Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001
FRANCISCO YAP, JR., aa E!"IN YAP, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEA#S an$ T%E PEOP#E OF T%E
P%I#IPPINES, respondents.
GON&AGA'REYES, J.(
The riht aainst e!cessive bail, and the libert" of abode and travel, are
bein invo#ed to set aside t$o resolutions of the %ourt of &ppeals $hich
fi!ed bail at P','((,(((.(( and i)posed conditions on chane of residence
and travel abroad.
*or )isappropriatin a)ounts e+uivalent to P','((,(((.((, petitioner $as
convicted of estafa b" the Reional Trial %ourt of Pasi %it"
,
and $as
sentenced to four "ears and t$o )onths of prision correctional, as )ini)u)
to eiht "ears of prision mayor as )a!i)u), -in addition to one .,/ "ear for
each additional P,(,(((.(( in e!cess of P00,(((.(( but in no case shall it
e!ceed t$ent" .0(/ "ears.-
0
He filed a notice of appeal, and )oved to be
allo$ed provisional libert" under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the
proceedins. The )otion $as denied b" the trial court in an order dated
*ebruar" ,1,,222.
&fter the records of the case $ere trans)itted to the %ourt of &ppeals,
petitioner filed $ith the said court a Motion to *i! 3ail *or the Provisional
4ibert" of &ccused &ppellant Pendin &ppeal, invo#in the last pararaph of
Section ', Rule ,,5 of the ,221 Revised Rules of %ourt. &s#ed to co))ent
on this )otion, the Solicitor 6eneral opined that petitioner )a" be allo$ed to
post bail in the a)ount of P','((,(((.(( and be re+uired to secure -a
certification7uarant" fro) the Ma"or of the place of his residence that he is a
resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be so until final 8ud)ent is
rendered or in case he transfers residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the
court and private co)plainant.-
9
Petitioner filed a Repl", contendin that the
proposed bail ofP','((,(((.(( $as violative of his riht aainst e!cessive
bail.
The assailed resolution of the %ourt of &ppeals
5
, issued on October :, ,222,
upheld the reco))endation of the Solicitor 6eneral; thus, its dispositive
portion reads<
=H>R>*OR>, pre)ises considered, the -Motion to *i! 3ail *or
Provisional 4ibert" of &ccused?&ppellant Pendin &ppeal- is hereb"
6R&NT>D. &ccused?appellant *rancisco @ap, Ar., a.#.a. >d$in @ap
is hereb" &44O=>D TO POST 3&I4 in the a)ount of *ive Million
*ive Hundred Thousand .P','((,(((.((/ Pesos, sub8ect to the
follo$in conditions, viB. <
.,/ He .accused?appellant/ secures a certification7uarant"
fro) the Ma"or of the place of his residence that he is a
resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be a resident
therein until final 8ud)ent is rendered or in case he
transfers residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the court;
.0/ The %o))ission of l))iration and Deportation .%ID/ is
hereb" directed to issue a hold departure order aainst
accused?appellant; and
.9/ The accused?appellant shall forth$ith surrender his
passport to the Division %ler# of %ourt for safe#eepin until
the court orders its return;
.5/ &n" violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the
forfeiture of accused?appellantCs bail bond, the dis)issal of
appeal and his i))ediate arrest and confine)ent in 8ail.
SO ORD>R>D.
'
& )otion for reconsideration $as filed, see#in the reduction of the a)ount
of bail fi!ed b" respondent court, but $as denied in a resolution issued on
Nove)ber 0', ,222. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner sets out the follo$in assin)ents of error<
The respondent %ourt of &ppeals co))itted rave abuse of
discretion in fi!in the bail of the provisional libert" of petitioner
pendin appeal in the a)ount of P' .' )illion.
The respondent %ourt of &ppeals co))itted rave abuse of
discretion in basin the bail for the provisional libert" of the petitioner
on his civil liabilit".
The respondent %ourt of &ppeals undul" restricted petitionerCs
constitutional libert" of abode and travel in i)posin the other
conditions for the rant of bail.
Petitioner contends that the %ourt of &ppeals, b" settin bail at a prohibitor"
a)ount, effectivel" denied hi) his riht to bail. He challenes the leal basis
of respondent court for fi!in bail at P','((,(((.((, $hich is e+uivalent to the
a)ount of his civil liabilit" to private co)plainant Manila Mahoan" Mar#etin
%orporation, and arues that the Rules of %ourt never intended for the civil
liabilit" of the accused to be a uideline or basis for deter)inin the a)ount
of bail. He pra"s that bail be reduced to at least P5(,(((.((, citin the
)a!i)u) a)ount of bail that can be posted for the cri)e of estafa under the
,22: 3ail 3ond 6uide, or P0(,(((.((, e+uivalent to the a)ount of bail he
posted durin the trial of the case.
:
On the other hand, the Solicitor 6eneral )aintains that no rave abuse of
discretion could be ascribed to the %ourt of &ppeals for fi!in the a)ount of
bail at P','((,(((.(( considerin the severit" of the penalt" i)posed, the
$eiht of the evidence aainst petitioner, and the ravit" of the offense of
$hich petitioner $as convicted b" the RT%. He asserted that the
P','((,(((.(( not onl" corresponded to civil liabilit" but also to the a)ount
of fraud i)puted to petitioner. The Solicitor 6eneral further pointed out the
probabilit" of fliht in case petitioner is released on bail, it havin been
established that petitioner $as in possession of a valid passport and visa and
had in fact left the countr" several ti)es durin the course of the proceedins
in the lo$er court. It $as also sho$n that petitioner used different na)es in
his business transactions and had several abodes in different parts of the
countr".
&s for the conditions i)posed b" the bail bond, the Solicitor 6eneral
advanced that all that the %ourt of &ppeals re+uires is notice in case of
chane of address; it does not in an" $a" i)pair petitionerCs riht to chane
abode for as lon as the court is apprised of his chane of residence durin
the pendenc" of the appeal.
PetitionerCs case falls $ithin the provisions of Section ', Rule ,,5 of the ,221
Rules of %ourt $hich states<
S>%. '. Bail, when discretionary. ?? Dpon conviction b" the Reional
Trial %ourt of an offense not punishable b" death, reclusion
perpetua or life i)prison)ent, the court, on application, )a" ad)it
the accused to bail.
The court, in its discretion, )a" allo$ the accused to continue on
provisional libert" under the sa)e bail bond durin the period to
appeal sub8ect to the consent of the bonds)an.
If the court i)posed a penalt" of i)prison)ent e!ceedin si! .:/
"ears, but not )ore than t$ent" .0(/ "ears, the accused shall be
denied bail, or his bail previousl" ranted shall be cancelled, upon a
sho$in b" the prosecution, $ith notice to the accused, of the
follo$in or other si)ilar circu)stances<
.a/ That the accused is a recidivist, +uasi?recidivist, or habitual
delin+uent, or has co))itted the cri)e aravated b" the
circu)stance of reiteration;
.b/ That the accused is found to have previousl" escaped fro) leal
confine)ent, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his
bail $ithout valid 8ustification;
.c/ That the accused co))itted the offense $hile on probation,
parole, or under conditional pardon;
.d/ That the circu)stances of the accused or his case indicate the
probabilit" of fliht if released on bail; or
.e/ That there is undue ris# that durin the pendenc" of the appeal,
the accused )a" co))it another cri)e.
The appellate court )a" revie$ the resolution of the Reional Trial
%ourt, on )otion and $ith notice to the adverse part".
1
There is no +uestion that in the present case the %ourt of &ppeals e!ercised
its discretion in favor of allo$in bail to petitioner on appeal. Respondent
court stated that it $as doin so for -hu)anitarian reasons-, and despite a
perceived hih ris# of fliht, as b" petitionerCs ad)ission he $ent out of the
countr" several ti)es durin the pendenc" of the case, for $hich reason the
court dee)ed it necessar" to pe the a)ount of bail at P','((,(((.((.
The prohibition aainst re+uirin e!cessive bail is enshrined in the
%onstitution.
E
The obvious rationale, as declared in the leadin case of De la
Camara vs. Enage,
2
is that i)posin bail in an e!cessive a)ount could
render )eaninless the riht to bail. Thus, in Villaseor vs. Abano,
,(
this
%ourt )ade the pronounce)ent that it $ill not hesitate to e!ercise its
supervisor" po$ers over lo$er courts should the latter, after holdin the
accused entitled to bail, effectivel" den" the sa)e b" i)posin a prohibitor"
su) or e!actin unreasonable conditions.
!!! There is ri) iron" in an accused bein told that he has a riht to
bail but at the sa)e ti)e bein re+uired to post such an e!orbitant
su). =hat aravates the situation is that the lo$er court 8ude
$ould apparentl" "ield to the co))and of the funda)ental la$. In
realit", such a sancti)onious avo$al of respect for a )andate of the
%onstitution $as on a purel" verbal level. There is reason to believe
that an" person in the position of petitioner $ould under the
circu)stances be unable to resist thouhts of escapin fro)
confine)ent, reduced as he )ust have been to a state of
desperation. In the sa)e breath as he $as told he could be bailed
out, the e!cessive a)ount re+uired could onl" )ean that provisional
libert" $ould be be"ond his reach. It $ould have been )ore forthriht
if he $ere infor)ed cateoricall" that such a riht could not be
availed of. There $ould have been no disappoint)ent of
e!pectations then. It does call to )ind these $ords of Austice
Aac#son, -a pro)ise to the ear to be bro#en to the hope, a teasin
illusion li#e a )unificent be+uest in a pauperCs $ill.- FFF
,,
&t the sa)e ti)e, Section 2, Rule ,,5 of the Revised Rules of %ri)inal
Procedure advises courts to consider the follo$in factors in the settin of
the a)ount of bail<
.a/ *inancial abilit" of the accused to ive bail;
.b/ Nature and circu)stances of the offense;
.c/ Penalt" for the offense chared;
.d/ %haracter and reputation of the accused;
.e/ &e and health of the accused;
.f/ =eiht of the evidence aainst the accused;
./ Probabilit" of the accused appearin at the trial;
.h/ *orfeiture of other bail;
.i/ The fact that the accused $as a fuitive fro) 8ustice $hen
arrested; and
.8/ Pendenc" of other cases $here the accused is on bail.
Thus, the court has $ide latitude in fi!in the a)ount of bail. =here it fears
that the accused )a" 8u)p bail, it is certainl" not precluded fro) installin
devices to ensure aainst the sa)e. Options )a" include increasin the bail
bond to an appropriate level, or re+uirin the person to report periodicall" to
the court and to )a#e an accountin of his )ove)ents.
,0
In the present
case, $here petitioner $as found to have left the countr" several ti)es $hile
the case $as pendin, the %ourt of &ppeals re+uired the confiscation of his
passport and the issuance of a hold?departure order aainst hi).
Dnder the circu)stances of this case, $e find that appropriate conditions
have been i)posed in the bail bond to ensure aainst the ris# of fliht,
particularl", the co)bination of the hold?departure order and the re+uire)ent
that petitioner infor) the court of an" chane of residence and of his
$hereabouts. &lthouh an increase in the a)ount of bail $hile the case is on
appeal )a" be )eritorious, $e find that the settin of the a)ount at
P','((,(((.(( is unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective
denial of petitionerCs riht to bail.
The purpose for bail is to uarantee the appearance of the accused at the
trial,
,9
or $henever so re+uired b" the %ourt
,5
. The a)ount should be hih
enouh to assure the presence of the accused $hen re+uired but no hiher
than is reasonabl" calculated to fulfill this purpose.
,'
To fi! bail at an a)ount
e+uivalent to the civil liabilit" of $hich petitioner is chared .in this case,
P','((,(((.((/.is to per)it the i)pression that the a)ount paid as bail is an
e!action of the civil liabilit" that accused is chared of; this $e cannot allo$
because bail is not intended as a punish)ent, nor as a satisfaction of civil
liabilit" $hich should necessaril" a$ait the 8ud)ent of the appellate court.
&t the sa)e ti)e, $e cannot "ield to petitionerCs sub)ission that bail in the
instant case be set at P5(,(((.(( based on the ,22: 3ail 3ond 6uide. .The
current 3ail 3ond 6uide, issued on &uust 02, 0(((, )aintains
reco))ended bail at P5(,(((.(( for estafa $here the a)ount of fraud is
P,50,(((.(( or over and the i)posable penalt" 0( "ears of reclusion
temporal). True, the %ourt has held that the 3ail 3ond 6uide, a circular of the
Depart)ent of Austice for the uidance of state prosecutors, althouh
technicall" not bindin upon the courts, -)erits attention, bein in a sense an
e!pression of polic" of the >!ecutive 3ranch, throuh the Depart)ent of
Austice, in the enforce)ent of cri)inal la$s.-
,:
Thus, courts are advised that
the" )ust not onl" be a$are but should also consider the 3ail 3ond 6uide
due to its sinificance in the ad)inistration of cri)inal 8ustice.
,1
This
not$ithstandin, the %ourt is not precluded fro) i)posin in petitionerCs case
an a)ount hiher than P5(,(((.(( .based on the 3ail 3ond 6uide/ $here it
perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated b" the circu)stances.
It )ilitates e)phasis that petitioner is see#in bail on appeal. Section ', Rule
,,5 of the Revised Rules of %ri)inal Procedure is clear that althouh the
rant of bail on appeal is non?capital offenses is discretionar", $hen the
penalt" i)posed on the convicted accused e!ceeds si! "ears and
circu)stances e!ist that point to the probabilit" of fliht if released on bail,
then the accused )ust be denied bail, or his bail previousl" ranted should
be cancelled.
,E
In the sa)e vein, the %ourt has held that the discretion to
e!tend bail durin the course of the appeal should be e!ercised $ith rave
caution and for stron reasons, considerin that the accused had been in fact
convicted b" the trial court.
,2
In an earlier case, the %ourt adopted Senator
Vicente A. *ranciscoCs dis+uisition on $h" bail should be denied after
8ud)ent of conviction as a )atter of $ise discretion; thus<
The i)portance attached to conviction is due to the underl"in
principle that bail should be ranted onl" $here it is uncertain
$hether the accused is uilt" or innocent, and therefore, $here that
uncertaint" is re)oved b" conviction it $ould, enerall" spea#in, be
absurd to ad)it to bail. &fter a person has been tried and convicted
the presu)ption of innocence $hich )a" be relied upon in prior
applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to sho$
error in the conviction. *ro) another point of vie$ it )a" be properl"
arued that the probabilit" of ulti)ate punish)ent is so enhanced b"
the conviction that the accused is )uch )ore li#el" to atte)pt to
escape if liberated on bail than before conviction.!!!
0(
Petitioner is see#in bail on appeal. He $as in fact declared uilt" be"ond
reasonable doubt b" the RT%, and due to the serious a)ount of fraud
involved, sentenced to i)prison)ent for t$ent" "ears ??the )a!i)u) penalt"
for estafa b" false pretenses or fraudulent acts allo$ed b" the Revised Penal
%ode. &lthouh it cannot be controverted that the %ourt of &ppeals, despite
the foreoin considerations and the possibilit" of fliht still $ielded its
discretion to rant petitioner bail, the settin of bail in the a)ount of
P','((,(((.(( is un8ustified as havin no leal nor factual basis. 6uided b"
the penalt" i)posed b" the lo$er court and the $eiht of the evidence
aainst petitioner, $e believe that the a)ount of P0((,(((.(( is )ore
reasonable.
Petitioner also contests the condition i)posed b" the %ourt of &ppeals that
he secure -a certification7uarant" fro) the Ma"or of the place of his
residence that he is a resident of the area and that he $ill re)ain to be a
resident therein until final 8ud)ent is rendered or in case he transfers
residence, it )ust be $ith prior notice to the court-, clai)in that the sa)e
violates his libert" of abode and travel.
Notabl", petitioner does not +uestion the hold?departure order $hich
prevents hi) fro) leavin the Philippines unless e!pressl" per)itted b" the
court $hich issued the order.
0,
In fact, the petition sub)its that -the hold?
departure order aainst petitioner is alread" sufficient uarantee that he $ill
not escape. Thus, to re+uire hi) to infor) the court ever" ti)e he chaned
his residence is alread" unnecessar".-
00
The riht to chane abode and travel $ithin the Philippines, bein invo#ed b"
petitioner, are not absolute rihts. Section :, &rticle III of the ,2E1
%onstitution states<
The libert" of abode and of chanin the sa)e $ithin the li)its
prescribed b" la$ shall not be i)paired e!cept upon la$ful order of
the court. Neither shall the riht to travel be i)paired e!cept in the
interest of national securit", public safet", or public health, as )a" be
provided b" la$.
The order of the %ourt of &ppeals releasin petitioner on bail constitutes
such la$ful order as conte)plated b" the above provision.
09
The condition
i)posed b" the %ourt of &ppeals is si)pl" consistent $ith the nature and
function of a bail bond, $hich is to ensure that petitioner $ill )a#e hi)self
available at all ti)es $henever the %ourt re+uires his presence. 3esides, a
closer loo# at the +uestioned condition $ill sho$ that petitioner is not
prevented fro) chanin abode; he is )erel" re+uired to infor) the court in
case he does so.
AG#IPAY )S RUI&
In Ma", ,29:, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he
$ould order the issues of postae sta)ps co))e)oratin the celebration in
the %it" of Manila of the Thirt"?third international >ucharistic %onress,
oraniBed b" the Ro)an %atholic %hurch. The petitioner, in the fulfill)ent of
$hat he considers to be a civic dut", re+uested Vicente Sotto, >s+., )e)ber
of the Philippine 3ar, to denounce the )atter to the President of the
Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitionerCs attorne", the respondent
publicl" announced havin sent to the Dnited States the desins of the
postae sta)ps for printin
The )ore i)portant +uestion raised refers to the alleed violation of the
%onstitution b" the respondent in issuin and sellin postae sta)ps
co))e)orative of the Thirt"?third International >ucharistic %onress. It is
alleed that this action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of
section 09, subsection 9, &rticle VI, of the %onstitution of the Philippines,
$hich provides as follo$s<
No public )one" or propert" shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used,
directl" or indirectl", for the use, benefit, or support of an" sect, church,
deno)ination, secretarian, institution, or s"ste) of reliion, or for the use,
benefit, or support of an" priest, preacher, )inister, or other reliious teacher
or dinitar" as such, e!cept $hen such priest, preacher, )inister, or dinitar"
is assined to the ar)ed forces or to an" penal institution, orphanae, or
leprosariu).
ISSD> < =ON the sta)p is constitutional
H>4D < &ct No. 5('0 conte)plates no reliious purpose in vie$. =hat it
ives the Director of Posts is the discretionar" po$er to deter)ine $hen the
issuance of special postae sta)ps $ould be -advantaeous to the
6overn)ent.- Of course, the phrase -advantaeous to the 6overn)ent-
does not authoriBe the violation of the %onstitution. It does not authoriBe the
appropriation, use or application of public )one" or propert" for the use,
benefit or support of a particular sect or church. In the present case,
ho$ever, the issuance of the postae sta)ps in +uestion b" the Director of
Posts and the Secretar" of Public =or#s and %o))unications $as not
inspired b" an" sectarian deno)ination. The sta)ps $ere not issue and sold
for the benefit of the Ro)an %atholic %hurch. Nor $ere )one" derived fro)
the sale of the sta)ps iven to that church
It appears fro) the latter of the Director of Posts of Aune ', ,29:,
incorporated on pae 0 of the petitionerCs co)plaint, that the onl" purpose in
issuin and sellin the sta)ps $as -to advertise the Philippines and attract
)ore tourist to this countr".- The officials concerned )erel", too# advantae
of an event considered of international i)portance -to ive publicit" to the
Philippines and its people
=hat is e)phasiBed is not the >ucharistic %onress itself but Manila, the
capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that conress. It is obvious that $hile
the issuance and sale of the sta)ps in +uestion )a" be said to be
inseparabl" lin#ed $ith an event of a reliious character, the resultin
propaanda, if an", received b" the Ro)an %atholic %hurch, $as not the ai)
and purpose of the 6overn)ent. =e are of the opinion that the 6overn)ent
should not be e)barassed in its activities si)pl" because of incidental
results, )ore or less reliious in character, if the purpose had in vie$ is one
$hich could leiti)atel" be underta#en b" appropriate leislation. The )ain
purpose should not be frustrated b" its subordinate to )ere incidental results
not conte)plated
3ut, upon ver" serious reflection, e!a)ination of &ct No. 5('0, and scrutin"
of the attendin circu)stances, $e have co)e to the conclusion that there
has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, &ct No. 5('0 rants
the Director of Posts, $ith the approval of the Secretar" of Public =or#s and
%o))unications, discretion to )isuse postae sta)ps $ith ne$ desins -as
often as )a" be dee)ed advantaeous to the 6overn)ent.- >ven if $e $ere
to assu)e that these officials )ade use of a poor 8ud)ent in issuin and
sellin the postae sta)ps in +uestion still, the case of the petitioner $ould
fail to ta#e in $eiht. 3et$een the e!ercise of a poor 8ud)ent and the
unconstitutionalit" of the step ta#en, a ap e!ists $hich is "et to be filled to
8ustif" the court in settin aside the official act assailed as co)in $ithin a
constitutional inhibition.
6arces Vs >stenBo
This case is about the constitutionalit" of four resolutions of the barana"
council of Valencia, Or)oc %it", reardin the ac+uisition of the $ooden
i)ae of San Vicente *errer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast
da".
On March 09, ,21:, the said barana" council adopted Resolution No. ',
-revivin the traditional socio?reliious celebration- ever" fifth da" of &pril -of
the feast da" of SeGor San Vicente *errer, the patron saint of Valencia
That resolution desinated the )e)bers of nine co))ittees $ho $ould ta#e
chare of the ,21: festivit". lt provided for .,/ the ac+uisition of the i)ae of
San Vicente *errer and .0/ the construction of a $aitin shed as the
barana"Cs pro8ects. *unds for the t$o pro8ects $ould be obtained throuh
the sellin of tic#ets and cash donations
On March 0:, ,21:, the barana" council passed Resolution No. : $hich
specified that, in accordance $ith the practice in >astern 4e"te, %ouncil)an
To)as %abatinan, the %hair)an or her)ano )a"or of the fiesta, $ould be
the careta#er of the i)ae of San Vicente *errer and that the i)ae $ould
re)ain in his residence for one "ear and until the election of his successor as
chair)an of the ne!t feast da"
*unds $ere raised b" )eans of solicitations( and cash donations of the
barana" residents and those of the neihborin places of Valencia. =ith
those funds, the $aitin shed $as constructed and the $ooden i)ae of San
Vicente *errer $as ac+uired in %ebu %it" b" the barana" council for four
hundred pesos
& controvers" arose after the )ass $hen the parish priest, *ather Serio
Marilao Os)eGa refused to return that i)ae to the barana" council on the
prete!t that it $as the propert" of the church because church funds $ere
used for its ac+uisition.
3ecause *ather Os)eGa did not accede to the re+uest of %abatinan to
have custod" of the i)ae and -)aliciousl" inored- the councilCs Resolution
No. :, the council enacted on Ma" ,0, ,21: Resolution No. ,(, authoriBin
the hirin of a la$"er to file a replevin case aainst *ather Os)eGa for the
recover" of the i)ae .>!h. % or E/. On Aune ,5, ,21:, the barana" council
passed Resolution No. ,0, appointin Veloso as its representative in the
replevin case .>!h. D or 2/.
4ater, he and three other persons, &ndres 6arces, a )e)ber of the
&lipa"an %hurch, and t$o %atholic la")en, Aesus >dullantes and Nicetas
Daar, filed aainst the barana" council and its )e)bers .e!cludin t$o
)e)bers/ a co)plaint in the %ourt of *irst Instance at Or)oc %it", pra"in
for the annul)ent of the said resolutions. The lo$er court dis)issed the
co)plaint. lt upheld the validit" of the resolutions
ISSD>< =ON The 3arana" %ouncil has the riht over the custod" of the
Relic
H>4D < The +uestioned resolutions do not directl" or indirectl" establish an"
reliion, nor abride reliious libert", nor appropriate public )one" or
propert" for the benefit of an" sect, priest or cler")an. The i)ae $as
purchased $ith private funds, not $ith ta! )one". The construction of a
$aitin shed is entirel" a secular )atter
The $ooden i)ae $as purchased in connection $ith the celebration of the
barrio fiesta honorin the patron saint, San Vicente *errer, and not for the
purpose of favorin an" reliion nor interferin $ith reliious )atters or the
reliious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the hihlihts of the fiesta $as
the )ass. %onse+uentl", the i)ae of the patron saint had to be placed in
the church $hen the )ass $as celebrated
If there is nothin unconstitutional or illeal in holdin a fiesta and havin a
patron saint for the barrio, then an" activit" intended to facilitate the $orship
of the patron saint .such as the ac+uisition and displa" of his i)ae/ cannot
be branded as illeal.
The barana" council desinated a la")an as the custodian of the $ooden
i)ae in order to forestall an" suspicion that it is favorin the %atholic
church. There can be no +uestion that the i)ae in +uestion belons to the
barana" council. The council has the riht to ta#e )easures to recover
possession of the i)ae b" enactin Resolutions Nos. ,( and ,0.
Not ever" overn)ental activit" $hich involves the e!penditure of public
funds and $hich has so)e reliious tint is violative of the constitutional
provisions reardin separation of church and state, freedo) of $orship and
bannin the use of public )one" or propert"
&)erican bible Societ" Vs %it" of Manila
*&%TS < plaintiffCs Philippine aenc" has been distributin and sellin bibles
and7or ospel portions thereof .e!cept durin the Aapanese occupation/
throuhout the Philippines and translatin the sa)e into several Philippine
dialects. On Ma" 02 ,2'9, the actin %it" Treasurer of the %it" of Manila
infor)ed plaintiff that it $as conductin the business of eneral )erchandise
since Nove)ber, ,25', $ithout providin itself $ith the necessar" Ma"orCs
per)it and )unicipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 9(((, as
a)ended, and Ordinances Nos. 0'02, 9(0E and 99:5, and re+uired plaintiff
to secure, $ithin three da"s, the correspondin per)it and license fees,
toether $ith co)pro)ise coverin the period fro) the 5th +uarter of ,25' to
the 0nd +uarter of ,2'9, in the total su) of P',E0,.5'
ISSD> < =ON the provisions of said ordinances are applicable or not to the
case at bar.
H>4D < Dnder Sec. 01.e/ of %o))on$ealth &ct No. 5:: or the National
Internal Revenue %ode, %orporations or associations oraniBed and
operated e!clusivel" for reliious, charitable, . . . or educational
purposes, . . .< Provided, ho$ever, That the inco)e of $hatever #ind and
character fro) an" of its properties, real or personal, or fro) an" activit"
conducted for profit, reardless of the disposition )ade of such inco)e, shall
be liable to the ta! i)posed under this %ode shall not be ta!ed
The price as#ed for the bibles and other reliious pa)phlets $as in so)e
instances a little bit hiher than the actual cost of the sa)e but this cannot
)ean that &)erican 3ible Societ" $as enaed in the business or
occupation of sellin said -)erchandise- for profit
Therefore, the Ordinance cannot be applied for in doin so it $ould i)pair
&)erican 3ible Societ"Hs free e!ercise and en8o")ent of its reliious
profession and $orship as $ell as its rihts of disse)ination of reliious
beliefs
6erona Vs Secretar" of >ducation
*acts < Petitioners belon to the AehovaHs =itness $hose children $ere
e!pelled fro) their schools $hen the" refused to salute, sin the anthe),
recite the plede durin the conduct of fla cere)on". DO No. E issued b"
D>%S pursuant to R& ,0:' $hich called for the )anner of conduct durin a
fla cere)on". The petitioners $rote the Secretar" of >ducation on their
pliht and re+uested to reinstate their children. This $as denied.
&s a result, the petitioners filed for a $rit of preli)inar" in8unction aainst the
Secretar" and Director of Public Schools to restrain the) fro) i)ple)entin
said DO No. E.
The lo$er court .RT%/ declared DO E invalid and contrar" to the 3ill of Rihts
ISSD> < =ON DO .E is constitutional
H>4D < The court held that the fla is not an i)ae but a s")bol of the
Republic of the Philippines, an e)ble) of national sovereint", of national
unit" and cohesion and of freedo) and libert" $hich it and the %onstitution
uarantee and protect. %onsiderin the co)plete separation of church and
state in our s"ste) of overn)ent, the fla is utterl" devoid of an" reliious
sinificance. Salutin the fla conse+uentl" does not involve an" reliious
cere)on".
&fter all, the deter)ination of $hether a certain ritual is or is not a reliious
cere)on" )ust rest $ith the courts. It cannot be left to a reliious roup or
sect, )uch less to a follo$er of said roup or sect; other$ise, there $ould be
confusion and )isunderstandin for there )iht be as )an" interpretations
and )eanins to be iven to a certain ritual or cere)on" as there are
reliious roups or sects or follo$ers.
The freedo) of reliious belief uaranteed b" the %onstitution does not and
cannot )ean e!e)ption for) or non?co)pliance $ith reasonable and non?
discri)inator" la$s, rules and reulations pro)ulated b" co)petent
authorit". In enforcin the fla salute on the petitioners, there $as absolutel"
no co)pulsion involved, and for their failure or refusal to obe" school
reulations about the fla salute the" $ere not bein persecuted. Neither
$ere the" bein cri)inall" prosecuted under threat of penal sacntion. If the"
chose not to obe" the fla salute reulation, the" )erel" lost the benefits of
public education bein )aintained at the e!pense of their fello$ citiBens,
nothin )ore. &ccordin to a popular e!pression, the" could ta#e it or leave
it. Havin elected not to co)pl" $ith the reulations about the fla salute,
the" forfeited their riht to attend public schools
The *ilipino fla is not an i)ae that re+uires reliious veneration; rather it is
s")bol of the Republic of the Philippines, of sovereint", an e)ble) of
freedo), libert" and national unit"; that the fla salute is not a reliious
cere)on" but an act and profession of love and alleiance and plede of
lo"alt" to the fatherland $hich the fla stands for; that b" authorit" of the
leislature, the Secretar" of >ducation $as dul" authoriBed to pro)ulate
Depart)ent Order No. E, series of ,2''; that the re+uire)ent of observance
of the fla cere)on" or salute provided for in said Depart)ent Order No. E,
does not violate the %onstitutional provision about freedo) of reliion and
e!ercise of reliion; that co)pliance $ith the non?discri)inator" and
reasonable rules and reulations and school discipline, includin observance
of the fla cere)on" is a prere+uisite to attendance in public schools; and
that for failure and refusal to participate in the fla cere)on", petitioners
$ere properl" e!cluded and dis)issed fro) the public school the" $ere
attendin
>bralina Vs. Div. Superintendent
*&%TS < In 6.R. No. 2'11( -Roel >bralina, et al. vs. Division
Superintendent of Schools of %ebu and Manuel *. 3ionco, %ebu District
Supervisor,- the petitioners are 59 hih school and ele)entar" school
students in the to$ns of Daan 3anta"an, Pina)una8an, %arcar, and
Taburan %ebu province. &ll )inors, the" are assisted b" their parents $ho
belon to the reliious roup #no$n as AehovahCs =itnesses $hich clai)s
so)e ,((,((( -baptiBed publishers- in the Philippines.
In 6.R. No. 2'EE1, -Ma" &)olo, et al. vs. Division Superintendent of Schools
of %ebu and &ntonio &. Sanutan,- the petitioners are 0' hih school and
rade school students enrolled in public schools in &sturias, %ebu, $hose
parents are AehovahCs =itnesses. 3oth petitions $ere prepared b" the sa)e
counsel, &ttorne" *elino M. 6anal.
&ll the petitioners in these t$o cases $ere e!pelled fro) their classes b" the
public school authorities in %ebu for refusin to salute the fla, sin the
national anthe) and recite the patriotic plede as re+uired b" Republic &ct
No. ,0:' of Aul" ,,, ,2'', and b" Depart)ent Order No. E dated Aul" 0,,
,2'' of the Depart)ent of >ducation, %ulture and Sports .D>%S/ )a#in the
fla cere)on" co)pulsor" in all educational institutions
ISSD> < =ON the e!pulsion is illeal
H>4D < Reliious freedo) is a funda)ental riht $hich is entitled to the
hihest priorit" and the a)plest protection a)on hu)an rihts, for it
involves the relationship of )an to his %reator
Petitioners stress, ho$ever, that $hile the" do not ta#e part in the
co)pulsor" fla cere)on", the" do not enae in -e!ternal acts- or behavior
that $ould offend their countr")en $ho believe in e!pressin their love of
countr" throuh the observance of the fla cere)on". The" +uietl" stand at
attention durin the fla cere)on" to sho$ their respect for the riht of those
$ho choose to participate in the sole)n proceedins. Since the" do not
enae in disruptive behavior, there is no $arrant for their e!pulsion
=e are not persuaded that b" e!e)ptin the AehovahCs =itnesses fro)
salutin the fla, sinin the national anthe) and recitin the patriotic
plede, this reliious roup $hich ad)ittedl" co)prises a -s)all portion of
the school population- $ill sha#e up our part of the lobe and suddenl"
produce a nation -untauht and uninculcated in and uni)bued $ith
reverence for the fla, patriotis), love of countr" and ad)iration for national
heroes-
>!pellin or bannin the petitioners fro) Philippine schools $ill brin about
the ver" situation that this %ourt had feared in 6erona. *orcin a s)all
reliious roup, throuh the iron hand of the la$, to participate in a cere)on"
that violates their reliious beliefs, $ill hardl" be conducive to love of countr"
or respect for dull" constituted authorities
If the" +uietl" stand at attention durin the fla cere)on" $hile their
class)ates and teachers salute the fla, sin the national anthe) and recite
the patriotic plede, $e do not see ho$ such conduct )a" possibl" disturb
the peace, or pose -a rave and present daner of a serious evil to public
safet", public )orals, public health or an" other leiti)ate public interest that
the State has a riht .and dut"/ to prevent
%enteno Vs VIllalon
*&%TS < In the last +uarter of ,2E', the officers of a civic oraniBation #no$n
as the Sa)ahan Iatandaan n Na"on n Ti#a" launched a fund drive for
the purpose of renovatin the chapel of 3arrio Ti#a", Malolos, 3ulacan.
Petitioner Martin %enteno, the chair)an of the roup, toether $ith Vicente
@co, approached Aude &doracion 6. &neles, a resident of Ti#a", and
solicited fro) her a contribution of P,,'((.((. It is ad)itted that the
solicitation $as )ade $ithout a per)it fro) the Depart)ent of Social =elfare
and Develop)ent
&s a conse+uence, based on the co)plaint of Aude &neles, an infor)ation
$as filed aainst petitioner Martin %enteno, toether $ith Reliio >varisto
and Vicente @co, for violation of Presidential Decree No. ,':5, or the
Solicitation Per)it 4a$, before the Municipal Trial %ourt of Malolos, 3ulacan,
3ranch and doc#eted as %ri)inal %ase No. 0:(0
On Dece)ber 02, ,220, the said trial court rendered 8ud)ent findin
accused Vicente @co and petitioner %enteno uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt
and sentencin the) to each pa" a fine of P0((.((
ISSD> < =ON charitable purposes can be construed in its broadest sense so
as to include a reliious purpose
H>4D < Indeed, it is an ele)entar" rule of statutor" construction that the
e!press )ention of one person, thin, act, or conse+uence e!cludes all
others. This rule is e!pressed in the fa)iliar )a!i) -e!pressio unius est
e!clusio alterius.- =here a statute, b" its ter)s, is e!pressl" li)ited to certain
)atters, it )a" not, b" interpretation or construction, be e!tended to others.
The rule proceeds fro) the pre)ise that the leislature $ould not have )ade
specified enu)erations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its
)eanin and to confine its ter)s to those e!pressl" )entioned
&ll contributions desined to pro)ote the $or# of the church are -charitable-
in nature, since reliious activities depend for their support on voluntar"
contributions. Ho$ever, -reliious purpose- is not interchaneable $ith the
e!pression -charitable purpose
&ccordinl", the ter) -charitable- should be strictl" construed so as to
e!clude solicitations for -reliious- purposes. Thereb", $e adhere to the
funda)ental doctrine underl"in virtuall" all penal leislations that such
interpretation should be adopted as $ould favor the accused
It does not follo$, therefore fro) the constitutional uaranties of the free
e!ercise of reliion that ever"thin $hich )a" be so called can be tolerated.
It has been said that a la$ advancin a leiti)ate overn)ental interest is
not necessaril" invalid as one interferin $ith the -free e!ercise- of reliion
)erel" because it also incidentall" has a detri)ental effect on the adherents
of one or )ore reliion. Thus, the eneral reulation, in the public interest, of
solicitation, $hich does not involve an" reliious test and does not
unreasonabl" obstruct or dela" the collection of funds, is not open to an"
constitutional ob8ection, even thouh the collection be for a reliious purpose.
Such reulation $ould not constitute a prohibited previous restraint on the
free e!ercise of reliion or interpose an inad)issible obstacle to its e!ercise
6er)an vs 3aranan
*&%TS < &t about '<(( in the afternoon of October 0, ,2E5, petitioners,
co)posed of about '( business)en, students and office e)plo"ees
convered at A.P. 4aurel Street, Manila, for the ostensible purpose of hearin
Mass at the St. Aude %hapel $hich ad8oins the MalacaGan rounds located
in the sa)e street. =earin the no$ fa)iliar inscribed "ello$ T?shirts, the"
started to )arch do$n said street $ith raised clenched fists , and shouts of
anti?overn)ent invectives. &lon the $a", ho$ever, the" $ere barred b"
respondent Ma8or lsabelo 4ariosa, upon orders of his superior and co?
respondent 6en. Santiao 3aranan, fro) proceedin an" further, on the
round that St. Aude %hapel $as located $ithin the MalacaGan securit"
area. =hen petitionersC protestations and pleas to allo$ the) to et inside
the church proved unavailin, the" decided to leave. Ho$ever, because of
the alleed $arnin iven the) b" respondent Ma8or 4ariosa that an" si)ilar
atte)pt b" petitioners to enter the church in the future $ould li#e$ise be
prevented, petitioners too# this present recourse
ISSD> < =ON disallo$in petitioners to $orship and pra" at St. 4u#e is a
violation of their freedo) to $orship and loco)otion
H>4D < Said restriction is )oreover intended to secure the several e!ecutive
offices $ithin the MalacaGan rounds fro) possible e!ternal attac#s and
disturbances. These offices include co))unications facilities that lin# the
central overn)ent to all places in the land. Dn+uestionabl", the restriction
i)posed is necessar" to )aintain the s)ooth functionin of the e!ecutive
branch of the overn)ent, $hich petitionersC )ass action $ould certainl"
disrupt
Petitioners are not denied or restrained of their freedo) of belief or choice of
their reliion, but onl" in the )anner b" $hich the" had atte)pted to translate
the sa)e into action
Suffice it to sa" that the restriction i)posed on the use of A.P. 4aurel Street,
the $isdo) and reasonableness of $hich have alread" been discussed, is
allo$ed under the funda)ental la$, the sa)e havin been established in the
interest of national securit"
bet$een the freedo) of belief and the e!ercise of said belief, there is +uite a
stretch of road to travel. If the e!ercise of said reliious belief clashes $ith
the established institutions of societ" and $ith the la$, then the for)er )ust
"ield and ive $a" to the latter
Pa)il Vs Teleron
*&%TS < The novel +uestion raised in this certiorari proceedin concerns the
eliibilit" of an ecclesiastic to an elective )unicipal position. Private
respondent, *ather Mararito R. 6onBaa, $as, in ,21,, elected to the
position of )unicipal )a"or of &lbur+uer+ue, 3ohol. , Therefore, he $as dul"
proclai)ed. & suit for +uo $arranto $as then filed b" petitioner, hi)self an
aspirant for the office, for his dis+ualification 0 based on this &d)inistrative
%ode provision< -In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a
)unicipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receivin
salaries or co)pensation fro) provincial or national funds, or contractors for
public $or#s of the )unicipalit".- 9 The suit did not prosper, respondent
Aude sustainin the riht of *ather 6onBaa to the office of )unicipal
)a"or. He ruled that such statutor" ineliibilit" $as i)pliedl" repealed b" the
>lection %ode of ,21,. The )atter $as then elevated to this Tribunal b"
petitioner. It is his contention that there $as no such i)plied repeal, that it is
still in full force and effect. Thus $as the specific +uestion raised.
ISSD> =ON ecclesiastic are barred fro) office
H>4D < Here bein an ecclesiastic and therefore professin a reliious faith
suffices to dis+ualif" for a public office. There is thus an inco)patibilit"
bet$een the &d)inistrative %ode provision relied upon b" petitioner and an
e!press constitutional )andate. It is not a valid aru)ent aainst this
conclusion to assert that under the Philippine &utono)" &ct of ,2,:, there
$as such a prohibition aainst a reliious test, and "et such a ban on holdin
a )unicipal position had not been nullified. It suffices to ans$er that no
+uestion $as raised as to its validit"
It $ould be an un8ustified departure fro) a settled principle of the applicable
construction of the provision on $hat la$s re)ain operative after ,29' if the
plea of petitioner in this case $ere to be heeded. The challened
&d)inistrative %ode provision, certainl" insofar as it declares ineliible
ecclesiastics to an" elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent
$ith the reliious freedo) uaranteed b" the %onstitution. To so e!clude
the) is to i)pose a reliious test
Taruc Vs De 4a %ruB
*&%TS < he antecedents sho$ that petitioners $ere la" )e)bers of the
Philippine Independent %hurch .PI%/ in Socorro, Suriao del Norte.
Respondents Porfirio de la %ruB and Rusto) *lorano $ere the bishop and
parish priest, respectivel", of the sa)e church in that localit". Petitioners, led
b" Do)inador Taruc, cla)ored for the transfer of *r. *lorano to another
parish but 3ishop de la %ruB denied their re+uest. It appears fro) the
records that the fa)il" of *r. *loranoHs $ife beloned to a political part"
opposed to petitioner TarucHs, thus the ani)osit" bet$een the t$o factions
$ith *r. *lorano bein identified $ith his $ifeHs political ca)p. 3ishop de la
%ruB, ho$ever, found this too fli)s" a reason for transferrin *r. *lorano to
another parish
Taruc tried to oraniBe an open )ass to be celebrated b" a certain *r.
Renato J. &)bon durin the to$n fiesta of Socorro. =hen Taruc infor)ed
3ishop de la %ruB of his plan, the 3ishop tried to dissuade hi) fro) pushin
throuh $ith it because *r. &)bon $as not a )e)ber of the cler" of the
diocese of Suriao and his credentials as a parish priest $ere in doubt
On Aune 0E, ,229, 3ishop de la %ruB declared petitioners
e!pelled7e!co))unicated fro) the Philippine Independent %hurch
3ecause of the order of e!pulsion7e!co))unication, petitioners filed a
co)plaint for da)aes $ith preli)inar" in8unction aainst 3ishop de la %ruB
before the Reional Trial %ourt of Suriao %it", 3ranch 90. The" i)pleaded
*r. *lorano and one Delfin T. 3ordas on the theor" that the" conspired $ith
the 3ishop to have petitioners e!pelled and e!co))unicated fro) the PI%.
The" contended that their e!pulsion $as illeal because it $as done $ithout
trial thus violatin their riht to due process of la$
ISSD> < =ON the court has 8urisdiction
H>4D < The S% hold the %hurch and the State to be separate and distinct
fro) each other. -6ive to %easar $hat is %easarHs and to 6od $hat is
6odHs.-
upon the e!a)ination of the decisions it $ill be readil" apparent that cases
involvin +uestions relative to ecclesiastical rihts have al$a"s received the
profoundest attention fro) the courts, not onl" because of their inherent
interest, but because of the far reachin effects of the decisions in hu)an
societ". KHo$ever,L courts have learned the lesson of conservatis) in dealin
$ith such )atters, it havin been found that, in a for) of overn)ent $here
the co)plete separation of civil and ecclesiastical authorit" is insisted upon,
the civil courts )ust not allo$ the)selves to intrude undul" in )atters of an
ecclesiastical nature
The S% aree $ith the %ourt of &ppeals that the e!pulsion7e!co))unication
of )e)bers of a reliious institution7oraniBation is a )atter best left to the
discretion of the officials, and the la$s and canons, of said
institution7oraniBation
The a)end)ents of the constitution, restate)ent of articles of reliion and
abandon)ent of faith or ab8uration alleed b" appellant, havin to do $ith
faith, practice, doctrine, for) of $orship, ecclesiastical la$, custo) and rule
of a church and havin reference to the po$er of e!cludin fro) the church
those alleedl" un$orth" of )e)bership, are un+uestionabl" ecclesiastical
)atters $hich are outside the province of the civil courts
>strada Vs >scritor
*&%TS < %o)plainant &le8andro >strada $rote to Aude Aose *. %aoibes,
Ar., re+uestin for an investiation of ru)ors that respondent Soledad
>scritor, court interpreter, is livin $ith a )an not her husband. The"
alleedl" have a child of eihteen to t$ent" "ears old. >strada is not
personall" related either to >scritor or her partner. Nevertheless, he filed the
chare aainst >scritor as he believes that she is co))ittin an i))oral act
that tarnishes the i)ae of the court, thus she should not be allo$ed to
re)ain e)plo"ed therein as it )iht appear that the court condones her act.
Respondent >scritor testified that $hen she entered the 8udiciar" in ,222,
she $as alread" a $ido$, her husband havin died in ,22E. She ad)itted
that she has been livin $ith 4uciano Muilapio, Ar. $ithout the benefit of
)arriae for t$ent" "ears and that the" have a son. 3ut as a )e)ber of the
reliious sect #no$n as the AehovahCs =itnesses and the =atch To$er and
3ible Tract Societ", their con8ual arrane)ent is in confor)it" $ith their
reliious beliefs. In fact, after ten "ears of livin toether, she e!ecuted on
Aul" 0E, ,22, a -Declaration of Pledin *aithfulness,- insofar as the
conreation is concerned, there is nothin i))oral about the con8ual
arrane)ent bet$een >scritor and Muilapio and the" re)ain )e)bers in
ood standin in the conreation.
ISSD> < =hether or not respondent should be found uilt" of the
ad)inistrative chare of -ross and i))oral conduct.-
H>4D < The t$o strea)s of 8urisprudence ? separationist or
acco))odationist ? are anchored on a different readin of the -$all of
separation.-
Separationist ? This approach erects an absolute barrier to for)al
interdependence of reliion and state. Reliious institutions could not receive
aid, $hether direct or indirect, fro) the state. Nor could the state ad8ust its
secular prora)s to alleviate burdens the prora)s placed on believers. the
strict neutralit" or separationist vie$ is larel" used b" the %ourt, sho$in the
%ourtHs tendenc" to press relentlessl" to$ards a )ore secular societ"
&cco))odationist ? 3enevolent neutralit" thus reconiBes that reliion pla"s
an i)portant role in the public life of the Dnited States as sho$n b" )an"
traditional overn)ent practices $hich
&n acco))odationist holds that it is ood public polic", and so)eti)es
constitutionall" re+uired, for the state to )a#e conscious and deliberate
efforts to avoid interference $ith reliious freedo). On the other hand, the
strict neutralit" adherent believes that it is ood public polic", and also
constitutionall" re+uired, for the overn)ent to avoid reliion?specific polic"
even at the cost of inhibitin reliious e!ercise
F*+,-, the acco))odationist interpretation is )ost consistent $ith the
lanuae of the *irst &)end)ent. Se.on$, the acco))odationist position
best achieves the purposes of the *irst &)end)ent. T/*+$, the
acco))odationist interpretation is particularl" necessar" to protect
adherents of )inorit" reliions fro) the inevitable effects of )a8oritarianis),
$hich include inorance and indifference and overt hostilit" to the )inorit"
Fou+-/, the acco))odationist position is practical as it is a co))onsensical
$a" to deal $ith the various needs and beliefs of different faiths in a
pluralistic nation.
The -co)pellin state interest- test is proper $here conduct is involved for
the $hole a)ut of hu)an conduct has different effects on the stateHs
interests< so)e effects )a" be i))ediate and short?ter) $hile others
dela"ed and far?reachin. & test that $ould protect the interests of the state
in preventin a substantive evil, $hether i))ediate or dela"ed, is therefore
necessar"
In appl"in the test, the first in+uir" is $hether respondentHs riht to reliious
freedo) has been burdened. There is no doubt that choosin bet$een
#eepin her e)plo")ent and abandonin her reliious belief and practice
and fa)il" on the one hand, and ivin up her e)plo")ent and #eepin her
reliious practice and fa)il" on the other hand, puts a burden on her free
e!ercise of reliion
The second step is to ascertain respondentHs sincerit" in her reliious belief.
Respondent appears to be sincere in her reliious belief and practice and is
not )erel" usin the -Declaration of Pledin *aithfulness- to avoid
punish)ent for i))oralit". She did not secure the Declaration onl" after
enterin the 8udiciar" $here the )oral standards are strict and defined, )uch
less onl" after an ad)inistrative case for i))oralit" $as filed aainst
herIndeed, it is inappropriate for the co)plainant, a private person, to present
evidence on the co)pellin interest of the state. The burden of evidence
should be dischared b" the proper aenc" of the overn)ent $hich is the
Office of the Solicitor 6eneral. To properl" settle the issue in the case at bar,
the overn)ent should be iven the opportunit" to de)onstrate the
co)pellin state interest it see#s to uphold in opposin the respondentHs
stance that her con8ual arrane)ent is not i))oral and punishable as it
co)es $ithin the scope of free e!ercise protection.
*acts < %aunca Vs SalaBar
*acts< This is an action for habeas corpus brouht b" 3artolo)e %aunca in
behalf of his cousin >stelita *lores $ho $as e)plo"ed b" the *ar >astern
>)plo")ent 3ureau, o$ned b" Aulia SalaBar, respondent herein. &n
advanced pa")ent has alread" been iven to >stelita b" the e)plo")ent
aenc", for her to $or# as a )aid. Ho$ever, >stelita $anted to transfer to
another residence, $hich $as disallo$ed b" the e)plo")ent aenc". *urther
she $as detained and her libert" $as restrained. The e)plo")ent aenc"
$anted that the advance pa")ent, $hich $as applied to her transportation
e!pense fro) the province should be paid b" >stelita before she could be
allo$ed to leave.
Issue< =hether or Not an e)plo")ent aenc" has the riht to restrain and
detain a )aid $ithout returnin the advance pa")ent it aveN
Held< &n e)plo")ent aenc", reardless of the a)ount it )a" advance to a
prospective e)plo"ee or )aid, has absolutel" no po$er to curtail her
freedo) of )ove)ent. The fact that no ph"sical force has been e!erted to
#eep her in the house of the respondent does not )a#e less real the
deprivation of her personal freedo) of )ove)ent, freedo) to transfer fro)
one place to another, freedo) to choose oneHs residence. *reedo) )a" be
lost due to e!ternal )oral co)pulsion, to founded or roundless fear, to
erroneous belief in the e!istence of an i)ainar" po$er of an i)postor to
cause har) if not blindl" obe"ed, to an" other ps"choloical ele)ent that
)a" curtail the )ental facult" of choice or the unha)pered e!ercise of the
$ill. If the actual effect of such ps"choloical spell is to place a person at the
)erc" of another, the victi) is entitled to the protection of courts of 8ustice as
)uch as the individual $ho is illeall" deprived of libert" b" duress or
ph"sical coercion.
Rubi Vs Prob 3rd of Mindoro.
*&%TS < *ebruar" ,, ,2,1, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted
resolution No. 0'. That said resolution No. 0' .series ,2,1/ of the provincial
board of Mindoro $as approved b" the Secretar" of the Interior of *ebruar"
0,, ,2,1. Dece)ber 5, ,2,1, the provincial overnor of Mindoro issued
e!ecutive order No. 0. Rubi and those livin in his rancheria have not fi!ed
their d$ellin $ithin the reservation of Tibao and are liable to be punished in
accordance $ith section 01'2 of &ct No. 01,,. That Rubi and those livin in
his rancheria have not fi!ed their d$ellin $ithin the reservation of Tibao
and are liable to be punished in accordance $ith section 01'2 of &ct No.
01,,.
That the undersined has not infor)ation that Doroteo Dabalos is bein
detained b" the sheriff of Mindoro but if he is so detained it )ust be b" virtue
of the provisions of articles Nos. 0,5' and 01'2 of &ct No. 01,,.
It thus appears that the provincial overnor of Mindoro and the provincial
board thereof directed the Manuianes in +uestion to ta#e up their habitation
in Tibao, a site on the shore of 4a#e Nau8an, selected b" the provincial
overnor and approved b" the provincial board. The action $as ta#en in
accordance $ith section 0,5' of the &d)inistrative %ode of ,2,1, and $as
dul" approved b" the Secretar" of the Interior as re+uired b" said action.
Petitioners, ho$ever, challene the validit" of this section of the
&d)inistrative %ode. This, therefore, beco)es the para)ount +uestion $hich
the court is called upon the decide.
ISSD> < =ON =hether or not the said la$ is constitutional
H>4D < 3" a vote of five to four, the Supre)e %ourt sustained the
constitutionalit" of this section of the &d)inistrative %ode. &)on other
thins, it $as held that the ter) Onon?%hristianP should not be iven a literal
)eanin or a reliious sinification, but that it $as intended to relate to
derees of civiliBation. The ter) Onon?%hristianP it $as said, refers not to
reliious belief, but in a $a" to eoraphical area, and )ore directl" to
natives of the Philippine Islands of a lo$ rade of civiliBation. On the other
hand, none of the provisions of the Philippine Oranic 4a$ could have had
the effect of den"in to the 6overn)ent of the Philippine Islands, actin
throuh its 4eislature, the riht to e!ercise that )ost essential, insistent, and
illi)itable of po$ers, the soverein police po$er, in the pro)otion of the
eneral $elfare and the public interest. $hen to advance the public $elfare,
the la$ $as found to be a leiti)ate e!ertion of the police po$er, &nd it is
unnecessar" to add that the pro)pt reistration of titles to land in the
Philippines constitutes an advance)ent of the public interests, for, besides
pro)otin peace and ood order a)on lando$ners in particular and the
people in eneral, it helps increase the industries of the countr", and )a#es
for the develop)ent of the natural resources, $ith the conse+uent proress
of the eneral prosperit". &nd these ends are pursued in a special )anner b"
the State throuh the e!ercise of its police po$er. The Supre)e %ourt held
that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro $as neither
discri)inator" nor class leislation, and stated a)on other thins< O. . . one
cannot hold that the libert" of the citiBen is undul" interfered $ith $hen the
deree of civiliBation of the Manuianes is considered. The" are restrained
for their o$n ood and the eneral ood of the Philippines. Nor can one sa"
that due process of la$ has not been follo$ed. To o bac# to our definition of
due process of la$ and e+ual protection of the la$s, there e!ists a la$; the
la$ see)s to be reasonable; it is enforced accordin to the reular )ethods
of procedure prescribed; and it applies ali#e to all of a class.P
Villacicencio Vs 4u#ban
*acts < One hundred and sevent" $o)en $ere isolated fro) societ", and
then at niht, $ithout their consent and $ithout an" opportunit" to consult
$ith friends or to defend their rihts, $ere forcibl" hustled on board stea)ers
for transportation to reions un#no$n. Despite the feeble atte)pt to prove
that the $o)en left voluntaril" and ladl", that such $as not the case is
sho$n b" the )ere fact that the presence of the police and the constabular"
$as dee)ed necessar" and that these officers of the la$ chose the shades
of niht to cloa# their secret and stealth" acts. Indeed, this is a fact
i)possible to refute and practicall" ad)itted b" the respondents.
ISSD> < =ON Ma"or 4u#ban has the riht to deport $o)en $ith ill repute.
H>4D < 4a$ defines po$er. No official, no )atter ho$ hih, is above the la$.
4u#ban co))itted a rave abuse of discretion b" deportin the prostitutes to
a ne$ do)icile aainst their $ill. There is no la$ e!pressl" authoriBin his
action. On the contrar", there is a la$ punishin public officials, not e!pressl"
authoriBed b" la$ or reulation, $ho co)pels an" person to chane his
residence
*urther)ore, the prostitutes are still, as citiBens of the Philippines, entitled to
the sa)e rihts, as stipulated in the 3ill of Rihts, as ever" other citiBen. Thei
rchoice of profession should not be a cause for discri)ination. It )a" )a#e
so)e, li#e 4u#ban, +uite unco)fortable but it does not authoriBe an"one to
co)pel said prostitutes to isolate the)selves fro) the rest of the hu)an
race. These $o)en have been deprived of their libert" b" bein e!iled to
Davao $ithout even bein iven the opportunit" to collect their belonins or,
$orse, $ithout even consentin to bein transported to Mindanao. *or this,
4u#ban etal )ust be severel" punished
Manotoc Vs %a
*&%TS < There $as a torrens title sub)itted to and accepted b" Manotoc
Securities Inc $hich $as suspected to be fa#e. : of its clients filed separate
cri)inal co)plaints aainst the petitioner and 4everiBa, President and VP
respectivel". He $as chared $ith estafa and $as allo$ed b" the %ourt to
post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court )otion for per)ission to leave the
countr" statin his desire to o to DS relative to his business transactions
and opportunities. Such $as opposed b" the prosecution and $as also
denied b" the 8udes. He filed petition for certiorari $ith %& see#in to annul
the prior orders and the S>% co))unication re+uest den"in his leave to
travel abroad.
&ccordin to the petitioner, havin been ad)itted to bail as a )atter of riht,
neither the courts that ranted hi) bail nor S>%, $hich has no 8urisdiction
over his libert", could prevent hi) fro) e!ercisin his constitutional riht to
travel
ISSD> < =ON the %ourt &cted $ith rave abuse of discretion
H>4D < & court has the po$er to prohibit a person ad)itted to bail fro)
leavin the Philippines. This is a necessar" conse+uence of the nature and
function of a bail bond. Rule ,,5, Section , of the Rules of %ourt defines bail
as the securit" re+uired and iven for the release of a person $ho is in the
custod" of the la$, that he $ill appear before an" court in $hich his
appearance )a" be re+uired as stipulated in the bail bond or reconiBance
The condition i)posed upon petitioner to )a#e hi)self available at all ti)es
$henever the court re+uires his presence operates as a valid restriction on
his riht to travel
If the accused $ere allo$ed to leave the Philippines $ithout sufficient reason,
he )a" be placed be"ond the reach of the courts
&s petitioner has failed to satisf" the trial courts and the appellate court of the
urenc" of his travel, the duration thereof, as $ell as the consent of his
suret" to the proposed travel, =e find no abuse of 8udicial discretion in their
havin denied petitionerCs )otion for per)ission to leave the countr", in )uch
the sa)e $a", albeit $ith contrar" results, that =e found no reversible error
to have been co))itted b" the appellate court in allo$in Shepherd to leave
the countr" after it had satisfied itself that she $ould co)pl" $ith the
conditions of her bail bond.
SIlverio Vs %a.
*&%TS < On ,5 October ,2E', Petitioner $as chared $ith violation of
Section 0( .5/ of the Revised Securities &ct in %ri)inal %ase No. %3D?:9(5
of the Reional Trial %ourt of %ebu. In due ti)e, he posted bail for his
provisional libert".
On 0: Aanuar" ,2EE, or )ore than t$o .0/ "ears after the filin of the
Infor)ation, respondent People of the Philippines filed an Drent e! parte
Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue a hold?departure Order aainst
accused?petitioner on the round that he had one abroad several ti)es
$ithout the necessar" %ourt approval resultin in postpone)ents of the
arrain)ent and scheduled hearins
The Reional Trial %ourt, on 5 &pril ,2EE, issued an Order directin the
Depart)ent of *orein &ffairs to cancel PetitionerCs passport or to den" his
application therefor, and the %o))ission on I))iration to prevent
Petitioner fro) leavin the countr". This order $as based pri)aril" on the
Trial %ourtCs findin that since the filin of the Infor)ation on ,5 October
,2E', -the accused has not "et been arrained because he has never
appeared in %ourt on the dates scheduled for his arrain)ent and there is
evidence to sho$ that accused Ricardo %. Silverio, Sr. has left the countr"
and has one abroad $ithout the #no$lede and per)ission of this %ourt-
.Rollo, p. 5'/. PetitionerCs Motion for Reconsideration $as denied on 0E Aul"
,2EE.
ISSD> < =ON Silverios %onstitutional Riht has been violated
H>4D < &rticle III, Section : of the ,2E1 %onstitution should be interpreted to
)ean that $hile the libert" of travel )a" be i)paired even $ithout %ourt
Order, the appropriate e!ecutive officers or ad)inistrative authorities are not
ar)ed $ith arbitrar" discretion to i)pose li)itations. The" can i)pose li)its
onl" on the basis of -national securit", public safet", or public health- and -as
)a" be provided b" la$,-
&rticle III, Section : of the ,2E1 %onstitution should b" no )eans be
construed as deli)itin the inherent po$er of the %ourts to use all )eans
necessar" to carr" their orders into effect in cri)inal cases pendin before
the). =hen b" la$ 8urisdiction is conferred on a %ourt or 8udicial officer, all
au!illar" $rits, process and other )eans necessar" to carr" it into effect )a"
be e)plo"ed b" such %ourt or officer
The nature and function of a bail bond has re)ained unchaned $hether
under the ,29', the ,219, or the ,2E1 %onstitution
Petitioner is facin a cri)inal chare. He has posted bail but has violated the
conditions thereof b" failin to appear before the %ourt $hen re+uired.
=arrants for his arrest have been issued. Those orders and processes $ould
be rendered nuator" if an accused $ere to be allo$ed to leave or to re)ain,
at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the countr". Holdin an
accused in a cri)inal case $ithin the reach of the %ourts b" preventin his
departure fro) the Philippines )ust be considered as a valid restriction on
his riht to travel so that he )a" be dealt $ith in accordance $ith la$. The
offended part" in an" cri)inal proceedin is the People of the Philippines. It
is to their best interest that cri)inal prosecutions should run their course and
proceed to finalit" $ithout undue dela", $ith an accused holdin hi)self
a)enable at all ti)es to %ourt Orders and processes
@ap Vs %a.
*&%TS < *or )isappropriatin a)ounts e+uivalent to P','((,(((.((,
petitioner $as convicted of estafa b" the Reional Trial %ourt of Pasi %it",
and $as sentenced to four "ears and t$o )onths of prision correctional, as
)ini)u) to eiht "ears of prision )a"or as )a!i)u), -in addition to one .,/
"ear for each additional P,(,(((.(( in e!cess of P00,(((.(( but in no case
shall it e!ceed t$ent" .0(/ "ears.-0 He filed a notice of appeal, and )oved to
be allo$ed provisional libert" under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the
proceedins. The )otion $as denied b" the trial court in an order dated
*ebruar" ,1,,222
The %& ranted the 3ail. & )otion for reconsideration $as filed, see#in the
reduction of the a)ount of bail fi!ed b" respondent court, but $as denied in a
resolution issued on Nove)ber 0', ,222 Thus the petition.
ISSD> < =ON there is an rave abuse of disretion
H>4D < There is no +uestion that in the present case the %ourt of &ppeals
e!ercised its discretion in favor of allo$in bail to petitioner on appeal.
Respondent court stated that it $as doin so for -hu)anitarian reasons-, and
despite a perceived hih ris# of fliht, as b" petitionerCs ad)ission he $ent
out of the countr" several ti)es durin the pendenc" of the case, for $hich
reason the court dee)ed it necessar" to pe the a)ount of bail at
P','((,(((.((.
The S% *inds that the settin of the a)ount at P','((,(((.(( is
unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitionerCs
riht to bail
the %ourt is not precluded fro) i)posin in petitionerCs case an a)ount
hiher than P5(,(((.(( .based on the 3ail 3ond 6uide/ $here it perceives
that an appropriate increase is dictated b" the circu)stances
I)posin bail in an e!cessive a)ount could render )eaninless the riht to
bail. Dnder the circu)stances of this case, $e find that appropriate
conditions have been i)posed in the bail bond to ensure aainst the ris# of
fliht, particularl", the co)bination of the hold?departure order and the
re+uire)ent that petitioner infor) the court of an" chane of residence and
of his $hereabouts. &lthouh an increase in the a)ount of bail $hile the
case is on appeal )a" be )eritorious, $e find that the settin of the a)ount
at P','((,(((.(( is unreasonable, e!cessive, and constitutes an effective
denial of petitionerHs riht to bail.
4easpi Vs %ivil Serv. %o)).
*&%TS < The funda)ental riht of the people to infor)ation on )atters of
public concern is invo#ed in this special civil action for )anda)us instituted
b" petitioner Valentin 4. 4easpi aainst the %ivil Service %o))ission. The
respondent had earlier denied 4easpiCs re+uest for infor)ation on the civil
service eliibilities of certain persons e)plo"ed as sanitarians in the Health
Depart)ent of %ebu %it". These overn)ent e)plo"ees, Aulian
Sibonhano" and Mariano &as, had alleedl" represented the)selves as
civil service eliibles $ho passed the civil service e!a)inations for
sanitarians.
ISSD> < =ON the petitioner has leal to access overn)ent records to
validate the civil service eliibilities of the Health Depart)ent e)plo"ees

H>4D < The constitutional uarantee to infor)ation on )atters of public
concern is not absolute. It does not open ever" door to an" and all
infor)ation. Dnder the %onstitution, access to official records, papers, etc.,
are -sub8ect to li)itations as )a" be provided b" la$-
The la$ )a" therefore e!e)pt certain t"pes of infor)ation fro) public
scrutin", such as those affectin national securit"
It follo$s that, in ever" case, the availabilit" of access to a particular public
record )ust be circu)scribed b" the nature of the infor)ation souht, i.e., .a/
bein of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, .b/ not bein
e!e)pted b" la$ fro) the operation of the constitutional uarantee. The
threshold +uestion is, therefore, $hether or not the infor)ation souht is of
public interest or public concern.
This +uestion is first addressed to the overn)ent aenc" havin custod" of
the desired infor)ation. Ho$ever, as alread" discussed, this does not ive
the aenc" concerned an" discretion to rant or den" access. In case of
denial of access, the overn)ent aenc" has the burden of sho$in that the
infor)ation re+uested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern,
that the sa)e has been e!e)pted b" la$ fro) the operation of the
uarantee. To hold other$ise $ill serve to dilute the constitutional riht. &s
aptl" observed, -. . . the overn)ent is in an advantaeous position to
)arshall and interpret aru)ents aainst release . . .- .E1 Harvard 4a$
Revie$ ,',, K,215L/. To safeuard the constitutional riht, ever" denial of
access b" the overn)ent aenc" concerned is sub8ect to revie$ b" the
courts, and in the proper case, access )a" be co)pelled b" a $rit of
Manda)us
Public office bein a public trust it is the leiti)ate concern of citiBens to
ensure that overn)ent positions re+uirin civil service eliibilit" are
occupied onl" b" persons $ho are eliibles. Public officers are at all ti)es
accountable to the people even as to their eliibilities for their respective
positions.
In the instant, case $hile refusin to confir) or den" the clai)s of eliibilit",
the respondent has failed to cite an" provision in the %ivil Service 4a$ $hich
$ould li)it the petitionerCs riht to #no$ $ho are, and $ho are not, civil
service eliibles. =e ta#e 8udicial notice of the fact that the na)es of those
$ho pass the civil service e!a)inations, as in bar e!a)inations and
licensure e!a)inations for various professions, are released to the public.
Hence, there is nothin secret about oneCs civil service eliibilit", if actuall"
possessed. PetitionerCs re+uest is, therefore, neither unusual nor
unreasonable. &nd $hen, as in this case, the overn)ent e)plo"ees
concerned clai) to be civil service eliibles, the public, throuh an" citiBen,
has a riht to verif" their professed eliibilities fro) the %ivil Service
%o))ission.
The civil service eliibilit" of a sanitarian bein of public concern, and in the
absence of e!press li)itations under the la$ upon access to the reister of
civil service eliibles for said position, the dut" of the respondent
%o))ission to confir) or den" the civil service eliibilit" of an" person
occup"in the position beco)es i)perative. Manda)us, therefore lies
Val)onte Vs 3el)onte
*&%TS < Petitioners in this special civil action for )anda)us $ith preli)inar"
in8unction invo#e their riht to infor)ation and pra" that respondent be
directed<
.a/ to furnish petitioners the list of the na)es of the 3atasan Pa)bansa
)e)bers belonin to the DNIDO and PDP?4aban $ho $ere able to secure
clean loans i))ediatel" before the *ebruar" 1 election thru the
intercession7)arinal note of the then *irst 4ad" I)elda Marcos; and7or
.b/ to furnish petitioners $ith certified true copies of the docu)ents
evidencin their respective loans; and7or
.c/ to allo$ petitioners access to the public records for the sub8ect infor)ation
On Aune 0(, ,2E:, apparentl" not havin "et received the repl" of the
6overn)ent Service and Insurance S"ste) .6SIS/ Deput" 6eneral %ounsel,
petitioner Val)onte $rote respondent another letter, sa"in that for failure to
receive a repl", -.=/e are no$ considerin ourselves free to do $hatever
action necessar" $ithin the pre)ises to pursue our desired ob8ective in
pursuance of public interest.-
ISSD> < =ON Val)onte, et. al. are entitled as citiBens and ta!pa"ers to
in+uire upon 6SIS records on behest loans iven b" the for)er *irst 4ad"
I)elda Marcos to 3atasan Pa)bansa )e)bers belonin to the DNIDO
and PDP?4aban political parties.
H>4D < Respondent has failed to cite an" la$ rantin the 6SIS the privilee
of confidentialit" as reards the docu)ents sub8ect of this petition. His
position is apparentl" based )erel" on considerations of polic". The 8udiciar"
does not settle polic" issues. The %ourt can onl" declare $hat the la$ is, and
not $hat the la$ should be. Dnder our s"ste) of overn)ent, polic" issues
are $ithin the do)ain of the political branches of the overn)ent, and of the
people the)selves as the repositor" of all State po$er.
The concerned borro$ers the)selves )a" not succeed if the" choose to
invo#e their riht to privac", considerin the public offices the" $ere holdin
at the ti)e the loans $ere alleed to have been ranted. It cannot be denied
that because of the interest the" enerate and their ne$s$orthiness, public
fiures, )ost especiall" those holdin responsible positions in overn)ent,
en8o" a )ore li)ited riht to privac" as co)pared to ordinar" individuals,
their actions bein sub8ect to closer public scrutin"
The -transactions- used here I suppose is eneric and, therefore, it can cover
both steps leadin to a contract, and alread" a consu))ated contract,
%onsiderin the intent of the fra)ers of the %onstitution $hich, thouh not
bindin upon the %ourt, are nevertheless persuasive, and considerin further
that overn)ent?o$ned and controlled corporations, $hether perfor)in
proprietar" or overn)ental functions are accountable to the people, the
%ourt is convinced that transactions entered into b" the 6SIS, a overn)ent?
controlled corporation created b" special leislation are $ithin the a)bit of
the peopleCs riht to be infor)ed pursuant to the constitutional polic" of
transparenc" in overn)ent dealins.
&lthouh citiBens are afforded the riht to infor)ation and, pursuant thereto,
are entitled to -access to official records,- the %onstitution does not accord
the) a riht to co)pel custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, su))aries and the li#e in their desire to ac+uire infor)ation on
)atters of public concern.
&+uino Vs Morato
*&%TS < In *ebruar" ,2E2, petitioner, herself a )e)ber of respondent Movie
and Television Revie$ and %lassification 3oard .MTR%3/, $rote its records
officer re+uestin that she be allo$ed to e!a)ine the boardCs records
pertainin to the votin slips acco)plished b" the individual board )e)bers
after a revie$ of the )ovies and television productions. It is on the basis of
said slips that fil)s are either banned, cut or classified accordinl".
PetitionerCs re+uest $as eventuall" denied b" respondent Morato on the
round that $henever the )e)bers of the board sit in 8ud)ent over a fil),
their decisions as reflected in the individual votin slips parta#e the nature of
conscience votes and as such, are purel" and co)pletel" private and
personal
On *ebruar" 01, ,2E2, respondent Morato called an e!ecutive )eetin of the
MTR%3 to discuss, a)on others, the issue raised b" petitioner. In said
)eetin, seventeen .,1/ )e)bers of the board voted to declare their
individual votin records as classified docu)ents $hich rendered the sa)e
inaccessible to the public $ithout clearance fro) the chair)an. Thereafter,
respondent Morato denied petitionerCs re+uest to e!a)ine the votin slips.
Ho$ever, it $as onl" )uch later, i.e., on Aul" 01, ,2E2, that respondent
3oard issued Resolution No. ,(?E2 $hich declared as confidential, private
and personal, the decision of the revie$in co))ittee and the votin slips of
the )e)bers.
ISSD> < =ON Resolution No. ,(?E2 is valid
H>4D < The ter) private has been defined as -belonin to or concernin, an
individual person, co)pan", or interest-; $hereas, public )eans -pertainin
to, or belonin to, or affectin a nation, state, or co))unit" at lare.
&s )a" be leaned fro) the decree .PD ,2E:/ creatin the respondent
classification board, there is no doubt that its ver" e!istence is public is
character. it is an office created to serve public interest. It bein the case,
respondents can la" no valid clai) to privac". The riht to privac" belons to
the individual actin in his private capacit" and not to a overn)ental aenc"
or officers tas#ed $ith, and actin in, the dischare of public duties.
the decisions of the 3oard and the individual votin slips acco)plished b"
the )e)bers concerned are acts )ade pursuant to their official functions,
and as such, are neither personal nor private in nature but rather public in
character. The" are, therefore, public records access to $hich is uaranteed
to the citiBenr" b" no less than the funda)ental la$ of the land