16. EBRALINAG v. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
What the petitioners seek only is
SCHOOLS OF CEBU
G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993
Facts: The petitioners in both (consolidated) cases were
expelled from their classes by the public school authorities in
Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem
and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No.
1265 (An Act making flag ceremony compulsory in all
educational institutions) of July 11, 1955 , and by Department
Order No. 8 (Rules and Regulations for Conducting the Flag
Ceremony in All Educational Institutions) dated July 21, 1955 of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
making the flag ceremony compulsory in all educational
institutions.
Jehovah's Witnesses admitted that they taught their children not
to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the
patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship"
or "religious devotion" which they "cannot conscientiously give
to anyone or anything except God". They consider the flag as
an image or idol representing the State. They think the action of
the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge
transcends constitutional limitations on the State's power and
invades the sphere of the intellect and spirit which the
Constitution protect against official control.
Issue: WON school children who are members or a religious
sect may be expelled from school for disobedience of R.A. No.
1265 and Department Order No. 8
Held: No. Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is
entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among
human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his
Creator
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and
duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, the
expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified.
The petitioners further contend that while they do not take part
in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in
"external acts" or behavior that would offend their countrymen
who believe in expressing their love of country through the
observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention
during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of
those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings.
Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no
warrant for their expulsion.
The Court is not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's
Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national anthem
and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious group which
admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school population"
will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a
nation "untaught and un-inculcated in and unimbued with
reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration
for national heroes" .
exemption from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from the public
schools where they may study the Constitution, the democratic
way of life and form of government, and learn not only the arts,
sciences, Philippine history and culture but also receive training
for a vocation of profession and be taught the virtues of
"patriotism, respect for human rights, appreciation for national
heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and moral and
spiritual values (Sec. 3[2], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution) as part of
the curricula. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine
schools will bring about the very situation that this Court had
feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the
iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates
their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country
or respect for dully constituted authorities.
Also, the expulsion of members of Jehovah's Witnesses from
the schools where they are enrolled violates their right as
Philippine citizens, under the 1987 Constitution, to "protect and
promote the right of all citizens to quality education . . . and to
make such education accessible to all (Sec. 1, Art. XIV).
17. CERVANTES VS. FAJARDO
G.R. No. 79955. January 27, 1989.
Facts: This is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus over the
person of the minor Angelie Anne Cervantes. Angelie Ann
Cervantes was born on 14 February 1987 to Conrado Fajardo
and Gina Carreon, who are common-law husband and wife.
They offered the child for adoption to Gina Carreon's sister and
brother-in-law, Zenaida Carreon-Cervantes and Nelson
Cervantes, spouses, who took care and custody of the child
when she was barely two weeks old. An Affidavit of Consent to
the adoption of the child was executed by respondent Gina
Carreon. The petition for adoption was filed by petitioners before
the RTC of Rizal, which granted the petition.
Sometime in 1987, the adoptive parents, Nelson and Zenaida
Cervantes, received a letter from the respondents demanding to
be paid the amount of P150,000.00, otherwise, they would get
back their child. Petitioners refused. As a result, while petitioners
were out at work, the Gina Carreon took the child from her
"yaya" at the petitioners' residence, on the pretext that she was
instructed to do so by her mother. Gina Carreon brought the
child to her house. Petitioners demanded the return of the child,
but Gina Carreon refused, saying that she had no desire to give
up her child for adoption and that the affidavit of consent to the
adoption she had executed was not fully explained to her.
Issue: WON the natural parents or the adoptive parents have
custody over Angelie Ann Cervantes.
Held: The custody and care of the minor Angelie Anne
Cervantes are granted to petitioners, Zenaida and Nelson
Cervantes, to whom they properly belong.
Ratio: In all cases involving the custody, care, education and
property of children, the latter's welfare is paramount. The
provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under
five (5) years of age, will not apply where the Court finds
compelling reasons to rule otherwise. In all controversies
regarding the custody of minors, the foremost consideration is
the moral, physical and social welfare of the child concerned,
taking into account the resources and moral as well as social
standing of the contending parents.
Conrado Fajardo's relationship with the Gina Carreon is a
common-law husband and wife relationship. His open
cohabitation with Gina will not accord the minor that desirable
atmosphere where she can grow and develop into an upright
and moral-minded person. Gina Carreon had also previously
given birth to another child by another married man with whom
she lived for almost three (3) years but who eventually left her
and vanished. For a minor to grow up with a sister whose
"father" is not her true father, could also affect the moral outlook
and values of said minor. Upon the other hand, petitioners who
are legally married appear to be morally, physically, financially,
and socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a
future better than what the natural mother, who is not only
jobless but also maintains an illicit relation with a married man,
can most likely give her.
The minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the full
knowledge and consent of respondents. A decree of adoption
has the effect of dissolving the authority vested in natural
parents over the adopted child. The adopting parents have the
right to the care and custody of the adopted child and exercise
parental authority and responsibility over him.
18. GUANZON VS DE VILLA
181 SCRA 623; G.R. 80508; January 30, 1990
Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the “saturation drive” or
“aerial target zoning” that were conducted in their place (Tondo
Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no
specific target house to be searched and that there is no search
warrant or warrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are
in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or identification
cards. The residents were rudely awakened from their sleep by
the banging on the walls and windows of their houses. The
residents were at the gun-point of high-powered guns and
herded like cows. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs
for the police to examine their tattoo marks. The residents
complained that their homes were ransacked, tossing their
belongings and destroying their valuables. Some of their money
and valuables even disappeared after the operation. The
residents also reported incidents of maulings, spot-beatings and
maltreatment. Those who were detained also suffered mental
and physical torture to extract confessions and tactical
information.
The respondents, on the other hand said that such accusations
were all lies. Respondents contend that the Constitution grants
to government the power to seek and cripple subversive
movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. The aerial
target zoning was intended to flush out subversives and criminal
elements coddled by the communities were the said drives were
conducted. They said that they have intelligently and carefully
planned months ahead for the actual operation and that local
and foreign media joined the operation to witness and record
such event.
Issue: WON the saturation drive committed consisted of
violation of human rights.
Held. It is not the police action per se which should be prohibited
rather it is the procedure used or the methods which “offend
even hardened sensibilities”. Based on the facts stated by the
parties, it appears to have been no impediment to securing
search warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were
searched or individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There
is no showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the
“aerial zoning” could not be achieved even as the rights of the
squatters and low income families are fully protected. However,
the remedy should not be brought by a taxpayer suit where not
one victim complaints and not one violator is properly charged.
In the circumstances of this taxpayers’ suit, there is no erring
soldier or policeman whom the court can order prosecuted. In
the absence of clear facts, no permanent relief can be given. In
the meantime, there is no showing that some abuses were
committed. Petition is remanded to the RTC of Manila.
18. OPLE V. TORRES
292 SCRA 141. (1998) G.R. NO. 127685, JULY 23, 1998
Facts: The petitioner seek the attention of the court to prevent
the shrinking of the right to privacy, Petitioner prays that the
court invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled “Adoption
of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” on
two important constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation
of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly
intrudes on our citizenry’s protected zone of
privacy.adrianantazo.wordpress.com
Issue: Whether the implementation of AO No. 308 violates the
Rights to Privacy enshrined in the
constitution?adrianantazo.wordpress.com
Held: Yes, A.O. No. 308 cannot pass constitutional muster as
an administrative legislation because facially it violates the right
to privacy. The essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone.”
The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition
independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully
deserving of constitutional protection. The potential for misuse
of the data to be gathered under A.O. No. 308 cannot be
underplayed. The right to privacy is one of the most threatened
rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate from
various sources — governments, journalists, employers, social
scientists, etc. In the case at bar, the threat comes from the
executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308
pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving
information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate
delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of
the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that
A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a
devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to
take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin, Jr., “the
disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an
unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the
threat is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have
lost its benign capacity to forget.” 89 Oblivious to this counsel,
the dissents still say we should not be too quick in labelling the
right to privacy as a fundamental right. We close with the
statement that the right to privacy was not engraved in our
Constitution for flattery.