Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent Section 22.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos
This section, in relation to the article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, serves as a guide for interpreting provisions from the latter. Any
doubt must be resolved in favour of self-reliance and independence, and in
favour of Filipinos
Garcia v Board of Investments
Facts: This case is a petition to annul the decision of the BOI /DTI in
approving the transfer of the site of the proposed plant from Bataan to
Batangas, and the shift of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or
liquefied petroleum gas, on the grounds that the foreign investor has the right
of final choice of plant site.
Issue/s: W/N the BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in granting BPC’s
transfer, notwithstanding national interest.
Held and Ratio: The SC held that the right of choice was not vested in the
investors. Nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas, except the
nar-absolute discretion given by BOI to Bataan Petrochemical Corporation
(BPC). If the plant remains in Bataan, the Philippine National Oil Company
(PNOC) shall be a partner in the venture, benefitting the government from
the participation in the project. Furthermore, Section 10, Article XII of the
1987 Constitution provides the duty of the State to “regulate and
exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.” A
development of self reliant and independent national economy is also
mandated in Section 19, Article II of the Constitution.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private
sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to
needed investments
Section 21. The State promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform
Comprehensive rural development encompasses a broad spectrum of social,
economic, human, cultural, political, and even industrial development.
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity
and development
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-
based, or sector organizations that promote the welfare of the nation
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and
information in nation- building
Section 25. The State shall ensure autonomy of local governments
Navarro v Ermita
Facts: This case involves the petitioner challenging the constitutionality of
R.A. 9355 creating the province of Dinagat Islands. They allege that the
creation of such would perpetuate an illegal act of congress, and would
unjustly deprive the province of Surigao Del Norte a huge chunk of its
provincial territory, internal revenue allocation, and rich natural resources
from the area. They pointed that Dinagat failed to comply with the 2,000 sq-
km land area and 250,000-population requirements to create a province.
Issue/s: W/N R.A. 9355 is Constitutional
Held and Ratio: Yes. Section 2 of LGC, Paragraph (a) provides:
“It is hereby declared the poliy of the State that the territorial and political
subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy
to enable them to attain their fulest development as self-reliant communities
and make them more effective partners in attainment of national goals.
Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers,
authority, responsibilities and resources. The process of decentralization
shall proceed from the national government to the local government units”
Also, Section 25 Article II of the Constitution mandates that the State
shall ensure the autonomy of local government units. Consistent with
this declared policy, contiguity and minimum land area requirements
for prospective local government units should be liberally construed in
order to achieve desired results.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by
law
This provision aims for the equalization of political opportunities. However, it
is not self-executory. It merely provides a guideline for legislative or
executive action. It is also within the power of the State to limit the number of
qualified candidates.
Pamatong v COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner filed petition for certiorari, seeking to reverse the resolutions
refusing to give due course to petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy. Petitioner
claims that such is a violation of his right to “equal access to opportunities for
public office” as provided by Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue/s: W/N there is a constitutional right of the petitioner to run for or seek
the presidency.
Held and Ratio: No. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law. The provision cannot be a source of positive
rights. They are generally not self-executing and do not contain any
judicially enforceable constitutional right, but merely specifies a
guideline for legislative or executive action. Obviously, the provision is
not intended to compel the state to enact positive measures that would
accommodate as many people as possible into public office. The rationale
behind the prohibition is compelling the interest of the State to ensure
that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Inevitably,
the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunity for
logistical confusion and increased allocation of time and resources in
preparation for the election. The privilege of equal access to
opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations (i.e.
Omnibus Election Code on “Nuisance Candidates”)
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in public
service and take positive and effective measures against graft and
corruption
Section 28. Subject to the reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
Stte adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest
Neri v Senate
Facts: this is a petition for certiorari assailing the show cause letter and
contempt order issued by the Senate Committee against petitioner Neri. Neri,
fromer Director General of NEDA, was interrogated for 11 hours on account
of the anomalous transactions surrounding the contracting of DOTC with
Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) pursuant to the National
Broadband Network Project. Petitioner refused to answer questions relating
to his discussion with then President Arroyo about the NBN project, invoking
executive privilege. The questions unanswered were: (1) W/N Pres. Arroyo
followed up the NBN project, (2) W/N she directed Neri to prioritize it; and (3)
W/N she directed him to approve.
Issue/s: W/N the claim of executive privilege violate Sec. 28, Art II of the
Constitution
Held and Ratio: No. The right to public information, like any other right, is
subject to limitation. Not every legislative inquiry is an exercise of the
people’s right to information. The right of Congress to obtain
information in the aid of legislation cannot be equated to people’s right
to public information. Senate v Ermita laid down the rule that there is a
distinction between the right of Congress to information which underlies the
power of inquiry, and the right of people to information on matters of public
concern. The powers to exact testimony from government officials
exclusively belong to Congress, not to an individual citizen.
Pollo v Constantino-David
Facts: Petition is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of CSC Regional
Office IV and Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liason Division
under “Mamamayan Muna, hindi Mamaya Na” program of CSC. The
petitioner was found guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and in violation
of RA 6713 after evidences from his computer files were obtained, in
pursuance of an allegation from a confidential letter received by respondent
reporting the involvement of petitioner in pending cases of government
employees against CSC.
Issue/s:
(1) W/N the CSC in searching the petitioner’s computer breached legal
boundaries and exercised grave abuse of discretion; and
(2) W/N files stored in the computer assigned to petitioner are considered
private property
Held and Ratio:
(1) No. The search of petitioner’s files was conducted in connection with
investigation of work-relate misconduct. Two related requirements for
reasonable searches were observed: (1) justified at inception; and
(2) reasonable in scope in relation to justification. Public employers
are allowed to have liberal approach on work related searches and
investigations, due to its nature as public office.
(2) No. Petitioner did not exhibit expectation of privacy based on his
statements (i.e. friends, colleagues, and clients using his office regularly).
Justice Harlan’s requirements of privacy right includes: (1) person
has exhibited actual expectation of privacy; and (2) the expectation
is reasonable. Also, Memorandum 10 (Computer Use Policy) expressly
provided that computers provided by the office are public in nature, and
therefore there can be no expectation of privacy from the users.
Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) v Senate Impeachment Court
Facts: The case involves the issue of privacy of the foreign bank accounts of
former SC CJ Renato Corona with PSBank. PSBank filed a petition for
prohibition and certiorari, seeking to nullify the resolution of the impeachment
court, granting the subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum to PSBank, and
produce before the court the relative foreign currency accounts allegedly
belonging to SC CJ Corona.
Issue/s: W/N Impeachment court acted arbitrarily when it issued the assailed
subpoena, notwithstanding confidentiality of deposits under RA 6426
Held and Ratio: Petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The
supervening action of CJ Corona on May 29, 2012, as well as his execution
of waiver against the confidentiality of all his bank accounts has rendered
present petition moot and academic. In Gancho-on v Secretary of Labor
and Employment, the court ruled that “It is a rule of international
application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial
rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are
involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases, And where issue has
become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that
the declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.”
In Re: Production of Court Records
Summary: Impeachment Prosecution Panel Manager, Prosecutor Abaya,
requested for the presentation of documents as well as witnesses which
include SC Justices and other employees of the Judiciary. The issue in this
case is how the SC will comply with the subpoenas and the letters of the
prosecution impeachment panel. The SC issued this resolution stating that
the request must be denied by reason of the (1) separation of powers, and
(2) privileged/confidential communication.
Doctrines:
Access to court records: general rule- a policy of transparency.
The right to information, by its very nature and by Constitution’s own terms, is
not absolute. On the part of private individuals, the right to privacy, similarly
inviolable, exists. Institutions also enjoy their own right to confidentiality that
for governmental departments and agencies is expressed in terms of their
need to protect the integrity of their mandated tasks under the constitution
and the laws.
When court records are considered confidential
The need arises from the dictates of the integrity of the Court’s decision-
making function which may be affected by the disclosure of information.
While Section 2, Rule 10 of the Internal Rules of Supreme Court speaks only
of confidentiality of court deliberations, it is understood that the rule extends
to documents and other communications which are part of or are related to
the deliberative process.
To qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege, the agency
must show that the document is both (1) predecisional and (2) deliberative.
Communications are considered predecisional if they were made in the
attempt to reach a final conclusion. The key question in determining whether
the material is deliberative in nature is whether the disclosure of the
information would discourage candid discussion within the agency. Court
records which are predecisional and deliberative are thus protected nd
cannot be the subject of subpoena if judicial privilege is to be preserved.
Additionally, two other grounds may be cited for denying access to court
records, as well as preventing members from the bench, from being
subjected to compulsory process: (1) disqualification by reason of
privileged communication and (2) the pendency of an action or matter.