1. State the facts of the case.

Major General Josephus Q. Ramas was the former commander of the Philippine
Constabulary, while Elizabeth Dimaano was the chief of the finance center of the
same organization. They were charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation
of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for malversation of
public funds.

The charges were in connection with the procurement of firearms for the
Philippine Constabulary through a negotiated contract with the company, Atlas
Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation. The prosecution alleged
that Ramas and Dimaano entered into an agreement with Atlas to overprice the
firearms, and that the excess amounts were then diverted to their personal
accounts.

The Sandiganbayan found Ramas and Dimaano guilty as charged and sentenced
them to imprisonment and fines. The accused appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court.

2. Discuss how the majority decision resolved the issue on the constitutionality of the
search and seizure of the properties found in Dimaano’s residence.

On appeal, the accused brought up the question of whether the search and seizure of
the items found in Dimaano's home were legal. The Supreme Court's majority
decision addressed this matter by examining the details and circumstances of the
search and seizure.

Following the prosecution's request, the Sandiganbayan issued a search warrant,

which was used to carry out the search. The accused claimed that the search warrant
was invalid because the prosecution's affidavit supporting it was insufficient.
3. Discuss howJustice Puno applied the natural law theory on the issue of the
constitutionality of the search and seizure of the properties found in Dimaano’s
residence.

There was consensus regarding the invalidity of the disputed seizure of

things that are not specified in the search warrant. Nevertheless, the conflict
refers to the legal foundation for nullifying the confiscation. the center of the controversy, the
ponencia asserts that the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights,
Rights were only available from rights. Consequently, without it, the respondent
unable to exercise her rights. It is unreasonable, according to Justice Puno, if the
When a line of reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion, the result is that
People lost their constitutional rights during that one-month interregnum, and
that due process rules did not apply to the revolutionary government
of law.

Justice Puno further strengthened his argument by mentioning that the ponencia recognizes the
EDSA revolution as a “successful revolution” that paved the way for the Aquino administration.
However, there was no right to revolt in the 1973 Constitution, in force prior to February 23-25,
1986. Moreover, the right of revolution is inherent to the people is recognized under the natural
law wherein it states "From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has been
defined as ‘an inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect
radical reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when
the legal and constitutional methods of making such change have proved inadequate or are so
obstructed as to be unavailable.’ (H. Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law II, 4th
edition, 1927)

Known as the most significant defender of the conventional natural law,

St. Thomas Aquinas' "vision of the universe as governed by a single, self-consistent and
overarching system of law under the direction and control of God" was mentioned by Justice
Puno.
Aquinas described law as "an authority of God as the supreme lawgiver and judge."
a decree of reason made by the person responsible for the collective good
The first self-evident natural law principle is
that "good is to be sought after and done, and evil is to be avoided.
This is the foundation of natural law, so whatever the practical reason is, it will apply.
believes that the natural law's tenet that "man's good (or evil) is a part of the natural law 
4. Do you think Justice Puno’ decision is in accordance with the rule of law? Explain.

Yes, I firmly believe that Justice Puno's judgment follows the law. The
decision of Justice Puno demonstrates a dedication to the rule of law and the
idea that the State must always act in accordance with the law and with
respect for the rights and dignity of every individual, even when pursuing
legitimate goals like law enforcement. Despite the absence of the 1973
 constitution, there are still several promulgated laws that were used by
Justice Puno in creating a concrete ruling for this case. Particularly, besides
the natural law, are the existing Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration)
which remained effective during the interregnum.
Overall, Justice Puno's ruling is a testament to the value of upholding the rule
of law and to the crucial role that the judiciary plays in ensuring that the State
and its officials are held accountable for their actions.

several insights and lessons:

1. Upholding the rule of law: The case shows the importance of upholding the rule
of law, and the critical role that the judiciary plays in ensuring that public officials
are held accountable for their actions.
2. Fighting corruption: The case highlights the need to combat corruption and
misuse of public funds, which can have serious consequences for the public and
undermine trust in government.
3. Transparency and accountability: The case underscores the importance of
promoting transparency and accountability in government, and ensuring that
public funds are used for their intended purposes.
4. Role of the judiciary: The case demonstrates the important role that the judiciary
plays in promoting transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. It also shows
the need for an independent judiciary that is free from political influence.
5. Consequences of corruption: The case demonstrates that corruption can have
serious consequences, not just for the individuals involved, but also for society as
a whole. It can undermine public trust, erode confidence in institutions, and harm
the economy.

Overall, the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, Major General
Josephus Q. Ramas, and Elizabeth Dimaano highlights the importance of upholding the
rule of law and promoting transparency and accountability in government. It serves as a
reminder that public officials are entrusted with the responsibility of serving the public
interest, and that they must be held accountable when they fail to do so.