8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J.

Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ |

chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Custom Search Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court
Jurisprudence > 2000 Decisions >

EN BANC

[G. R. No. 140835. August 14, 2000

RAMON A. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. HON.

ANDRES R. NARVASA, as Chairman,
PREPARATORY COMMISSION ON
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS; HON.
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, as Executive
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 1/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

Secretary; COMMISSION ON AUDIT;

ROBERTO AVENTAJADO, as Presidential
Consultant on Council of Economic
Advisers/Economic Affairs; ANGELITO C.
BANAYO, as Presidential Adviser for/on
Political Affairs; VERONICA IGNACIO-
JONES, as Presidential Assistant/
Appointment Secretary (In charge of
appointments), Respondents.

DECISION

GONZAGA-REYES, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

In this petition for prohibition and

mandamus filed on December 9, 1999,
petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, in his
capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, assails
the constitutionality of the creation of the
Preparatory Commission on Constitutional
Reform (PCCR) and of the positions of
presidential consultants, advisers and
assistants. Petitioner asks this Court to
enjoin the PCCR and the presidential
consultants, advisers and assistants from
acting as such, and to enjoin Executive
Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora from
enforcing their advice and
recommendations. In addition, petitioner
seeks to enjoin the Commission on Audit
from passing in audit expenditures for the
PCCR and the presidential consultants,
advisers and assistants. Finally, petitioner
prays for an order compelling respondent
Zamora to furnish petitioner with
information on certain matters. chanrobles virtual law library

On January 28, 2000, respondent Hon.

Andres R. Narvasa, impleaded in his
capacity as Chairman of the PCCR, filed his
Comment to the Petition. The rest of the
respondents, who are being represented in
this case by the Solicitor General, filed their
Comment with this Court on March 7, 2000.
Petitioner then filed a Consolidated Reply
on April 24, 2000, whereupon this case was
considered submitted for decision. chanrobles virtual law library

I. Preparatory Commission on Constitutional

Reform chanrobles virtual law library

The Preparatory Commission on

Constitutional Reform (PCCR) was created
by President Estrada on November 26, 1998
by virtue of Executive Order No. 43 (E.O.
No. 43) in order to study and recommend
proposed amendments and/or revisions to
the 1987 Constitution, and the manner of
implementing the same.[1 Petitioner
disputes the constitutionality of the PCCR
on two grounds. First, he contends that it is
a public office which only the legislature
can create by way of a law.[2 Secondly,
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 2/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

petitioner asserts that by creating such a

body the President is intervening in a
process from which he is totally excluded
by the Constitution the amendment of the
fundamental charter.3 chanrobles virtual law library

It is alleged by respondents that, with

respect to the PCCR, this case has become
moot and academic. We agree. chanrobles virtual law library

An action is considered moot when it no

longer presents a justiciable controversy
because the issues involved have become
academic or dead.[4 Under E.O. No. 43, the
PCCR was instructed to complete its task on
or before June 30, 1999.[5 However, on
February 19, 1999, the President issued
Executive Order No. 70 (E.O. No. 70), which
extended the time frame for the completion
of the commissions work, viz chanrobles virtual law library

SECTION 6. Section 8 is hereby amended to

read as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

Time Frame. The Commission shall

commence its work on 01 January 1999
and complete the same on or before 31
December 1999. The Commission shall
submit its report and recommendations
to the President within fifteen (15)
working days from 31 December 1999. chanrobles virtual

law library

The PCCR submitted its recommendations

to the President on December 20, 1999 and
was dissolved by the President on the same
day. It had likewise spent the funds allotted
to it.[6 Thus, the PCCR has ceased to exist,
having lost its raison detre. Subsequent
events have overtaken the petition and the
Court has nothing left to resolve. chanrobles virtual law library

The staleness of the issue before us is made

more manifest by the impossibility of
granting the relief prayed for by petitioner.
Basically, petitioner asks this Court to
enjoin the PCCR from acting as such.7
Clearly, prohibition is an inappropriate
remedy since the body sought to be
enjoined no longer exists. It is well
established that prohibition is a preventive
remedy and does not lie to restrain an act
that is already fait accompli.[8 At this point,
any ruling regarding the PCCR would simply
be in the nature of an advisory opinion,
which is definitely beyond the permissible
scope of judicial power. chanrobles virtual law library

In addition to the mootness of the issue,

petitioners lack of standing constitutes
another obstacle to the successful
invocation of judicial power insofar as the
PCCR is concerned. chanrobles virtual law library

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 3/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

The question in standing is whether a party

has alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure
that concrete adverseness which sharpens
the presentation of issues upon which the
court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.[9 In
assailing the constitutionality of E.O. Nos.
43 and 70, petitioner asserts his interest as
a citizen and taxpayer.10 A citizen acquires
standing only if he can establish that he has
suffered some actual or threatened injury
as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of
the government; the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and the
injury is likely to be redressed by a
favorable action.[11 In Kilosbayan,
Incorporated v. Morato,[12 we denied
standing to petitioners who were assailing
a lease agreement between the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office and the
Philippine Gaming Management
Corporation, stating that, chanrobles virtual law library

in Valmonte v. Philippine Charity

Sweepstakes Office, G.R. No. 78716, Sept.
22, 1987, standing was denied to a
petitioner who sought to declare a form of
lottery known as Instant Sweepstakes
invalid because, as the Court held, chanrobles virtual law library

Valmonte brings the suit as a citizen,

lawyer, taxpayer and father of three (3)
minor children. But nowhere in his petition
does petitioner claim that his rights and
privileges as a lawyer or citizen have been
directly and personally injured by the
operation of the Instant Sweepstakes. The
interest of the person assailing the
constitutionality of a statute must be direct
and personal. He must be able to show, not
only that the law is invalid, but also that he
has sustained or in immediate danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of
its enforcement, and not merely that he
suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It
must appear that the person complaining
has been or is about to be denied some
right or privilege to which he is lawfully
entitled or that he is about to be subjected
to some burdens or penalties by reason of
the statute complained of. chanrobles virtual law library

We apprehend no difference between the

petitioner in Valmonte and the present
petitioners. Petitioners do not in fact show
what particularized interest they have for
bringing this suit. It does not detract from
the high regard for petitioners as civic
leaders to say that their interest falls short
of that required to maintain an action under
Rule 3, d 2. chanrobles virtual law library

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 4/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

Coming now to the instant case, petitioner

has not shown that he has sustained or is in
danger of sustaining any personal injury
attributable to the creation of the PCCR. If
at all, it is only Congress, not petitioner,
which can claim any injury in this case
since, according to petitioner, the President
has encroached upon the legislatures
powers to create a public office and to
propose amendments to the Charter by
forming the PCCR. Petitioner has sustained
no direct, or even any indirect, injury.
Neither does he claim that his rights or
privileges have been or are in danger of
being violated, nor that he shall be
subjected to any penalties or burdens as a
result of the PCCRs activities. Clearly,
petitioner has failed to establish his locus
standi so as to enable him to seek judicial
redress as a citizen. chanrobles virtual law library

A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing

to raise a constitutional issue when it is
established that public funds have been
disbursed in alleged contravention of the
law or the Constitution.[13, Thus payers
action is properly brought only when there
is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power.14 This was our ruling in a
recent case wherein petitioners
Telecommunications and Broadcast
Attorneys of the Philippines (TELEBAP) and
GMA Network, Inc. questioned the validity
of section 92 of B.P. No. 881 (otherwise
knows as the Omnibus Election Code)
requiring radio and television stations to
give free air time to the Commission on
Elections during the campaign period.[15
The Court held that petitioner TELEBAP did
not have any interest as a taxpayer since
the assailed law did not involve the taxing
or spending power of Congress.[16 chanrobles virtual law library

Many other rulings have premised the grant

or denial of standing to taxpayers upon
whether or not the case involved a
disbursement of public funds by the
legislature. In Sanidad v. Commission on
Elections,[17 the petitioners therein were
allowed to bring a taxpayers suit to
question several presidential decrees
promulgated by then President Marcos in
his legislative capacity calling for a national
referendum, with the Court explaining that
chanrobles virtual law library

...[i]t is now an ancient rule that the valid

source of a statute Presidential Decrees are
of such nature may be contested by one
who will sustain a direct injury as a result
of its enforcement. At the instance of
taxpayers, laws providing for the

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 5/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

disbursement of public funds may be

enjoined, upon the theory that the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of
the State for the purpose of executing an
unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds. The breadth
of Presidential Decree No. 991 carries an
appropriation of Five Million Pesos for the
effective implementation of its purposes.
Presidential Decree No. 1031 appropriates
the sum of Eight Million Pesos to carry out
its provisions. The interest of the
aforenamed petitioners as taxpayers in the
lawful expenditure of these amounts of
public money sufficiently clothes them with
that personality to litigate the validity of
the Decrees appropriating said funds. chanrobles virtual law library

In still another case, the Court held that

petitioners the Philippine Constitution
Association, Inc., a non-profit civic
organization - had standing as taxpayers to
question the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 3836 insofar as it provides for
retirement gratuity and commutation of
vacation and sick leaves to Senators and
Representatives and to the elective officials
of both houses of Congress.[18 And in
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works,[19
the Court allowed petitioner to maintain a
taxpayers suit assailing the constitutional
soundness of Republic Act No. 920
appropriating P85,000 for the construction,
repair and improvement of feeder roads
within private property. All these cases
involved the disbursement of public funds
by means of a law. chanrobles virtual law library

Meanwhile, in Bugnay Construction and

Development Corporation v. Laron,[20 the
Court declared that the trial court was
wrong in allowing respondent Ravanzo to
bring an action for injunction in his capacity
as a taxpayer in order to question the
legality of the contract of lease covering the
public market entered into between the City
of Dagupan and petitioner. The Court
declared that Ravanzo did not possess the
requisite standing to bring such taxpayers
suit since [o]n its face, and there is no
evidence to the contrary, the lease contract
entered into between petitioner and the
City shows that no public funds have been
or will be used in the construction of the
market building. chanrobles virtual law library

Coming now to the instant case, it is readily

apparent that there is no exercise by
Congress of its taxing or spending power.
The PCCR was created by the President by
virtue of E.O. No. 43, as amended by E.O.
No. 70. Under section 7 of E.O. No. 43, the
amount of P3 million is appropriated for its
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 6/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

operational expenses to be sourced from

the funds of the Office of the President. The
relevant provision states - chanrobles virtual law library

Appropriations. The initial amount of

Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) is
hereby appropriated for the operational
expenses of the Commission to be
sourced from funds of the Office of the
President, subject to the usual
accounting and auditing rules and
regulations. Additional amounts shall be
released to the Commission upon
submission of requirements for
expenditures. chanrobles virtual law library

The appropriations for the PCCR were

authorized by the President, not by
Congress. In fact, there was no an
appropriation at all. In a strict sense,
appropriation has been defined as nothing
more than the legislative authorization
prescribed by the Constitution that money
may be paid out of the Treasury, while
appropriation made by law refers to the act
of the legislature setting apart or assigning
to a particular use a certain sum to be used
in the payment of debt or dues from the
State to its creditors. [21 The funds used
for the PCCR were taken from funds
intended for the Office of the President, in
the exercise of the Chief Executives power
to transfer funds pursuant to section 25 (5)
of article VI of the Constitution. chanrobles virtual law library

In the final analysis, it must be stressed

that the Court retains the power to decide
whether or not it will entertain a taxpayers
suit.[22 In the case at bar, there being no
exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power, petitioner cannot be
allowed to question the creation of the
PCCR in his capacity as a taxpayer, but
rather, he must establish that he has a
personal and substantial interest in the
case and that he has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.[23 In other words, petitioner
must show that he is a real party in interest
- that he will stand to be benefited or
injured by the judgment or that he will be
entitled to the avails of the suit.24 Nowhere
in his pleadings does petitioner presume to
make such a representation. chanrobles virtual law library

II. Presidential Consultants, Advisers, Assistants chanrobles virtual law library

The second issue raised by petitioner

concerns the presidential consultants.
Petitioner alleges that in 1995 and 1996,
the President created seventy (70)
positions in the Office of the President and
appointed to said positions twenty (20)
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 7/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

presidential consultants, twenty-two (22)

presidential advisers, and twenty-eight
(28) presidential assistants.[25 Petitioner
asserts that, as in the case of the PCCR, the
President does not have the power to
create these positions.26 chanrobles virtual law library

Consistent with the abovementioned

discussion on standing, petitioner does not
have the personality to raise this issue
before the Court. First of all, he has not
proven that he has sustained or is in danger
of sustaining any injury as a result of the
appointment of such presidential advisers.
Secondly, petitioner has not alleged the
necessary facts so as to enable the Court to
determine if he possesses a taxpayers
interest in this particular issue. Unlike the
PCCR which was created by virtue of an
executive order, petitioner does not allege
by what official act, whether it be by means
of an executive order, administrative order,
memorandum order, or otherwise, the
President attempted to create the positions
of presidential advisers, consultants and
assistants. Thus, it is unclear what act of
the President petitioner is assailing. In
support of his allegation, petitioner merely
annexed a copy of the Philippine
Government Directory (Annex C) listing the
names and positions of such presidential
consultants, advisers and assistants to his
petition. However, appointment is obviously
not synonymous with creation. It would be
improvident for this Court to entertain this
issue given the insufficient nature of the
allegations in the Petition. chanrobles virtual law library

III. Right to Information chanrobles virtual law library

Finally, petitioner asks us to issue a writ of

mandamus ordering Executive Secretary
Ronaldo B. Zamora to answer his letter
(Annex D) dated October 4, 1999
requesting for the names of executive
officials holding multiple positions in
government, copies of their appointments,
and a list of the recipients of luxury
vehicles seized by the Bureau of Customs
and turned over to Malacanang.[27 chanrobles virtual law library

The right to information is enshrined in

Section 7 of the Bill of Rights which
provides that chanrobles virtual law library

The right of the people to information on

matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and
to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 8/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

afforded the citizen, subject to such

limitations as may be provided by law. chanrobles virtual law library

Under both the 197328 and 1987

Constitution, this is a self-executory
provision which can be invoked by any
citizen before the courts. This was our
ruling in Legaspi v. Civil Service
Commission,[29 wherein the Court
classified the right to information as a
public right and when a [m]andamus
proceeding involves the assertion of a
public right, the requirement of personal
interest is satisfied by the mere fact that
the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore,
part of the general public which possesses
the right. However, Congress may provide
for reasonable conditions upon the access
to information. Such limitations were
embodied in Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise knows as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, which took effect on March
25, 1989. This law provides that, in the
performance of their duties, all public
officials and employees are obliged to
respond to letters sent by the public within
fifteen (15) working days from receipt
thereof and to ensure the accessibility of all
public documents for inspection by the
public within reasonable working hours,
subject to the reasonable claims of
confidentiality.[30 chanrobles virtual law library

Elaborating on the significance of the right

to information, the Court said in Baldoza v.
Dimaano[31 that [t]he incorporation of this
right in the Constitution is a recognition of the
fundamental role of free exchange of
information in a democracy. There can be no
realistic perception by the public of the nations
problems, nor a meaningful democratic
decisionmaking if they are denied access to
information of general interest. Information is
needed to enable the members of society to
cope with the exigencies of the times. The
information to which the public is entitled to
are those concerning matters of public concern,
a term which embrace[s] a broad spectrum of
subjects which the public may want to know,
either because these directly affect their lives,
or simply because such matters naturally
arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the
final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in
a case by case basis whether the matter at
issue is of interest or importance, as it relates
to or affects the public.[32 chanrobles virtual law library

Thus, we agree with petitioner that

respondent Zamora, in his official capacity
as Executive Secretary, has a constitutional
and statutory duty to answer petitioners
letter dealing with matters which are
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 9/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc

unquestionably of public concern that is,

appointments made to public offices and
the utilization of public property. With
regard to petitioners request for copies of
the appointment papers of certain officials,
respondent Zamora is obliged to allow the
inspection and copying of the same subject
to the reasonable limitations required for
the orderly conduct of official business.33 chanrobles virtual law

library

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with

the exception that respondent Zamora is
ordered to furnish petitioner with the
information requested. chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtual law library

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. chanrobles virtual law library

Bellosillo, J., abroad, on official business. chanrobles virtual law library

Puno, J., vote to dismiss on the ground that

the case is moot.

Endnotes:
1 E.O. No. 43, sec. 1.
2 Petition, 11-18
3 Ibid., 18-22.

4Santiago v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 16 (1998); Garcia v.

Commission on Elections, 258 SCRA 754 (1996).
5 E.O. No. 43, sec. 8.
6 Comment of respondent Narvasa, 7-9.
7 Petition, 29-30.
8 Aguinaldo v. Commission on Elections, 308 SCRA 770
(1998).
9 Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995),
citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 633 (1962).
10 Petition, 2.
11 Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 337
(1998).
12 246 SCRA 540 (1995).
13The Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. v. San Juan,
260 SCRA 250 (1996).
14 Flast v. Cohen, 392 US 83, 20 L Ed 2d 947, 88 S Ct 1942.
15 Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 337
(1998).
16See also The Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
San Juan, 260 SCRA 250 (1996); Kilosbayan, Incorporated v.
Morato, 246 SCRA 540 (1995); Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA
392 (1980).
17 73 SCRA 333 (1976).
18 Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Gimenez, 15
SCRA 479 (1965).

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 10/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc
19 110 Phil 331 (1960).
20 176 SCRA 251 (1989).
21 Gonzales v. Raquiza, 180 SCRA 254 (1989).
22 Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 95 SCRA 392 (1980),
citing Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677(1972); Sanidad v.
Commission on Elections, 73 SCRA 333 (1976).
23 People v. Vera, 65 Phil 50 (1937).
24Rules of Court, Rule 3, sec. 2; Board of Optometry v. Colet,
260 SCRA 88 (1997).
25 Petition, 6.
26 Ibid., 6-7, 22.
27 Ibid., 1-2, 6
28 Sec. 6, Article III, 1973 Constitution, provided - chanrobles virtual law library

The right of the people to information on matters of public

concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decision, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
29 150 SCRA 530 (1987).
30 Republic Act No. 6713, sec. 5 (a) and (e); see Rules
Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, Rule IV.
3171 SCRA 14 (1976). See Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,
297 SCRA 754 (1998).
32 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987).
33 Lantaco, Sr. v. Llamas, 108 SCRA 502 (1981).

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 11/12
8/6/2019 Gonzales vs Narvasa : 140835 : August 14, 2000 : J. Gonzaga-Reyes : En Banc
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/aug2000/140835.php 12/12