Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

83578 March 16, 1989 THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI DOLLAR SALTING TAS! "ORCE, petitioner, vs. HONORA#LE COURT O" APPEALS, HONORA#LE TEO"ILO L, GUADI$, %R.,Pr&'()(*+ %,)+&, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, #ra*ch 1-7. NCR /MA!ATI0, a*) !ARAM"IL IMPORT E1PORT CO., INC., respondents. K. V. Faylona & Associates for respondents.

SARMIENTO, J.: The petitioner, the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce, the President$s ar% assi!ned to investi!ate and prosecute so-called &dollar saltin!& activities in the countr' (per Presidential Decree No. )*+, as a%ended b' Presidential Decree No. -..-/, as"s the Court to hold as null and void t0o Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated epte%ber -1, )*23 1 and Ma' -., )*22, 2 reversin! its Decision, dated 4ctober -1, )*2,. 3 The Decision set aside an 4rder, dated April ),, )*25, of the Re!ional Trial Court, - as 0ell as its 4rder, dated Au!ust -), )*25. The Resolution, dated epte%ber -1, )*23 disposed of, and !ranted, the private respondent 6ara%fil 7%port-E8port Co., 7nc.$s %otion for reconsideration of the 4ctober -1, )*2, Decision9 the Resolution dated Ma' -., )*22, in turn, denied the petitioner$s o0n %otion for reconsideration. The facts are not in controvers'. :e ;uote< 4n March )-, )*25, tate Prosecutor =ose B. Rosales, 0ho is assi!ned 0ith the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce hereinafter referred to as PAD Tas" #orce for purposes of convenience, issued search 0arrants Nos. )5,, )53, )52, )5*, ),. and ),) a!ainst the petitioners 6ara%fil 7%port-E8port Co., 7nc., P > B Enterprises Co., 7nc., Philippine ?eterans Corporation, Philippine ?eterans Develop%ent Corporation, Philippine Construction Develop%ent Corporation, Philippine @auan 7ndustries Corporation, 7nter-trade Develop%ent (Alvin A;uino/, A%elili A. Mala;uio" Enterprises and =ai%e P. @uc%an Enterprises. The application for the issuance of said search 0arrants 0as filed b' Att'. Napoleon Bat%a'tan of the Bureau of Custo%s 0ho is a deputiCed %e%ber of the PAD Tas" #orce. Attached to the said application is the affidavit of =osefin M. Castro 0ho is an operative and investi!ator of the PAD Tas" #orce. aid =osefin M. Castro is li"e0ise the sole deponent in the purported deposition to support the application for the issuance of the si8 (,/ search 0arrants involved in this case. The application filed b' Att'. Bat%a'tan, the affidavit and deposition of =osefin M. Castro are all dated March )-, )*25. 5 hortl' thereafter, the private respondent (the petitioner belo0/ 0ent to the Re!ional Trial Court on a petition to enDoin the i%ple%entation of the search 0arrants in ;uestion. 6 4n March )+, )*25, the trial court issued a te%porar' restrainin! order Eeffective &for a period of five (5/ da's notice & 7 F and set the case for hearin! on March )2, )*25. 7n disposin! of the petition, the said court found the %aterial issues to be<

)/ Co%petenc' of this Court to act on petition filed b' the petitioners9 -/ ?alidit' of the search 0arrants issued b' respondent tate Prosecutor9
+/ :hether or not the petition has beco%e %oot and acade%ic because all the search 0arrants sou!ht to be ;uashed had alread' been i%ple%ented and e8ecuted. 8

4n April ),, )*25, the lo0er court issued the first of its challen!ed 4rders, and held< :GERE#4RE, in vie0 of all the fore!oin!, the Court hereb' declares earch :arrant Nos. )5,, )53, )52, )5*, ),., and ),) to be null and void. Accordin!l', the respondents are hereb' ordered to return and surrender i%%ediatel' all the personal properties and docu%ents seiCed b' the% fro% the petitioners b' virtue of the afore%entioned search 0arrants. 4 4RDERED. 9 4n Au!ust -), )*25, the trial court denied reconsideration. 4n April 1, )*2,, the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce 0ent to the respondent Court of Appeals to contest, on certiorari, the t0in 4rder(s/ of the lo0er court. 7n rulin! initiall' for the Tas" #orce, the Appellate Court held< Gerein petitioner is a special ;uasi-Dudicial bod' 0ith e8press po0ers enu%erated under PD )*+, to prosecute forei!n e8chan!e violations defined and punished under P.D. No. )22+. The petitioner, in e8ercisin! its ;uasi-Dudicial po0ers, ran"s 0ith the Re!ional Trial Courts, and the latter in the case at bar had no Durisdiction to declare the search 0arrants in ;uestion null and void.
Besides as correctl' pointed out b' the Assistant olicitor Beneral the decision of the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce is appealable to the 4ffice of the President.13

4n Nove%ber )-, )*2,, 6ara%fil 7%port-E8port Co., 7nc. sou!ht a reconsideration, on the ;uestion pri%aril' of 0hether or not the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce is &such other responsible officer$ countenanced b' the )*3+ Constitution to issue 0arrants of search and seiCure. As 0e have indicated, the Court of Appeals, on 6ara%fil$s %otion, reversed itself and issued its Resolution, dated epte%ber )*23, and subse;uentl', its Resolution, dated Ma' -., )*22, den'in! the petitioner$s %otion for reconsideration. 7n its petition to this Court, the petitioner alle!es that in so issuin! the Resolution(s/ above%entioned, the respondent Court of Appeals &co%%itted !rave abuse of discretion andHor acted in e8cess of its appellate Durisdiction,& 11 specificall'< a/ 7n deviatin! fro% the settled polic' and rulin!s of the upre%e Court that no Re!ional Trial Courts %a' counter%and or restrain the enforce%ent of la0ful 0rits or decrees issued b' a ;uasi-Dudicial bod' of e;ual and coordinate ran", li"e the PAD Tas" #orce9

b/ #or resortin! to Dudicial le!islation to arrive at its erroneous basis for reconsiderin! its previous Decision dated 4ctober -1, )*2, (see Anne8 &7&/ and thus pro%ul!ated the ;uestioned Resolutions (Anne8es &A& and &B&/, 0hich violated the constitutional doctrine on separation of po0ers9 c/ 7n not resolvin! directl' the other i%portant issues raised b' the petitioner in its Petition in CA-B.R. No. .2,--- P despite the fact that petitioner has de%onstrated sufficientl' and convincin!l' that respondent RTC, in issuin! the ;uestioned 4rders in pecial Proceedin! No. M-,-1 (see Anne8es &C& and $D&/, co%%itted !rave abuse of discretion andHor acted in e8cess of Durisdiction< ). 7n rulin! that (a/ the description of the thin!s to be seiCed as stated in the contested search 0arrant 0ere too !eneral 0hich alle!edl' render the search 0arrants null and void9 (b/ the applications for the contested search 0arrants actuall' char!ed t0o offenses in contravention of the -nd para!raph, ection +, Rule )-, of the Rules of Court9 and (c/ this case has not beco%e %oot and acade%ic, even if the contested search 0arrants had alread' been full' i%ple%ented 0ith positive results9 and
-. 7n rulin! that the petitioner PAD Tas" #orce has not been !ranted under PD )*+, $Dudicial or ;uasi-Dudicial Durisdiction. 12

:e find, upon the fore!oin! facts, that the essential ;uestions that confront us are- (i/ is the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce a ;uasi-Dudicial bod', and one co-e;ual in ran" and standin! 0ith the Re!ional Trial Court, and accordin!l', be'ond the latter$s Durisdiction9 and (ii/ %a' the said presidential bod' be said to be &such other responsible officer as %a' be authoriCed b' la0& to issue search 0arrants under the )*3+ Constitution ;uestions 0e ta"e up seriatim.44 7n sub%ittin! that it is a ;uasi-Dudicial entit', the petitioner states that it is endo0ed 0ith &e8press po0ers and functions under PD No. )*+,, to prosecute forei!n e8chan!e violations as defined and punished under PD No. )22+.& 13 &B' the ver' nature of its e8press po0ers as conferred b' the la0s,& so it is contended, &0hich are decidedl' ;uasi-Dudicial or discretionar' function, such as to conduct preli%inar' investi!ation on the char!es of forei!n e8chan!e violations, issue search 0arrants or 0arrants of arrest, hold departure orders, a%on! others, and dependin! upon the evidence presented, to dis%iss the char!es or to file the correspondin! infor%ation in court of E8ecutive 4rder No. *+1, PD No. )*+, and its 7%ple%entin! Rules and Re!ulations effective Au!ust -,, )*21/, petitioner e8ercises ;uasi-Dudicial po0er or the po0er of adDudication .& 1The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution no0 assailed, 15 0as of the opinion that &EtFhe !rant of ;uasi-Dudicial po0ers to petitioner did not di%inish the re!ular courts$ Dudicial po0er of interpretation. The ri!ht to interpret a la0 and, if necessar' to declare one unconstitutional, e8clusivel' pertains to the Dudiciar'. 7n assu%in! this function, courts do not proceed on the theor' that the Dudiciar' is superior to the t0o other coordinate branches of the !overn%ent, but solel' on the theor' that the' are re;uired to declare the la0 in ever' case 0hich co%e before the%.& 16 This Court finds the Appellate Court to be in error, since 0hat the petitioner puts to ;uestion is the Re!ional Trial Court$s act of assu%in! Durisdiction over the private respondent$s petition belo0 and its subse;uent counter%and of the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce$s orders of search and seiCure, for the reason that the presidential bod', as an entit' (alle!edl'/ coordinate and co-e;ual 0ith the Re!ional Trial Court, 0as (is/ not vested 0ith such a Durisdiction. An e8a%ination of the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce$s petition sho0s indeed its reco!nition of Dudicial revie0 (of the acts of Bovern%ent/ as a basic privile!e of the courts. 7ts obDection, precisel', is 0hether it is the Re!ional Trial Court, or the superior courts, that %a' underta"e such a revie0.

Ander the =udiciar' Reor!aniCation Act of )*2.,

17

the Court of Appeals e8ercises<

(+/ E8clusive appellate Durisdiction over all final Dud!%ents, decisions, resolutions, orders or a0ards of Re!ional Trial Court and ;uasi-Dudicial a!encies, instru%entalities, boards or co%%issions, e8cept those fallin! 0ithin the appellate Durisdiction of the upre%e Court in accordance 0ith the Constitution, the provisions of this Act, and of subpara!raph ()/ of the third para!raph and subpara!raph (1/ of the fourth para!raph of ection )3 of the =udiciar' Act of )*12. 18

888 888 888 Ander the present Constitution, 0ith respect to its provisions on Constitutional Co%%issions, it is provided, in part that<
... Anless other0ise provided b' this Constitution or b' la0, an' decision, order, or rulin! of each Co%%ission %a' be brou!ht to the upre%e Court on certiorari b' the a!!rieved part' 0ithin thirt' da's fro% receipt of a cop' thereof. 19

4n the other hand, Re!ional Trial Courts have e8clusive ori!inal Durisdiction<
(,/ 7n all cases not 0ithin the e8clusive Durisdiction of an' court, tribunal, person or bod' e8ercisin! Dudicial or ;uasi-Dudicial functions. 23

888 888 888 @i"e0ise<

... The upre%e Court %a' desi!nate certain branches of the Re!ional Trial Court to handle e8clusivel' cri%inal cases, Duvenile and do%estic relations cases, a!rarian case, urban land refor% cases 0hich do not fall under the Durisdiction of ;uasi- Dudicial bodies and a!encies andHor such other special cases as the upre%e Court %a' deter%ine in the interest of a speed' and efficient ad%inistration of Dustice. 21

888 888 888 Ander our Resolution dated =anuar' )), )*2+<
22

... The appeals to the 7nter%ediate Appellate Court Eno0, Court of AppealsF fro% ;uasi-Dudicial bodies shall continue to be !overned b' the provisions of Republic Act No. 51+1 insofar as the sa%e is not inconsistent 0ith the provisions of B.P. Bl!. )-*. 23

The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 51+1 are as follo0s<

ECT74N ). Appeals fro% specified a!encies.I An' provision of e8istin! la0 or Rule of Court to the contrar' not0ithstandin!, parties a!!rieved b' a final rulin!, a0ard, order, decision, or Dud!%ent of the Court of A!rarian Relations9 the ecretar' of @abor under ection 3 of Republic Act Nu%bered i8 hundred and t0o, also "no0n as the &Mini%u% :a!e @a0&9 the Depart%ent of @abor under ection -+ of Republic Act Nu%bered Ei!ht hundred sevent'-five, also "no0n as the &7ndustrial Peace Act&9 the @and Re!istration Co%%ission9 the ecurities and E8chan!e Co%%ission9 the ocial ecurit' Co%%ission9 the Civil Aeronautics Board9 the Patent 4ffice and the A!ricultural 7nventions Board, %a' appeal therefro% to the Court of Appeals, 0ithin the period and in the %anner herein provided, 0hether the appeal involves ;uestions of fact, %i8ed ;uestions of fact and la0, or ;uestions of la0, or all three "inds of ;uestions. #ro% final Dud!%ents or decisions of the Court of Appeals, the a!!rieved

part' %a' appeal b' certiorari to the upre%e Court as provided in Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. 2-

Because of subse;uent a%end%ents, includin! the abolition of various special courts, 25 Durisdiction over ;uasi-Dudicial bodies has to be, conse;uentl', deter%ined b' the correspondin! a%endator' statutes. Ander the @abor Code, decisions and a0ards of the National @abor Relations Co%%ission are final and e8ecutor', but, nevertheless, $revie0able b' this Court throu!h a petition for certiorari and not b' 0a' of appeal.& 26 Ander the Propert' Re!istration Decree, decisions of the Co%%ission of @and Re!istration, en consults, are appealable to the Court of Appeals. 27 The decisions of the ecurities and E8chan!e Co%%ission are li"e0ise appealable to the Appellate Court, 28 and so are decisions of the ocial ecurit' Co%%ission. 29 As a rule, 0here le!islation provides for an appeal fro% decisions of certain ad%inistrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it %eans that such bodies are co-e;ual 0ith the Re!ional Trial Courts, in ter%s of ran" and stature, and lo!icall', be'ond the control of the latter. As 0e have observed, the ;uestion is 0hether or not the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce is, in the first place, a ;uasi-Dudicial bod', and one 0hose decisions %a' not be challen!ed before the re!ular courts, other than the hi!her tribunals the Court of Appeals and this Court. A ;uasi-Dudicial bod' has been defined as &an or!an of !overn%ent other than a court and other than a le!islature, 0hich affects the ri!hts of private parties throu!h either adDudication or rule %a"in!.& 33 The %ost co%%on t'pes of such bodies have been listed as follo0s< ()/ A!encies created to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is offerin! so%e !ratuit', !rant, or special privile!e, li"e the defunct Philippine ?eterans Board, Board on Pensions for ?eterans, and NARRA, and Philippine ?eterans Ad%inistration. (-/ A!encies set up to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is see"in! to carr' on certain !overn%ent functions, li"e the Bureau of 7%%i!ration, the Bureau of 7nternal Revenue, the Board of pecial 7n;uir' and Board of Co%%issioners, the Civil ervice Co%%ission, the Central Ban" of the Philippines. (+/ A!encies set up to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is perfor%in! so%e business service for the public, li"e the Bureau of Posts, the Postal avin!s Ban", Metropolitan :ater0or"s > e0era!e Authorit', Philippine National Rail0a's, the Civil Aeronautics Ad%inistration. (1/ A!encies set up to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is see"in! to re!ulate business affected 0ith public interest, li"e the #iber 7nspections Board, the Philippine Patent 4ffice, 4ffice of the 7nsurance Co%%issioner. (5/ A!encies set up to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is see"in! under the police po0er to re!ulate private business and individuals, li"e the ecurities > E8chan!e Co%%ission, Board of #ood 7nspectors, the Board of Revie0 for Movin! Pictures, and the Professional Re!ulation Co%%ission.
(,/ A!encies set up to function in situations 0herein the !overn%ent is see"in! to adDust individual controversies because of so%e stron! social polic' involved, such as the National @abor Relations Co%%ission, the Court of A!rarian Relations, the Re!ional 4ffices of the Ministr' of @abor, the ocial ecurit' Co%%ission, Bureau of @abor tandards, :o%en and Minors Bureau. 31

As %a' be seen, it is the basic function of these bodies to adDudicate clai%s andHor to deter%ine ri!hts, and unless its decision are seasonabl' appealed to the proper revie0in! authorities, the sa%e attain finalit' and beco%e e8ecutor'. A perusal of the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce$s or!anic act, Presidential Decree No. )*+,, as a%ended b' Presidential Decree No. -..-, convinces the Court that the Tas" #orce 0as not %eant to e8ercise ;uasi-Dudicial functions, that is, to tr' and decide clai%s and e8ecute its Dud!%ents. As the President$s ar% called upon to co%bat the vice of &dollar saltin!& or the blac"%ar"etin! and saltin! of forei!n e8chan!e, 32 it is tas"ed alone b' the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothin! %ore. :e ;uote< ECT74N ). Po0ers of the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce.-The Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce, hereinafter referred to as Tas" #orce, shall have the follo0in! po0ers and authorit'< a/ Motu proprio or upon co%plaint, to investi!ate and prosecute all dollar saltin! activities, includin! the overvaluation of i%ports and the undervaluation of e8ports9 b/ To ad%inister oaths, su%%on persons or issue subpoenas re;uirin! the attendance and testi%on' of 0itnesses or the production of such boo"s, papers, contracts, records, state%ents of accounts, a!ree%ents, and other as %a' be necessar' in the conduct of investi!ation9 c/ To appoint or desi!nate e8perts, consultants, state prosecutors or fiscals, investi!ators and hearin! officers to assist the Tas" #orce in the dischar!e of its duties and responsibilities9 !ather data, infor%ation or docu%ents9 conduct hearin!s, receive evidence, both oral and docu%entar', in all cases involvin! violation of forei!n e8chan!e la0s or re!ulations9 and sub%it reports containin! findin!s and reco%%endations for consideration of appropriate authorities9 d/ To punish direct and indirect conte%pts 0ith the appropriate penalties therefor under Rule 3) of the Rules of Court9 and to adopt such %easures and ta"e such actions as %a' be necessar' to i%ple%ent this Decree. 888 888 888 f. After due investi!ation but prior to the filin! of the appropriate cri%inal char!es 0ith the fiscal$s office or the courts as the case %a' be, to i%pose a fine andHor ad%inistrative sanctions as the circu%stances 0arrant, upon an' person found co%%ittin! or to have co%%itted acts constitutin! blac"%ar"etin! or saltin! abroad of forei!n e8chan!e, provided said person voluntaril' ad%its the facts and circu%stances constitutin! the offense and presents proof that the forei!n e8chan!e retained abroad has alread' been brou!ht into the countr'. Thereafter, no further civil or cri%inal action %a' be instituted a!ainst said person before an' other Dudicial re!ulator' or ad%inistrative bod' for violation of Presidential Decree No. )22+. The a%ount of the fine shall be deter%ined b' the Chair%an of the Presidential Anti- Dollar altin! Tas" #orce and paid in Pesos ta"in! into consideration the a%ount of forei!n e8chan!e retained abroad, the e8chan!e rate differentials, uncollected ta8es and duties thereon, undeclared profits, interest rates and such other relevant factors.
The fine shall be paid to the Tas" #orce 0hich shall retain T0ent' percent (-. J/ thereof. The infor%er, if an', shall be entitled to T0ent' percent (-. J/ of the fine.

hould there be no infor%er, the Tas" #orce shall be entitle to retain #ort' percent (1. J/ of the fine and the balance shall accrue to the !eneral funds of the National !overn%ent. The a%ount of the fine to be retained b' the Tas" #orce shall for% part of its Confidential #und and be utiliCed for the operations of the Tas" #orce . 33

The Court sees nothin! in the afore;uoted provisions (e8cept 0ith respect to the Tas" #orce$s po0ers to issue search 0arrants/ that 0ill reveal a le!islative intend%ent to confer it 0ith ;uasiDudicial responsibilities relative to offenses punished b' Presidential Decree No. )22+. 7ts underta"in!, as 0e said, is si%pl', to deter%ine 0hether or not probable cause e8ists to 0arrant the filin! of char!es 0ith the proper court, %eanin! to sa', to conduct an in;uir' preli%inar' to a Dudicial recourse, and to reco%%end action &of appropriate authorities&. 7t is not unli"e a fiscal$s office that conducts a preli%inar' investi!ation to deter%ine 0hether or not pri%a facie evidence e8ists to Dustif' halin! the respondent to court, and 'et, 0hile it %a"es that deter%ination, it cannot be said to be actin! as a ;uasi-court. #or it is the courts, ulti%atel', that pass Dud!%ent on the accused, not the fiscal. 7t is not unli"e the Presidential Co%%ission on Bood Bovern%ent either, the e8ecutive bod' appointed to investi!ate and prosecute cases involvin! &ill-!otten 0ealth&. 7t had been vested 0ith enor%ous po0ers, li"e the issuance of 0rits of se;uestration, freeCe orders, and si%ilar processes, but that did not, on account thereof alone, %a"e it a ;uasi-Dudicial entit' as defined b' reco!niCed authorities. 7t cannot pronounce Dud!e%ent of the accused$s culpabilit', the Durisdiction to do 0hich is e8clusive upon the andi!anba'an. 37f the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce is not, hence, a ;uasi-Dudicial bod', it cannot be said to be co-e;ual or coordinate 0ith the Re!ional Trial Court. There is nothin! in its enablin! statutes that 0ould de%onstrate its standin! at par 0ith the said court. 7n that respect, 0e do not find error in the respondent Court of Appeal$s resolution sustainin! the assu%ption of Durisdiction b' the court a quo. 7t 0ill not do to sa' that the fact that the Presidential Tas" #orce has been e%po0ered to issue 0arrants of arrest, search, and seiCure, %a"es it, ergo, a &se%i-court&. Precisel', it is the obDection interposed b' the private respondent, 0hether or not it can under the )*3+ Charter, issue such "inds of processes. 7t %ust be observed that under the present Constitution, the po0ers of arrest and search are e8clusive upon Dud!es. 35 To that e8tent, the case has beco%e %oot and acade%ic. Nevertheless, since the ;uestion has been specificall' put to the Court, 0e find it unavoidable to resolve it as the final arbiter of le!al controversies, pursuant to the provisions of the )*3+ Constitution durin! 0hose re!i%e the case 0as co%%enced. ince the )*3+ Constitution too" force and effect and until it 0as so uncere%oniousl' discarded in )*2,, its provisions conferrin! the po0er to issue arrest and search 0arrants upon an officer, other than a Dud!e, b' fiat of le!islation have been at best controversial. 7n Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 36 a )*35 decision, this Court ruled that a fiscal has no authorit' to issue search 0arrants, but held in the sa%e vein that, b' virtue of the responsible officer& clause of the )*3+ Bill of Ri!hts, &an' la0ful officer authoriCed b' la0 can issue a search 0arrant or 0arrant of arrest.37 Authorities, ho0ever, have continued to e8press reservations 0hether or not fiscals %a', b' statute, be !iven such a po0er. 38 @ess than a 'ear later, 0e pro%ul!ated Collector of Customs v. Villaluz, 39 in 0hich 0e cate!oricall' averred< Antil no0 onl' the Dud!e can issue the 0arrant of arrest.& -3 &No la0 or presidential decree has been enacted or pro%ul!ated vestin! the sa%e authorit' in a particular responsible officer .& -1

Apparentl', ?illaluC had settled the debate, but the sa%e ;uestion persisted follo0in! this Courts subse;uent rulin!s upholdin! the President$s alle!ed e%er!enc' arrest po0ers . -2 EMr. =ustice Gu!o ButierreC 0ould hold, ho0ever, that a Presidential Co%%it%ent 4rder (PC4/ is (0as/ not a species of &arrest& in its technical sense, and that the (deposed/ Chief E8ecutive, in issuin! one, does not do so in his capacit' as a &responsible officer& under the )*3+ Charter, but rather, as Co%%ander-in-Chief of the Ar%ed #orces in ti%es of e%er!enc', or in order to carr' out the deportation of undesirable aliens. -3 7n the distin!uished =ustice$s opinion then, these are acts that can be done 0ithout need of Dudicial intervention because the' are not, precisel', Dudicial but Presidential actions.F 7n Ponsica v. Ignalaga,-- ho0ever, 0e held that the %a'or has been %ade a &responsible officer$ b' the @ocal Bovern%ent Code, -5 but had ceased to be one 0ith the approval of the )*23 Constitution accordin! Dud!es sole authorit' to issue arrest and search 0arrants. But in the sa%e breath, 0e did not rule the !rant under the Code unconstitutional based on the provisions of the for%er Constitution. :e 0ere a!reed, thou!h, that the &responsible officer& referred to b' the funda%ental la0 should be one capable of appro8i%atin! &the cold neutralit' of an i%partial Dud!e.& -6 7n stri"in! do0n Presidential Decree No. )*+, the respondent Court relied on A%erican Durisprudence, notabl',Katz v. nited !tates, -7 "o#nson v. nited !tates, -8 and Coolidge v. $e% &amps#ire -9 in 0hich the A%erican upre%e Court ruled that prosecutors (li"e the petitioner/ cannot be !iven such po0ers because of their incapacit' for a &detached scrutin'& 53 of the cases before the%. :e affir% the Appellate Court. :e a!ree that the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce e8ercises, or 0as %eant to e8ercise, prosecutorial po0ers, and on that !round, it cannot be said to be a neutral and detached &Dud!e& to deter%ine the e8istence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or search. Anli"e a %a!istrate, a prosecutor is naturall' interested in the success of his case. Althou!h his office &is to see that Dustice is done and not necessaril' to secure the conviction of the person accused,& 51 he stands, invariabl', as the accused$s adversar' and his accuser. To per%it hi% to issue search 0arrants and indeed, 0arrants of arrest, is to %a"e hi% both Dud!e and Dur' in his o0n ri!ht, 0hen he is neither. That %a"es, to our %ind and to that e8tent, Presidential Decree No. )*+, as a%ended b' Presidential Decree No. -..-, unconstitutional. 7t is our rulin!, thus, that 0hen the )*3+ Constitution spo"e of &responsible officer& to 0ho% the authorit' to issue arrest and search 0arrants %a' be dele!ated b' le!islation, it did not furnish the le!islator 0ith the license to !ive that authorit' to 0ho%soever it pleased. 7t is to be noted that the Charter itself %a"es the ;ualification that the officer hi%self %ust be &responsible&. :e are not sa'in!, of course, that the Presidential Anti-Dollar altin! Tas" #orce (or an' si%ilar prosecutor/ is or has been irresponsible in dischar!in! its dut'. Rather, 0e ta"e &responsibilit'&, as used b' the Constitution, to %ean not onl' s"ill and co%petence but %ore si!nificantl', neutralit' and independence co%parable to the i%partialit' presu%ed of a Dudicial officer. A prosecutor can in no %anner be said to be possessed of the latter ;ualities. Accordin! to the Court of Appeals, the i%plied e8clusion of prosecutors under the )*3+ Constitution 0as founded on the re;uire%ents of due process, notabl', the assurance to the respondent of an unbiased in;uir' of the char!es a!ainst hi% prior to the arrest of his person or seiCure of his propert'. :e add that the e8clusion is also de%anded b' the principle of separation of po0ers on 0hich our republican structure rests. Prosecutors e8ercise essentiall' an e8ecutive function (the petitioner itself is chaired b' the Minister, no0 ecretar', of Trade and 7ndustr'/, since under the Constitution, the President has pled!ed to e8ecute the la0s. 52 As such, the' cannot be %ade to issue Dudicial processes 0ithout unla0full' i%pin!in! the prero!ative of the courts.

At an' rate, Ponsica v. Ignalaga should foreclose all ;uestions on the %atter, althou!h the Court hopes that this disposition has clarified a controvers' that had !enerated often bitter debates and bic"erin!s. The Court Doins the Bovern%ent in its ca%pai!n a!ainst the scour!e of &dollar- saltin!&, a pernicious practice that has substantiall' drained the nation$s coffers and has seriousl' threatened its econo%'. :e reco!niCe the %enace it has posed (and continues to pose/ unto the ver' stabilit' of the countr', the ur!enc' for tou!h %easures desi!ned to contain if not eradicate it, and fore%ost, the need for cooperation fro% the citiCenr' in an all-out ca%pai!n. But 0hile 0e support the tate$s efforts, 0e do so not at the e8pense of funda%ental ri!hts and liberties and constitutional safe!uards a!ainst arbitrar' and unreasonable acts of Bovern%ent. 7f in the event that as a result of this rulin!, 0e prove to be an &obstacle& to the vital endeavour of sta%pin! out the blac"%ar"etin! of valuable forei!n e8chan!e, 0e do not relish it and certainl', do not %ean it. The Constitution si%pl' does not leave us %uch choice. :GERE#4RE, the petition is D7 M7 ED. No costs. 4 4RDERED.

Fernan' C.".' $arvasa' (utierrez' "r.' Paras' (ancayco' Padilla' )idin' (ri*o+Aquino' ,edialdea and -egalado' "".' concur. Cruz' Feliciano and Cortes' "". concur in t#e result. ,elencio+&errera' ".' too. no part.

"oo5*o5&' ) Gerrera, Manuel, =., Ca%ilon and Ma!sino, ==., Concurrin!. - Gerrera, Manuel, =., Bellosillo and Ma!sino, ==., Concurrin!. + Gerrera, Manuel, =., Ca%ilon and Ma!sino, ==., Concurrin!. 1 BuadiC, Teofilo, presidin! =ud!e, Branch CK@?77 Ma"ati, Metro Manila. 5 4rder, dated April ),, )*25, ). , Id. 3 Id. 2 Id., -. Reference to &Court& is Re!ional Trial Court. * Id., *. ). Decision, dated 4ctober -1, )*2,, 1-5. )) Petition, ,. )- Id., 3-*.

LL :e decide this case not0ithstandin! the private respondent$s pra'er for e8tension to file a %e%orandu%. (The olicitor Beneral has as"ed that he be e8cused fro% filin! one/. :e do so since the pleadin!s on file 0ith the Court have sufficientl' sho0n the respective positions of the parties and since onl' ;uestions of la0 are involved, ;uestions 0e can alread' resolve 0ithout the aid of an' %ore other pleadin! or paper. )+ Id., )5-),. )1 Id., ),. )5 Dated Ma' -., )*22. ), Id., --+. )3 Batas Pa%bansa Bl!. )-*. )2 upra, sec. *, Par. (+/. )* C4N T. ()*23/, art. 7K (B/, sec. 3. -. !upra, sec. )*, par. (,/. -) !upra, sec. -+. -- RE 4@AT74N 4# TGE C4ART EN BANC, DATED =ANAARM )), )*2+, PR4?7D7NB #4R TGE 7NTER7M 4R TRAN 7T74NA@ RA@E AND BA7DE@7NE RE@AT7?E T4 TGE 7MP@EMENTAT74N 4# TGE =AD7C7ARM RE4RBAN7NAT74N ACT 4# )*2) (B.P. B@B. )-*/. -+ !upra, par. --, subpar. (c/. -1 Rep. Act. No. 51+1, sec. ). -5 The Court of A!rarian Relations for instance, 0as abolished b' Batas Bl!. )-*, sec. 11. The @abor Code, sec. -*2, on the other hand, abolished the Court of 7ndustrial Relations. -, Asia0orld Publishin! Gouse, 7nc. v. 4ple, No. @-5,+*2, =ul' -+, )*23, )5CRA -)*, --5. -3 Pres. Decree No. )5-*, sec. ))39 Rep. Act No. 51+1, sec. ), supra. -2 Batas Bl!. )-*, supra, sec. *(+/, a%endin! Pres. Decree No. *.--A, sec. ,. -* upra. +. B4NNA@E , ADM7N7 TRAT7?E @A:, A TEKT )+ ()*3*/. +) Id., )1-)5. +- ee Pres. Decree No. )22+ as a%ended b' Pres. Decree No. -..-.

++ Pres. Decree No. )*+,, sec. )9 Pres. Decree No. -..-, supra, sec. -9 e%phasis in ori!inal. +1 Presidential Commission on (ood (overnment v. Pena, B.R. No. 33,,+, April )-, )*229 #eliciano, =., Concurrin! 0ith ;ualifications. :hile the Re!ional Trial Courts %a' not ta"e co!niCance of cases involvin! the Co%%ission, this is so because the various E8ecutive 4rders creatin! it specificall' invested the andi!anba'an of the Durisdiction, and not because it is co-e;ual 0ith the said courts. +5 C4N T. ()*23/, art. 777, ec. -. +, No. @---551, Au!ust -*, )*35, ,, CRA -**. +3 upra, +.,, fn. 39 e%phasis supplied. +2 BERNA , TGE )*3+ PG7@7PP7NE C4N T7TAT74N A RE?7E:ER-PR7MER +3 ()*2)/. +* Nos. @-+1.+2, +1-1+, +,+3,, +2,22, +*5-5, 1..+), =une )2, )*3,, 3) CRA +5,. 1. upra, +2.. 1) upra. 1- ee Cruz v. (atan No. ),11* )., Nove%ber -*, )*3,, 31 CRA --, in 0hich the Court sustained the Arrest, earch, and eiCure 4rder (A 4/ under Beneral 4rder No. --A9 Barcia-Padilla v. /nrile, No. @-,)+*2, April -.,)*2+,)-) CRA 13- and ,orales' "r. v. /nrile, Nos. @-,).),-3, April -,,)*2+,)-) CRA 5+2, in 0hich 0e held valid Presidential Co%%it%ent 4rders/ (PC4 / pursuant to @etters of 7nstructions Nos. ))-5-A and )-) )9 and (arcia+Padilla v. /nrile, No. @,)+22, =ul' )*, )*25, )+3 CRA ,13, in 0hich 0e reco!niCed the validit' of Presidential Detention Action(s/ PDAs per Presidential Decree Nos. )233 and )233-A. 1+ ,orales' "r. v. /nrile, supra, ,.1, ButierreC, =r., =., Concurrin!. 11 No. @-3-+.), =ul' +), )*23, )5- CRA ,13. 15 Batas Pa%bansa Bl!. ++3, sec. )1+, pars. ()/, (+/. 1, Ponsica v. Ignalaga, supra, ,,-. 13 +2* A +13 ()*,3/. 12 +++ A ). ()*12/. 1* 1.+ A 1++ ()*3 )/. 5. Resolution, dated epte%ber -1, )*23, id., -. 5) Crespo v. ,ogul, No. @-5++3+, =une +., )*23, )5) CRA 1,-, 13..

5- C4N T. ()*23/, art. ?77, sec. 5.