TTO ROLLY BULOG

Reynolds vs US

Facts:

- Assignment of errors and among them is

o Should the accused have been acquitted if he married for the second time because he
believed it to be his religious duty?
o Did the court err in the part of the charge which directed the attention of the jury to the
consequences of polygamy?
- The testimony shows that the absent witness was the alleged second wife of the accused Mary
Jane Schobold or Mrs. Reynolds
- The officer went to again to the house to serve the new subpoena with the right name on it
- From there found a person known as the FIRST WIFE of the accused.
- He was told by
- The accused proved that at the time of his alleged second marriage he was, and for many years
had been a member of the CHURCH of JESUS CRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS commonly knows as
MORMON CHURCH.
- As a believer it was an accepted doctrine of the church “THAT THE DUTY OF MALE MEMBERS OF
THE CHURCH, circumstances PERMITTING to practice polygamy.
- The church believed the polygamy was directly enjoined upon members thereof by almighty
God.
- Failing to practice polygamy would be punished and penalty for refusal would be DAMNATION
IN LIFE TO COME.
- The second wife SCHOFIELD and that such marriage ceremony was performed under and
pursuant to the doctrine of the said church.
- The ruling must be NOT GUILTY. This request was refuse and did charge that there must have
been a CRIMINAL INTENT but in the line of the DEFENDANT under influence of a religious belief
that it was right – under an inspiration, IF YOU PLEASE, that it was right
- The part of seeking the criminal intent did not excuse him from prosecution
- The word RELIGON is NOT DEFINED in the constitution
- At common law, the SECOND MARRIAGE WAS ALWAYS VOID (HISTORY)
- From the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as offence against SOCIETY

HELD:

- The criminal intent is generally element of crime, what he knowingly does, the accused knew
that he had been married once and that his first wife was living. He also KNEW that his SECOND
MARRIAGE was forbidden by law. He married the second time he is PRESIMED to have intended
to BREAK THE LAW. GUILTY of VIOLATION OF LAW.
American Bible Society v City of Manila.

Facts:

- The petitioner is engaged in the distribution and sales of bibles and religious articles. There are
foreign, non-stock, non – profit, religious, missionary corporation
- The city of manila informed them that It was CONDCUCTING BUSINESS of general menchandise
without providing itself with the necessary MAYOR’S PERMIT and municipal license. Requred the
plaintiff to so secure license. (RA 409 REVISED CHARTER OF MANILA)
- But the plaintiff protested agaist this requirement and claimed that it never MADE ANY PROFIT
FROM THE SALES OF THE BIBLES.
- The city of treasurer demanded plaintiff to DEPOSIT and pay under the PROTEST sum of
5,891.45 pesos to AVOID THE CLOSING OT ITS BUSINESS as well further fines and penalties in the
premises.
- The bibles are IMPORTED from US
- The plaintiffs proved that their company existed in PH since 1899 and that also in US they are
exempt from real estate taxes; and it was never required to pay any municipal license fee or tax
before the war.
- Petitioner further tried to establish that iT WAS NEVER MADE ANY PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF
ITS BIBLE.
- Respondents retorts the admission of the plaintiff-appelant. It was discovered the the bearing
the price of 70 cents were sold at 1.30 pesos each. Those bearing 4.50 each are sold here at 10
pesos each those bearing S70 are sold here at 15 pesos. S11 each are sold here P22 each. Clearly
shows that the plaintiff’s contention that it never makes any profit from the sale of its bible..
- Accoriding to the petitioner ORDINANCE 2529 and 3000 are unconstitutional because they
provode religious censorship and restrain the free exercise and enejoyment of its religious
profession.
- Held is ORDINANCE 3000 and 2529 is not applicable for it would impai plaintiffs right to the free
exercise and enjoyment of its profession and worship.
ESTRADA VS ESCRITOR

FACTS:

- Respondent was a court interpreter at regional trial court LAS PINAS

- Petitioner is requesting for investigation of rumors that the respondent is living with a man NOT
HER husband.
- They allegedly have a child of 18-21 yo.
- Petitioner is not related to the respondent or her partner
- But he filed the charge as he believes that the is committing an immoral act that TARNISHES THE
IMAGE of the court, thus she should NOT BE ALLOWED to remain employed therein.
- In his letter of complaint. Respondent frequent visit to the hall of justice, he learned from
conversations thein that respondent was living with a man not her husband.
- Respondent testified that she was ALREADY a WIDOW her husband having died in 1998 before
she entered to judiciary.
- She admitted that she has lving with Luciano without benefit of marriage for 20 yrs and that
they have a son. But as a member of JEHOVAHS WITNESSES and the WATCH TOWER and BIBLE
TRACT SOCIETY their conjugal arrange is in CONFORMITY with their religious beliefs.
- In fact, after 10 YEARS of living togher she executed a DECLARATION OF PLEDGING
FAITHFULNESS. Her partner also executed the same
- It was signed in 1991
- At the time respondent executed her pledge, her husband was STILL ALIVE BUT LIVING WITH
ANOTHER WOMAN. Luciano was likewise married at that time but had been separated in fact
from his wife.
- The declaration requires the approval of the elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation and
is binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is
allowed
- In GOD’S VIEW FIRST CONCERN. the relationship into which he or she contemplates entering, is
one that could meet with God's approval.
- a second principle to consider is that one should do all one can to establish the honorableness of
one's marital union in the eyes of all.
- Finally, if the marital relationship is not one out of harmony with the principles of God's Word,
and if one has done all that can reasonably be done to have it recognized by civil authorities.

ISSUE

- Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of "gross and
immoral conduct."

HELD

- unique American experiment of separation of church and state came about

- That Locke and the social contract theory were influential in the development of religious
freedom and separation is evident from the memorial presented by the Baptists to the
Continental Congress.
- the case is REMANDED to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Solicitor General is ordered
to intervene in the case where it will be given the opportunity (a) to examine the sincerity and
centrality of respondent's claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence on the
state's "compelling interest" to override respondent's religious belief and practice; and (c) to
show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to
respondent's religious freedom. The rehearing should be concluded thirty (30) days from the
Office of the Court Administrator's receipt of this Decision.
ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PH VS OFFICE OF MUSLIM AFFAIRS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS:

- the petitioner is a corporation that operatates under DSWD. It is a non-governmental

organization that extends voluntary services to the Filipino people, especially muslim
communities. It claims to be a an active member of international organization.
- Among the functions of the petioners carries out is to CONDUCT SEMINARS, ORIENT
MANUFACTURERS on HALAL FOOD and issue HALAL CERTIFCATION in the PH
- Petitioner alleged that the actual need to certify halal foods, for analysis of food, inspection
thereof and issuance of halal certifications for A FEE
- EO 46 vested the power to issue halal food to respondend OFFICE OF MUSLIM AFFAIRS and
perform REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
- As a result petitioner lost its revenues after food manufacturing stopped securing certifications
from it.
- Petitioner contends that the EO violates the constitutional provision of the SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE. It is unconstitutional for the government to formlate policies and
guidelines on HALAL certification scheme because said SCHEME IS A FUNCTION ONLY TO
RELIGIOUS organzations.
- According to petitioner, a food product becomes halal only after the performance of ISLAMIC
RELIGIOUS RITUAL AND PRAYER. THUS ONLY MUSLIMS ARE QUALIFIED TO SLAUGTHER ANIMALS
FOR FOOD.
- The court GRANT THE PETITION
- OMA was created to ensure the integration of Muslim Filipinos into mainstream Filipino society
with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.
- OMA deals with the SOCIETAL, LEGAL, POLITCAL and economic concers of the muslim
community as a NATURAL CULTURAL COMMUNITY and not as a religious group which OMA
does not intrude into PURELY RELIGIOUS MATTERS.
- OMA RIGHT TO HEALTH does no encroach religious freedom

ISSUE:

- WON EO 46 in NULL AND VOID

HELD:

- YES, the fact that muslim consumers can actually verify through the labels whether a product
contains non-food substances, we believe that they are discerning enough to know who the
reliable and competent certifying organizations in their community are.
- With the contention of the right to health. Right to health are already provided for in existing
laws nad ministered to by government agencies charged with ensuring that prdoucts released
in the market are fit for HUMAN CONSUMPTION like DOA the power to slaughter animals
intended for human consumption, Bureau of food and drugs to enforce rules and regulation
establing reasonable definition and standard of fill of containers for food, DTI regulate
unreasonable sales and practices, compulsory labeling ang fair packaging to obtain accurate
info.
EBARLINAG vs The division superintendent of schools of CEBU

Facts:

- WON the school children who are members of JEHOVAHS WITNESSES may be expelled from
school for refusing on account of their religious belief, to TAKE PART IN THE FLAG CEREMONY
WHICH INCLUDES PLAYING OR SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM, SALUTING THE PHILIPPINE
FALG AND RECITING PATRIOTIC PLEDGE as required by RA 1265 making the flag ceremony in all
educational institution.
o Sec. 1. Shall include the playing or singing the national anthem
o Sec.3. failure or refusal to observe flag ceremony shall subject to admin punishment.
o RULES AND REGULATION FOR CONDUCTING FLAG CEREMONONY
- The petitioners are 43 hs and elem school stundents
- Jehovahs witnesses admittedly TEACH THEIR CHILDREN not to salute the FLAG, SING NATIONAL
ANTHEM, and recite the PATRIOTIC pledge for they believe that those are “ACTS OF WORSHIP”
or religiou devotion. Which they cannot give expt GOD.

ISSUE:

- WON children of JEHOVAHS WITNESSES may expelled from school for disobedience of RA 1265

Held:

- The flag is not an image but a SYMBOL OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PH, an emblem of national
sovereignty, of nation unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the
constitution guarantee and protect. The flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance.
Saluting the flag DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.
- The children cannot be exempted to the rule
- the expulsion of students are annulled.
AUSTIRA VS NLRC/SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS

Facts:

- The respondens Central union mission of the Seventh-day Adventists is a religious corporation
duly organized and existing under PH law and is represented by NLRC
- The petitioner workd with SDA for 28 years .
- The petitioner received several communication to one of the private respondte MR IBESATE
who AUTHORIZED his WIFE to collect the tithes and offering since he WAS VERY SICK to do
collcting at the time.
- MR IBESANTE is the treasurer of negros mission asking for accountalbility ato church tithes and
offerings amounting 15k
- Petitioner seeks to collect some of money to a certain PASTRO RODRIGO the UNPAID BALANCE
for the repair of the latter’s motor vehicle which he failed to pay to DIAMADA. Due to the pastor
Rodrigo harbored ill-feelings against petitioner.
- Upon knowing that pastor Rodrigo was about to file a complaint against hum he immediately
went to office of past buhat, but he was denied due lack of quorum
- Upon leaving the premises petitioner overheard pastor buhay saying “pador you are talking
tough” he returned to the office of pastor buhat, and tried to overturn latters table. Though
unsuccessfully since it was heavy.
- Petitioner received a letter and his wife to attend executive committee meeting, to be discussed
in the meeting were the non-remittance of church collection and events during the meeting it
was concur that the act of the petitioner of misapproating of denominational funds were
grounds for TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against SDA and prayed for reinstatement with
backwages and benefits, moral and exemplary damages
- The labor arbiter rendered a decision granting the request of the petitioner
- But the NLRC REVERRSED THE decision of the labor arbiter
- Private RESPONDENT contends that by the virtue of the doctrine of separation of church and
state labor arbiter nad NLRC have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the
petitioner. Since the matter at bar allegedly involves the DISCIPLINE OF A RELIGIOUS minister, it
-
- is to be considered pure ECCLESIASTICAL affair to which the state has no right to interfere.
-
- The RATIONALE BEHIND the principle is by saying “strong fences make good-neigbors” to avoid
encroachments by one against other because of a MISUNDERSTANDING of the limits of their
respective exclusive jurisdictions.
- The cae at bar DOES NOT CONCERN PURELY RELIGIOUS AFFAIR. PETITIONER WAS TERMINATED
from service without just or lawful cause. Having been illegally dismissed, petitioner is entitled
to reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority right and the payment of full
backwages without any deduction corresponding to the period form his illegal dismissal up to
actual reinstatement.

HELD:

GRANTED.
TARUC VS BISHOP DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

- Petitioner were lay members of the PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH PIC

- Respondets were bishop and parsh priest in SOCORRO Surigao del norte
- Petitioner clamored to the transfer of FR florana (respondent) but bishop de la cruz denied their
request. It appears from the recotds that the family of fr. Florano’s BELONGED TO POLITICAL
PARTY opposed to petioner’s
- Bishop found it too flimsy to transfer fr florano to another parish
- Meanwhile. Petitioner tried to organized mass to be celebrated by a certain Fr. Ambong during
the town fiesta
- Fr. Ambong was no at member of the clergy of the diocese of SURIGAO.
- Bishop tried to stop the petitioner but failed
- Due to the disobedience of petioner bishop declared them expelled frotm the PIC for reasons of:
o Disobedience to duly constituted authority of the church
o Inciting dissention
o And for threatening to forcibly and fear among general membership

ISSUE:

WON the courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving expulstion of members of a religious institution

Held:

- No, section 5 article 3 the 1987 consti

o No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
- It is purely ecclesiastical
MANOSCA VS CA/PELAYO

FACTS:

- WON the “public use” requiremenet of eminent domain is extant in the attempted
expropriation by the republic of 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the NATIONAL
HISTORICAL INSTITUTE (NHI) as NATIONAL HISTORICAL LANDMARK.
- Petitioners inherited a piece of land. When a parcel was ASCERTAINED by NHI to been the birth
site of FELIX Y. MANALO, the founder of INC it passed a resolution declaring the said land to be a
HISTORICAL LANDMARK.
- Had made contributions to PH history and culture has been declared as national landmark
- PD 260
- At the same time respondent filed an motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take
immediate possession of the property
- An order fixing the provisional market 54,000 and assesses 16k values of the property and
authorizing the republic to take over the property.
- The petitioners move to dismiss that the purpose of the expropriation was NOT FOR PUBLIC
USE. That the act would constitute an application of public funds in benefit or support to INC
- The constitutional qualification is that “private property shall no be taken fo public use without
just compensation.
- According to petitioner the expropriation has failed to meet guidelines set by thus court.
o In the case guildo vs rural progress admin: (1) the size of the land expropriated (2) the
large number of people benifited (3) the extent and social economic refom]
- According to petioners expropriation only allowed to following public uses ie. For roads, streets,
sidewalks, bridges, public building , parks etc.

HELD:

- THE REPUBLIC was not a proper party to alleged contract of exchange between INC and
petitioners.
Aglipay vs Ruiz

FACTS:

- Petitioner here is the supreme head of the PH independent church

- Seeks for the prohibition of the respondent DIRECTOR of pst from issuing and selling postage
stamps commemorative of the 33rd international eucharistic congress
- ." The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof, to this day,
remains unsold
- “in the center is chalice, with grape wine and stalks of wheat as border design. the said stamps
were actually issued and sold the greater part, thereof, to this day, remains UNSOLD. The
further sale was prohibited by the petitioner.
- It is alleged that selling postage stamps violates the constitution which provides that no public
money shall be appropriated for directly/indirectly for the use, benefit or support any, sect,
church.
- The prohibition is expressed probation of principle of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
- Act 4052 it appears that the respondent issued postage stamps.
- Act 4052 an act appropriating sum of 60k and for the cost of plates and printing of postage
stamps,
- Special postage stmaps would be advantageous to the government and does not violate the
constitution, because the stamps were not issue and sold to BENEFIIT the roman catholic church
- It contains Philippine map of the Philippines and the location of manila. Its is obvious that what
is emphasize is NOT THE eucharistic congresss but MANILA, as the capital of the Philippines, as
SEAT OF CONGRESS.

HELD:

DENIED.
Garces vs Estenzo

FACTS;

- Whether the parish priest or layman should have custody of the image?
- Barangay council adopted a resolution which is entitled reviving the traditional-socio-religious
celebration every 5th day of April as feast day of senor san vicente ferrer, the patron saint of
Valencia
- The resolution designated committees who would take charge the festivity. It provided that the
acquisition of the image of san vicente ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed as brgy proj.
- Tomas cabatingan will be the hermano mayor of the fiesta, and would take care the image of sa
vicente ferrer and the image would remain in HIS RESIDENCE for ONE YEAR until the election of
his successor chairman.
- Several days after the fiesta father osmena allegedly uttered defamatory remarks against the
brgy captain with regards to the disputed image.
- Because father osmena did not accede to the request of cabatingan to have the custody of the
image and maliciously ignored.
- Replevin case was filed by father osmena
- Now petitioner as a member of Aglipayan church and members of the catholic filed a complaint
saying that the brgy council was not duly constituted because one of the member or the
chairman of kabataas was not allowed to participate in its sessions
- And the other contention is about the constitutional provision of “no law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion” and that no public money shall be appropriated for the
benefit of any religious group”

Held:

- This case was a petty quarrel over the custody og saint’s image
- There can be NO QUESTION the image in question belongs to brgy council. Father osmena claim
that it belongs to the church is WRONG. The brgy council, as owner of the image, has THE RIGHT
TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY THEREOF
- No cause of action for annulment of brgy resolution.
OFFICE OF ADMIN SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMIN vs Judge Ignacio Macarine, MCTC, Gen. Luna,
Surigao del norte

Facts:

- The office of the court Admin (OCA) filed an admin case against respondent judge in violation of
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 which requires ALL FOREIGN TRAVELS OF JUDGES AND COURT
PERSONNEL, regardless of the number of days, MUST BE WITH PRIOR PERMISSION FRO THE
COURT.
- A travel authority must be secured from OCA judges and must SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS:
o Application or LETTER-request addressed to OCA stating the PURPOSE of the travel
abroad.
o APPLICATION FOR LEAVE covering the period of the travel, abroad, favorably
recommended by the EXECUTIVE JUDGE
o Certification from the STATISTICS DIVISION, court management office, OCA as to the
condition of the docket.
- Should be submitted to and received by OCA at least TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE INTENDED TIME
OF TRAVEL.
- On august 13, 2009 respondent WROTE then court admin, REQUESTING FOR AUTHORITY TO
TRAVEL TO HONGKING WITH HIS FAMILY for the period of sept 10 – 14 where he would
celebrate his 65th birthday.
- The respondent stated that his travel abroad shall be charged to his ANNUAL FORCED LEAVE.
However, he did not submit corresponding application for leave. For his failure to submit
complete requirement, his request remained unacted upon.
- The respondent PROCEEDED with his travel abroad without required TRAVEL AUTHORITY from
OCA
- On January 28, 2010 the respondent was informed by OCA that his leave of absence had been
disapproved and his travel considered unauthorized by the court. His absences SHALL NOT BE
DEDUCTED FRIM HIS LEAVE CREDITS but from his SALARY.
- Pursuant to section 50 of the OMNIBUS RULES OF LEAVE. Respondent also required to submit
his explanation on his failure to comply with OCA circular.
- In his letter-explanation. The respondednt narrated the his daughter, a nurse in New jersey USA,
gave him a trip to hongkong as a gift for his 65 th birthday. In the first together with his wife and
two sons, in the first week of September, he received a call from his dauther that she HAD
ALREADY BOOK him.
- However, sensing time constraint and thinking the futility of completing the requirements
before their scheduled flight, he opted not to IMMEDIATELY complete the requirements and
simply went ahead with their travel.
- He acknowledged his mistake and regretted his failutre to comply with the OCA circular.
- He further request consideration to the intended action of OCA to deduct the salary to his
salary. Instead if charging his absesnced to his leave credit.
- OCA found the respondent guilty in violation of OCA Circular 49-2003 for travelling without
securing travel authority from the COURT
- He was FINED in the amout of 5k
 - Section 6, Article 3 of the 1987 constitution allows restrictions on one’s right to travel provided
that such restriction is in the interest of the national security, public safety or public health
- OCA circular does not restrict but merely regulated, by proving guidelines to be complied by
judges and court personnel before they can go on leave to travel abroad.
- To restrict is to prohibit a person from doing any; to REGULATE in to govern according to rule.

HELD:

- ADMONISHED
Miriam Santiago vs Conrado Vasquez 1993

Facts:

- The petitioner filed a motion to restrain the Sandiganbayan from enforcing its HOLD
DEPARTTURE ORDER
- That on may 9, 1991 a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for violtion of sec. 3 (e) of
RA. 3019, otherwise known as anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
- An order to arrest was issued for the petitioner with BAIL for the release of the accused fixed at
P15,000.00
- The petitioner filed an urgent ex-parte motion for acceptance of the cash bail bond which states
that:
o As a result of vehicular collision, she suffered EXTENSIVE physical injuries which required
SURGICAL INTERVENTION. Specifically in her jaw which caused her extreme pain and
prevents her to speak.
- Which was granted by the court. Until such time she have recovered sufficiently from her recent
near fatal accident.
- Also the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution AUTHORIZING the petitioner to post cash bond for
her PROVISIONAL LIBERTY without need for her PHYSICAL APPEARANCE. On may 15, 1991 the
petitioner filed a cash bind in the amount 15k.
- On may 21, 1991, respondent ombudsman Conrado Vasquez filed with the sandiganbayab, the
that the accuse appeared in his office on afternoon may 20, 1991. She came and left unaided,
after staying for about 15 mins
- The Sandiganbayan ordered her to appear before the DEPUTY CLERK on or BEFORE, JUNE 5,
1991.
- in a motion may 22, 1991, petitioner asked her cash bond be cancelled and she be allowed
provisional liberty upon a recognizance. She CONTENDED the for her to continue remaining
under bail bond may IMPLY to other people that SHE HAS INTETIONS OF FLEEING, an intention
she would like to prove as baseless.
- CRIM CASE AND LIBEL
- The court dismisses the petition for certiorari and LIFTING the TRO. And the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petioner eventually DENIED with finality
- Meanwhile on Julu 6, 1992 the Sandiganbayan issued a HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER against the
petitioner.
- The accused is ordered NOT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY and the COMMISSION on IMMIGRATION
and DEPORTATION is ordered TO NOT ALLOW THE DEPARTURE OF THE ACUUSED UNLESS
AUTHORIZED from this court.
- The hold departure order was by issued by reason of the announcement made by petitioner,
which was widely publicized in both and broadcast media, that she would be leaving for US to
acceprt a FELLOWSHIP offered by JOHN F KENEDY school of government at HARVARD UNIV.
Petitioner likewise DISCLOSE that she would be addressing FILIPINO COMMUNITIES in the US in
line with her CRUSADE against ELECTION graude and other aspects of graft and corruption
- The petitioner argued that the right to travel and freedom of speech, pre eminent righrs not
only ENSHRINED in the constitution but also UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
- That suggest only political harassment and persecution
- There is no reasonable ground to fear that petitioner will surreptitiously flee the country to
EVADE JUDICIAL PROCESSES.
- PEOPLE VS MANOTOC
o A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.
o Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given
for the release of a person who is in custody of the law.
- xxx xxx xxx
- . . . Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his
departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so
that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.
MANOTOC vs CA/SEC/PEOPLE and HON EDMUNDO REYES as COMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

Factsl:

- DOES A PERSON FACING A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND PROVISIONALLY RELEASED ON BAIL

HAVE AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO TRAVEL?
- Petitioner is one of the two principal stockholders of trans-insular Management Inc and the
Manotoc securities a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the management of the latter
into the hand of professional men, he holds NO OFFICER POSITION in the said business, but acts
as PRESIDENT of the FORMER CORPORATION.
- Petitioner who was then in US came home together with his co- stock holders and filed a
petition with SEC for the appointement management committee in the said companies
- While pending the case in SEC. the SEC requested the commissioner of immigration, Edmundo
Reyes, NOT TO CLEAR PETITIONER FOR DEPARTURE
- When torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securitues, Inc. WAS SUSPECTED TO
BE A FAKE, six of its clients filed SIX separate CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against the petitioner.
- In all cases petitioner has been admitted to bail in total of 105k for criminal charges of ESTAFA.
- Petitioner filed before EACH of the trial court a motion entitled “MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO
LEAVE THE COUNTRY.” Stating as GROUND TEHREFOR HIS DESIRE to go the US “RELATIVE TO HIS
BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND OPPORTUNITIES” after the hearing both of the trial judges DENIED
the MOTION.
- The permission to leave is denied until these (2) cases are TERMINATED.
- Petitioner likeweise wrote the IMMIGRATION COMISSIONER but it was also denied.
- Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as matter of right, neither the courts
which granted him bail no the SEC which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could PREVENT HIM
FROM EXERCISING his consti right to travel.
- The court finds the petitioner contention is untenable
- RULE 114 sec. 1 of the rules of court defines BAIL as the SECURITY required abd given for the
release of a person who is in the CUSTODY of the law, THAT HE WILL APPEAR BEFORE ANY
COURT in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
o ITS OBJECT IS TO RELIEVE THE ACCUSE OF IMPRISONMENT AND STATE OF THE BURDEN
of KEEPING HIM, pending the trial, and at the same time.
- The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the
court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on hi RIGHT TO TRAVEL.
- The petitioner has specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has
agreed to it. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted
cash indemnities. The court CANNOT ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY without the
assent if SURETY because in accepting bail bond or recognizance, the government IMPLIEDLY
agress “that it will not take any proceedings with the principa that will increase the risks of the
suritie or affect thei remedies against him.
- The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.
Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states:
- The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or
when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.
-
Silverio vs CA

Facts:

- Petitioner was charged with violation of section 20 (4) of the revised securities act in criminal
case of the RTC cebu. In due time HE POSTED BAIL FOR HIS PROVISIONAL LIBERTY
- The respondent people of the Ph filed an urgent motion to CANCEL THE PASSPORT of and to issu
a hold-departure order against accused-petitioner on the ground that HE HAD GONE ABROAD
SEVERAL TIMES WIHTOUT THE NECESSARY court APPROVAL resulting in POSTPONEMENT OF
THE ARRAIGNMENT AND SCEHDULED HEARING.
- the RTC, issued an order directing the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport or to DENY his
application therefore, and the commission on immigration to prevent petitioner FROM LEAVING
THE COUNTRY because of the accused has not been arraigned and he has never appeared in
court, and there is evidence to show that accused has left the country and had gone abroad
without the knowledge and the permission of the court.
- The petitioner contens that the trial coirt committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in issuing orders. On the basis of facts were erroneous, claiming the the scheduled
arraignment could NOT BE HELD because there was a PENDING MOTION TO QUASH
iNFORMATION and (2) finding that the right to travel CAN BE IMPAIRED upon LAWUFUL ORDER
OF THE COURT event on the grounds other that the INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURTY, PUBLIC
SAFETY or PUBLIC HEALTH.
- THE MOTION TO QUASH WAS OMMITTED BY THE PETIONER
- It was filed a long after filing on the information in 1985 and after several arrawignments had
alredy been scheduled and cancelled due to petitione’s non- appearance.
- Following instances:
o Several scheduled arraingments were cancelled and reset, mostly due to the failure of
the accused siliverio to appear because he is in the US
o Since the information was filed, until this date, accused SIVLERIO had NEVER APPEARED
IN person before the court
o The BOND posted by the accuse had been CANCELLED TWISCE and warrants of arrest
had been ISSUED against hum for the same reason – Failure ti aooear at scheduled.
- Petitioner is facing a criminal charge. He has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof
by failing to appear before the Court when required. Warrants for his arrest have been issued.
- criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines
must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in
accordance with law.
- WHEREFORE, the judgement is herby AFFIRMED.
Valentin Legaspi vs CSC

Facts:

- The respondent had earlier denied legazpi’s request for information on the civil service
eligibilities of certain person employed as SANITARIANS in the HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CEBU
CITY.
- These governor employees names SibongHanoy and Agas had ALLEGEDLY REPRSENTED
THEMSELVES as CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBLES who PASSED THE EXAMINATIONS for sanitarian.
- The petitioner claim that he has the right to be informed of the eligibilities of Sibonghanoy and
Agas is GUARANTEED by the CONSTITUTION, and that he has no OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY and
ADEQUATE REMEDY TO ACQUIRE the information.
- Petitioner prays to compel the respondent to DISCLOSE SAID INFORMATION.
- The constitutional right to informatuin first gained recongnition in bill of rights, art. IV of 1973
constitution and was amplified in Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 constitution by adding the of the
phrase “as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development.
o 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 afforded the citizen, subject to such stations as may be
provided by law.
- These constitutional provision are self-executing (Without the need for any ancilliary act of
legistlature)
- The petitioner, being a citizen who, as such is clothed with personality to seek redress for the
alleged OBSTRUCTUIN of the exercise of the public right. The court finds no cogent reason to
deny his standing to being the present suit.
- But the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute. It
does not open every door to any and all information it can be subject through limitations, the
law may exempt certain types of information from public scuritny, such as those affecting
NATIONAL SECURITY/
- the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not of
public concern.
- The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express
limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position.
VALMONTE VS BELMONTE (GSIS GENERAL MANAGER)

Facts:

- Petitioner invoke their right to information and pray that respondents be directed
o To furnish the nmaes of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and
PDP laban who were able to secure clean loans
o To furnish with certified true copies of the documents evidenceing their respective loans
o To allow petitioners to ACCESS public record for the SUBJECT INFORMATION
- THE CONTROVERSY AROSE WHEN VELMONTE WROTE TO RESPONDENT BELMONTE A LETTER
REQUESTING following information
- “we trust the within (5) days from receipt hereof we will receive your favorable response
- Respondent replied that the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve this confidentiality and
it would breach unless ordered by the courts.
- The petitioner raised an issue of WON they are entitled to the doucments sought, by virtue of
their constitutional right to information?
- Among the settled principles in administrative law is that before a party can be allowed to resort
to the courts, he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress available
under the law.

ISSUE: WON petioners are entitled to access to documents evidencing loans by GSIS

Held:

- Yes, Petitioners are practitioners in media. As such, they have both the right to gather and the
obligation to check the accuracy of information the disseminate. For them, the freedom of the
press and of speech is not only critical, but vital to the exercise of their professions
- the right to information is not absolute
- to information is limited to "matters of public concern
- State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest," and is
"subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law."
- The information sought by petitioners in this case is the truth of reports that certain Members of
the Batasang Pambansa belonging to the opposition were able to secure "clean" loans from the
GSIS immediately before the February 7, 1986 election through the intercession of th eformer
First Lady, Mrs. Imelda Marcos.
- GSIS, a government-controlled corporation created by special legislation are within the ambit of
the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of transparency in
government dealings
Chavez vs Public Estate Authority and amari coastal bay development

Facts:

- Reclamation of Manila bay

- The government, through the Comissuiber of public highways signed a contract with CDCP. To
reclaim certain forshore and offshore areas of Manila bay. The contract also included
construction phases 1 and 2 of Manila-Cavite coastal road
- President Marcos issued PD. 1084 creating the PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY (PEA) “to reclaim
land, including foreshore and submergred areas, and to develop, imporove, acquire lease and
sell any kinds of lands.
- Also PD 1085 transferriing to PEA the land reclaimed under Manila-Cavite coasteal road and
reclamation
- President marcos issued a memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract to CDCP so that
“all future project works in Manila-cavite coastal road and reclatmation project shall be FUNDED
OAND OWNED BY PEA.
- PEA and CDCP executed a memorandum of agreement.
o "(i) CDCP shall undertake all reclamation, construction, and such other works in the
MCCRRP as may be agreed upon by the parties, TO BE PAID according to progress of
works on a unit price/lump sum basis for items of work to be agreed upon, subject to
price escalation, retention and other terms and conditions provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 1594. ALL THE FINANCING REQUIRED FOR SUCH WORKS SHALL BE PROVIDED
BY PEA.
o CDCP SHALL GIVE UP ALL ITS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS and HEREBY AGREES TO CEDE AND
TRANSFER IN FAVOR OF PEA, all of the rights, title, interest and participation of CDCP in
and to all the areas of land reclaimed by CDCP in the MCCRRP
- then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517, granting and transferring to
PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation
Project (MCCRRP)
o The Freedom Islands have a total land area of One Million Five Hundred Seventy Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Forty One (1,578,441) square meters or 157.841 hectares.
- PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without public bidding
- Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the
JVA as the "grandmother of all scams."
- As a result, the Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, and the
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, conducted a joint
investigation
o the conclusions of their report are:
o (1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the
public domain which the government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore
PEA cannot alienate these lands;
o (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and
o (3) the JVA itself is illegal.
- Petitioner contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the
reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the terms of any
 renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7, Article III, of the 1987
Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern

Held:

Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information on matters of public
concern in this manner:

"Sec. 7. 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 afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law." (Emphasis supplied)

The State policy of full transparency in all transactions involving public interest reinforces the
people's right to information on matters of public concern. This State policy is expressed in Section
28, Article II of the Constitution, thus:

- "Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest." (
- These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in
the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to
exercise effectively other constitutional rights.

- An informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy.
As explained by the Court in Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.30 –

- AMARI contends that petitioner cannot invoke the right at the pre-decisional stage or before the
closing of the transaction
- AMARI argues there must first be a consummated contract before petitioner can invoke the
right. Requiring government officials to reveal their deliberations at the pre-decisional stage will
degrade the quality of decision-making in government agencies.
o Government officials will hesitate to express their real sentiments during deliberations if
there is immediate public dissemination of their discussions, putting them under all
kinds of pressure before they decide
- We must first distinguish between information the law on public bidding requires PEA to
disclose publicly, and information the constitutional right to information requires PEA to release
to the public. Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without
demand from anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property.
These include the size, location, technical description and nature of the property being disposed
of, the terms and conditions of the disposition, the parties qualified to bid, the minimum price
and similar information. PEA must prepare all these data and disclose them to the public at the
start of the disposition process, long before the consummation of the contract, because the
 Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this disclosure, any
citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the bidding process.
- We rule, therefore, that the constitutional right to information includes official information on
on-going negotiations before a final contract

- object or purpose is contrary to law," or whose "object is outside the commerce of men," are
"inexistent and void from the beginning." The Court must perform its duty to defend and
uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio.

-
-
In Re: production of court records and documents and attendance of CA and empoloyees as witnesses
under SUBPOENAS of feb 10, 2012 and the various letter for the IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTION PANEL
dated JAN 19 and 25 2012.

Facts:

- Hon. Joseph Emilio Abaya congressman requested for actions described in ltters”
o Abaya wrote a request the public and private prosecutors, be PERMITTED to examine
among others, the ROLIO of flight attendants and stewards assoc of the PHIL vs PHIL
Airlaines.
 Abay wrote a letter requested certified true copies of the AGENDA and
MINUTES of the deliberation of, among others.
o Also wrote a letter the public and private prosecutors, be allowrd to examine the rollo of
NAVARRO vs ERMITA
o ROLLO of league of CITIES vs COMMELEC
- In an intervening development, the HON. Impeachment court DIRECTED the attendance of
WITNESSES CLERK of court VIDAL and Deputy clerk of court ANAMA and the PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS per SUBPOENA AD TESIFICANDUM ET DUCES TECUM for the case of FASAP vs PAL
- Another subpoena which directs the clerk of court VIDAL, in the case of Gloria Macapagal arroy
and former Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo to bring her, for submission to the IMPEACHMENT

BRIEF FACTS:

- During the impeachment proceeding against CJ Corona the prosecution panel would present
about 100 witnesses and almost a THOUSAND DOCUMENTS, to be secured from both public and
private offices. The LIST of prosed witnesses included JUSTICES OF THE SC, Court officials and
employees who will testy on matters, may of which are, INTERNAL TO THE COURT
- Prosecution requests were sent, the letters ask for the examination of records of ROLLOS and
agenda and minutes of the deliberation of the following cases.
o FASAP vs PAL
o Navarro vs Ermita
o Gutierrez vs HOP committee of justice
o League of cities of the PH vs COMELEC
o