People vs Cabalquinto
Whether or not the identity of the aggrieved
Facts
 party should not be disclosed in line with the
ABC testified that she is the common-law
wife of Cabalquinto and that they have four
children, namely: BBB, CCC, the child-
victim AAA, and DDD. At around 8:45 p.m.
of November 13, 1998, she was on her way
home. Since there is a half-inch gap between
the door and the wall, she peeped through the
gap and saw Cabalquinto lying face down
making pumping motions on their daughter,
AAA, who was lying underneath him with
her panties pulled down. When she heard
Cabalquinto tell AAA to open her legs (ibuka
mo), she kicked and pounded the door.
Cabalquinto immediately lay down. AAA
then stood up and opened the door. ABC
entered the room and confronted Cabalquinto
who only denied her accusation. ABC further
testified that during the police investigation
on November 14, 1998, AAA revealed to the
police that a similar incident happened to her
on November 8, 1998, the day of her friend’s
birthday celebration. RTC found the accused
guilty of the crime of rape.
The mother submitted that confidentiality and
the best interest of the child must prevail over
public access to information and pleaded that
her daughters case, as well as those of a
similar nature, be excluded from the Web
Page.
Issue

right to privacy for rape cases
Ruling
YES. The position of the OSG in its
Comment is noteworthy. The OSG submits
that the posting of the full text of decisions in
cases involving child abuse on the Supreme
Court Web Page violates the right to privacy
of the aggrieved parties. In order to determine
whether the subject matter upon which the
right to privacy being invoked falls within the
constitutionally-protected zone of privacy, it
must be shown that the person’s expectation
of privacy is reasonable.
The reasonableness of such expectancy
depends on a two part test:
(1) whether by his conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
(2) whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable.
Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:
Sec. 29. Confidentiality.at the instance of the
offended party, his name may be withheld
from the public until the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher,
and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in the case
of television and radio broadcasting, producer
and director in the case of the movie industry,
to cause undue and sensationalized publicity
of any case of a violation of this Act which
results in the moral degradation and suffering
of the offended party.
Antolin v Domondon
Facts
Hazel Antolin, the petitioner, took the 1997
CPA Board Exams but failed, receiving
failing grades from four out of seven subjects.
Convinced that she deserved to pass, she
wrote to respondent Abelardo Domondon,
Acting Chairman of the Board of
Accountancy, and requested that her answer
sheets be re-corrected.
Her answer sheets were shown but these
consisted merely of shaded marks. She
requested for copies of the questionnaire,
their respective answer keys, and an
explanation of the grading system used in
each subject. Respondent denied the request.
Issue
Whether or not Antolin has a right to obtain
copies of the examination papers.
Ruling


YES. The Court rules in favor of the
petitioner. Section 28, Article 2 of the
Constitution provides that the State may
adopt policies in the disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest while
Section 7, Article 3 provides the right of the
people to information on matters of public
interest. It is clear that the people’s right to
information is limited to matters of public
concern and subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.
The Court, nonetheless, conceded that the
CPA Board Exams are matters of public
concern. The examinees in particular, would
understandably be interested in the fair and
competent administration of these exams in
order to ensure that only those qualified are
admitted into the accounting profession.
On the issue of mootness, the Court held that
the petitioner’s belated passing of the Board
Exams does not automatically mean that her
interest in the examination papers has become
mere superfluity.
Grisworld v Connecticut
Facts
In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that
banned the use of any drug, medical device,
or other instrument in furthering
contraception.
A gynecologist at the Yale School of
Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth
control clinic in New Haven in conjunction
with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of
Planned Parenthood in Connecticut.
They were arrested and convicted of violating
the law, and their convictions were affirmed
by higher state courts. Their plan was to use
the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of
the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment
before the Supreme Court. 
Issues
Does the Constitution protect the right of
marital privacy against state restrictions on a
couple's ability to be counseled in the use of
contraceptives?
Ruling
Yes. The Court ruled that the Constitution did
in fact protect the right of marital privacy
against state restrictions on contraception.
While the Court explained that the
Constitution does not explicitly protect a
general right to privacy, the various
guarantees within the Bill of Rights create
penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to
privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth,
and Ninth Amendments create the right to
privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut
statute conflicted with the exercise of this
right and was therefore held null and void.
A right to privacy can be inferred from
several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and
this right prevents states from making the use
of contraception by married couples illegal.  Laws violates certain constitutional rights
In Re Atty. Marcial A. Edillon
Facts
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly
licensed practicing Attorney in the
Philippines.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended to
the Court the removal of the name of the
respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court
139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section
24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining
to the organization of IBP, payment of
membership fee and suspension for failure to
pay the same.
It is the contention of Atty. Edillon that the
stated provisions constitute a violation of his
constitutional rights in the sense that he is
being compelled as a pre-condition to
maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to
pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial
support of the said organization to which he is
admitted personally antagonistic, he is being
deprived of the rights to liberty and properly
guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Thus, the respondent concludes that the above
provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP
By-Laws are void.
Issues
(1) Whether or not the provisions of the Rule
of Court 139-A and the provisions of par.
2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-
of Atty. Edillon?
(2) Can the court compel Atty. Edillion to
pay his membership fee to the IBP? 

Ruling
1. No. All the provisions assailed by Atty.
Edillon are constitutional, and the
validity of Bar integration in the
Philippines is explicit in unequivocal
grant of precise power to the Supreme
Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of
the 1973 Constitution of the
Philippines. As to his contention that
his property rights are violated, it must
 be remembered that the practice of law SSS Employees Association v CA
is not a property right, but rather a
privilege. Facts
Issues
Ruling
2. Yes. The Integrated Bar is a State-
organized Bar, which every lawyer
must be a member of as distinguished
from bar associations in which
membership is merely optional and
voluntary. All lawyers are subject to
comply with the rules prescribed for
the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as
one of the requirements.

The Rules of Court only compels him

to pay his annual dues and it is not in
violation of his constitutional freedom
to associate. Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter
or vote or refuse to vote in its election
as he chooses.

The only compulsion to which he is

subjected is the payment of annual
dues. The Supreme Court in order to
further the State’s legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional