62 Hurtado vs. People of State of California [110 U.S.

516, 3 March 1884] Matthews (J) Facts: The constitution of the state of California adopted in 1879, in article 1, 8, provides as follows: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." In pursuance of the foregoing provision of the constitution, and of the several sections of the penal Code of California, the district attorney of Sacramento county, on 20 February 1882, filed an information against Joseph Hurtado, charging him with the crime of murder in the killing of one Jose Antonio Stuardo. Upon this information, and without any previous investigation of the cause by any grand jury, Hurtado was arraigned on 22 March 1882, and pleaded not guilty. A trial of the issue was thereafter had, and on 7 May 1882, the jury rendered its verdict, in which it found Hurtado guilty of murder in the first degree. On 5 June 1882, the superior court of Sacramento county rendered its judgment upon said verdict, that Hurtado be punished by the infliction of death, and the day of his execution was fixed for 20 July 1882. From this judgment an appeal was taken, and the supreme court of the State of California affirmed the judgment. On 6 July 1883, the superior court of said county of Sacramento ordered that Hurtado be in court on 11 July 1883, in order that a day for the execution of the judgment in said cause should be fixed. In pursuance of said order, Hurtado, with his counsel, appeared in court, and upon the court's inquiry, objected to the execution of said judgment and to any order which the court might make fixing a day for the execution of the same, upon the grounds (1) that it appeared upon the face of the judgment that Hurtado had never been legally, or otherwise, indicted or presented by any grand jury, and that he was proceeded against by information made and filed by the district attorney of the county of Sacramento, after examination and commitment by a magistrate of the said county; (2) that the said proceedings, as well as the laws and constitution of California, attempting to authorize them, and the alleged verdict of the jury, and judgment of the said superior court of said county of Sacramento, were in conflict with and prohibited by Amendments 5 and 14 of the constitution of the United States, and that

they were therefore void; (3) that Hurtado had been held to answer for the said crime of murder by the district attorney of the said county of Sacramento, upon an information filed by him, and had been tried and illegally found guilty of the said crime, without any presentment or indictment of any grand or other jury, and that the judgment rendered upon the alleged verdict of the jury in such case was and is void, and if executed would deprive Hurtado of his life or liberty without due process of law. Thereupon the court overruled the said objections, and fixed 13 August 1883, as the time for the execution of the sentence. From this latter judgment, Hurtado appealed to the supreme court of the state. On 18 September 1883, the supreme court of the state affirmed the said judgment. A review of which, by a writ of error, by the US Supreme Court was allowed. Issue: Whether Hurtado was denied due process by being tried and found guilty without being presented or indicted by a grand jury. Held: The clause of the 14th article of amendment to the constitution of the United States, provides that "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The phrase is to be construed by the usus loquendi of the constitution itself. The same words are contained in the 5th amendment. That article makes specific and express provision for perpetuating the institution of the grand jury, so far as relates to prosecutions for the more aggravated crimes under the laws of the United States. It declares that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It then immediately adds: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The natural and obvious inference is that, in the sense of the constitution, "due process of law" was not meant or intended to include, ex vi termini, the institution and procedure of a grand jury in any case. The conclusion is equally Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the 14th amendment to restrain the action of the states, it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent; and that if in the adoption of that amendment it had been part of its purpose to perpetuate the institution of the grand jury in all the states, it would have embodied, as did the 5th amendment, express declarations to that effect. Due process of law in the latter refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon congress by the constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed, and interpreted according to the principles of the common law. In the fourteenth amendment, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the land in each state which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their pleasure. The 14th amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two states separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each state prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding. Further, any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power in furtherance of the general public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law. Herein, the Court is unable to say that the substitution for a presentment or indictment by a grand jury of the proceeding by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate, certifying to the probable guilt of the defendant, with the right on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross-examination of the witnesses produced for the prosecution, is not due process of law. The Court found no error and thus affirmed the judgment of the supreme court of California.

Rubi, et. al. vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro [GR 14078, 7 March 1919] En Banc, Malcolm (J): 3 concur Facts: On 1 February 1917, the Provincial Board of Mindoro adopted Resolution 25 creating a reservation / permanent settlement for Mangyans (Mangyanes) in an 800-hectare public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake, and resolving that Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on the reservation provided that said homestead applications be previously recommended by the provincial governor. On 21 February 1917, the Secretary of Interior approved Resolution 25. On 4 December 1917, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued Executive Order 2 which directed all Mangyans in the vicinities of the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake, not later than 31 December 1917, and penalizing any Mangyan who refused to comply with the order with imprisonment of not exceeding 60 days, in accordance with section 2759 of the Revised Administrative Code. Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwellings within the reservation of Tigbao and are prosecuted in accordance with section 2759 of Act No. 2711. On the other hand, Doroteo Dabalos, was detained by the sheriff of Mindoro by virtue of the provisions of Articles 2145 and 2759 of Act 2711, for having run away from the reservation. Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro applied for writs of habeas corpus, alleging that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Issue: Whether due process was followed in the restraint of the Manguianes’ liberty, either on their confinement in reservations and/or imprisonment due to violation of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code . Held: None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. The meaning of "due process of law" is, that "every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society." To constitute "due process of law," a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite, a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. Neither is due process a stationary and blind

which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice. and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. and fourth. whenever it becomes necessary. David v. to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines. 5. may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . Action pursuant to Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person Constitutional Law II. leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army. Seized from the premises – in the absence of any official of the Daily Tribune except the security guard of the building – were several materials for publication. that this law shall be reasonable in its operation. implemented by G. There exists a law. May 3. President Arroyo issued PP 1017. 2005 ( 3 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. G. not issue. . declaring a state of national emergency. No. that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. 5. in furtherance of the public good. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. a composite team of PNP and AFP officers.R. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. 2006 (and other consolidated cases) I. was searched without warrant at about 1:00 A. President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. . respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military officers. somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. THE FACTS On February 24. 2006 on their way to EDSA. thus: NOW. The law enforcers. orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.rebellion. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature. on February 25. and as provided in Section 17.M. Due process of law" means simply that "first. whether sanctioned by age and custom. the law seems to be reasonable. 2006. 171396. No. or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power. which was perceived to be anti-Arroyo. third. No. Habeas corpus can. must be held to be due process of law. Petitioners David and Llamas were arrested without warrants on February 24. . . the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune.O. do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. Rubi and the other Manguianes are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. . by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18. Randolf S.O. therefore.. They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the reins of government as a clear and present danger. that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government. . Herein. THEREFORE. Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency. prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees. . . as the Filipino nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I. In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G. I. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “The President. and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude.” and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief. that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed. second. 2006." What is due process of law depends on circumstances. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. cited as basis of the warrantless . Meanwhile. We are further of the opinion that Section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power.sentinel of liberty. It varies with the subject-matter and necessities of the situation. and it applies alike to all of a class. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority.

Lorenzo M. made pursuant to PP 1017.A peace officer or a private person may. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides [for the following circumstances of valid warrantless arrests]: Sec. Sarmiento. or is attempting to commit an offense. the warrantless arrests of petitioners David. in his presence. when lawful. room. Abraham F. [S]earches. the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily Tribune’s officesconducted pursuant to PP 1017 was NOT valid. THE RULING [The Court partially GRANTED the petitions. in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President. in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. et al. Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure. Section 8 mandates that the search of a house. . [T]he search [and seizure in the Daily Tribune premises] is illegal. Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution) as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. . in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. Was the warrantless search and seizure on the Daily Tribune’s officesconducted pursuant to PP 1017 valid? III. or any other premise be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter. All these rules were violated by the CIDG operatives. and x x x. such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to sedition. He noted that petitioner David was not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was wearing it. THE ISSUE 1. Melquiades P. unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. Neither of the [provisions on in flagrante nor hot pursuit warrantless arrests] justifies petitioner David’s warrantless arrest. Tuvera [ GR L-63915. arrest a person: (a) When. Integrity and Nationalism. Section 5. et al. Were the warrantless arrests of petitioners David. Inc.arrests and the warrantless search and seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017 issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the exercise of her constitutional power to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.Consequently. made pursuant to PP 1017. were wearing t-shirts with the invective “Oust Gloria Now”and their erroneous assumption that petitioner David was the leader of the rally. NO. Section 4 requires that a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offence to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 68 Tanada v.. and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood. in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President. Tuvera. valid? 2.] 1. II.. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to sedition and violation of BP 880. 5. 29 December 1986] Resolution En Banc. were NOT valid. without a warrant. in his capacity as Director. Hon. (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. the person to be arrested has committed. seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Arrest without warrant. Tañada. Cruz (J) : 8 concur Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern (Section 6. NO. Joaquin Venus. the Inquest Prosecutor ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. And Section 9 states that the warrant must direct that it be served in the daytime. [MABINI] sought a writ of mandamus to compel Hon. is actually committing. Juan C. all that the arresting officers could invoke was their observation that some rallyists 2. De La Cruz.

Torres (J) : 4 concur Facts: On 6 August 1973. and (3) instructions of Ministry heads on case studies. the Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) was created as a government owned or controlled corporation under Presidential Decree (PD) 252. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application. and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with it but simply because they did not know of its existence. and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. The decision was concurred only by 3 justices. and not to the public as a whole. Philippine International Trading Co. After the EDSA Revolution. the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication to the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application. letter of implementation and administrative orders. On 9 August 1976." The PITC was . and come out regularly. facilitative and regulatory arm of the government for the country's trade. directing. the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual. they shall have no binding force and effect. (5) Monetary Board circulars to "fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to enforce. this kind of publication is not the one required or authorized by existing law. The Solicitor General avers that the motion is a request for advisory opinion. They suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not. Publication requirements does not apply to (1) interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature.e. To be valid. vs Angeleson November 20. Meanwhile. then President Corazon C. publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. or some of the people only. It should be published in the Official Gazette and not elsewhere. executive orders. Bureau of Printing. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public. move for reconsideration / clarification of the decision on various questions. in his capacity as Director. to publish. which subsequently required the new Solicitor General to file a rejoinder on the issue (under Rule 3. inter alia. Pablo. (PITC) v. (2) Letters of Instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a result. industry and investment activities. including the People's Republic of China (PROC) shall be undertaken or coursed through the PITC. 2010 263 scra 420 69 Philippine International Trading Corp. general orders. i. have a wider readership. Even if newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available. and Florendo S. On 9 May 1977. including those of local application and private laws. proclamations. On 24 April 1985. the February EDSA Revolution took place. even if their enactment is “otherwise provided” or effective immediately. al. where the purposes and powers of the said governmental entity were enumerated under Sections 5 and 6 thereof. for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. and or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees. the late President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instruction (LOI) 444. PD 1071 revised the provisions of PD 252. that trade (export or import of all commodities) between the Philippines and any of the Socialist and other Centrally Planned Economy Countries (SOCPEC). (2) presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or directly conferred by the Constitution.Malacañang Records Office. Held: Omission of publication would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. that publication means complete publication. 21 October 1996] Second Division. Angeles [GR 108461. letters of instructions. Aquino promulgated Executive Order (EO) 133 reorganizing the DTI empowering the said department to be the "primary coordinative. Tanada. promotive. (3) Administrative rules and regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. or more specifically on 27 February 1987. Further. Issue: Whether laws should be published in full and in the Official Gazette only. Publication requirements applies to (1) all statutes. Section 18 of the Rules of Court). et. Publication is required. and unless so published. (4) Charter of a city notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place.

The original AO issued on 30 August 1989. and unconstitutional. de Leon [GR 121234. Antonio J. 2 of Vizconde’s maids. as a valid exercise of a power ancillary to legislation. also Gatchalian v. and Lejano v. Angeles (Presiding Judge) upheld the petition for prohibition and mandamus of Remington and Firestone (Civil Case 92-158). 1 on leave Facts: This was a highly-publicized case (dubbed as Vizconde Massacre. de Leon [GR 121245]. with prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against PITC in the Regional Trial Court (RTC. and involves a son of a Philippine Senator).e.. is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code. Vizconde. a valid exercise of such quasi-legislative power. On 4 January 1993. the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb. Administrative Order SOCPEC 89-08-01 is not. the NBI presented the sworn statements of Maria Jessica Alfaro.made one of DTI's line agencies. PITC filed the petition seeking the reversal of Angeles’ decision. Lejano and 6 other persons. the Administrative Order. both domestic corporations. Sometime in April 1988. organized and existing under Philippine-laws. Puno (J) : 2 concur. without force and effect due to the lack of publication. The AO under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. Remington filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus. Judge Zosimo Z. Further. and the genital examination of Carmela confirming the presence of spermatozoa. Makati Branch 58). On 19 June 1994. The NBI submitted photocopies of the documents requested . PD 1071. in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133.The fact that the amendments to AO SOCPEC 89 08-01 were filed with. legally. until it is published. applications to the PITC for importation from China (PROC) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the importer himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an amount equivalent to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for or 1:1 ratio. Forthwith. such that the latter were both barred from importing goods from PROC. Michael Gatchalian. de Leon [GR 121297] Second Division. Conformably with the MOU. individually applied for authority to import from PROC with PITC. Zuño to conduct the preliminary investigation of those charged with the rape and killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela N. PITC issued Administrative Order (AO) SOCPEC 89-08-01 under which. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. was not published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizoonde. and Jennifer (19 stab wounds). and published by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register. and sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Parañaque. 23 August 1995]. Subsequently. i. The NBI also submitted the autopsy report involving Estrellita (12 stab wounds). On August 1989. Carlos Cristobal (a plane passenger). further import applications were withheld by PITC from Remington and Firestone. the Philippines and PROC entered into a Trade Protocol for the years 1989. Webb v. Issue: Whether AO SOCPEC 89-08-01 binds Remington and Firestone. for failing to comply with their undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the value of their importations. Held: The PITC was legally empowered to issue Administrative Orders. void. and declaring PITC AO SOCPEC 89-08-01 and its regulations null. following the State visit of President Aquino to the PROC. 2 former housemaids of the Webb family. specifically. The questioned Administrative Order. however. with the crime of Rape with Homicide. charges for the 0. under which was specified the commodities to be traded between them. On 20 January 1992. does not cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. During the preliminary investigation. thus cannot exact any obligation from Remington and Firestone. They were granted such authority. the Philippines and PROC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) wherein the two countries agreed to make joint efforts within the next five years to expand bilateral trade and to strive for a steady progress towards achieving a balance between the value of their imports and exports during the period. and published in the National Administrative Register as required by the Administrative Code of 1987. the DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State prosecutor Jovencito R. Carmela (9 stab wounds). since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Lolita Birrer (live-in partner of Biong).5% Counter Export Development Service. It was only on 30 March 1992 when the amendments to the said Administrative Order were filed in the UP Law Center. Normal White (a security guard) and Manciano Gatmaitan (an engineer). and Firestone Ceramics. 1990 and 1991. under which the respondents filed their applications for importation.

of their right to fair trial. al. 17 October 2000] Resolution En Banc. (2) enjoin the respondents from conducting any proceeding in the aforementioned criminal case. On the same date. 81 Justice Secretary v. then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. granted by the DOJ Panel. Docketed as Criminal Case 95-404 and raffled to Branch 258 presided by Judge Zosimo V. the business of the judiciary is to assure fulfillment of the promise that justice shall be done and is done. et. Webb. Rodriguez and Biong — submitted sworn statements. It was. Gatchalian. Webb voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Camp Ricardo Papa Sr. Drilon. The DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. et. 1 concurs in result Facts: On 13 January 1977. Lejano. 1 dissents. Lantion [GR 139465. presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued new warrants of arrest against Webb. then President Ferdinand E. The case was re-raffled to branch 274. 2005 ( 19 ) . Further . al. Only Filart and Ventura failed to file their counter-affidavits though they were served with subpoena in their last known address. et. 1 concurs based on prior opinion. however. Still. On 13 November 1994. Held: Pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. and a motion to dismiss denying their complicity in the rape-killing of the Vizcondes. al. al. filed petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari. al. prohibition and mandamus with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court to: (1) annul and set aside the Warrants of Arrest issued against petitioners by respondent Judges Raul E. On 11 August 1995. and their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. Gatchalian and Lejano likewise gave themselves up to the authorities after filing their petitions before the Court. Issue: Whether the attendant publicity of the case deprived Webb. who issued the warrants of arrest against Webb. records show that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary investigation with indecent haste. Puno (J): 6 concur.404.al. et. More than convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. On 8 August 1995. Herein. al. et. representing the Government of the Republic Constitutional Law II. The ability to dispense impartial justice is an issue in every trial and in every criminal prosecution. Judge Raul de Leon.. Webb. et. Escano. with the RTC Parañaque. de Leon and Amelita Tolentino in Criminal Case No. Judge Escano voluntarily inhibited himself from the case to avoid any suspicion about his impartiality considering his employment with the NBI before his appointment to the bench. 2005 ( 16 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and recommending that an Information for rape with homicide be filed against Webb. 95. At no instance in the case did Webb. the Supreme Court reminds a trial judge in high profile criminal cases of his/her duty to control publicity prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. al. the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page Resolution "finding Constitutional Law II. nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.by Webb in his Motion for Production and Examination of Evidence and Documents. et. in Taguig. and that is the only way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of public opinion. The others — Fernandez. and (3) dismiss said criminal case or include Jessica Alfaro as one of the accused therein. however. the judiciary always stands as a silent accused. On 11 August 1995. on the contention of the denial of their constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation. Webb claimed during the preliminary investigation that he did not commit the crime as he went to the United States on 1 March 1991 and returned to the Philippines on 27 October 1992. responses. et. were given fair opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against them. Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". it filed the corresponding Information against Webb. pairing judge of Judge Escano. Estrada. seek the disqualification of any member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial publicity.

Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents. Note Verbale 0522 containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States. (c) 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire. as well as the US government. Southern District of Florida. Jimenez is. bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the extradition process’ evaluation stage. On 6 August 1999. S. and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation. On 18 January 2000. maintained that the Treaty and PD 1069 do not grant the extraditee a right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition process. The DFA and the DOJ. It also expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a). On 3 February 2000. the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 6 counts). the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. 33 counts). radio. The procedural due process required by a given set of circumstances "must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected . and to enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition of Jimenez to the United States).e. The trial court ruled in favor of Jimenez. and prohibition (to restrain the Justice Secretary from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court. Jimenez filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition against the Secretary of Justice. the Secretary timely filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. for mandamus (to compel the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez the extradition documents. Jimenez was charged in the United States for violation of (a) 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States.Narratives (Berne Guerrero) of the Philippines. or oppose. as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith. (b) 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax. expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. "The Senate. and to afford him an opportunity to comment on. signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America. the Secretary issued Department Order 249 designating and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. by way of Resolution 11. the warrant of arrest issued by the U. as an extradition proceeding is not criminal in character and the evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding is not akin to a preliminary investigation. Jimenez (on 1 July 1999) requested copies of the official extradition request from the US Government.S. Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying an extradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the Requesting State). It is of judicial notice that the summons includes the petition for extradition which will be answered by the extraditee. 4 counts). after the filing of the petition for extradition in the extradition court (Section 6). with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. i. Further. to give him access thereto. certiorari (to set aside the Justice Secretary’s letter dated 13 July 1999). fairly and objectively). the due process safeguards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the former. 2 counts). Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment. and other supporting documents for said extradition. the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. On 18 June 1999. and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. thus. 2 counts). It is neither an international practice to afford a potential extraditee with a copy of the extradition papers during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. The Secretary filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. (d) 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries. On the same day. and (E) 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another. Issue: Whether Jimenez had the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition process. or television. There is no provision in the Treaty and in PD 1069 which gives an extraditee the right to demand from the Justice Secretary copies of the extradition request from the US government and its supporting documents and to comment thereon while the request is still undergoing evaluation. by a vote of 9-6.. Held: Presidential Decree (PD) 1069 which implements the RP-US Extradition Treaty provides the time when an extraditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition as well as its supporting papers. and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially. the extradition request. The Secretary denied the request. District Court.

Custodio. Ltd. Nazareno. (11) Former DILG Secretary Luis Santos.00 per unit of fire truck. Gen. which offered Ssangyong fire trucks. However. Flores.785 liter capacity.292. PNP.. PNP. by majority vote.570. and recommending that Roxas. However. PNP. Dir. The Review Committee of the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended that the Motion be granted and the charge against the movants be dismissed. dismissing the charges against Flores and Tanchanco. the Office of the Special Prosecutor issued an Order. Tanchanco. 2005 ( 20 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) by governmental action. Ahmed Nacpil.030. thus prompting then DILG Secretary Rafael Alunan III to file a complaint on 12 February 1993 for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 before the Ombudsman. Diosdado Godoy (Ret. Osea. Nacpil were Chairman and Member. while Special Prosecutor Aniano A. it recommended the indictment of all. YnaresSantiago (J): 4 concur Facts: Manuel C. The Disbursement Voucher showed that.784. Dir. There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party. 2005 ( 24 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) . (4) Fire B/Gen. there was a discrepancy of P292. Roxas and Nacpil. This latter recommendation was approved by the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman in a Memorandum dated 15 April 1993. except Generosa Ramirez. Espena and Santos. without any notice to or participation of Roxas and Nacpil. PNP. Tanchanco and. or a total of P19. together with Kairan.. Generosa Ramirez.800 liters. respectively. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military conducted a preliminary investigation where the accused submitted their respective counter-affidavits.00 for all 65 fire trucks.00 per unit. (9) Dir. Nacpil. a reinvestigation was conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.Constitutional Law II. Gerardo Flores. upon motion of Generals Flores and Tanchanco. Aeolus Philippines. Nacpil. PNP. Ltd. against (1) Dir. the PNP paid Tahei Co. Cesar Nazareno. The Bids and Awards Committee. (5) P/Sr. Gen. PNP. awarding and purchase of the 65 fire trucks." The concept of due process is flexible for "not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. the appropriate Information was filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case 18956). Nacpil. Nicasio Custodio. Deputy Special Prosecutor Jose de Ferrer voted for the approval of the recommendation. On 19 October 1993. Roxas. was only P2. however. PNP. Vasquez approved the recommendation.585. the temporary hold on Jimenez's privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the US. To avoid the possibility of failure to bid. Kairan and Ramirez.562. 85 Roxas vs. elected Nikki-Hino of the Tahei Co. and thus limited its choice to the two brands recommended by Gen. Desierto dissented. Kairan and Ramirez were not included among the accused. (8) Dep. Ombudsman Conrado M. The corresponding Purchase Order was then prepared. 19 June 2001] First Division. Manuel Roxas. the public bidding was held on 14 September 1990. against Nazareno." Thus. The lowest bidder. the Contract of Purchase and Sale of 65 units of Nikki-Hino fire trucks was executed between Gen. Accordingly. Deputy Special Prosecutor de Ferrer and Ombudsman Vasquez disapproved the recommendation in the second assailed Order dated 10 Constitutional Law II. Thereafter. far below the required 3. were recommended. Codoy. On 19 March 1993. filed a Motion for Reconsideration.00 per unit. Sometime in September 1990. Ltd. Supt. Juhan Kairan. Codoy. the Bids and Awards Committee reviewed its recommendations. The Commission on Audit discovered the irregularities in the bidding. (3) Fire Marshal Mario Tanchanco. (7) Insp. while the bid price of Tahei Co. two fire trucks. was disqualified since its fire trucks had a water tank capacity of only 1. the Office of the Special Prosecutor Review Committee recommended the dismissal of the complaints against Roxas.24. and Tahei Company. Vasquez [GR 114944. Obedio Espeña. Pursuant to a disbursement voucher. namely Morita Isuzu and Nikki-Hino.). of the Bids and Awards Committee of the PC-INP. voted to award the contract in favor of the Korean company CISC. (10) Supt. PNP. On review. (2) Dep. (6) P/Supt. the amount of P167. the price appearing on the Purchase Order was P2. Roxas and Ahmed S. as the lower bidder. After ocular inspections made by a A Technical Evaluation Committee.778. and Kairan be likewise indicted. and (12) Ms. on behalf of the PC-INP. representing marginal deposit for the 65 units of fire truck. Hence.177.335. the PC-INP invited bids for the supply purchase of 65 units of fire trucks. and accordingly. Reynaldo Osea.

or participation of. father of Alicia Nubla. Roxas and Nacpil cannot argue that they have been deprived of due process. the record clearly shows that petitioners not only filed their respective Counter-Affidavits during the preliminary investigation. where he is at present enrolled in school. is merely a repeat investigation of the case. On 31 January 1955." On 10 February 1955 the Court granted the motion. filed a verified complaint against Emilio Suntay in the Office of the City Attorney of Quezon City. this order was not implemented or carried out in view of the commencement of this proceedings in order that the issues raised may be judicially resolved. 29 June 1957] En Banc. 2005 ( 26 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Secretary cabled the Ambassador to the United States instructing him to order the Consul General in San Francisco to cancel the passport issued to Suntay and to compel him to return to the Philippines to answer the criminal charges against him. Held: Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. Held: It is not material either that no new matter or evidence was presented during the reinvestigation of the case. Issue:Whether the lack of notice to Roxas and Nacpil at the reinvestigation render the issuance of Office of the Ombudsman null and void. as the word itself implies. Alicia Nubla subscribed and swore to a complaint charging Suntay with seduction which was filed. It should be stressed that reinvestigation. complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. to review and re-evaluate its findings and the evidence already submitted. the accused took Alicia Nubla from St. the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Amended Information with respondent Sandiganbayan. Antonio Nubla. Thus. However. alleging that on or about 21 June 21954. Herein. California. Suntay filed the petition for a writ of certiorari. in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Quezon City. Issue: Whether Suntay should be accorded notice and hearing before his passport may be cancelled. Suntay applied for and was granted a passport by the Department of Foreign Affairs (5981 [A39184]). and filed in the criminal case a motion praying that the Court reconsider its order of 10 February 1955. People [GR L-9430. At any rate. Padilla (J) : 9 concur Facts: On 26 June 1954. Roxas and Nacpil filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court. Dr. an Assistant City Attorney recommended to the City Attorney of Quezon City that the . they also filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of the 19 October 1993 Order of the Ombudsman impleading them as accused in Criminal Case 18956. Neither do the lack of notice to. which is simply a chance for the prosecutor. On 15 December 1954. the Secretary denied counsel's request and on 15 July 1955 the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact. On 10 January 1955. particularly the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Foreign Affairs.February 1994. 87 Suntay v. on 27 March 1994. On 7 July 1955. after an investigation. On 5 July 1955. On 7 March 1955 the Constitutional Law II. On 20 January 1955. Suntay left the Philippines for San Francisco. a minor of 16 years. after preliminary investigation had been conducted (Criminal case Q-1596). New matters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvestigation. impleading Roxas and Nacpil as additional accused. Suntay’s counsel wrote to the Secretary requesting that the action taken by him be reconsidered. Paul's College in Quezon City with lewd design and took her to somewhere near the University of the Philippines (UP) compound in Diliman and was then able to have carnal knowledge of her. or in this case the Office of the Ombudsman. On 9 February 1955 the private prosecutor filed a motion praying the Court to issue an order "directing such government agencies as may be concerned. The rule is well established that due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. On 23 December 1954 attorney for the complainant addressed a letter to the City Attorney of Quezon City wherein he took exception to the recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney referred to and urged that a complaint for seduction be filed against Suntay. for the purpose of having the accused brought back to the Philippines so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. Roxas and Nacpil at the reinvestigation render the questioned issuances of Office of the Ombudsman null and void.

Technical Assistant and Chief of the Finance and Rate Division of the PSC. as requested by it. inter alia. can reasonably be interpreted to mean as a deliberate attempt on his part to flee from justice." On said date. 42 OG 1400) to revoke a passport already issued.". on 27 December 1957. Other parties made common cause with Dr. granting the petition for the reduction of rates. S. and (3) Without having given the Meralco an opportunity. But where the holder of a passport is facing a criminal charge in our courts and left the country to evade criminal prosecution. in which he asked the Commission. lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution. therefore. the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) filed two applications with the Public Service Commission (PSC). The General Auditing Office (GAO) examined and audited the books and under date of 11 May 1956. hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport. Pedro Gil. as requested by it. On 31 July 1956. he cannot now be heard to complain if the strong arm of the law should join together to bring him back to justice. Suntay’s suddenly leaving the country in such a convenient time. The motion for reconsideration and to set aside decision. the Commission requested the Auditor General to cause an audit and examination of Meralco's books of accounts. which was provisionally approved on 31 August 1955. to allow the Meralco "a rate of return of only 8% on its invested capital. de Peralta. 2005 ( 31 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Facts: On 10 March 1955. the PSC. On 30 May 1956. 30 June 1964] En Banc. upon petition of Dr. specifying its objection. filed on 14 January 1958 by Meralco. the parties appeared and Atty. . Previous to these applications. PSC [GR L-13638-40. These applications were approved by the PSC in a decision rendered on 24 September 1955. the Meralco filed another application for revision and reduction of its general power rate. Paredes (J): 8 concur. Dr. to cross-examine the officers of the GAO who prepared the report dated May 11. who was duly authorized to receive the evidence of the parties. and. Without having (1) first reset the said 3 cases for hearing. the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. it presented a report which was submitted to the Commission on 28 May 1956. heating and/or power purposes (PSC Case 85889) and the other for revision and reduction of its residential meter rate. then a writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause. Pedro Gil submitted the 3 cases on the report of the GAO dated 11 May 1956 and on a letter dated 7 June 1956 he sent to the Commission. (2) Without having given the Meralco an opportunity. Meralco filed the petition for review with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. EO 1. reset the hearing of the cases for 22 June 1956 "for the purpose of considering such further revision of applicant's rates as may be found reasonable. the Meralco filed its answer to the GAO's report. for revision and reduction of its rates for commercial and other non. the PSC handed down a decision. announced that the hearing was an "informal hearing". 1946. 2 took no part Constitutional Law II. Gil and on a letter-report addressed by the Deputy Auditor General to the Commission on 21 November 1955. 92 Meralco vs. and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing. was denied by the Commission on a 2 to 1 vote. and its purpose was to hear any remarks or statements of the parties and to define the issues "so that at the hearing we know exactly what are disputed at this informal hearing". Meralco filed 7 other applications for revision and reduction rates. specifying its objections to the report of the GAO. Meralco was given by the Commission a period of 30 days within which to file an answer. If hearing should always be held in order to comply with the due process of law clause of the Constitution. to present evidence in support of its answer to refute the facts alleged in said report and controverted by Meralco. schedule RM-3 (PSC Case 85890). on 3 March 1958. thru Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo. in the exercise of his discretion (Section 25. Schedule GP-2 (PSC Case 89293). The Solicitor General submitted the case on the same report and letter of Dr. Gil. Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. Venancio L. 1956. one. on which report the Commission based its decision. and prayed that the cases be reset for hearing to enable the parties to present their proofs. cannot be held to have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling such passport.such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder. On 9 June 1954.residential customers for general lighting. On 24 August 1955.

" Meralco has not been given its day in court. for overseas placement. (3) they are not confined to existing conditions. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights. parties appeared before "Attorney Vivencio L. and not executive. the Solicitor General. Italy." It challenged the Constitutional validity of DOLE’s Department Order 1 (series of 1988). Jordan. Austria. and Switzerland. the Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq. Canada. Discrimination in this case is 96 PASEI [Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc] v. and the record shows that the hearing held before the said Commissioner was merely an informal hearing because. 30 June 1988] En Banc." that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills. Qatar." but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between the sexes. Sarmiento (J): 12 concur. in addition to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced. was passed in the absence of prior consultations. except perhaps for isolated instances. and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same class. ‘Equality before the law" under the Constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. Finance and Rate Division. It is the cardinal right of a party in trials and administrative proceedings to be heard. it must how its head to the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of right without due process of law. filed a Comment informing the Court that on 8 March 1988. as required by law. who was duly authorized to receive the evidence of the parties". in the character of "Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic . "I said at the beginning that this is only preliminary because I want that the parties could come to some kind of understanding. and Chief. (PASEI) is a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers. the Court sustains the Government's efforts. and Household Workers. In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines. Held: Department Order 1 applies only to "female contract workers. In fulfilling that duty. confirmed by testimonies of returning workers. On 25 May 1988. Norway. 1. using his own words. even rape and various forms of torture. Public Service Commission. Peralta. PASEI also invoked Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law as Department Order No. Even if the Commission is not bound by the rules of judicial proceedings. etc. Drilon [GR L81958. Technical Assistant. Issue: Whether Department Order 1 unduly discriminates against women. on behalf of the Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the POEA. (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law. which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof and to have such evidence presented considered by the tribunal. 2005 ( 32 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) who would be affected by the order or act contemplated. There is no evidence that. which binds not only the government of the Republic. male and female. Filipino men abroad have been afflicted with an identical predicament. It also claimed that it violated the Charter's non-impairment clause. The decision of 27 December 1957 was not promulgated "upon proper notice and hearing". Due process of law guarantees notice and opportunities to be heard to persons Constitutional Law II. It admits of classifications. Hongkong.Issue: Whether the informal hearing held 22 June 1956 serves the purpose of “proper notice and hearing” in administrative cases. provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions. in character. but also each and everyone of its branches. and that therefore it can not serve as a legal basis for requiring the Meralco to put in effect the reductions ordered in the decision. police power being legislative. The classification made — the preference for female workers — rests on substantial distinctions. Held: The record shows that no hearing was held." in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. 2 on leave Facts: The Philippine Association of Service Exporters. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers. are compelling motives for urgent Government action. Inc." the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State. The measure is assailed (1) for "discrimination against males or females. the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation." (2) for being violative of the right to travel. On 22 June 1956. United States. agencies. and (3) for being an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. as contended.

arsons and robberies. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within an existing class. The prosecution maintained that Hernandez is charged with rebellion complexed with murders.B. and. for which the capital punishment may be imposed. that rebellion can not be complexed with murder. Capadocia. to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of . and. consequently. as well as international. Furthermore. at least. and the cultural minorities are singled out for favorable treatment. it appears that in every one of the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports (US vs. the women. Further. as regards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged since 1932. Hernandez alias Victor alias Soliman alias Amado alias AVH alias Victor Soliman. to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. 155). A petition for bail was filed by Amado Hernandez on 28 December 1953.S. US vs. What is more. League vs. or complexed with the same. The defense contends. as a means necessary therefor. Concepcion (J): 4 concur. arsons and robberies. The ingredients of a crime form Constitutional Law II. then it would have been unreasonable and arbitrary. 3 Phil. due to the fact that not all of them are similarly circumstanced. Narratives (Berne Guerrero) part and parcel thereof. which was denied by a resolution of the Supreme Court dated 2 February 1954. The law punishing rebellion (Article 135. (3) Mariano P. Further. 2005 ( 2 ) 98 People v. the better rule is to recognize its validity only if the young. the impugned guidelines are applicable to all female domestic overseas workers. Jr. since the beginning of the century. and stage of civilization of minority groups.B. Where the classification is based on such distinctions that make a real difference as infancy. (9) Juan J. two crimes. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony Collantes alias Bonifacio. arson. Issue: Whether Hernandez is entitled to right to bail. National. alias Ben alias Andy (6) Genaro de la Cruz alias Gonzalo alias Gorio alias Arong. 73 Phil.justified. adopted a more vigorous course of action in the apprehension of violators of said law and in their prosecution the established policy of the State. to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons. is embraced therein. or robbery. Cruz alias Johnny 2. has been one of decided leniency. Hernandez [GR L-6025-26. laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly favor the proposition that common crimes.. are divested of their character as "common" offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients. Although the Government has. The policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof as constituting only one crime. alias A. Hence. and (13) Julian Lumanog alias Manue. (2) Guillermo Capadocia alias Huan Bantiling alias Cap alias G. it follows necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48. 3 Phil. 472. the Supreme court has never in the past convicted any person of the "complex crime of rebellion with murder". Revised Penal Code) specifically mentions the act of engaging in war and committing serious violence among its essential elements. Held: Inasmuch as the acts specified in Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code constitute one single crime. thus clearly indicating that everything done in the prosecution of said war. 151. (7) Aquilino Bunsol alias Anong. punishable with one single penalty. A similar petition for bail was filed by Hernandez on 26 June 1954 and renewed on 22 December 1955. US vs. which requires therefor the commission of. hence. The lower court sentenced Hernandez merely to life imprisonment. among other things. perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense. 18 July 1956] Resolution En Banc. sometimes peace officers. (10) Jacobo Espino. for the past 5 or 6 years. (4) Alfredo Saulo alias Elias alias Fred alias A. although they had killed several persons. (11) Amado Racanday. Ayala. Baldello. (5) Andres Baisa. (8) Adriano Samson alias Danoy. were accused of the crime of rebellion with multiple murder. 6 Phil. sex. 509. the defendants therein were convicted of simple rebellion. People. cannot be punished separately from the principal offense. in comparison with the laws enforce during the Spanish regime. not all Filipina workers. Lagnason. Had the ban been given universal applicability. are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. the settled policy of our laws on rebellion. (12) Fermin Rodillas. 1 concurs in result Facts: (1) Amado V. alias Jessie Wilson alias William.

Sandiganbayan [GR L-50581-50617. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as 17 January 1973. a public official. Case Digest on People v. that the crime charged in the amended information is. equal protection. when the present Constitution came into force. dishonesty in the public service.e. and two (2) grazing wounds on the left arm and back. under the allegations of the amended information against Hernandez. with "jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees. the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. therefore. in conformity with the policy of the Supreme Court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment." If convicted. Further. 1991. Classification must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences. it must be germane to the purposes of the law. killed Edmundo Orizal. a unanimous vote is required. he filed a motion to quash on constitutional and juridical grounds. is violative of the due process. Held: The Constitution provided for but did not create a special Court. and that. Nunez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution." It came into existence with the issuance in 1978 of a Presidential Decree. Issue: Whether the trial of the accused. the Sandiganbayan. The innocence or guilt of an accused in the Sandiganbayan is passed upon by 3-judge court of its division. 2000 On July 28. Nunez before Sandiganbayan on 21 February and 26 March 1979 for the crime of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents committed in connivance with his co-accused. The two suspects Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna were brought to the Tuguegarao Police Department. abdomen. that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed 12 years of prision mayor and a fine of P20. claiming that Presidential Decree 1486. 30 January 1982] En Banc. Armando Gallardo January 25. which created the Sandiganbayan. failing which "the Presiding Justice shall designate two other justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them. it must not be limited to existing conditions only. and they gave statements admitting that they. in conclusion. Fernando (J): 6 concur.000. it must also appear that in case of conviction the defendant's criminal liability would probably call for a capital punishment. by the Sandiganbayan unduly discriminates against the accused. on 15 May. Facts: Information were filed against Rufino V. that a different procedure for the accused therein. 2005 ( 5 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Constitution. The victim was found to have sustained seven (7) gunshot wounds in the chest. 101 Nunez v. back. simple rebellion. Thereafter. in light of the difference of the procedures (especially appellate) in the Sandiganbayan visa-vis regular courts. the urgency of which cannot be denied. and was likewise denied.guilt is strong. upon being arraigned. the omission of the Court of Appeals as intermediate tribunal does not deprive protection of liberty. and ex post facto clauses of the Constitutional Law II. the murders. not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder. A motion for reconsideration was filed a day later. whether petitioner is a private citizen or a public official. i. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court. Moreover. precisely in response to a problem. in relation to their office as may be determined by law. and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment. and must apply equally to each member of the class. together with Jessie Micate. left and right thighs. the Sandiganbayan en banc has the duty if he seeks a review to see whether any error of law was committed to justify a reversal of the judgment. 2 took no part. including those in government-owned or controlled corporations. Edmundo Orizal was found dead in the rest house of Ronnie Balao. in several cases. all public officials. as means "necessary" for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion. said defendant may be allowed bail. They were investigated by Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos. arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants. forming a division of five justices. arsons and robberies. Thus. A week later. the Sandiganbayan. The trial court rendered decision finding accused Armando Gallardo y Gander and Alfredo Columna y Correa guilty .

case digests. case digests of supreme court decisions. Ferrer reversed the recommendation. finding Olivarez liable by giving unwarranted benefit thru manifest partiality to another . The reinvestigation was reassigned to SPO III Angel C. On 16 February 1994. online jobs. the case was remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for another reinvestigation to be terminated within 30 days from notice. a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements. On 20 April 1994. (series of 1992) which Olivarez himself approved on 6 October 1992. Olivarez with Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for unreasonably refusing to issue a mayor's permit despite request and follow-ups to implement Parañaque Sangguniang Bayan Resolution 744. 4 October 1995] Second Division. namely: (1) the confession must be voluntary. Mayoralgo who on 3 November 1994. existing laws and jurisprudence. gadgets. the information was filed against Olivares (Criminal Case 20226). Regalado (J): 3 concur. Facts: On 15 December 1992. It would have been different if the accused were merely asked if they were waiving their Constitutional rights without any explanation from the assisting counsel. Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) III Ringpis conducted a preliminary investigation and issued on 22 September 1993 a resolution recommending the prosecution of Olivarez for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act (RA) 3019. and (4) the confession must be in writing. DSP Jose de G. as amended. 1 on leave. Olivarez filed a Motion to Set Aside Plea and To Reduce Denial Order Into Writing (With Entry of Appearance). which were denied by the Sandiganbayan on 4 April 1994. set aside the proceedings conducted on 3 March 1994 including Olivarez's arraignment thus revoking the plea of "not guilty" entered in his record in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay in the prompt adjudication of the case due to technicalities. Olivarez filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation allegedly to rectify error of law and on ground of newly discovered evidence. through its board member Roger de Leon. On 18 February 1994.beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by treachery and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua. On 9 December 1994. however. Olivarez filed an Omnibus Motion for a reexamination and re. charged Parañaque Mayor Dr. which was denied by the Sandiganbayan on 3 March 1994 in Open Court. BCCI exerted all possible efforts to secure the necessary permit but Olivarez simply refused to issue the same unless BCCI gives money to the latter. Hence. On 21 February 1994.assessment of the prosecution's report and documentary evidence with a view to set aside the determination of the existence of probable cause and ultimately the dismissal of the case. Resolution 744 authorized BCCI to set up a night manufacturer's fair during the Christmas fiesta celebration of and at Baclaran for 60 days from 11 November 1992 to 15 February 1993 for which they will use a portion of the service road of Roxas Boulevard. Olivarez filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted on 15 May 1994. Inc. recommended the dismissal of the case. On 9 February 1993. Baclaran Credit Cooperative. Sandiganbayan [GR 118533. All these requirements were complied with. best law firms in Mindanao 107 Olivarez v. the court ordered a plea of "not guilty" entered into his record. The Sandiganbayan. this appeal. Consequently. Attached to BCCI’s ReplyAffidavit was a copy of Executive Order dated 23 November 1992 issued by Olivarez granting a group of Baclaran-based organizations/associations of vendors the holding of "Christmas Agro-Industrial Fair Sa Baclaran" from 28 November 1992 to 28 February 1993 using certain portions of the National and Local Government Roads/Streets in Baclaran for fund raising. case digests Philippines. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. the prosecution filed a Motion to suspend Accused Pendente Lite. laptop computers. Allegedly. (3) the confession must be express. In view of Olivarez's refusal to enter any plea. mobile phone deals. (BCCI). 1994. Olivarez voluntarily surrendered and posted a cash bail bond with the Sandiganbayan for his temporary release. On March 9. Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation to withdraw the information as Olivarez does not refute the allegation and that bad faith is evident with his persistent refusal to issue permit. Pablo R. Supplemental Motion to Set Aside Plea and Opposition to Motion to Suspend Accused and Supplemental Pleading with Additional Opposition to Motion to Suspend Accused. Held: Under rules laid by the Constitution. On 8 March 1994. The motion was granted on 24 January 1994. free legal opinion. On 17 January 1994. 14 and 15.

Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes. Whether Olivarez was impelled by any material interest or ulterior motive may be beyond the Court for the moment since this is a matter of evidence. and Isagani M. the officials referred to were definitely under his authority and he was not without recourse to take appropriate action on the letter. Lastly.e. Issue: Whether Olivarez exhibited partiality in the denial of / inaction over BCCI’s application for license. On 13 January 1995. Constitutional Law II. is expressly authorized and has the power to issue permits and licenses for the holding of activities for any charitable or welfare purpose. on 1 February 1995. 2005 ( 12 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Held: Olivarez's suspected partiality may be gleaned from the fact that he issued a permit in favor of the unidentified Baclaran-based vendors' associations by the mere expedient of an executive order. Congress. On 26 October 1994. and that the limited application of the tax incentives is within the prerogative of the legislature. 20 January 1999] En Banc. that the intention of Congress to confine the coverage of the SSEZ to the secured area and not to include the entire Olongapo City and other areas rely on the deliberations in the Senate. The latter motion was denied by Sandiganbayan.application of BCCI although the same was not strictly in accordance with normal procedure. . The Court of Appeals denied the petition as there is no substantial difference between the provisions of EO 97-A and Section 12 of RA 7227. absent countervailing clarification. Incidentally. Proclamation 532 was issued by President Ramos. Court of Appeals [GR 127410. It would seem that if there was any interest served by such executive order. and SPO III Angel Mayoralgo. Jr. President Ramos issued Executive Order (EO) 97 clarifying the application of the tax and duty incentives. such as tax exemptions and duty-free importation of raw materials. pursuant to Section 444 (b) (3) (iv and v) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160). Sr. he cannot really feign total lack of authority to act on the letter-application of BCCI. Panganiban (J): 14 concur Facts: On 13 March 1992. it may not be amiss to add that Olivarez. Section 12 thereof created the Subic Special Economic Zone and granted thereto special privileges. pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. Ferrer. delineating the exact metes and bounds of the Subic Special Economic and Free Port Zone. holding that EO 97-A cannot be claimed to be unconstitutional while maintaining the validity of RA 7227. that BCCI and the unidentified Baclaran. passed into law Republic Act 7227 ("An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses. Worse. the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals. Conrado L. it was that of Olivarez. The Ombudsman approved the reversal and on 27 December 1994 directed the prosecution to proceed under the existing information. specifying the area within which the tax-andduty-free privilege was operative (i. 108 Tiu v. Olivarez filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. inasmuch as the order granted tax and duty incentives only to businesses and residents within the "secured area" of the Subic Special Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within the Zone but outside such "fenced-in" territory. whereas so many requirements were imposed on BCCI before it could be granted the same permit. but the environmental facts and circumstances are sufficient to create a belief in the mind of a reasonable man that this would not be completely improbable. the secured area consisting of the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base). the President issued EO 97-A. Olivarez filed a Motion to Strike Out and/or Review Result of Reinvestigation. In a Resolution dated 27 June 1995. Jungco challenged before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of EO 97-A for allegedly being violative of their right to equal protection of the laws. Hence. Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this Purpose. pursuant to Section 12 of RA 7227. Tiu. Olivarez filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to DSP Jose de G.based vendors' associations were not similarly situated as to give at least a semblance of legality to the apparent haste with which said executive order was issued. Juan T. On 10 June 1993. capital and equipment to business enterprises and residents located and residing in the said zones.. As the mayor of the municipality. and on 16 January 1995. There was nothing to prevent him from referring said letter-application to the licensing department. Montelibano Jr. Olivarez failed to show.group on the flimsy reason that complainant failed to apply for a business permit. SPO III Roger Berbano. On 19 June 1993. as a municipal mayor. with the approval of the President. in apparent disregard of BCCI's right to equal protection. but which paradoxically he refused to do.”).

torres Facts: This is a Petition to enjoin and prohibit the public respondent Ruben Torres in his capacity as Executive Secretary from allowing other private respondents to continue with the operation of tax and duty-free shops located at the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ) and the Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ). Even more important. There are substantial differences between the big investors who are being lured to establish and operate their industries in the so-called "secured area" and the present business operators outside the area. 2005 ( 13 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Held: The EO 97-A is not violative of the equal protection clause. and on the other hand. they filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. at this time the business activities outside the "secured area" are not likely to have any impact in achieving the purpose of the law. He also assailed the constitutionality of Executive Order No.’s motion for reconsideration was denied. both in privileges granted and in obligations required. 97-A for being violative of their right to equal protection. It was based. capital and equipment. it will be easier to manage and monitor the activities within the "secured area. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute. 7227 clearly limits the grant of tax incentives to the importation of raw materials. The equal-protection guarantee does not require territorial uniformity of laws.pursuant to its "avowed purpose [of serving] some public benefit or interest. neither is it discriminatory. there is no violation of the constitutional clause. It reads: The Subic Special Economic Zone shall be operated and managed as a separate customs territory ensuring free flow or movement of goods and capital within." The residents. being in like circumstances or contributing directly to the achievement of the end purpose of the law. to prevent "fraudulent importation of merchandise" or smuggling. Sec 12 (b)]. capricious or unfounded. However. which is to turn the former military base to productive use for the benefit of the Philippine economy. Petitioners contend that the wording of Republic Act No. Herein. then. into and exported out of the Subic Special Economic Zone. et. Instead. definitely none of such magnitude. in the second. are not categorized further. and hence. only local. rather. on fair and substantive considerations that were germane to the legislative purpose. On the one hand. coconut oil refiners vs. The petitioner seeks to declare Republic Act No. In the first. There is. exportation or removal of goods from the territory of the Subic Special Economic Zone to the other parts of the Philippine territory shall be subject to customs duties and taxes under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax laws of thePhilippines [RA 7227. Issue: Whether there was a violation of the equal protection of the laws when EO 97-A granted tax and duty incentives only to businesses and residents within the "secured area" of the Subic Special Economic Zone and denied such to those who live within the Zone but outside such "fenced-in" territory. anyone possessing the requisite investment capital can always avail of the same benefits by channeling his or her resources or business operations into the fenced-off free port zone. capital andequipment. hardly any reasonable basis to extend to them the benefits and incentives accorded in RA 7227. they are all similarly treated. 7227 as unconstitutional on the ground that it allowed only tax-free (and duty-free) importation of raw materials. as well as provide incentives such as tax and duty-free importations of raw materials. Additionally. al. but is subject to reasonable classification. . The classification applies equally to all the resident individuals and businesses within the "secured area. capital and equipment only thereby violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. As long as there are actual and material differences between territories. we are talking of billion-peso investments and thousands of new jobs. The classification occasioned by EO 97-A was not unreasonable." which is already fenced off. the economic impact will be national. Tiu. Constitutional Law II. They asserted that private respondents operating inside the SSEZ are not different from the retail establishments located outside.

must (1) rest on substantial distinction. (2) No. Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad.A. 1 on official leave. Kapunan (J): 2 concur. (a) What is one's domicile? (b) Where is one's home economy? (c) To which country does one owe economic allegiance? (d) Was . Political Law. even assuming the existence of such defects. Taxation Law: Whether or not there is a violation of equal protection clause. does not apply when words are mentioned by way of example. on which petitioners impliedly rely to support their restrictive interpretation. pursuant to Presidential Decree 732. Assuming this is true. respondents argue that petitioners. 97-A cannot be. in the exercise of its discretion. Applying the foregoing test to the present case. the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. from Philippine or other nationalities. except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. to be valid. 7227. capital and equipment was merely cited as an example of incentives that may be given to entities operating within the zone. hardly any reasonable basis to extend to them the benefits and incentives accorded in R. Accordingly. Inc. this Court has nevertheless held that in cases of paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are involved. (2) be germane to the purpose of the law. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. this Court finds no violation of the right to equal protection of the laws. (2) Political Law: Whether or not the case can be dismiss due to lack of the petitioners legal standing. (3) not be limited to existing conditions only.The respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of legal standing and unreasonable delay in filing of the petition.e. 1 on leave Facts: The International School. investors will be lured to establish and operate their industries in the so-called ‘secured area and the present business operators outside the area. There is a substantial distinctions lying between the establishments inside and outside the zone. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment. The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire. this Court. Quisumbing [GR 128845. Anent the claim on lack of legal standing. Public respondent SBMA correctly argued that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. the standing requirements may be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. Issues: (1) Statutory Construction. There is. (3) No. do not stand to suffer direct injury in the enforcement of the issuances being assailed herein. sustained. The petition with respect to declaration of unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. brushes aside these technicalities and takes cognizance of the petition considering the importance to the public of the present case and in keeping with the duty to determine whether the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution 109 International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) vs. i. 1 June 2000] First Division. classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. Held: (1) The SC ruled in the negative. A classification. The phrase ‘tax and duty-free importations of raw materials.. There are substantial differences in a sense that. then. (3) Remedial Law: Whether or not the case can be dismissed due to unreasonable delay in filing of the petition. being mere suppliers of the local retailers operating outside the special economic zones. likewise. With respect to the other alleged procedural flaws. The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based which was based on reasonable classification. and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.

Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the localhires. 2005 ( 14 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) an Order resolving the parity and representation issues in favor of the School. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities. the Convention against Discrimination in Education. The employer has discriminated against that employee. economic. Quisumbing subsequently denied ISAE's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 19 March 1997. and observe honesty and good faith. Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Social. Herein. On 7 September 1995. There are foreigners who have been hired locally and who are paid equally as Filipino local hires. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure. reduce social. and Cultural Rights." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person. the International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE). In the workplace. The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible. which springs from general principles of law. has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws. On 10 June 1996. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest.hires. shipping costs. The point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation 16 — all embody the general principle against discrimination. issued Constitutional Law II. "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members" of the School. through its Constitution. The Philippines. When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995. This issue. where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. The School cannot invoke the need to entice foreign-hires to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction in salary rates without violating the principle of equal work for equal pay. Issue: Whether the School unduly discriminated against the local-hires. it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. the International Covenant on Economic. These include housing. Crescenciano B. Held: That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank. ISAE sought relief from the Supreme Court. the International School has failed to discharge this burden. That would be adding insult to injury. contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and localhires. The compensation scheme is simply the School's adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education. [to] act with justice. eventually caused a deadlock between the parties. and political inequalities. . as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. the very antithesis of fairness and justice. the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. regardless of race. which they perform under similar working conditions. ISAE filed a notice of strike. and home leave travel allowance. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy. it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than localhires. the DOLE Acting Secretary.the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines? The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. transportation. give everyone his due. the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. taxes. the Convention (No. likewise proscribes discrimination. International law. The compensation package given to local-hires has been shown to apply to all. Trajano. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local.

The loan agreement does not grant any tax exemption in favor of the borrower or the beneficiary either on the proceeds of the loan itself or the properties acquired through the said loan. No.D.D. (PHILRECA).5 of A.A. It simply states that the loan proceeds and the principal and interest of the loan. 6938 with respect the capital contribution of its members and extent of governmental control over cooperatives. No. 269 or the National Electrification Administration Decree who are members of petitioner Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.D. 269 and the aforementioned loan agreements have been invalidly withdrawn. 143076 Facts: On May 23. (PHILRECA) v. Electric cooperatives under R. 269 and those registered under R. No. No. a class suit was filed by petitioners in their own behalf and in behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P. P. Secondly. 1996) the Supreme Court held that the limited and restrictive nature of tax exemption privileges under the Local Government Code is consistent with the state policy to ensure autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code to grant genuine and meaningful autonomy to enable local government units to attain their fullest development as selfreliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. any taxation or fees imposed under any laws or decrees in effect within the Republic of the Philippines xxx.D. 6938 have their members make equitable contributions to the capital required and maintain autonomy from the State. No. 269. electric cooperatives under P. 120082. Also. There is no violation of non-impairment clause. Marcos. Section 193 of the Local Government Code is indicative of the legislative intent to vest broad taxing powers upon local government units and to limit exemptions from local taxation to entities specifically provided therein. 269 do not require equitable contributions to capital and grants the National Electrification Administration the power to control and take over the management and operation of cooperatives registered under it upon the happening of certain events. Inc. Further.Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. Inc. No.A. Issue: . it contains similarly worded provisions on the tax application of the loan and any property or commodity acquired through the proceeds of the loan. under the loan entered into by the Philippine Government with the government of theUnited States in favor of electric cooperatives including petitioners. the classification of tax-exempt entities in the Local Government Code is germane to the purpose of the law. No. and the Principal and interest shall be paid to A.I. 2000. Section 6. September 11. 6938 or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines.D.D. 269 provides the electric cooperatives exemption from payment of income taxes.R. Department of Interior and Local Government 403 SCRA 559 G.D. petitioners assail that Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code discriminate against them in violation of equal protection clause.D.I. InMactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. There is no violation of the equal protection clause because there is reasonable classification under the Local Government Code to justify the different tax treatment between electric cooperatives covered by P.” Petitioners contend that with the passage of the Local Government Code. June 10. No. they submit that the said provisions are unconstitutional because they impair the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United States Government. No. there being a distinction between cooperatives registered under P.A. 2003 Whether or not Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code are unconstitutional for being in violation of the equal protection and nonimpairment of rights clause Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. upon repayment by the borrower. and electric cooperatives under R. without deduction for and free from . In particular. Loan provides that “(t)he borrower covenants and agrees that this Loan Agreement and the Loan provided for herein shall be free from. national and local government and municipal taxes and fees among others. The Secretary. (GR No. their tax exemptions under P. as amended. No. On the other hand.

if any. This only means that whatever taxes imposed by the Philippines. . the lender or the beneficiary under the loan agreements as in fact. Thus.shall be without deduction of any tax or fee that may be payable under Philippine laws as such tax or fee will be absorbed by the borrower with funds other than the loan proceeds. no tax exemption is granted therein. the withdrawal by the Local Government Code of the tax exemptions previously enjoyed by the petitioners does not impair the obligation of the borrower. will be paid by the borrower and cannot be shifted to the lender.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful