REPUBLIC v SB
under the Bill of Rights for there was no Constitution at
Doctrine: There was an issue as to the existence of
human rights during the interregnum between the
EDSA revolution and the issuance of the Freedom
Constitution. The Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution
were not operative. BUT, the revolutionary government,
after installing itself as the de jure government,
assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith
compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (“Covenant”) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (“Declaration”) which
remained in effect during the interregnum. (Republic
vs. Sandiganbayan) 
 therefore not operative during the period of interregnum
FACTS: Immediately following the EDSA revolution,
then President Cory issued EO No. 1 which created the
Presidential Commission on Good Govt (PCGG). The
PCGG was tasked to recover all ill gotten wealth of
former president Marcos, his immediate family, relative,
subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 gave
PCGG the power to conduct investigations and
promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out
its purpose.
The PCGG accordingly created the AFP Anti-graft
Board to (1) execute the mandate with regard to AFP
personnel, both in active service and retired, (2)
investigate on matters that the President may direct
them to. The AFP Board conducted investigations on
Major General Ramas. In 1987, the AFP board issued
a resolution consisting of its findings and evaluation and
the resolution disclosed that a certain Elizabeth
Dimaano was Ramas’ mistress and that the raiding
team confiscated from Dimaano various
communications equipment, Php 2.87M and $50,000
aside from the weapons exclusively and solely specified
in the search and seizure warrant. A case was then filed
against Ramas and Dimaano.
Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Complaint
claiming ownership over the monies, communications
equipment, jewelries and various land titles that were
confiscated by the raiding team.
In the case before the Sandiganbayan, the Republic
filed for many postponements seeking time to gather
more evidence. In 1991, the SB rendered a resolution
dismissing the Amended Complaint, citing as ground,
among others, that there was an illegal search and
seizure of the items confiscated. After denial of its MR
with herein respondent, petitioner raised this present
motion, averring that the respondent erred in declaring
the seized items from Dimaano as inadmissible in
evidence as these were illegally acquired. It was argued
that Dimaano cannot invoke the exclusionary right
the time the search and seizure was done.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the revolutionary government was bound by
the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution
 - NO
The EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution” and the resulting
government was thus a revolutionary government that
was bound by no Constitution. The Bill of Rights was
and at the time, the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government were the supreme law
because no constitution limited the extent and scope of
such directives and orders. A person can therefore not
invoke any exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights
because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of
Rights.
2. Whether the protection accorded to individuals under
the ICCPR and the UDHR remained in effect during the
interregnum. - YES
The revolutionary government of President Aquino, as
the de jure government in the Philippines, was bound
by treaty obligation assumed under international law.
The government was then bound by both the ICCPR
and the UDHR which requires the signatory states to
insure that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.” During the interregnum, the
directives and orders issued by the government officers
were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the
authority granted by the revolutionary government and
this includes adherence to the ICCPR and the UDHR.
The raiding team therefore had no legal basis to
confiscate the communications equipment, jewelries,
monies and land titles found in the possession of
Dimaano. The seizures were therefore illegal and the
items not specified in the warrant should be returned.
The Court heavily notes that it does not declare
Dimaano as the lawful owner of the items, merely that
the search and seizure warrant could not be used as
basis to seize and withhold the items from the
possessor.

PBMEO v PMB Inc
DOCTRINE: The priority is seen when it comes to laws
restricting property rights, which require only that it is
not oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory to remain valid.
While laws that restrict freedom of speech and
assembly require that such must pose a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil, which the State
has a right to protect.
employees and workers to join the mass demonstration
against alleged police abuses and the subsequent
separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service
constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom
of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom
petition for redress of grievances.

SUMMARY: Philippine Blooming Mills Employees

Organization staged a mass demonstration at
Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in protest against
alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in
by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.)
as well as those in the regular second and third shifts
(from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.,
respectively); and that they informed the Company of
their proposed demonstration. Petitioners claim that
they did not violate the existing CBA because they gave
the respondent Company prior notice of the mass
demonstration on March 4, 1969; that the said mass
demonstration was a valid exercise of their
constitutional freedom of speech against the alleged
abuses of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass
demonstration was not a declaration of strike because
it was not directed against the respondent firm. Judge
Joaquin M. Salvador found PBMEO guilty of bargaining
in bad faith and herein petitioners as directly
responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor
practice and were, as a consequence, considered to
have lost their status as employees of the respondent
Company.

ISSUE + RATIO: W/N the dismissal of the petitioners

was proper? – NO.

The demonstration was against alleged abuses of some

Pasig policemen, not against their employer. Demo was
purely and completely an exercise of their freedom
expression in general and of their right of assembly and
petition for redress of grievances in particular before
appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive,
again the police officers of the municipality of Pasig.
They exercise their civil and political rights for their
mutual aid protection from what they believe were
police excesses. The respondent company is the one
guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on
the part of the respondent firm to permit all its