #lores about his personal !ir!umstan!es. nevertheless.1B/6C -dditionally. -ppellant #lores replied that he was a suspe!t in the kidnapping of the Jao family. .e also read appellant #lores1 written !onfession.e asked appellant #lores why he wanted to give su!h !onfession. hereafter. -lthough -tty. . but found none. .B/+C here was no !onfli!t of interest with regard to the legal assistan!e rendered by -tty. -ppellant #lores told him that he wanted to tell the truth and unload the burden on his mind.1B/6C +.+. %ous. but the latter maintained that he wanted to tell the truth. -ppellant #lores affirmed that he would. at 13-1'. $oth !ounsels had no interest adverse to appellants -rnaldo and #lores. he !autioned appellant #lores about the serious !onse0uen!es of his !onfession. pp. he permitted the =-<C # investigators to 0uestion appellant #lores. this does not automati!ally imply that their right to !ounsel was violated.6B>'C 7ith respe!t to appellant #lores. one who will effe!tively undertake his !lient1s defense without any intervening !onfli!t of interest. &onetheless.e re0uested appellant #lores to lift his shirt for the former to verify if there were torture marks or bruises on his body. -tty. he instru!ted appellant #lores to read and !he!k his written !onfession. *elarde. . and that the death penalty might be imposed on him. !larified that he had been separated +. -gain. *d. -fter the taking of appellant #lores1 statements. -tty. . respe!tively. %ous to appellants -rnaldo and #lores.B/+C *d... -ppellant #lores read the same and made some minor !orre!tions. written !onfession.e asked appellant #lores whether he would a!!ept his assistan!e as his lawyer. he. ?minga and -tty.+.. %ous interviewed him in agalog inside a room. supra note >3. he and appellant -rnaldo affi(ed their signatures to the written !onfession. +D September +661. S&. 7hat the Constitution re0uires is the presen!e of !ompetent and independent !ounsel.+.. he and appellant #lores signed the latter1s written !onfession. and he wanted to give a !onfession regarding his involvement in the said in!ident.+B/1C +.

the progress of the interrogation by simply sele!ting a lawyer who./B/>C we stated: he Constitution further re0uires that the !ounsel be independent" thus.+. be!ause he happened to be the lawyer manning the offi!e when the =-<C # !alled. here was no eviden!e showing that -tty.3 therefrom sin!e 1''3+. %ous1 duty as member of the said group was to render legal assistan!e to the indigents in!luding suspe!ts under !ustodial investigation. for one reason or another. %ous had organiGational or personal links to the =-<C #. <therwise. #eople v..>B/4C I& &eople !. nay. ?minga de!lared under oath that he was a private pra!titioner when he assisted appellant -rnaldo during the !ustodial investigation. publi! or private prose!utor. -rti!le *** of the 1'/> Constitution. he phrase Eprefera'ly of 2is o?n c2oiceF does not !onvey the message that the !hoi!e of a lawyer by a person under investigation is e(!lusive as to pre!lude other e0ually !ompetent and independent attorneys from handling the defense.>B/4C +.+. an a!!used is entitled to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. D. . 'D3 (+663A.3 . as earlier stated. pp. :a4ro. *d.DB/3C +. ?minga was !alled by the =-<C # to assist appellant -rnaldo. Mo=ello. he indelible fa!t is that he was president of the Oambales Chapter of the *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines. was a member of the #ree @egal -id Committee of the *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines. +> September +661. he pro!eeded to the =-<C # offi!e to assist appellant #lores. %ous. 34/ =hil. S&. is not available to prote!t his interest.3B/. #urther. -tty.'B//C S&. at 4. obstru!t.+. !ounsel of the poli!e.+. on the other hand. &or is there any eviden!e that he had any interest adverse to that of the a!!used. p. under Se!tion 1+(1A. +D September +661. *n fa!t.. -tty. the suspe!t has the final !hoi!e. be!ause -tty. as he may re8e!t the !ounsel !hosen for him and ask for another one. ?minga1s telephone number was listed on the dire!tory of his former &$* offi!emates detailed at the =-<C #. 3-D. or a muni!ipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the a!!used. RueGon City at the time he rendered legal assistan!e to appellant #lores.C when he went into private pra!ti!e. he !annot be a spe!ial !ounsel.3B/..C provided by the +.DB/3C *t appears that -tty. 5ung!o does not fall under any of said enumeration.4B/DC +. *d. -tty. .+. the tempo of !ustodial investigation would be solely in the hands of the a!!used who !an impede. and not a la!key of the lawmen.4B/DC =art of -tty.'B//C 7hile the !hoi!e of a lawyer in !ases where the person under !ustodial interrogation !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel I or where the preferred lawyer is not available I is naturally lodged in the poli!e investigators./B/>C +. '33. Supra note 4D at >+4.

and the a!!used thereafter subs!ribes to the vera!ity of the statement before the swearing offi!er. hey did not submit any medi!al report showing that their bodies were sub8e!ted to violen!e or torture.B'+C #eople v.. -ppellant -rnaldo manifested that he would be assisted by -tty. %ous. . respe!tively. supra note 4>. ?minga and -tty. unless prompted by truth and !ons!ien!e. Sin!e the prose!ution has suffi!iently established that the respe!tive e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellant -rnaldo and appellant #lores were obtained in a!!ordan!e with the !onstitutional guarantees. they did not present any plausible proof to substantiate their !laims. ?minga.en!e.D investigators is deemed engaged by the a!!used when he does not raise any ob8e!tion to the !ounsel1s appointment during the !ourse of the investigation.+3+B'1C *n the !ase at bar. %e!ords also bear out that they were physi!ally e(amined by do!tors before they made their !onfessions. 2. 3+/ SC%. respe!tively. the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to pro!ure the !onfessions rests on appellants -rnaldo and #lores.4/D-/4. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores averred that they informed their family membersErelatives of the alleged maltreatment. while appellant #lores agreed to be !ounseled by -tty.%. ?minga and -tty. ?minga and -tty.+36B/'C -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores did not ob8e!t to the appointment of -tty.D . ase. <n the !ontrary. . %ous as their lawyers. &either did they file !omplaints against the persons who had allegedly beaten or for!ed them to e(e!ute their respe!tive !onfessions despite several opportunities to do so. %ous !ountersigned the written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores. &os. 1/. and that they were not promised or given any award in !onsideration of the same. -tty. during their !ustodial investigation. appellants -rnaldo and #lores failed to dis!harge their burden of proving that they were for!ed or !oer!ed to make their respe!tive !onfessions. ?minga and -tty. but the latter did not report su!h allegations to proper authorities.. p..4. =rior to their 0uestioning. +6 )ay +663. %ous.B'+C heir physi!al e(amination reports !ertify that no e(ternal signs of physi!al in8ury or any form of trauma were noted during their +36B/'C +31B'6C +3+B'1C +3. these !onfessions are admissible. 1. #eople v. <ther than their self-serving statements that they were maltreated by the =-<C # offi!ersEagents... #eople v.+3. %e!ords. appellants -rnaldo and #lores de!lared in their respe!tive !onfessions that they were not for!ed or harmed in giving their sworn statements. supra note 4D. respe!tively. appellants -rnaldo and #lores !onferred with -tty. %ous.. agnate. appellants -rnaldo and #lores are deemed to have engaged the servi!es of -tty. Aa'ro.+31B'6C Conse0uently. hey are eviden!e of a high order be!ause of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly !onfess to a !rime. 4D1.

the !onfession e(hibits no suspi!ious !ir!umstan!es tending to !ast doubt upon its integrity. Alvare5.2! w$ere "$ere 'ppe're) "o 8e &o #'rL7 o( *iole&ce o& "$eir 8o)ie7+ '&) . D/+ (1'/4A.C I& &eople !.4 .>>.. he voluntariness of a !onfession may be inferred from its language if. ++' =hil.C +3DB'3C +34B'DC +3>B'4C +3/B'>C +3'B'/C *d.+33B'.. . D September 1''1.1! w$ere "$e 'ccu7e) ('ile) "o pre7e&" cre)i8le e*i)e&ce o( co#pul7io& or )ure77 or *iole&ce o& "$eir per7o&7+ . &o.1! w$ere "$ey )i) &o" $'*e "$e#7el*e7 e@'#i&e) 8y ' repu"'8le p$y7ici'& "o 8u""re77 "$eir cl'i#. that !onfession is re!eivable as eviden!e against a !o-a!!used. at 1'. Encipido03-7@89 we elu!idated as follows: *t is also to be noted that -==9@@-& S1 e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions were independently made without !ollusion. thereby ruling out the possibility that these were involuntarily made. +61 SC%. it being replete with details whi!h !ould only be supplied by the a!!used. &ia. 11>D.43. hey are also admissible as !orroborative eviden!e against the others. "antos v.6 =hil. hey are. 366 =hil. +. therefore. 1+64 (+666A. heir e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions !learly state how appellants and their !ohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the se0uen!e of events before. D>3 (1'/4A. D>>. also admissible as !ir!umstantial eviden!e against their !oa!!used impli!ated therein to show the probability of the latter1s a!tual parti!ipation in the !ommission of the !rime. *t should also be noted that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores are replete with details on the manner in whi!h the kidnapping was !ommitted. upon its fa!e. //3D1. 8urispruden!e makes it admissible as !orroborative eviden!e of other fa!ts that tend to establish the guilt of his !o-a!!used.+34B'DC 7ith respe!t to appellant %eyes1s !laim that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores !annot be used in eviden!e against him. during and after its o!!urren!e..%.+3/B'>C we ruled that where the !onfession is used as !ir!umstantial eviden!e to show the probability of parti!ipation by the !o-!onspirator. supra note '6.921<92= we $el) "$'" "$e (ollowi&% ('c"or7 i&)ic'"e *olu&"'ri&e77 o( '& e@"r'GAu)ici'l co&(e77io&I .+3>B'4C *n #eople v. 2. are identi!al with ea!h other in their material respe!ts and !onfirmatory of the other. it being !lear from other fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es presented that persons other than the de!larants themselves parti!ipated in the !ommission of the !rime !harged and +33B'. #eople v. *n #eople v. agnate. . D46..4 e(amination. "andigan'ayan. we have ruled that although an e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is admissible only against the !onfessant.3! w$ere "$ey )i) &o" i&7"i"u"e '&y cri#i&'l or ')#i&i7"r'"i*e 'c"io& '%'i&7" "$eir 'lle%e) i&"i#i)'"or7 (or #'l"re'"#e&"+ .9! w$ere "$ey ('ile) "o co#pl'i& "o "$e o((icer7 w$o ')#i&i7"ere) "$e o'"$7+ .

+3. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores stated in their respe!tive !onfessions that appellant %eyes parti!ipated in their kidnapping of the Jao family.I <n the matter of a!!used-appellant1s !laim of having been denied due pro!ess. Sin!e the a!!used-appellant was already represented by a member of the =hilippine $ar who prin!ipally handled his defense. 5EO5LE. J. hey are what is !ommonly known as interlo!king !onfession and !onstitute an e(!eption to the general rule that e(tra8udi!ial !onfessionsEadmissions are admissible in eviden!e only against the de!larants thereof. %eyes. hese statements are.. +3'. -t +D6 +D1 B. )ay '.C B3C $ollo. 4. approved by the % C in its <rder dated -ugust 3.'>1. admissible as !orroborative and !ir!umstantial eviden!e to prove appellant %eyes1 guilt. appellant was afforded !ompetent representation by the =ubli! -ttorneys1 <ffi!e during the presentation by the prose!ution of the medi!o-legal offi!er and during the presentation of his eviden!e..9 CAR5IO MORALES.. an e(amination of the re!ords shows that while a!!usedappellant was represented by -tty. #eople v. +666 and subse0uently. p. 1 929.> . %*2. therefore. +666. the latter withdrew her appearan!e with the !onformity of the former as early as 5uly +/. 5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS.. .. 14' 2. < C<?&S9@ he person who assisted him in !ourt during his arraignment and pre-trial is not a lawyer.> proved.C (?nders!oring suppliedA hat appellant1s first !ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa!t that appellant prevented &elia and !ompany from pro!eeding to their destination. hereafter. SC%.. Elesterio+D1B3C enlightens: :-s for the !ir!umstan!e that the defense !ounsel turned out later to be a non-lawyer. during the early stages of trial.%. -o. :. &o. 1'/'. then he !annot now be heard to !omplain about having been denied of due pro!ess. albeit unsu!!essfully. 5o!elyn =. .e8ru'ry 19.R. 1>. %ainald C. 9. it is observed that he was !hosen by the a!!used himself and that his representation does not !hange the fa!t that 9lesterio was undeniably !arrying an unli!ensed firearm when he was arrested. #urther.+D6B. a!!used-appellant was represented by -tty. who :seems not a lawyer. =aggao from the =ubli! Defender1s (-ttorney1sA <ffi!e of )akati City.

-legria. 1+' SC%. 1''6 . = vs. = vs. )ar!os. =.3. 5anuary 1>.11. =. Caguioa. 1D3 SC%. Saludar. 13/ SC%. 1''6 Could the #is!al also represent the a!!used during !ustodial investigation to satisfy the re0uirement of the Constitution that the a!!used is assisted by !ounselN &o. . 14. = vs... not the a!!used or the suspe!t. 5uly 3.4+3 .1. vs. 1''6 1-d.. -ugust +6. %ead: =. = vs. aylaran. =ena. 5ara. 1D.D1. -mpo-an. September +/. = vs.>66 '. vs. 133 SC%. = vs. = vs. =.ow about if the lawyer who assisted him during !ustodial investigation is a publi! attorney who was not !hosen by the a!!used himself but given to him free of !hargeN he e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible as eviden!e. 1''6 1-e.4+3 1.+63 (&ote that this !riti!iGed by !onstitutionalistsA 4. &ulla.1 D. SC%. 14+ SC%. =./ any rate./ . '4 SC%. Midagan. Sandiganbayan.ernandeG. 1/1 SC%. SC%.. )atos-Fiduaya. =. awat. 9sta!io vs. SC%.D14 de!ision is widely . 16. <lvis.1+ 1-g. 13> SC%.>. =e!ardal. 16/ SC%. = vs. SC%. 1/. 1''6 1-f. = vs. = vs. vs.D/' 13. D> SC%. &olas!o. 1D6 SC%. he has sin!e been represented by a member of the =hilippine bar.3>1 /. vs. 1'/6 ll. 1-b. $uenaflor.++D +. he #is!al is the !ounsel for the State. who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant1s brief. = vs. vs. >. vs.4+. 5uly . = vs. 13D SC%..3++ 1-!. @adrera. /6 SC%. = vs. (?nders!oring suppliedA %ead also: 1..3/1 1-a. 1D. = vs. )ar0ueG. he right to !ounsel.. ampus. 3. @asa!. September 11.4+3 1+. %ead: =.

13D SC%. 1.. = vs. -bano.3'4 D-a.3+4 >.1+. SC%. = vs.iGon. 7ho !an ob8e!t to the admissibility of an %ead: presumption of e(tra8udi!ial !onfessionN . -lbofera. *s the right to !ounsel indispensable in non-!riminal pro!eedingsN %ead: 1. SC%. Salig. = vs. 116 SC%. 1D+ SC%. 1D+ SC%. = vs.' D.D'> D. %ight to remain silent and to !ounsel and the right to be informed of su!h rights" !ases in generalEwhen does these rights demandableN 9ffe!t of its non-observan!e by the investigator %ead: 1.+> 1-b. 5anuary >.. 1-!. 14+ SC%. 1. CruG.3> 1-a. 1D3 SC%./ 3. 143 SC%. = vs.43+ 1-b. 5ara. 1+1 SC%. Duero. 14.. olentino. = vs. )orales vs.D1. = vs. &era vs. =rudente. = vs. De!ierdo. SC%. ..>46 1-!. 13D SC%. 163 SC%. 5anuary /. =on!e 9nrile. Felas!o.D' 4. = vs..>13.' .1'/> 4. -uditor 2enral.136 ..D. l'/> D. =resumptions on e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions(that offi!ial a!ts were regularly performed as against the presumption against waiver of !onstitutional rightsA %ead: 1. 14+ SC%. 116 SC%. 133 SC%. = vs. SC%.DDD 3. = vs.1' +. = vs.. 1-a. = vs. = vs. rinidad. Diokno vs. 13' SC%. 9nrile.. 14D SC%.1 4. = vs. %o8as...>' +. = vs.4D1 / = vs. CruG. @asanas. Capitin. <lvis. 2amboa vs. Santiago..D14 . when the regularity does not apply >. 1.


1. Stonehill vs. Diokno, supra +. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D>4 .. =. vs. loveria, 5uly +, 1''6 /. *nadmissible as eviden!e a. he do!trine of the Hfruit of the poisoned treeH

9ven if the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible as eviden!e, a!!used still held guilty by the Supreme Court. 5EO5LE VS. ROLA-/O .ELIEMI-IA y CAMACHO :R -o. 191333, M'rc$ 9;, 9;;9 9n $an! #a!ts: 1. *n the morning of September 1', 1''D, a!!used-appellant and his !ousin, %<&&*9 2-%C*- were drinking gin in a !anteen in ?rdaneta, =angasinan" +. -t around 16 a.m. of the same day, %osita )angunay saw both persons walking along -mbrosio St., in the pobla!ion and noti!ed that they smelled li0uor when they greeted her" .. *n the early afternoon of the same day, a!!used-appellant and his !ousin went to look for 4-year old )aria @ourdes 2alinato, also known as isay and found her playing inside a 8eepney and took her" 3. -t around +:3D p.m. of the same day, )angunay again saw the a!!used-appellant walking along -mbrosio St., !arrying isay who was !rying and struggling. She !laimed that she !learly saw the a!!usedappellant sin!e they were walking towards ea!h other !oming from opposite dire!tions" D. $efore . to 3 p.m., prose!ution witness &atividad $ernardo, saw a!!used-appellant pass their house !arrying a !hild who looked about D-4 years old. 4. -t about the same time, witness @eah )agno saw the a!!usedappellant !arrying a !hild was seen heading towards the wooded area in the )a!along %iver"



>. $y D p.m. to 4:.6 p.m. of that same day, )agno saw a!!usedappellant walking alone to town !oming from the dire!tion of the )a!along %iver" /. )eanwhile, the parents of isay were franti!ally sear!hing for their !hild and when their sear!h proved futile, they reported the matter to the $arangay Captain and to the =oli!e" '. ?pon re!eipt of the information that the !hild was last seen with the a!!used-appellant, the poli!e together with the $arangay Captains of Camantiles and $ayaoas, ?rdaneta, =angasinan, pro!eeded to the house of the a!!used-appellant" 16. -s they approa!hed the house, the a!!used-appellant 8umped out of the window !arrying a bla!k bag. he poli!e authorities gave !hase and finally !aught him after twenty (+6A e(hausting hours" 11. -fter his arrest, a!!used-appellant was brought to the ?rdaneta =oli!e Station where he admitted that he raped, killed and buried )aria @ourdes near the )a!along %iver in $arangay San Fi!ente, ?rdaneta, =angasinan, while ?&D9% *&F9S *2- *<& 7* ,<? ,9 -SS*S -&C9 <# - @-7J9%. *&D99D, ,9 $<DJ <# *S-J 7-S #<?&D *& ,9 =@-C9 7,*C, ,9 D9SC%*$9D D?%*&2 ,*S C?S <D*-@ *&F9S *2- *<&. 1+. -fter trial, the trial !ourt (% C 3D presided over by 5?D29 5<F9& C<S -@9SA rendered a 8udgment of !onvi!tion and imposing the penalty of death to the a!!used-appellant. he !ourt admitted as eviden!e the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used-appellant and used the same as one of the grounds in support of the 8udgment of !onvi!tion. ISS%ES 1. *s the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used Iappellant admissible in eviden!eN +. 7hether the lower !ourt erred in !onvi!ting in !onvi!ting the a!!used-appellantN ,eld: 1 he alleged e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used while under !ustodial investigation and without the assistan!e of !ounsel is inadmissible in eviden!e despite the fa!t that he was allegedly appraised of his !onstitutional rights to remain silent and to !ounsel.


his is so be!ause under the 1'/> Constitution, the said rights !ould not be waived e(!ept in the presen!e of !ounsel. -s su!h, in a!!ordan!e with the do!trine of the Kfruit of the poisoned tree1, the same is inadmissible in eviden!e. -ny information or admission given by a person while in !ustody whi!h may appear harmless or inno!uous at the time without the !ompetent assistan!e or an independent !ounsel should be stru!k down as inadmissible. + T$ou%$ "$e e@"r'Au)ici'l co&(e77io& o( "$e 'ccu7e)G 'ppell'&" i7 i&')#i77i8le '7 e*i)e&ce, $i7 co&*ic"io& 8y "$e "ri'l cour" i7 correc". T$i7 i7 7o 8ec'u7e <1= "$e co#pro#i7i&% circu#7"'&ce7 were )uly pro*e& w$ic$ were co&7i7"e&" wi"$ e'c$ o"$er '&) w$ic$ le') wi"$ #or'l cer"'i&"y "o "$e co&clu7io& "$'" $e w'7 %uil"y o( "$e cri#e c$'r%e)+ '&) <9= "$e "o"'li"y o( 7uc$ circu#7"'&ce7 eli#i&'"e) 8eyo&) )ou8" "$e po77i8ili"y o( $i7 i&&oce&ce. I& 5eople *7. M'$i&'y, i" w'7 $el) "$'" co&*ic"io& #'y 8e $') o& circu#7"'&"i'l e*i)e&ce pro*i)e) "$e (ollowi&% reCui7i"e7 're pre7e&"I <'= "$ere i7 #ore "$'& o&e circu#7"'&ce+ <8= "$e ('c"7 (ro# w$ic$ "$e i&(ere&ce7 're )eri*e) 're pro*e&+ '&) <c= "$e co#8i&'"io& o( 'll circu#7"'&ce7 i7 7uc$ '7 "o pro)uce ' co&*ic"io& 8eyo&) re'7o&'8le )ou8". T$e e*i)e&ce i& "$i7 c'7e 're #ore "$'& 7u((icie&" "o pro*e "$e 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&"N7 8eyo&) re'7o&'8le )ou8". Circu#7"'&"i'l e*i)e&ce i7 &o" ' we'Ler (or# o( e*i)e&ce *i7GWG*i7 )irec" e*i)e&ce '&) c'7e7 $'*e reco%&iJe) "$'" circu#7"'&"i'l e*i)e&ce i& i"7 wei%$" '&) pro8'"i*e (orce, #'y 7urp'77 )irec" e*i)e&ce i& i"7 e((ec" upo& "$e Supre#e Cour". (-OTE: he indemnifi!ation for the death of a person in a rape with ,omi!ide !ases was in!reased from =D6,666.66 to =1+D,666.66. he said indemnity shall also be appli!able where the death penalty is authoriGed by appli!able amendatory lawsAA b. he e(!lusionary rule, 13D SC%- >66 %ead: 1. = vs. $urgos, 133 SC%- D14 +. = vs. -l!araG,1.4 SC%- >3 .. Does it also in!lude the !onfession of a a!!usedN

witness, not the



%ead: 1. = vs. $ombesa, 14+ SC%- 36+ +. p. vs. Jutu!, 5uly +4, 1''6 '. Se!. 1+(+A %ead: 1. DiGon vs. 2en. 9duardo, )ay .,1'// +. = vs. 9ligino, -ugust 11,1'// .. Contado vs. an, -pril 1D, 1'// 16. 9(tra8udi!ial !onfession" when admissible or %ead: 1. he admissibility of an e(tra8udi!ial prose!ution,13+ SC%- 116 +. -dmissibility of an e(tra8udi!ial 31' and 16 SC%- D+6 !onfession in a !riminal !onfession,1.D SC%for!e, 113 SC%- 4.> inadmissible

.. *nadmissibility of an admission obtained by SC%- +.3 3. Confession as eviden!e against the a!!used, '4 %ead: D. = vs. Camalog, 5anuary .1, 1'/' D-a. = vs. Capulong, 146 SC%- D.. D-b. = vs. @agahan, De!ember /, 1'// D-!. = vs. Dino, 146 SC%- 1'> D-d. = vs. Caramonte, '3 SC%- 1D6 D-e. = vs. 9n!iso, 146 SC%- >+/ D-d. = vs. -bano, 13D SC%- D4D D-e. = vs. RuiGon, 13+ SC%- .4+ D-f. = vs. <lvis, 1D3 SC%- D1. D-g. = vs. %obles, 163 SC%- 3D6 D-h. = vs. 9ligino, 143 SC%- +46 D-i. = vs. -be8ero, )ay 1>,l'/6 D-8. =. vs. $agano, 1/1 SC%- .3 D-k. =. vs. 9stevan, 1/4 SC%- 1/3 D-l. =. vs. %amos, 1/4 SC%- 1/3



D-m. =. vs. #lores, 1/4 SC%- .6. D-n. =. vs. 5ung!o, 1/4 SC%- >13 D-o. =. vs. -rsenio, 1/3 SC%- +6D 4. = vs. Fillanueva, 1+/ SC%- 3// >. = vs. De8ares!o, 1+' SC%- D>4 /. = vs. uvera, 1.6 SC%- 14' '. = vs. )aternal, 1.6 SC%- 4+D 16. = vs. &ilos, 1+> SC%- +6> 11. = vs. San!heG, 1.+ SC%- 16. 1+. = vs. =iGarro, 1.1 SC%- 31/ 1.. = vs. Sabilano, 1.+ SC%- /. 13. = vs. Feloso, 13/ SC%- 46 1D. )agtoto vs. )anguera, 4. SC%- 3 14. = vs. 2apasin, 13D SC%- 1>/ 1>. = vs. =alo, 13> SC%- 1>/ 1/. =. vs. De 5esus, 13D SC%- D+1 1'. = vs. =ia, 13D SC%- D/1 +6. = vs. 9n!ipiado, 134 SC%- 3>/ +1. = vs. Canumay, 1.6 SC%- .61 ++. = vs. )arino, 1.6 SC%- D'D +.. = vs. &atipravat, 13D SC%- 3/. +3. = vs. CruG, 1.. SC%a 3+4--when !onfession is valid +D. =. vs. De @a CruG, 1/. SC%- >4.---when !onfession is inadmissible but a!!used is still liable 11. 9viden!e of la!k of !voluntariness %ead: 1. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D14 +. = vs. -bayon, 113 SC%- 1'> 1+. *s the testimony of the arresting offi!er on the !onfession of the a!!used admissibleN %ead: 1. = vs. Dy, 1D/ SC%- 111 CHA5TER EIII G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO 4AIL Se!tion 1.. -ll persons, e(!ept those !harged with offenses punishable by re!lusion perpetua when the eviden!e of guilt is strong, shall before !onvi!tion, be

alleged oral


bailable by suffi!ient sureties, or be released on re!ogniGan!e as may be provided by law. he right to be bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas !orpus is suspended. 9(!essive bail shall not be re0uired. 1. he right to bail, 163 SC%- .>+ +. $ail, /1 SC%- 1// Fi&)7 o( 8'il+ w$e& &o" 'pplic'8le. %e!ogniGan!eEbail for a !onvi!t - J. 5?@*-&- -D-@*)-7,* 9 FS. 5?D29 -%&?@#< $?2 -S, % C + $<%<&2-&, S-)-%, 3>D SC%- 1>D -ustria-)artineG, 5. #a!ts: )anuel $agaporo, 5r. was !onvi!ted of frustrated murder and was senten!ed four years and two months to eight years and one day of imprisonment. ,e started serving his senten!e and subse0uently, he filed an appli!ation for release on re!ogniGan!e. *n support of his appli!ation, the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden issued a !ertifi!ation that $agaoporo has been !onfined at the =rovin!ial 5ail sin!e #ebruary ', 1''4 and is already entitled to parole. -nother !ertifi!ation was issued by the Supervising =arole and =robation <ffi!er showing that $agaporo applied for parole in lieu of the D<51s )aagang =aglaya =rogram. $y virtue of the above !ertifi!ations, respondent 8udge ordered the release of $agaporo upon re!ogniGan!e of the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden of 9astern Samar. ,e likewise 8ustified the same based on the rule that :bail is dis!retionary upon !onvi!tion by the % C of an offense not punishable by death, re!lusion perpetua or life imprisonment. ,eld: %espondent 5udge is guilty of gross ignoran!e of the law for ordering the release of $agaporo pending the approval of his appli!ation for parole and before the !ompletion of the minimum period of the senten!e imposed upon him.



*t is patently erroneous to release a !onvi!t on re!ogniGan!e. Se!tion +3, %ule 113 provides that there shall no bail for a !onvi!t after final 8udgment. he only e(!eption is when the !onvi!t applies for =robation before he !ommen!es to serve his senten!e and that the offense and the penalty for the offense is within the purview of the =robation @aw. Se!tions D and 14 of %ule 113 of the %ules of Court (on the different kinds of bailA A55LIES O-LY TO A- ACC3SE/ 3-/ER:OI-: 5REVE-TIVE IM5RISO-ME-T /3RI-: TRIAL OR O- A55EAL. THEY /O -OT A55LY TO A 5ERSOCO-VICTE/ 4Y .I-AL J3S:ME-T A-/ ALREA/Y SERVI-: SE-TE-CE. 5udge $ugtas was therefore fined =36,666.66 for gross ignoran!e of the law and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar a!t shall be dealt with more severely. .. %ead: 9(!essive bail: 1. De la Camara vs. 9nage, 31 SC%- 1 1-a. =estano vs. 5udge Felas!o, 5uly ., 1''6 7aiver of the right to bail: 1-b. =. vs. Donato, 5une D, 1''1 +. -lmeda vs. FillaluG, 44 SC%- ./ .. )ar!os vs. CruG, 4> and >6 =hil. 3. Fillasenor vs. -bano, +1 SC%- .1+ D. = vs. *-C, 5anuary 16,1'/>, 13> SC%- +1' 4. )anoto! vs. C-, )ay .6,1'/4 >. 2ar!ia vs. Domingo, D+ SC%- 13. /. = vs. San Diego, +4 SC%- D++ 3. See Se!tion 16, %ule 113, 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure 4 a. =ro!edure when prose!utor does not ob8e!t to the petition for bail in !apital offenses: 4'il i& E@"r')i"io& c'7e7. 1 3-ITE/ STATES VS. J3/:E 53R3::A-A- H MARF J3ME-E>


&ovember, +66+ A per7o& ('ci&% e@"r')i"io& procee)i&%7 i7 &o" e&"i"le) "o 8'il e*e& i( "$e cri#e $e w'7 c$'r%e) o( i& ' (orei%& cou&"ry i7 8'il'8le. T$i7 i7 7o 8ec'u7e "$e co&7"i"u"io&'l pro*i7io& o& "$e ri%$" "o 8'il u&)er Ar". III o( "$e 196 Co&7"i"u"io& 'pplie7 o&ly "o cri#i&'l c'7e7, &o" i& e@"r')i"io& procee)i&%7. %ight to noti!e and hearing before the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest in e(tradition !ase when earlier, the e(traditee was allowed to be out on bail by the !ourt. he bail !ould not be !an!elled without hearing. + 9D?-%D< %<D%*2?9O FS. ,9 =%9S*D*&2 5?D29, % C 1>, )-&*@-, 3/. SC%- +'6 Ruisumbing, 5. *n SECRETARY O. J3STICE VS. J3/:E LA-TIO-, 399 SCRA 16; ( he )ark 5imeneG CaseA , the Supreme Court on a '-4 vote held that the e(traditee is entitled to noti!e and hearing even when a re0uest for e(tradition by another !ountry is still being evaluated. ,owever, on )otion for %e!onsideration in the same !ase, in a '-4 de!ision, the Supreme Court held that the prospe!tive e(traditee is not entitled to noti!e and hearing while his !ase is still under evaluation be!ause this would defeat the purpose of the arrest warrant sin!e it !ould give warning that respondents would be arrested and even en!ourage them to flee but entitled to noti!e and hearing if the !ase is already filed in !ourt. *t is a different matter if at first, the e(traditee was allowed bail. he !an!ellation of his bail bond may be made only after noti!e and hearing. <therwise, his right to due pro!ess of law will be violated. (&< 9: *n the !ase of ?S vs. 5udge =urugganan, ./' SC%- 4+.A, the Supreme Court held that the e(traditee is not entitled to post a bond even if the !rime he was !harged of abroad is a bailable offense. his is so be!ause of the possibility of flight.A . :OVER-ME-T O. HO-:FO-: S5ECIAL A/MI-ISTRATIVE RE:IOVS. HO-. .ELIE4ERTO OLALIA, JR., 191 SCRA 2 ;


*n ?&* 9D S - 9S FS. 5?D29 =?%?22-&-&, ./' SC%4+., it was held that the !onstitutional provision on bail does not available in e(tradition pro!eedings. *t applies only in !riminal pro!eedings be!ause of the word :!onvi!tion. ,owever, the modern trend in publi! international law is the prima!y pla!ed on the worth of the individual person and the san!tity of human rights. -s su!h, the right to bail was applied in a deportation pro!eedings, i.e., )95<## FS. D*%9C <% <# =%*S<&S, '6 =hil. >6 B1'D1C and 8ustified the same with the ?niversal de!laration of ,uman %ights. *f the right to bail is available in deportation !ases, then there is no reason why it is not allowed in e(tradition pro!eedings. 4E.ORE A 5ROS5ECTIVE EETRA/ITEE IS ALLO0E/ TO 53T 35 4AIL, HE M3ST 5ROVE 4Y BCLEAR A-/ CO-VI-CI-: EVI/E-CED THAT HE IS -OT A .LI:HT RISF A-/ 0ILL A4I/E 0ITH ALL OR/ERS A-/ 5ROCESSES O. THE EETRA/ITIO- CO3RT. CHA5TER EIV G /3E 5ROCESS I- CRIMI-AL 5ROCEE/I-:S 1. *n general: 1. = vs. errobias, 16. SC%- .+1 5re7u#p"io& o( i&&oce&ce pre*'il7 o*er "$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y i& "$e per(or#'&ce o( o((ici'l )u"ie7 o( "$e police 'u"$ori"ie7 '&) 5re7u#p"io& o( i&&oce&ce re7ul"i&% i& 'cCui""'l '7 ' re7ul" o& co&(lic"i&% '&) i&co&7i7"e&" "e7"i#o&ie7 o( "$e pro7ecu"io&N7 wi"&e77e7I -o&Gco#pli'&ce o( Sec"io& 91, Repu8lic Ac" -o. 9161, *iol'"e7 "$e pre7u#p"io& o( i&&oce&ce o& "$e p'r" o( "$e 'ccu7e) '&) "$ere(ore, $e 7$oul) 8e 'cCui""e). 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. RO-AL/O /E :3>MA-, :.R. -o. 166296, M'rc$ 96, 9;1; <n 5une 16, +66., a !onfidential informant reported De 2uGman1s drug pushing a!tivities to -l!ala, =angasinan1s Chief of =oli!e, Sotero Soriano, 5r. Soriano immediately formed a team to !ondu!t a buy-bust operation. -fter a short briefing, the team pro!eeded to De 2uGman1s house. <n!e there, the !onfidential

hereafter. +66. . on the morning of 5une 16. in turn.66 from his po!ket. ./6. appellant denied the !harges against him. finding De 2uGman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating %. Confirmatory tests revealed that the substan!e in the pa!kets that appellant handed to S=<1 @lanillo was indeed shabu. '14D have effe!tively overturned the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of the poli!e offi!ers1 duties.66. he was hand!uffed and brought to the poli!e station. the poli!e offi!ers frisked him and took the =. S=<. gave him two heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!hets !ontaining what was suspe!ted as shabu. @lanillo tried to buy =+66 worth of shabu. =angasinan.66 in !ash. he team re!overed from De 2uGman two pa!ks of empty transparent sa!hets. and the failure to observe the re0uirements of %. '14D. the % C rendered a de!ision. and the latter. De 2uGman elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on =etition for %eview after the Court of -ppeals affirmed the % C De!ision. . 9duardo Jadao.666.. #urther.e handed two marked =166 bills to De 2uGman. who was designated as poseur-buyer. three disposable lighters. -ppellant was arrested and frisked.3' informant introdu!ed appellant to Senior =oli!e <ffi!er (S=<A1 Daniel @lanillo. S=<. hereafter. .e !laimed that. he was on the se!ond floor of his house wat!hing television when he was informed by his wife that poli!e offi!ers were looking for him. and found a lighter. where his television was. the la!k of !oordination with the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A. &o.e argues that the prose!ution failed to show that the poli!e offi!ers !omplied with the mandatory pro!edures under %. . '14D. he team then brought De 2uGman to the poli!e station in -l!ala.e was senten!ed to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of =D66. -t the poli!e station. he poli!e offi!ers also sear!hed the !abinet. De 2uGman and the items seiGed during the buy-bust operation were turned over to the poli!e investigator..3' . whi!h he denied. @lanillo gave the prearranged signal to the rest of the team. Jadao entered the in!ident in the poli!e blotter. whi!h in!luded the marked money paid by S=<1 @lanillo.-. *n parti!ular. hen. he points to the fa!t that the seiGed items were not marked immediately after his arrest" that the poli!e offi!ers failed to make an inventory of the seiGed items in his presen!e or in the presen!e of his !ounsel and of a representative from the media and from the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A" and that no photographs were taken of the seiGed items and of appellant.. and =.e !laimed that S=<1 @lanillo informed him about a report that he (De 2uGmanA was repa!king shabu. -ppellant also !laims that the unbroken !hain of !ustody of the eviden!e was not established. . -fter trial. &o.-.e then pla!ed his initials on the pa!kets of suspe!ted shabu..-. -t the trial. &o.. whi!h were later submitted to the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A Crime @aboratory in ?rdaneta City. appellant !ontends that the failure of the poli!e offi!ers to enter the buy-bust operation in the poli!e blotter before the said operation.666. .

hus. he Constitution mandates that an a!!used in a !riminal !ase shall be presumed inno!ent until the !ontrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. he presentation in !ourt of the corpus delicti X the body or the substan!e of the !rime I establishes the fa!t that a !rime has a!tually been !ommitted. and the !ourt must a!0uit. his guarantee of the integrity of the eviden!e to be used against an a!!used goes to the very heart of his fundamental rights. one of whi!h is !onsistent with inno!en!e and the other is !ompatible with guilt. the presumption of inno!en!e must prevail. !oupled with the presentation in !ourt of the prohibited or regulated drug.A that the buyer and seller were identified. 7hen the !ir!umstan!es are !apable of two or more inferen! of the re!ords of this !ase reveals that !ir!umstan!es warrant a reversal of the trial !ourt1s de!ision. Conse0uently. as in this !ase. he delivery of the !ontraband to the poseur-buyer and the re!eipt of the marked money !onsummate the buy-bust transa!tion between the entrapping offi!ers and the a!!used. he duty to prove the guilt of an a!!used is reposed in the State. he buyer (S=<1 @lanilloA and seller (De 2uGmanA were both identified and the !ir!umstan!es of how the purported sale of the illegal drugs took pla!e were !learly demonstrated. he prose!ution is laden with the burden to over!ome su!h presumption of inno!en!e by presenting the 0uantum of eviden!e re0uired. the following elements must be proven: (1A that the transa!tion or sale took pla!e" (+A that the corpus delicti or the illi!it drug was presented as eviden!e" and (..D6 HEL/I . the trial !ourt !orre!tly found that the buy-bust transa!tion took pla!e. the prose!ution su!!essfully established the first and third elements of the !rime. . @aw enfor!ers and publi! offi!ers have the duty to preserve the !hain of !ustody over the seiGed drugs. and the !onstitutional right to presumption of inno!en!e re0uires them to take a more than !asual !onsideration of every !ir!umstan!e or doubt favoring the inno!en!e of the a!!used. Contrary to De 2uGman1s !ontention. 7hat is material is the proof that the transa!tion or sale a!tually took pla!e. *n a prose!ution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. there is a problem in the prose!ution1s effort to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. . !ourts are re0uired to put the prose!ution eviden!e through the !ru!ible of a severe testing.D6 .owever.

he failure to follow the pro!edure mandated under %. Controlled #recursors and Essential C2emicals. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed. he Court finds that the apprehending offi!ers failed to !omply with the guidelines set under %. -!!ordingly. immediately after seiGure and !onfis!ation.D1 . or hisEher representative or !ounsel. &o. '14D states: Sec"io& 91. and7or "urrendered %angerous %rugs. !ontrolled pre!ursors and essential !hemi!als. I he =D9. #lant "ources of %angerous %rugs. he !ourt !annot presume what these grounds are or that they even e(ist. non-!omplian!e with the pro!edure shall not render void and invalid the seiGure and !ustody of the drugs only when: (1A su!h non-!omplian!e . seiGed andEor surrendered. S=<1 @lanillo himself admitted that the marking of the seiGed items was done in the poli!e station and not immediately after the buy-bust operation.-. and any ele!ted publi! offi!ial who shall be re0uired to sign the !opies of the inventory and be given a !opy thereof.. plant sour!es of dangerous drugs. -part from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present. &o. &o. '14D and its *%% #u7" 8e ')eCu'"ely e@pl'i&e).D1 he identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral !ertainty. Custody and %isposition of Confiscated. physi!ally inventory and photograph the same in the presen!e of the a!!used or the personEs from whom su!h items were !onfis!ated andEor seiGed. a representative from the media and the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A.shall take !harge and have !ustody of all dangerous drugs. as well as instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory e0uipment so !onfis!ated. the fa!t that the substan!e illegally possessed and sold in the first pla!e is the same substan!e offered in !ourt as e(hibit must likewise be established with the same degree of !ertitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdi!t.-. for proper disposition in the following manner: (1A he apprehending team having initial !ustody and !ontrol of the drugs shall.-. Instruments7#arap2ernalia and7or La'oratory ECuipment. "ei5ed. Se!tion +1 of %. he 8ustifiable ground for non-!omplian!e must be proven as a fa!t. he corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering e(a!titude. '14D and its *%%.

the prose!ution1s failure to prove that the spe!imen submitted for laboratory e(amination was the same one allegedly seiGed from appellant is fatal to the prose!ution1s !ase. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession. )oreover. here was also no mention that representatives from the media and from the D<5. were present during this inventory. it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the eviden!e that a reliable assuran!e !an be derived that the eviden!e presented in !ourt and that seiGed from the a!!used are one and the same.. from the moment the item was pi!ked up to the time it is offered in eviden!e. -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e. that the integrity of the seiGed items has been ade0uately preserved through an unbroken !hain of !ustody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an a!!used. &o. here must be proof that these two (+A re0uirements were met before su!h non-!omplian!e may be said to fall within the s!ope of the proviso. the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of an e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. *ndeed. in su!h a way that every person who tou!hed the e(hibit would des!ribe how and from whom it was re!eived. and only upon seeing the items for the first time at the poli!e station. '14D and its *%%. . the assigned investigator. Jadao. who marked the seiGed items. there was no physi!al inventory made or photographs of the seiGed items taken under the !ir!umstan!es re0uired by %.D+ is attended by 8ustifiable grounds" and (+A the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seiGed items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. hese witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same. . through !onvin!ing proof. *t would in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain. -!!ordingly. but moral !ertainty is re0uired as to every proposition of proof re0uisite to !onstitute the offense.!onvi!tion !annot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. and any ele!ted offi!ial.D+ . he prose!ution never e(plained the reasons for these lapses. -bsolute !ertainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to !onvi!t a person !harged with a !rime. %easonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after su!h investigation to let the mind rest upon the !ertainty of guilt. *ndeed.-. the failure to establish. *n this !ase. it was admitted that it was S=<.

J.C $ollo. +663. )oreover.+D3B.R. allegedly !ommitted as follows:+D. T$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y i& "$e per(or#'&ce o( o((ici'l )u"y c'&&o" 8y i"7el( o*erco#e "$e pre7u#p"io& o( i&&oce&ce &or co&7"i"u"e proo( 8eyo&) re'7o&'8le )ou8t. E/ece#8er 1.onorable Court. the presumption is effe!tively destroyed. -s a general rule. '14D (%. he eviden!e for the prose!ution must stand or fall on its own weight and !annot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. in violation of the above-!ited law.C (?nders!oring suppliedA .-. EL5I/IO 4O-/A/.B+C hat on or about the +'th day of 5anuary +663.D.I 9lpidio $ondad. =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . p.. allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat on or about the +'th day of 5anuary +663. in the City of )arikina. p. hus. '14DA or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs -!t of +66+...onorable Court. +D+ +D. y $ura! (appellantA was !harged before the %egional rial Court (% CA of )arikina City+D+B1C for violation of Se!tion D. par. &o. :. the failure to observe the proper pro!edure negates the operation of the presumption of regularity a!!orded to poli!e offi!ers. %e!ords. even if the defense eviden!e is weak. in the City of )arikina. -o. without being authoriGed by law.ydro!hloride (shabuA !ontained in one (1A heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!het. 5r. the prose!ution !annot find sola!e in its invo!ation of the presumption of regularity in the apprehending offi!ers1 performan!e of offi!ial duty.6+ gram of )ethamphetamine . +(. $ut when the performan!e of their duties is tainted with failure to !omply with the pro!edure and guidelines pres!ribed. and within the 8urisdi!tion of this . &o. %e!ords. >. paragraph +(.2.->3. a dangerous drug. +. '14D.D. JR. unlawfully.6 CAR5IO MORALES. the above-named a!!used. .A. VS. the prose!ution1s whole !ase still falls. +D3 B1C B+C B. . pp. feloniously and knowingly sell to poseur buyer 6. =hilippines. 9. #inally.. 1 36.-. 5EO5LE.*nformation dated #ebruary +.e was likewise !harged for violation of Se!tion 11. did then and there willfully. -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o. + .A. the testimonies of the poli!e offi!ers who apprehended the a!!used are a!!orded full faith and !redit be!ause of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. -rti!le ** also of %.

D3 . yielded heat-sealed plasti! sa!hets !ontaining substan!es suspe!ted to be s2a'u. he !onfidential informant reported. unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession dire!t !ustody and !ontrol 6. =<1 Christopher -nos. about the rampant sale of s2a'u in a billiard hall along $onifa!io -venue. =<+ Dano grabbed appellant1s arm. =<+ Dano removed his !ap. appellant approa!hed =<+ Dano and asked him if he wanted to buy s2a'u. together with the !onfidential informant. the !onfidential informant pointed to appellant who was then holding a !ue sti!k beside the billiard table as the alias :5un. =ESr.. at p. $arangka. he buy-bust team. *nsp. *t was agreed that =<+ Dano1s removal of his !ap would signal that the buy-bust was !onsummated. he !onfidential informant approa!hed appellant and talked to him. =<+ &elson -rribay arrived together with a !onfidential informant. and =<1 %oberto )uega were at the Station -nti *llegal Drug Spe!ial <perations ask #or!e (S-*DS< #A. without being authoriGed by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs. R3/>'3D to be used as buy-bust money. when opened. among others.. &o spe!ifi!ation if it was a po!ket of the shirt or of the pants.+DDB3C (?nders!oring suppliedA -t around >:6D p. and $onifa!io -venue in $arangka. -s the ba!k-up poli!e offi!ers were !losing-in. pro!eeded to . CruG St. did then and there willfully. to whi!h =<+ Dano answered :piso lang. at on!e formed a buy-bust team !omposed of. of 5anuary +'. )arikina City and named a !ertain alias :5un. and apprised appellant of his +DD +D4 B3C BDC *d. =<+ Dano was given a one hundred peso bill bearing Serial &o. =<+ %amiel Soriano and =<+ Dano who was designated as the poseur-buyer. appellant drew out one sa!het in e(!hange for whi!h =<+ Dano gave the marked one hundred peso bill. he Chief of the S-*DS< #. he !ondu!t of a buy-bust operation was re!orded in the poli!e blotter and was !oordinated with the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A whi!h gave it !ontrol number &<C-61+'63-+/. . identified himself. +663. %am!hrisen . !ontainer from his right front po!ket+D4BDC whi!h..ydro!hloride (shabuA. 7ithin minutes. 5r. )arikina City. -ppellant at on!e took out a :Fi!ks..D3 the above-named a!!used. 4. whi!h is a dangerous drug. as the vendor. in violation of the above-!ited law. <ffi!e of the )arikina City =oli!e Station. -t that instant. <n entering the hall. C1s billiard hall at the !orner of ).63 gram of white !rystalline substan!e !ontained in two (+A heat-sealed plasti! sa!hets whi!h gave positive result to the test for )ethamphetamine . #rom the !ontainer. among other things. while =<+ #erdinand $rubio.averia.m.

Chief . (-(-( # * & D * & 2 S: ( ( ( (-(-( (-(-( Rualitative e(amination !ondu!ted on the above-stated spe!imen gave &O3/T/?. re0uesting for the !ondu!t of laboratory e(amination on the seiGed items to determine the presen!e of dangerous drugs and their weight. handed the :Fi!ks. ?pon =<+ Dano1s order. ea!h !ontaining white !rystalline substan!e with following re!orded net weights and markings: ..A heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!hets with markings marked as . in =hysi!al S!ien!e %eport &o. p. result to the tests for Metha(pheta(ine . $ ` 6. 5r. 61E+'E63. who.6. 1D S&. her findings and !on!lusion as follows: S=9C*)9& S?$)* 9D: hree (. =<+ Dano pla!ed the markings :9$$9D $?J$?S 61E+'E63. addressed to the Chief of the 9astern =oli!e Distri!t Crime @aboratory <ffi!e. =<+ Dano also re0uested that appellant be sub8e!ted to a drug test. =<S 1 and +.` 6. at . 5une 1D. and gave his name as 9lpidio $ura! $ondad.ydro hloride. and :9$$-9D. +663. 1> . a laboratory e(amination was !ondu!ted thereon by =oli!e Senior *nspe!tor -nnalee %. the spe!imen submitted. +663+D>B4C was prepared by =ESr. among other things.through C respe!tively.DD . re!orded. C ` 6. !ontainer. upon re!eipt of three sa!hets.6+ gram :9$$-9D =<SS 1 61E+'E63. (-(-( (-(-( (-(-( +D> +D/ +D' B4C B>C B/C *d. 5r. Still at the pla!e of arrest. 31 %e!ords. p. he buy-bust team thereupon brought appellant and the seiGed items to the )arikina City =oli!e Station where a memorandum dated 5anuary +'. a dangerous drug..+D/B>C he following day or on 5anuary . D-66'3-639+D'B/C. appellant returned the buybust money. at p.averia.DD !onstitutional rights. *nsp. !ontainer. on the substan!e-filled sa!het sold to him.). +663.:66 =.6+ gram :9$$-9D =<SS + 61E+'E63. #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er of the 9astern =oli!e Distri!t Crime @aboratory <ffi!e.6+ gram :9$$-9D $?J$?S 61E+'E63.. on the sa!hets that remained inside the :Fi!ks. #orro.

whom he knew was a poli!eman. D -rt. =<+ $rubio. C1s billiard hall. a former poli!e offi!er. (refereeA at the billiard hall at the time appellant was arrested.'14D and is senten!ed to suffer the penalty of @*#9 *)=%*S<&)9& and fine of #*F9 .66. =<+ $rubio.666. ** of %. -rt. disposing as follows: 7. !laimed that he was framed up and gave the following version: <n 5anuary +'.66A pursuant to Se!.66. #inding for the prose!ution. -rt. ** of %. 5%.e was then made to board a !ar and taken to the <ffi!e of the S-*DS< # at the poli!e station. +46B'C (*tali!s and emphasis in the originalA Denying the !harges against him. however. ** of %.D4 . p. y $?%-C guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of Fiolation of Se!.. -fter greeting =<+ $rubio in icolano. D.?&D%9D .. +46 +41B16C B'C 9(hibit :C.. he a!!used is likewise found guilty of the !rime of Fiolation of Se!.through C !ontain Metha(pheta(ine . -rt.A. the trial !ourt !onvi!ted appellant in both !harges. $ondad. +663. telling him :pera @o yana.+41B16C drawing him to restrain the hand of =<+ $rubio.-.<?S-&D =9S<S (=h=. telling him :Hu?ag @a ma@ialam dito. -nother person who was at his ba!k pushed him out of the billiard hall in the !ourse of whi!h he felt =<+ $rubio rea!hing his (appellant1sA right front po!ket.<?S-&D =9S<S (=h=D66. appellant. '14D and is senten!ed to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 79@F9 (1+A J9-%S and <&9 (1A D-J and to pay the fine of .ydro hloride.'14D the methamphetamine hydro!hloride (shabuA is ordered !onfis!ated in favor of the government for proper destru!tion by the proper agen!y. the Court finds the a!!used 9@=*D*< $<&D-D. appellant summoned and handed him his wallet !ontaining =+. + here is also no spe!ifi!ation if it was a po!ket of the shirt or the pants .%99 . foregoing premises !onsidered. . folder of e(hibits. he !ontinued playing but =<+ $rubio suddenly hand!uffed him and asked him :"umama @a muna. took the wallet from his son. -ppellant1s defense was !orroborated by his son Christian 5effrey C. +(. -ware that his son was inside the billiard hall.. ** of %. )ata who was a :spotter.A. 11 par.666.66A as provided for in Se!. +(. entered the billiard hall.9%9#<%9. while he was playing inside . 11 par. a dangerous drug.'14D. and %oberto ?.D4 C < & C @ ? S * < &: Spe!imens .?&D%9D .

unders!oring suppliedA .C $ollo.9%9#<%9.66A. (aA the a!!used is in possession of an item or an ob8e!t identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug.+4.rollo.66. he white !rystalline granules found in his possession. to thirteen (1. ?nder Se!tion 11. + B.666.+43B1.undred housand =esos (=.D> S< <%D9%9D. B13C *d. here is no doubt that the !harge of illegal possession of s2a'u was proven beyond reasonable doubt sin!e the a!!used-appellant knowingly possessed plasti! sa!hets with white !rystalline granules.*<& that the a!!used-appellant is senten!ed to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (1+A years and one (1A day.. a dangerous drug. namely. B11C B1+C +43 +4D C. at p.9. 1+3. as ma(imum and to pay a fine of hree . the mere a!t of possessing any dangerous drug !onsummates the !rime. without legal authority at the time he was !aught during the buy-bust operation. 44 (!itations omittedA. .. the appeal is D*S)*SS9D for la!k of merit. the present =etition for %eview on Certiorari. B1. pp. p. disposing as follows: 7.-. the appellate !ourt held: he eviden!e for the prose!ution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements ne!essary to su!!essfully prose!ute a !ase for illegal possession of a prohibited drug.en!e. olentino with the !on!urren!e of 5usti!es =ortia -liTo . =ar. he assailed de!ision is -##*%)9D with the )<D*#*C. in the light of the foregoing. 4/.C of %. +664.B1+C the Court of -ppeals affirmed the trial !ourt1s de!ision with modifi!ation.D> .+4DB13C (*tali!s in the original.+4+B11C (?nders!oring suppliedA $y De!ision of #ebruary /.+-+D3. p. as minimum. '14D. Feloso.C (?nders!oring suppliedA Spe!ifi!ally with respe!t to the !harge of possession of s2a'u. upon laboratory e(amination. =enned by 5usti!e -melita 2. appellant faulting the appellate !ourt: +4+ +4. C. S< <%D9%9D.rollo. were positively identified as met2amp2etamine 2ydroc2loride or s2a'u.orma!huelos and Fi!ente S. (bA su!h possession is not authoriGed by law and (!A the a!!used freely and !ons!iously possessed said drug.A years. +.

.A. and any ele!ted publi! offi!ial w$o 7$'ll 8e reCuire) "o 7i%& "$e copie7 o( "$e i&*e&"ory '&) 8e %i*e& ' copy "$ereo(" ( ( ( (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA -ppellant !laims that no physi!al inventory and photographing of the drugs took pla!e. seiGed and or surrendered.1! O. =<+ Dano indeed !onfirms appellant1s !laim. it !ompromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seiGed items. is it notN 7itness: 7e did &o" make inventory be!ause we simply brought the eviden!e !onfis!ated. '14D. T he =D9shall take !harge and have !ustody of all dangerous drugs. a representative from the media and the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A.reading of the testimony of the poseur-buyer. Controlled &re #r"or" and . . C#"tody and 1i"po"ition of Confi" ated. for proper disposition in the following manner: (1A he apprehending team having initial !ustody and !ontrol of the drugs 7$'ll. -ppellant !laims that there was failure to follow the re0uirements of Se!. !ontrolled pre!ursors and essential !hemi!als.91 . +1 of %. vi5: -tty. 9161+ -s the resolution of the se!ond assignment of error is determinative of whether there is still ne!essity of segueing to the first and third assignments of error. &o. plant sour!es or dangerous drugs.-. it was there that the items taken from him were inventoried. 3eiIed. hen!e. Se!.9 9F*D9&C9 <# .9 =%<S9C? *<& D9S=* 9 CLEAR VIOLATIO.-. &lant 3o#r e" of 1an*ero#" 1r#*". SECTIO. R. . +1 of %. it shall early on be passed upon. as well as instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory e0uipment so !onfis!ated. or hisEher representative or !ounsel. /n"tr#(ent"F&araphernalia andFor =a4oratory . ((( . andFor 3#rrendered 1an*ero#" 1r#*".""ential Che(i al". &o '14D provides: Sec"io& 91.O. p$y7ic'lly i&*e&"ory '&) p$o"o%r'p$ "$e 7'#e in t2e presence of the a!!used or the personsEs from whom su!h items were !onfis!ated andEor seiGed. i##e)i'"ely '("er 7eiJure '&) co&(i7c'"io&. . . *& -D)* *&2 . =uentebella: 7hen you brought him to the poli!e.D/ **.D/ .$#ip(ent.

Court: 7itness may answer the 0uestion. '14D. it follows that you did not re0uire them to sign your inventory as re0uired by lawN 7itness: Jes. +663. 7itness that at the time you apprehended the a!!used. &eople !. sir. /6-/>. * will ob8e!t.+44B14C (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA Clearly then. 5une 1D. that1s very !learN 7itness: Jes. =uentebella: Jou also did not take photographs of the items taken from the a!!usedN 7itness: Jes. . sir. -tty. =uentebella: So it is very !lear now )r.D' . 7itness: Jes. the apprehending poli!e offi!ers failed to !omply with the above-0uoted provision of Se!tion +1 of %. however: +44 B14C S&. an ele!tive offi!ial. 2apuGan: Counsel is asking for a !on!lusion of law. sir. you )i) &o" #'Le '& i&*e&"ory i& "$e pre7e&ce of the a!!used &or you )i) &o" <"i = #'Le ' p$o"o%r'p$ of the items seiGed i& "$e pre7e&ce of the a!!used. (((( -tty. this is a re0uirement for the apprehending team to do. &o. pp.. -tty.D' -tty. =uentebella: Sin!e you did not make any inventory. sir.-. =uentebella: -nd you know for a fa!t that under the new drugs law. is it notN =ros. &rin*a" holds. a representative from the Department of 5usti!e. or the media.

. =uentebella: (((( 9(hibits :$. emphasis. ook effe!t on &ovember +>. 7hat is of utmost importan!e is the pre7er*'"io& o( "$e i&"e%ri"y '&) "$e e*i)e&"i'ry *'lue o( "$e 7eiJe) i"e#7. =arentheti!ally. and '7 lo&% '7 "$e i&"e%ri"y '&) "$e e*i)e&"i'ry *'lue o( "$e co&(i7c'"e)K7eiJe) i"e#7. '14D+4'B1'C.46 . :$-+. as the same would be utiliGed in the determination of the guilt or inno!en!e of the a!!used.-.+4>B1>C (Citation omitted. -ugust . &o. T$ere w'7 "$u7 ('ilure "o ('i"$(ully (ollow "$e reCuire#e&"7 o( "$e l'w. by =<+ Dano1s !laim. 1>D'+/. 're properly pre7er*e) 8y "$e 'ppre$e&)i&% o((icerK"e'#. that non-!omplian!e with these re0uirements under Au7"i(i'8le %rou&)7. the failure of the apprehending offi!ers to !omply with the inventory and photographing re0uirements of Se!tion +1 of %. +66>./+/.-. the defense in the present !ase 0uestioned early on. thus: -tty. and :$-. +66+. *ide S&. $owe*er. during the !ross e(amination of =<+ Dano. 5une 1D. 0or7e. &o p$o"o%r'p$ o( "$e i"e#7 w'7 "'Le&. are ob8e!ted to for being produ!t of irregular fun!tions of poli!e and therefore fruit of poisonous thinking BsicC and they are not admissible and "$ey were +4> +4/B1/C +4' B1>C B1'C 2. +663. pp. 4y $i7 ')#i77io&. /3+-/3. unlike in #ringas.%.. despite =<+ Dano1s awareness of su!h re0uirements. $e )i) &o" co&)uc" '& i&*e&"ory o( "$e i"e#7 7eiJe). &o. -nd the defense raised it again during the offer of eviden!e by the prose!ution. further. whi!h is the brown envelope. /1-/D. vi5: ( ( ( =rovided. :$-1.. itali!s and unders!oring suppliedA he Court1s pronoun!ement in #ringas is based on the provision of Se!tion +1(aA of the *mplementing %ules and %egulations+4/B1/C of %. 7$'ll &o" re&)er *oi) '&) i&*'li) 7uc$ 7eiJure7 o( '&) cu7"o)y o*er 7'i) i"e#7" (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA *n the present !ase.. '14D. D. as long as the i&"e%ri"y '&) e*i)e&"i'ry *'lue o( "$e 7eiJe) i"e#7 're properly pre7er*e) by the apprehending offi!erEteam.1.46 &on-!omplian!e by the apprehendingEbuy-bust team with Se!tion +1 is not fatal as long as there is Au7"i(i'8le %rou&) therefor.1 SC%. *ts non-!omplian!e will not render an a!!usedSs arrest illegal or the items seiGedE!onfis!ated from him inadmissible. he immediately marked the seiGed items whi!h were brought to the Crime @aboratory for e(amination. &o.

41 &o" p$o"o%r'p$e) i& "$e pre7e&ce o( "$e 'ccu7e) '7 pro*i)e) (or 8y Sec. 0HERE. De!ember 14./66A grams of white !rystalline substan!e known as :S. '14D.+>1B+1C his a!0uittal is in order. J. $igodon. R.-. La>a. 1>6 (+661A !iting #eople v.+>+B1C . 9161"+>6B+6C (emphasis suppliedA *& #*&9. his leaves it unne!essary to still dwell on the first and third assignments of error. trade. +66/ *&2-. 1D4. 4->. pp. +. 9lpidio $ondad 5r.: his is an appeal filed by Samuel <bmiranis y <reta (appellantA who was !harged with violation of Se!tion D in relation to Se!tion +4 of %epubli! -!t (%. SAM3EL O4MIRA-IS. =hilippines.ORE.C -t the pre-trial. 313 =hil./ SC%. thus..e was allegedly !aught in a buy-bust operation by elements of the )anila 7estern =oli!e Distri!t ()7=DA while offering to sell methyl amphetamine hydro!hloride.41 . -ugust 16. not having been authoriGed by law to sell. #eople v. deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug. is -CR?* 9D of the !rimes !harged. +>3 . a dangerous drug lo!ally known as s2a'u.+>3B. +>+ +>. the =etition is :RA-TE/. both the prose!ution and the defense stipulated on the 0ualifi!ation of #orensi! Chemist 9lisa %eyes and. he assailed de!ision is REVERSE/ '&) SET ASI/E and appellant. &o.A &o. he !riminal information filed with the %egional rial Court (% CA of )anila. +663.+> (1''3A. !ontaining methylamphetamine hydro!hloride. +663. 1/13'+. 5EO5LE VS. 2. Contrary to law. in the City of )anila.B+C a!!used him as follows: hat on or about )ay 1/. both parties +>6 +>1 B+6C B+1C S&. as the failure to !omply with the aforesaid re0uirements of the law !ompromised the identity of the items seiGed.A. 91. unlawfully and knowingly attempt to sell or offer for sale one (1A transparent plasti! sa!het !ontaining 7< =<*& 9*2. $ran!h ++>.1.%.. p'r.-$?. whi!h is the corpus delicti of ea!h of the !rimes !harged against appellant. O9%< O9%< (+. a dangerous drug. y $ura!. the said a!!used. did then and there willfully.

+/6B'C entered the same in the blotter+/1B16C and pro!eeded to $ambang in 2. uaGon Street 8ust before 1+ a. he team informed the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A of the impending operation. he informant introdu!ed Felas!o to appellant and said that Felas!o would like to buy one-half :'ultoF of s2a'u..4+ dispensed with her testimony. Felas!o was the alleged leader of the raiding team that apprehended appellant on 1/ )ay +663 at the !orner of 2. and they awaited the arrival of appellant at the !orner of 2.+>>B4C he narrative woven by Felas!o established the following fa!ts: <n 1> )ay +663. =oli!e Superintendent )ar!elino =edroGo (=edroGoA of the )7=D organiGed a buy-bust team on the information of a !onfidential informant that the latter was able to pla!e an order for half a : 'ulto.4+ . appellant on board a !ar arrived at the s!ene and seeing the informant he approa!hed the latter.6 a. uaGon and 5ho!son Streets in Sampalo!.+>4BDC he prose!ution then pro!eeded to prove the !harge against him through the lone testimony of poli!e offi!er 5erry Felas!o (Felas!oA. Felas!o then insisted that he must first see the mer!handise. -ppellant went ba!k to his !ar. 7hen appellant asked for payment. Felas!o negotiated with appellant to lower the pri!e but the latter refused. of 1/ )ay +663Xthe appointed time and date that the !onfidential informant and appellant had agreed to meet.+/+B11C -t around 1+:.m. took the item and brought it to Felas!o.. Felas!o readily re!ogniGed the item as a plasti! sa!het !ontaining a white !rystalline substan!e.m. )anila. %oberto $eniteG and one+>/B>C!onfidential informant as members. he seemed to have re!ogniGed Felas!o1s !o- +>D +>4 +>> +>/ +>' +/6 +/1 +/+ . with =oli!e <ffi!ers 7ilfredo Cin!o. uaGon and 5ho!son Streets. Felas!o was designated as the team leader and the poseur-buyer.+>'B/C =edroGo gave the team a marked D66-peso bill to be used as buy-bust money whi!h was pla!ed on top of a de!k of boodle money. he prose!ution further admitted that the forensi! !hemist who analyGed the seiGed the !onfis!ated substan!eX whi!h yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydro!hloride !ontentX did not have personal knowledge of the ultimate sour!e of the drug. of s2a'u with appellant.+>DB3C -ppellant was brought to trial after having entered a negative plea. he informant 8oined Felas!o in his !ar. 9dgardo =alabay.

. Sampalo!. he was not !ommitting any !rime" that he asked them why they were arresting him but neither of them gave an answer and instead one of them grabbed him by his shoulder and ushered him inside a poli!e !ar" that on!e inside the !ar. and strongly denied having transa!ted the alleged sale of s2a'u with Felas!o and the !onfidential informant. offi!er be!ause he uttered the words. :May pulis yata.+/DB13C aking the stand. he was taken to the ?. iyong mala@i2an 2aT.e !laimed that he was taken by Felas!o and his team not on 1/ )ay +663 but rather on 1> )ay +663 at >:66 p. )anila"+/4B1DC that he was there to see his girlfriend who was residing in that area" that when he was arrested by two men in !ivilian !lothes. asked if he !ould give them =+66.+/3B1.+/. in his presen!e. Felas!o.A" that be!ause he said he did not know anyone who was into selling drugs.e further stated that immediately after the arrest.C he !hemistry report issued at the instan!e of =edroGo and signed by #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er )aritess )ariano of the =&= Crime @aboratory revealed that the spe!imen supposedly seiGed from appellant yielded positive of methylamphetamine hydro!hloride !ontent.. #urthermore. he admitted on !ross-e(amination that there was no eviden!e !ustodian designated and that he !ould not remember if the seiGed item had been inventoried and photographed in the presen!e of the a!!used" that Cin!o put the item in his po!ket after the same was re!overed and did not mark it on the spot and that the markings made on the buy-bust money had not been entered in the blotter." that he asked them why they were doing that to him when in fa!t he merely told them to park their !ar properly on the street" that they !uffed his hands at the ba!k and the driver. +/3 +/D +/4 .m. he was the one who effe!ted the arrest but it was Cin!o who seiGed the plasti! sa!het from appellant. appellant boldly asserted that he was merely framed up by the buy-bust team.&. :Ma@ulit @a 2a.F -t that point. along Santa eresita Street.4. . Cin!o marked the same with the initials :S<<. yu@oT. .4. one of the men pulled out a gun with whi!h he hit his ne!k. he identified the plasti! sa!het as that seiGed from appellant as well as the marking made by Cin!o on it. he and his team brought the seiGed item to the poli!e head0uarters and there.666.66" that he answered he did not have that mu!h money" that they drove the !ar around and told him that if he !ould not give them the money then he must 8ust find for them someone who sells drugs in large-s!ale (:Magturo @a ng nag'e'enta ng droga..B1+C -!!ording to Felas!o. -t the trial. he was arrested 8ust as he was trying to get ba!k to his !ar. -venue poli!e head0uarters" that he was not detained at the head0uarters +/. ki!ked him and uttered.

+'3B+. and to pay a =D66.43 but rather.+'1B+6C *t also maintained that the !hain of !ustody of the seiGed s2a'u had been duly established be!ause the re0uirements in taking !ustody of seiGed nar!oti!s provided for in Dangerous Drugs $oard %egulation &o. posited that the fa!t that all the essential elements of a !onsummated sale of dangerous drug had not been !ompletely shown was immaterial be!ause the !harge involved a mere attempt or offer to sell whi!h had been duly established by the prose!ution. another defense witness who introdu!ed herself as a friend of appellant1s girlfriend and who admitted having witnessed appellant1s arrest. he was brought to the se!ond floor where the two arresting offi!ers demanded =D6.66 from him" that the demand was then redu!ed to =. #ebruary +664 De!ision.666. T$e 'ppe'l $'7 "o 8e %r'&"e). through the <ffi!e of the Soli!itor 2eneral (<S2A.43 . *n !riminal prose!utions. !orroborated the material points of appellant1s testimony..+'. *n prose!utions involving nar!oti!s.666. fundamental is the re0uirement that the elemental a!ts !onstituting the offense be established with moral !ertainty as this is the !riti!al and only re0uisite to a finding of guilt. the % C found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense !harged. the nar!oti! substan!e itself !onstitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fa!t of its e(isten!e is vital to +/> +// +/' +'6 +'1 +'+ +'. the =eople.C the Court of -ppeals affirmed in toto the trial !ourt1s de!ision.66 fine without subsidiary imprisonment as well as the !osts. 1.+//B1>C *n its +.+/>B14C <livia *smael. . +'3 .B++C *n its 3 September +66> De!ision.e was senten!ed to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.666.6.66 in e(!hange for the mitigation of his !ase.+/'B1/C Appell'&" i&"erpo7e) '& 'ppe'l wi"$ "$e Cour" o( Appe'l7 i& w$ic$ $e rei"er'"e) "$'" "$e pro7ecu"io& w'7 u&'8le "o e7"'8li7$ $i7 %uil" 8eyo&) re'7o&'8le )ou8" i& *iew o( "$e ('ilure "o e7"'8li7$ "$e c$'i& o( cu7"o)y o( "$e ille%'l )ru%7 '&) "$'" i" w'7 liLewi7e u&'8le "o e7"'8li7$ "$e co&7u##'"io& o( "$e 'lle%e) 7'le o( )ru%7. series of +66++'+B+1C admit of liberal interpretation.+'6B1'C #or its part.

6C *t would thus in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain.+'>B+'C $oard %egulation &o. a!!ording to Felas!o. the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. Cin!o. su!h that every person who handled the same would admit how and from whom it was re!eived.. was not even presented in !ourt to dire!tly observe the uni0ueness of the spe!imen and.4D . more importantly. it must be established with unwavering e(a!titude that the dangerous drug presented in !ourt as eviden!e against the a!!used is the same as that seiGed from him in the first pla!e. from the moment the item was seiGed to the time it is offered in !ourt as eviden!e. the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.+'4B+/C *n other words.. he prose!ution eviden!e in the !ase at bar. he same witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same. who. series of +66+ defines !hain of !ustody as :the duly re!orded authoriGed movements and !ustody of seiGed drugs or !ontrolled !hemi!als or plant sour!es of dangerous drugs or laboratory e0uipment of ea!h stage.+'DB+>C *t is therefore of prime importan!e that in these !ases. -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e. he same is true with respe!t to the laboratory personnel who !ould have but nevertheless failed to testify on the +'D +'4 +'> +'/ +'' . the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of the e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. however.+''B. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession.+'/B.1C *t is from the testimony of every witness who handled the eviden!e from whi!h a reliable assuran!e !an be derived that the eviden!e presented in !ourt is one and the same as that seiGed from the a!!used. only Felas!o was able to observe the uni0ueness thereof in !ourt. does not suffi!e to afford su!h assuran!e. took initial !ustody of the plasti! sa!het at the time of arrest and who allegedly marked the same with the initials :S<<. at the poli!e station. to a!knowledge the marking as his own.4D sustain a 8udgment of !onvi!tion beyond reasonable doubt. 1. <f all the people who !ame into dire!t !onta!t with the sa!het of s2a'u purportedly seiGed from appellant. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed. from the time of seiGureE!onfis!ation to re!eipt in the forensi! laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in !ourt for destru!tion.

%eyes and not to #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er )aritess )ariano who.6+ .3C whether the alteration.. these stipulations and admission pertain only to a !ertain 9lisa 2. . a standard more stringent than that applied to ob8e!ts whi!h are readily identifiable must be appliedXa more e(a!ting standard that entails a !hain of !ustody of the item with suffi!ient !ompleteness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been e(!hanged with another or !ontaminated or tampered with.44 . uni0ue !hara!teristi! of nar!oti! substan!es su!h as s2a'u is that they are not distin!tive and are not readily identifiable as in fa!t they are sub8e!t to s!ientifi! analysis to determine their !omposition and nature.63 .63B.DC *t is by reason of this distin!tive 0uality that the !ondition of the e(hibit at the time of testing and trial is !riti!al.66 . -side from that.6DB..C substitution and e(!hangeX.61 . *n view of these loopholes in the eviden!e addu!ed against appellant.B. !ontamination.61B.6. tampering....4C . $e that as it may. tampering.66B. substitution and e(!hange be inadvertent or otherwise not. although testimony about a perfe!t !hain does not always have to be the standard be!ause it is almost always impossible to obtain. was the one who e(amined the !ontents of the plasti! sa!het at the !rime laboratory.+C -nd be!ause they !annot be readily and properly distinguished visually from other substan!es of the same physi!al andEor !hemi!al nature.6+B. nevertheless.6. it was not reasonably e(plained why these same witnesses were not able to testify in !ourt.44 !ir!umstan!es under whi!h he re!eived the spe!imen at the laboratory for analysis and testing. it !an be reasonably !on!luded that the prose!ution was unable to establish the identity of the dangerous drug and in effe!t failed to obliterate the hypothesis of appellant1s guiltlessness. dispensed with his testimony and admitted that said forensi! !hemist had no personal knowledge of the ultimate sour!e of the drug submitted for e(amination.>C . based on the !hemistry report. 7hile indeed the prose!ution and the defense had stipulated on the 0ualifi!ation of the forensi! !hemist.en!e. '& u&8roLe& c$'i& o( cu7"o)y i&)ee) 8eco#e7 i&)i7pe&7'8le '&) e77e&"i'l w$e& "$e i"e# o( re'l e*i)e&ce i7 ' &'rco"ic 7u87"'&ce. they are sus!eptible to alteration. as well as on the !ondu!t of the e(amination whi!h was administered on the spe!imen and what he did with it at the time it was in his possession and !ustody.. in authenti!ating nar!oti! spe!imens.. !ontamination.6D .

11B3. however. he same re0uirements are also found in Se!tion +. <1= i##e)i'"ely '("er 7eiJure '&) co&(i7c'"io&. alteration or !ontaminationXwhether intentional or unintentionalXof nar!oti! substan!es at any of the links in the !hain of !ustody thereof espe!ially be!ause pra!ti!ally su!h possibility is great where the item of real eviden!e is small and is similar in form to other substan!es to whi!h people are familiar in their daily lives.64B. or $i7K$er repre7e&"'"i*e or cou&7el.. he !ourt in that !ase pointed out that the white powder seiGed !ould have been indeed heroin or it !ould have been sugar or baking powder.'C in fa!t a!knowledged this danger.6' .16 .64 . Sec"io& 913. himself admitted that as soon as appellant was arrested. were not shown to have been !omplied with by the members of the buy-bust team. ' repre7e&"'"i*e (ro# "$e #e)i' '&) "$e /ep'r"#e&" o( Ju7"ice. -o.4> . it was handled by two poli!e offi!ers who. did not testify in !ourt on the !ondition and whereabouts of the e(hibit at the time it was in their possession.16B3+C of its implementing rules.. 9161 #'"eri'lly reCuire7 "$e 'ppre$e&)i&% "e'# $'*i&% i&i"i'l cu7"o)y '&) co&"rol o( "$e )ru%7 "o.6/ .1+ .4> he Court !ertainly !annot relu!tantly !lose its eyes to the possibility of substitution. Felas!o.9<21= o( R. series of +66+.1. *t thus de!lared that the state must be able to show by re!ords or testimony the !ontinuous whereabouts of the e(hibit at least between the time it !ame into the possession of poli!e offi!ers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its !omposition. a substan!e later shown to be heroin was e(!luded from the prose!ution eviden!e be!ause prior to e(amination.6>B.1.B3DC hese guidelines.A. <9= p$y7ic'lly i&*e&"ory '&) <3= p$o"o%r'p$ "$e 7'#e i& "$e pre7e&ce o( "$e 'ccu7e) or "$e per7o&K7 (ro# w$o# 7uc$ i"e#7 were co&(i7c'"e) '&)Kor 7eiJe). '&) '&y elec"e) pu8lic o((ici'l w$o <2= 7$'ll 8e reCuire) "o 7i%& "$e copie7 o( "$e i&*e&"ory '&) 8e %i*e& ' copy "$ereo(.C as well as in Se!tion +. and nothing on re!ord suggests that they had e(tended reasonable efforts to !omply with the statutory re0uirements in handling the eviden!e. .6/B36C Re'7o&'8le 7'(e%u'r)7 're pro*i)e) (or i& our )ru%7 l'w7 "o pro"ec" "$e i)e&"i"y '&) i&"e%ri"y o( &'rco"ic 7u87"'&ce7 '&) )'&%erou7 )ru%7 7eiJe) '&)Kor reco*ere) (ro# )ru% o((e&)er7. *n that !ase. "tate. Cin!o had .. the leader of the raiding team.1+B33C of the Dangerous Drugs $oard %egulation &o. 1.11 ./C +ra2am v.6> .. however.

Cin!o had pla!ed the initials :S<<. militates against the prose!ution1s !ause be!ause it not only !asts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to dis!redit..1DB3/C here is indeed merit in the !ontention that where no ill motives to make false !harges was su!!essfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team.13 . pla!ed it in his po!ket and brought the same together with appellant to the poli!e station. where the offi!ial a!t in 0uestion is irregular on its fa!e.4/ taken !ustody of the plasti! sa!het of s2a'u.. obtains only where nothing in the re!ords is suggestive of the fa!t that the law enfor!ers involved deviated from the standard !ondu!t of offi!ial duty as provided for in the law. if not totally negate. <therwise. but the theory is !orre!t only where there is no showing that the !ondu!t of poli!e duty was .1D . 7hat we !an fairly assume is that the Court of -ppeals had overlooked the signifi!an!e of these glaring details in the re!ords of the !ase as it pla!ed blind relian!e right away on the !redibility of Felas!o1s testimony and on the presumption of regularity and thereby it failed to properly a!!ount for the missing substantial links in the !hain of !ustody of the eviden!e. 9ven more telling is the fa!t that.13B34C -ll these aforementioned flaws in the !ondu!t of the post-seiGure !ustody of the dangerous drug allegedly re!overed from appellant. on the spe!imen. in other words. as eli!ited from Felas!o himself during his !rosse(amination.4/ . Felas!o never even mentioned that the identifying mark on the spe!imen was pla!ed in appellant1s presen!e" he !ould not even remember whether or not the spe!imen had been properly inventoried and photographed at least in appellant1s presen!e. he presumption. no eviden!e !ustodian had been designated by the raiding team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the eviden!e supposedly seiGed from appellant. *t needs no elu!idation that the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duty must be seen in the !onte(t of an e(isting rule of law or statute authoriGing the performan!e of an a!t or duty or pres!ribing a pro!edure in the performan!e thereof. an adverse presumption arises as a matter of !ourse. taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the e(hibit before it was offered in eviden!e in !ourt. the !laim of regularity in the !ondu!t of offi!ial poli!e operation.. the presumption prevails that said poli!e operatives had regularly performed their duty. *t was at the poli!e stationXand not at the pla!e where the item was seiGed from appellantXwhere a!!ording to him (Felas!oA.

+1 .. .+6 . we will not hesitate to reverse the 8udgment of !onvi!tion in the present appeal.1> .+6BD. materially !onfli!t with every proposition as to the !ulpability of the a!!used. 9ven granting that we must blindly rely on the !redibility of Felas!o1s testimony. still. #eople v.1' .owever.1/BD1C *t must be emphasiGed at this 8un!ture that what !an reasonably be presumed based on the re!ords of this !ase is that Felas!o is aware of his duties and responsibilities as an agent of the government in its antinar!oti!s !ampaign.member of the anti-nar!oti!s division of the poli!e sin!e 1''>.. +anenas. in view of the deviation by the buy-bust team from the mandated !ondu!t of taking post-seiGure !ustody of the dangerous drug in this !ase..14B3'C and #eople v.4' . Suffi!e it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the !ondu!t of poli!e duty is merely 8ust thatXa mere presumption disputable by !ontrary proof and whi!h when !hallenged by the eviden!e !annot be regarded as binding truth. se!uring and taking !ustody of the eviden!e obtained in poli!e operations su!h as this one and preserving the integrity of the eviden!e by prote!ting the !hain of !ustody thereof. #eople.14 . .4' irregular. *n Mallillin v.1'BD+C Felas!o !an be reasonably presumed to be adept in and mindful of the proper pro!edure in apprehending drug offenders. even this presumption is unworthy of !redit.1>BD6C in fa!t both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performan!e of duty. %ulay.C .1/ . -ll told. #or the same plain but !onse0uential reason.+1BD3C we !ategori!ally de!lared that the failure of the prose!ution to offer in !ourt the testimony of key witnesses for the basi! purpose of establishing a suffi!iently !omplete !hain of !ustody of a spe!imen of s2a'u and the irregularity whi!h !hara!teriGed the handling of the eviden!e before the same was finally offered in !ourt.. there is no way to presume that the members thereof had performed their duties regularly.. for reasons as obvious as intimated above. the prose!ution eviden!e would fall short of satisfying the 0uantum of eviden!e re0uired to arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmu!h as the eviden!e !hain failed to solidly !onne!t appellant with the seiGed drug in a way that would establish that the spe!imen is one and the same as that seiGed in the first pla!e and offered in !ourt as eviden!e. he Court !annot indulge in the presumption of regularity of offi!ial duty if only to obliterate the obvious infirmity of the eviden!e advan!ed to support appellant1s !onvi!tion.

Sorsogon City. without having been previously authoriGed by law to possess the same. -!!ordingly.. S=<1 =edro Do!ot. he rule. *n no un!ertain terms must it be stressed that basi! and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an a!!used rests on the prose!ution whi!h must draw strength from its own eviden!e and not from the weakness of the defense. hat on or about the 3th day of #ebruary +66. -o. J3-IE MALLILLI. 9. in a !onstitutional system like ours. otherwise known as he Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs -!t of +66+. a!0uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be!omes a matter of right. he team was headed by =E*nsp.6>3. with =<.%..-. gram. :. residue. April 3. .>6 <ne final word.. =hilippines. -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o.9%9#<%9.R. a team of five poli!e offi!ers raided the residen!e of petitioner in $arangay ugos.9 #-C S: <n the strength of a warrant of sear!h and seiGure issued by the % C of Sorsogon City. &o. he sear!hX !ondu!ted in the presen!e of 'arangay @aga?ad Delfin @i!up as well as petitioner himself. 5EO5LE. the assailed De!ision of the Court of -ppeals in C--2.Y.C. 1 9913 .. !ustody and !ontrol two (+A plasti! sa!hets of methamphetamine hydro!hloride BorC :s2a'u. unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession. -ppellant Samuel <bmiranis y <reta is ACM3ITTE/ on reasonable doubt and is thus a!!ordingly ordered released immediately from !onfinement. LO5E> VS. Sorsogon City on 3 #ebruary +66. is invariable regardless of the reputation of the a!!used be!ause the law presumes his inno!en!e until the !ontrary is shown. his wife Sheila and his mother. Catalino $olanos ($olanosA. $ran!h +. the said a!!used did then and there willfully. S=<1 Danilo @asala and S=<+ %omeo 2allinera (2allineraA as members.>6 . with an aggregate weight of 6. 6+1D/ affirming the 8udgment of !onvi!tion rendered by the %egional rial Court of )anila. C%. In du'io pro reo.++ . and four empty sa!hets !ontaining :s2a'u. $ran!h D+.++BDDC 7. '14D.. petitioner was !harged with violation of Se!tion 11. unless he is lawfully !onfined for another offense. 7hen moral !ertainty as to !ulpability hangs in the balan!e..6 .. is REVERSE/ and SET ASI/E. %oberto 9sternon (9sternonA. &ormaXallegedly yielded two (+A plasti! sa!hets of s2a'u and five (DA empty plasti! sa!hets !ontaining residual morsels of the said substan!e. at about /:3D in the morning in $arangay ugos.

-1D. 9sternon testified that the denim bag !ontaining the empty plasti! sa!hets was found :behind. and two plasti! sa!hets !ontaining s2a'u whi!h fell off from one of the pillows sear!hed by 9sternonXa dis!overy that was made in the presen!e of petitioner. at '.. &orma. S&.. +. $olanos admitted that during the sear!h. ++ -pril +66.+3B1+C <n !ross. pp. the forensi! !hemist who administered the e(amination on the seiGed items.+4B13C .. but that at the same time his eyes were fi(ed on the sear!h being !ondu!ted by 9sternon. 4-'. .B16C <n !ross e(amination. to !ondu!t the sear!h" that the rest of the poli!e team positioned themselves outside the house to make sure that nobody flees" that he was observing the !ondu!t of the sear!h from about a meter away" that the sear!h !ondu!ted inside the bedroom of petitioner yielded five empty plasti! sa!hets with suspe!ted s2a'u residue !ontained in a denim bag and kept in one of the !abinets. he was e(plaining its progress to petitioner1s mother.+DB1. 1.+4B13C and thereafter to the laboratory. testified on the !ir!umstan!es surrounding the sear!h as follows: that he and his men were allowed entry into the house by petitioner after the latter was shown the sear!h warrant" that upon entering the premises. pp.+. . .. S&. @orlie -rroyo (-rroyoA.. 5uly +66.C . pp. he admitted that it was he alone who !ondu!ted the sear!h be!ause $olanos was standing behind him in the living room portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be sear!hed. +. aking the witness stand.C that he brought the seiGed items to the $alogo =oli!e Station for a :true inventory..+DB1.+>B1DC Supt. 4->. then to the trial !ourt. *d. =etitioner entered a negative plea. B16C S&. the leader of the raiding team. whi!h in!luded the pillow in whi!h the two sa!hets of s2a'u were kept". was presented as an . whose assistan!e had previously been re0uested in e(e!uting the warrant. -rroyo and 9sternon as witnesses.>1 .+. at 14-1>. the prose!ution presented $olanos. -t the ensuing trial. the door of the bedroom and not inside the !abinet" that he then found the two filled sa!hets under a pillow on the bed and forthwith !alled on 2allinera to have the items re!orded and marked.>1 C<& %-%J < @-7. $olanos..+>B1DC *d. he ordered 9sternon and 'arangay @aga?ad @i!up. 5uly +66.+3 B1+C . 16.

. @i!up for his part testified on the !ir!umstan!es surrounding the dis!overy of the plasti! sa!hets... whi!h a!!ording to him !ame from a pillow on the bed.. . p. he was summoned by 9sternon to the bedroom and on!e inside. it was momentarily interrupted when one of the poli!e offi!ers de!lared to $olanos that petitioner1s wife. 4-16.C he eviden!e for the defense fo!used on the irregularity of the sear!h and seiGure !ondu!ted by the poli!e operatives. + De!ember +66. Sheila. everyone e(!ept 9sternon was asked to step out of the room. the offi!er !losed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. e(!laimed that he had 8ust found two filled sa!hets. p. pp. *n that instant. =etitioner asserted that on his return from the errand.C . S&. 1/....owever. D-6. -nd as he was doing as told. +/ )ay +66. he was told that nothing was found on Sheila1s body. So. it was in his presen!e that Sheila was sear!hed by the lady offi!er. <felia 2ar!ia who re!eived the items from 9sternon at the laboratory .e re!ounted that after the five empty sa!hets were found.6B+6C =etitioner1s a!!ount in its entirety was !orroborated in its material respe!ts by &orma.. .>-6. was tu!king something inside her underwear. #orthwith. She revealed that the two filled sa!hets were positive of s2a'u and that of the five empty sa!hets.+' B1/C he results of the !hemi!al analysis are embodied in Chemistry %eport &o. at 11-1+. =etitioner testified that 9sternon began the sear!h of the bedroom with @i!up and petitioner himself inside.+/B14C She further admitted that all seven sa!hets were delivered to the laboratory by 9sternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was e(e!uted e(!ept that it was not she but rather a !ertain )rs.+/ B14C S&.+'B1/C Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her !hildren. 9sternon showed him :sa!het of shabu. =etitioner was then asked by a poli!e offi!er to buy !igarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the errand.. See re!ords.6B+6C . who was left inside the bedroom. 9sternon.>+ e(pert witness to identify the items submitted to the laboratory.. &orma and Sheila positively de!lared that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the sear!h be!ause at one point he was sent by 9sternon to the store to buy !igarettes while Sheila was being sear!hed by the lady offi!er. 9sternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. he went out of the bedroom and into the living room and after about three minutes. a lady offi!er arrived to !ondu!t the sear!h of Sheila1s body inside the same bedroom. . 13. four were positive of !ontaining residue of the same substan!e. *d. -t that point.>+ . 'arangay @aga?ad @i!up and Sheila in their testimonies.

hese witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same. )ore than 8ust the fa!t of possession. where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession. the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. from the moment the item was pi!ked up to the time it is offered into eviden!e. *t also noted petitioner1s failure to as!ribe ill motives to the poli!e offi!ers to fabri!ate !harges against him.666. the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of an e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. this -ppeal.9@D: =rose!utions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs ne!essitates that the elemental a!t of possession of a prohibited substan!e be established with moral !ertainty.>.66..>. $e that as it may. <n +6 5une +663 the trial !ourt rendered its De!ision de!laring petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense !harged. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed. . together with the fa!t that the same is not authoriGed by law. . =etitioner was !ondemned to prison for twelve years (1+A and one (1A day to twenty (+6A years and to pay a fine of =.66. he dangerous drug itself !onstitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fa!t of its e(isten!e is vital to a 8udgment of !onvi!tion. *t would in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain. . in su!h a way that every person who tou!hed the e(hibit would des!ribe how and from whom it was re!eived.en!e. the fa!t that the substan!e illegally possessed in the first pla!e is the same substan!e offered in !ourt as e(hibit must also be established with the same unwavering e(a!titude as that re0uisite to make a finding of guilt. . he trial !ourt reasoned that the fa!t that s2a'u was found in the house of petitioner was prima facie eviden!e of petitioner1s animus possidendi suffi!ient to !onvi!t him of the !harge inasmu!h as things whi!h a person possesses or over whi!h he e(er!ises a!ts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e. E77e&"i'l "$ere(ore i& "$e7e c'7e7 i7 "$'" "$e i)e&"i"y o( "$e pro$i8i"e) )ru% 8e e7"'8li7$e) 8eyo&) )ou8" . the mere fa!t of unauthoriGed possession will not suffi!e to !reate in a reasonable mind the moral !ertainty re0uired to sustain a finding of guilt.

"tate..9+d 4D+.. were not presented in !ourt to establish the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h they handled the sub8e!t items.1B31C +ra2am vs. "tate. . +DD &... to whom 9sternon supposedly handed over the !onfis!ated sa!hets for re!ording and marking. 4DD.9+d 4D+. *t ruled that unless the state !an show by re!ords or testimony. the !ontinuous whereabouts of the e(hibit at least between the time it !ame into the possession of poli!e offi!ers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its !omposition. 4DD.+B3+C positively a!knowledged this danger.uni0ue !hara!teristi! of nar!oti! substan!es is that they are not readily identifiable as in fa!t they are sub8e!t to s!ientifi! analysis to determine their !omposition and nature.B3. . that at any of the links in the !hain of !ustody over the same there !ould have been tampering.. +DD &. the likelihood of tampering. 2allinera.9+d 4D+.. he Court !annot relu!tantly !lose its eyes to the likelihood. or at least the possibility.. only 9sternon and -rroyo testified for the spe!ifi! purpose of establishing the identity of the eviden!e. +DD &.. +ra2am v. a more e(a!ting standard that entails a !hain of !ustody of the item with suffi!ient !ompleteness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been e(!hanged with another or been !ontaminated or tampered with. the !ourt pointing out that the white powder seiGed !ould have been indeed heroin or it !ould have been sugar or baking powder. in authenti!ating the same.C .>3 *ndeed. as well as 2ar!ia. alteration or substitution of substan!es from other !asesXby a!!ident or otherwiseXin whi!h similar eviden!e was seiGed or in whi!h similar eviden!e was submitted for laboratory testing... loss or mistake with respe!t to an e(hibit is greatest when the e(hibit is small and is one that has physi!al !hara!teristi!s fungible in nature and similar in form to substan!es familiar to people in their daily lives.mere fleeting glan!e at the re!ords readily raises signifi!ant doubts as to the identity of the sa!hets of s2a'u allegedly seiGed from petitioner. a standard more stringent than that applied to !ases involving ob8e!ts whi!h are readily identifiable must be applied.en!e. +ra2am v.. <f the people who !ame into dire!t !onta!t with the seiGed ob8e!ts.>3 . *n that !ase where a substan!e later analyGed as heroinXwas handled by two poli!e offi!ers prior to e(amination who however did not testify in !ourt on the !ondition and whereabouts of the e(hibit at the time it was in their possessionXwas e(!luded from the prose!ution eviden!e. B3. the person to whom 9sternon dire!tly handed over the seiGed items for !hemi!al analysis at the !rime laboratory.+B3+C . . "tate. -ny reasonable mind might then ask the . "tate. testimony of the state as to the laboratory1s findings is inadmissible.1B31C .C +ra2am v.

1/ !iting #eople v.DBD. &o. . he presumption of regularity is merely 8ust thatXa mere presumption disputable by !ontrary proof and whi!h when !hallenged by the eviden!e !annot be regarded as binding truth. . id. &an. strongly militates a finding of guilt.3BD+C #eople v. *n our !onstitutional system. what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to -rroyo for analysis. for the law presumes his inno!en!e unless and until the !ontrary is shown.3BD+C Suffi!e it to say that this presumption !annot preponderate over the presumption of inno!en!e that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Am'rosio. &an.1+. !oupled with the irregularity in the manner by whi!h the same were pla!ed under poli!e !ustody before offered in !ourt. 1... 2. ./+ SC%- 31' (+66+A. La>a. 3+> SC%. but nevertheless failed.. Am'rosio. 3+> SC%.D... he same is true of 2ar!ia who !ould have.%./+ SC%- 31' (+66+A. to testify on the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h she re!eived the items from 9sternon.. Considering that it was 2allinera who re!orded and marked the seiGed items. his testimony in !ourt is !ru!ial to affirm whether the e(hibits were the same items handed over to him by 9sternon at the pla!e of seiGure and a!knowledge the initials marked thereon as his own. the blind relian!e by the trial !ourt and the Court of -ppeals on the presumption of regularity in the !ondu!t of poli!e duty is manifestly mispla!ed. a!0uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be!omes a matter of right. 13 -pril +663.C *n the present !ase the la!k of !on!lusive identifi!ation of the illegal drugs allegedly seiGed from petitioner. basi! and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an a!!used lies on the prose!ution whi!h must rely on the strength of its own eviden!e and not on the weakness of the defense. . T$e ECuipoi7e Rule+ E*i)e&ce o( %uil" '&) e*i)e&ce o( i&&oce&ce 're '8ou" e*e&+ e((ec" o( &o&Gpre7e&"'"io& o( (ore&7ic c$e#i7" w$o e@'#i&e) "$e 7$'8u or #'riAu'&'?%rou&) (or 'cCui""'l. 7hen moral !ertainty as to !ulpability hangs in the balan!e..4BD3C In du'io pro reo.1/ !iting #eople v..1+.C #eople v.%. &o. 13 -pril +663... 1.>D 0uestion: -re the sa!hets of s2a'u allegedly seiGed from petitioner the very same ob8e!ts laboratory tested and offered in !ourt as eviden!eN he prose!ution1s eviden!e is in!omplete to provide an affirmative answer.. 2.DBD. 2iven the foregoing deviations of poli!e offi!er 9sternon from the standard and normal pro!edure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seiGure !ustody of the eviden!e..>D . . .D.4 BD3C #eople v. .>/. .>/. he rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the a!!used.

without authority of law or the !orresponding li!ense therefor.-/0. 161292.<?S-&D (=D66.66A =9S<S.onorable Court. :.9 -)*&9 B. as amended. *** of %. JR. a regulated drug. #<?% . -o.JD%<C. !onspiring.. I& "$e e&7ui&% "ri'l.C.. '&) 5KSr. C%-.. +663 De!ision in Criminal Case &o. 1D. -rti!le *** of %epubli! -!t &o. )<&-@J& BC9%F-& 9SC y S<@-% b )ona. .>B1C Accu7e)G'ppell'&" '&) $er coG'ccu7e) ple')e) &o" %uil"y "o "$e c$'r%e. 4->. in )anila. a!!used-appellant and three others were !harged with violation of Se!.>4 5EO5LE O. !onfederating and mutually helping one another. allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat. he % C found a!!used-appellant )onalyn Cervantes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Se!tion 1D. 7*@S<& D9@ )<& 9 b 7ilson and %*C. ' (ore&7ic c$e#ic'l o((icer o( "$e 7'#e re%io&'l o((ice. ..43+D (selling or distributing a regulated drugA.@<%*D9C. sell. -rt.>B1C $ollo.>4 . b isoy.. pp. did then and there. and within the 8urisdi!tion of this .-)=.CERVA-TES.%99 =<*& S9F9& J S*Q (3>. 66-1/1'+' of the %egional rial Court (% CA.I his is an appeal from the De!ision dated 5uly 1'. +66' VELASCO. !ommonly known as shabu. unlawfully and feloniously. (%-A 43+D or the %angerous %rugs Act of .5-5 RGIV!. =hilippines. +666.%. )ar!h 1>..R. in the City of )anila. willfully..-%D %9R?*O b %i!hard. C<& %-%J < @-7. deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer. J. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7. MO-ALY. =hilippine Curren!y.>4A 2%-)S <# )9 . 663>4 whi!h affirmed the -pril +.?&D%9D S9F9& J . a!ting in !ommon a!!ord. 5O3 Rey&'l)o R'#o7 o( "$e 5$ilippi&e -'"io&'l 5olice Re%io&'l O((ice IV . he re!ords show the following fa!ts: *n an *nformation dated -pril >. $ran!h D. for the amount of #*F9 . +66> of the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2. "$e pro7ecu"io& pre7e&"e) i& e*i)e&ce "$e or'l "e7"i#o&ie7 o( 0illi'# To)'*i'.?&D%9D .666.. on or about -pril D. +666. &o. a!!used *S*D%< -%2?S<& y -%9&D9@-. I&7pec"or Lor&' Tri'.

were introdu!ed by the D=. -!ting on this bit of information. as summariGed by the C. %amos prepared the booking sheets and arrest reports and the re0uest for a 0ualitative analysis of the seiGed items.. he instru!ted the would-be-buyers to follow him to =asay City. =<. who was holding a bla!k plasti! bag. #inally. anGa. a!ting as poseur-buyers..C *d. =er her report. +666.C -rguson instru!ted the would-be-buyers to wait for someone who will !ome out from the nearby 9strella St. <!ampo St. he bla!k plasti! bag !ontaining the si( small self-sealing bags of white !rystalline substan!e was likewise taken to Camp Fi!ente @im where =<. @aguna. -t about three o1!lo!k in the afternoon of that day. and approa!hed =<. and =<+ 9merson $alosbalos arranged a buy-bust operation to be !ondu!ted at -rguson1s rest house in arangay @ambingan. %amos gave the pre-arranged signal to indi!ate the !onsummation of the drug deal and introdu!ed himself as poli!eman. %amos. and %i!hard %e0uiG. simultaneously showing him a bundle of money. -rguson then took from Del )onte the bag. based at Camp Fi!ente @im in -rguson as the buyers of =h= D66. =<.'B. he )!Donald1s bran!h in =. =<. CE* 2eronimo prepared and !ompleted Chemistry %eport &o. was later determined to be in )anila. #or the purpose. a team led by S=<+ 2eronimo =astrana. <!ampo St. he hired a vehi!le owned by odavia..>> . %egional Crime @aboratory <ffi!e *F Chief *nspe!tor (CE*A )ary 5ean 2eronimo then !ondu!ted the standard physi!al and !hemi!al e(aminations on the spe!imen referred to her..666 worth of s2a'u. %amos to !he!k if he still had the money. a!!used-appellant left. -!!used-appellant and her s!ampering !ompanions were later arrested and brought to and booked at Camp Fi!ente @im.. Fery mu!h later. is as follows: <n -pril D. 7ilson Del )onte./B+C ..' B. in front of the )!Donald1s bran!h in =. <n -pril 4. %amos and =<+ $alosbalos. and handed it to =<+ $alosbalos. who in turn gave him the bundle of boodle money. re!eived a tip from a deep penetration agent (D=-A about a group of drug traffi!kers led by *sidro -rguson operating in Cavite. a!!used-appellant emerged from 9strella the de!ision now on appeal. D-11D/66 on the !rystalline substan!e. . +666.. later found to !ontain 3>. Cavite. the substan!e tested positive for methamphetamine hydro!hloride or s2a'u. Sin!e -rguson did not have enough supply of s2a'u in the premises./B+C ?pon arriving at the rest house. at D.. only to return a few minutes later this time with -rguson. the %egional Spe!ial <perations 2roup *F (%S<2-*FA.>4 grams of s2a'u pa!ked in si( small self-sealing transparent bags.>> he =eople1s version of the in!ident. . =asay City. -fter being shown the money bundle.

were also boarded into the same van.D I %e!eipt of property seiGed signed by =<+ $alosbalos and by odavia and =<. saying :pulis a@o ?ag @ang aalis dyanNTO . he was suddenly approa!hed by a poli!eman who arrested him and boarded him inside a vehi!le together with C9%F-& 9S and %9R?*O. her youngest !hild asked her to go to B)!Donald1sC. #or his part. he was riding a borrowed bi!y!le on his way to the Cultural Center. . whom she later !ame to know as D9@ )<& 9 and %9R?*O. +666 to the Chief. D-11D/66 prepared by CE* 2eronimo" (bA E@$i8i" BC. Fito CruG bran!h.$. were ob8e!ted to by the defense: (aA E@$i8i" B4. where she allegedly met -%2?S<& for the first time. <n the other hand.36 B3C %e!ords. while he was wat!hing a vehi!le near B)!Donald1sC. when he bumped a parked van. there was a !ommotion going on in front of the restaurant. to buy i!e !ream. re0uesting for 0ualitative analysis of the !ontents of the si( transparent plasti! bags" (!A E@$i8i"7 B/D '&) B/G1D "o B/G6.$. offered in eviden!e the following e(hibits.. @aboratory Servi!e.6 in the afternoon.arrison St. the prose!ution. I Chemistry %eport &o.36B3C in!lusive of its sub markings. whi!h. wherefrom a man alighted and !ursed him. whom he did not know prior to that in!ident. +66+. I )emorandum of %S<2-*F dated -pril D. T$e CA )eci7io& liLewi7e 7u##'riJe) "$e )e(e&7eN7 'ccou&" o( w$'" purpor"e)ly "r'&7pire). hereafter. I $la!k plasti! bag with markings" and si( (4A self-sealing transparent bags allegedly !ontaining the !onfis!ated s2a'u" and (dA E@$i8i" B. as may be e(pe!ted. %amos as witnesses.arrison on -pril 3. pp. in the hearing of )ar!h 3. hey were taken to a !emetery where another vehi!le !ame and took them to Camp Fi!ente @im.. he man left and when he returned. one of whom BwasC an old man boarded her inside the van !ausing her to lose hold of her !hild. two (+A younger male persons. a!!used D9@ )<& 9 testified that he was a parking boy around Fito CruG and that on the day in 0uestion. . Fito CruG bran!h. a!!used %9R?*O testified that on the date and time in 0uestion. a!!used C9%F-& 9S . 7hen they arrived thereat at about 3:. -s he moved ba!kward from where he stood. 1/D-1/>.>/ . "o wi"I -!!used-appellant testified that after she did laundry works at her house in 9strella Street near #. passing by #. +666. . She then saw a woman who alighted from a nearby van and pointed her out to her !ompanions. a !ommotion happened near his post..>/ -part from the witnesses1 affidavits and other do!uments.


was with him. hereafter, he was boarded into the van together with the other a!!used..31BDC 7hile not stated in the C- de!ision, Del )onte testified, like a!!used-appellant, that he was taken to a !emetery somewhere in Cavite where the arresting offi!ers lingered for an hour before bringing him to Camp Fi!ente @im..3+B4C hese testimonies remained un!ontroverted. -rguson died during the !ourse of the trial resulting in the dismissal of the !ase against him..3.B>C <n -pril +., +663, the % C rendered 8udgment a!0uitting Del )onte and %e0uiG but finding a!!used-appellant guilty as !harged and meting upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua. he fallo of the % C De!ision reads: 7,9%9#<%9, in view of the foregoing, 8udgment is hereby rendered: 1. #inding a!!used )<&-@J& C9%F-& 9S J S<@-% 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Se!. 1D, -rti!le ***, of %epubli! -!t &o. 43+D as amended, and is senten!ed to $eclusion #erpetua and to pay a fine in the amount of =hpD66,666.66" and +. #inding the prose!ution1s eviden!e insuffi!ient to prove the guilt of a!!used 7*@S<& D9@ )<& 9 and %*C,-%D %9R?*O beyond reasonable doubt, and who are hereby -CR?* 9D. S< <%D9%9D..33B/C <n )ay 1/, +663, a!!used-appellant filed a &oti!e of -ppeal, pursuant to whi!h the % C forwarded the re!ords of the !ase to this Court. Conformably with #eople v. Mateo,.3DB'C the Court dire!ted the transfer of the !ase to the C- where it was do!keted as C--2.%. C%-,.C. &o. 663>4. $efore the appellate !ourt, a!!used-appellant urged her a!0uittal on the ground of :insuffi!ien!y of eviden!e,; parti!ularly stating that the :forensi! !hemist who a!tually !ondu!ted the laboratory e(amination on the spe!imens allegedly re!overed from the a!!used was not presented in !ourt ( ( ( BandC hen!e, there was no !lear identifi!ation of the !ontents of the !onfis!ated sa!hets.;.34B16C
.31 .3+ .3. .33 .3D .34

$ollo, pp. >-/. S&, 5anuary +6, +66., pp. 16-11. B>C $ollo, p. /. B/C C- rollo, p. .6. =enned by 5udge %eynaldo -. -lhambra. B'C 2.%. &os. 13>4>/-/>, 5uly >, +663, 3.. SC%- 436. B16C C- rollo, pp. /1-/+.



$y its De!ision.3>B11C dated 5uly 1', +66>, the C-, finding the elements ne!essary for the prose!ution of illegal sale of drugs .3/B1+C to have suffi!iently been satisfied and the identifi!ation of a!!used-appellant having been established, affirmed her !onvi!tion.

T$e CA reAec"e) 'ccu7e)G'ppell'&"N7 l'#e&" '8ou" o&e I&7pec"or Tri' "e7"i(yi&% o& "$e c$e#i7"ry repor" 7$e )i) &o" prep're. A7 "$e 'ppell'"e cour" 7"re77e), CKI :ero&i#oN7 (ore&7ic repor" Bc'rrie7 "$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y i& "$e per(or#'&ce o( o((ici'l (u&c"io&7 <'&)= "$e e&"rie7 "$ereo& @ @ 're pri#' ('cie e*i)e&ce o( "$e ('c"7 "$erei& 7"'"e).D T$e CA '))e) "$e o87er*'"io& "$'" '87e&" '&y e*i)e&ce o*er"ur&i&% "$e pre7u#p"io& o( re%ul'ri"y i& "$e per(or#'&ce o( o((ici'l (u&c"io&7, "$e pro8'"i*e *'lue