digests article III sections 5-8, constitutional law

Garces vs. Estenso

Facts: The case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the barangay council of
Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to
be used in the celebration of his annual feast day. That issue was spawned by the controversy as
to whether the parish priest or a layman should have the custody of the image. On March 23,
1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socio-
religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Señor San Vicente Ferrer, the
patron saint of Valencia".

Issue: Is the holding of fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio
fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any
religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One
of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of the patron saint had to be
placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.

If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the
barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the
acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as illegal. As noted in the first
resolution, the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in
rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses.

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance

Facts: These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed in
these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the
Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the
exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law
discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of
constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional."

Issue: Does sales tax on bible sales violative of religious freedom?

Held: No. The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is
mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior
restraint on the exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling
goods, is valid, its application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's
Witnesses, in connection with the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is
unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or
property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon."

The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a
privilege, much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of
goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for
revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any
more than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its
freedom under the Constitution

Manosca vs. CA

Facts: Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have
been the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No.
1, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. Petitioners moved to dismiss the
complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and,
incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly,
for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of
Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue: The expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a
literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must
be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not
allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of
eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove
any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into
small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this
power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that
at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the
requirement of public use.
Ebralinag vs. DepEd

Facts: All the petitioners in the original case were minor school children, and members of the
sect, Jehovah's Witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their classes by
various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem
and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955 and by
Department Order No. 8, dated July 21, 1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed
primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises,
Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the
flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit
on second offense.

Issue: Does refusal to take part in the flag ceremony, on account of religious belief, so offensive
as to prompt legitimate state intervention?

Held: No. While conceding to the idea adverted to by the Solicitor General that certain methods
of religious expression may be prohibited to serve legitimate societal purposes, refusal to
participate in the flag ceremony hardly constitutes a form of religious expression so offensive
and noxious as to prompt legitimate State intervention. It bears repeating that their absence from
the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's
intervention. In the case of a regulation which appears to abridge a right to which the
fundamental law accords high significance it is the regulation, not the act (or refusal to act),
which is the exception and which requires the court's strictest scrutiny. In the case at bench, the
government has not shown that refusal to do the acts of conformity exacted by the assailed
orders, which respondents point out attained legislative cachet in the Administrative Code of
1987, would pose a clear and present danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that it would
prompt legitimate State intervention.

Estrada vs. Escritor?

Facts: Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors
that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. He filed the charge against
Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the
court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the
court condones her act.
Issue: What is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality? Is respondent entitled thereto? Is the
doctrine of benevolent neutrality consistent with the free exercise clause?

Held: Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and
interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible
within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it
does not offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to
such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the compelling state
interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the case is remanded to the RTC.

Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such
exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondent’s stance that her conjugal
arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise
protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free
Exercise Clause, the Court’s action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to
religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondent’s claim of
religious freedom, but must instead apply the “compelling state interest” test. The government
must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of
demonstrating the state’s compelling interest which can override respondent’s religious belief
and practice.

Pamil vs. Teleron?

Facts: The novel question in this case concerns the eligibility of an ecclesiastic to an elective
municipal position. Private respondent, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected to
the position of municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly proclaimed. A
suit was then filed by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for his disqualification based
on this Administrative Code provision: "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a
municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or
compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the
municipality."

Issue: Is the prohibition imposed on ecclesiastics from holding appointive or elective municipal
offices a religious test?

Held: No. The vote is thus indecisive. While five members of the Court constitute a minority, the
vote of the remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged provision ineffective.
Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must be
accorded respect. The presumption of validity calls for its application. Under the circumstances,
certiorari lies. That is the conclusion arrived at by the writer of this opinion, joined by Justice
Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero. They have no choice then but to vote for the
reversal of the lower court decision and declare ineligible respondent Father Margarito R.
Gonzaga for the office of municipal mayor. With the aforesaid five other members, led by the
Chief Justice, entertaining no doubt as to his lack of eligibility, this petition for certiorari must be
granted.

It would be an unjustified departure from a settled principle of the applicable construction of the
provision on what laws remain operative after 1935 if the plea of petitioner in this case were to
be heeded. The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it declares
ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the
religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so exclude them is to impose a religious
test.

Here being an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a religious faith suffices to disqualify for a
public office. There is thus an incompatibility between the Administrative Code provision relied
upon by petitioner and an express constitutional mandate. It is not a valid argument against this
conclusion to assert that under the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, there was such a
prohibition against a religious test, and yet such a ban on holding a municipal position had not
been nullified. It suffices to answer that no question was raised as to its validity.

Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz

Facts: Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC). On June 28,
1993, Bishop de la Cruz declared petitioners expelled/excommunicated from the Philippine
Independent Church. Because of the order of expulsion/excommunication, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages with preliminary injunction against Bishop de la Cruz before the
Regional Trial Court.They contended that their expulsion was illegal because it was done
without trial thus violating their right to due process of law.
Issue: What is the role of the State, through the Courts, on matters of religious intramurals?

Held: The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a

matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said
institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the
performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of
religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.

“Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the
protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court,
and the courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession
of church property.”

Obviously, there was no violation of a civil right in the present case.

Soriano vs. La Guardia

Facts: On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating
Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before the
MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon
and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner
in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly
alluded to in petitioner’s remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV
program Ang Tamang Daan.

Issue: Are Soriano’s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of the religious
discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?

Held: No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and considering the adverse
effect of petitioner’s utterances on the viewers’ fundamental rights as well as petitioner’s clear
violation of his duty as a public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in
Ang Dating Daan for three months.
Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner’s suspension was an undue curtailment
of his right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from
the reasons given above (re the paramountcy of viewers rights, the public trusteeship character of
a broadcaster’s role and the power of the State to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that
indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of
serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of
less offensive language.

Section 6

Yap vs. CA

Facts: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being invoked to
set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at P5,500,000.00 and imposed
conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For misappropriating amounts equivalent to
P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to four years and two
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, “in
addition to one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case
shall it exceed twenty (20) years.” He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed
provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings.

Issue: Was the condition imposed by the CA on accused’s bail bond violative the liberty of
abode and right to travel?

Held: Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Under the
circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail
bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the hold-departure order
and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his
whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be
meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive,
and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner’s right to bail.

Cojuangco vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts: This petition for prohibition seeks to dismiss Criminal Case entitled “People of the
Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al.”, now pending before respondent
Sandiganbayan and to prohibit said court from further proceeding with the case. Petitioner
invokes his constitutional right to due process, a speedy trial, and a speedy determination of his
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. Further, he prays for the
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining
respondent Sandiganbayan from further enforcing and/or implementing its order dated February
20, 1995 which bans petitioner from leaving the country except upon prior approval by said
court.

Issue: When a person is criminally charged, is his right to travel absolutely curtailed?

Held: No.The travel ban should be lifted, considering all the circumstances now prevailing. The
rule laid down by this Court is that a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally
released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel, the reason being that a person’s
right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. But, significantly, the Office of the Solicitor General in its Manifestation
dated November 20, 1998 indicated that it is not interposing any objection to petitioner’s prayer
that he be allowed to travel abroad based on the following considerations: (1) that it is well
within the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, including the second paragraph, Section
23, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court; (2) that it has been shown in the past that the petitioner has
always returned to the Philippines after the expiration of the period of his allowed travel; and (3)
that petitioner, now Chairman of the Board of San Miguel Corporation, may be constrained to
leave the country for business purposes, more often than he had done in the past.

Mirasol vs. DPWH

Facts: On 19 February 1968, Secretary Antonio V. Raquiza of the Department of Public Works
and Communications issued AO 1, which, among others, prohibited motorcycles on limited
access highways. Accordingly, petitioners filed an Amended Petition on February 8, 2001
wherein petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid administrative issuances.
Moreover, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction to prevent the enforcement of the total ban on motorcycles along the entire breadth of
North and South Luzon Expressways and the Manila-Cavite (Coastal Road) Toll Expressway
under DO 215.

Issue: Is DPWH Administrative Order No.1, DO 74 violative of the right to travel? Are all
motorized vehicles “created equal”?
Held: DO 74 and DO 215 are void because the DPWH has no authority to declare certain
expressways as limited access facilities. Under the law, it is the DOTC which is authorized to
administer and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation and to regulate
related activities. The DPWH cannot delegate a power or function which it does not possess in
the first place.

We find that it is neither warranted nor reasonable for petitioners to say that the only justifiable
classification among modes of transport is the motorized against the non-motorized. Not all
motorized vehicles are created equal. A 16-wheeler truck is substantially different from other
light vehicles. The first may be denied access to some roads where the latter are free to drive.
Old vehicles may be reasonably differentiated from newer models.46 We find that real and
substantial differences exist between a motorcycle and other forms of transport sufficient to
justify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways. Amongst all types of
motorized transport, it is obvious, even to a child, that a motorcycle is quite different from a car,
a bus or a truck. The most obvious and troubling difference would be that a two-wheeled vehicle
is less stable and more easily overturned than a four-wheeled vehicle.

Section 8

Jacinto vs. CA

Facts: Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila.
Between the period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in
connection with the mass actions then staged; and on September 17, 1990, DECS Secretary
Isidro Cariño immediately issued a return-to-work order. They were administratively charged
with gross misconduct; gross neglect of duty, etc. for joining unauthorized mass actions;
ignoring report-to-work directives; unjustified abandonment of teaching posts; non-observance
of Civil Service law, rules and regulations; non-compliance with reasonable office rules and
regulations; and incurring unauthorized absences without leave, etc.

Issue: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Held: Improper Exercise of the Right to Peaceful Assembly and to Petition for a Redress of
Grievances. There is no question as to the petitioners’ rights to peaceful assembly to petition the
government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or form associations for
purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful concerted activities. Although the
Constitution vests in them the right to organize, to assemble peaceably and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances, there is no like express provision granting them the right
to strike. Rather, the constitutional grant of the right to strike is restrained by the proviso that its
exercise shall be done in accordance with law.
It cannot be denied that the mass action or assembly staged by the petitioners resulted in the non-
holding of classes in several public schools during the corresponding period.

MPSTA vs. Laguio

Facts:

The series of events that touched off these cases started with the so-called "mass action"
undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the petitioning
associations in both cases, on September 17, 1990 to "dramatize and highlight" 1 the teachers'
plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had
time and again been brought to the latter's attention.

Issue: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?

Held:

“these ‘mass actions’ were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and
unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers’ duty to perform,
undertaken for essentially economic reasons,” should not principally resolve the present case, as
the underlying facts are allegedly not identical.

Air Philippines vs Pennswell Inc. Gr. 172835

Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of air transportation services.
While, respondent was organized to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling
industrial chemicals, solvents, and special lubricants. In particular, petitioner alleged that it was
defrauded by respondent for its previous sale. Petitioner seeks to convince this Court that it has a
right to obtain the chemical composition and ingredients of respondent’s products to conduct a
comparative analysis of its products

Issue: Can chemical components of Pennswell products be accessed pursuant to RA 7394, 8203,
6969 and right to information under Sec. 7, Art III?

Held: No. Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private character of trade secrets.
There is a privilege not to disclose one’s trade secrets. Foremost, this Court has declared that
trade secrets and banking transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of the
people to information as embodied in the Constitution.

Petitioner cannot rely on Section 77 of Republic Act 7394, or the Consumer Act of the
Philippines, in order to compel respondent to reveal the chemical components of its products.
While it is true that all consumer products domestically sold, whether manufactured locally or
imported, shall indicate their general make or active ingredients in their respective labels of
packaging, the law does not apply to respondent. Respondent’s specialized lubricants are not
consumer products. Its products are not intended for personal, family, household or agricultural
purposes. Rather, they are for industrial use, specifically for the use of aircraft propellers and
engines.

Petitioner’s argument that Republic Act No. 8203, or the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs,
requires the disclosure of the active ingredients of a drug is also on faulty ground. Respondent’s
products are outside the scope of the cited law. They do not come within the purview of a drug
which, as defined therein, refers to any chemical compound or biological substance, other than
food, that is intended for use in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease in man or
animals. Again, such are not the characteristics of respondent’s products.

Republic Act No. 6969, or the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act
of 1990, also contains a provision that limits the right of the public to have access to records,
reports or information concerning chemical substances and mixtures including safety data
submitted and data on emission or discharge into the environment, if the matter is confidential
such that it would divulge trade secrets, production or sales figures; or methods, production or
processes unique to such manufacturer, processor or distributor; or would otherwise tend to
affect adversely the competitive position of such manufacturer, processor or distributor.

Akbayan vs. Aquino , GR 170516

FACTS: This is a Petition for mandamus and prohibition requesting respondents to submit to
them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). Petitioner
emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right
to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the
same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of
social, political and economic decision making.

ISSUE: Are the JPEPA negotiations within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to
information?

HELD: No. “Secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional
provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.
The Court holds that, in determining whether an information is covered by the right to
information, a specific “showing of need” for such information is not a relevant consideration,
but only whether the same is a matter of public concern. When, however, the government has
claimed executive privilege, and it has established that the information is indeed covered by the
same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the privilege, must show that that the
information is vital, not simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to effectively
and reasonably participate in social, political, and economic decision-making. The constitutional
right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and
should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order.

Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744

FACTS: Petitioner asks this Court to define the nature and the extent of the people’s
constitutional right to information on matters of public concern. Petitioner, invoking his
constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its
transactions involving the national interest, demands that respondents make public any and all
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG’s task of recovering the Marcoses’ ill-gotten
wealth.

ISSUE: Are the negotiations leading to a settlement on ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses within
the scope of the constitutional guarantee of access to information?

HELD: Yes. Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the
PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient public
information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners
and holders of ill-gotten wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions
of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or
communications during the stage when common assertions are still in the process of being
formulated or are in the “exploratory” stage. There is a need, of course, to observe the same
restrictions on disclosure of information in general -- such as on matters involving national
security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ
vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION

FACTS: The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority ("PEA" for brevity) to
disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and
Development Corporation ("AMARI" for brevity) to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The
petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such
reclamation. PEA asserts that in cases of on-going negotiations the right to information is limited
to "definite propositions of the government." PEA maintains the right does not include access to
"intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage when
common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or are in the 'exploratory stage'."

ISSUE: Are negotiations leading to a settlement with PIATCO within the scope of the
constitutional guarantee of access to information?

HELD: Yes. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution explains the people's right to information
on matters of public concern: “…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." Further, The State policy (Sec 28, Art II) of full transparency in all
transactions involving public interest reinforces the people's right to information on matters of
public concern.

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.

Information on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being undertaken by the

bidding or review committee is not immediately accessible under the right to information. While
the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions"
on the bids or proposals. However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there
arises a "definite proposition" on the part of the government.

Jacinto vs. CA

Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila. Between the
period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the
mass actions then staged. Consequently, due to their failure to heed the return-to-work order,
DECS Sec. Cariño immediately issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against
them.

ISSUE: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?

HELD: The petitioners here, except Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the exercise of their
right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Rather,
the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their schools during
regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting
in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they were
responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time -- recess, after classes,
weekends or holidays -- to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities
within the bounds of law, no one -- not the DECS, the CSC or even this Court -- could have held
them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. As it was, the
temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services,
the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government workers.
Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Service law, rules and regulations, for which
they must, therefore, be made answerable.

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN

ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated
vs. HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR

A "mass action" was undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of
the petitioning associations to "dramatize and highlight" the teachers' plight resulting from the
alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been
brought to the latter's attention. The petition alleges in great detail the character and origins of
those grievances as perceived by the petitioners, and the attempts to negotiate their correction.

ISSUE: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?

HELD: Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the
right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the
betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government
agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law.

Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances but NOT
during class hours, for then this would be a strike, which is illegal for them.

Re-request for IBP Dues Payment Exemption of Atty. Arevalo, BM 1370

Petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged
unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the
Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986,
then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year
2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in
the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s profession
while in government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working
in the USA.

ISSUE: Is the compulsory payment of IBP Dues violative of the right to associate?

HELD: No. An “Integrated Bar” is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as
distinguished from bar association organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in
which is voluntary. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as
condition sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the SC. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is
free to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote
in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his
annual dues. The SC, in order to foster the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion
be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program – the lawyers.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and in the
integration of the Philippine Bar - which power required members of a privileged class, such as
lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the
profession to which they belong.