Constitutional Law II Case Charts

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !
(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Ak1ICLL III, SLC1ICN 1

CASL 8ACkGkCUND CI 1nL CASL kA1IC NC1LS]DCC1kINL
LUAL kC1LC1ICN CI LAW
1. eople v.
CayaL

C.8. no.
43987

May 3, 1939
lAC1S:
CayaL, a member of Lhe non-ChrlsLlan Lrlbes, was
found gullLy of vlolaLlng Secs. 2 and 3 of Act No.
1639 for havlng acqulred and possessed one
boLLle of gln, an lnLoxlcaLlng llquor, whlch ls noL a
naLlve wlne. 1he law made Lhls acL unlawful for
any naLlve of Lhe hlllpplnes who ls a member of
a non-ChrlsLlan Lrlbe.
CayaL challenges Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Act 1639
on Lhe grounds LhaL lL ls dlscrlmlnaLory and
denles Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe AcL ls dlscrlmlnaLory.

PLLu:
NC. lL resLs on valld dlsLlncLlon.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he classlflcaLlon under Act NC.
1639 (secs. 2 and 3) ls based on Lhe degree of clvlllzaLlon and
culLure, and noL upon "accldenL of blrLh or parenLage." "1he
Lerm !"#"$%&'()*(+" *'(-.)! refers, noL Lo rellglous bellef, buL,
ln a way, Lo Lhe geographlcal area, and, more dlrecLly, Lo
naLlves of Lhe hlllpplne lslands of a low grade of clvlllzaLlon,
usually llvlng ln Lrlbal relaLlonshlp aparL from seLLled
communlLles." (8ubl vs. rovlnclal 8oard of Mlndoro, supra.).
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he prohlblLlon ls unquesLlonably
deslgned Lo lnsure peace and order ln and among Lhe non-
ChrlsLlan Lrlbes. 1hls ls ln relaLlon Lo Lhe observaLlon LhaL Lhe
free use of hlghly lnLoxlcaLlng llquors by Lhe non-ChrlsLlan
Lrlbes have ofLen resulLed ln lawlessness and crlmes, Lhereby
hamperlng Lhe efforLs of Lhe governmenL Lo ralse Lhelr
sLandard of llfe and clvlllzaLlon.
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - lL ls lnLended Lo apply for
all Llmes as long as Lhose condlLlons exlsL. 1he LeglslaLure
undersLood LhaL Lhe clvlllzaLlon of a people ls a slow process
and LhaL hand ln hand wlLh lL musL go measures of proLecLlon
and securlLy.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he argumenL
LhaL lLs operaLlon agalnsL a cerLaln number non-ChrlsLlans by
reason of Lhelr degree of culLure as unfalr ls noL Lenable.
4 8equlslLes under LC:
1. 8esL on )/-)*+"*(+0 dlsLlncLlons
2. 8e 1.'2+". Lo Lhe purpose of
law
3. noL be llmlLed Lo exlsLlng
3#"4(*(#")
4. Apply .5/+006 Lo all members
of Lhe same class
2. lchong v.
Pernandez

C.8. no.
lAC1S:
kA1180 was passed Lo naLlonallze Lhe reLall Lrade
buslness. lL prohlblLs persons, noL clLlzens of Lhe
hlllpplnes, and assoclaLlons, parLnershlps or
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - k.A. 1180 provldes for a subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon, Lhe allen Lrader does noL owe alleglance Lo Lhe
counLry (hlllpplnes), he ls naLurally lacklng ln LhaL splrlL of
loyalLy and enLhuslasm for lL, or of LhaL splrlL of regard,
Allenage ls a reasonable
classlflcaLlon ln Lhe exerclse of
pollce power
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
L-7993 corporaLlons noL wholly owned by clLlzens of Lhe
hlllpplnes, from engaglng dlrecLly or lndlrecLly ln
Lhe reLall Lrade.
eLlLloner quesLlons lLs legallLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA1180 vlolaLe Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1he law lLself provldes for Lhe subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon.

sympaLhy and conslderaLlon for hls llllplno cusLomers. 1he
experlence of Lhe counLry ls LhaL Lhe allen reLaller has shown
uLLer dlsregard for hls cusLomers and people on whom he
makes hls proflL. lurLher, Lhe allen reLaller never really makes
a genulne conLrlbuLlon Lo naLlonal lncome and wealLh. 1he
galns he makes are noL lnvesLed ln lndusLrles LhaL would help
Lhe counLry's economy. As hls sLay here ls Lemporary, lL
would be lll-advlsed Lo enLrusL Lo hlm Lhe very lmporLanL
funcLlon of reLall dlsLrlbuLlon. .
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he purpose of Lhe leglslaLlve
enacLmenL was Lo preserve conLrol of Lhe reLall buslness ln
Lhe hands of llllplno naLlonals. Corollary Lo Lhls ls Lhe
preservaLlon of Lhe naLlonal lncome and wealLh for Lhe
naLlonals' own use and economlc growLh.
" Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - n/a
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he leglslaLlve
enacLmenL applles Lo all allens engaged ln Lhe reLall Lrade
wlLh Lhe excepLlon of Lhose whose buslnesses have been
acLlve prlor Lo May 13, 1934 - abouL a monLh before lLs
approval - and of clLlzens and [urldlcal enLlLles of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes.
3. vlllegas v. Plu
Chlong

C.8. no.
L-29646
lAC1S:
Sect|on 1 of Crd|nance No. 6S37 prohlblLs allens
from belng employed or Lo engage or parLlclpaLe
ln any poslLlon or occupaLlon or buslness
enumeraLed Lhereln, wheLher permanenL,
Lemporary or casual, wlLhouL flrsL securlng an
employmenL permlL from Lhe Mayor of Manlla
and paylng Lhe permlL fee of 30.00.
8espondenLs quesLlon lLs valldlLy.

lSSuL:
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he 30.00 fee lmposed by
Crd|nance nC. 6S37 ls unreasonable noL only because lL ls
excesslve buL because lL falls Lo conslder valld subsLanLlal
dlfferences ln slLuaLlon among lndlvldual allens who are
requlred Lo pay lL. 1he same amounL of 30.00 ls belng
collecLed from every employed allen wheLher he ls casual or
permanenL, parL Llme or full Llme or wheLher he ls a lowly
employee or a hlghly pald execuLlve.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - lL lmposes an unreasonable burden
upon allens who, oLherwlse, would have been able Lo engage
ln llvellhood, whlch ls proLecLed by Lhe law.
valld dlsLlncLlon amongsL allens,
Lhe law ls no longer appllcable
across Lhe board on allens, buL a
dlsLlncLlon was made as Lhelr
professlons may dlffer

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance ls lnvalld for belng
dlscrlmlnaLory.

PLLu:
LS. lL ls vold for noL conslderlng subsLanLlal
dlfferences ln slLuaLlon among lndlvldual allens.

" Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - n/a
4. uumlao v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
L-32243

!anuary 22,
1980
lAC1S:
uumlao assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec. 4 of
8S2 (.Speclal ulsquallflcaLlon ln addlLlon Lo
vlolaLlon of sect|on 10 of Art. kII-C of the
Const|tut|on and dlsquallflcaLlon menLloned ln
exlsLlng laws, whlch are hereby declared as
dlsquallflcaLlon for any of Lhe elecLlve offlclals
enumeraLed ln secLlon 1 hereof. Any reLlred
elecLlve provlnclal clLy or munlclpal offlclal who
has recelved paymenL of Lhe reLlremenL beneflLs
Lo whlch he ls enLlLled under Lhe law, and who
shall have been 63 years of age aL Lhe
commencemenL of Lhe Lerm of offlce Lo whlch he
seeks Lo be elecLed shall noL be quallfled Lo run
for Lhe same elecLlve local offlce from whlch he
has reLlred.") for belng vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe flrsL paragraph of Sec. 4 of
8 S2 ls dlscrlmlnaLory and vlolaLlve of equal
proLecLlon

PLLu:
NC. lL ls nelLher dlscrlmlnaLory nor vlolaLlve of
equal proLecLlon.
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 8.. 8|g. S2 provldes for subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon. ln Lhe case of a 63-year old elecLlve local offlclal,
who has reLlred from a provlnclal, clLy or munlclpal offlce,
Lhere ls reason Lo dlsquallfy hlm from runnlng for Lhe same
offlce from whlch he had reLlred. 1he need for new blood
assumes relevance. 1he Llredness of Lhe reLlree for
governmenL work ls presenL, and whaL ls emphaLlcally
slgnlflcanL ls LhaL Lhe reLlred employee has already declared
hlmself Llred and unavallable for Lhe same governmenL work,
buL, whlch, by vlrLue of a change of mlnd, he would llke Lo
assume agaln.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - lLs purpose ls Lo allow Lhe emergence
of younger blood ln local governmenL.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - lL ls applled Lo all
cases of a 63-year old elecLlve local offlclal, who has reLlred
from a provlnclal, clLy or munlclpal offlce.
63-year-old offlclals can no longer
run as per a new law, Lhe
purpose of Lhe law ls Lo brlng ln
new blood lnLo Lhe governmenL
and ln llghL of Lhls, lL ls a valld
dlsLlncLlon

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

S. CeosaerL v.
Cleary

333 u.S. 464
lAC1S:
As parL of Lhe Mlchlgan sysLem for conLrolllng Lhe
sale of llquor, barLenders are requlred Lo be
llcensed ln all clLles havlng a populaLlon of
30,000, or more, 8u1 no female may be so
llcensed unless she be "Lhe wlfe or daughLer of
Lhe male owner" of a llcensed llquor
esLabllshmenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhls prohlblLlon agalnsL cerLaln
female barLenders vlolaLe Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls sufflclenL dlsLlncLlon.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he dlsLlncLlon made beLween (1)
barLenders who are wlves and daughLers of male owners of
llquor esLabllshmenLs, and (2) wlves and daughLers of non-
owners, ls valld. 1he former's wellbelng ls assured by Lhe
overslghL proLecLlon provlded by Lhelr husbands or faLhers
who are llcensed bar owners.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he law presumes LhaL llcensed male
bar owners wlll be able Lo proLecL Lhe moral and soclal
wellbelng of Lhelr female barLenders.
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - 1he assalled
M|ch|gan.Stat.Ann. (Cum.Supp. 1947) 18.990(1) ls
appllcable Lo all presenL and fuLure condlLlons.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - lL wlll apply Lo all
barLenders who are wlves and daughLers of male owners of
llquor esLabllshmenLs.
Sexual dlscrlmlnaLlon may be
made lf Lhe purpose ls ln Lhe
naLure of Lhe exerclse of pollce
power (ln Lhls case, Lhe
proLecLlon of women).
6. 8asco v.
ACCC8

C.8. no.
91649

May 14, 1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloners assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of D 1869
whlch enabled ACCC8 Lo regulaLe and cenLrallze
gambllng ln Lhe hlllpplnes. Accordlng Lo Lhem,
ACCC8 ls conLrary Lo publlc morals and order, lL
vlolaLes Lhe equal proLecLlon clause because
whlle ACCC8 games are allowed whlle oLhers
unauLhorlzed by lL are lllegal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL ACCC8 vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. lL does noL.
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1here ls a valld dlsLlncLlon beLween
(1) lllegal gambllng and (2) legal gambllng, Lhe laLLer derlvlng
lLs permlsslblllLy Lhrough a leglslaLlve granL (D 1869) and
SLaLe regulaLlon Lhrough lLs exerclse of pollce power.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he law alms Lo regulaLe games of
chance (ln Lhls case, gambllng) by allowlng lLs pracLlce under
cerLaln condlLlons lmposed by Lhe SLaLe ln order for Lhe laLLer
Lo generaLe addlLlonal revenue for Lhe counLry.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he law applles
equally Lo Lhose acLlvlLles, (1) whlch are conLrolled and
regulaLed by Lhe SLaLe, (2) and Lhose whlch are noL.
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween legal v.
lllegal games of chance, Lhe law
lLself makes Lhe acLlvlLy of
gambllng valld under ACCC8

7. Crmoc Sugar lAC1S: ! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1here ls no valld dlsLlncLlon, as CSC was named by Lhe
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
CenLral v.
Crmoc ClLy

C.8. no.
L- 23794
Crmoc passed Crd|nance 4, lmposlng on any and
all producLlons of cenLrlfugal sugar mllled aL Lhe
Crmoc Sugar Company, lnc. (CSCl), ln Crmoc ClLy
a munlclpal Lax equlvalenL Lo 1 per exporL sale
Lo Lhe uS and oLher forelgn counLrles."
CSCl made paymenLs under proLesL. 1hey clalm
LhaL Lhey were dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Crd|nance No. 4 vlolaLed Lhe
LC.

PLLu:
LS. lL Laxes only cenLrlfugal sugar produced and
exporLed by CSCl and none oLher.

Crmoc Sugar Company, lnc. was Lhe only exlsLlng sugar
cenLral ln Lhe clLy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe enacLmenL of Crd|nance
NC. 4.
" Cermane 1o 1he Law - n/a
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - Lven lf a slmllar sugar
company were laLer seL up, lL could noL be sub[ecL Lo Lax. 1he
assalled Crdlnance expressly speclfles Crmoc Sugar Company,
lnc. as Lhe only enLlLy Lo be levled.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he Laxlng
ordlnance ls slngular and excluslve as Lo exclude any
prevlously esLabllshed sugar company of Lhe same class as
LhaL of Lhe peLlLloner for Lhe coverage of Lhe Lax.
ordlnance, Lhus even lf oLher
sugar facLorles wenL up, Lhe
ordlnance would only affecL CSC.

8. 8epubllc v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
92394
lAC1S:
Case was flled by Lhe peLlLloner 8epubllc agalnsL
!ose de venecla, !r., lerdlnand L. Marcos, lmelda
8. Marcos for quesLlonable forelgn loans, and
8osendo u. 8ondoc eL. Al for guaranLylng Lhese
loans.
CCC and de venecla had an agreemenL where
Lhe former would drop Lhe laLLer from Lhe
pendlng clvll case ln exchange for a ueed of
AsslgnmenL of some of lLs asseLs.
Sandlganbayan dropped de venecla only and noL
Lhe oLher respondenLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhls vlolaLed Lhe LC.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 8ondoc eL. Al are slmllarly slLuaLed
wlLh de vencla: boLh vlcLlms of Lhe Marcoses. 1hey dld noL
commlL any acLlonable wrong. 1hus, Lhe complalnLs agalnsL
Lhem should also be dlsmlssed. lL ls a dlfferenL slLuaLlon for
Lhe Marcoses. 1he complalnL agalnsL Lhem ls correcLly
relnsLaLed because only Lhey were noL exculpaLed ln Lhe deed
of asslgnmenL, and Lhey commlLLed acLlonable wrongs.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he CCC ls Lasked Lo recover Lhe lll-
goLLen wealLh accumulaLed by former resldenL Marcos.
CCC does noL have auLhorlLy Lo pursue anybody who has
noL commlLLed an acLlonable wrong provlded ln L.C. nC. 1,
whlch creaLed lL.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 8y dlsmlsslng all
Lhe complalnLs, and relnsLaLlng only LhaL agalnsL Lhe
Marcoses, Lhere ls equal LreaLmenL Lo de venecla, 8ondoc
SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon exlsLs
beLween Lhose who dld noL
commlL any acLlonable wrong
agalnsL Lhose who lnsLlgaLed and
commlLLed such wrongs.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
Ak1IALL LS. 8ondoc, eL. Al. should be
accommodaLed for belng slmllarly slLuaLed wlLh
de venecla.

and company
9. 8lnay v.
uomlngo

C.8. no. 92389

SepLember 11,
1991
lAC1S:
MakaLl passed a resoluLlon for a 8urlal AsslsLance
rogram. CCA, however, dlsapproved lL and
would noL release funds. lL clalmed LhaL lL does
noL serve Lhe general welfare for belng dlrecLed
aL only a selecL group of people.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL sub[ecL resoluLlon vlolaLes Lhe
LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls no vlolaLlon of Lhe LC ln classlfylng
paupers as sub[ecL of leglslaLlon.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - aupers may be reasonably
classlfled. ulfferenL groups may recelve varylng LreaLmenL.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he welfare of Lhe poor ls preclous Lo
our leglslaLors, Lhus, sLaLuLes have been passed glvlng rlghLs
and beneflLs Lo Lhe dlsabled, emanclpaLlng Lhe LenanL-farmer
from Lhe bondage of Lhe soll, houslng Lhe urban poor, eLc..

A valld classlflcaLlon beLween Lhe
poor and oLhers can be made
Lhrough Lhe exerclse of pollce
power lf Lhe purpose ls Lhe
general welfare of Lhose ln need
and soclal [usLlce.
10. nC v. ue
Cuzman

C.8. no.
106724
lAC1S:
nC senL noLlces of reLlremenL Lo prlvaLe
respondenLs - members of Lhe defuncL C. 1he
laLLer, however, clalm LhaL Lhey cannoL be sub[ecL
of compulsory reLlremenL because Lhey're
covered by Lhe Lerm lnLegraLed naLlonal ollce"
under Sec. 89 of kA697S.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA697S dlsLlngulshes ln from
Lhe C.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he members of Lhe hlllpplne
ConsLabulary were already reLlrable aL Lhe age of 36, Lhus,
Sect|on 89 does noL apply Lo Lhem. Moreover, Lhe leglslaLlve
lnLenL Lo classlfy Lhe ln ln such manner, LhaL Sect|on 89 of
kA 697S ls appllcable only Lo Lhe local pollce force, ls clear, lL
can be gleaned on Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe 8lcameral
CommlLLee.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he dlsLlncLlon ls relevanL for Lhe
purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe, whlch ls Lo enable Lhe local pollce
force Lo plan for Lhelr reLlremenL whlch would be earller Lhan
usual because of Lhe new law.
LeglslaLlve lnLenL behlnd Lhe law
may glve rlse Lo a subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
LS. Sec. 89 cannoL be consLrued as Lo lnclude
members of Lhe C.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he provlslon
applles Lo all members of Lhe ln, and lLs non-appllcaLlon
applles equally Lo Lhose who are non-ln.
11. 1olenLlno v.
SecreLary of
llnance

C.8. no.
113433

CcLober 30,
1993
lAC1S:
eLlLloners quesLlon Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
kA7716. lL ls polnLed ouL LhaL whlle 4 of k.A. No.
7716 exempLs such LransacLlons as Lhe sale of
agrlculLural producLs, food lLems, peLroleum, and
medlcal and veLerlnary servlces, lL granLs no
exempLlon on Lhe sale of real properLy whlch ls
equally essenLlal. 1he sale of real properLy for
soclallzed and low-cosL houslng ls exempLed from
Lhe Lax, buL C8L8A clalms LhaL real esLaLe
LransacLlons of "Lhe less poor," l.e., Lhe mlddle
class, who are equally homeless, should llkewlse
be exempLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA7716 vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls a dlfference beLween Lhe "homeless
poor" and Lhe "homeless less poor" ln Lhe
example glven by peLlLloner.

1he sale of food lLems, peLroleum, medlcal and veLerlnary
servlces, eLc., whlch are essenLlal goods and servlces was
already exempL under 103, pars. (b) (d) (1) of Lhe nl8C
before Lhe enacLmenL of 8.A. no. 7716. eLlLloner ls ln error
ln clalmlng LhaL 8.A. no. 7716 granLed exempLlon Lo Lhese
LransacLlons, whlle sub[ecLlng Lhose of peLlLloner Lo Lhe
paymenL of Lhe vA1.
Moreover, Lhere ls a dlfference beLween Lhe "homeless poor"
and Lhe "homeless less poor" ln Lhe example glven by
peLlLloner, because Lhe second group or mlddle class can
afford Lo renL houses ln Lhe meanLlme LhaL Lhey cannoL yeL
buy Lhelr own homes. 1he Lwo soclal classes are Lhus
dlfferenLly slLuaLed ln llfe. "lL ls lnherenL ln Lhe power Lo Lax
LhaL Lhe SLaLe be free Lo selecL Lhe sub[ecLs of LaxaLlon, and lL
has been repeaLedly held LhaL 'lnequallLles whlch resulL from
a slngllng ouL of one parLlcular class for LaxaLlon, or
exempLlon lnfrlnge no consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlon.'"
valld dlsLlncLlon ls made beLween
Pomeless poor v. Pomeless-less
poor (slmllar Lo Lhe 8lnay v.
uomlngo case)

12. Plmagan v.
eople

C.8. no.
113811
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was lmpllcaLed ln Lhe kllllng of
8en[amln MachlLar, !r. and Lhe aLLempLed murder
of 8ernabe MachlLar.
As a pollceman, he was suspended unLll Lhe
LermlnaLlon of Lhe case based on Sec. 47, k.A.
697S.
Members of Lhe n are LreaLed dlfferenLly from Lhe oLher classes of
persons charged crlmlnally or admlnlsLraLlvely lnsofar as Lhe
appllcaLlon of prevenLlve suspenslon ls concerned ls LhaL pollcemen
carry weapons and Lhe badge of Lhe law whlch can be used Lo harass
or lnLlmldaLe wlLnesses agalnsL Lhem, as succlncLly broughL ouL ln Lhe
dlscusslons.
ollce suspended longer because
Lhey could use Lhelr poslLlon Lo
manlpulaLe lnvesLlgaLlons
concernlng Lhem. SubsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon beLween members of
Lhe pollce and non-members

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
eLlLloner flled a moLlon Lo llfL Lhe order for hls
suspenslon based on Sec. 42, .D. 807, sLaLlng
LhaL hls suspenslon should be llmlLed Lo 90 days.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lmposlng prevenLlve suspenslon
upon Lhe peLlLloner vlolaLes hls consLlLuLlonal
rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon of laws.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls a valld classlflcaLlon.

13. AlmonLe v.
vasquez

C.8. no.
93367

May 23, 1993
lAC1S:
A leLLer was senL Lo Lhe Cmbudsman accuslng
AlmonLe, ln hls capaclLy as Commlssloner of Lhe
Lll8, of belng parL of a syndlcaLe whlch
manlpulaLed funds of Lhe bureau.
ConsequenLly, Lhe Cmbudsman lssued a
subpoena 4/3.) *.3/27 orderlng peLlLloners Lo
produce all documenLs relaLlng Lo ersonal
Servlces lunds for Lhe year 1988 and oLher
evldence.
eLlLloners complaln LhaL ln all forum and
Lrlbunals, Lhe aggrleved parLles can only hale
respondenLs vla Lhelr verlfled complalnLs or
sworn sLaLemenLs wlLh Lhelr ldenLlLles fully
dlsclosed, whlle ln proceedlngs before Lhe
Cmbudsman, anonymous leLLers sufflce Lo sLarL
an lnvesLlgaLlon. 1he clalm Lhls ls unfalr.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a vlolaLlon of
lL ls apparenL LhaL ln permlLLlng Lhe flllng of complalnLs ln any
form and ln any manner, Lhe framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Look
lnLo accounL Lhe well-known reLlcence of Lhe people, whlch
keep Lhem from complalnlng agalnsL offlclal wrongdolngs.
1he Cmbudsman ls dlfferenL from Lhe oLher lnvesLlgaLory and
prosecuLor agencles of Lhe governmenL because Lhose
sub[ecL Lo lLs [urlsdlcLlon are publlc offlclals who, Lhrough
offlclal pressure and lnfluence, can quash, delay, or dlsmlss
lnvesLlgaLlons held agalnsL Lhem. LasLly, Lhe lssuance of Lhe
subpoena duces Lecum wlll noL vlolaLe Lhe peLlLloner's rlghL
agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon because Lhese are publlc records ln
Lhe flrsL place.
ulsLlngulshes beLween
Cmbudsman and oLher Lrlbunals,
and beLween publlc offlclals and
oLher sub[ecLs of lnvesLlgaLlon,
Lhe laLLer belng less capable Lo
manlpulaLe lnvesLlgaLlons agalnsL
Lhem. 1hus publlc offlclals may be
prosecuLed even lf unverlfled

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
peLlLloner's rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.

PLLu:
NC. 1he Cmbudsman ls meanL Lo be a class on lLs
own over oLher Lrlbunals.

14. Llm v.
acqulng

C.8. no.
113044

!anuary 27,
1993
lAC1S:
!udge acqulng ordered Mayor Llm Lo
lmmedlaLely lssue AssoclaLed uevelopmenL
CorporaLlon (AuC) Lhe permlL/llcense Lo operaLe
!al-Alal under Man||a Crd|nance 706S.
Powever, come SepLember 13, 1994, eLlLloner
Culngona as LxecuLlve SecreLary lssued a
dlrecLlve Lo wlLhdraw Lhe granL of auLhorlLy Lo
AuC Lo operaLe !al-Alal because AuC's franchlse
was effecLlvely revoked by D 771.
AuC assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of D 771.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL AuC was dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL ln
D 771.

PLLu:
NC. lL applled Lo all !al-Alal franchlses.

" SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - n/a
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - lL's purpose ls Lo effecLlvely conLrol
and regulaLe wager or beLLlng by Lhe publlc on horse and dog
races, [al alal and oLher forms of gambllng as lL ls a vlce and a
soclal lll whlch governmenL musL mlnlmlze (lf noL eradlcaLe)
ln pursulL of soclal and economlc developmenL
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he decree
revoked all franchlses lssued by Lhe local governmenLs
wlLhouL quallflcaLlon or excepLlon, noL [usL for !al-Alal.
A gambllng franchlse ls always
sub[ecL Lo Lhe exerclse of pollce
power for Lhe publlc welfare.
1S. Conference of
MarlLlme
Mannlng v.
CLA

C.8. no.
114714
lAC1S:
1hrough, Govern|ng 8oard keso|ut|on No. 1, Lhe
CLA Covernlng 8oard resolves Lo amend and
lncrease Lhe compensaLlon and oLher beneflLs of
Lhe CLA SLandard LmploymenL ConLracL for
Seafarers
1he peLlLloners clalm dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1here can be no dlspuLe abouL Lhe
dlsslmllarlLles beLween land-based and sea-based llllplno
overseas workers ln Lerms of, among oLher Lhlngs, work
envlronmenL, safeLy, dangers and rlsks Lo llfe and llmb, and
accesslblllLy Lo soclal, clvlc, and splrlLual acLlvlLles.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he purpose ls Lo afford proLecLlon Lo
Cverseas llllplno Workers, lncludlng seafarers and Lhelr
1here ls a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween land-based and sea-
based workers ln Lerms of work
envlronmenL, safeLy, dangers,
rlsks, and accesslblllLy Lo several
Lypes of acLlvlLles.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
forelgn shlp-owners and prlnclpals employlng
llllplno seamen and ln favor of forelgn employers
employlng overseas llllplnos who are noL
seamen.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe keso|ut|on vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls a valld classlflcaLlon.

famllles.
16. 8egala v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
103938
108113

SepLember 20,
1996
lAC1S:
ComplalnL lnsLlLuLed before Lhe Sandlganbayan
agalnsL Lduardo Co[uangco, !r., for Lhe recovery
of alleged lll-goLLen wealLh, whlch lncludes shares
of sLocks ln Lhe named corporaLlons ln CCC Case
no. 33. eLlLloners and respondenL 8aul 8oco
were respondenLs ln Lhls case. 1hey are all
parLners ln Lhe ACC8A Law llrm.
CCC laLer on amended Lhelr complalnL Lo
exclude 8oco slnce Lhe laLLer would dlvulge who
he and hls parLners were worklng for.
1he oLher ACC8A parLners quesLlon Lhe legallLy of
8oco's excluslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sandlganbayan erred ln
upholdlng Lhe dropplng of 8oco as defendanL
whlle denylng Lhe same for peLlLloners

PLLu:
LS. noL only was Lhere a vlolaLlon of equal
rlvaLe respondenL has made Lhe clalm LhaL he merely acLed
as lawyer and nomlnee and LhaL hls acLs, llkewlse peLlLloners
have made Lhe same clalm. 8elng "slmllarly slLuaLed" ln Lhls
regard, publlc respondenLs musL show LhaL Lhere exlsL oLher
condlLlons and clrcumsLances whlch would warranL Lhelr
LreaLlng Lhe prlvaLe respondenL dlfferenLly from peLlLloners ln
Lhe case aL bench ln order Lo evade a vlolaLlon of Lhe LC.
8espondenLs falled Lo show - and absoluLe noLhlng exlsLs ln
Lhe records of Lhe case aL bar - LhaL prlvaLe respondenL
acLually revealed Lhe ldenLlLy of hls cllenL(s) Lo Lhe CCC.
Slnce Lhe underLaklng happens Lo be Lhe lelLmoLlf of Lhe
enLlre arrangemenL, respondenL Sandlganbayan should have
requlred proof of Lhe underLaklng more subsLanLlal Lhan a
"bare asserLlon" LhaL prlvaLe respondenL dld lndeed comply
wlLh Lhe underLaklng.
1o [usLlfy Lhe dropplng of 8oco, Lhe CCC should concluslvely
show LhaL he was LreaLed as specles aparL from Lhe resL of
Lhe ACC8A lawyers on Lhe basls of a classlflcaLlon whlch made
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons based on real dlfferences. no such
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons exlsL from Lhe records of Lhe case aL
bench, ln vlolaLlon of Lhe equal proLecLlon clause.
no valld classlflcaLlon can be
made wlLhouL Lhe presence of a
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon. Slmllarly
slLuaLed llLlganLs musL be glven
Lhe same exempLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
proLecLlon clause, buL Lhe condlLlon lLself vlolaLed
Lhe aLLorney-cllenL prlvllege and Lhe rlghL agalnsL
self-lncrlmlnaLlon.
lL ls grossly unfalr Lo exempL one slmllarly slLuaLed llLlganL
from prosecuLlon wlLhouL allowlng Lhe same exempLlon Lo
Lhe oLhers.
17. Slson v.
AncheLa

C.8. no.
L-39431
lAC1S:
eLlLloner appeals as a Laxpayer who alleges LhaL
by vlrLue of Sec.1, 813S, he would be unduly
dlscrlmlnaLed agalnsL by Lhe lmposlLlon of hlgher
Lax raLes upon hls lncome arlslng from Lhe
exerclse of hls professlon (Laxable neL lncome)
vls-a-vls Lhose lmposed upon flxed lncome or
salarled lndlvldual Laxpayers (Laxable
compensaLlon lncome).

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 1, 813S vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1he segregaLlon ls based on slgnlflcanL
dlfferences and Lhose falllng wlLhln a class are
LreaLed ln Lhe same fashlon.

1axpayers wlLhln compensaLlon lncome have no overhead
expenses and Lherefore noL enLlLled Lo make deducLlons for
lncome Lax purposes because Lhey are ln Lhe same slLuaLlon
more or less.
1axpayers who are professlonals and pracLlce Lhelr own
calllng, along wlLh buslnessmen, do noL have a unlform seL of
cosLs or expenses necessary Lo produce Lhelr lncome.
lL would noL be falr Lhen Lo dlsregard Lhe dlsparlLles by glvlng
all of Lhem zero deducLlon and lndlscrlmlnaLely lmpose on all
allke Lhe same Lax raLes on Lhe basls of gross lncome. 1haL ls
why salarled people are under gross sysLem of lncome
LaxaLlon and buslnesses and professlonals are under neL
lncome LaxaLlon
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween
lndlvlduals wlLh Laxable neL
lncome v. Laxable compensaLlon
lncome (employmenL Lax)

18. Marcos v. CA

C.8. no.
126394

SepLember 3,
1997
lAC1S:
lmelda was charged wlLh vlolaLlng Centra| 8ank
C|rcu|ar No. 960 whlch prohlblLed resldenLs,
flrms, assoclaLlons and corporaLlons from
malnLalnlng forelgn exchange accounLs abroad
wlLhouL permlL from Lhe C8.
uurlng Lhe pendency of her cases, C8 C|rcu|ar NC.
1318, and 13S3 were lssued whlch removed Lhe
prohlblLlon ln C8 No. 960 LxCL1 ln cases where
Lhere are already pendlng crlmlnal acLlons.
lmelda quesLlons Lhe valldlLy of Lhe savlng clause.
eLlLloner's argumenL LhaL Lhe savlng clauses are noL
germane Lo Lhe purposes of Lhe Centra| 8ank Act, and
consequenLly ulLra vlres, has been roundly confuLed by
respondenL CourL of Appeals. lf, as she clalms, one of Lhe
ob[ecLlves of LhaL law ls Lo sLablllze Lhe moneLary sysLem,
LhaL ls preclsely why Congress punlshed as crlmlnal offenses
Lhe vlolaLlons of Lhe lssuances of Lhe MoneLary 8oard
necessary for Lhe effecLlve dlscharge of lLs responslblllLles,
and Lo carry ouL whlch Lhe 8oard deemed lL necessary Lo
provlde for Lhe challenged savlng clauses. Cbvlously, Lhese
savlng clauses were dlcLaLed by Lhe need Lo conLlnue Lhe
SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween
Lhose wlLh pendlng crlmlnal
acLlons vls-a-vls Lhose whose
crlmlnal charges have noL been
flled yeL (Lacson v. LxecuLlve
SecreLary)

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe savlng clause ln C8 No. 1318
ls lnvalld for vlolaLlng Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. Per clalms are mere con[ecLures.

prosecuLlon of Lhose who had already commlLLed acLs of
moneLary desLablllzaLlon. 1he opposlLe vlew poslLed by
peLlLloner would resulL ln an absurdlLy.
Per lamenLaLlons LhaL Lhe aforemenLloned provlslons are
dlscrlmlnaLory because Lhey are almed aL her and her co-
accused do noL assume Lhe dlgnlLy of a legal argumenL slnce
Lhey are unwarranLed con[ecLures belled by even Lhe LexL of
Lhe clrculars alone. Pence, as respondenL appellaLe courL
correcLly concludes, Lhe foregolng facLs clearly dlsprove
peLlLloner's clalm LhaL her consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo equal
proLecLlon of Lhe law was vlolaLed.
19. nolasco v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
122230 &
122238

!uly 21, 1997
lAC1S:
8lanco was Lo be proclalmed Lhe mayor-elecL of
Meycauayan.
A moLlon Lo suspend hls proclamaLlon was flled
wlLh Lhe CCMLLLC agalnsL hlm. CCMLLLC
granLed Lhe moLlon afLer flndlng LhaL Lhere was
probable commlsslon of elecLlon offenses".
CCMLLLC ordered Lhe canvasslng of voLes Lo
conLlnue, buL suspended 8lanco from belng
proclalmed should he be declared Lhe wlnner.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8lanco was deprlved of equal
proLecLlon of Lhe laws when CCMLLLC deparLed
from Lhe procedure ln CCM. kes. No. 20S0.

PLLu:
NC. Pe was noL.

CCMLLLC keso|ut|on 20S0 perLalns Lo dlsquallflcaLlon cases,
whereln a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon should be conducLed by
Lhe Law ueparLmenL flrsL and only upon a prlma facle flndlng
of gullL may a complalnanL proceed wlLh Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon
proceedlngs. 1hls rule was lmplemenLed ln Lhe pasL Lo
address Lhe prollferaLlon of dlsquallflcaLlon cases LhaL
CCMLLLC could noL handle. 1he slLuaLlon before hand,
however, dld noL resulL ln a surfelL of dlsquallflcaLlon cases. lL
ls wlLhln CCMLLLC's auLhorlLy Lo address 8lanco's case
dlrecLly wlLhouL complylng wlLh keso|ut|on 20S0. 1he
ConsLlLuLlon vesLs upon Lhe CCMLLLC Lhe power Lo handle
dlsquallflcaLlon cases as well as Lo cancel proclamaLlons.
CCMLLLC was exerclslng lLs sound dlscreLlon.
CCMLLLC has Lhe consLlLuLlonally
granLed power Lo enforce and
admlnlsLer all laws and
regulaLlons relaLlve Lo Lhe
conducL of an elecLlon, lL cannoL
be resLrlcLed by mere procedural
rules.
20. hll !udges v.
rado
lAC1S:
eLlLloners clalm LhaL Sec. 3S of kA 73S4 ls
SecLlon 33 has placed Lhe courLs of [usLlce ln a caLegory Lo
whlch lL does noL belong. lf lL recognlzes Lhe need of Lhe
A valld classlflcaLlon wlLh regard
Lo prlvlleges musL admlL of
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
103371
dlscrlmlnaLory because lL wlLhdraws Lhe franklng
prlvllege from Lhe !udlclary buL reLalns sald
prlvllege for Lhe resldenL, Lhe v, members of
Congress, Lhe Comelec, former resldenLs, and
Lhe naLlonal Census and SLaLlsLlcs Cfflce.
8espondenLs counLer LhaL Lhere ls no
dlscrlmlnaLlon as Lhe franklng prlvllege has also
been wlLhdrawn from oLher offlces.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 3S of kA 73S4 ls vlolaLlve of
Lhe LC.

PLLu:
LS. 1here ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe LC.

resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes and Lhe members of Congress for
Lhe franklng prlvllege, Lhere ls no reason why lL should noL
recognlze a slmllar and ln facL greaLer need on Lhe parL of Lhe
!udlclary for such prlvllege. Whlle we may appreclaLe Lhe
wlLhdrawal of Lhe franklng prlvllege from Lhe Armed lorces of
Lhe hlllpplnes Ladles SLeerlng CommlLLee, we fall Lo
undersLand why Lhe Supreme CourL should be slmllarly
LreaLed as LhaL CommlLLee.
1he posLal servlce offlce clalms LhaL Lhe expense from
[udlclary wlLh regards frank malls amounLs Lo 73,374,864 as
compared Lo 90,424, 173 LoLal. 1he respondenLs are ln effecL
saylng LhaL franklng prlvllege should be exLended only Lo
Lhose who do noL need lL much aL all buL noL Lo Lhose who
need lL badly. 1he problem ls noL solved by reLalnlng lL for
some and wlLhdrawlng lL from oLhers especlally where
Lhere's no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon. 1he dlsLlncLlon made ls
superflclal. lL ls noL based on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons LhaL
make real dlfferences beLween Lhe [udlclary and Lhe granLees
of Lhe franklng prlvllege.
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons beLween
Lhe groups concerned for lL Lo be
consldered consLlLuLlonal. 1here
ls no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween branches of
governmenL.

21. Cllvares v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
118333

CcLober 4,
1993

lAC1S:
1he 8CCl charged Mayor Cllvares wlLh vlolaLlon of
kA3019 for unreasonably refuslng Lo lssue a
mayor's permlL desplLe lLs requesL and follow-ups
Lo lmplemenL aranaque Sanggun|ang 8ayan
keso|ut|on No. 744 and for granLlng Lhe permlL Lo
anoLher group. 1hls resoluLlon auLhorlzed 8CCl Lo
seL up a nlghL manufacLurer's falr afLer obLalnlng
Lhe proper permlL.
Mayor Cllvares' defense ls LhaL 8CCl was noL
lssued a mayor's permlL by reason of lLs fallure Lo
apply and Lo comply wlLh Lhe condlLlons seL forLh
ln keso|ut|on No. 744.
eLlLloner could noL plauslbly demonsLraLe how Lhe lssuance
of a permlL Lo 8CCl would so adversely affecL publlc lnLeresL
as Lo warranL lLs denlal. Cn Lhe conLrary, Lhe Sanggunlang
8ayan of aranaque had even passed a resoluLlon, whlch
noLably was approved by hereln peLlLloner, expressly allowlng
8CCl Lo hold Lhe nlghL falr. 1hls ls concreLe proof LhaL Lhe
granL of auLhorlLy Lo operaLe ln favor of 8CCl was noL aL all
conLrary Lo law and publlc pollcy, nor was lL pre[udlclal Lo
publlc lnLeresL.
eLlLloner's suspecLed parLlallLy may be gleaned from Lhe facL
LhaL he lssued a permlL ln favor of Lhe unldenLlfled 8aclaran-
based vendors' assoclaLlons by Lhe mere expedlenL of an
execuLlve order, whereas so many requlremenLs were
1he Mayor does noL have
unbrldled dlscreLlon ln granLlng
buslness permlLs. 1o make a valld
classlflcaLlon, Lhe dlsLlncLlon
beLween Lwo groups slmllarly-
slLuaLed musL be shown.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Mayor vlolaLed 8CCl's rlghL Lo
equal proLecLlon

PLLu:
LS. 1here ls probable cause Lo show LhaL Lhe
Mayor acLed wlLh manlfesL parLlallLy.

lmposed on 8CCl before lL could be granLed Lhe same permlL.
Worse, peLlLloner falled Lo show, ln apparenL dlsregard of
8CCl's rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon, LhaL 8CCl and Lhe
unldenLlfled 8aclaran-based vendors' assoclaLlons were noL
slmllarly slLuaLed as Lo glve aL leasL a semblance of legallLy Lo
Lhe apparenL hasLe wlLh whlch sald execuLlve order was
lssued. lL would seem LhaL lf Lhere was any lnLeresL served by
such execuLlve order, lL was LhaL of hereln peLlLloner.
22. CMC v. 1orres

C.8. no.
93666
lAC1S:
CMC requesLed a renewal of lLs asslsLanL coach's
allen employmenL permlL and LhaL Lhey also be
allowed Lo employ hlm as full-Llme coach.
uCLL 8eglonal ulrecLor approved Lhls, buL Lhe
SecreLary of Labor laLer on reversed Lhls.
CMC flled M8s, buL Lhese were also denled. 1hey
argue LhaL Lhelr case should be allowed because
of Coach norman 8lack's case was allowed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe SecreLary of Labor vlolaLed
Lhelr rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.

PLLu:
NC. eLlLloner CMC wlll noL flnd solace ln Lhe LC

1helr asslsLanL coach cannoL be compared Lo Mr. norman
8lack because Lhe laLLer ls a long Llme resldenL of Lhe
counLry" - whlch means LhaL 8lack ls noL sub[ecL Lo Lhe
provlslons of Art. 40 of the Labor Code. 1hls provlslon only
applles Lo non-resldenL allens."
1here ls subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween non-resldenL allens and
resldenL allens when whaL ls ln
quesLlon ls Lhe lssuance of
employmenL permlLs

23. Segovla v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
124067

lAC1S:
eLlLloners were members of Lhe ConLracLs
CommlLLee for nC for a pro[ecL.
A complalnL was flled by one of Lhe blddlng
companles agalnsL peLlLloners were allegedly
favorlng one company even Lhough lL was
8olasLlg v. Sandlganbayan
Cur holdlng LhaL, upon Lhe flllng of a valld lnformaLlon
charglng vlolaLlon of kepub||c Act No. 3019, 8ook II, 1|t|e 7 of
the kev|sed ena| Code, or fraud upon governmenL or publlc
properLy, lL ls Lhe duLy of Lhe courL Lo place Lhe accused
under prevenLlve suspenslon dlsposes of peLlLloner's oLher
1he Cmbudsman may lmpose
suspenslon on accused publlc
offlcers. ubllc offlcers, unllke,
oLher accused, can use Lhelr
presLlge and lnfluence of Lhelr
offlce Lo lnLlmldaLe or lnfluence
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
March 24,
1998
supposed Lo be dlsquallfled.
lor Lhls, Lhe peLlLloners were suspended from
offlce.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lL ls mandaLory for Lhe
Sandlganbayan Lo place publlc offlcers under
prevenLlve suspenslon.

PLLu:
LS. lL ls mandaLory for Lhe courL Lo place under
prevenLlve suspenslon a publlc offlcer accused
before lL.

conLenLlon LhaL slnce Lhe Lrlal ln Lhe Sandlganbayan ls now
over wlLh respecL Lo Lhe presenLaLlon of evldence for Lhe
prosecuLlon Lhere ls no longer any danger LhaL peLlLloners
would lnLlmldaLe prosecuLlon's wlLnesses. 1he facL ls LhaL Lhe
posslblllLy LhaL Lhe accused would lnLlmldaLe wlLnesses or
oLherwlse hamper hls prosecuLlon ls [usL one of Lhe grounds
for prevenLlve suspenslon. 1he oLher one ls, . . . Lo prevenL
Lhe accused from commlLLlng furLher acLs of malfeasance
whlle ln offlce."
prospecLlve wlLnesses, Lo Lamper
wlLh documenLary evldence, or Lo
commlL furLher acLs of
malfeasance whlle ln offlce lf noL
suspended.
24. Chavez v.
CCC

C.8. no.
130716

uecember 9,
1998
lAC1S:
A compromlse beLween Lhe CCC and Lhe
Marcos helrs were reporLed on how Lo spllL Lhe
dlscovered asseLs of Marcos.
eLlLloner brlngs sulL quesLlonlng Lhe legallLy of
Lhe agreemenLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe agreemenL vlolaLes Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause.

PLLu:
LS. 1he Marcos helrs are noL a class ln
Lhemselves Lo be afforded any speclal LreaLmenL.

Cn lmmunlLy from sulL:
ower Lo confer lmmunlLy from crlmlnal prosecuLlon was
conferred on CCC, speclflcally Sec. S, L.C. No. 14
Powever, provlslon of Sec. S, L.C. No. 14 ls appllcable only Lo
wlLnesses and noL Lo Lhe prlnclpal respondenL, defendanL or
accused. 1he Marcoses however fall wlLhln Lhe amblL of Lhe
laLLer.
Cn 1ax LxempLlon:
under lLem no. 2 of Lhe Ceneral AgreemenL, CCC wlll
exempL from all forms of Laxes Lhe properLles Lo be reLalned
by Lhe Marcos helrs, encroachlng on Lhe power of Lhe
leglslaLure regardlng LaxaLlon.
lf Congress were Lo pass a law exempLlng Lhe Marcos helrs
from LaxaLlon, lL wlll noL pass Lhe LesL of Lhe equal proLecLlon
clause under Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs. Such leglslaLlon wlll be
consldered class leglslaLlon.

1he provlso ln Sec. 3 glves rlse Lo
a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween
prlnclpal defendanLs and
wlLnesses ln Lerms of Lhe crlmlnal
lmmunlLy LhaL can be granLed.
2S. 1elebap v. lAC1S: eLlLloner's argumenL resLs on Lhe fallacy LhaL broadcasL ulsLlncLlon beLween radlo and 1v
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
132922

Aprll 21, 1998
Sec 11b of kA 6646 prohlblLed Lhe sale or
donaLlon of prlnL space or alrLlme for pollLlcal
ads, excepL Lo Lhe CCMLLLC under Sec 90 of 8
881, Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, wlLh respecL Lo
prlnL medla and Sec 92, broadcasL medla.
eLlLloners challenge Lhe valldlLy of Sec. 92.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 92 of 8.. No. 881 denles
radlo and Lelevlslon broadcasL companles Lhe
equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws.

PLLu:
NC. 1he argumenL LhaL Lhe sub[ecL law slngles
ouL radlo and Lelevlslon sLaLlons Lo provlde free
alr-Llme as agalnsL newspapers and magazlnes
whlch requlre paymenL of [usL compensaLlon for
Lhe prlnL space Lhey may provlde ls llkewlse
wlLhouL merlL.

medla are enLlLled Lo Lhe same LreaLmenL under Lhe free
speech guaranLee of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon as Lhe prlnL medla.
1here are lmporLanL dlfferences ln Lhe characLerlsLlcs of Lhe
Lwo medla, whlch [usLlfy Lhelr dlfferenLlal LreaLmenL. 8ecause
of Lhe physlcal llmlLaLlons of Lhe broadcasL specLrum, Lhe
governmenL musL, of necesslLy, allocaLe broadcasL
frequencles Lo Lhose wlshlng Lo use Lhem. lurLhermore,
regulaLlon of Lhe broadcasL lndusLry requlres spendlng of
publlc funds, whlch lL does noL do ln Lhe case of prlnL medla.
1o requlre Lhe broadcasL lndusLry Lo provlde free alr-Llme for
CCMLLLC ls a falr exchange for whaL Lhe lndusLry geLs.
1he CourL also held LhaL because of Lhe unlque and pervaslve
lnfluence of Lhe broadcasL medla, Lhe freedom of Lelevlslon
and radlo broadcasLlng ls somewhaL lesser ln scope Lhan Lhe
freedom accorded Lo newspaper and prlnL medla.
vls-a-vls newspaper and
magazlnes

26. 1lu v. CA

C.8. no.
127410

!anuary 20,
1999
lAC1S:
kA7227 was passed acceleraLlng Lhe converslon
of mlllLary reservaLlon lnLo oLher producLlve uses.
LC97 was lssued clarlfylng LhaL Lhe Lax and duLy-
free lmporLaLlons provlded under kA7227 applled
only Lo raw maLerlals, caplLal goods, and
equlpmenL broughL ln by buslness enLerprlses
lnLo Lhe Speclal Lconomlc Zones.
LC97-A furLher clarlfled LhaL Lhls prlvllege was
only operaLlve ln a speclfled area, excludlng Lhe
ClLy of Clangapo and Lhe MunlclpallLy of Sublc.
eLlLloners quesLlon Lhls.
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1here are subsLanLlal dlfferences
beLween Lhe blg lnvesLors who are belng lured Lo esLabllsh
and operaLe Lhelr lndusLrles ln Lhe so-called "secured area"
and Lhe presenL buslness operaLors ouLslde Lhe area. Cn Lhe
one hand, we are Lalklng of bllllon-peso lnvesLmenLs and
Lhousands of new, [obs. Cn Lhe oLher hand, deflnlLely none of
such magnlLude. ln Lhe flrsL, Lhe economlc lmpacL wlll be
naLlonal, ln Lhe second, only local. Lven more lmporLanL, aL
Lhls Llme Lhe buslness acLlvlLles ouLslde Lhe "secured area"
are noL llkely Lo have any lmpacL ln achlevlng Lhe purpose of
Lhe law, whlch ls Lo Lurn Lhe former mlllLary base Lo
producLlve use for Lhe beneflL of Lhe hlllpplne economy.
Lawmakers have Lhe dlscreLlon Lo
granL beneflLs Lo speclflc areas
only whlch have Lhe capablllLy of
lurlng ln blg lnvesLmenLs and
many employmenL opporLunlLles
for llllplnos.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL LC97-A ls unconsLlLuLlonal for
vlolaLlng Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. lL resLs on reasonable classlflcaLlon.

1here ls, Lhen, hardly any reasonable basls Lo exLend Lo Lhem
Lhe beneflLs and lncenLlves accorded ln kA 7227. AddlLlonally,
as Lhe CourL of Appeals polnLed ouL, lL wlll be easler Lo
manage and monlLor Lhe acLlvlLles wlLhln Lhe "secured area,"
whlch ls already fenced off, Lo prevenL "fraudulenL
lmporLaLlon of merchandlse" or smuggllng.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - urpose of Lhe law ls Lo converL Lhe
lands formerly occupled by Lhe uS MlllLary bases lnLo
economlc or lndusLrlal areas. 1herefore, lL ls reasonable Lo
dellmlL Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe lncenLlves Lo Lhe conflnes of
LhaL speclflc area only.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - ClasslflcaLlon
applles equally Lo all Lhe resldenL lndlvlduals and buslnesses
wlLhln Lhe Secured Area.
27. Lacson v.
LxecuLlve
SecreLary

C.8. no.
128096

!anuary 20,
1999
lAC1S:
Alleged members of Lhe kuraLong 8aleleng Cang
were shoL Lo deaLh. 1hls lmpllcaLed Lacson among
oLhers as gullLy for mulLlple murder.
1he case was ralsed before Lhe Sandlganbayan
buL peLlLloners quesLloned Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
Sandlganbayan slnce Lhe law llmlLed lLs
[urlsdlcLlon Lo cases where one or more of Lhe
prlnclpal accused" are governmenL offlclals wlLh
Salary Crade (SC) 27 or hlgher, or n offlclals
wlLh Lhe rank of Chlef SuperlnLendenL (8rlgadler
Ceneral) or hlgher. 1he hlghesL ranklng prlnclpal
accused ln Lhe amended lnformaLlons has Lhe
rank of only a Chlef lnspecLor, and none has Lhe
equlvalenL of aL leasL SC 27.
LaLer, kA 8249 was passed whlch baslcally
expanded Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Sandlganbayan.
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he classlflcaLlon beLween Lhose
pendlng cases lnvolvlng Lhe concerned publlc offlclals whose
Lrlal has noL yeL commenced and whose cases could have
been affecLed by Lhe amendmenLs of Lhe Sandlganbayan
[urlsdlcLlon under k.A. 8249, as agalnsL Lhose cases where
Lrlal had already sLarLed as of Lhe approval of Lhe law, resLs
on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon LhaL makes real dlfferences. ln Lhe
flrsL lnsLance, evldence agalnsL Lhem were noL yeL presenLed,
whereas ln Lhe laLLer Lhe parLles had already submlLLed Lhelr
respecLlve proofs, examlned wlLness and presenLed
documenLs. Slnce lL ls wlLhln Lhe power of Congress Lo deflne
Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of courLs sub[ecL Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal
llmlLaLlons, lL can be reasonably anLlclpaLed LhaL an alLeraLlon
of LhaL [urlsdlcLlon would necessarlly affecL pendlng cases,
whlch ls why lL has Lo provlde for a remedy ln Lhe form of a
LranslLory provlslon. 1hus, peLlLloners cannoL clalm LhaL Lhe
law placed Lhem under a dlfferenL caLegory from Lhose
1here ls a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween cases where Lrlal
already begun agalnsL Lhose
where lL has noL yeL sLarLed.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
eLlLloners allege LhaL Lhe law was lmplemenLed
ln bad falLh.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL k.A. 8249 vlolaLes Lhe LC as Lhe
law seems Lo have been lnLroduced for Lhe
Sandlganbayan Lo conLlnue Lo acqulre [urlsdlcLlon
over Lhe kuraLong 8aleleng case.

PLLu:
NC. no concreLe evldence and convlnclng
argumenL were presenLed Lo warranL such
declaraLlon.

slmllarly slLuaLed as Lhem.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - reclsely, par A
of Sec 4 provldes LhaL lL shall apply Lo all cases lnvolvlng"
cerLaln publlc offlclals and, under Lhe LranslLory provlslon ln
Sec 7, Lo all cases pendlng ln any courL." ConLrary Lo
peLlLloner and lnLervenors' argumenLs, Lhe law ls noL
parLlcularly dlrecLed only Lo Lhe kuraLong 8aleleng cases. 1he
LranslLory provlslon does noL only cover cases whlch are ln
Lhe Sandlganbayan buL also ln any courL." lL [usL happened
LhaL Lhe kuraLong 8aleleng cases are one of Lhose affecLed by
Lhe law. Moreover, Lhose cases where Lrlal had already begun
are noL affecLed by Lhe LranslLory provlslon under Sec 7 of
k.A. 8249.
28. Sorlano v. CA

C.8. no.
123936

March 4, 1999
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was convlcLed of Lhe crlme of 8eckless
lmprudence resulLlng Lo homlclde, serlous
physlcal ln[urles and damage Lo properLy. Pls
appllcaLlon for probaLlon was granLed, and
among Lhe Lerms and condlLlons lmposed by Lhe
Lrlal courL was for hlm Lo properly lndemnlfy Lhe
helrs of Lhe vlcLlm.
1hls he falled Lo do. So he was ordered Lo come
up wlLh a program of paymenL Lo pay hls clvll
llablllLy. Pe sLlll dld noL do Lhls.
eLlLloner avers LhaL Lo requlre hlm Lo saLlsfy hls
clvll llablllLy ln order Lo conLlnue Lo avall of Lhe
beneflLs of probaLlon ls Lo vlolaLe Lhe
consLlLuLlonal proscrlpLlon agalnsL unequal
proLecLlon of Lhe law. Pe says only moneyed
probaLloners wlll be able Lo beneflL from
lf paymenL of Lhe clvll llablllLy ls made a condlLlon precedenL
Lo probaLlon, Lhen perhaps Lhere mlghL be some basls Lo
peLlLloner's asserLlon LhaL only moneyed convlcLs may avall of
Lhe beneflLs of probaLlon.
ln Lhls case, however, peLlLloner's appllcaLlon for probaLlon
had already been granLed. SaLlsfacLlon of hls clvll llablllLy was
noL made a requlremenL before he could avall a probaLlon,
buL was a condlLlon for hls conLlnued en[oymenL of Lhe same.
1he Lrlal courL could noL have done away wlLh lmposlng
paymenL of clvll llablllLy as a condlLlon for probaLlon, as
peLlLloner suggesLs. 1hls ls noL an arblLrary lmposlLlon buL
one requlred by law. lL ls a consequence of peLlLloner's havlng
been convlcLed of a crlme, and peLlLloner ls bound Lo saLlsfy
Lhls obllgaLlon regardless of wheLher or noL he ls placed
under probaLlon.
We fall Lo see why peLlLloner cannoL comply wlLh a slmple
order Lo furnlsh Lhe Lrlal courL wlLh a program of paymenL of
1he granL of probaLlon does noL
requlre flnanclal capablllLy on Lhe
parL of Lhe granLee. Powever,
paymenL of clvll damages may be
valldly made as a condlLlon for
Lhe conLlnued en[oymenL of such
probaLlon wlLhouL vlolaLlng LC.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
probaLlon lf saLlsfacLlon of clvll llablllLy ls made a
condlLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe condlLlon ln hls probaLlon ls
vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. aymenL of Lhe clvll llablllLy ls noL made a
condlLlon precedenL Lo probaLlon.

hls clvll llablllLy. Pe may, lndeed, be poor, buL Lhls ls preclsely
Lhe reason why Lhe Lrlal courL gave hlm Lhe chance Lo make
hls own program of paymenL. knowlng hls own flnanclal
condlLlon, he ls ln Lhe besL poslLlon Lo formulaLe a program of
paymenL LhaL flLs hls needs and capaclLy.
29. Agulnaldo v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
132774

!une 21, 1999
lAC1S:
eLlLloners, aL Lhe Llme of Lhe flllng of Lhe
peLlLlon, were lncumbenL provlnclal or munlclpal
offlclals ln Cagayan.
eLlLloners seek Lo prevenL Lhe CCMLLLC from
enforclng Sect|on 67 of the Cmn|bus L|ect|on
Code (Any elecLlve offlclal, wheLher naLlonal or
local, runnlng for any offlce oLher Lhan Lhe one
whlch he ls holdlng ln a permanenL capaclLy,
excepL for resldenL and vlce-resldenL, shall be
consldered lpso facLo reslgned from hls offlce
upon Lhe flllng of hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy.")
durlng Lhe 1998 elecLlons.
eLlLloners clalm LhaL Sect|on 67 ls vlolaLlve of
Lhe LC, as lLs classlflcaLlon of persons runnlng for
offlce ls noL a valld classlflcaLlon slnce lL ls noL
based on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 67 vlolaLe Lhe LC.

Sect|on 67 ls noL vlolaLlve of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon as lL does noL
unduly cuL shorL Lhe Lerm of offlce of local offlclals. 1he
slLuaLlon LhaL resulLs wlLh Lhe appllcaLlon of Sect|on 67 ls
covered by Lhe Lerm volunLary renunclaLlon".
1he acL, of flllng a cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for anoLher offlce,
conLemplaLed ln Sect|on 67, consLlLuLes an overL, concreLe
acL of volunLary renunclaLlon of Lhe elecLlve offlce
Conslderlng lncumbenL offlclals
reslgned from Lhelr offlce upon
flllng a CoC for anoLher poslLlon,
ls noL a vlolaLlon of Lhe LC as lL
ls germane Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe
law - ensurlng Lhey serve ouL
Lhelr Lerm of offlce before
runnlng for anoLher poslLlon
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
NC. Sect|on 67 was crafLed wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon of
glvlng flesh Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonal pronouncemenL
LhaL publlc servlce ls a publlc LrusL.

30. Loong v.
CCMLLLC and
1an

C.8. no.
133676

Aprll 14, 1999
lAC1S:
uurlng Lhe 1998 auLomaLed elecLlons sysLems ln
Lhe A8MM and Lhe rovlnce of Sulu, some
anomalles were found ln Lhe elecLlon reLurns and
voLes casL for Lhe mayoralLy candldaLes ln Lhe
munlclpallLy of aLa.
1hls led Lo Lhe CCMLLLC orderlng a manual counL
ln Lhe enLlre provlng of Sulu.
ln Lhe manual counL, 1an was proclalmed Lhe
governor-elecL, wlLh peLlLloner as Lhlrd-placer.
eLlLloner now quesLlons Lhe manual counL and
peLlLlons for a speclal elecLlon for Lhe poslLlon of
Lhe governor of Sulu.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lL ls proper Lo call for a speclal
elecLlon for Lhe poslLlon of governor.

PLLu:
NC. 1o hold a speclal elecLlon only for Lhe
poslLlon of Covernor wlll be dlscrlmlnaLory and
wlll vlolaLe Lhe rlghL of prlvaLe respondenL Lo
equal proLecLlon of Lhe law.

1he record shows LhaL all elecLed offlclals ln Sulu have been
proclalmed and are now dlscharglng Lhelr powers and duLles.
1hese offlclals were proclalmed on Lhe basls of Lhe same
manually counLed voLes of Sulu.
lf manual counLlng ls lllegal, Lhelr assumpLlon of offlce cannoL
also be counLenanced. rlvaLe respondenL's elecLlon cannoL
be slngled ouL as lnvalld for allkes cannoL be LreaLed unallke.
1here ls no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween Lhe governor seaL and
oLher governmenL poslLlons. 1hey
musL be LreaLed allke.
31. lnLernaLlonal
School v.
Culsumblng
lAC1S:
eLlLloners are llllplno Leachers of lnLernaLlonal
School seeklng rellef from Lhe CourL for Lhe
1he long honoured legal Lrulsm of equal pay for equal work"
musL be applled ln Lhls case. ersons who have Lhe same
work and quallflcaLlons MuS1 recelve Lhe SAML SALA8lLS.
Same poslLlon and rank should
have Lhe same compensaLlon
wheLher allen or local
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
128843

!une 1, 2000
dlscrlmlnaLory pollcles Lhe school has agalnsL
local-hlres. lorelgn-hlres apparenLly have more
prlvlleges and a hlgher salary Lhan Lhem.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe polnL-of-hlre classlflcaLlon of
Lhe school ls dlscrlmlnaLory agalnsL llllplno
Leachers.

PLLu:
LS. CourL flnds pollcles of lnLernaLlonal School Lo
be dlscrlmlnaLory agalnsL llllplno Leachers

1hls rule applles Lo respondenL school, noLwlLhsLandlng lLs
lnLernaLlonal characLer". When Lhe employer accords
employees Lhe same poslLlon and rank, Lhey are presumed Lo
be performlng equal work. lL ls Lhe burden of Lhe employer Lo
prove LhaL Lhe dlsLlncLlons beLween employees are [usL and
reasonable. 8espondenL school falled Lo provlde evldence
LhaL forelgn Leachers perform a more complex Lask Lhan
llllplno Leachers, hence an lncrease ln Lhelr salarles.
Salary was also clLed by Lhe CourL, as Lhls was deflned as pay
for servlces rendered". Slnce forelgn and llllplno Leachers
perform Lhe same Leachlng servlces, Lhey should recelve Lhe
same salarles.

32. ue Cuzman v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
129118

!uly 19, 2000
lAC1S:
Sec. 44 of kA 8189 provldes LhaL, no elecLlon
offlcer shall no LlecLlon Cfflcer shall hold offlce ln
a parLlcular clLy or munlclpallLy for more Lhan
four (4) years." Llse, he shall auLomaLlcally be
reasslgned by Lhe Commlsslon Lo a new sLaLlon
ouLslde Lhe orlglnal congresslonal dlsLrlcL."
1hereafLer, Lhe CCMLLLC lssued several
dlrecLlves reasslgnlng Lhe peLlLloners, who are
elLher ClLy or Munlclpal LlecLlon Cfflcers, Lo
dlfferenL sLaLlons.
eLlLloners clalm vlolaLlon of Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 44 of kA8189 vlolaLes Lhe
LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls valld classlflcaLlon.
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - lL can be dlscerned LhaL Lhe
leglslaLure LhoughL Lhe noble purpose of Lhe law would be
sufflclenLly served by breaklng an lmporLanL llnk ln Lhe chaln
of corrupLlon Lhan by breaklng up each and every llnk
Lhereof.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - Sect|on 44, whlch provldes for Lhe
reasslgnmenL of elecLlon offlcers, ls relevanL Lo Lhe sub[ecL
maLLer of reglsLraLlon as lL seeks Lo ensure Lhe lnLegrlLy of Lhe
reglsLraLlon process by provldlng a guldellne for Lhe CCMLLLC
Lo follow ln Lhe reasslgnmenL of elecLlon offlcers. lL ls noL an
allen provlslon buL one whlch ls relaLed Lo Lhe conducL and
procedure of conLlnulng reglsLraLlon of voLers.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he slngllng ouL
of elecLlon offlcers ln order Lo "ensure Lhe lmparLlallLy of
elecLlon offlclals by prevenLlng Lhem from developlng
famlllarlLy wlLh Lhe people of Lhelr place of asslgnmenL" does
noL vlolaLe Lhe equal proLecLlon clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
CCMLLLC may asslgn elecLlon
offlcers Lo oLher sLaLlons afLer 4
years Lo avold corrupLlon LhaL
mlghL Lake place.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

33. 8ayan v.
Zamora

C.8. no.
138370

CcLober 10,
2000
lAC1S:
1he 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes and Lhe unlLed
SLaLes of Amerlca enLered lnLo an agreemenL
called Lhe vlslLlng lorces AgreemenL (vlA). 1he
agreemenL was LreaLed as a LreaLy by Lhe
hlllpplne governmenL and was raLlfled by Lhen-
resldenL !oseph LsLrada wlLh Lhe concurrence of
2/3 of Lhe LoLal membershlp of Lhe hlllpplne
SenaLe.
1he vlA deflnes Lhe LreaLmenL of u.S. Lroops and
personnel vlslLlng Lhe hlllpplnes. lL provldes for
Lhe guldellnes Lo govern such vlslLs, and furLher
deflnes Lhe rlghLs of Lhe u.S. and Lhe hlllpplne
governmenLs ln Lhe maLLer of crlmlnal
[urlsdlcLlon, movemenL of vessel and alrcrafL,
lmporLaLlon and exporLaLlon of equlpmenL,
maLerlals and supplles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe vlA ls vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. uue process ls sLlll observed ln Lerms of
crlmlnal [urlsdlcLlon.

Art. V of the VIA Lalks abouL crlmlnal [urlsdlcLlon: When uS
personnel are deLalned, Laken lnLo cusLody, or prosecuLed by
hlllpplne auLhorlLles, Lhey shall be accorded all procedural
safeguards esLabllshed by Lhe law of Lhe hlllpplnes. AL Lhe
mlnlmum, uS personnel shall be enLlLled:
a. 1o a prompL and speedy Lrlal,
b. 1o be lnformed ln advance of Lrlal of Lhe speclflc
charge or charges made agalnsL Lhem and Lo have
reasonable Llme Lo prepare a defense,
c. 1o be confronLed wlLh wlLnesses agalnsL Lhem and Lo
cross examlne such wlLnesses,
d. 1o presenL evldence ln Lhelr defense and Lo have
compulsory process for obLalnlng wlLnesses,
e. 1o have free and asslsLed legal represenLaLlon of
Lhelr own cholce on Lhe same basls as naLlonals of
Lhe hlllpplnes,
f. 1o have Lhe servlce of a compeLenL lnLerpreLer, and
g. (g) 1o communlcaLe prompLly wlLh and Lo be vlslLed
regularly by unlLed SLaLes auLhorlLles, and Lo have
such auLhorlLles presenL aL all [udlclal proceedlngs.
1hese proceedlngs shall be publlc unless Lhe courL, ln
accordance wlLh hlllpplne laws, excludes persons
who have no role ln Lhe proceedlngs.
ln all Lhls, due process ls malnLalned.
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween uS
mlllLary and clvlllan personnel
covered by Lhe vlA and Lhose
who are noL. rlvlleges are glven
Lo Lhe former because of Lhe
purpose of Lhe vlA Lo promoLe
muLual LrusL beLween uS and
hlllpplnes (germane Lo Lhe
purpose of Lhe law)

34. eople v.
Mercado

C.8. no.
116239

lAC1S:
1he Lrlal courL convlcLed Lhe defendanLs of
kldnapplng wlLh murder and senLenced Lhem Lo
deaLh.
1he defendanLs ralsed Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
deaLh penalLy and Lhe alleged hasLe of Lhe Lrlal
1he law proLecLs boLh Lhe rlch and Lhe poor. 8uL Lhls equallLy
ls legal equallLy or equallLy of all persons before Lhe law.
Lach lndlvldual ls dealL wlLh as an equal person ln Lhe law, noL
accordlng Lo who or whaL he ls or whaL he possesses.
1he deaLh penalLy applles Lo all persons and all classes of
persons. 1he law makes no dlsLlncLlon.
ArL. 267 of Lhe 8C does noL
vlolaLe Lhe LC glven LhaL anyone
may commlL Lhe crlmes
enumeraLed Lhere and be
punlshed wlLh Lhe same penalLy.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
november 29,
2000
courL ln decldlng Lhe case resulLlng ln grave and
serlous errors commlLLed ln convlcLlng Lhe
accused.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA76S9 vlolaLes Lhe LC for mosL
ofLen belng lmposed agalnsL Lhe poor.

PLLu:
NC. Whlle Lhere are percelved lmbalances ln Lhe
lmposlLlon of penalLles, Lhere are adequaLe
safeguards Lo ensure due process and equal
proLecLlon of Lhe law.

3S. eople v.
!alos[os

C.8. no.
132873-76

lebruary 3,
2000
lAC1S:
eLlLloner ls a member of Lhe Pouse of
represenLaLlves, lncarceraLed pendlng appeal for
sLaLuLory rape on 2 counLs and acLs of
lasclvlousness on slx counLs.
1he accused flled Lhls moLlon asklng LhaL he be
allowed Lo fully dlscharge Lhe duLles of a member
of Lhe Pouse, lncludlng aLLendance aL leglslaLlve
sesslon and commlLLee meeLlngs desplLe hls
havlng been convlcLed ln Lhe flrsL lnsLance of a
non-ballable offense.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL membershlp ln Congress exempLs
an accused from sLaLuLes and rules whlch apply Lo
valldly lncarceraLed persons ln general.

PLLu:
rlvllege from arresL or deLenLlon of SenaLors and members
of Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves apply only when Congress ls
ln sesslon Anu Lhe offense ls punlshable by less Lhan 6 years
lmprlsonmenL.
ln any oLher case, Lhe SenaLor or member of Lhe Pouse musL
be LreaLed as any oLher accused. 1he organs of governmenL
may noL show any undue favorlLlsm or hosLlllLy Lo any
person. nelLher parLlallLy nor pre[udlce shall be dlsplayed.
8elng a Congressman ls noL a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon as Lo
remove Lhe accused-appellanL as a prlsoner from Lhe same
class as all persons valldly conflned by law.
1he performance of leglLlmaLe and even essenLlal duLles by
publlc offlcers has never been an excuse Lo free a person
valldly ln prlson. never has Lhe call of a parLlcular duLy llfLed a
prlsoner lnLo a dlfferenL classlflcaLlon from Lhose oLhers who
are valldly resLralned by law.
no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
beLween congressman and a
regular person who commlLs a
crlme penallzed by more Lhan 6
years

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
NC. lL ls noL a valld dlsLlncLlon.
36. Lopez v. CA

C.8. no.
144373

SepL. 24, 2002
lAC1S:
Llggayu was Lhe Manager of Lhe Legal
ueparLmenL of CSC.
Pe was found gullLy of ConducL re[udlclal Lo Lhe
8esL lnLeresL of Lhe Servlce, and senLenced Lo 1
year suspenslon by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman
Pe flled for revlew wlLh Lhe CA wlLh prayer for
wrlL prellmlnary ln[uncLlon and/or 18C.
eLlLloners suspended Llggayu.
CA granLed prellmlnary ln[uncLlon and en[olned
peLlLloners from execuLlng Llggayu's suspenslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe sLay of execuLlon pendlng
appeal from Lhe order, dlrecLlve or declslon of Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman vlolaLes Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause for belng unfalr Lo governmenL
employees charged under Lhe C|v|| Serv|ce Law.

PLLu:
NC. SLay of execuLlon pendlng appeal from Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman does noL vlolaLe Lhe
equal proLecLlon clause

LeglslaLure has seen flL Lo granL a sLay of execuLlon pendlng
appeal from dlsclpllnary cases where Lhe penalLy lmposed by
Lhe Cmbudsman ls noL: ubllc Censure, 8eprlmand,
Suspenslon of noL more Lhan 1 monLh, and llne noL
equlvalenL Lo 1 monLh salary. (Sec. 27, 8.A. 6770)
CourL may noL expand Lhe scope of a sLaLuLe by means of
[udlclal leglslaLlon by Laklng lnLo conslderaLlon slLuaLlons noL
provlded or lnLended by Lhe LeglslaLure.
Where Lhe law ldenLlfles only
speclflc slLuaLlons where lL shall
apply, Lhe courLs may noL,
Lhrough lnLerpreLaLlon, expand
lLs appllcaLlon.
37. hllreca v. Sec.
of ulLC

C.8. no.
140376

!une 10, 2003
lAC1S:
eLlLloners are elecLrlc cooperaLlves organlzed
under D269. ursuanL Lo Lhls uecree, Lhey
en[oyed several Lax exempLlons.
Cn Lhe passage of Lhe Loca| Gov't Code of 1991,
Lhls Lax exempLlon was lmplledly wlLhdrawn
when a dlsLlncLlon was made from cooperaLlves
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he Lwo areas of subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon lle ln equlLable conLrlbuLlons and governmenL
conLrol. LlecLrlc cooperaLlves under kA6938 have Lhelr
members make equlLable conLrlbuLlons Lo Lhe caplLal
requlred and malnLaln auLonomy from Lhe SLaLe. LlecLrlc
cooperaLlves under D269 do noL requlre equlLable
conLrlbuLlons Lo caplLal and granLs Lhe naLlonal LlecLrlflcaLlon
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween
cooperaLlves conLrolled by Lhe
governmenL v. Lhose who are
auLonomous from sLaLe conLrol

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
organlzed under D269, & Lhose under kA6938.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Secs. 193 and 234 of the Loca|
Government Code vlolaLed Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls reasonable classlflcaLlon under Lhe
LGC Lo [usLlfy Lhe dlfferenL Lax LreaLmenLs.

AdmlnlsLraLlon Lhe power Lo conLrol and Lake over Lhe
managemenL and operaLlon of cooperaLlves reglsLered under
lL upon Lhe happenlng of cerLaln evenLs.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - Sec. 193 ls lndlcaLlve of Lhe leglslaLlve
lnLenL Lo vesL broad Laxlng powers upon LCus and Lo llmlL
exempLlons from local LaxaLlon Lo enLlLles speclflcally
provlded Lhereln. 1hls ls necessary for Lhe ob[ecLlve of Lhe
LGC Lo granL genulne and meanlngful auLonomy Lo Lhe LCus.
38. larlnas v.
LxecuLlve
SecreLary

C.8. no.
147387

uec. 10, 2003
lAC1S:
Sec. 67 of the Cmn|bus L|ect|on Code provldes
LhaL any elecLlve offlclal, runnlng for any offlce
oLher Lhan Lhe one whlch he hls holdlng ln a
permanenL capaclLy, shall be consldered lpso facL
reslgned from hls offlce upon flllng of hls
cerLlflcaLe of candldacy. Sec. 66 provldes for Lhe
same, appllcable Lo appolnLlve offlclals.
Sec. 14 of kA 9006, however, repealed Sec. 67.
eLlLloners allege LhaL Sec. 14 dlscrlmlnaLed
agalnsL appolnLlve offlclals because lL dld noL also
repeal Sec. 66.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 14 vlolaLed Lhe LC

PLLu:
NC. SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons exlsL beLween
elecLlve and appolnLlve offlclals.

LlecLlve offlclals are ln offlce by vlrLue of Lhe mandaLe of Lhe
elecLoraLe. AppolnLlve offlclals are Lhere by deslgnaLlon by an
appolnLlve auLhorlLy.
LlecLlve offlclals are expressly allowed Lo Lake parL ln pollLlcal
and elecLoral acLlvlLles . AppolnLlve offlclals are sLrlcLly
prohlblLed from engaglng ln any parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy.
1he leglslaLors deemed lL proper Lo LreaL Lhese Lwo classes of
offlclals dlfferenLly wlLh respecL Lo Lhe effecL on Lhelr Lenure
ln Lhe offlce of Lhe flllng of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of candldacy for
any poslLlon oLher Lhan Lhose occupled by Lhem.
valld dlsLlncLlon appolnLlve v.
elecLlve offlclals, lpso-facLo
reslgnaLlon

39. ulmaporo v.
P8L1
lAC1S:
ulmaporo was proclalmed as Lhe represenLaLlve
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1here ls valld dlsLlncLlon. ln Lhe one
munlclpallLy LhaL hls opponenL ls requesLlng for, all Lhe balloL
1here can be valld dlsLlncLlons
beLween elecLoral proLesLs ln
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
138339

March 23,
2004
of Lhe 2
nd
ulsLrlcL of Lanao del norLe.
Pls opponenL flled an elecLlon proLesL clalmlng
LhaL Lhere were voLlng anomalles ln one of Lhe
munlclpallLles LhaL ulmaporo won ln. Pe prayed
for Lechnlcal examlnaLlon of Lhe slgnaLures and
Lhumbmarks appearlng on Lhe voLers
8eglsLraLlon 8ecords.
ulmaporo counLered LhaL Lhls was false and he
also wanLed a Lechnlcal examlnaLlon ln Lhe
munlclpallLles LhaL hls opponenL won ln.
1he P8L1 granLed hls opponenL's requesL buL
denled ulmaporo's. 1he laLLer clalms Lhls vlolaLed
Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe P8L1 deprlved peLlLloner of
equal proLecLlon when Lhey denled hls moLlon
for Lechnlcal examlnaLlon.

PLLu:
NC. 1here exlsLs subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween
ulmaporo's requesL and hls opponenL's.

boxes were desLroyed by flre, whereas Lhose of Lhe 47
counLer-proLesLed preclncLs were noL. Moreover, hls
opponenL speclflcally conLesLed Lhe elecLlon resulLs ln LhaL
one munlclpallLy on Lhe ground of subsLlLuLlon of voLers,
whereas masslve subsLlLuLe voLlng was allegedly a mere
general avermenL ln ulmaporo's counLer-proLesL. Pls
opponenL also moved for Lechnlcal examlnaLlon even before
Lhe revlslon proceedlngs, whereas ulmaporo's came afLer.
LasLly, Lhe resulL of Lhe Lechnlcal examlnaLlon on hls
opponenL's parL ls deLermlnaLlve of Lhe flnal ouLcome of Lhe
elecLlon proLesL, whereas Lhe same cannoL be sald of
ulmaporo's moLlon.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law 1he Lechnlcal examlnaLlon of Lhe
elecLlon records of Lhe one munlclpallLy hls opponenL ls
requesLlng for and Lhe consequenL deLermlnaLlon of Lhe Lrue
wlll of Lhe elecLoraLe Lhereln, serves Lhe lnLeresL noL only of
Lhe parLles buL also of Lhe consLlLuency of Lhe 2
nd
ulsLrlcL of
Lanao del norLe.
" Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons n/a
" Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class n/a
Lerms of Lhelr capablllLy Lo
change Lhe ouLcome of Lhe
resulLs or Lhe manner of re-
examlnaLlon belng requesLed.
40. CSlS v.
MonLescarlos

C.8. no.
146494

!uly 14, 2004
lAC1S:
Sanggunlang 8ayan member nlcolas
MonLescarlos marrled Mllagros on !uly 10, 1983.
nlcolas laLer dled. Mllagros flled for survlvorshlp
penslon under D1146.
CSlS denled lL because Lhe marrlage Lo Lhe
pensloner should have been conLracLed more
Lhan 3 years before Lhe pensloner quallfled for
Lhe penslon. 1helr marrlage was less Lhan one
Some sLaLuLes on penslon have a perlod requlremenL for
marrlage ln order Lo prevenL sham marrlages for moneLary
galn, Lhe llllnols enslon Code ls one such example. Accordlng
Lo Sneddon v. 1he SLaLe Lmployee's 8eLlremenL SysLem of
llllnols, such classlflcaLlon (llllnols enslon Code) was based
on dlfference ln slLuaLlon and clrcumsLance, bore a raLlonal
relaLlon Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe, and was Lherefore noL
ln vlolaLlon of consLlLuLlonal guaranLees of due process and
equal proLecLlon
lL lumps all marrlages conLracLed
wlLhln Lhree years before Lhe
pensloner quallfled for penslon as
havlng been conLracLed prlmarlly
for flnanclal convenlence Lo avall
of penslon beneflLs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
year from nlcolas' daLe of reLlremenL on leb. 17,
1984.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe provlso regardlng Lhe 3-year
wlndow ls vlolaLlve of LC.

PLLu:
LS. 1here ls no reasonable connecLlon beLween
Lhe means employed and Lhe purpose lnLended
by Lhe law.
1he provlso does noL saLlsfy Lhe requlremenLs. lL
dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL dependenL spouses who conLracL
marrlage Lo a pensloner wlLhln 3 years before Lhe pensloner
quallfles for Lhe penslon. 1he ob[ecL of Lhe prohlblLlon ls
vague. 1here ls no reasonable connecLlon beLween Lhe means
employed and Lhe purpose lnLended. lf Lhe reason ls Lo
prevenL deaLhbed marrlages", Lhe SC does noL see why Lhe
provlso reckons Lhe 3 year prohlblLlon from Lhe daLe Lhe
pensloner quallfled for penslon and noL from Lhe daLe Lhe
pensloner dled.
lL also does noL resL on subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons. lL lumps all
marrlages conLracLed wlLhln 3 years before Lhe pensloner
quallfled as havlng been conLracLed for moneLary galn. lL ls
dlscrlmlnaLory and arblLrary.
41. ln re 8equesL
of AsslsLanL
CourL
AdmlnlsLraLors

A.M. no. 03-
10-03-SC

CcLober 1,
2004
lAC1S:
1he AssoclaLe Clerk of CourLs (ACC), ulvlslon Clerk
of CourLs (uCC), and Lhe AsslsLanL CourL
AdmlnlsLraLor (ACA) were glven Lhe rank, salary,
and prlvlleges of a resldlng !uuCL of Lhe C1A
(equlvalenL Lo an AssoclaLe !usLlce of Lhe CA).
Sec. 2, kA9227 was passed whlch granLed
speclal allowances equlvalenL Lo 100 of Lhe
baslc monLhly salary speclfled for Lhelr respecLlve
salary grades" Lo all [usLlces, [udges and all oLher
poslLlons ln Lhe !udlclary wlLh Lhe equlvalenL rank
of [usLlces of Lhe CourL of Appeals and [udges of
Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL."
Cne of Lhe peLlLlons here ls by Lhe CA ACCs and
lLs sevenLeen uCCs, as well as Lhe flve S8 uCCs,
who seek Lhelr lncluslon ln Lhe coverage of Lhls
law.
k.A. No. 9282, an acL elevaLlng Lhe CourL of 1ax
AlLhough, Lhese poslLlons are noL expressly lncluded as Lhose
LhaL are granLed Speclal Allowance, Lhey musL be accorded
Lhe same ln Lhe lnLeresL of equal proLecLlon.
1hls CourL falls Lo see any reasonable basls for Lhe excluslon
of Lhe sub[ecL poslLlons from Lhe coverage of k.A. No. 9227,
slnce Lhe obvlous lnLenL of Lhe law ls Lo aLLracL quallfled
clLlzens Lo serve ln Lhe hlghesL echelons of Lhe !udlclary.
1he law no doubL covers Lhen C1A "resldlng !udge," as well
as Me1C [udges - "[udges" ln Sect|on 2, k.A. No. 9227 havlng
been used ln lLs generlc sense. noLably, however, Lhe
classlflcaLlon drawn lncludes, as a rule, Lhose wlLh equlvalenL
rank ln Lhe !udlclary excepL Lhose wlLh Lhe equlvalenL rank of
Lhe C1A "resldlng !udge" or Me1C [udges.
AlLhough holders of poslLlons wlLh equlvalenL [udlclal rank do
noL perform Lhe same funcLlons as [usLlces and [udges, Lhe
confermenL of such rank ls recognlLlon of Lhe subsLanLlal
equallLy ln Lhe roles Lhey play ln Lhe !udlclary vls-a-vls [usLlces
and [udges.
lf dlfferenL poslLlons are
conferred Lhe same rank, Lhe
subsLanLlal equallLy ln Lhelr roles
ls recognlzed even lf Lhey
perform dlfferenL funcLlons. ln
Lerms of beneflLs and prlvlleges,
Lhey musL be LreaLed allke.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Appeals Lo Lhe level of a ColleglaLe CourL, was
passed. lL gave Lhe !usLlce and Lhe !udges Lhere
Lhe same salary and beneflLs as presldlng !usLlce
and AssoclaLe !usLlces of Lhe CourL of Appeals.
Several ACAs soughL Lhe same upgradlng of Lhelr
salarles Lo Lhose of a resldlng !uS1lCL of Lhe
C1A.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 2 of kA 9227 vlolaLes equal
proLecLlon clause, and lf so, are Lhe ACAs enLlLled
Lo Lhe Speclal Allowance granLed by k.A. No.
9227

PLLu:
LS. lL ls vlolaLlve of equal proLecLlon and hence
Lhey are enLlLled Lo speclal allowance by
exLendlng Lhe coverage of Lhe sLaLuLe.

8y excludlng poslLlons equlvalenL ln rank Lo Lhe C1A
"resldlng !udge" and a Me1C [udge, Lhe classlflcaLlon drawn
by k.A. No. 9227 does noL lnclude all Lhose ldenLlcally or
analogously slLuaLed.
Clearly, Lhere ls no problem ln granLlng Lhe ACC and uCCs of
Lhe CA and Lhe LxecuLlve CCCs of Lhe S8 speclal/dlsLorLlon
allowances equlvalenL Lo LhaL of Me1C [udges. Cf course, as a
maLLer of falrness, pollcy and pracLlcallLy Lhe allowances
should be exLended only Lo offlcers who have Lhe
quallflcaLlons of an Me1C [udge.
lor Lhe ACAs, obvlously, Lhey cannoL be accorded an
allowance equlvalenL Lo LhaL granLed Lhe CA resldlng !usLlce,
for LhaL ls also Lhe allowance Lo be recelved by Lhe CCA and
LhaL ls hlgher Lhan whaL Lhe uCAs wlll recelve whlch ls
equlvalenL Lo Lhe allowance of an AssoclaLe !usLlce of Lhe CA.
lor Lhe same reason, Lhey cannoL be exLended Lhe allowance
of an AssoclaLe !usLlce of Lhe CA. under Lhe clrcumsLances,
granLlng Lhe ACAs Lhe allowance of an 81C [udge wlLh Lhe
hlghesL earned lncremenL would be falr and reasonable.
42. CenLral 8ank
Lmployees
Assn' v.
8angko SenLral
ng lllplnas

C.8. no.
148208
lAC1S:
kA76S3 was passed. lL creaLed a compensaLlon
sLrucLure LhaL wlll conform as closely as posslble
wlLh Lhe prlnclples provlded for under Lhe Sa|ary
Standard|zat|on Act (SSL), provlded LhaL Lhe
wage for Lhose whose poslLlon fall under Lhe
salary grade of 19 and below shall be ln
accordance wlLh Lhe raLes prescrlbed under
kA67S8."
eLlLloner asserLs LhaL Lhe provlso makes an
unconsLlLuLlonal cuL beLween 2 classes of
employees of Lhe 8S amounLlng Lo class
leglslaLlon based solely on Lhelr salary grade,
Cn lLs face, Lhe law would have been valld. Slnce Lhe
exempLlons of offlcers (SC20 and above) from Lhe SSL was
lnLended Lo address Lhe 8S's lack of compeLlLlveness ln
Lerms of aLLracLlng compeLenL offlcers and execuLlves.
8uL Lhe enacLmenL of subsequenL laws exempLlng all oLher
rank-and-flle employees of Clls from Lhe SSL, renders Lhe
conLlnued appllcaLlon of Lhe challenged provlslon a vlolaLlon
of Lhe LC.
ConcepL of 8elaLlve ConsLlLuLlonallLy - A sLaLuLe valld aL one
Llme may become vold aL anoLher Llme because of alLered or
slgnlflcanL changes ln clrcumsLances.
1hese subsequenL charLers of Lhe 7 oLher Clls share a blankeL
exempLlon of all Lhelr employees from coverage of Lhe SSL.
ConcepL of relaLlve
consLlLuLlonallLy.

ulfferenL classlflcaLlons of
employees ln Lerms of Lhelr wage
sLrucLures vlolaLe Lhe LC lf no
dlsLlncLlon ls shown beLween
groups.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
whlch ls noL a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lasL paragraph of Sec.1S(c),
Art. II of kA76S3 vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
LS. lL pre[udlces Lhe rank-and-flle employees of
Lhe 8S who are no dlfferenL from rank-and-flle
employees of oLher corporaLlons whose same
employees en[oy excepLlon from Lhe SSL.
And slnce Lhere's no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon so as Lo
dlfferenLlaLe Lhe 8S rank-and-flle employees from Lhe oLhers
of Lhe seven Clls who en[oy Lhe exempLlon, Lhere ls a breach
of Lhe former's rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.

43. Mlrasol v.
uWP
lAC1S:
ursuanL Lo kA2000, uWP lssued DC21S whlch
declared Lhe Manlla-CavlLe CoasLal 8oad as
llmlLed access faclllLles.
uWP lssued oLher orders provldlng for a LoLal
ban of moLorcycles along Lhe CoasLal 8oad.
eLlLloners soughL a prellmlnary ln[uncLlon Lo
prevenL uWP from enforclng Lhls.
uWP Lhen came up wlLh DC123 whlch provlded
LhaL moLorcycles wlLh englne dlsplacemenL of 400
cublc cenLlmeLers would be allowed lnslde Lhe
llmlLed access faclllLles.
1hls order was also quesLloned as
unconsLlLuLlonal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL AC1 and DC123 are
unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
Ak1IALL LS. AC1 valld, DC123 lnvalld.
lor AC1:
We flnd LhaL AC 1 does noL lmpose unreasonable resLrlcLlons.
lL merely ouLllnes several precauLlonary measures, Lo whlch
Loll way users musL adhere. 1hese rules were deslgned Lo
ensure publlc safeLy and Lhe unlnhlblLed flow of Lrafflc wlLhln
llmlLed access faclllLles. A Loll way ls noL an ordlnary road. 1he
speclal purpose for whlch a Loll way ls consLrucLed
necesslLaLes Lhe lmposlLlon of guldellnes ln Lhe manner of lLs
use and operaLlon. lnevlLably, such rules wlll resLrlcL cerLaln
rlghLs. 8uL Lhe mere facL LhaL cerLaln rlghLs are resLrlcLed
does noL lnvalldaLe Lhe rules.
lurLhermore, peLlLloner's conLenLlon LhaL AC1 unreasonable
slngles ouL moLorcycles ls speclous. 1o begln wlLh,
classlflcaLlon by lLself ls noL prohlblLed. 1here are real and
subsLanLlal dlfferences exlsL beLween a moLorcycle and oLher
forms of LransporL sufflclenL Lo [usLlfy lLs classlflcaLlon among
Lhose prohlblLed from plylng Lhe Loll ways.
lor DC123:
We need noL pass upon Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
classlflcaLlon of moLorcycles under DC123. As prevlously
dlscussed, Lhe uWP has no auLhorlLy Lo regulaLe llmlLed
beLween moLorcycles and oLher
vehlcles ln Lerms of make-up,
bulld and rlsk of danger.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
access hlghways slnce LCS46 has devolved Lhls funcLlon Lo
Lhe uC1C. 1hus, DC123 ls vold for wanL of auLhorlLy of Lhe
uWP Lo promulgaLe lL.
44. ln re 8equesL
of ACA

493 SC8A 432
lAC1S:
Cn CcLober 1, 2004, Lhe SC lssued a clarlflcaLlon
abouL Lhe exLenslon of kA9227 Lo ACCs, uCCs,
and ACAs.
now, some CA 8eporLer ll's and some LxecuLlve
Clerk of CourL (LCC) lll of Lhe C1A made a slmllar
requesL Lo be lncluded.
llscal ManagemenL and 8udgeL Cfflce (lMC8)
soughL clarlflcaLlon regardlng Lhe resoluLlon,
saylng LhaL ACCs, uCCs, and ACAs should acLually
be recelvlng less Lhan whaL Lhe lM8C had
unlformly lmplemenLed, whlch was 23 of Salary
Crade 30 - Lhls ls because Lhe 8esoluLlon orders
ACAs be glven Lhe same as 81C [udges.

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhere ls merlL Lo Lhe concerns expressed
by Lhe lM8C and Lhe CCA1 of dlmlnuLlon of
salarles and beneflLs and dlsLorLlon ln Lhe [udlclal
hlerarchy.

PLLu:
LS. 1here ls a need Lo revlew and clarlfy Lhe rank
of ACAs and oLhers wlLh equlvalenL rank of C1A
resldlng !udge (ACC and uCCs), ln vlew of Lhe
abollLlon of Lhe poslLlon of C1A resldlng !udge
under kA 9282.
We cannoL dlscounL Lhe facL LhaL Lhe law accords Lhe uCAs
and Lhe ACAs Lhe same SC 30 desplLe Lhe dlfference ln Lhelr
rank and funcLlons.
Sec. 2 of k.A. No. 9227 clearly provldes LhaL Lhe concerned
offlclals shall be granLed speclal allowances equlvalenL Lo
100 of Lhe baslc monLhly salary speclfled for Lhelr
respecLlve salary grades under Lhe Sa|ary Standard|zat|on
Law. under Lhe 1 CcLober 2004 8esoluLlon, lL was held LhaL
Lhe ACAs cannoL be accorded an allowance equlvalenL Lo LhaL
granLed Lhe CA resldlng !usLlce (who has SC 31), for LhaL ls
Lhe allowance Lo be recelved by Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor (who
has a rank equlvalenL Lo a CA resldlng !usLlce and SC 31),
and LhaL ls also hlgher Lhan whaL Lhe uCAs wlll recelve, whlch
ls equlvalenL Lo Lhe allowance of a CA AssoclaLe !usLlce.
Powever, by Lhe concepL of vesLed rlghL, ACAs can be granLed
a speclal allowance compuLed on Lhe basls of Lhelr salary
grade whlch ls SC 30. A vesLed rlghL" ls one whlch ls
absoluLe, compleLe, and uncondlLlonal, Lhe exerclse of whlch
no obsLacle exlsLs, and whlch ls lmmedlaLe and perfecL ln
lLself and noL dependenL upon a conLlngency.
lL cannoL be denled Lhen LhaL Lhese concerned offlclals have
acqulred a rlghL Lo Lhe amounL of speclal allowance
compuLed on Lhe basls of Lhelr acLual baslc monLhly salary, by
vlrLue of Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe law. CranLlng Lhem an
allowance lower Lhan Lhelr acLual baslc monLhly salary would
even consLlLuLe a vlolaLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon
agalnsL dlmlnuLlon of Lhelr salarles and beneflLs.
1here ls no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon
Lo [usLlfy excluslon - Lhe law
recognlzes Lhe subsLanLlal
equallLy ln Lhe roles Lhey play ln
Lhe !udlclary.
4S. ulmayuga v.
CM8
lAC1S:
eLlLloners were employees of Lhe 1rafflc
1he CourL malnLalns a pollcy of non-lnLerference wlLh Lhe
vlrLually unllmlLed lnvesLlgaLory and prosecuLorlal powers of
1he Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman
has Lhe sole dlscreLlon of
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
129099

!uly 20, 2006
8egulaLory 8oard. 8ased on an anonymous
complalnL, several lrregularlLles ln LransacLlons
Lhey handled were uncovered by Lhe Speclal
AudlL Cfflce (SAC) reporL.
1hey were charged wlLh vlolaLlon of kA3019.
1hey quesLloned Lhe SAC reporL and peLlLloned
Lhe Cmbudsman Lo halL prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon
pendlng Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe reporL, ln
accordance wlLh CCA v. Cabor.
Cmbudsman denled Lhelr peLlLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Cmbudsman vlolaLed Lhelr rlghL
Lo LC when respondenL Cmbudsman dld noL
afford Lhe peLlLloners Lhe rellef glven ln Lhe CCA
vs. Cabor.

PLLu:
NC. Cmbudsman's plenary power Lo conducL Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon ls upheld.

Lhe Cmbudsman as granLed Lo hlm by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
AlLhough Lhe Commlsslon on AudlL reporL may ald Lhe
Cmbudsman ln conducLlng Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon, lL ls
noL a pre-requlslLe. 1herefore, Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon charges ln
Lhe complalnL flled by Lhe Speclal AudlL Cfflce agalnsL Lhe
peLlLloners are nC1 premaLure.
Cnly grave abuse of dlscreLlon can lmpede Lhe oLherwlse
plenary powers of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, and slnce lLs
varlous approaches ln handllng slmllar cases depends upon lLs
sole dlscreLlon, lL cannoL be sald LhaL peLlLloners were
deprlved of Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws.
wheLher or noL Lo pursue
prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon and
furLher proceedlngs ln cases lL
handles
46. ?rasuegl v. AL

C.8. no.
168081
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was a fllghL sLeward wlLh AL. Pe was
glven several leaves ln order Lo flx hls welghL
problem ln accordance wlLh Cabln and Crew
AdmlnlsLraLlon Manual of AL. AfLer several
chances, he was ulLlmaLely dlsmlssed.
Pe flled a complalnL for lllegal dlsmlssal, alleglng
LhaL hls rlghLs Lo equal proLecLlon was vlolaLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere ls an lllegal dlsmlssal
" SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - AL had no subsLanLlal case of
dlscrlmlnaLlon Lo meeL.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - rlmary ob[ecLlve of welghL sLandards
of Lhe cabln crew ls fllghL safeLy. Common carrlers are bound
Lo observe exLraordlnary dlllgence for Lhe safeLy of Lhe
passengers lL LransporLs.
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - Lhe sLandards are based on
1he Cabln Crew AdmlnlsLraLlon Manual of AL.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - 1he welghL
sLandards of AL provlde for separaLe welghL llmlLaLlons
based on helghL and body frame for boLh male and female
Lven Lhough LC generally
applles only Lo sLaLuLes, lLs
prlnclples may be used Lo
deLermlne Lhe valldlLy of
company regulaLlons

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
amounLlng Lo vlolaLlon of Lhe LC.

PLLu:
NC. eLlLloner was legally dlsmlssed because he
repeaLedly falled Lo meeL Lhe prescrlbed welghL
sLandards.
cabln aLLendanLs. A progresslve dlsclpllne ls lmposed Lo allow
non-compllanL cabln aLLendanLs sufflclenL opporLunlLy Lo
meeL Lhe welghL sLandards. 1hus, Lhe clear-cuL rules obvlaLe
any posslblllLy for Lhe commlsslon of abuse or arblLrary acLlon
on Lhe parL of AL.
47. S!S v. ALlenza

C.8. no.
136032
lAC1S:
Manlla passed Crd|nance No. 8027 whlch
prohlblLed cerLaln gas sLaLlons from operaLlng ln
Lhe andacan 1ermlnals
Several oll companles quesLloned lLs
consLlLuLlonallLy.
1he Supreme CourL upheld Crd|nance 8027.
1hls ls a moLlon for reconslderaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Crd|nance 8027 ls lnvalld for
belng parLlal and dlscrlmlnaLory.

PLLu:
NC. lL ls nelLher parLlal nor dlscrlmlnaLory.

1here ls subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe gasollne sLaLlons and
oLher esLabllshmenLs LhaL necesslLaLes Lhe need for expelllng Lhem
from Lhe area. WhaL Lhe ClLy ls Lrylng Lo prevenL ls a caLasLrophlc
devasLaLlon arlslng from a LerrorlsL aLLack", and Lhe depoL ls a hlgh-
value LargeL. 1he exploslon and caLasLrophe LhaL may ensue ln Lhe
surroundlng commerclal communlLles would be graver and more
sLaggerlng lf Lhe gasollne sLaLlons remalned ln Lhe vlclnlLy. 1he
prohlblLlon lnsLllled by Crd|nance 8027 removes Lhe LhreaL Lhese
gasollne sLaLlons pose.
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween oll
companles (hlgh rlsk) and oLher
buslness enLlLles (less rlsk), hlgh-
rlsk areas v. low rlsk areas

48. Cobenclong v.
CA

C.8. no.
139883

March 31,
2008
lAC1S:
1he Lv8MC and Alvez Commerclal, lnc. planned
Lo buy a hemoanalyzer, and 2 unlLs of nebullzer
and one unlL parLlcle counLer.
ln Lhe CerLlflcaLlon of AccepLance LhaL Lngr.
!ocano and Supply Cfflcer lll 8abula slgned, Lhe
producLs were dellvered. A sales lnvolce and a
CCA lnspecLlon 8eporL also reflecLed LhaL Lhey
were dellvered. Powever, Lhey were noL.
Cobenclong and Lhe oLhers were charged wlLh
1he ConsLlLuLlon endowed Lhe Cmbudsman wlLh unlque
safeguards Lo ensure lmmunlLy from pollLlcal pressure.
Among Lhese sLaLuLory proLecLlons are flscal auLonomy, flxed
Lerm of offlce, and classlflcaLlon as an lmpeachable offlcer.
Moreover, Lhere are sLrlcLer safeguards for lmposlLlon of
prevenLlve suspenslon by Lhe Cmbudsman:
1. 1haL Lhe evldence of gullL ls sLrong, and
2. Any of Lhe followlng clrcumsLances are presenL -
a. 1he charge agalnsL such offlcer or employee
lnvolves dlshonesLy, oppresslon, or grave
1he Cmbudsman may lmpose
suspenslon Lo prevenL accused
publlc offlclals from commlLLlng
acLs LhaL would elLher affecL Lhe
case or Lhose LhaL could creaLe
more harm.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
falslfylng documenLs.
1he Cmbudsman senLenced Lhem Lo prevenLlve
suspenslon wlLhouL pay.
eLlLloners conLend LhaL kA6770, whlch
auLhorlzes Lhe Cmbudsman Lo lmpose a 6-monLh
prevenLlve suspenslon, lnsLead of Lhe clvll servlce
provlslons of Lhe Adm|n|strat|ve Code, whlch
llmlLs Lhe dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy's prerogaLlve Lo
only lmposlng a prevenLlve suspenslon for a
perlod noL exceedlng 90 days, vlolaLes Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA6770 vlolaLes Lhe LC

PLLu:
NC. 1here ls a subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe
prevenLlve suspenslon handed down by Lhe
Cmbudsman and Lhose lmposed by execuLlve
offlclals.

mlsconducL or neglecL ln Lhe performance of
duLy,
b. 1he charges would warranL removal from Lhe
servlce, or
c. 1he respondenL's conLlnued sLay ln offlce
may pre[udlce Lhe case flled agalnsL hlm.
49. MlAA v.
Clongapo

C.8. no.
161117

!anuary 31,
2008
lAC1S:
Clongapo MalnLenance Servlces, lnc. (CMSl) and
1rlple Crown Servlces, lnc. (1CSl) had a conLracL
for [anlLorlal and malnLenance servlce wlLh MlAA.
1helr conLracL was noL renewed. 1he Ceneral
Manager of MlAA declded Lo slmply negoLlaLe
wlLh oLher companles, lnsLead of blddlng.
CMSl and 1CSl challenged Lhe conLracLs enLered
lnLo for vlolaLlng Lhelr rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a vlolaLlon of Lhe LC
1he rlghLs of CMSl and 1CSl was vlolaLed when no publlc
blddlng was called, preclsely because MlAA was golng Lo
award Lhe sub[ecL servlce conLracLs Lhrough negoLlaLlon.
Worse, MlAA's acLs were arblLrary and dlscrlmlnaLory as Lhey
noL only dld noL call for Lhe requlred publlc blddlng buL also
dldn'L even accord CMSl and 1CSl Lhe opporLunlLy Lo submlL
Lhelr proposals ln a publlc blddlng (Lhey only goL a reply LhaL
Lhelr conLracLs would noL be renewed).
1he courL can granL Lhe prayer for an order dlrecLlng a publlc
blddlng buL such acLlon was already foreclosed by Lhe
declslon of Lhe MlAA noL Lo hlre any servlce conLracLor.
lnvalld LermlnaLlon of conLracL
and no publlc blddlng can vlolaLe
Lhe rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
LS. 1he LC was vlolaLed Lhe momenL no publlc
blddlng was called for.

S0. nlcolas v.
8omulo

C.8. no.
173888

lebruary 11,
2009
lAC1S:
SmlLh ls a member of Lhe unlLed SLaLes Armed
lorces. Pe was charged wlLh Lhe crlme of rape
agalnsL nlcolas. ursuanL Lo Lhe vlA, Lhe unlLed
SLaLes was granLed cusLody of defendanL SmlLh
pendlng Lhe proceedlngs.
LvenLually, Lhe 81C found SmlLh gullLy. Pe ls Lo
serve hls senLence ln Lhe faclllLles LhaL shall be
agreed upon pursuanL Lo Lhe vlA. endlng
agreemenL on such faclllLles, accused ls
Lemporarlly commlLLed Lo Lhe MakaLl ClLy !all.
Powever, defendanL was broughL Lo a faclllLy for
deLenLlon under Lhe conLrol of Lhe unlLed SLaLes,
provlded for under Lhe 8omulo-kenney
AgreemenL.
eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe hlllpplnes should
have cusLody of SmlLh because lf Lhey would
allow such Lransfer of cusLody of an accused Lo a
forelgn power ls Lo provlde for a dlfferenL rule of
procedure for LhaL accused. 1he equal proLecLlon
clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon ls also vlolaLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause.

PLLu:
1he rule ln lnLernaLlonal law ls LhaL a forelgn armed forces
allowed Lo enLer one's LerrlLory ls lmmune from local
[urlsdlcLlon, excepL Lo Lhe exLenL agreed upon.
Applylng, however, Lhe provlslons of vlA, Lhe CourL flnds LhaL
Lhere ls a dlfferenL LreaLmenL when lL comes Lo deLenLlon as
agalnsL cusLody.
lL ls clear LhaL Lhe parLles Lo Lhe vlA recognlzed Lhe
dlfference beLween cusLody durlng Lhe Lrlal and deLenLlon
afLer convlcLlon, because Lhey provlded for a speclflc
arrangemenL Lo cover deLenLlon. And Lhls speclflc
arrangemenL clearly sLaLes noL only LhaL Lhe deLenLlon shall
be carrled ouL ln faclllLles agreed on by auLhorlLles of boLh
parLles, buL also LhaL Lhe deLenLlon shall be "by hlllpplne
auLhorlLles." 1herefore, Lhe 8omulo-kenney AgreemenLs of
uecember 19 and 22, 2006, whlch are agreemenLs on Lhe
deLenLlon of Lhe accused ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes Lmbassy, are
noL ln accord wlLh Lhe vlA lLself because such deLenLlon ls
noL "by hlllpplne auLhorlLles."
8espondenLs should Lherefore comply wlLh Lhe vlA and
negoLlaLe wlLh represenLaLlves of Lhe unlLed SLaLes Lowards
an agreemenL on deLenLlon faclllLles under hlllpplne
auLhorlLles as mandaLed by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VIA.
1here ls subsLanLlal basls for
dlfferenL LreaLmenL of a member
of a forelgn mlllLary armed forces
allowed Lo enLer our LerrlLory and
all oLher accused.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
NC. 1here ls a subsLanLlal basls for a dlfferenL
LreaLmenL of a member of a forelgn mlllLary
armed forces allowed Lo enLer our LerrlLory and
all oLher accused

S1. Serrano v.
CallanL

C.8. no.
167614
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was hlred by respondenL under a
CLA-approved ConLracL of LmploymenL. 8uL he
was forced Lo slgn a downgraded conLracL under
a promlse LhaL he wlll be promoLed Lo Lhe
poslLlon orlglnally offered Lo hlm.
When promlse dldn'L occur, he refused Lo sLay
on. Pe flled a complalnL for consLrucLlve dlsmlssal
and paymenL.
Labor ArblLer ruled for peLlLloner. Cn appeal wlLh
Lhe nL8C, Lhey reduced Lhe money clalm
accordlng Lo kA 8042.
eLlLloner challenges Sec. 10, kA 8042 for
vlolaLlng Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 10, k.A. 8042 ls
unconsLlLuLlonal for vlolaLlng LC.

PLLu:
LS. no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween ClWs
who are employed for more Lhan 1 year versus
Lhose who are employed for less Lhan 1 year.

Cn a faclal level, provlslon ls neuLral. Powever, applylng Lhe 3rd level
of [udlclal scruLlny, CourL flnds challenged provlslon dlscrlmlnaLory ln
Lwo levels:
Cn Lhe flrsL level, Lhere ls a dlsparlLy beLween ClWs wlLh
employmenL conLracLs of less Lhan one year compared Lo
ClWs wlLh employmenL conLracLs of one year or more: Lhe
former are enLlLled Lo Lhelr salarles for Lhe enLlre unexplred
porLlon of Lhelr conLracL, Lhe laLLer enLlLled Lo a moneLary
award equlvalenL Lo only 3 monLhs of Lhe unexplred porLlon
of Lhelr conLracLs. Powever, prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of k.A.
No. 8042, lllegally dlsmlssed ClWs, no maLLer how long Lhe
perlod of Lhelr employmenL conLracLs, were enLlLled Lo Lhelr
salarles for Lhe enLlre unexplred porLlons of Lhelr conLracLs
Cn Lhe second level,Lhe CourL found LhaL prlor Lo Lhe
enacLmenL of k.A. No. 8042, ClWs and local workers wlLh
flxed-Lerm employmenL who were lllegally dlscharged were
LreaLed allke ln Lerms of Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhelr money
clalms. upon Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe sub[ecL clause, lllegally
dlsmlssed ClWs wlLh an unexplred porLlon of 1 year or more
were sub[ecLed Lo a 3-monLh cap ln Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhelr
money clalms whlle LCCAL WC8kL8S WL8L nC1
1he CourL concludes LhaL Lhe sub[ecL clause conLalns a suspecL
classlflcaLlon ln LhaL, ln Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhe moneLary beneflLs of
flxed-Lerm employees who are lllegally dlscharged, lL lmposes a 3-
monLh cap on Lhe clalm of ClWs wlLh an unexplred porLlon of one
year or more ln Lhelr conLracLs, buL none on Lhe clalms of oLher ClWs
or local workers wlLh flxed-Lerm employmenL. 1he sub[ecL clause
3 levels of sLrlcL [udlclal scruLlny
(see dlgesL), no subsLanLlal
dlsLlncLlon beLween ClWs who
are employed for more Lhan 1
year v. Lhose who are employed
for less Lhan 1 year.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
slngles ouL one classlflcaLlon of ClWs and burdens lL wlLh a pecullar
dlsadvanLage.
1here belng a suspecL classlflcaLlon lnvolvlng a vulnerable
secLor proLecLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, Lhe CourL now sub[ecLs
Lhe classlflcaLlon Lo a sLrlcL [udlclal scruLlny, and deLermlnes
wheLher lL serves a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL Lhrough Lhe
leasL resLrlcLlve means.
S2. eople v. SlLon

C.8. no.
169364

SepLember 18,
2009
lAC1S:
eLlLloners were found wanderlng and lolLerlng
around San edro and and Legaspl SLreeLs, uavo
clLy, wlLhouL any vlslble means Lo supporL
Lhemselves nor lawful and [usLlflable purpose.
AfLer prlor survelllance, Lhey were charged wlLh
vagrancy under Art. 202(2) of the kC.
1hey clalm LhaL Art. 202(2) vlolaLes Lhe LC by
dlscrlmlnaLlng agalnsL Lhe poor and unemployed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Art 202(2) vlolaLes Lhe Lqual
roLecLlon Clause

PLLu:
NC. Cffenders are punlshed noL for Lhelr sLaLus,
buL for conducLlng Lhemselves under such
clrcumsLances as Lo endanger Lhe publlc peace or
cause alarm and apprehenslon ln Lhe communlLy.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - Law punlshes noL Lhe sLaLus buL Lhe
conducL
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - Law seeks Lo quell clrcumsLances LhaL
would endanger publlc peace, malnLaln morallLy and susLaln
decency. 1he sLreeLs musL be made safe once more. 1hough
a man's house ls hls casLle, ouLslde on Lhe sLreeLs, Lhe klng ls
falr game. 1he dangerous sLreeLs musL surrender Lo orderly
socleLy"
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - Slngles ouL noL a group
ldenLlfled by sLaLus buL by conducL, Lherefore lL ls Lhe
conducL, whlch glves rlse Lo Lhe classlflcaLlon and ls Lhus
appllcable Lo presenL and fuLure slLuaLlons.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - All vlolaLors of
Lhe Abuse of 8lghL docLrlne connecLed wlLh Lhe vagrancy law
are punlshed equally and are LreaLed Lo Lhe same procedure,
survelllance and deLermlnaLlon of probable cause lncluded.
enal sLaLuLes do noL go agalnsL
Lhe LC as Lhey do noL punlsh
people for who Lhey are, raLher,
whaL ls punlshed ls whaL Lhey do
or how Lhey conducL Lhemselves.
S3. League of
ClLles v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
lAC1S:
uurlng Lhe 11
Lh
Congress, 37 clLyhood bllls were
pendlng buL noL all were noL acLed upon.
When Lhe 12
Lh
Congress convened, kA9009 was
passed whlch lncreased Lhe lncome requlremenL
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he 16 respondenL LCus had
pendlng clLyhood bllls before Lhe passage of kA 9009. AL LhaL
Llme, Lhey meL Lhe lncome crlLerlon under Lhe LGC of 1991.
1he sald 24 bllls whlch were Lhen pendlng afLerwards were
noL enacLed due Lo lnLervenlng evenLs (lmpeachmenL of Lrap
valld dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhose
who fulfllled Lhe requlremenLs
and applled under Lhe clLyhood
laws prlor Lo Lhe change of
quallflcaLlons, and Lhose who
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
176931

uecember 21,
2009
for munlclpallLles Lo become clLles from 20-M Lo
100-M.
A [olnL resoluLlon soughL Lo exempL 24 of Lhe
munlclpallLles from Lhe lncome requlremenL of
kA9009, buL Lhls was noL acLed upon because of
exLenuaLlng clrcumsLances. lnsLead, 16
munlclpallLles flled lndlvldual clLyhood bllls, and
Lhese were passed lnLo law.
1he League of ClLles assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
Lhe clLyhood laws for belng vlolaLlve of LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe laws vlolaLe Lhe LC.

PLLu:
No. the treatment g|ven to the 16 mun|c|pa||t|es
rests on substant|a| d|st|nct|on.

and Lhe May 2001 elecLlons) noL ln Lhelr conLrol. 1lme [usL
ran ouL for Lhem.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law -1he exempLlon of Lhe respondenL
LCus was meanL Lo reduce Lhe lnequallLy occasloned by Lhe
passage of kA 9009. 1hey were parL of Lhe orlglnal 37
converslon bllls flled ln Lhe 11
Lh
Congress. Cnly 33 became
laws due Lo some evenLs. 1helr exempLlon ls Lo ensure
falrness and [usLlce.
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - lL ls lnLended Lo apply for
all Llme, as long as correspondlng clLyhood bllls were flled
before Lhe effecLlvlLy of kA9009 and LhaL Lhey quallfled under
Lhe orlglnal verslon of Sec. 4S0 of LGC of 1991.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - lnLended Lo
apply Lo Lhe 16 LCus who were parL of Lhe 37 who were
slmllarly slLuaLed.
flled afLer Lhe change of Lhe
quallflcaLlons

S4. CulnLo v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
189698
lAC1S:
Sec. 1S of kA 9369 amended kA 8436 provldlng
LhaL persons holdlng publlc ACln1lvL
poslLlons shall be lpso facLo reslgned from hls
offlce aL Lhe sLarL of Lhe day of Lhe flllng of hls or
her candldacy.
eLlLloners are appolnLlve publlc offlclals who
quesLlon Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec. 1S.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe law ls unconsLlLuLlonal for
vlolaLlng Lhe LC.

PLLu:
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon -LlecLed offlclals occupy Lhelr offlce by
vlrLue of Lhe mandaLe of Lhe elecLoraLe. Cn Lhe oLher hand,
appolnLlve offlclals hold Lhelr offlce by vlrLue of Lhelr
deslgnaLlon LhereLo by an appolnLlng auLhorlLy. AnoLher
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon ls LhaL offlcers and employees ln Lhe
clvll servlce, are sLrlcLly prohlblLed from engaglng ln any
parLlsan pollLlcal acLlvlLy or Lake parL ln any elecLlon excepL Lo
voLe.under Lhe same provlslon, elecLlve offlclals, or offlcers
or employees holdlng pollLlcal offlces, are obvlously expressly
allowed Lo Lake parL ln pollLlcal and elecLoral acLlvlLles.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law - 1he obvlous reason for Lhe challenged
provlslon ls Lo prevenL Lhe use of a governmenLal poslLlon Lo
promoLe one's candldacy, or even Lo wleld a dangerous or
coerclve lnfluence on Lhe elecLoraLe. 1he measure ls furLher
beLween appolnLlve and elecLed
offlclals. 1he former hold Lhe
offlce by deslgnaLlon, Lhe oLher
by Lhe mandaLe of Lhe elecLoraLe.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
NC. 1here ls Lhus no valld [usLlflcaLlon Lo LreaL
appolnLlve offlclals dlfferenLly from Lhe elecLlve
ones.
almed aL promoLlng Lhe efflclency, lnLegrlLy, and dlsclpllne of
Lhe publlc servlce. Clarlngly absenL ls Lhe requlslLe LhaL Lhe
classlflcaLlon musL be germane Lo Lhe purposes of Lhe law.
lndeed, wheLher one holds an appolnLlve offlce or an elecLlve
one, Lhe evlls soughL Lo be prevenLed by Lhe measure remaln.
SS. C8L8A v.
8omulo

C.8. no.
160736

March 9, 2010
lAC1S:
Sec. 27e of kA8424 and lLs lmplemenLlng rules
and regulaLlons lmposed a CredlLable
WlLhholdlng 1ax on sales of real esLaLe
properLles.
Chamber of 8eal LsLaLe and 8ullder's AssoclaLlon
clalmed LhaL lL vlolaLed Lhe LC because CW1 ls
belng levled only on real esLaLe enLerprlses,
whereas manufacLurlng enLerprlses are noL,
desplLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhe laLLer are noL much
dlfferenL from real esLaLe.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lL vlolaLed Lhe LC

PLLu:
NC. 8eal esLaLe lndusLry ls, by lLself, a class and
can be valldly LreaLed dlfferenLly from oLher
buslness enLerprlses.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - WhaL dlsLlngulshes Lhe Lwo
lndusLrles ls noL Lhelr producLlon processes buL Lhe prlces of
Lhelr goods sold and Lhe number of LransacLlons lnvolved.
1he lncome from Lhe sale of a real properLy ls blgger and lLs
frequency of LransacLlon llmlLed, maklng lL less cumbersome
for Lhe parLles Lo comply wlLh Lhe wlLhholdlng Lax scheme.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law -1o requlre Lhe cusLomers of
manufacLurlng enLerprlses, aL presenL, Lo wlLhhold Lhe Laxes
on each of Lhelr LransacLlons wlLh Lhelr Lens or hundreds of
suppllers may resulL ln an lnefflclenL and unmanageable
sysLem of LaxaLlon and may well defeaL Lhe purpose of Lhe
wlLhholdlng Lax sysLem.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - lL applles Lo all
real esLaLe companles equally.
When Lhe classlflcaLlon ls a whole
lndusLry (e.g. real esLaLe lndusLry
ls a class ln lLself slnce Lhe lLem
LhaL Lhey sell ls dlfferenL from
oLher buslnesses), lL ls noL
vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

S6. nC v.
lnaLubo

C.8. no.
176006
lAC1S:
nC lssued C|rcu|ar No. 99-7S whlch seL Lhe
guldellnes for who can bld ln nC's dlsposal of
scrap Alumlnum and ConducLor SLeel-8elnforced.
lL preferred manufacLurers and processors of
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - lf Lhe buyer were a manufacLurer,
Lhe scrap ACS8's end wlLh hlm uslng lL Lo make flnlshed
producLs, buL lf Lhe buyer were a Lrader, Lhere ls greaL chance
of Lhe purchased maLerlal passlng Lo anoLher Lrader and lL
may end up co-mlngled wlLh Lhose maLerlal already
SubsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon resellers of
alumlnum vls-a-vls manufacLurers

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

March 26,
2012
alumlnum scrap over dealers and Lraders.
lnaLubo Commerclal's appllcaLlon was re[ecLed
so, lL quesLloned Lhe Clrcular's consLlLuLlonallLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL C|rcu|ar No. 99-7S vlolaLes Lhe
LC.

PLLu:
NC. 1here was a valld classlflcaLlon.

prollferaLlng ln Lhe black markeL.
! Cermane 1o 1he Law -lL was Lhe lnLenL of nC Lo supporL
kA7832, whlch penallzes Lhe LhefL of ACS8s. 8y llmlLlng
bldders, lL can beLLer monlLor Lhe markeL of lLs scrap ACS8
and verlfy wheLher or noL a person's possesslon ls legal or
noL, and consequenLly, prosecuLe under kA7832.
S7. 8lraogo v. 1C

C.8. no.
192933

uecember 7,
2010
lAC1S:
resldenL 8enlgno Aqulno creaLed Lhe hlllpplne
1ruLh Commlsslon Lhrough Lxecut|ve Crder No. 1
1he Commlsslon's Lask ls Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe grafL
and corrupLlon allegedly commlLLed by Lhe
prevlous admlnlsLraLlon.
eLlLloner, as clLlzen, and oLher members of Lhe
Pouse of 8epresenLaLlve quesLlons lLs
consLlLuLlonallLy for vlolaLlng Lhe LC and for
usurplng Lhe auLhorlLy vesLed ln Lhe leglslaLure
for creaLlng publlc offlces.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL LC1 vlolaLes Lhe LC.

PLLu:
LS. lL slngles ouL Lhe prevlous admlnlsLraLlon,
whlch ls buL a member of a class.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he Arroyo AdmlnlsLraLlon ls only a
member of a class of pasL admlnlsLraLlons, lL ls noL a class of
lLs own. Such dlscrlmlnaLlng dlfferenLlaLlon clearly
reverberaLes Lo label Lhe commlsslon as a vehlcle for
vlndlcLlveness and selecLlve reLrlbuLlon."
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - lL does noL
lnclude pasL admlnlsLraLlons slmllarly slLuaLed. 1he facL LhaL
Sec. 17 provldes LhaL Lhe resldenL can expand Lhe mandaLe
of Lhe Commlsslon Lo lnclude oLher maLLers or
admlnlsLraLlons, does noL guaranLee LhaL lL wlll happen ln Lhe
fuLure. Such declslon wlll sLlll depend on Lhe whlm and
caprlce of Lhe resldenL.
1ruLh commlsslon LargeLs only
Lhe Arroyo admlnlsLraLlon, Lhere
ls no subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon

S8. League of
ClLles v.
lAC1S:
MoLlon for reconslderaLlon from earller case of
! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - 1he subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon does noL
lle on Lhe mere pendency of Lhelr clLyhood bllls durlng Lhe
Slnce Lhey already quallfled
before, lmposlng on Lhem a much
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
176931

lebruary 13,
2011
League of ClLles v. CCMLLLC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe laws vlolaLe Lhe LC.

PLLu:
No. the treatment g|ven to the 16 mun|c|pa||t|es
rests on substant|a| d|st|nct|on.

11
Lh
Congress. lL lles ln Lhe capaclLy and vlablllLy of
respondenL munlclpallLles Lo become componenL clLles of
Lhelr respecLlve provlnces. Congress, by enacLlng Lhe law,
recognlzed Lhls capaclLy and vlablllLy of respondenL
munlclpallLles Lo become Lhe SLaLe's parLners ln acceleraLlng
economlc growLh and developmenL ln Lhe provlnclal reglons,
whlch ls Lhe very LhrusL of Lhe LCC, manlfesLed by Lhe
pendency of Lhelr clLyhood bllls durlng Lhe 11
Lh
Congress and
Lhelr relenLless pursulL for clLyhood up Lo Lhe presenL.
blgger requlremenL due Lo
exLenuaLlng clrcumsLances would
be unfalr Lo Lhem.
S9. ACCC8 v. 8l8

C.8. no.
172087
lAC1S:
kA9337 was passed whlch, ln Sec. 1c, removed
ACCC8 from Lhe llsL of CCCC's granLed
exempLlon from paymenL of corporaLe lncome
Lax by kA8424.
ACCC8 assalls lL as vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 1c of kA9337 vlolaLes Lhe
LC.

PLLu:
No. It meets a|| requ|rements of LC.

1he dlscusslon of Lhe 8lcameral Conference MeeLlng of Lhe
CommlLLee on Ways on Means show LhaL even under k.A.
No. 8424, Lhe exempLlon of ACCC8 from paylng corporaLe
lncome Lax was noL based on a valld classlflcaLlon showlng
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlons whlch make for real dlfferences and
Lhe oLher requlremenLs of a reasonable classlflcaLlon. 8uL Lo
relLeraLe, Lhe exempLlon was granLed upon Lhe requesL of
ACCC8 LhaL lL be exempL from Lhe paymenL of corporaLe
lncome Lax.
As such, Lhls granL of exempLlon may be valldly wlLhdrawn by
leglslaLure.
LxempLlon from paymenL of Laxes
ls a prlvllege glven by
governmenL. WlLhdrawal of such
prlvllege on valld grounds does
noL consLlLuLe a vlolaLlon of Lhe
LC.
60. Cancayco v.
Cuezon ClLy

C.8. no.
177807
lAC1S:
ln 1936, before Lhere was a Nat|ona| 8u||d|ng
Code, Crd|nance 2904 was passed whlch requlred
Lhe properLy owner Lo consLrucL an arcade along
Lhelr properLles ln LuSA.
ln 1963, Cancayco soughL exempLlon from Lhe
Cancayco cannoL quesLlon Lhe ordlnance on Lhe ground of equal
proLecLlon when he also beneflLed from Lhe exempLlon.
?ou cannoL assall Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of a law on Lhe
grounds of LC because lL allows
exempLlon Lo some, lf you
yourself beneflLLed from Lhe
exempLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
appllcaLlon of Lhe ordlnance ln hls own properLy
and lL was granLed.
ln 2003, Lhe MMuA demollshed parL of hls
properLy whlch dld noL conform Lo Lhe arcade
speclflcaLlons of Lhe Nat|ona| 8u||d|ng Code ln
relaLlon Lo Crd|nance 2904.
Cancayco quesLlons Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
Crd|nance as vlolaLlve of Lhe LC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Cancayco can assall Lhe
ordlnance on Lhe grounds of LC because lL
allowed exempLlons from lLs appllcaLlons.

PLLu:
No, he |s estopped.
61. Mendoza v.
eople

C.8. no.
183891

CcL. 19, 2011
lAC1S:
Mendoza was convlcLed for falllng Lo remlL Lhe
SSS conLrlbuLlons of hls employees.
uurlng hls appeal ln 2007, he pald hls dellnquency
buL he was sLlll convlcLed by Lhe SC ln 2010.
ln 2010, kA 9903 was passed whlch allowed Lhe
wlLhdrawal of pendlng cases of employers who
would remlL Lhelr dellnquenL conLrlbuLlons Lo Lhe
SSS wlLhln 6 monLhs afLer Lhe law's effecLlvlLy.
Mendoza clalms he ls parL of Lhe law's coverage.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL denylng hlm coverage of Lhe law
vlolaLes hls rlghL Lo equal proLecLlon.
PLLu:
No. the |aw |s spec|f|c on |ts coverage.
Laws granLlng condonaLlon consLlLuLe an acL of benevolence
on Lhe governmenL's parL, Lhelr Lerms are sLrlcLly consLrued
agalnsL Lhe appllcanLs.
8A9903 creaLes 2 classlflcaLlons of employers dellnquenL ln
remlLLlng Lhelr employees' SSS conLrlbuLlons: 1. 1hose who
pay wlLhln 6 monLhs, and 2. 1hose who pay ouLslde of lL.
1he law's lnLenL ls Lo llmlL Lhe beneflL of condonaLlon Lo Lhe
1
sL
group. ln llmlLlng lLs appllcaLlon, leglslaLure refused Lo
allow a sweeplng condonaLlon Lo all dellnquenL employers.

8y paylng ouLslde of Lhe glven
perlod, peLlLloner placed hlmself
ouLslde Lhe coverage of Lhe law
and ls noL slmllarly slLuaLed as
laws granLlng condonaLlon are
acLs of benevolence and noL a
maLLer of rlghL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

62. 8ureau of
CusLoms v.
1eves

C.8. no.
181704

uecember 6,
2011
lAC1S:
resldenL CMA slgned kA933S lnLo law whlch
provlded rewards Lo 8l8 and 8CC offlclals and
employees who meeL Lhelr revenue LargeLs, and
sancLlons lf Lhey do noL.
1he law ls now assalled for belng vlolaLlve of Lhelr
rlghLs Lo securlLy of Lenure and equal proLecLlon
as Lhey are Lhe only agencles LargeLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL kA 933S and lLs l88 vlolaLe Lhe
rlghLs of Lhe employees Lo equal proLecLlon.

PLLu:
No. |t |s a va||d c|ass|f|cat|on.

! SubsLanLlal ulsLlncLlon - Lhe Law concerns only Lhe 8l8 and
Lhe 8CC because Lhey have Lhe common dlsLlncL prlmary
funcLlon of generaLlng revenues for Lhe naLlonal governmenL
Lhrough Lhe collecLlon of Laxes, cusLoms duLles, fees and
charges. 8evenue generaLed by oLher agencles are only
lncldenLal Lo Lhelr prlmary funcLlons.
" Cermane 1o 1he Law - Slnce Lhe purpose of kA NC. 933S ls
Lhe opLlmlzaLlon of Lhe revenue-generaLlon capablllLy and
collecLlon of Lhe 8l8 and Lhe 8CC, Lhe lncenLlves and/or
sancLlons provlded ln Lhe law should loglcally perLaln Lo Lhe
sald agencles.
! Appllcable 1o luLure CondlLlons - noL dlscussed.
! Applles Lqually 1o All Members Cf A Class - k.A. NC. 933S
covers all offlclals and employees of Lhe 8l8 and Lhe 8CC
(agencles sub[ecL Lo Lhe law) wlLh aL leasL slx monLhs of
servlce, regardless of employmenL sLaLus.
A rewards and sancLlon sysLem
LargeLed aL parLlcular agencles ls
noL vlolaLlve of Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause lf Lhere ls
subsLanLlal dlsLlncLlon ln Lhe
prlmary funcLlons beLween Lhe
LargeLed agencles and oLher
agencles.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

CASL 8ACkGkCUND CI 1nL CASL kA1IC NC1LS
IUDICIAL kCCLLDINGS: IN GLNLkAL
Ll 8lanco
Lspanol-
llllplno v.
vlcenLe
alanca

C.8. no. 11390

March 26,
1918
lAC1S:
lalnLlff foreclosed a morLgage on properLles of Lngraclo
alanca who had moved Lo Chlna. noLlce was glven Lhru
newspaper publlcaLlon and mall Lo Amoy, Chlna. uefendanL
or hls represenLaLlves dld noL appear ln courL. !udgmenL
rendered ln favor of plalnLlff. vlcenLe Lngraclo, admlnlsLraLor
of Lhe properLy, flled a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon 7 years
laLer, conLendlng LhaL Lhe courL dld noL acqulre [urlsdlcLlon.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CourL acqulred Lhe necessary [urlsdlcLlon
Lo enable lL Lo proceed wlLh Lhe foreclosure of Lhe morLgage.
WheLher or noL Lhe proceeds were conducLed ln such a
manner as Lo consLlLuLe due process of law.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he CourL acqulred Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo enable lL Lo
proceed wlLh Lhe foreclosure of Lhe morLgage and
proceedlngs were conducLed as Lo consLlLuLe due process of
law.
Iur|sd|ct|on over the person ls acqulred by Lhe vo|untary
appearance of a parLy |n court and h|s subm|ss|on to |ts
author|ty, or lL ls acqulred by Lhe coerc|ve power of |ega|
process exerLed over the person. Iur|sd|ct|on over the
property ls acqulred elLher Lhrough se|zure under |ega|
process or from Lhe |nst|tut|on of |ega| proceed|ngs whereln,
under speclal provlslons of Lhe law, Lhe power of Lhe CourL
over Lhe properLy ls recognlzed and made effecLlve.
As applled Lo [udlclal proceedlngs, due process of |aw |mp||es
that the 4 character|st|cs are present:
o CourL or 1rlbunal c|othed w|th [ud|c|a| power to hear
and determ|ne Lhe maLLer before lL.
o CourL or 1rlbunal must acqu|re [ur|sd|ct|on over Lhe
person of Lhe defendanL or Lhe properLy LhaL ls Lhe
sub[ecL of Lhe proceedlng.
o 1he defendanL must be g|ven an opportun|ty to be
heard.
o !udgmenL musL be rendered upon |awfu| hear|ng.
kequ|s|tes for Iud|c|a|
roceed|ngs:
- CourL or Lrlbunal
cloLhed wlLh [udlclal
power
- !urlsdlcLlon lawfully
acqulred over person or
properLy
- uefendanL musL be
glven an opporLunlLy Lo
be heard
- !udgmenL musL be
rendered upon lawful
hearlng
U8LICI1 AND 1V CCVLkAGL
Webb v. ue
Leon

lAC1S:
PuberL Webb, Mlchael CaLchallan, AnLonlo Le[ano and 6
oLher persons are charged wlLh Lhe crlme of 8ape wlLh
Pomlclde of Carmela vlzconde, her moLher LsLrelllLa nlcolas-
vlzconde and her slsLer Anne Marle !ennlfer ln Lhelr home aL
8l Pomes aranaque.
uC! anel correcLly held LhaL enough evldence had been
adduced Lo esLabllsh probable cause and clarlflcaLory hearlng
was unnecessary.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe peLlLloners were noL denled of due
process when Lhey were noL allowed Lo cross examlne all
evldence. re||m|nary |nvest|gat|on shou|d determ|ne
robab|e Cause:
lacLs and clrcumsLances
deLermlned ln a
summary manner whlch
would lead a reasonably
dlscreeL and prudenL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
n8l presenLed upon prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon Lhe followlng
flndlngs:
o Sworn sLaLemenLs of !esslca Alfaro, Carlos CrlsLobal
and oLher wlLnesses
o AuLopsy reporLs
1he uC! anel lssued a 26-page 8esoluLlon flndlng probable
cause Lo hold respondenLs for Lrlal and recommendlng LhaL
an lnformaLlon for 8ape wlLh Pomlclde be flled agalnsL
peLlLloners and Lhelr co-respondenLs
WarranLs of arresLs were Lhen lssued

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe uC! anel gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon ln
holdlng LhaL Lhere ls probable cause Lo charge Lhem wlLh Lhe
crlme of rape wlLh homlclde.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls ulSMlSSLu for lack of showlng grave abuse of
dlscreLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe respondenLs.
whether there |s a suff|c|ent ground to engender a we||-
grounded be||ef that a cr|me has been comm|tted and that
the respondent |s probab|y gu||ty thereof, and shou|d be
he|d for tr|a|.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe peLlLloners were glven fa|r opportun|ty Lo
prove lack of probable cause agalnsL Lhem.
man Lo belleve LhaL an
offense has been
commlLLed by Lhe person
soughL Lo be arresLed. It
need not be based on
c|ear and conv|nc|ng
ev|dence of gu||t.

uantum of Lv|dence
kequ|red:
Search cases - 1he lLems
soughL are ln facL
selzable by vlrLue of
belng connecLed wlLh
crlmlnal acLlvlLy, and LhaL
Lhe lLem wlll be found ln
Lhe place Lo be searched.
lL ls noL also necessary
LhaL a parLlcular person
be lmpllcaLed.

ArresL cases - Lhere musL
be probable cause LhaL a
crlme has been
commlLLed and LhaL Lhe
person Lo be arresLed
commlLLed lL, whlch of
course can exlsL wlLhouL
any showlng LhaL
evldence of Lhe crlme
wlll be found aL premlses
under LhaL person's
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
conLrol.
eople v.
1eehankee

lAC1S:
1eehankee, !r. was charged wlLh 2 counLs of Murder for Lhe
kllllng of 8oland Chapman and Maureen PulLman and wlLh
lrusLraLed Murder for Lhe shooLlng and woundlng of !ussl
Lelno.
1eehankee, !r. was convlcLed by Lhe 1rlal CourL of Lhe crlmes
charged. Pe blames Lhe press for hls convlcLlon as he
conLends LhaL Lhe publlclLy glven Lo hls case lmpalred hls
rlghL Lo an lmparLlal Lrlal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe publlclLy glven Lhen case agalnsL
1eehankee was masslve, overwhelmlng, and pre[udlclal as Lo
effecLlvely deprlve 1eehankee of rlghL Lo lmparLlal Lrlal.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls ulSMlSSLu convlcLlon ls Alll8MLu.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe rlghL of an accused Lo a falr Lrlal ls
noL lncompaLlble Lo a free press. 1he CourL Look noLlce LhaL
Lhe prlnL and broadcasL medla gave Lhe case aL bar pervaslve
publlclLy, [usL llke all hlgh proflle and hlgh sLake crlmlnal
Lrlals.
1he CourL ruled LhaL pervas|ve pub||c|ty |s not per se
pre[ud|c|a| to the r|ght of an accused to a fa|r tr|a|
o lor one lL ls lmposslble Lo seal Lhe mlnds of members
of Lhe bench from pre-Lrlal and oLher off-courL
publlclLy of sensaLlonal crlmlnal cases.
lor anoLher, our ldea of a falr and lmparLlal [udge ls noL LhaL
of a hermlL who ls ouL of Louch wlLh Lhe world. Cur [udges
are learned ln Lhe law and Lralned Lo dlsregard off-courL
evldence and on-camera performances of parLles Lo
llLlgaLlon. 1he|r mere exposure to pub||cat|ons and pub||c|ty
stunts does not per se fata||y |nfect the|r |mpart|a||ty.

erez v.
LsLrada

A.M. no. 01-4-
03-SC

!une 29, 2001
lAC1S:
1he Sandlganbayan was golng Lo sLarL hearlng Lhe crlmlnal
charges agalnsL Mr. !oseph L. LsLrada. 1he SecreLary of
!usLlce (erez) and medla (k8, eLc) soughL Lo cover Lhe
evenL vla llve Lelevlslon and llve radlo broadcasL and
endeavored Lhe SC Lo allow lL LhaL klnd of access Lo Lhe
proceedlngs, saylng
1. 1hls case ls a maLLer of publlc concern and lnLeresL
2. ConsLlLuLlonal rlghL of Lhe people Lo be lnformed can be
recognlzed by allowlng Lhe coverage
3. Coverage wlll ensure Lransparency

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lo overLurn Lhe 23rd CcLober 1991
lederal 8ules of Crlmlnal rocedure prohlblL such broadcasLlng or
phoLography ln Lhe courLroom due Lo Lhe dlsrupLlon lL would cause
Lo Lhe falr and orderly admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce.

LsLes v. 1exas
1. WlLnesses mlghL be frlghLened, play Lo Lhe camera, or
become nervous.
2. 1hey are sub[ecL Lo exLraordlnary ouL-of-courL lnfluences
whlch mlghL affecL Lhelr LesLlmony because Lhe enLlre publlc
becomes lnLeresLed ln lL.
3. 1elecasLlng noL only lncreases Lhe Lrlal [udge's responslblllLy
Lo avold acLual pre[udlce Lo Lhe defendanL, lL may as well
affecL hls own performance
4. lor Lhe defendanL, LelecasLlng ls a form of menLal
uue process guaranLees
Lhe accused a
!"#$%&!'()* ),
(**)-#*-# unLll Lhe
conLrary ls proved ln a
Lrlal LhaL ls noL llfLed
above lLs lndlvldual
seLLlngs nor made an
ob[ecL of publlc's
aLLenLlon and where Lhe
concluslons reached are
lnduced noL by any
ouLslde force or
lnfluence buL )*./ 0/
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
resoluLlon of Lhe CourL for resldenL Aqulno's llbel case
regardlng cameras ln Lhe courLroom, ln whlch Lhe CourL ruled
ln Lhe negaLlve

PLLu:
nC. 1he SC relLeraLed lLs sLandlng resoluLlon of 23 CcLober
1991.
harassmenL and sub[ecLs hlm Lo excesslve publlc exposure
and dlsLracLs hlm from Lhe effecLlve presenLaLlon of hls
defense.

1he overrldlng conslderaLlon ls sLlll Lhe paramounL rlghL of Lhe
accused Lo due process, whlch musL never be allowed Lo suffer
dlmlnuLlon ln lLs consLlLuLlonal proporLlons. When Lhese rlghLs race
agalnsL one anoLher, [urlsprudence Lells us LhaL Lhe rlghL of Lhe
accused musL be preferred Lo wln as noL only hls llberLy buL hls llfe ls
on Lhe llne.

#1(2#*-# 3*2 3"4%&#*'
4(1#* (* )!#* -)%"',
where flLLlng dlgnlLy and
calm amblance ls
demanded.
erez v.
LsLrada

A.M. no. 01-4-
03-SC

SepLember 13,
2001
lAC1S:
See above

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL llve medla coverage of former resldenL
LsLrada's Lrlal ln Lhe Sandlganbayan should be permlLLed.

PLLu:
nC. 1he SC flnds no reason Lo alLer or modlfy lLs declslon.
Powever, glven Lhe slgnlflcance of Lhe Lrlal aL hand, Lhe CourL
belleves Lhere should be audlo-vlsual recordlng of Lhe
proceedlngs, noL for broadcasL buL documenLary purposes.
Maln reasons for Lelevlsed recordlng:
1he hearlng ls of hlsLorlc slgnlflcance, and an afflrmaLlon LhaL
Lhe klng ls under no man, buL he ls under Cod and Lhe law".
LsLrada cases lnvolve maLLers of vlLal concern Lo Lhe people.
1he people's rlghL Lo know how Lhelr governmenL ls run can
be enhanced by audlo-vlsual presenLaLlon.
1he audlo-vlsual presenLaLlon ls essenLlal for Lhe educaLlon
and clvlc Lralnlng of Lhe people.
CLher reasons:
Audlo-vlsual presenLaLlon wlll be useful ln preservlng Lhe
essence of Lhe proceedlngs ln a way LhaL prlnL cannoL.
rlmarlly used by appellaLe courLs ln Lhe evenL of revlew of
proceedlngs become necessary.
8y delaylng Lhe broadcasL of Lhe Lapes, concerns LhaL Lhose
Laklng parL ln Lhe proceedlngs wlll be playlng Lo Lhe cameras
and wlll Lhus be dlsLracLed from Lhe proper performance of
Lhelr roles, as well as concerns abouL Lhe regularlLy and
falrness of Lhe Lrlal wlll be allayed.
roblems posed by real-Llme broadcasL wlll be avolded.

ADMINIS1kA1IVL AND UASI-IUDICIAL kCCLLDINGS
Ang 1lbay v. lAC1S: Coseco v. Cl8 CA 103 ls Lhe law
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Cl8

C.8. no. L-
46496

lebruary 27,
1940
naLlonal Labor unlon (nLu) avers LhaL employer 1orlblo
1eodoro (of Lhe naLlonal Workers' 8roLherhood [nW8] of
Ang 1lbay, a leaLher goods company owned by 1orlblo) made
a false clalm LhaL Lhere was a shorLage of leaLher soles ln Ang
1lbay, maklng lL necessary for hlm Lo lay off workers. nLu
alleges LhaL Lhls was unsupporLed by Lhe 8ureau of CusLoms
records and Lhe accounLs, and LhaL Lhls was [usL a scheme
adopLed Lo dlscharge all Lhe members of Lhe nLu from work
and was unfalr labor pracLlce for dlscrlmlnaLlng agalnsL nLu
and un[usLly favorlng nW8. nLu acqulred and wlsh Lo
presenL new evldence whlch were prevlously lnaccesslble
and lncapable of belng presenLed Lo Lhe Cl8. Accordlng Lo
nLu, Lhe aLLached documenLs and exhlblLs are of such far-
reachlng lmporLance and effecL LhaL Lhelr admlsslon would
necessarlly mean Lhe modlflcaLlon and reversal of Lhe
[udgmenL rendered.

lSSuL:
WheLher moLlon for new Lrlal should be granLed ln llghL of
Lhe new evldence.

PLLu:
?LS. ln Lhe lnLeresL of [usLlce, a new Lrlal should commence
glvlng Lhe movanL Lhe opporLunlLy Lo presenL new evldence.
CA 103 requlres Cl8 Lo acL accordlng Lo [usLlce and equlLy and
subsLanLlal merlLs of Lhe case xxx" 8uL Lhe Cl8 cannoL enLlrely lgnore
or dlsregard Lhe fundamenLal and essenLlal requlremenLs of due
process ln Lrlals and lnvesLlgaLlons of an admlnlsLraLlve characLer.

53"2(*3. "#6%("#&#*'$ ), 2%# !")-#$$ (* 32&(*($'"3'(1# !")-##2(*4$
1. 8lghL Lo a hearlng, lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo presenL one's own
case and submlL evldence ln supporL Lhereof
2. 1rlbunal musL conslder Lhe evldence presenLed
3. ueclslon musL have someLhlng Lo supporL lLself
4. Lvldence musL be subsLanLlal
3. ueclslon musL be rendered on Lhe evldence presenLed aL Lhe
hearlng, or aL leasL conLalned ln Lhe record and dlsclosed Lo
Lhe parLles affecLed.
6. !udge musL acL on lLs or hls own lndependenL conslderaLlon
of Lhe law and facLs of Lhe conLroversy, and noL slmply accepL
Lhe vlews of a subordlnaLe ln arrlvlng aL Lhe declslon
7. Should render lLs declslon ln such a manner LhaL Lhe parLles
can know Lhe lssues lnvolved and Lhe reasons for Lhe
declslons rendered.

SubsLanLlal evldence:
lL musL be relevanL as a reasonable mlnd mlghL accepL lL as
adequaLe Lo supporL a concluslon
1he rules of evldence shall noL be conLrolllng so LhaL Lhe
mere admlsslon of maLLer whlch would be deemed
lncompeLenL ln [udlclal proceedlngs would noL lnvalldaLe Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve order
Mere uncorroboraLed hearsay or rumor does nC1 consLlLuLe
subsLanLlal evldence
A board of lnqulry may be appolnLed whlch:
l. ls for Lhe purpose of lnvesLlgaLlng and deLermlnlng Lhe facLs
creaLlng Lhe Cl8

Cl8 ! CourL of lndusLrlal
8elaLlons
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
ln any glven case
ll. Whose reporL and declslon are only advlsory
lll. 1o whom Lhe Cl8 or Lo a, flscal, [usLlce of Lhe peace, any
publlc offlclal, may refer any lndusLrlal or agrlculLural dlspuLe,
buL such delegaLlon shall noL affecL Lhe exerclse of Lhe CourL
lLself or any of lLs powers

Lk1kADI1ICN kCCLLDINGS
Cov'L of
Pongkong v.
Clalla

C.8. no.
133673

Aprll 19, 2007
lAC1S:
rlvaLe respondenL had been on provlslonal arresL and
deLenLlon from 1999 Lo 2001 upon Lhe requesL of PkSA8 for
brlbery and consplracy Lo defraud before Lhe Pong kong
courL. ln november 1999, PkSA8 flled a peLlLlon for
exLradlLlon of respondenL Munoz whlle he flled a peLlLlon for
ball. 1he flrsL [udge denled Lhe ball on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhe
hlllpplnes has no law granLlng ball ln exLradlLlon cases and
LhaL respondenL ls a hlgh fllghL rlsk". Cn CcLober 2001 an
M8 was flled, and ln uecember, respondenL [udge lellxberLo
Clalla, !r. granLed ball Lo respondenL Munoz worLh 730,000.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon on ball applles
Lo exLradlLlon proceedlngs.

PLLu:
1he consLlLuLlonal provlslon on ball can be applled Lo
exLradlLlon proceedlngs.
LxLradlLlon and ueporLaLlon 3$ 32&(*($'"3'(1# !")-#$$#$7
o lnnocence or gullL of a person ls noL an lssue.
o 8uL exLradlLlon lnvolves deprlvaLlon of llberLy" and means
employed Lo aLLaln lLs purpose uses machlnery of crlmlnal law".
o no law prohlblLlng Lhe granL of ball Lo Lhe exLradlLee.
" LxLradlLee, however, ls assumed Lo be a fuglLlve from [usLlce, and
musL prove LhaL he ls noL a hlgh fllghL rlsk".

ACADLMIC DISCILINL
Angeles v.
Slson

C.8. no. L-
lAC1S:
Cn CcLober 20, 1973, !ose Angeles, a professor ln Lhe
lnsLlLuLe of 1echnology of lar LasLern unlverslLy (lLu), was
assaulLed by Ldgardo lcar and Wllfredo aLawaran, boLh
1he LesL of a school's rlghL Lo lnvesLlgaLe: lLs effecL upon Lhe morale
and efflclency of Lhe school and wheLher lL, ln facL, ls adverse Lo Lhe
school's good order welfare and Lhe advancemenL of lLs sLudenLs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
43331

lebruary 16,
1982
sLudenLs ln mechanlcal englneerlng ln Lhe sald lnsLlLuLe aL
Lhe Cak 8arrel 8esLauranL locaLed aL . Comez SLreeL,
Culapo, Manlla on Lhe occaslon of Lhe blrLhday parLy of
rofessor 8ernabe, Lhe SecreLary of Lhe lnsLlLuLe of
1echnology of lLu. lcar and aLawaran quesLloned Lhe
auLhorlLy of Lhe uean and hls commlLLee Lo conducL Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon because Lhe uean's auLhorlLy Lo
lnvesLlgaLe under Lhe Code of ConducL of lLu ls llmlLed Lo
acLs done or commlLLed wlLhln Lhe premlses of Lhe
compound of Lhe unlverslLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a school has Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo lnvesLlgaLe lLs
sLudenL or sLudenLs for an alleged mlsconducL commlLLed
ouLslde Lhe school premlses and beyond school hours.

PLLu:
?LS, Lhe school has Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo proceed wlLh Lhe
admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon.
lnsLances when Lhe school mlghL be called upon Lo exerclse lLs power
over lLs sLudenL or sLudenLs for acLs commlLLed ouLslde Lhe school
and beyond school hours ln Lhe followlng:
a) ln cases of vlolaLlons of school pollcles or regulaLlons
occurrlng ln connecLlon wlLh a school sponsored acLlvlLy off-
campus,
b) ln cases where Lhe mlsconducL of Lhe sLudenL lnvolves hls
sLaLus as a sLudenL or affecLs Lhe good name or repuLaLlon of
Lhe school.

Cn Academlc ulsclpllne: 1he admlnlsLraLlve acLlon before Lhe school
auLhorlLles -3* !")-##2 (*2#!#*2#*'./ ), '8# -"(&(*3. 3-'()* because
ln Lhe former, prlvaLe respondenL's sulLablllLy or proprleLy as a
sLudenL ls Lhe paramounL concern and lnLeresL of Lhe school and nC1
Lhe penal sLaLuLes, whlch ls Lhe prlmary concern of Lhe SLaLe, Lo be
lnfllcLed Lo Lhe sLudenLs as clLlzens aL sLake.
AuMu v.
Capulong

C.8. no. 99327

lAC1S:
ln 1991, Lenny vllla dled as a resulL of hazlng acLlvlLles or
lnlLlaLlon rlLes conducLed by Lhe Aqulla Legls lraLernlLy ln Lhe
ALeneo Law School. eLlLloner uean CynLhla del CasLlllo
creaLed a !olnL AdmlnlsLraLlon laculLy SLudenL lnvesLlgaLlng
CommlLLee Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe lncldenL. 1he sLudenLs were
placed under prevenLlve suspenslon. 1he uean creaLed a
ulscpllnary 8oard afLer flndlng a prlma facle case of vlolaLlon
of Lhe Law School CaLalogue. lr. 8ernas, presldenL of Lhe
unlverslLy, lmposed Lhe penalLy of dlsmlssal on Lhe lnvolved
sLudenLs.

lSSuL:
Mlnlmum sLandards Lo be saLlsfled ln Lhe lmposlLlon of dlsclpllnary
sancLlons ln academlc lnsLlLuLlons:
1. 1he sLudenLs musL be lnformed ln wrlLlng of Lhe naLure and
cause of any accusaLlon agalnsL Lhem
2. 1haL Lhey shall have Lhe rlghL Lo answer Lhe charges agalnsL
Lhem wlLh Lhe asslsLance of counsel lf deslred
3. 1hey shall be lnformed of Lhe evldence agalnsL Lhem
4. 1hey shall have Lhe rlghL Lo adduce evldence ln Lhelr own
behalf
3. 1he evldence musL be duly consldered by Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon
commlLLee or offlclal deslgnaLed by Lhe school auLhorlLles Lo
hear and declde Lhe case

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhere was a denlal of due process agalnsL Lhe
respondenL sLudenLs.

PLLu:
nC. CranLlng LhaL Lhey were denled such opporLunlLy, Lhe
same may noL be sald Lo deLracL from Lhe observance of due
process, for dlsclpllnary cases lnvolvlng sLudenLs need noL
necessarlly lnclude Lhe rlghL Lo cross-examlnaLlon. An
admlnlsLraLlve proceedlng conducLed Lo lnvesLlgaLe sLudenLs'
parLlclpaLlon ln a hazlng acLlvlLy need noL be cloLhed wlLh Lhe
aLLrlbuLes of a [udlclal proceedlng.
ulsclpllnary cases lnvolvlng sLudenLs need noL necessarlly
lnclude Lhe rlghL Lo cross-examlnaLlon
An excepLlon Lo Lhe docLrlne of exhausLlon of remedles ls
when Lhe case lnvolves a quesLlon of law
u v. LlgoL-
1elan

C.8. no.
110280

CcLober 21,
1993
lAC1S:
8amon nadal, a sLudenL enrolled ln Lhe u College of Law,
applled for Lhe Soclallzed 1ulLlon lee and AsslsLance rogram
(S1lA) beneflLs. 1he Cfflce of Scholarshlps ln u found LhaL
Lhere were dlscrepancles beLween hls appllcaLlon and Lhe
reporL based on Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon Lhey conducLed ln hls
home. Pe had apparenLly falled Lo declare LhaL he had a 1977
Corolla and hls moLher's lncome was belng used Lo supporL
hls broLhers. u charged nadal before Lhe SLudenL
ulsclpllnary 1rlbunal for wlllfully wlLhholdlng lnformaLlon.
nadal flled for a wrlL of ln[uncLlon ln Lhe CC 81C whlch was
granLed. ln Lhe mornlng of March 29, 1993, AuMu lssued a
cerLlflcaLlon afflrmlng LhaL nadal was a scholar when he
sLudled Lhere. 1haL evenlng, Lhe u 8oard of 8egenLs held a
meeLlng and found hlm gullLy neverLheless.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe 8oard of 8egenL vlolaLed nadal's rlghL Lo
due process when lL rendered a declslon flndlng hlm gullLy of
Lhe charges agalnsL hlm durlng Lhe March 29, 1993 meeLlng.

unlverslLy rules do noL requlre Lhe aLLendance ln 8C8
meeLlngs of lndlvlduals whose cases are lncluded as lLems on
Lhe agenda of Lhe 8oard.

Carcla v. 1he laculLy Admlsslon CommlLLee, Loyola School of
1heology
A school or college whlch ls possessed of Lhe rlghL of
academlc freedom decldes for lLself lLs alms and ob[ecLlves
and how besL Lo aLLaln Lhem. lL ls free from ouLslde coerclon
or lnLerference save posslbly when Lhe overrldlng publlc
welfare calls for some resLralnL. lL has a wlde sphere of
auLonomy cerLalnly exLendlng Lo Lhe cholce of sLudenLs."

AuMu v. Capulong
Admlsslon Lo an lnsLlLuLlon of hlgher learnlng ls dlscreLlonary
upon a school, Lhe same belng a prlvllege on Lhe parL of Lhe
sLudenL raLher Lhan a rlghL
LducaLlon AcL of 1982: sLudenLs have rlghL Lo freely choose
Lhelr fleld of sLudy, sub[ecL Lo exlsLlng currlcula and Lo
conLlnue Lhereln up Lo graduaLlon
Such a rlghL ls sub[ecL as all rlghLs are Lo Lhe esLabllshed

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
nC. 1he CourL flnds LhaL lL was sufflclenLly shown LhaL
respondenL has commlLLed an acL of dlshonesLy ln
wlLhholdlng vlLal lnformaLlon wlLh hls appllcaLlon for S1lA
beneflLs, Lhus Lhe unlverslLy's lnherenL power and auLhorlLy
Lo lmpose dlsclpllnary sancLlon may be lnvoked and rlghLfully
exerclsed.
academlc and dlsclpllnary sLandards lald down by Lhe school
DLCk1A1ICN kCCLLDINGS
Lao Cl v. CA

C.8. no. 81798

uecember 29,
1989
lAC1S:
ln 1938, Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce found lllomeno Chla !r. Lo
be a llllplno clLlzen. ln 1980, Lhe MlnlsLer of !usLlce cancelled
and seL aslde hls faLher, lllomeno Sr (aka Lao Cl)'s clLlzenshlp
on Lhe ground LhaL lL was founded on fraud and
mlsrepresenLaLlon. ln 1981 a charge for deporLaLlon was flled
agalnsL Lao Cl and hls famlly. lL was laLer alleged LhaL Lhey
refused Lo reglsLer as allens. 1hey flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss
Lhe complalnL on Lhe basls LhaL Lhe Clu has no auLhorlLy Lo
reopen a maLLer long seLLled slnce 1938. Powever, ln 1982,
Lhe Clu pushed Lhrough wlLh Lhe deporLaLlon case.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL due process was glven Lo peLlLloners.

PLLu:
nC. 1here ls no doubL LhaL Lhe Clu has Lhe auLhorlLy and
[urlsdlcLlon over deporLaLlon cases, buL Lhe Clu dld noL flnd
sufflclenL cause or proof LhaL peLlLloners are allens.
Where Lhe very clLlzenshlp of Lhe peLlLloners ls ln lssue Lhere should
be a prevlous deLermlnaLlon by Lhe Clu LhaL Lhey are allens before
Lhe peLlLloners may be dlrecLed and requlred Lo reglsLer as allens.

AlLhough a deporLaLlon proceedlng does noL parLake of Lhe naLure of
a crlmlnal acLlon, however, conslderlng LhaL lL ls a harsh and
exLraordlnary admlnlsLraLlve proceedlng affecLlng Lhe freedom and
llberLy of a person, Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL of such person Lo due
process should noL be denled. 1hus, Lhe provlslons of Lhe 8ules of
CourL of Lhe hlllpplnes parLlcularly on crlmlnal procedure are
appllcable Lo deporLaLlon proceedlngs.

under SecLlon 37(c) of Lhe hlllpplne lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1940 as
amended, lL ls provlded:

c no allen shall be deporLed wlLhouL belng lnformed of Lhe
speclflc grounds for deporLaLlon nor wlLhouL belng glven a
hearlng under rules of procedure Lo be prescrlbed by Lhe
Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon.

kLGULA1ICNS: IIkING CI kA1LS
PlLCCMSA1
v. Alcuaz
lAC1S:
hlllpplne CommunlcaLlons SaLelllLe CorporaLlon
vlgan LlecLrlc LlghL Co., lnc v. ubllc Servlce Commlsslon
1he courLs made a caLegorlcal classlflcaLlon as Lo when Lhe raLe-flxlng

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. 84818

uecember 18,
1989
(PlLCCMSA1), Lhe only publlc uLlllLy renderlng such servlce
ln Lhe counLry, soughL Lo annul and seL aslde an Crder lssued
by Commlssloner Alcuaz of Lhe naLlonal 1elecommunlcaLlons
Commlsslon (n1C), whlch dlrecLs Lhe provlslonal reducLlon of
Lhe raLes whlch may be charged by peLlLloner by 13. under
Sec. 3 of 8A 3314, peLlLloner was exempL from Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Lhen ubllc Servlce Commlsslon, now n1C.
8uL pursuanL Lo LC 196 lssued on !une 17, 1987, peLlLloner
was placed under Lhe [urlsdlcLlon, conLrol and regulaLlon of
n1C. rlor Lo SepLember 16, 1988, n1C had allowed
peLlLloner Lo operaLe under normal condlLlons whlle awalLlng
a flnal verdlcL on lLs renewed llcense. 1he conLroverslal n1C
order Look place afLerwards Lhough, dlrecLlng peLlLloner Lo
lower lLs raLes by 13.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was an undue delegaLlon of leglslaLlve
power?
WheLher or noL Lhere was a vlolaLlon of procedural due
process?

PLLu:
nC, Lhere was no undue delegaLlon 8u1 ?LS Lhere was a
vlolaLlon of procedural due process. n1C admlLs LhaL lL
exerclsed quasl-[udlclal powers buL denles LhaL a Lrlal ls
needed slnce lL clalms LhaL Lhe assalled order ls merely
lnLerlocuLory, lL belng an lncldenL ln Lhe ongolng proceedlngs
on peLlLloner's appllcaLlon for a cerLlflcaLe of publlc
convenlence.

power of admlnlsLraLlve bodles ls quasl-[udlclal and when lL ls
leglslaLlve: When such rules or raLes are meanL Lo apply Lo all
enLerprlses of a glven klnd LhroughouL Lhe hlllpplnes, lL may parLake
of a leglslaLlve characLer.

Such raLe-flxlng order, Lemporary Lhough lL may be, ls noL exempL
from Lhe sLaLuLory procedural requlremenLs of noLlce and hearlng, as
well as Lhe requlremenL of reasonableness. Assumlng LhaL such
power ls vesLed ln n1C, lL may noL exerclse Lhe same ln an arblLrary
and conflscaLory manner.

An order prescrlblng reduced raLes, even durlng LhaL Lemporary
perlod, could be un[usL, unreasonable or even conflscaLory, especlally
lf Lhe raLes are unreasonably low, slnce Lhe uLlllLy permanenLly loses
lLs [usL revenue durlng Lhe prescrlbed perlod. upon showlng,
Lherefore, LhaL Lhe order requlrlng a reduced raLe ls conflscaLory and
wlll unduly deprlve peLlLloner of a reasonable reLurn upon lLs
properLy, a declaraLlon of lLs nulllLy becomes lndublLable.
8adlocom v.
n1C
lAC1S:
Cn !anuary 4, 1984, Lu1 flled an appllcaLlon wlLh n1C for
rovlslonal raLes are by Lhelr naLure Lemporary and sub[ecL
Lo ad[usLmenL and revlslon afLer Lhe flnal hearlng.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. L-
68729

May 29, 1987
Approval of 8aLes for ulglLal 1ransmlsslon Servlce laclllLles.
n1C provlslonally approved and seL Lhe case for hearlng. n1C
lssued a noLlce of hearlng and seL lL on lebruary 22, 1984. ln
sald noLlce, peLlLloners excepL 11C, were nC1 lncluded ln
Lhe llsL of affecLed parLles. eLlLloners alleged LhaL nelLher
n1C nor Lu1 lnformed Lhem of Lhe exlsLence of Lhe
provlslonal auLhorlLy. eLlLloners allege LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon
flled by Lu1 ls noL for approval of raLes buL for auLhorlLy Lo
engage ln new servlces noL covered by lLs franchlse and
cerLlflcaLe of publlc convenlence and necesslLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe n1C gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon
amounLlng Lo excess or lack of [urlsdlcLlon ln lssulng
provlslonal auLhorlLy ln favor of Lu1 wlLhouL prlor noLlce Lo
Lhe peLlLloners

PLLu:
nC. 1he ubllc Servlce Commlsslon (SC, now n1C) found
LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon lnvolved ln Lhe peLlLlon ls acLually for
approval of raLes for dlglLal Lransmlsslon servlce faclllLles
whlch lL may provlslonally approve and wlLhouL Lhe necesslLy
of noLlce and hearlng.
Where Lhe law conflnes ln an admlnlsLraLlve offlce Lhe power
Lo deLermlne parLlcular quesLlons or maLLers upon Lhe facLs
presenLed, Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of such offlce shall prevall over
Lhe courLs.
Maceda vs.
L88

C.8. no. 96266

!uly 18, 1991
lAC1S:
AL Lhe ouLbreak of Lhe erslan Culf confllcL, prlvaLe
respondenL oll companles flled Lhelr appllcaLlons for oll prlce
lncrease wlLh L88
L88 granLed Lhe provlslonal lncrease, Lhen seL Lhe
appllcaLlons for hearlng Lo all lnLeresLed parLles.
Maceda soughL Lo nulllfy Lhe provlslonal lncrease. 1he courL
reafflrmed L88's auLhorlLy Lo granL provlslonal lncrease even
wlLhouL prlor hearlng pursuanL Lo LC 172 (hearlng ls
1he order of LesLlmony as Lo Lhe procedure ln cross-
examlnlng wlLnesses and Lhe general course of Lhe Lrlal ls
9('8(* '8# -)%"':$ 2($-"#'()* ln accordance wlLh Lhe ku|es of
Court.
An admlnlsLraLlve agency ls nC1 8Cunu by Lhe sLrlcL
Lechnlcal rules governlng courL proceedlngs.
Accordlng Lo ku|e 1, Sect|on 2 of the ku|es of ract|ce and
rocedure Govern|ng near|ngs before Lk8, Lhe 8oard &3/
#;#&!' ('$#., ,")& '8#$# "%.#$ and apply a sulLable procedure
! 1he oll companles
menLloned were Shell,
CalLex, and eLron.

! L.8.8. sLands for
Lnergy 8egulaLory 8oard

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lndlspensable, buL may come afLer granLlng Lhe lncrease).
When hearlng was seL, lL was posLponed on several occaslons
due Lo Maceda's fallure Lo appear before Lhe courL.
Maceda complalned of Lhe relaxed procedure of L88,
because lL deprlved hlm of hls rlghL Lo cross-examlne Lhe
wlLnesses of Lhe oll companles, whlch LanLamounL Lo a denlal
of due process.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a denlal of due process?

PLLu:
Maceda was nC1 denled due process.

Lo meeL lLs ob[ecLlves.
Clobe 1elecom
vs. n1C

C.8. no.
143964

!uly 26, 2004
lAC1S:
SmarL flled a complalnL wlLh n1C Lo lnLerconnecL SmarL and
Clobe's neLworks, parLlcularly Lhelr ShorL Message Servlces
(SMS).
Clobe refused Lo granL SmarL's requesL for lnLerconnecLlon.
n1C lnvesLlgaLed Lhe maLLer and dlscovered LhaL SmarL and
Clobe have been provldlng SMS wlLhouL lLs auLhorlLy, a
vlolaLlon of MC no. 8-9-93 whlch requlred 1Ls lnLendlng Lo
provlde value-added servlces" (vAS) Lo secure a prlor
approval from n1C. SMS was consldered a vAS.
n1C ordered Lhe companles Lo secure lLs approval and
lmposed admlnlsLraLlve flnes agalnsL Lhem.
Clobe alleged LhaL Lhe order of n1C ls null for belng vlolaLlve
of due process. 1he order was also dlscrlmlnaLory slnce n1C's
earller declslon on lslacom's appllcaLlon, whlch requesLed for
Lhe same auLhorlzaLlon, declared SMS as a deregulaLed
speclal feaLure" of Lhe neLwork, and Lherefore, lL dld noL
anymore need prlor approval from n1C.
no legal basls Lo classlfy SMS as vAS under 1A or speclal
feaLure" under n1C MC no. 14-11-97

o n1C deflned vAS as an enhanced servlce", whlch
requlres vAS provlders Lo have prlor approval from
n1C before Lhey can operaLe lL. 1hls ls pursuanL Lo
Lhe ubllc 1elecommunlcaLlons AcL (1A) and lLs l88.
1hls deflnlLlon ls sLlll Loo general, and Lhe n1C up Lo
now has noL furLher deflned wheLher or noL newly
released speclal feaLures ln Lhe markeL are
consldered as vAS.

o n1C ln Lhelr rullng ln lslacom deflned SMS as a
speclal feaLure" whlle holdlng for SmarL and Clobe
LhaL lL ls vAS.

n1C dld noL acL wlLh due process ln levylng a flne agalnsL
Clobe
! n1C sLands for
naLlonal
1elecommunlcaLlons
Commlsslon

!1L sLands for ubllc
1elecommunlcaLlons
LnLlLy
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Clobe requlres n1C approval before lL
conLlnues provldlng SMS
WheLher or noL SMS ls vAS or a speclal feaLure"
WheLher or noL n1C acLed wlLh due process ln lmposlng a
flne agalnsL Clobe

PLLu:

n1C commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon.
n1C's dual classlflcaLlon of SMS as vAS for Clobe and speclal
feaLure" for lslacom ls dlscrlmlnaLory and vlolaLlve of due
process.
n1C order was seL aslde. eLlLlon C8An1Lu.

o n1C dld noL properly follow Lhe 7 cardlnal rlghLs
before admlnlsLraLlve Lrlbunals (Ang 1lbay vs. Cl8)
" uld noL sufflclenLly explaln Lhe dlfference ln
Lhelr declslon on lslacom's appllcaLlon
1he power of n1C Lo lnvesLlgaLe wlLhouL prlor hearlng does
noL lnclude Lhe power Lo lmpose a flne. A flne ls a sancLlon,
and may only be lmpose afLer proper noLlce and hearlng.
kLGULA1ICNS: kCILSSICN
Corona vs.
uPA

C.8. no.
111933

uecember 12,
1997
lAC1S:
hlllpplne orLs AuLhorlLy (A) creaLed A-AC-03-83 whlch
mandaLes LhaL all asplrlng plloLs musL obLaln a llcense afLer
Lralnlng, whlch serves as Lhelr offlclal and permanenL
appolnLmenL Lo exerclslng harbor plloLage unLll Lhe age of 70
years old.
A Ceneral Manager uayan lssued A-AC-04-92 whlch
makes all exlsLlng appolnLmenLs valld unLll uecember 1992
only. Llcense ls sub[ecL Lo a yearly renewal or cancellaLlon.
uPA soughL Lo dlsmlss Lhe order. AsslsLanL SecreLary for
Legal Affalrs 8enaLo Corona dlsmlssed Lhelr peLlLlon as belng
a mere regulaLory measure
CallanLa vs. CarnaLlon hlllpplnes: plloLage ls a professlon
Lherefore a properLy rlghL.

rocedural due process was complled wlLh.
o Lumlqued vs. Pon. Lxevea
" CpporLunlLy Lo be heard ls deemed saLlsfled
lf person ls granLed opporLunlLy Lo seek
reconslderaLlon of Lhe rullng complalned of
" 8espondenLs quesLloned Lhe order 4 Llmes.
o noLlce and Pearlng only lndlspenslble when
admlnlsLraLlve bodles are exerclslng quasl-[udlclal
funcLlons. 1he regulaLlon ls a quasl-leglslaLlve
funcLlon.

SubsLanLlal due process was vlolaLed.
o lloLage requlres llcensure. lL lnvolves a long and
exhausLlve Lralnlng process of examlnaLlon before
one can pracLlce Lhe professlon.
! uPA sLands for
unlLed Parbor lloLs
AssoclaLlon of Lhe
hlllpplnes

!hlllpplne orLs
AuLhorlLy was creaLed by
u no. 303 and amended
by u no. 837

! 1he 81C of Manlla
ruled ln favor of
respondenLs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL llmlLlng Lhe Lerm of harbor plloLs Lo one year
sub[ecL Lo yearly renewal or cancellaLlon vlolaLe respondenLs'
rlghL Lo exerclse Lhelr professlon and Lhelr rlghL Lo due
process.

PLLu:
rocedural due process was observed. A-AC-04-92 ls
unCCnS1l1u1lCnAL.
o rofesslon of plloLs ls a properLy rlghL.
o 1he admlnlsLraLlve order dlsrupLs Lhe securlLy
en[oyed by plloLs ln Lhe exerclse of Lhelr professlon.
<8# -3*-#..3'()* ), '8#(" .(-#*$# ($ #6%(13.#*' ') 3 2#!"(13'()*
), '8#(" !")!#"'/ 9('8)%' 2%# !")-#$$ ), .39=
DISMISSAL, SUSLNSICN, kLINS1A1LMLN1, L1C: DISMISSAL IN GCVLkNMLN1 8CAkDS AND CCMMISSICNS
Abalos vs. CSC

C.8. no. 93861

Aprll 19, 1991
lAC1S:
Abalos flled a complalnL for malversaLlon agalnsL hls
predecessor, Arsenlo Culbranza, for puLLlng Lo personal use
several bulldozers owned by Lhe provlnce.
1he drlvers of Lhe bulldozers, vlllabona and ?ap, sLood as
wlLnesses and produced Lhelr sworn affldavlLs.
1hey laLer dlsowned Lhe affldavlLs clalmlng Lhem Lo be
spurlous.
Memoranda was lssued Lo vlllabona and ?ap orderlng Lhem
Lo explaln why Lhey recanLed Lhelr earller sLaLemenLs whlch
were Lhe basls of Lhe complalnL. 1hey were also suspended
from work
Weeks laLer, ln anoLher memorandum LhaL Lhelr servlces
were LermlnaLed.
CSC declares Lhelr dlsmlssal Lo be lllegal.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL rlvaLe respondenLs dld noL have Lo be
lnvesLlgaLed because Lhey have already admlLLed Lhelr gullL.
WheLher or noL 1hey could be summarlly dlsmlssed under
SecLlon 40 of Lhe Clvll Servlce uecree.
PLLu:
rlvaLe respondenLs were slmply lnformed LhaL Lhey were
belng summarlly dlsmlssed from servlce.
o >? 2%# *)'(-# 3*2 8#3"(*4=
o 1hey should have been glven a chance Lo prove ln an
lnvesLlgaLlon LhaL Lhey dld noL execuLe Lhe affldavlLs
agalnsL former governor Culbranza and LhaL Lhey
were Lrlcked Lo admlL Lhe allegaLlons agalnsL Lhem.

SecLlon 40 of Lhe Clvll Servlce uecree: Summary ulsmlssal
o (a) because Lhe charges agalnsL Lhem was serlous
and evldence of gullL ls sLrong, belng no less Lhan
Lhelr own sworn confesslons.
o CourL belleves LhaL Lhelr gullL ls noL LhaL sLrong, and
ls yeL Lo be esLabllshed by a preponderance of
evldence.
o CourL does noL belleve LhaL Lhls secLlon ls appllcable
Lo respondenLs' case.

1he CourL belleved LhaL a re-examlnaLlon of SecLlon 40 was
necessary as Lhls vlolaLed due process.
! eLlLloner lranclsco
Abalos was Lhe Covernor
of Lanao del norLe when
he flled Lhe peLlLlon.

! SecLlon 40 has already
been removed by acL of
Congress, Lhus renderlng
Lhe lssue mooL when Lhls
case was declded.

!Powever, prlvaLe
respondenLs were
dlsmlssed when SecLlon
40 was sLlll ln effecL
(1987).
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
nC. 1hey musL be furLher lnvesLlgaLed.
nC. Lvldence of gullL ls noL sLrong.
DISMISSAL, SUSLNSICN, kLINS1A1LMLN1, L1C: DISMISSAL IN kIVA1L SLC1Ck
Salaw vs. nL8C

C.8. no. 90786

SepLember 27,
1991
lAC1S:
Lspero Salaw was a credlL lnvesLlgaLor-appralser of
respondenL AssoclaLed 8ank.
1he Crlmlnal lnvesLlgaLlon Servlce (ClS) of Lhe C exLracLed a
sworn sLaLemenL from Salaw LhaL he had sold 20 sewlng
machlnes and elecLrlc generaLors foreclosed by respondenL
bank and pockeLed Lhe proceeds LogeLher wlLh a co-
employee.
ln a leLLer, he was requesLed Lo appear before Lhe bank's
ulsclpllne CommlLLee-9('8)%' -)%*$#. )" "#!"#$#*'3'(1#=
Pe was LermlnaLed from employmenL for serlous mlsconducL
and fraud. Pe flled a complalnL for lllegal dlsmlssal.
nL8C dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner's dlsmlssal was lllegal.

PLLu:
?LS. eLlLloner's dlsmlssal was a vlolaLlon of hls rlghL Lo due
process.
Ang 1lbay vs. Cl8 menLloned
o Cardlnal prlmary rlghLs on admlnlsLraLlve hearlng

SanLos vs. nL8C
o 8elnsLaLed employee ls enLlLled Lo hls prevlous
beneflLs.

NLW LA8Ck CCDL
o Lmployee's lawful dlsmlssal ls Lwo-fold:
" SubsLanLlve
" rocedural
>)'(-# 3*2 @#3"(*4- 8C1P musL be
glven Lo Lhe employee, oLherwlse,
dlsmlssal ls lllegal.

eLlLloner was denled due process because he was noL glven
a chance Lo defend hlmself=
o Pe was denled Lhe asslsLance of counsel.
o Cnly evldence was Lhe Sworn SLaLemenL. no oLher
proof was used Lo esLabllsh hls culpablllLy ln Lhe
fraudulenL sale.
ueclslon Lo dlsmlss peLlLloner was made wlLh undue hasLe
uue process musL noL be subordlnaLe Lo expedlency and
dlspaLch.

DISMISSAL, SUSLNSICN, kLINS1A1LMLN1, L1C: kLVLN1IVL SUSLNSICN
Alonzo v.
Capulong

lAC1S:
CelesLe C. Al !awazneh was suppller of unlforms and provlder
of LransporaLlon servlce Lo Lhe employees of ag-lblg lund.
eLlLloner ls Lhe proper dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy Lo lmpose such
on la[ardo.
Sect|on S1, Chapter 7, 1|t|e I, 8ook V of the 1987

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no. L-
43331

lebruary 16,
1982
Al !awazneh wroLe a leLLer of complalnL Lo Chlef LxecuLlve
Cfflcer Alonzo.
ln hls leLLer, he complalned of !ulleL la[ardo maklng
derogaLory remarks abouL Lhem Lo Lhe u8M personnel,
whlch consLlLuLed a greaL blas" ln Lhelr bld. Pe Lherefore
requesLs for her replacemenL ln Lhe lnLeresL of falrness.
Alonzo gave a prevenLlve suspenslon Lo prlvaLe respondenL
!ulleL la[ardo as Lhe manager of Lhe AdmlnlsLarLlve Servlces
ueparLmenL of Lhe Pome uevelopmenL MuLual lund.
!udge Capulong lssued a 18C agalnsL Lhe suspenslon order on
respondenL la[ardo.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner Alonzo may legally order a
prevenLlve suspenslon agalnsL respondenL la[ardo.

PLLu:
?LS. Alonzo has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo glve Lhe order.

Adm|n|strat|ve Code
o 1he proper dlsclpllnlng auLhorlLy may prevenLlvely
suspend any subordlnaLe offlcer or employee
pendlng an lnvesLlgaLlon.

Capulong's conLenLlon LhaL prevenLlve suspenslon requlres
prlor hearlng ls wlLhouL merlL.
o revenLlve suspenslon ls noL a penalLy buL a
prellmlnary sLep ln an admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlon.

urpose of prevenLlve suspenslon: 1o prevenL accused from
uslng hls poslLlon or offlce Lo lnfluence prospecLlve wlLnesses
or Lo Lamper wlLh Lhe records.
CkDINANCL]S1A1UL]MLMC CIkCULAk]kULLS
eople v.
nazarlo

C.8. no. 44143

AugusL 31,
1988
lAC1S:
Luseblo nazarlo ls an owner and operaLor of a flshpond ln
Lhe barrlo of lnagbayanan.
Pe was charged by Lhe 1reasurer of agbllao, Cuezon wlLh a
vlolaLlon of Crdlnance no. 4 for falllng Lo pay Lhe Laxes ln Lhe
amounL of 362.
1reasurer 8odolfo Alvarez LesLlfled LhaL desplLe repeaLed
demands, accused has unpald Laxes for Lhe years 1964, 1963,
and 1966.
nazarlo conLends LhaL Lhe reasons he dld noL pay were:
o Pe doesn'L know wheLher he ls covered by Lhe
ordlnance.
Crdlnance no. 4 sLaLes:
o Any owner or manager of flshponds shall pay a
munlclpal Lax of 3.00 per hecLare
" Accused ls covered by Lhe Lerm manager":
flnanced Lhe consLrucLlon of flshpond.
naLlonal CovernmenL owns Lhe flshpond buL never proflLed
from Lhem, Lherefore, accused musL shoulder Lhe burden of
Lax under Lhe ordlnance.
Munlclpal Crdlnance no. 4 ls noL ex posL facLo.
o assed on May 14, 1933
o noL repealed by subsequenL ordlnances (mere
curaLlve measures).

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
o 1axes soughL Lo be collecLed have already lapsed.
o no law empowerlng munlclpallLles Lo pass
ordlnances Laxlng flshpond operaLors.
o 1he flshpond was foresL land.
o llshpond was sLlll under consLrucLlon when Laxes
were soughL Lo be collecLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Crdlnance ls lnvALlu for belng amblguous
and uncerLaln

PLLu:
Crdlnance uPLLu. Accused ls CulL1? of lLs vlolaLlon.
1ax ln quesLlon ls noL a Lax on properLy, buL prlvllege Laxes
on Lhe buslness of flshpond malnLenance.
1he flshponds are noL foresL lands, buL publlc agrlculLural
lands.
LsLrada v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
148360

november 19,
2001
lAC1S:

eLlLloner LsLrada ls belng prosecuLed under 8A 7080 (AnLl-
lunder Law)
Pe complalns LhaL Lhe law ls defecLlve for belng vague, for
dlspenslng wlLh Lhe reasonable doubL" sLandard, and for
abollshlng Lhe elemenL of mens rea" ln crlmes commlLLed
already punlshable under 8C
lCCAL Cln1 Cl 1PL lSSuL: alleged vagueness of the |aw:
o 1he law falled Lo properly deflne Lhe Lerms
comblnaLlon" and serles" ln a comblnaLlon of
serles of crlmlnal acLs" (SecLlons 1 and 2)
o lL also falled Lo deflne Lhe Lerm paLLern" ln secLlon 4
of Lhe same law.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe law ls unconsLlLuLlonal for belng vague.
WheLher or noL Lhe law requlres less evldence Lo prove
plunder Lhereby vlolaLlng accused's rlghL Lo due process.
noLhlng ln Lhe law ls vague or amblguous
o A sLaLuLe ls noL rendered vold merely because
general Lerms are used Lhere ln. 1here ls no rule
requlrlng Lhe leglslaLure Lo deflne each and every
Lerm used ln an enacLmenL.
o ComblnaLlon" and serles" are Lo be undersLood ln
Lhelr popular meanlngs.

SLaLuLe cannoL be vold for vagueness"
o vagueness and CverbreadLh have speclal appllcaLlon
only Lo free speech cases.
Callego vs. Sandlganbayan
o 1he courLs are dlscouraged Lo declare a sLaLuLe vold
for uncerLalnLy unless Lhe law lLself ls so lmperfecL
and deflclenL ln deLalls, and ls unsuscepLlble Lo
reasonable consLrucLlon.
1he alleged no reasonable doubL" sLandard omlLLed ln
SecLlon 4
o noL necessary Lo prove each and every acL of
! vold for vagueness
uocLrlne:
A sLaLuLe ls sald Lo be
vague when lL lacks
comprehenslble
sLandards LhaL men of
common lnLelllgence
musL guess aL lLs
meanlng and dlffer ln lLs
appllcaLlon.

! A vague sLaLuLe ls
repugnanL Lo our
ConsLlLuLlon lf:
1. lalls Lo accord
persons falr
noLlce of whaL
conducL Lo avold,
2. Leaves law
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe law ls mala ln se or mala prohlblLum.

PLLu
Law ls CCnS1l1u1lCnAL.
plunder. lL ls sufflclenL Lo prove beyond reasonable
doubL a paLLern of overL and crlmlnal acLs
lndlcaLlve of Lhe crlme.
o SecLlon 4 ls a purely procedural measure and does
noL provlde a subsLanLlal rlghL ln favor of Lhe
accused.
lunder ls mala ln se. mens rea" ls an elemenL of Lhe crlme.

enforcers
unbrldled
dlscreLlon ln
carrylng ouL lLs
provlslons

kCCLLDINGS CN SUkL1SnI
SLronghold
lnsurance
company, lnc.
v. CA

C.8. no. 88030

!anuary 30,
1992
lAC1S:
Adrlano urLusuela was hlred as capLaln for 12 monLhs by an
Aslan, a domesLlc recrulLlng agency under CaLar naLlonal
llshlng Company.
A sureLy bond was submlLLed by an Aslan Lo SLronghold
lnsurance worLh 30,000 ') 3*$9#" ,)" '8# .(30(.('(#$ (&!)$#2
0/ A?BC 343(*$' '8# A"(*-(!3. (* '8# "#-"%('&#*' ), D(.(!(*)
$#3&#*.
urLusuela was premaLurely dlsmlssed from employmenL.
Pe demanded Lhe sureLy bond amounL from an Aslan, buL
Lhe laLLer can only glve hlm 10,000 as lL had ceased Lo
operaLe.
urLusuela Lhen flled a complalnL agalnsL SLronghold
lnsurance demandlng for Lhe sureLy bond. under Lhe
conLracL, SLronghold and an Aslan agreed:
o 1o answer all Lhe llablllLles LhaL Lhe prlnclpal has
lncurred ln Lhe recrulLmenL of llllplno seamen,
o 1haL noLlce Lo Lhe prlnclpal ls noLlce Lo Lhe sureLy",
CA ruled ln favor of urLusuela. lL sLaLed LhaL he was
compeLenL Lo sue SLronghold , whlch was a sureLy was
solldarlly llable wlLh an Asla.

lSSuL:
1he sureLy bond unequlvocally sLaLes LhaL peLlLloner bound
lLself Lo answer for all Lhe llablllLles lmposed upon Lhe
prlnclpal"
o eLlLloner agreed Lo answer for whaLever declslon
may be rendered agalnsL Lhe prlnclpal, an Aslan.
noLlce Lo Lhe prlnclpal ls also noLlce Lo Lhe sureLy".
o lmplled noLlce on Lhe opporLunlLy Lo exerclse Lhe
rlghL Lo be heard, Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe llLlgaLlon and
presenL lL slde

SLlpulaLlon above ls nC1 unCCnS1l1u1lCnAL.
o lL ls noL a vlrLual walver of Lhe rlghL Lo be heard"
o kIGn1 1C A nLAkING IS NC1 A8SCLU1L.
" May be walved by Lhe person concern lf he
wlshes Lo keep sllenL.
" Walver ls noL a vlolaLlon of due process.

eLlLloner was glven full opporLunlLy Lo presenL lLs slde:
o lL flled a counLerclalm Lo Lhe complalnL.
o lL provlded lLs LesLlmony durlng Lhe hearlngs
o lL flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss.

A person may choose to wa|ve h|s r|ght to be heard, but
! urLusuela had a 12-
monLh conLracL wlLh
CaLar Lhrough an Aslan
buL was LermlnaLed on
hls 3
rd
monLh.

! CLA sLands for
hlllpplne Cverseas
LmploymenL
AdmlnlsLraLlon
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL rlghL Lo be heard was accorded Lo peLlLloner.

PLLu:
?LS. eLlLloner was duly heard.
once he has chosen to wa|ve such r|ght, he cannot |ater
comp|a|n that he was depr|ved of due process.
kCCLLDINGS CN 1AkkIII AND CUS1CMS CCDL
leeder v. CA

C.8. no. 94262

May 31, 1991
lAC1S:
M/1 uLu WAl ls a forelgn vessel, owned by leeder
lnLernaLlonal Shlpplng Llnes of Slngapore. lL carrled 1,100
meLrlc Lons of gasollne and 1,000 meLrlc Lons of fuel oll
conslgned Lo a company ln Zamboanga.
lL anchored ln llollo wlLhouL noLlfylng Lhe cusLoms
auLhorlLles.
1he CusLoms Leam found abouL Lhls Lhrough an lnformanL.
When Lhey lnvesLlgaLed Lhe shlp, Lhey found LhaL Lhe vessel
lacked requlred shlpplng documenLs, excepL only a
Slngaporean clearance approvlng Lhe shlp's Lravel Lo
Zamboanga.
1he vessel was gullLy of lllegal lmporLaLlon. lL was selzed and
lLs cargo (gas and oll) was forfelLed ln favor of Lhe 8epubllc of
Lhe hlllpplnes.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe charge of lllegal lmporLaLlon was [usLlfled
based on clrcumsLanLlal evldence.
WheLher or noL peLlLloner was deprlved properLy wlLhouL
due process of law and was convlcLed wlLhouL proof beyond
reasonable doubL".
WheLher Lhe sLaLemenLs of Lhe shlp's offlcers Laken wlLhouL
legal asslsLance ls vlolaLlve of Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghLs?

PLLu:
CA declslon Alll8MLu.
1he governmenL has sufflclenLly esLabllshed an lllegal
lmporLaLlon.
o eople vs. CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8lzal
o A forfelLure proceedlng under Larlff
and cusLom laws ls noL penal ln
naLure as Lhey do noL resulL ln Lhe
convlcLlon of Lhe offender.
" enalLy ln selzure cases dlsLlncL from crlmlnal
llablllLy.
" AdmlnlsLraLlve flnes only.
" roof beyond reasonab|e doubt |s not
requ|red |n order to [ust|fy the forfe|ture of
goods.
o What |s requ|red |s mere "#$"%&'%(&)
*+(,*'-*.
eLlLloner was noL deprlved of properLy wlLhouL due process
of law.
o eLlLloner as a corporaLe enLlLy cannoL lnvoke Lhe
rlghL Lo be presumed lnnocenL as such rlghL ls a personal
one.
nera vs. 1he AudlLor Ceneral- rlghL Lo asslsLance Lo counsel ls
noL lndlspensable Lo due process
LxCL1lCn: rlghL ls lndlspenslble ln a cusLodlal lnvesLlgaLlon
of a person suspecLed of a crlme.
! lmporLaLlon under
Sect|on 1202 of the
1ar|ff and and Customs
Code on |mportat|on
(|ntent to un|oad)

! AcLs of Lhe accused
consLlLuLe lnLenL Lo
unload" (noL lnformlng
Lhe auLhorlLles, Laklng a
shorLer rouLe-
subsLanLlal evldence).

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

CLCSUkL kCCLLDINGS
C8 vs. CA

C.8. no. 76118

March 30,
1993
lAC1S:
1rlumph Savlngs 8ank (1S8) was declared lnsolvenL by
MoneLary 8oard based on Lhe reporLs conducLed by CenLral
8ank. lL was ordered Lo close down, prevenLed from dolng
LransacLlons ln Lhe hlllpplnes, and placed under recelvershlp
(8n 396).
1S8 flled a complalnL wlLh Lhe Cuezon 81C Lo annul 8n 396.
81C ruled ln favor of 1S8, holdlng LhaL Lhe 8n was adopLed
wlLhouL prevlously noLlfylng 1S8 (vlolaLlon of due process).
CenLral 8ank flles a moLlon Lo dlsmlss argulng LhaL MoneLary
8ank resoluLlons can only be annulled lf Lhey are proven Lo
have been done ln bad falLh and arblLrarlly.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL absence of prlor noLlce and hearlng are
evldenL acLs of arblLrarlness and bad falLh enough Lo annul
an M8 resoluLlon.

PLLu:
nC. no need for prlor noLlce and hearlng.
1he MoneLary 8ank has Lhe excluslve auLhorlLy Lo assess,
evaluaLe, and deLermlne Lhe condlLlon of any bank". lL also
has Lhe power Lo declare a bank ln a sLaLe of lnsolvency and
Lhe power Lo place a bank ln recelvershlp (Sect|on 29 kA 26S)
o SecLlon 29 does noL conLemplaLe prlor noLlce or
hearlng
o 1S8 ls noL denled Lhe opporLunlLy Lo be heard:
" A bank under recelvershlp has 10 days from
Lhe daLe recelvershlp Lakes place Lo flle a
peLlLlon for [udlclal revlew.
" 1S8 avalled of Lhls.
Close now, hear laLer" pollcy:
1he purpose ls Lo prevenL unwarranLed dlsslpaLlon of Lhe
bank's asseLs Lo proLecL lLs cllenLs and Lhe publlc.

CANCLLLA1ICN CI kCLk1 kIGn1S]kIVILLGLS
A8AkAuA vs.
L8Ml1A

C.8. no.
168036

SepLember 1,
2003
./*%(%(0' 1*)*+&'% %0 2()) 03 4(56%"7

lAC1S:
C.8. no. 168461
o AssoclaLlon of lllplnas Shell uealers assalls cerLaln
provlslons of 8A 9337 (L-vA1 Law) whlch amended
Lhe naLlonal and lnLernal 8evenue Code.
o SecLlon 8 of 8A 9337 requlres lnpuL Lax on
depreclable goods Lo be amorLlzed
uue process (and equal proLecLlon) ls noL a flxed rule buL a
broad sLandard. 1o lnvoke such requlres proof of persuaslve
characLer. WlLhouL adequaLe proof, Lhe presumpLlon of
valldlLy of Lhe law prevalls.

Input tax |s NC1 a property r|ght.
LnLlLlemenL Lo Lhe credlLable lnpuL Lax ls a mere sLaLuLory
prlvllege. ersons have no vesLed rlghL ln a sLaLuLory
prlvllege. lL ls granLed by Congress Lhrough a law and can also

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
o lmposlng of 70 llmlL on lnpuL Lax Lo be credlLed
agalnsL Lhe ouLpuL Lax
o SecLlon 12 whlch allows Lhe CovernmenL and lLs
pollLlcal subdlvlslons Lo deducL 3 wlLhholdlng Lax
on gross paymenLs of goods and servlces.
o eLlLloners conLend LhaL sald provlslons lmpose
llmlLaLlons on Lhe lnpuL Lax LhaL may be clalmed.
1hey also argue LhaL lnpuL Lax ls ln Lhe naLure of a
properLy and may noL be llmlLed by Lhe governmenL.
1hls ls LanLamounL Lo a conflscaLlon of properLy
wlLhouL due process.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe assalled provlslons vlolaLe due process.

PLLu:
nC, Lhey do noL vlolaLe due process.
be removed by lL, as ln Lhls case.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

CASL 8ACkG.k. No.CUND CI 1nL CASL kA1IC NC1LS
SU8S1AN1IVL DUL kCCLSS
1 unlLed SLaLes
v. 1orlblo

C.8. no. L-
3060

!anuary 26,
1910

lAC1S:
A dlsease LhreaLened Lhe exLlncLlon of Carabaos. Carabaos
Lhen became boLh lnadequaLe ln number and lnvaluable.
Luls 1orlblo slaughLered a carabao for human consumpLlon.
o Act No. 1147 ls an acL regulaLlng Lhe reglsLraLlon,
brandlng and slaughLer of large caLLle whlch
prlmarlly seeks Lo proLecL Lhe "large caLLle" of Lhe
hlllpplne lslands agalnsL LhefL and Lo make easy Lhe
recovery and reLurn of such caLLle Lo Lhelr proper
owners when losL, sLrayed, or sLolen.
o Sect|ons 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the Act prohlblLs Lhe
slaughLer of large caLLle for human consumpLlon
wlLhouL permlL from Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer, who ln
Lurn wlll deLermlne wheLher such anlmal ls unflL for
agrlculLural work and Lherefore may be slaughLered.
1he Lown of Carmen dld noL have a munlclpal
slaughLerhouse.
AppellanL conLends LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe, ln so far as lL underLakes
Lo penallze Lhe slaughLer of carabaos for human
consumpLlon as food, wlLhouL flrsL obLalnlng a permlL ls
unconsLlLuLlonal and ln vlolaLlon of Lhe Lerms of sect|on S of
the h|||pp|ne 8||| (Act of Congress, Iu|y 1, 1902), whlch
provldes LhaL "no law shall be enacLed whlch shall deprlve
any person of llfe, llberLy, or properLy wlLhouL due process of
law."

lSSuL:
1he lmplemenLaLlon of Act 1147 ls a valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8
(noL emlnenL domaln)

! Lawful Sub[ecL: Act 1147 seeks Lo proLecL Lhe carabao populaLlon
whose exlsLence has been LhreaLened by dlsease. 1hls anlmal ls
cruclal Lo Lhe agrlculLural work of people, Lhelr prlnclpal
occupaLlon, and consequenLlally for Lhe beneflL of socleLy.

! Lawful Means: 1he quesLloned secLlons are mere resLrlcLlons or
llmlLaLlons upon a prlvaLe use, whlch leglslaLure deemed Lo be
deLrlmenLal Lo Lhe publlc welfare.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe phrase "aL Lhe munlclpal
slaughLerhouse" applles Lo boLh Lhe phrases "slaughLerlng
for human consumpLlon" and "kllllng for food"

PLLu:
nC. 1he phrase "aL Lhe munlclpal slaughLerhouse" applles
only Lo Lhe phrase "kllllng for food," and LhaL anyone who
slaughLers carabaos for human consumpLlon, regardless of
wheLher or noL Lhere ls a munlclpal slaughLerhouse ln Lhe
area, wlll be penallzed. (unless, of course, he secures a
permlL from Lhe munlclpal Lreasurer.)

2 Churchlll v.
8afferLy

C.8. no. L-
10372

uecember 21,
1913

lAC1S:
Churchlll was able Lo geL an ln[uncLlon en[olnlng 8afferLy
(CollecLor of lnLernal 8evenue) from collecLlng Laxes from
hlm.
Churchlll also conLends Subsect|on (b) of Sect|on 100 of Act
No. 2339 whlch allows for Lhe removal by Lhe CollecLor of
lnLernal 8evenue of any slgn, slgnboard or blllboard
dlsplayed or exposed Lo publlc vlew LhaL ls offenslve Lo Lhe
slghL or ls oLherwlse a nulsance.
lalnLlffs conLend LhaL Lhe provlslon ls unconsLlLuLlonal for
consLlLuLlng a deprlvaLlon of properLy wlLhouL due process of
law.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Subsect|on (b) of Sect|on 100 of Act No.
2339 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. ConLesLed secLlon ls valld because lL ls Lhe rlghL of Lhe
publlc LhaL Lhey properly en[oy Lhe ouLdoor llfe wlLhouL Lhe
valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he conLesLed secLlon/acL ls a regulaLlon of publlc
sLreeLs and Lhoroughfares nC1 prlvaLe properLy.
Scope of ollce ower: ubllc healLh, safeLy, morals, comforL
or general welfare of Lhe communlLy
lL ls Lhe rlghL of Lhe publlc LhaL Lhey properly en[oy Lhe
ouLdoor llfe wlLhouL Lhe blllboards marrlng Lhe landscapes
and clvlc beauLy

! Lawful Means: CsLenslbly locaLed on prlvaLe properLy, Lhe real
and sole value of Lhe blllboard ls lLs proxlmlLy Lo Lhe publlc
Lhoroughfares. Pence, we concelve LhaL Lhe regulaLlon of
blllboards and Lhelr resLrlcLlon ls noL so much a regulaLlon of
prlvaLe properLy as lL ls a regulaLlon of Lhe use of Lhe sLreeLs and
oLher publlc Lhoroughfares.

Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
blllboards marrlng Lhe landscapes and clvlc beauLy

3 eople v.
la[ardo

C.8. no. L-
1217

SepLember 22,
1947
lAC1S:
When !uan l. la[ardo was mayor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of 8aao
(Camarlnes Sur), he lssued Crd|nance No. 7 (Ser|es of 19S0)
whlch prohlblLs Lhe consLrucLlon of a bulldlng LhaL would
obsLrucL vlew of Lhe ubllc laza.
o under Lhe assalled ordlnance, Lhe mayor has
absoluLe dlscreLlon Lo lssue or deny a permlL. 1he
ordlnance falls Lo sLaLe any pollcy, or Lo seL up any
sLandard Lo gulde or llmlL Lhe mayor's acLlon.
4 years laLer, la[ardo consLrucLed a house on a loL along Lhe
naLlonal hlghway LhaL obsLrucLs Lhe vlew of Lhe plaza desplLe
havlng no permlL, because Lhey needed a place of resldence
very badly, Lhelr former house havlng been desLroyed by a
Lyphoon and Lhey had been llvlng on leased properLy.
1hey were

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance Lhe mayor has absoluLe
dlscreLlon Lo lssue or deny a permlL.
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance ls a valld exerclse of pollce
power.

PLLu:
nC. Crdlnance falls Lo sLaLe any pollcy, or Lo seL up any
sLandard Lo gulde or llmlL Lhe mayor's acLlon.
nC. Crdlnance ls unreasonable and oppresslve, and
oversLeps Lhe bounds of pollce power

nC1 a valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8

! Lawful Sub[ecL: Whlle prlvaLe properLy may be regulaLed ln Lhe
lnLeresL of general welfare (see Church||| v. kafferty), Lhe sLaLe
cannoL permanenLly dlvesL owner of Lhe beneflclal use of Lhelr
properLy and pracLlcally conflscaLe Lhem solely Lo preserve Lhe
aesLheLlc appearance of Lhe communlLy.
As Lhe case now sLands, every sLrucLure LhaL may be erecLed
on appellanLs' land, regardless of lLs own beauLy, sLands
condemned under Lhe ordlnance ln quesLlon, because lL
would lnLerfere wlLh Lhe vlew of Lhe publlc plaza from Lhe
hlghway. 1he appellanLs would, ln effecL, be consLralned Lo
leL Lhelr land remaln ldle and unused for Lhe obvlous purpose
for whlch lL ls besL sulLed, belng urban ln characLer.

Lawful Means: Crdlnances whlch Lhus lnvesL a clLy councll wlLh a
dlscreLlon whlch ls purely arblLrary, and whlch may be exerclsed
ln Lhe lnLeresL of a favored few, are unreasonable and lnvalld.
1he ordlnance should have esLabllshed a rule by whlch lLs
lmparLlal enforcemenL could be secured.
Crdlnance ls unreasonable and oppresslve, ln LhaL lL operaLes
Lo permanenLly deprlve appellanLs of Lhe rlghL Lo use Lhelr
own properLy, hence, lL oversLeps Lhe bounds of pollce
power, and amounLs Lo a Laklng of appellanL's properLy
wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon.

Doctr|ne:
4 LrmlLa-MalaLe
PoLel & MoLel
lAC1S:
Crd|nance No. 4760 was enacLed by Lhe ClLy Councll of

Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
CperaLor v.
ClLy of Manlla

C.8. no. L-
24693

!uly 31, 1967
Manlla Lo regulaLe MoLel CperaLlons ln Lhe clLy so as Lo curb
rampanL lmmoral pracLlces perpeLuaLed on moLels, hoLel and
lodges.
o 1he ordlnance lmposed a 6,000 Lax annually for flrsL
class moLels and 4,300 Lax for second class moLels.
o lL requlred Lhe owner, manager, or auLhorlzed
represenLaLlve of a hoLel, moLel, or lodglng house Lo
refraln from enLerLalnlng guesLs wlLhouL fllllng up Lhe
prescrlbed form ln a lobby open Lo publlc vlew.
o 1he premlses and faclllLles of moLels and hoLels
would be open for lnspecLlon elLher by Lhe ClLy
Mayor, Chlef of ollce, or Lhelr represenLaLlves.
o 1he ordlnance declared lL unlawful for Lhe owner,
manager, or represenLaLlve Lo lease any room or
porLlon for more Lhan Lwlce every 24 hours.
o 1he penalLy lmposed ln vlolaLlon of Lhls ordlnance as
provlded for ln SecLlon 4 was Lhe auLomaLlc
cancellaLlon of llcense.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Crd|nance No. 4760 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe Crd|nance No. 4760 was a valld
and consLlLuLlonal leglslaLlon prlmarlly because of Lhe
absence of any evldence Lo offseL Lhe presumpLlon of valldlLy
LhaL aLLaches Lo a challenged sLaLuLe or ordlnance.

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he ordlnance was a valld exerclse of pollce
power whlch almed Lo safeguard publlc morals.

! Lawful Means: 1he ordlnance was a valld exerclse of LaxaLlon
power as lL was noL unreasonable, oppresslve or Lyrannlcal.
1axaLlon may be made Lo lmplemenL sLaLe's pollce power. (LuLz
v. AraneLa)
S ?noL v.
lnLermedlaLe
AppellaLe
CourL
lAC1S:
resldenL Marcos promulgaLed Lxecut|ve Crder No. 626-A
amendlng an earller verslon of Lhe law Lhus prohlblLlng Lhe
lnLerprovlnclal LransporLaLlon of carabaos regardless of age,

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he order was for Lhe beneflL of publlc welfare.
1here ls a need Lo proLecL Lhe carabao populaLlon as Lhese
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. 74437

March 20,
1987
sex, physlcal condlLlon or purpose, and carabeef. upon
vlolaLlon, such carabao or carabeef shall be sub[ecL Lo
conflscaLlon by Lhe governmenL Lo be dlsLrlbuLed Lo
charlLable lnsLlLuLlons and oLher slmllar lnsLlLuLlons as Lhe
Chalrman of naLlonal MeaL lnspecLlon Commlsslon may see
flL for carabeef, and Lo deservlng famers as Lhe ulrecLor of
Anlmal lndusLry may see flL for carabaos.
ln !anuary 13, 1984, peLlLloner 8esLlLuLo ?noL LransporLed 6
carabaos ln a pump boaL from MasbaLe Lo llollo. 1hese were
conflscaLed by Lhe pollce sLaLlon commander of 8aroLac
nuevo, llollo for vlolaLlon of L.C. No. 626-A

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL L.C. No. 626-A ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. AlLhough Lhe order ls for a valld purpose, Lhe means for
reachlng such purpose are excesslve.

are essenLlal Lo crop producLlon.

Lawful Means: LC No. 626-A was declared unconsLlLuLlonal as lL
vlolaLes due process. 1he owner of Lhe properLy conflscaLed ls
denled of hls rlghL Lo be heard and ls lmmedlaLely condemned
and punlshed.
rohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe LransporL of carabaos and carabeef
does noL prevenL Lhelr lndlscrlmlnaLe slaughLer.
lurLhermore, Lhe execuLlve order ls lnvalld because lL allows
for auLomaLlc conflscaLlon. ConflscaLlon can only be done
afLer [udlclal declslon because L.C. No. 626-A ls a penal law.
ueLermlnaLlon of gullL musL be done by Lhe courL and noL Lhe
pollce.
6 8alaculL v. Cll
Agusan del
norLe

!une 30, 1988

C.8. no. L-
38429
lAC1S:
Crd|nance No. 640 was passed by Lhe munlclpal board of Lhe
ClLy of 8uLuan sLaLlng LhaL chlldren beLween 7 and 12 years
old wlll only pay for half Lhe full prlce of LlckeLs for movles or
oLher publlc exhlblLlons, games, conLesLs and oLher
performances. 1he alleged purpose of Lhe munlclpal board ls
Lo ease Lhe burden of Lhe parenLs of Lhe chlldren, who
noLwlLhsLandlng Lhelr youLh have Lhe rlghL Lo en[oy Lhese
Lypes of enLerLalnmenL. vlolaLlon of Lhe ordlnance would be
punlshed wlLh a flne of 200-600 or noL more Lhan 6
monLhs of lmprlsonmenL.

lSSuL:

Lawful Sub[ecL: Lhe purpose of Lhe ordlnance ls Lo ease Lhe
burden of parenLs who have Lo pay equal amounLs for Lhelr
young chlldren who cannoL fully grasp Lhe nuance of movles or
oLher publlc exhlblLlons
lL helps parenLs buL makes Lhe peLlLloners bear Lhe cosLs

Lawful Means: 1he ordlnance ls pre[udlclal Lo Lhe rlghLs of
peLlLloners as lL noL only makes Lhem bear Lhe cosLs buL also
punlshes Lhem.
no raLlonal basls for classlfylng chlldren as a dlsLlncL group.
lL has been held ln Lhe pasL LhaL Lhe sLaLe lnLerference ln
Doctr|ne: An exerclse of
pollce power musL noL
encroach upon Lhe
leglLlmaLe and lawful
exerclse of properLy rlghL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance ls unconsLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
?LS. 1here ls no raLlonal basls for classlfylng chlldren as a
dlsLlncL group, and helps Lhe parenLs aL Lhe cosL of Lhe
peLlLloners Lhus maklng lL unreasonable.

flxlng Lhe prlce of admlsslon ls lnvalld as LheaLer LlckeLs are
llcenses and Lherefore properLy rlghLs.

7 naLlonal uev'L
Co. and new
Agrlx v. hll
veL. 8ank

C.8. nos.
84132-33

uecember 10,
1990

lAC1S:
.D. No. 1717 was passed by resldenL Marcos Lo
rehablllLaLe Agrlx Croup of Companles
o Sect|on 4 of Lhe decree sLaLes All morLgages and
oLher llcense presenLly aLLachlng Lo Lhe asseLs of Lhe
dlssolved corporaLlons are hereby exLlngulshed."
Agrlx execuLed ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL hll. veL. 8ank
a morLgage over 3 parcels of land ln Los 8anos, buL Agrlx
lnvokes .D. No. 1717 when v8 Lrles Lo flle for clalms.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL .D. No. 1717 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. lL ls an lnvalld exerclse of pollce power.


Lawful Sub[ecL: lL was noL shown LhaL Lhe creaLlon of new Agrlx
would serve Lhe lnLeresLs of Lhe publlc as a whole.

Lawful Means: 1he means employed were unduly oppresslve as
Lhe rlghL Lo properLy (Lhe rlghL Lo clalm Lhe morLgage) of Lhe
credlLors were arblLrarlly desLroyed.

CLher olnLs:
8educLlon of Lhe secured credlLors Lo Lhe caLegory of
unsecured credlLors v|o|at|ve of equa| protect|on c|ause.
1he decree lnLerferes wlLh purely prlvaLe agreemenLs
wlLhouL any demonsLraLed connecLlon wlLh publlc lnLeresL
whlch ls an lmpalrmenL of Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracL.

Doctr|ne:
8 ACClA v.
CuCCC

C.8. no. L-
21484

november 29,
1969

AgrlculLural CredlL and CooperaLlve llnanclng AdmlnlsLraLlon (ACClA)
vs. ConfederaLlon of unlons ln CovernmenL CorporaLlons and Cfflces
(CuCCC), ACClA Supervlsors' AssoclaLlon (ASA), ACClA Workers'
AssoclaLlon (AWA) and Lhe CourL of lndusLrlal 8elaLlons

lAC1S:
CuCCC (unlon) sued ACClA for alleged vlolaLlons of Lhe C8A
Lhey enLered lnLo. uurlng Lhe pendency of Lhe sulL, Lhe
presldenL slgned lnLo law Lhe AgrlculLural Land 8eform Code
1he frlnge beneflLs ln Lhe C8A of SL1LM8L8 4, 1961 ls
enforceable buL no furLher frlnge beneflLs may be demanded
on Lhe basls of a C8A because unlon has no rlghL Lo
cerLlflcaLlon.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
whlch reorganlzed and renamed ACClA lnLo Lhe ACA. 1he
unlon Lhen peLlLloner Lhe Cl8 Lo be cerLlfled as excluslve
bargalnlng agenLs ln ACA.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe unlon ls enLlLled Lo cerLlflcaLlon and
consequenLly wheLher lL may enLer lnLo a C8A.

PLLu:
nC. ACA performs CovernmenL luncLlon and Lhus, Lhe unlon
ls nC1 enLlLled Lo cerLlflcaLlon and may noL enLer lnLo a C8A.

9 AgusLln v. Ldu

C.8. no. L-
49112

lebruary 2,
1979
lAC1S:
Letter of Instruct|on (L.I.) No. 229 lssued by resldenL
lerdlnand Marcos on uecember 3, 1974 Lo:
o lollowed Lhe vlenna ConvenLlon on 8oad Slgns and
Slgnals, and
o MandaLed LhaL all moLor vehlcles musL have 1 palr of
early warnlng devlces (Lo be used whenever Lhe
vehlcle ls dlsabled)
8y mandaLe of L.I. No. 229 as amended by L.I. 479, Land
1ransporLaLlon Commlssloner 8omeo l. Ldu lssued Lhe
followlng lmplemenLlng rules,
o uevlce may come from any source as long as Lhey
comply wlLh speclflcaLlons
o SLlckers wlLh serlal numbers wlll be aLLached Lo Lhe
LWus free of charge. Serlal number Lo be presenLed
wlLh reglsLraLlon cerLlflcaLe.
eLlLloner alleged LhaL Lhe L.I. No. 229, as amended, and Lhe
lmplemenLlng rules are oppresslve, unreasonable, arblLrary,
conflscaLory" and unconsLlLuLlonal

valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8:

! Lawful sub[ecL: presenL as Lhe L.l. was lssued ln a valld exerclse of
pollce power. lL was noL a vlolaLlon of due process or equal
proLecLlon because lL promoLes general welfare. ollce power ls,
accordlng Lo !usLlce Malcolm, Lhe power Lo prescrlbe
regulaLlons Lo promoLe Lhe healLh, morals, peace, educaLlon,
good order or safeLy, and general welfare of Lhe people."

! Lawful meLhod: obLalned as Lhe SollclLor Ceneral, represenLlng
respondenLs, showed LhaL Lhe resldenL was equlpped wlLh Lhe
necessary daLa Lo supporL Lhe need for Lhe lssuance of such a
measure. 1he lssuance of Lhe LeLLer of lnsLrucLlon ls Lhus encased
ln Lhe armor of prlor, careful sLudy by Lhe LxecuLlve ueparLmenL.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL L.I. No. 229 ls unconsLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
nC. L.I. No. 229 seeks Lo address a general welfare concern,
and Lhe means are reasonable as people can purchase he
LWus from any source.

10 Maranaw
PoLel v. nL8C

C.8. no.
110027

november 16,
1994

lAC1S:
Clna CasLro, a probaLlonary employee, was dlsmlssed by Lhe
CenLury ark PoLel for fallure Lo meeL sLandards of
employmenL. CasLro flled a complalnL wlLh Lhe ArblLraLrlon
8ranch of nL8C for lllegal dlsmlssal, and Lhe Labor ArblLer
ruled ln her favor. nL8C reversed Lhe declslon buL ordered
Lhe hoLel Lo pay salarles due Lo CasLro for Lhe perlod from
Lhe LA declslon Lo Lhe nL8C declslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher nL8C acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln
orderlng Lhe payroll relnsLaLemenL of and orderlng Lo pay an
employee desplLe lLs resoluLlon reverslng Lhe declslon of Lhe
Labor ArblLer and declarlng LhaL Lhere was no lllegal
dlsmlssal.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he cholce on Lhe manner of relnsLaLemenL ls wlLhln Lhe
hoLel's dlscreLlon, noL wlLh Lhe nL8C.

Art|c|e 223 of Lhe Labor Code ls an exerclse of Lhe pollce
power of Lhe sLaLe and slnce appeal ls a prlvllege of sLaLuLory
orlgln, Lhe law may valldly prescrlbe llmlLaLlons or
quallflcaLlon LhereLo or provlde rellef Lo Lhe prevalllng parLy
ln Lhe even an appeal ls lnLerposed by Lhe loslng parLy (Arls
lnc. v. nL8C).
Art|c|e 223 also allowed Lhe employer Lo choose Lhe manner
of relnsLaLemenL: elLher relnLegraLlon lnLo Lhe workforce or
lnLo Lhe payroll only. 1he nL8C commlLLed grave abuse of
dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon when lL
ordered Lhe hoLel Lo pay wages auLomaLlcally (nL8C made
Lhe cholce for Lhe hoLel).
Doctr|ne: ollce power
cannoL overLurn
llmlLaLlons lmposed by
sLaLuLe.
11 Mayor ablo
MagLa[as (CuC
Mayor) v.
ryce
lAC1S:
.D. No. 1869 creaLed Lhe ACCC8 whlch cenLrallzes and
regulaLes all games of chance, lncludlng caslnos, wlLhln Lhe
hlllpplnes.
Crdlnance v. SLaLuLe
1he games of chance under Lhe ACCC8 are deemed allowed
by law. 1hus, Lhey do noL fall under Lhe prohlblLed games
conLemplaLed ln Lhe Local CovernmenL Code.
Doctr|ne:
ln order for an ordlnance
Lo be valld lL musL
conform Lo Lhe followlng
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
roperLles

C.8. no.
111097

!uly 20, 1994

ACCC8 declded Lo expand ln Cagayan ue Cro and leased a
bulldlng owned by ryce roperLles CorporaLlon. 1he ClLy
Councll Lhen promulgaLed Lwo ordlnances:
o Crd|nance No. 33S3 whlch cancels and prohlblLlng
Lhe lssuance of permlLs for bulldlngs Lo be used
operaLlon of a caslno. (uecember 7 1992)
o Crd|nance No. 337S-93 whlch prohlblLed Lhe
operaLlon of caslnos.
eLlLloners argue LhaL Lhe Sect|on 4S8 of Lhe Loca|
Government Code empowers Lhem Lo prohlblL gambllng.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Lwo ordlnances are valld.

PLLu:
nC. An ordlnance cannoL repeal a sLaLuLe.

AlLhough lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe local governmenL unlLs regulaLes
properLles and buslnesses wlLhln Lhelr LerrlLorlal llmlLs ln Lhe
lnLeresL of Lhe general welfare, an ordlnance cannoL serve Lo
lmplledly repeal a sLaLuLe such as .D. No. 1869.
subsLanLlve
requlremenLs:
1. lL musL noL
conLravene Lhe
consLlLuLlon or any
sLaLuLe
2. lL musL noL be unfalr
or oppresslve
3. lL musL noL be parLlal
or dlscrlmlnaLory
4. lL musL noL prohlblL
buL may regulaLe
Lrade
3. lL musL be general
and conslsLenL wlLh
publlc pollcy
6. lL musL noL be
unreasonable
12 8ennls v.
Mlchlgan

317 u.S. 1163

March 4, 1996
lAC1S:
1he SLaLe of Mlchlgan abaLed Lhe car owned by Lhe 8ennls
couple afLer lL was declared a publlc nulsance for belng Lhe
place where Mr. 8ennls was caughL havlng sex wlLh a
prosLlLuLe ln publlc.
1lna 8ennls assalls Lhls clalmlng she dld noL know LhaL Lhe car
would be used for such purpose, and clalms LhaL she was
denled due process.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Mlchlgan's abaLemenL scheme deprlved
peLlLloner of her lnLeresL ln Lhe car wlLhouL due process, ln
vlolaLlon of Lhe lourLeenLh AmendmenL, or LhaL her lnLeresL
was Laken for publlc use, wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon, ln
noLes:
Iourteenth Amendment, Sect|on 1: ... no SLaLe shall make
or enforce any law whlch shall abrldge Lhe prlvlleges or
lmmunlLles of clLlzens of Lhe unlLed SLaLes, nor shall any
SLaLe deprlve any person of llfe, llberLy, or properLy, wlLhouL
due process of law, nor deny Lo any person wlLhln lLs
[urlsdlcLlon Lhe equal proLecLlon of Lhe laws."
I|fth Amendment: no person shall...be deprlved of llfe,
llberLy, or properLy, wlLhouL due process of law, nor shall
prlvaLe properLy be Laken for publlc use, wlLhouL [usL
compensaLlon"

! Lawful Sub[ecL: SLaLe's lnLeresL Lo curb crlmlnal acLlvlLy.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
vlolaLlon of Lhe llfLh AmendmenL

PLLu:
nC. 8ennls was accorded due process as she had Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be heard, and Lhe forfelLure proceedlng dld
noL vlolaLe Lhe lourLeenLh AmendmenL, Lhe SLaLe lawfully
acqulred Lhe properLy by vlrLue of Lhe crlmlnal proceedlng.

1he car was used ln a crlmlnal acLlvlLy, and because Lhe SLaLe
soughL Lo deLer lllegal acLlvlLy, Lhe car was duly conflscaLed.
1he governmenL may noL be requlred Lo compensaLe an
owner for properLy whlch lL has already lawfully acqulred
under Lhe exerclse of governmenLal auLhorlLy oLher Lhan Lhe
power of emlnenL domaln.

! Lawful Means: 8ennls was accorded due process. She was glven
due noLlce and an opporLunlLy Lo be heard.
uS [urlsprudence has shown LhaL Lhere ls no need for an
owner Lo have knowledge or consenL LhaL her properLy
would be used for llllclL or lllegal acLlvlLles.

13 Cruzan v. ulr.
Mlssourl

497 u.S. 261

!une 23, 1990
lAC1S:
nancy Cruzan goL lnLo a car accldenL whlch lefL her ln a
vegeLaLlve sLaLe. AfLer some Llme, lL was clear she would noL
recover and her parenLs declded Lo remove Lhe feedlng Lube
whlch was keeplng her allve.
1he SLaLe of Mlssourl challenged Lhls saylng LhaL, as per sLaLe
pollcy Lhere has Lo be clear and convlnclng evldence" LhaL
Lhe paLlenL lndeed wanLed Lo sLop llfe supporL because of
sLaLe pollcy ls ln favor of preservlng llfe.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CourL should granL Lhe peLlLlon Lo sLop
Lhe arLlflclal nuLrlLlon and hydraLlon procedure of Lhe
peLlLloner and Lhus as a resulL klll her.

PLLu:
nC. 1he alleged consenL glven by nancy Cruzan was based
merely on a sLaLemenL she made Lo a housemaLe, whlch falls
shorL of Lhe sLandard of clear and convlnclng evldence.
An lncompeLenL person ls noL able Lo make an lnformed and
volunLary cholce Lo exerclse a hypoLheLlcal rlghL Lo refuse LreaLmenL
or any oLher rlghL. Such a "rlghL" musL be exerclsed for her, lf aL all,
by some sorL of surrogaLe safeguard Lo assure LhaL surrogaLe's
acLlons conforms as besL lL may Lo Lhe wlshes expressed by Lhe
paLlenL whlle compeLenL ls Lo prove by clear and convlnclng evldence
of Lhe wlshes of Lhe paLlenL
WlLh Lhls level of proof requlremenL, courLs wanL Lo
safeguard Lhe personal declslon/cholce (of chooslng llfe or
deaLh) of Lhe paLlenL and lnLend Lo guard agalnsL poLenLlal
abuses of surrogaLe when Lhe paLlenL ls lncompeLenL
1he level of proof ls Lo dlsLrlbuLe beLween Lhe llLlganLs Lhe
rlsk of error
o lf courL granL Lhe LermlnaLlon of llfe, and lL Lurns ouL
Lo be erroneous lL would be permanenL already
o lf courL does noL granL lL, and lL Lurns ouL Lo be
erroneous, oLher evenLs could sLlll happen Lo correcL
sald error (e.g. evenLual naLural deaLh of paLlenL,
developmenL ln medlclne, eLc.)
Doctr|ne: uocLrlne of
lnformed consenL "
paLlenLs generally posses
Lhe rlghL noL Lo consenL,
LhaL ls Lo refuse
LreaLmenL. 8lghL of every
lndlvldual Lo Lhe
possesslon and conLrol of
hls own person, free
from all resLralnL or
lnLerference of oLhers,
unless by clear and
unquesLlonable auLhorlLy
of law.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

14 !MM
romoLlon and
ManagemenL,
lnc. v. CA

C.8. no.
120093

AugusL 3, 1996

lAC1S:
lollowlng Lhe deaLh of Marlcrls Sloson, resldenL Corazon
Aqulno banned deploymenL of performers Lo !apan and
oLher counLrles.
1he ban was llfLed and replaced wlLh sLrlcL regulaLlons:
o Department Crder No. 28 creaLed Lhe LnLerLalnmenL
lndusLry Advlsory Councll (LlAC) Lasked wlLh lssulng
guldellnes on Lhe Lralnlng, LesLlng cerLlflcaLlon and
deploymenL of performlng arLlsLs abroad.
o Department Crder No. 3 esLabllshed varlous
procedures and requlremenLs for screenlng
performlng arLlsLs under a new sysLem of Lralnlng,
LesLlng, cerLlflcaLlon and deploymenL of arLlsLs.
erformlng arLlsLs successfully hurdllng Lhe LesL, Lralnlng and
cerLlflcaLlon requlremenL were Lo be lssued an ArLlsL's
8ecord 8ook (A88), a necessary prerequlslLe Lo processlng of
any conLracL of employmenL by Lhe CLA.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of ueparLmenL Crders ls
LanLamounL Lo an lnvalld exerclse of pollce power.

PLLu:
nC. 1he means were reasonably necessary Lo ensure Lhe
safeLy of llllplno performers worklng abroad.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: rofesslon ls a properLy rlghL buL lL can be
regulaLed.
ursuanL Lo Lhe alarmlng number of reporLs LhaL a slgnlflcanL
number of llllplna performlng arLlsLs ended up as prosLlLuLes
abroad and followlng Lhe deaLhs of a number of Lhese
women, Lhe governmenL began lnsLlLuLlng measures almed
aL deploylng only Lhose lndlvlduals who meL seL sLandards
whlch would quallfy Lhem as leglLlmaLe performlng arLlsLs.
Clearly, Lhe welfare of llllplno performlng arLlsLs, parLlcularly
Lhe women was paramounL ln Lhe lssuance of Department
Crder No. 3
no rlghL ls absoluLe, and Lhe proper regulaLlon of a
professlon, calllng, buslness or Lrade has always been upheld
as a leglLlmaLe sub[ecL of a valld exerclse of Lhe pollce power
by Lhe sLaLe parLlcularly when Lhelr conducL affecLs elLher Lhe
execuLlon of leglLlmaLe governmenLal funcLlons, Lhe
preservaLlon of Lhe SLaLe, Lhe publlc healLh and welfare and
publlc morals

! Lawful Means: eLlLloners were represenLed ln Lhe LlAC, Lhus,
Lhey were glven noLlflcaLlon and a chance Lo be heard.

Doctr|ne:
1S uans v. eople

C.8. no.
127073

lAC1S:
uans (1ransporLaLlon and CommunlcaLlons MlnlsLer) and
lmelda Marcos (MlnlsLer of Puman SeLLlemenLs) were
charged wlLh vlolaLlon of Sect|on 3, k.A. No. 3019 (AnLl-CrafL
and CorrupL racLlces AcL) for havlng enLered lnLo conLracLs

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he law seeks Lo arresL Lhe varlous lnsLances of
corrupLlon LhaL have been plagulng governmenL much Lo Lhe
deLrlmenL of Lhe people
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!anuary 29,
1998
lnvolvlng Lhe LlghL 8all 1ranslL AuLhorlLy (L81A) and Lhe
hlllpplne Ceneral PosplLal loundaLlon lnc. (CPll) whlle
boLh of Lhem were servlng Lhe board of boLh companles.
o k.A. No. 3019 was enacLed Lo deLer Lhe rampanL
corrupLlon LhaL had been Laklng ln governmenL.
o Sect|on 3 was lnsLlLuLed Lo prohlblL Lhe enLerlng lnLo
conLracLs LhaL were manlfesLly and grossly
dlsadvanLageous Lo governmenL.
AfLer belng convlcLed of 2 counLs of vlolaLlon, Marcos clalms
LhaL she was deprlved of Lhe rlghL Lo be heard by herself or
by counsel.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Marcos was deprlved of her consLlLuLlonal
rlghLs Lo be heard by herself or counsel

PLLu:
nC. Marcos was represenLed by a counsel aL all Llmes.

! Lawful Means: 1he means used was reasonable slnce Lhere were
adequaLe sLandards found ln Lhe law LhaL would allow a common
man Lo undersLand whaL he musL noL do lesL he wlshes Lo suffer
Lhe correspondlng punlshmenL

16 Cple v. 1orres

C.8. no.
127683

!uly 23, 1998
lAC1S:
SenaLor 8las Cple assalled Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
Adm|n|strat|ve Crder No. 308, lssued by resldenL 8amos,
whlch esLabllshed a naLlonal CompuLerlzed ldenLlflcaLlon
8eference SysLem. Pls aLLack ls based on Lwo grounds:
o (1) 1he AC ls a usurpaLlon of leglslaLlve power
o (2) 1he AC ls vlolaLes Lhe clLlzen's rlghL Lo prlvacy

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL A.C. No. 308 ls consLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. lL ls a law, noL merely an admlnlsLraLlve order, whlch ls

! Lawful Sub[ecL: Lhe law seeks Lo creaLe a more efflclenL sysLem
by whlch LransacLlons beLween lndlvlduals conducLlng buslness
can be faclllLaLed.

Lawful Means: Lhe means were noL consldered lawful because
Lhe lnfrlnged Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo prlvacy speclflcally Lhe
rlghL Lo be leL alone

Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
beyond Lhe power of Lhe resldenL Lo lssue. 1here ls also a
lack of proper safeguards agalnsL Lhe lmproper use of Lhe
lnformaLlon gaLhered from Lhe lu sysLem. 1hls can lead Lo
vlolaLlon of prlvacy of lndlvlduals.

17 MonLesclaros
v. CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
132293

!uly 7, 2002.
lAC1S:
k.A. No. 7808 (slgned on March 19, buL was sLlll a blll aL Lhe
Llme Lhls peLlLlon was flled) was belng enacLed ln order Lo
modlfy cerLaln elecLlons on Lhe local level and make Lhem
easler Lo manage. Among Lhe elecLlons LhaL were affecLed
was LhaL of Lhe Sanggunlang kabaLaan (Sk).
eLlLloner demanded CCMLLLC Lo hold Sk elecLlons on May
6, 2002 as scheduled. AL LhaL Llme, CCMLLLC expressed
supporL Lo Lhe blll ln Congress whlch moved Lhe Sk and
8arangay elecLlons Lo !uly 13, 2002 and lower Lhe Sk
membershlp age Lo aL leasL 13 and noL more Lhan 21 years
old. eLlLloners ask Lhe SC (1) Lo declare unconsLlLlonal any
law posLponlng Lhe Sk elecLlons, (2) Lo conLlnue elecLlon as
scheduled, and (3) Lo allow Lhe presenL Sk members Lo run
and voLe even lf Lhey are over 21 years old.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenLs acLed wlLh grave abuse of
dlscreLlon ln:
o lnLendlng Lo posLpone Sk elecLlons
o lnLendlng Lo dlscrlmlnaLe and dlsenfranchlse Lhe Sk
members who are 18 buL noL more Lhan 21 years old
o Wlllfully falllng Lo fund Lhe elecLlons ln Lhe gulse of
posLponemenL when Lhereare ln facL funds avallable
for Lhe purpose
o Alleglng LhaL lncumbenL offlcers [usL wanL Lo slL ln
Lhelr seaL perpeLually.
1here ls noL [usLlclable lssue because no law has been passed yeL. 1he
CourL cannoL prescrlbe Lo Congress whaL lL can or cannoL leglslaLe
upon.

Sk membershlp ls a mere sLaLuLory rlghL, Lherefore, lL can be
wlLhdrawn or amended by Congress anyLlme. lurLhermore, publlc
offlce ls a publlc LrusL. eLlLloners have no proprleLary clalm over Lhe
Sk offlce.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
1here ls noL [usLlclable lssue.

18 1an v. eople

C.8. no.
113307

May 19, 1998
lAC1S:
eLlLloners lsmael 8amllo and lred Moreno were caughL
LransporLlng lumber wlLhouL permlLs. Ale[andro 1an was Lhe
owner of Lhe logglng company. eLlLloners were convlcLed of
lllegal possesslon of lumber, buL Lhey conLend LhaL Sect|on
68 of Lxecut|ve Crder No. 277 ls unconsLlLuLlonal because lL
deprlves Lhem of due process by requlrlng possesslon of legal
documenLs for mere possesslon of foresL producLs (e.g.
flrewood, bark, honey, eLc.)

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL L.C. No. 277 ls consLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. 1hey also have noL presenLed clear and convlnclng
evldence of a breach of Lhe consLlLuLlon LhaL would [usLlfy
nulllflcaLlon

CLher noLes:
eLlLloners were noL charged wlLh unlawful possesslon of
foresL producLs LhaL Lhey menLloned, Lhey were charged w/
lllegal possesslon of LuM8L8 - Lhus, lncluslon of Lhese lLems
ls of no concern
1hey are noL asserLlng a legal rlghL, and Lhus Lhey are noL
enLlLled Lo a [udlclal check on Lhe law


! Lawful Sub[ecL: Lhe law seeks Lo safeguard our naLural resources
prlmarlly Lhose LhaL are generally found ln our foresLs.

! Lawful Means: Lhe law merely llmlLs Lhe aLLalnmenL of our foresL
producLs buL does noL compleLely place Lhem beyond Lhe
commerce of man slnce Lhose wlLh valld permlLs can sLlll obLaln
Lhese producLs
L.C. No. 277 was reasonable lnsofar as lL ls a penal law wlLh a
speclflc sLandard LhaL would help a common man undersLand
whaL he musL noL do.

Doctr|ne:
19 Cruz v. llavler

C.8. no.
133383

uecember 6,
2000
lAC1S:
1hls ls a challenge Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe Ind|genous
eop|es' k|ghts Act of 1997 (IkA). eLlLloner argues LhaL Lhe
l8A ls unconsLlLuLlonal because:
o (1) lL ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe 8egallan uocLrlne
o (2) lL vlolaLes Lhe rlghLs of prlvaLe owners whose
properLles mlghL be lncluded ln ancesLral domalns
LxcerpLs from Lhe oplnlons:
kapunan: 1he land belonged Lo Lhe l slnce Llme lmmemorlal.
1hey have a naLural LlLle over lL.
Mendoza: urpose of Law ls Lo recognlze Lhe rlghLs of l, Lhus
maklng Lhe law pro llllplno and ro poor.
uno: 1hls ls a law granLlng sLewardshlp, whlch asslgns
managemenL Lo Lhe l ln order Lo proLecL Lhelr ancesLral
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
o (3) lL makes cusLomary law (unpubllshed) appllcable
ln seLLllng dlspuLes, Lhus vlolaLlng due process

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL IkA ls consLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
AfLer 2 rounds of voLlng, Lhe Lally remalned Lhe same aL 7-7.
1he peLlLlon was Lhus dlsmlssed and Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
Lhe IkA was upheld.

lands and domalns. 1hls wlll noL vlolaLe Lhe 8egallan docLrlne
vlLug: 1hls law ls unconsLlLuLlonal because lL glves away Lhe
sLaLe's land. 1hls vlolaLes Lhe collecLlve wlll of Lhe people.
anganlban: 1hls vlolaLes Lhe 8egallan docLrlne. lL ls also a
sample of reverse dlscrlmlnaLlon. lL ls of gross lnequallLy.

20 SmlLh kllne v.
CA

C.8. no.
121267

CcLober 23,
2001
lAC1S:
SmlLh kllne ls Lhe paLenL holder of ClmeLldlne, a
pharmaceuLlcal producL.
ursuanL Lo k.A. No. 16S (the atent Law), uanlex applled
for a compulsory llcense Lo allow Lhem Lo use ClmeLldlne ln
Lhelr own brands of medlclnes (as anLlhlsLamlnes and ulcer
LreaLmenL) aL Lhe 8ureau of aLenLs, 1rademarks and
1echnology 1ransfer (8111). 1hey were granLed a llcense
afLer paylng royalLles Lo SmlLh kllne.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe granLlng of Lhe llcense ls an arblLrary
exerclse of pollce power and vlolaLlve of lnLernaLlonal law

PLLu:
nC. Slnce ClmeLldlne ls medlcal ln naLure, lL ls necessary Lo
promoLe publlc healLh and safeLy.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: CranLlng of Lhe llcense ls for Lhe good of Lhe
publlc because lL wlll allow for medlclnes Lo become avallable aL
a lower prlce.

! Lawful Means: 1he granL of llcense ls ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe
aLenL Law, whlch allowed appllcaLlons for compulsory llcenses
for paLenLed lnvenLlons relaLed Lo food or medlclne 2 years from
Lhe daLe of Lhe granL of Lhe paLenL.

Doctr|ne:
21 eople v. ue la
ledra

lAC1S:
Carol de la ledra was charged and convlcLed of lllegal
recrulLmenL. ln her appeal, she assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of

! Lawful Sub[ecL: lL seeks Lo proLecL llllplnos applylng Lo work
Doctr|ne:
CverbreaLh docLrlne " a
sLaLuLe ls overbroad
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no.
121777

!anuary 30,
1994
Art|c|e 13(b) of Lhe Labor Code. She alleges LhaL Lhe
deflnlLlon of recrulLmenL and placemenL" ls vold for
vagueness, and Lhus vlolaLlve of due process.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 13 (b) of .D. No. 442, as amended,
oLherwlse known as Lhe lllegal recrulLmenL law ls
unconsLlLuLlonal as lL vlolaLes Lhe due process clause.

PLLu:
nC. lL ls noL a perfecLly vague acL whlch ls obscure on lLs
face. lL ls merely couched ln lmpreclse language whlch can be
saved by proper sLaLuLory consLrucLlon.

overseas. Scams pre and posL fllghL have been rampanL, whlch ls
why Lhe law was enacLed.

! Lawful Means: 1he law ls noL vague or overbroad, lL supplles
enough guldellnes.

when lL lnhlblLs Lhe
exerclse of lndlvldual
freedoms guaranLeed by
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
22 LsLrada v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
148360

november 19,
2001
lAC1S:
eLlLloner LsLrada ls belng prosecuLed under k.A. No. 7080
(Ant|-|under Law)
Pe complalns LhaL Lhe law ls defecLlve for belng vague, for
dlspenslng wlLh Lhe reasonable doubL" sLandard, and for
abollshlng Lhe elemenL of mens rea" ln crlmes commlLLed
already punlshable under 8C
lCCAL Cln1 Cl 1PL lSSuL: alleged vagueness of Lhe law:
o 1he law falled Lo properly deflne Lhe Lerms
comblnaLlon" and serles" ln a comblnaLlon of
serles of crlmlnal acLs" (Sect|ons 1 and 2)
o lL also falled Lo deflne Lhe Lerm paLLern" ln Sect|on 4
of Lhe same law.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL k.A. No. 7080 (Ant|-|under Law) ls
unconsLlLuLlonal for belng vague.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he lunder Law was enacLed Lo penallze corrupL
offlclals and Lo quell corrupL acLlvlLles whlch can usually be
quashed, delayed or hldden by Lhese offlclals due Lo Lhelr
poslLlon.

! Lawful Means: As long as Lhe law affords some comprehenslble
gulde or rule LhaL would lnform Lhose who are sub[ecL Lo lL whaL
conducL would render Lhem llable Lo lLs penalLles, lLs valldlLy wlll
be susLalned.

Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
nC. ComblnaLlon" and serles" are Lo be undersLood ln
Lhelr popular meanlng.

23 lllplnas kao v.
CA

C.8. no.
103014

uecember 18,
2001

lAC1S:
8atas ambansa 8|g. 391 also known as Lhe "Investment
o||cy Act of 1983" amendlng res|dent|a| Decree No. 1789
was enacLed Lo encourage and promoLe an exporL-led
economy Lhrough lncenLlves whlch are performance
orlenLed.
.D. No. 1789 as amended by 8.. 8|g. 391 provlded
deducLlons Lo companles who manufacLure and exporL Lhelr
producL overseas ln Lhe form of Lax credlLs on boLh Lhelr neL
Local ConLenL" and neL value Larned"
lllplnas kao flled for Lax credlLs wlLh Lhe 8oard of
lnvesLmenLs (8Cl) who reduced Lhe amounLs credlLed.
lllplnas kao moved for reconslderaLlon buL 8Cl denled.
Cn Aprll 13, 1991 peLlLloners flled Lo Lhe Supreme CourL a
moLlon Lo exLend Lhe Llme Lo flle a peLlLlon pursuanL Lo
Art|c|e 82 of the Cmn|bus Investments Code and flled a
second moLlon on May 13, 1991 buL Lhls was noL acLed upon
by Lhe SC. A resoluLlon was lssued by SC referrlng Lhe case Lo
Lhe CourL of Appeals on May 29.
CA dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon Lo revlew 'on Lechnlcal and
subsLanLlve grounds'. 1echnlcal, peLlLlon was flles beyond Lhe
30 day perlod seL ln Art|c|e 78 of .D. 1789 as amended by
8.. 8|g. 391.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Manual of CperaLlons of Lhe 8Cl ls valld

PLLu:
1he Manual of CperaLlons was noL publlshed, and lL was only
used for Lhe flrsL Llme when Lhe peLlLloner flled for Lhe
lncenLlves of lLs 1988 producLlon.
Absence of noLlflcaLlon ls a faLal omlsslon LhaL renders Lhe
MC vold. As clLed ln 1anada v. 1uver, admlnlsLraLlve rules
and regulaLlons musL be publlshed lf Lhe purpose lf Lhe
purpose ls Lo enforce or lmplemenL exlsLlng laws.
Doctr|ne: lnLernal rules
and regulaLlons need noL
be publlshed. Powever lf
lL affecLs Lhe rlghLs of Lhe
publlc, noLlflcaLlon ls
lndlspensable.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
nC. 1he MC should have been publlshed.
noLe: 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe appeals were flled on Llme.

24 PlLSA v. Sec.
of uCLL

C.8. no.
103144

Aprll 4, 2001
lAC1S:
ue Mesa, Mlkln and Leyson (Cverseas llllplno Workers ln
Saudl Arabla) flled a sulL agalnsL PlLSA for lllegal dlsmlssal,
lllegal exacLlons, lllegal wlLhholdlng of salarles and conLracL
subsLlLuLlon. 1he CLA and nL8C found PlLSA gullLy and
ordered Lhem Lo pay Lhe ClWs.
PlLSA appealed Lo Lhe ueparLmenL of Labor and
LmploymenL (uCLL), buL Lhls was dlsmlssed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL uCLL acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon
amounLlng Lo lack or excess of [urlsdlcLlon ln rullng LhaL
PlLSA gullLy of Lhe above offenses.

PLLu:
nC. 8uL PlLSA cannoL be held llable for lllegal exacLlons
under Memorandum C|rcu|ar No. 2 because lL was noL
publlshed.

ubllcaLlon ls a requlremenL of due process.
lacLual flndlngs of Lhe CLA are accorded respecL by Lhe
CourL. eLlLloner was noL able Lo presenL any evldence Lo
rebuL Lhe valld clalms by Lhe respondenLs.
Doctr|ne: ubllcaLlon ls a
requlremenL of due
process.
2S Chavez v.
8omulo

C.8. no.
137036

!une 9, 2004
lAC1S:
Gu|de||nes |n the Imp|ementat|on of the 8an on the
Carry|ng of I|rearms Cuts|de of kes|dence was lssued by
hlllpplne naLlonal ollce (n) Chlef ulrecLor Ceneral
Permogenes L. Lbdane under Lhe dlrecLlve of Lhen resldenL
Arroyo ln order Lo enhance publlc safeLy. 1he assalled
lssuance by Lhe n Chlef was Lhe lmplemenLlng rules and
regulaLlon of .D. No. 1866.
eLlLloner Chavez quesLlons Lhe valldlLy of sald guldellnes.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: ubllc lnLeresL for Lhe needs of peace and order
ln socleLy.

! Lawful Means: WhaL ls proscrlbed ls merely Lhe carrylng of
flrearms ouLslde of resldence
May re-apply for a new ermlLs Lo Carry llrearms CuLslde of
8esldence (1ClC8)
8evocaLlon would make lL dlfflculL for crlmlnal Lo roam
Doctr|ne: 8lghL Lo carry a
flrearm ls a sLaLuLory
prlvllege noL a
consLlLuLlonal rlghL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of Lhe assalled guldellnes ls a
valld exerclse of pollce power.

PLLu:
?LS. Laws regulaLlng Lhe acqulslLlon or possesslon of guns
have frequenLly been upheld as reasonable exerclse of Lhe
pollce power

around wlLh Lhelr guns and would be easler for n Lo
apprehend Lhem
26 CSlS v.
MonLesclaros

C.8. no.
146494

!uly 14, 2004
lAC1S:
res|dent|a| Decree No. 1146 (8evlsed CovernmenL
lnsurance AcL of 1977) was enacLed Lo expand and lmprove
Lhe soclal securlLy and lnsurance programs of Lhe
CovernmenL Servlce lnsurance SysLem, among oLhers, by
lncreaslng penslon beneflLs and lnLroduclng survlvorshlp
beneflLs Lo all governmenL employees.
CSlS denled Lhe survlvorshlp penslon clalm of Mllagros
Monesclaros wldow of a governmenL employee, because
Lhey marrled wlLhln 3 years before Lhe pensloner quallfled
for Lhe penslon (Sect|on 18, .D. No. 1146).

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 18, .D. No. 1146 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. lL conflscaLes penslons and oLher beneflLs, whlch are
properLy rlghLs, wlLhouL Lhe opporLunlLy Lo be heard. 1hus, lL
vlolaLes due process.


! Lawful sub[ecL: ls presenL. rovlso was lncluded so as Lo prevenL
sham marrlages conLracLed for moneLary galn.

Lawful meLhod: was noL presenL. 1here was a denlal of due
process slnce Lhere ls an ouLrlghL conflscaLlon of beneflLs wlLhouL
an opporLunlLy for Lhe spouse Lo be heard. lL also vlolaLes equal
proLecLlon clause because Lhere ls no reason Lo noL glve Lhe
survlvorshlp penslon Lo such a dependenL spouse.
Doctr|ne:
27 8omualdez v.
Sandlganbayan

lAC1S:
Alfredo 8omualdez, broLher-ln-law of resldenL Marcos, was
charged wlLh vlolaLlon of k.A. No. 3019 (AnLl-CrafL and

! Lawful sub[ecL: ls presenL. Sect|on S clearly prohlblLs relaLlves of
Doctr|ne: 1he vagueness
and overbroad docLrlne
cannoL be applled Lo
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no.
132239

!uly 29, 2004
CorrupL racLlces AcL). Pe clalms LhaL he was deprlved of due
process because Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon was vold for
belng conducLed by a blased body.
Sect|on S of k.A. No. 3019 sLaLes LhaL lL shall be unlawful
for Lhe spouse or for any relaLlve, by consangulnlLy or
afflnlLy, wlLhln Lhe Lhlrd clvll degree, of Lhe resldenL of Lhe
hlllpplnes, Lhe vlce-resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes, Lhe
resldenL of Lhe SenaLe, or Lhe Speaker of Lhe Pouse of
8epresenLaLlves, Lo lnLervene, dlrecLly or lndlrecLly, ln any
buslness, LransacLlon, conLracL or appllcaLlon wlLh Lhe
CovernmenL."
eLlLloner assalls Lhls secLlon for vagueness and overbreadLh.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on S of k.A. No. 3019 ls
unconsLlLuLlonal for belng vague and overbroad.

PLLu:
Sect|on S of k.A. No. 3019 ls consLlLuLlonal. 1he vagueness
and overbroad docLrlne cannoL be applled Lo penal sLaLuLes.

Lhe aforemenLloned governmenL offlclals from Laklng advanLage
of Lhelr relaLlons ln engaglng corrupL acLs and pracLlces.

! Lawful meLhod: ls also presenL. vagueness and overbreadLh
docLrlnes cannoL be applled Lo penal sLaLues. eLlLloner also falls
Lo produce subsLanLlal evldence Lo overcome Lhe presumpLlon of
consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe law.

penal sLaLuLes
28 Chavez v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
162777

AugusL 31,
2004
lAC1S:
Sect|on 32 of CCMLLLC keso|ut|on No. 6S20 sLaLes LhaL All
propaganda maLerlals such as posLers, sLreamers, sLlckers or
palnLlngs on walls and oLher maLerlals showlng Lhe plcLure,
lmage, or name of a person, and all adverLlsemenLs on prlnL,
ln radlo or on Lelevlslon showlng Lhe lmage or menLlonlng
Lhe name of a person, who subsequenL Lo Lhe placemenL or
dlsplay Lhereof becomes a candldaLe for publlc offlce shall be
lmmedlaLely removed by sald candldaLe and radlo sLaLlon,
prlnL medla or Lelevlslon sLaLlon wlLhln 3 days afLer Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhese lmplemenLlng rules, oLherwlse, he and

! Lawful sub[ecL: ls presenL. lL ls for Lhe prohlblLlon of premaLure
campalgnlng, Lhus equallzlng and levellng Lhe playlng fleld for
candldaLes for publlc offlce, wheLher rlch or poor.

! Lawful meLhod: ls also presenL. 1he CCMLLLC ls empowered Lo
supervlse and regulaLe Lhe use of medla ln campalgns for
elecLlons. Sect|on 32 also prevenLs candldaLes from Laklng
advanLage of such exposure or publlclLy uslng Lhelr resources
prlor Lo or ouLslde Lhe acLual campalgn.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
sald radlo sLaLlon, prlnL medla or Lelevlslon sLaLlon shall be
presumed Lo have conducLed premaLure campalgnlng ln
vlolaLlon of SecLlon 80 of Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code."
lrank Chavez was an endorser for cerLaln producLs wlLh
blllboards along maln roads. Pe Lhen ran for SenaLor and was
dlrecLed by Lhe CCMLLLC Lo remove such blllboards Lo
prevenL belng charged of lmmaLure campalgnlng.
Chavez assalls Lhe valldlLy of Lhe resoluLlon based on (1) non-
lmpalrmenL clause and (2) lnvalld exerclse of pollce power.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 32 of CCMLLLC keso|ut|on No. 6S20
ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. lL ls a valld exerclse of pollce power because Lhe
blllboards gave Lhe peLlLloner an unfalr advanLage over oLher
candldaLes as Lhey became pollLlcal ln naLure durlng
elecLlons.

Crderlng Lhe removal of Lhe blllboards ls a reasonable
meLhod Lo ensure LhaL some candldaLes, lncludlng peLlLloner,
do noL geL unfalr advanLage over oLher candldaLes ln Lerms
of exposure and publlclLy.

noLe on Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause:
1he resoluLlon ls noL vlolaLlve of Lhe non-lmpalrmenL of
conLracLs clause. lL has been held LhaL Lhe non-lmpalrmenL
clause musL yleld Lo Lhe lofLler purposes LargeLed by
CovernmenL.
29 A8AkAuA v.
LrmlLa

C.8. no.
168036

SepLember 1,
2003

lAC1S:
kepub||c Act No. 9337 was lmplemenLed as a parL of Lhe
governmenL's flscal reform agenda Lo glve Lhe counLry a
susLalnable macroeconomlc envlronmenL necessary for
economlc growLh".
lL reformed Lhe slngle-sLage Lax LhaL was currenLly belng
lmplemenLed and changed lL Lo Lhe value-Added 1ax (vA1)
sysLem whereln Lhe governmenL was glven Lhe power Lo
lmpose a 10 vA1 on Lhe sale, barLer, exchange or lease of
goods or properLles and servlces". lf elLher of Lwo speclflc
condlLlons occurred, Lhe resldenL was glven Lhe
responslblllLy of lncreaslng Lhe raLe Lo 12.
1he lnpuL Lax ls noL a properLy or a properLy rlghL wlLhln Lhe
consLlLuLlonal purvlew of Lhe due process clause. A vA1-
reglsLered person's enLlLlemenL Lo Lhe credlLable lnpuL Lax ls
a mere sLaLuLory prlvllege. 1he dlsLlncLlon beLween sLaLuLory
prlvlleges and vesLed rlghLs musL be borne ln mlnd for
persons have no vesLed rlghLs ln sLaLuLory prlvlleges. 1he
sLaLe may change or Lake away rlghLs, whlch are creaLed by
Lhe law of Lhe sLaLe, alLhough lL may noL Lake away properLy,
whlch was vesLed by vlrLue of such rlghLs.
lL ls noL a vlolaLlon of due process because Lhe governmenL ls
responslble for lmplemenLlng measures LhaL wlll proLecL Lhe
counLry from undergolng any dlfflculLy (economlcally, ln Lhls
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe vA1 ls vlolaLlve of Sect|on 1, Art|c|e 3 of
the 1987 Const|tut|on.

PLLu:
nC. 1ax exempLlons are sLaLuLory prlvlleges, noL properLy
rlghLs.

case).
30 8elLran v.
SecreLary of
PealLh

C.8. no.
133640
139147

november 23,
2003

lAC1S:
k.A. No. 7719 (naLlonal 8lood Servlces AcL) almed Lo
regulaLe blood banks ln Lhe hlllpplnes as a response Lo Lhe
very urgenL need of Lhe governmenL Lo conLrol Lhe quallLy of
blood donaLlons made avallable Lo Lhe publlc.
1he ueparLmenL of PealLh SecreLary Lhen promulgaLed
Adm|n|strat|ve Crder No. 9 (lmplemenLlng rules) whlch
phased ouL all commerclal blood banks ln Lhe hlllpplnes.
eLlLloners, owners of blood banks, say LhaL Lhls ls a
deprlvaLlon of personal llberLy (Lo choose from whlch blood
bank Lo buy) and Lhelr properLy rlghLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL A.C. No. 9 ls a valld exerclse of pollce power.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he law and Lhe lmplemenLlng rules was enacLed Lo
promoLe and preserve publlc healLh and safeLy.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he almed Lo provlde safe blood for Lhe people
and Lo safeguard agalnsL Lhe spread of Lransfuslon-relaLed
lllnesses.

! Lawful Means: haslng ouL commerclal blood banks ls a
reasonable meLhod because lL allows Lhe governmenL Lo beLLer
ensure LhaL Lhe blood avallable Lo Lhe publlc wlll be safe of hlgh
quallLy. lndlvldual lnLeresLs of Lhe blood bank owners musL glve
way Lo Lhe publlc welfare.
Doctr|ne: ubllc healLh
has been held a valld
sub[ecL for Lhe exerclse
of pollce power.
31 Cng v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
lAC1S:
8ureau of lnLernal 8evenue Commlssloner !ose Cng was
charged wlLh amasslng lll-goLLen wealLh because hls asseLs
allegedly were dlsproporLlonaLe from hls lncomes as 8l8
rocedural uue rocess: 8equlremenL of prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon
WheLher or noL Lhe procedural rlghL Lo due process of Lhe
peLlLloners was vlolaLed when Cmbudsman falled Lo conducL
a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon on nelly Cng. " ?LS. AlLhough
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
126838

SepLember 16,
2003

commlssloner. Pls wlfe, nelly Cng was also lmpleaded ln Lhe
forfelLure sulL of Lhe properLy. eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhey
were deprlved of due process because no prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon was done on nelly Cng.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL k.A. No. 1379 ls unconsLlLuLlonal for belng
vague and falllng Lo deflne and quallfy lll-goLLen wealLh.

PLLu:
nC. 1he law ls noL vague as lL deflnes wlLh sufflclenL
parLlcularlLy unlawfully acqulred properLy of a publlc offlcer
or employee.
glven LhaL she has no vlslble means of lncome, Lhls would be
buL an empLy ceremony.
lorfelLure proceedlngs alLhough Lechnlcally clvll ln form are
deemed crlmlnal or penal. lL ls ln recognlLlon of Lhe facL LhaL
forfelLure parLakes Lhe naLure of a penalLy LhaL k.A. No. 1379
affords Lhe respondenL Lhereln Lhe rlghL Lo a prevlous lnqulry
slmllar Lo a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon ln crlmlnal cases. lL ls
lnLegral Lo due process ln crlmlnal [usLlce desplLe belng a
sLaLuLory and noL a consLlLuLlonal rlghL.

SubsLanLlve uue rocess: vagueness
1he law ls noL vague as lL deflnes wlLh sufflclenL parLlcularlLy
unlawfully acqulred properLy of a publlc offlcer or employee
as LhaL whlch ls manlfesLly ouL of proporLlon Lo hls salary as
such publlc offlcer or employee and Lo hls oLher lawful
lncome and Lhe lncome from leglLlmaLely acqulred properLy."
lL also provldes a deflnlLlon of whaL ls leglLlmaLely acqulred
properLy.

32 Lucena Crand
1ermlnal v.
!AC llner

C.8. no.
148339

lebruary 23,
2003

lAC1S:
Lucena ClLy promulgaLed Crd|nance No. 1631 whlch granLed
Lhe peLlLloner excluslve franchlse of Lermlnals ln Lhe clLy, and
Crd|nance No. 1778 whlch prohlblLed Lhe enLrance of buses
and [eepneys from enLerlng Lhe clLy, and declared lnoperable
all Lermlnals ln Lhe clLy. !AC Llner assalls Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
ordlnance.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnances are unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he means are characLerlzed by overbreadLh because

! Lawful Sub[ecL: uecongesLlng Lrafflc ln Lucena ls of publlc lnLeresL
warranLlng Lhe SLaLe's exerclse of pollce power

Lawful Means: 1he ordlnances are characLerlzed by overbreadLh
and go beyond whaL ls reasonably necessary Lo solve Lhe Lrafflc
problem. 1ermlnals per se do noL lmpeded nor help lmpede Lhe
flow of Lrafflc so closlng Lhem down would noL necessarlly serve
Lhe purpose of Lhe law and ls Lhus beyond whaL ls reasonable.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lhey go beyond whaL ls reasonably necessary Lo address Lhe
problem of decongesLlon.

33 ClLy of Manlla
v. Lagulo

C.8. no.
118127

Aprll 12, 2003
lAC1S:
1he ClLy of Manlla promulgaLed Crd|nance No. 7783 whlch
prohlblLed cerLaln forms of enLerLalnmenL ln Lhe LrmlLa-
MalaLe area where women are used as Lools ln
enLerLalnmenL." 1hese lncluded saunas, massage parlors,
beerhouses, moLels, nlghL clubs, eLc. !udge Lagulo ruled LhaL
Lhe ordlnance was lnvalld.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance ls lnvalld.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he ordlnance vlolaLes Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy of moLel
paLrons who have Lhe llberLy for sexual consummaLlon as
long as Lhey do noL vlolaLe Lhe law. lL also does noL have Lhe
sLandards Lo deLermlne whlch esLabllshmenLs Lend Lo
dlsLurb Lhe communlLy, annoy Lhe lnhablLanLs and affecL
soclal and moral welfare of Lhe communlLy", Lhus allowlng
auLhorlLles unbrldled dlscreLlon.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he ordlnance soughL Lo ban places where
prosLlLuLlon, adulLery and fornlcaLlon" prollferaLe and ls Lhus
almed aL Lhe promoLlon and proLecLlon of [Lhe] soclal and moral
values."

Lawful Means: 1he places LhaL Lhe ordlnance soughL Lo ban
ouLrlghL are noL per se offenslve Lo publlc morals. 1he rlghL Lo
prlvacy and sexual llberLy may be rlghLfully lnvoked by many of
Lhe paLrons of Lhese places. Also, Lhe ordlnance consLlLuLes
unlawful Laklng of Lhe buslnesses.
Aslde from belng a deprlvaLlon of properLy rlghLs, prohlblLlon
of Lhe esLabllshmenLs would noL do anyLhlng Lo sLop
lmmorallLy. 1he problem ls wlLh Lhe people who use Lhese
places for lmmoral acLlvlLles. LradlcaLlng Lhese esLabllshmenL
wlll noL eradlcaLe Lhe problem of lmmoral acLlvlLles done by
Lhe people, as Lhese could be done even ln Lhe mosL
lnnocenL of places.
Doctr|ne:
34 8ayan v.
LrmlLa

C.8. no.
169848

Aprll 23, 2006
lAC1S:
A mulLl-secLoral rally whlch kMu also co-!"#$!#%&' )*!
!"#$%&'$% )* +,*"$$% -'*./ 0!+-1- 23$.&$ 4. 5,*.) *5 )#$
unlverslLy of SanLo 1omas and golng Lowards Mendlola
brldge. ollce offlcers blocked Lhem along MorayLa SLreeL
and prevenLed Lhem from proceedlng furLher. 1hey were
Lhen forclbly dlspersed, causlng ln[urles on one of Lhem.
1hree oLher rallylsLs were arresLed.
eLlLloners assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of 8atas ambansa

! Lawful Sub[ecL: Whlle free speech ls safeguarded by our
ConsLlLuLlon, lL does noL mean LhaL lL cannoL be properly
regulaLed by law.
1he 8 doesn'L resLraln Lhe rlghL Lo peaceful assembly, lL
merely regulaLes lL. 1hough Lhese rlghLs en[oy prlmacy ln
Lhe realm of consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon," Lhey are noL absoluLe
can be a valld sub[ecL of regulaLlon.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8|g. 880 (no permlL, no rally) and Lhe CallbraLed reempLlve
8esponse" pollcy. 1hey clalm LhaL such pollcles lnfrlnge on
Lhelr rlghLs Lo peaceful assembly and peLlLlon Lhe
governmenL for redress of grlevances.

lSSuL:
ls 8atas ambansa No. 880, speclflcally Sect|ons 4, S, 6, 12
13(a) and 14(a) Lhereof, and kepub||c Act No. 7160 vold on
grounds of overbreadLh or vagueness?
PLLu:
nC. 8.. No. 880 ls clear and noL vague and noL overbroad. lL
regulaLes Lhe exerclse of Lhe rlghL Lo peaceful assembly and
peLlLlon only Lo Lhe exLenL needed Lo avold a clear and
presenL danger of Lhe subsLanLlve evlls Congress has Lhe
rlghL Lo prevenL.

! Lawful Means: 1he 8 merely puLs a Llme, place, and manner on
Lhe exerclse of free speech. lL applles Lo all form of publlc
assemblles and noL [usL rallles. LasLly, Lhe permlL cannoL be
denled unless Lhere ls a clear and presenL danger Lo Lhe publlc.
3S kMu v. ulr.
Cen.

C.8. no.
167798

Aprll 19, 2006
lAC1S:
resldenL Arroyo lssued Lxecut|ve Crder No. 420 whlch
requlred all governmenL agencles Lo sLreamllne and
harmonlze Lhelr lu sysLem.

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhe L.C. ls a valld exerclse of pollce power.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he LC provldes for sufflclenL sLandards wlLh regard Lo
Lhe use of Lhe daLa. rlvacy ls Lherefore noL vlolaLed.

L.C. No. 420 ls valld. An LC ls used Lo lmplemenL
consLlLuLlonal or sLaLuLory powers. 1he lu sysLem would
reduce cosLs, lncrease efflclency and lmprove general publlc
servlce, Lhlngs already mandaLed by exlsLlng laws.
lurLhermore, Lhe lalLhful LxecuLlon of Laws Clause (Sect|on
17, Art|c|e VII) mandaLes Lhe presldenL Lo execuLe laws.
1here ls reason Lo lmplemenL L.C. No. 420.
lL does noL vlolaLe Lhe rullng ln Cple v. 1orres because lL ls
noL a usurpaLlon of leglslaLlve auLhorlLy. lL does noL
lmplemenL a naLlonal lu sysLem because lL only applles Lo
agencles whlch already collecL personal daLa and lssue lus
(e.g. SSS, hllhealLh, L1C, eLc.).

Doctr|ne:
36 Mlrasol v.
uWP

lAC1S:
k.A. No. 2000 (LlmlLed Access Plghway AcL) provlded for Lhe
auLhorlLy of Lhen ueparLmenL of ubllc Works,
valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8: A.C. No. 1

! Lawful Sub[ecL: ubllc hlghways are sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon for Lhe
Doctr|ne: ollce power's
scope should be
conLlnuously be
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no.
138793

!une 8, 2006
1ransporLaLlon and CommunlcaLlons (now known separaLely
as uWP and uC1C) Lo regulaLe, resLrlcL or prohlblL access Lo
llmlLed access faclllLles llke hlghways and expressways so
LhaL such faclllLles can besL serve Lhe needs of Lhe publlc and
allevlaLe Lrafflc congesLlon.
o Adm|n|strat|ve Crder No. 1 prohlblLed moLorcycles
on llmlLed access faclllLles.
o Department Crder No. 74 declared porLlons of nLLx
and SLLx as llmlLed access faclllLles.
o Department Crder No. 21S provlded LhaL Lhere ls a
ban of moLorcycles ln nLLx, SLLx and Lhe Manlla-
CavlLe 1oll Lxpressway or known as Lhe CoasLal 8oad.
o Department Crder No. 123 lssued by uWP Lhru Lhe
1oll 8egulaLory 8oard, allowed moLorcycles wlLh
englne dlsplacemenLs of 400cc lnslde llmlLed access
faclllLles.
1he laws were enacLed wlLh Lhe end goal of bannlng
moLorcycles owners from Lhe usage of Lhe llmlLed access
faclllLles as respondenLs conslder Lhem as dangerous and
LhaL Loll ways are noL deslgned Lo accommodaLe moLorcycles
and LhaL Lhelr presence ln Lhe Loll ways wlll compromlse
safeLy and Lrafflc conslderaLlons.
eLlLloners represenL an organlzaLlon of moLorcycllsLs who
are assalllng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe above orders, and argue LhaL
Lhls clalm ls baseless and unwarranLed for Lhere ls no
sclenLlflc and ob[ecLlve daLa Lo supporL Lhe clalm. Also, Lhe
sald rules are vlolaLlon of Lhelr rlghL Lo Lravel and also an
unreasonable classlflcaLlon for slngllng ouL moLorcycles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe above admlnlsLraLlve and deparLmenL
orders are valld.
safeLy of Lhe publlc and ln Lhls case Lhe usage of such roads by
moLor vehlcles

! Lawful Means: As long as Lhe regulaLlon ls reasonable, ln facL Lhe
sole sLandard ln deLermlnlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhls AC, Lhere ls no
need for exacL deflnlLlons and sclenLlflc formulaLlons. 1he
regulaLlon here does noL lmpose unreasonable resLrlcLlons and ls
noL oppresslve buL [usL ouLllnes precauLlonary measures for Lhe
besL of Lhe socleLy.

nC1 a valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8: D.C. No. 74, 21S and 123
1he deparLmenL orders were lssued pursuanL Lo k.A. No.
2000 whlch empowered Lhe now defuncL ueparLmenL of
ubllc Words and CommunlcaLlons (uWC) Lo regulaL and
resLrlcL access Lo llmlLed access faclllLles ln order Lo allevlaLe
Lrafflc congesLlon. uWC was evenLually spllL lnLo Lhe uWP
(whlch assumed publlc works funcLlon) and Lhe uC1C (whlch
ls Lasked wlLh pollcy-formulaLlon).
1he deparLmenL orders lssued by Lhe uWP are lnvalld
because Lhey are noL empowered Lo lssue such pollcy-seLLlng
orders.
1he admlnlsLraLlve order was upheld because lL was lssued
by uWC whlch was wlLhln lLs auLhorlLy Lo do so.
expandlng as long as lL ls
for Lhe publlc welfare
and does noL vlolaLe any
consLlLuLlonal rlghL and lL
ls a well-seLLled prlnclple
LhaL Lhe SLaLe can
lnLrude lnLo Lhe rlghLs of
properLy and llberLy of
lLs people as long as lL ls
for Lhe valld exerclse of
ollce ower.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
CnL? A.C. No. 1 ls valld because Lhe deparLmenL orders
were noL wlLhln Lhe power of uWP Lo lssue.

37 arreno v.
CCA

C.8. no.
162224

!une 7, 2007
lAC1S:
Sect|on 27 of .D. No. 1638, as amended by .D. No. 16S0,
provldes LhaL a reLlree who loses hls llllplno clLlzenshlp shall
be removed from Lhe reLlred llsL and hls reLlremenL beneflLs
LermlnaLed upon loss of llllplno clLlzenshlp.
eLlLloner, represenLed by hls daughLer, ls a reLlred 2
nd
LL. of
Lhe hll. ConsLabulary who had been recelvlng penslon.
ursuanL Lo .D. No. 1638, Lhe penslon sLopped when he
became a uS ClLlzen.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe above secLlon ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. 1he peLlLloner had no vesLed properLy rlghL over hls
penslon because Lhe decree was enacLed prlor Lo hls
reLlremenL.

eLlLloner dld noL acqulre properLy rlghL over hls penslon
when Lhe sald u was enacLed because lL was enacLed ln
1979 and peLlLloner reLlred ln 1982. uurlng Lhe enacLmenL of
Lhe sald u, Lhere are [usL fuLure beneflLs as he has noL yeL
aLLalned Lhe requlremenLs and Lhus Lhere ls no vlolaLlon of
Lhe due process clause whlch for hlm was done Lhrough Lhe
unlawful Laklng of hls properLy rlghL. 1here ls no vesLed rlghL
Lo begln wlLh because Lhere ls sLlll no properLy rlghL. Also,
peLlLloner was able Lo conLesL Lhe removal of hls name ln Lhe
llsL so Lhere ls no denlal of due process.
1he requlremenL lmposed by Sec. 27 of u 1638 ls noL
oppresslve, dlscrlmlnaLory, or conLrary Lo publlc pollcy. 1he
SLaLe has Lhe rlghL Lo lmpose a reasonable condlLlon
necessary for naLlonal defense. 1o rule oLherwlse would be
deLrlmenLal Lo Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe sLaLe.

Doctr|ne: So long as Lhe
properLy rlghL ls noL a
vesLed one, lL cannoL be
clalmed LhaL a vlolaLlon
of Sect|on 1, Art|c|e 3,
1987 Const|tut|on has
been commlLLed.
38 Lsplnocllla v.
8agong 1anyag

C.8. no.
131019

AugusL 9, 2007

lAC1S:
8A1APAl was lncorporaLed Lo enable occupanLs of land
owned by lorLune uevelopmenL Corp. by obLalnlng a loan
from Lhe naLlonal Pome llnance CorporaLlon.
eLlLloners who are member-benlflclarles clalmed loLs
ad[acenL Lo Lhelrs. AfLer a land survey, Lhese were found Lo
noL belong Lo Lhem and was deducLed from Lhelr allocaLlon.
1hey also dld noL compleLe Lhe documenLs requlred by Lhe
8A1APAl even afLer new deadllnes and demand leLLers were
roper noLlflcaLlon and opporLunlLy Lo be heard:
8ecords of Lhe case show LhaL peLlLloners had had more Lhan
sufflclenL noLlce and opporLunlLy Lo be heard before Lhey
were dellsLed as prospecLlve beneflclarle.

uue process guaranLee for vesLed rlghLs
1he perlod durlng whlch peLlLloners occupled Lhe loLs, no
maLLer how long, dld noL vesL Lhem wlLh any rlghL Lo clalm
ownershlp slnce lL ls a fundamenLal prlnclple of law LhaL acLs
Doctr|ne: 1he essence of
due process ls Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be heard.
WhaL Lhe law prohlblLs ls
noL Lhe absence of
prevlous noLlce buL Lhe
absoluLe absence Lhereof
and Lhe lack of
opporLunlLy Lo be heard.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
glven. 1hus, Lhey were dellsLed as member-benlflclarles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloners were deprlved of due process.

PLLu:
nC. eLlLloners were duly noLlfled and heard, and Lhey have
no vesLed rlghL over Lhe properLy ln quesLlon.

of possessory characLer execuLed by vlrLue of llcense or
Lolerance of Lhe owner, no maLLer how long, do noL sLarL Lhe
runnlng of Lhe perlod of acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon.

Doctr|ne: uue process
guaranLee can never be
lnvoked when no vesLed
rlghL has been acqulred.

39 unlLed 8l
Pomeowners'
AssoclaLlons,
lnc. v. 1he
(Munlclpal)
ClLy Mayor,
aranaque ClLy

C.8. no.
113811

lebruary 7,
2007

lAC1S:
Mun|c|pa| Crd|nance No. 97-08 reclasslfles Ll Crande and
Agulrre Avenues ln 8l Pomes aranaque from resldenLlal Lo
commerclal areas.
eLlLloners quesLlon Lhe valldlLy of sald law clalmlng LhaL Lhe
ordlnance vlolaLes Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause because loL
buyers' LlLles provlde LhaL such properLy should be only for
resldenLlal purposes.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Mun|c|pa| Crder No. 97-08 was enacLed
under Lhe valld exerclse of pollce power

PLLu:
?LS. Mun|c|pa| Crder No. 97-08 was enacLed ln compllance
wlLh appllcable laws, ln good falLh and ln Lhe exerclse of
sound [udgmenL.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he lncreaslng number of homeowners ln 8l
Pomes necesslLaLed Lhe addlLlonal commerclal areas ln Lhe
subdlvlslon Lo servlce Lhe needs of sald homeowners.

! Lawful Means: Ll Crande and Agulrre Avenues have long been
commerclallzed
eLlLloner u8lPAl (refer Lo llsL of plalnLlffs) even
acknowledge Lhe need for addlLlonal commerclal areas
Doctr|ne: ollce power ls
superlor Lo Lhe non-
lmpalrmenL clause.
40 SL. Luke's
Medlcal
CenLer
Lmployees
AssoclaLlon-
lAC1S:
k.A. No. 7431 soughL Lo regulaLe radlologlc Lechnology
pracLlces and requlred proper cerLlflcaLlon Lo pracLlce as a
radlology and/or x-ray LechnologlsL. eLlLloner dlsallowed
respondenL Marlbel SanLos from conLlnulng her poslLlon
roper noLlflcaLlon and opporLunlLy Lo be heard
SanLos was glven ample opporLunlLy Lo quallfy for Lhe
poslLlon and was sufflclenLly warned LhaL her fallure Lo do so
would resulL ln her separaLlon from work ln Lhe evenL Lhere
were no oLher vacanL poslLlons Lo whlch she could be
Doctr|ne: Whlle Lhe rlghL
of workers Lo securlLy of
Lenure ls guaranLeed by
Lhe consLlLuLlon, lLs
exerclse may be
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
AlW v.
naLlonal Labor
8elaLlons
Commlsslon

C.8. no.
162033

March 7, 2007
wlLhouL proper llcense Lo avold exposure Lo posslble
sancLlons and even revocaLlon of lLs llcense Lo operaLe.
eLlLloner dlsmlssed SanLos for her fallure Lo pass Lhe board
llcensure exam for x-ray Lechnlclans pursuanL Lo a k.A. No.
7431, and for her lack of Llmellness ln applylng for anoLher
poslLlon sulLable Lo her quallflcaLlons.

lSSuL:
WheLher SanLos was lllegally dlsmlssed by SLMC on Lhe basls
of her lnablllLy Lo secure a cerLlflcaLe of reglsLraLlon from Lhe
8oard of 8adlologlc Lechnology.

PLLu:
nC. no mallce or lll wlll can be lmpuLed upon SLMC as Lhe
separaLlon of SanLos was underLaken by lL conformably Lo an
exlsLlng sLaLuLe.

Lransferred. uesplLe Lhese warnlngs, SanLos sLlll dld noL
comply. 1o relLeraLe, Lhe requlremenL for 8oard cerLlflcaLlon
was seL by sLaLuLe. !usLlce, falrness and uuL 8CCLSS LhaL an
employer should noL be penallzed for slLuaLlons where lL had
no parLlclpaLlon or conLrol.

reasonably regulaLed
pursuanL Lo Lhe pollce
power of Lhe SLaLe Lo
safeguard healLh, morals,
peace, educaLlon, order,
safeLy, and Lhe general
welfare of Lhe people.
ConsequenLly, persons
who deslre Lo engage ln
Lhe learned professlons
requlrlng sclenLlflc or
Lechnlcal knowledge may
be requlred Lo Lake a
examlnaLlon as a
prerequlslLe.
41 Carlos v.
uSWu

C.8. no.
166494

!une 29, 2007
lAC1S:
Sect|on 4, k.A. No. 92S7 (Lxpanded Senlor ClLlzen's AcL of
2003) enLlLles senlor clLlzens Lo 'Lhe granL of 20 dlscounL
from all esLabllshmenLs xxx and purchase of medlclnes ln all
esLabllshmenLs for Lhe excluslve use of senlor clLlzens' xxx
1he esLabllshmenL may clalm Lhe dlscounLs xxx as Lax
deducLlon based on Lhe neL cosL of Lhe goods sold or servlces
rendered xxx
eLlLloners assall Lhe valldlLy of Lhe law on Lhe ground LhaL lL
consLlLuLes conflscaLlon of properLy wlLhouL due process.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 4, k.A. No. 92S7 ls unconsLlLuLlonal
because lL consLlLuLes deprlvaLlon of prlvaLe properLy
wlLhouL due process.

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1he goal of Lhe law ls maxlmlzlng Lhe conLrlbuLlon
of senlor clLlzens Lo socleLy.
1he granL of Lhe 20 dlscounL, whlch resulLs ln a loss of proflL
for drugsLores, ls a valld exerclse of ollce ower Lo proLecL
Lhe welfare of senlor clLlzens. 1he Lax deducLlon ls noL a form
of [usL compensaLlon. roperLy rlghLs musL bow down Lo Lhe
prlmacy of ollce ower.

! Lawful Means: 1he goal of Lhe law ls accompllshed by glvlng
senlor clLlzens beneflLs and prlvlleges.
1he law ls nelLher conflscaLory nor oppresslve because Lhe
SLaLe glves some form of relmbursemenL, and Lhe
calculaLlons of loss of proflL for Lhe peLlLloners were noL
Doctr|ne: Slnce pollce
power ls aL work, [usL
compensaLlon ls noL
necessary. When
deLermlned by Lhe
leglslaLure, properLy
rlghLs musL bow Lo Lhe
prlmacy of pollce power.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
nC. 1he courL belleves LhaL Lhe SLaLe, ln promoLlng Lhe
healLh and welfare of a speclal group of clLlzens, can lmpose
upon prlvaLe esLabllshmenLs Lhe burden of parLly subsldlzlng
a governmenL program.

calculaLed correcLly
42 erez v. LC

C.8. no.
139149

!une 26, 2006
lAC1S:
8atas ambansa 8|g. 33 penallzes lllegal Lradlng, hoardlng,
overprlclng, adulLeraLlon, under dellvery, and under flllng of
peLroleum producLs, as well as possesslon for Lrade of
adulLeraLed peLroleum producLs and of under fllled LC
cyllnders.
Dept. of Lnergy C|rcu|ar 2000-06-10 lays down Lhe
lmplemenLlng rules of 8.. 8|g. 33, and lmposes penalLles on
a per-cyllnder basls
eLlLloner argues LhaL penalLy lmposed wlll exceed Lhe celllng
prescrlbed ln 8.. 8|g. 33, and L he Clrcular llsLs new acLs and
punlshable offenses noL covered by 8.. 8|g. 33.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe clrcular ls vold for belng vague.

PLLu:
nC. 1he new acLs punlshable are wlLhln Lhe scope of 8.. 33

new acLs punlshable
1he uCL, ln lssulng Lhe Clrcular, merely fllled up Lhe deLalls
and Lhe manner Lhrough whlch 8.. 8|g. 33, as amended may
be carrled ouL. noLhlng exLraneous was provlded ln Lhe
Clrcular LhaL could resulL ln lLs lnvalldlLy.
A crlmlnal sLaLuLe ls noL rendered vold [usL because general
Lerms are used Lhereln.

enalLy wlll noL exceed Lhe celllng prescrlbed
vlolaLlon on a per cyllnder basls falls wlLhln Lhe phrase "any
acL" as mandaLed ln SecLlon 4.
Doctr|ne:
43 MMuA v.
vlron

C.8. no.
170636

lAC1S:
Lxecut|ve Crder No. 179 was lssued ln order Lo decongesL
Lrafflc ln MeLro Manlla.
MMuA recommended a plan Lo decongesL Lrafflc by:
o ueveloplng four (4) lnLerlm lnLermodal mass
LransporL Lermlnals Lo lnLegraLe Lhe dlfferenL

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 1rafflc congesLlon ls a proper sub[ecL of pollce
power.

Lawful Means: 1he closure of Lhe bus Lermlnals ls noL a
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
AugusL 13,
2007
LransporL modes
o LllmlnaLlng provlnclal bus Lermlnals along LuSA and
ln Lhe whole of Lhe meLropolls
o 1ransferrlng Lhelr operaLlons Lo common bus
Lermlnals.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL L.C. No. 179 ls a valld exerclse of pollce
power.

PLLu:
nC. 1here are less lnLruslve means of addresslng Lhe
problem of Lrafflc congesLlon ln MeLro Manlla.

reasonable meLhod Lo decongesL Lrafflc. CLher meLhods mlghL be
more effecLlve and reasonable.
44 Sec. of unu v.
Manalo

C.8. no.
180906

CcLober 7,
2008

lAC1S:
8aymond and 8eynaldo Manalo were abducLed and LorLured
by members of Lhe mlllLary afLer Lhey were suspecLed Lo be
members of Lhe new eople's Army. eLlLloners clalm LhaL
Lhe CourL of Appeals erred ln glvlng Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wrlL
of amparo Lo Lhe Manalo broLhers.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of Lhe WrlL of Amparo Lo Lhe
peLlLloners was proper.

PLLu:
?LS. 1here ls sLlll a LhreaL Lo Lhe llfe and llberLy of Lhe Manalo
broLhers slnce Lhelr capLors remaln aL large.

8aLlo:
1he rlghL Lo securlLy ls Lhe rlghL Lo en[oymenL of llfe. 1he
LhreaL vlLlaLes Lhelr free wlll because Lhey are forced Lo llmlL
Lhelr movemenLs and acLlvlLles. 1hreaLs Lo llberLy, securlLy
and llfe are acLlonable Lhrough a peLlLlone for a wrlL of
amparo (l.e. order dlrecLlng peLlLloners Lo glve all reporLs of
Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon, dlsclose presenL asslgnmenL of capLors,
and Lo produce all medlcal records of respondenLs whlle ln
capLlvlLy)

WrlL of Amparo:
WrlL of Amparo ls a remedy avallable Lo any person whose
rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy and securlLy ls vlolaLed or LhreaLened wlLh
vlolaLlon by an unlawful acL or omlsslon of a publlc offlclal or
employee, or of a prlvaLe lndlvldual or enLlLy.
1he WrlL of Amparo was an exerclse for Lhe flrsL Llme of Lhe
CourL's expanded power Lo promulgaLe rules Lo proLecL our
people's consLlLuLlonal rlghLs.
Doctr|ne:
Sect|on 1. et|t|on. - 1he
pet|t|on for a wr|t of
amparo |s a remedy
ava||ab|e to any person
whose r|ght to ||fe,
||berty and secur|ty |s
v|o|ated or threatened
w|th v|o|at|on by an
un|awfu| act or om|ss|on
of a pub||c off|c|a| or
emp|oyee, or of a
pr|vate |nd|v|dua| or
ent|ty.

1he wr|t sha|| cover
extra|ega| k||||ngs and
enforced d|sappearances
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1he WrlL of Amparo serves boLh prevenLlve and curaLlve
roles ln addresslng Lhe problem of exLralegal kllllngs and
enforced dlsappearances.

or threats thereof.
4S S!S v. uu8

C.8. no.
137870,
138633,
161638

november 3,
2008

lAC1S:
k.A. No. 916S was enacLed as a measure Lo sLamp ouL lllegal
drug ln Lhe counLry and Lhus proLecL Lhe well-belng of Lhe
clLlzens, especlally Lhe youLh, from Lhe deleLerlous effecLs of
dangerous drugs.
Sect|on 36 requlred mandaLory drug LesLlng for Lhe ff.:
o CandldaLes for publlc offlce " All candldaLes for
publlc offlce wheLher appolnLed or elecLed ln Lhe
naLlonal or local governmenL shall undergo a
mandaLory drug LesL
o SLudenLs of secondary and LerLlary schools "
8andom drug LesLlng wlll be pursuanL Lo Lhe rules
and regulaLlons of Lhe school's sLudenL handbook
and wlLh noLlce of Lhe parenLs
o Cfflcers and employees " 8andom drug LesL shall be
conducLed as conLalned ln Lhe company's work rules
and regulaLlons. Cfflcers wlLh poslLlve resulLs wlll be
dealL wlLh admlnlsLraLlvely
o ersons charged " All persons charged wlLh an
lmposable penalLy of noL less Lhan 6 years and 1 day
shall undergo mandaLory drug LesLlng

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 36, k.A. No. 916S ls valld

PLLu:
?LS for sLudenLs and offlcers and employees.
nC for candldaLes of publlc offlce and persons charged.
urug 1esLlng for Lhe ff. are valld:
o SLudenLs of secondary and LerLlary schools
o Cfflcers and employees of publlc and prlvaLe offlces
" lL ls noL only accepLable buL may even be necessary Lo
promoLe and proLecL Lhelr safeLy and lnLeresL.

urug 1esLlng for Lhe ff. are vold:
o CandldaLes for publlc offlce " because lL lmposes
addlLlonal quallflcaLlons from Lhose lald down ln Lhe
consLlLuLlon
o ersons charged before Lhe prosecuLor's offlce wlLh
cerLaln offenses " because Lo lmpose a mandaLory
drug LesL on Lhe accused ls a blaLanL aLLempL Lo
harness a medlcal LesL as a Loll for crlmlnal
prosecuLlon whlch ls conLrary Lo Lhe ob[ecLlves of
k.A. No. 916S
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
46 S!S v. ALlenza
!r.

C.8. no.
136032

March 7, 2007
lAC1S:
Crd|nance No. 8027 was passed by Lhe ClLy of Manlla wlLh
Lhe purpose of promoLlng sound urban plannlng and
ensurlng healLh, publlc safeLy, and general welfare of Lhe
resldenLs of andacan and SLa. Ana as well as lLs ad[olnlng
areas, Lhe land use of [Lhose] porLlons of land.
o 1he vlclnlLy of andacan conLalns hlghly flammable
and volaLlle chemlcals.
o lL ls open Lo LerrorlsL aLLacks from land, sea, and alr.
As a resulL, Lhe andacan Cll uepoLs of CalLex, eLron and
Shell had Lo be moved. 1he 8lg 3 oll companles slgned a
memorandum of undersLandlng wlLh Mayor ALlenza and Lhe
uepL. of Lnergy whereln Lhey agreed Lo scale down Lhe
andacan 1ermlnals lnsLead of closlng Lhem down.
Soclal !usLlce SocleLy (S!S) prayed a wrlL of mandamus be
lssued ln order Lo compel Lhe mayor Lo enforce Lhe
ordlnance and close down Lhe andacan 1ermlnals.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance ls a valld exerclse of pollce
power.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he rlghL Lo llfe of Lhe resldenLs ls superlor Lo Lhe 8lg 3
companles' rlghL Lo properLy.

valld exerclse of CLlCL CWL8.

! Lawful Sub[ecL: 8lghL Lo llfe of clLlzens ls paramounL over oLher
concerns. WhaL ls belng guarded ls Lhe healLh and safeLy of Lhe
general publlc.

! Lawful Means: lL ls a valld exerclse of pollce power of Lhe Local
CovernmenL unlLs Lo prohlblL Lhe gasollne companles from
operaLlng ln Lhe area Lo proLecL Lhe welfare of Lhe people and Lo
proLecL Lhem from Lerrorlsm.
1he removal of hlghly dangerous fuels near resldenLlal areas
ls a valld meLhod for safeguardlng Lhe general publlc.

Doctr|ne:
47 SecurlLles and
Lxchange
Commlsslon v.
lnLerporL
8esources
Commlsslon
lAC1S:
Sect|on 30 and 36 of the kev|sed Secur|t|es Act was lnLended
Lo proLecL lnvesLors agalnsL fraud when an lnslder, uslng
secreL lnformaLlon, Lakes advanLage of an unlnformed
lnvesLor.
lnLerporL was accused by SLC of lnslder Lradlng for non-
ln Lhe absence of any consLlLuLlonal or sLaLuLory lnflrmlLy,
Lhese provlslons are legal and blndlng. Where Lhe sLaLuLe
conLalns sufflclenL sLandards and clear lnLenL, as ln Lhe case
of SecLlons 30 and 36 of Lhe 8evlsed SecurlLles AcL, Lhere
should be no lmpedlmenL Lo lLs lmplemenLaLlon.
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
133808

CcLober 6,
2008

dlsclosure of relevanL lnformaLlon abouL an acqulslLy Lhey
had. SLC lssued a show cause order whlch made lnLerporL
explaln why no sancLlons should be flled agalnsL Lhem.
lnLerporL clalms LhaL Lhe SLC has no [urlsdlcLlon because lL ls
Lhe rosecuLlon and LnforcemenL ueparLmenL (Lu) of Lhe
SLC whlch has [urlsdlcLlon. Also, respondenLs clalmed LhaL
Lhe kev|sed Secur|t|es Act needs lmplemenLlng 8ules and
8egulaLlons for lL Lo be effecLlve.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lmplemenLlng rules and regulaLlons were
needed Lo make Lhe kSA effecLlve.

PLLu:
nC. 1he kSA ls compleLe ln lLself and sufflclenLly clear.

48 8AnA1 v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
177308

AugusL 7, 2009
lAC1S:
eLlLloners assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of k.A. No. 9369 whlch
amended k.A. No. 8436 (oll AuLomaLlon Law) on several
grounds. Cne ls Lhe provlslon whlch says LhaL poll waLchers
of domlnanL ma[orlLy and domlnanL mlnorlLy parLles shall be
glven a flxed per dlem of 400.
eLlLloners argue LhaL Sect|on 34 vlolaLes Lhe freedom of Lhe
parLles Lo conLracL and Lhe rlghL Lo flx Lhe Lerms and
condlLlons of conLracLs as Lhey see flL and [usL. A law
provldlng for a flxed per dlem of 400 Lo poll waLchers ls a
prlvaLe conLracL and cannoL be regulaLed by Lhe law.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe flxlng of compensaLlon for poll waLchers
ls valld exerclse of pollce power.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: oll waLchlng ls noL [usL an ordlnary conLracL buL
ls an agreemenL wlLh a solemn duLy Lo ensure Lhe sancLlLy of
voLes. 1he role of Lhe poll waLchers ls noL only Lo Lhelr respecLlve
parLles buL also Lo ensure Lhe proper counLlng of voLes.
Clvlng Lhe poll waLchers falr and equlLable compensaLlon
promoLes general welfare.

! Lawful Means: 1he role of poll waLchers ls vesLed wlLh publlc
lnLeresL, Lhus lL can be regulaLed by Congress ln lLs exerclse of
pollce power.

Doctr|ne: ollce power ls
superlor Lo Lhe non-
lmpalrmenL clause.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
?LS. 1he role of poll waLchers ls vesLed wlLh publlc lnLeresL.

49 eople v. SlLon

C.8. no.
169364

SepLember 18,
2009
lAC1S:
Lvangellne SlLon and krysLel kaLe Sagarano were arresLed
and charged wlLh vagrancy under Art|c|e 202(2) of Lhe
kev|sed ena| Code.
8espondenLs allege LhaL Lhe provlslon, "wlLhouL vlslble
means of supporL," ls unconsLlLuLlonal for vagueness and
overbreadLh.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Art|c|e 202(2) of Lhe kC ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. 1he vold for vagueness docLrlne applles only Lo free-
speech cases and noL Lo penal sLaLuLes.


! Lawful Sub[ecL: Art|c|e 202(2) ls a publlc order law, whlch covers
publlc lndecencles and lmmorallLles Lo publlc nulsances, Lo
dlsorderly conducL.

! Lawful Means: "WlLhouL vlslble means of supporL" ls clear
sLandard for deLermlnlng probable cause, and noL vold.
Doctr|ne: CverbreadLh
and vagueness docLrlnes
have speclal appllcaLlon
Lo free-speech cases only
and are noL approprlaLe
for LesLlng Lhe valldlLy of
penal sLaLuLes.
S0 WhlLe LlghL v.
ClLy of Manlla

C.8. no.
122846

!anuary 20,
2009

lAC1S:
Crd|nance No. 7774 was passed Lo curb Lhe prollferaLlon of
prosLlLuLes and drug deallng. lL prohlblLed shorL-Llme
admlsslon ln hoLels, moLels, and oLher slmllar esLabllshmenLs
ln Manlla. lL penallzed gullLy esLabllshmenLs wlLh a flne of
3,000.00 or lmprlsonmenL noL exceedlng one year, or boLh.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ordlnance of Lhe ClLy of Manlla ls
unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he ordlnance needlessly resLralns Lhe rlghL Lo llberLy of
Lhe cllenLs as well as Lhe buslness operaLlons of hoLel and

! Lawful Sub[ecL: AlLhough Lhe Crdlnance soughL Lo curLall sexual
behavlor ln Manlla's acLlve nlghL spoLs, lL dld noL dlsLlngulsh
places where paLrons are engage ln lllegal acLlvlLles and Lhose
engaged ln llleglLlmaLe acLlons. SecLlon 3 of Lhe sald Crdlnance
makes no such classlflcaLlons.

Lawful means: 1he Crdlnance was an lnvalld exerclse of ollce
ower as lL was an arblLrary lnLruslon lnLo prlvaLe rlghLs,
prevenLlng Lhe leglLlmaLe use of places where llllclL acLlvlLles
rarely or never exlsL. 1here are less lnLruslve measures LhaL
would be more effecLlve Lo achleve Lhelr purpose.

Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
moLels. 1he overbreadLh docLrlne applles because a
consLlLuLlonally guaranLeed rlghL ls needlessly resLralned.

S1 C8L8A v.
8omulo

C.8. no.
160736

March 9, 2010
lAC1S:
eLlLloners assall Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of revenue regulaLlons
lssued by Lhe 8l8 whlch provlde for credlLable wlLhholdlng
Lax (CW1) and mlnlmum corporaLe lncome Lax (MCl1) ofr
Lhose engaged ln real esLaLe. 1he CW1 ls charged on a per
LransacLlon basls, whlle Lhe MCl1 ls charged on Lhe gross
lncome. LlLher Lhe MCl1 or Lhe normal corporaLe lncome Lax
ls acLually pald by Lhe company, whlchever ls hlgher.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CW1 or MCl1 ls unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. 1he power Lo Lax ls plenary and unllmlLed ln range.

1he only llmlL ls Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. lL ls noL a Lax on caplLal buL
on gross lncome, Lherefore, lL ls noL oppresslve and arblLrary.
lL ls also noL an addlLlonal Lax buL a Lax ln lleu of Lhe normal
corporaLe lncome Lax. 1he CW1, on Lhe oLher hand, also does
noL lmpose a new Lax nor does lL lncrease Laxes. lL ls noL a
deprlvaLlon of properLy because Lhe CW1 ls credlLable
agalnsL Lhe Lax due from Lhe seller of Lhe properLy aL Lhe end
of Lhe Laxable year. 1hus, Lhere ls no deprlvaLlon because Lhe
money even goes back Lo Lhe seller.
Doctr|ne:
S2 SouLhern
Pemlsphere v.
A1C

C.8. no.
178332

CcLober 3,
2010

lAC1S:
k.A. No. 9372 (Puman SecurlLy AcL of 2007) penallzes acLs of
Lerrorlsm and allowlng auLhorlLles Lo arresL suspecLed
LerrorlsLs and deLaln Lhem wlLhouL charges for a Lemporary
perlod, wlLh access Lo lawyers, docLors, and famlly.
1he peLlLloner quesLloned Lhe followlng provlslons of Lhe law
as vold: "wldespread and exLraordlnary fear among Lhe
populace" and "coerce Lhe governmenL Lo glve ln Lo an
unlawful demand".

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL k.A. No. 9372 ls vague or overbroad

PLLu:
eLlLloners have no !"#$% %'()*+ as none of Lhe peLlLloners
face any charges agalnsL k.A. No. 9372. 1he CourL wlll noL
Lake [udlclal noLlce of Lhe alleged Lagglng of Lhe peLlLloners
by Lhe mlllLary because Lhe pre-requlslLes are lncompleLe.
1ranscendenLal lmporLance would normally glve sLandlng Lo
peLlLloners, buL penal leglslaLlon belongs Lo a dlfferenL genus
wlLh regard Lo consLlLuLlonal llLlgaLlon. Locus sLandl ls placed
under closer [udlclal scruLlny.
laclal challenges (vold for vagueness and overbreadLh) are
noL appllcable because Lhose are appllcable only for free
speech cases.
1he as-applled" docLrlne ls used for assalllng Lhe
consLlLuLlonallLy of penal laws. lL conslders only exLanL facLs
affecLlng real llLlganLs.
Doctr|ne: 1he docLrlnes
of vold-for-vagueness
and overbreadLh cannoL
be applled Lo a penal
sLaLuLe as Lhey apply
only Lo free speech
cases.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
ulSMlSSLu. 1here ls no [usLlclable lssue.

S3 8oxas v.
Macapagal-
Arroyo

C.8. no.
189133

SepLember 7,
2010
lAC1S:
Mellssa 8oxas, an Amerlcan sLudenL of llllplno descenL, was
abducLed and LorLured by armed men whlle conducLlng a
healLh survey ln 1arlac. She was suspecLed of belng a
member of Lhe nA. 8ased on Lhe sounds she heard whlle ln
cusLody, she lnferred LhaL she was ln lorL Magsaysay. She
was evenLually released buL was consLanLly monlLored
Lhrough a cellphone her capLors gave her. 8oxas Lhen flled
for Lhe wrlLs of Amparo and habeas daLa whlch Lhe CA
granLed.
eLlLloner lnvokes Lhe docLrlne of command responslblllLy Lo
lmpllcaLe hlgh-ranklng offlclals ln her peLlLlon. ln addlLlon,
peLlLloner lnslsLs LhaL her belonglngs before her abducLlon be
reLurned Lo her under Lhe power of Lhe wrlL of amparo.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of wrlL of Amparo and wrlL of
habeas daLa are proper.

PLLu:
nC.

lmpleadlng Lhe hlghesL offlclals of governmenL based on
command responslblllLy ls wrong. lL can only be done ln
crlmlnal proceedlngs. 1he Amparo remedy of reLurnlng Lhe
belonglngs as well as Lhe lnspecLlon of lorL Magsasay were
denled because Lhe abducLors, as well as Lhe alleged place of
conflnemenL, was never proved by Lhe peLlLloner. 1he wrlL of
habease daLa was also denled as lL was noL proven LhaL Cen.
alparan and Alcover dld have ln Lhelr possesslon vldeos and
phoLos relaLed Lo Lhe alleged C-nA Lles of 8oxas. 1he SC
lnsLrucLed Lhe Commlsslon of Puman 8lghLs Lo lead Lhe
furLher lnvesLlgaLlon of Lhe case.
Doctr|ne: Command
responslblllLy lmposes an
lmpuLaLlon of lndlvldual
llablllLy, and lL ls more
apLly lnvoked ln a full-
blown crlmlnal or
admlnlsLraLlve
proceedlng and noL a
summary amparo
proceedlng.

S4 Meralco v. Llm

C.8. no.
184769

CcLober 3,
2010
lAC1S:
AfLer LhreaLenlng leLLers were senL Lo Cherry Llm, Meralco
declded Lo Lransfer her Lo Alabang from 8ulacan for her
safeLy. She reslsLed and flled a habeas daLa peLlLlon Lo
compel Lhe company Lo show her Lhe leLLers.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe wrlL of habeas daLa ls Lhe proper remedy
1he wr|t of habeas data ls a remedy avallable Lo any person
whose rlghL Lo prlvacy ln llfe, llberLy or securlLy ls vlolaLed or
LhreaLened by an unlawful acL or omlsslon of a publlc offlclal
or employee or of a prlvaLe lndlvldual or enLlLy engaged ln
Lhe gaLherlng, collecLlng or sLorlng of daLa or lnformaLlon
regardlng Lhe person, famlly, home and correspondence of
Lhe aggrleved parLy.
1here ls no showlng from Lhe facLs presenLed LhaL peLlLloners
Doctr|ne:
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

:(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
nC. Pabeas daLa wlll noL be lssued Lo proLecL purely properLy
or commerclal concerns. 1he nL8C has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe
case aL bar.

commlLLed any un[usLlflable or unlawful vlolaLlon of
respondenL's rlghL Lo prlvacy vls-a-vls Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy
or securlLy.
Moreover, glven LhaL employmenL consLlLuLes a properLy
rlghL, Lhe habeas daLa wlll nC1 lssue Lo proLecL purely
properLy or commerclal concerns nor when Lhe grounds
lnvoked ln supporL of Lhe peLlLlons Lherefore are vague or
doubLful.

SS ollo v. karlna
ConsLanLlno

C.8. no.
181881

CcLober 18,
2011
lAC1S:
A no expecLaLlon of prlvacy," pursuanL Lo Cff|ce
Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 CompuLer use ollcy" was
adopLed by Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon ln order Lo prevenL
and lnvesLlgaLe work-relaLed employee mlsconducL.
An lnvesLlgaLlon, speclflcally Lo back up all Lhe flles ln Lhe
compuLers found ln Lhe Mamamayan Muna (ALu) and Legal
dlvlslons" was conducLed ln order Lo conflrm Lhe allegaLlons
LhaL ollo was lawyerlng for people wlLh cases ln Lhe Clvll
Servlce Commlsslon. lL was Lo deLermlne wheLher he was
gullLy of grave mlsconducL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search made by Lhe respondenL on Lhe
compuLer asslgned Lo Lhe peLlLloner consLlLuLed a
Lransgresslon on hls rlghL rlghL agalnsL lllegal searches and
selzures.

PLLu:
nC. 1here was no reasonable expecLaLlon of prlvacy on Lhe
parL of Lhe peLlLloner.

A search of an employee's offlce by a supervlsor wlll be
[usLlfled aL lLs lncepLlon" when Lhere are reasonable
grounds for suspecLlng LhaL Lhe search wlll Lurn up evldence
LhaL Lhe employee ls gullLy of work-relaLed mlsconducL, or
LhaL Lhe search ls necessary for a nonlnvesLlgaLory work-
relaLed purpose such as Lo reLrleve a needed flle.
1he search wlll be permlsslble ln lLs scope when Lhe
measures adopLed are reasonably relaLed Lo Lhe ob[ecLlves of
Lhe search and noL excesslvely lnLruslve ln llghL of .Lhe
naLure of Lhe [mlsconducL].
Doctr|ne:

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

WnLN IS A SLAkCn A SLAkCn
1 Soclal !usLlce
SocleLy v.
uangerous
urugs 8oard

C.8. no.
137870

november 3,
2008
lAC1S:
k.A. 916S, or Lhe Comprehens|ve Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, was enacLed. under Sec. 36, a mandaLory drug LesLlng
of candldaLes for candldaLes for publlc offlce, sLudenLs of
secondary and LerLlary schools, offlcers and employees of
publlc and prlvaLe offlces, and persons charged before Lhe
prosecuLor's offlce wlLh cerLaln offenses, among oLher
personallLles, was requlred.
1hls consolldaLed peLlLlon assalls Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec.
36

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe pars. (c), (d), and (f) of Sec. 36, kA 916S
are unconsLlLuLlonal for vlolaLlng rlghL Lo prlvacy, Lhe rlghL
agalnsL unreasonable searches and selzure, and Lhe equal
proLecLlon clause.

PLLu:
?LS. 8uL only par. (f) of Sec. 36 ls unconsLlLuLlonal for
vlolaLlng Lhe rlghLs of a crlmlnally accused, for boLh sLudenLs
and employees referred Lo under pars. (c) and (d), Lhe
lnLruslon on Lhelr prlvacy Lhrough Lhe search" ls valld.
1he CourL's revlew focused on Lhe reasonableness"
1
of Lhe
provlslons. Clven LhaL Lhe drug-LesLlng pollcy ls ln Lhe naLure of
oJmlolsttotlve seotcb needlng whaL was referred Lo ln vernonla as
swlfL and lnformal dlsclpllnary procedures," Lhe probable-cause
sLandard
2
ls noL requlred or even pracLlcable.

8equlremenLs for reasonableness ln admlnlsLraLlve search:
! naLure of Lhe prlvacy lnLeresL upon whlch Lhe search, ln Lhls
case drug LesLlng, lnLrudes
o 1helr prlvacy expecLaLlon ln a regulaLed offlce and
envlronmenL ls, ln flne, reduced as a resulL of
submlLLlng Lo Lhe auLhorlLy and rule of Lhe
lnsLlLuLlon, Lhe laLLer necessarlly has Lo proLecL lLs
safeLy and lnLeresL as well as Lhose of Lhe oLher
employees or sLudenLs. A degree of lmplngemenL
upon such prlvacy has been upheld.
CharacLer of lnLruslon auLhorlzed ls narrowly drawn"
o urug LesLs shall be underLaken under condlLlons
calculaLed Lo proLecL Lhe lndlvldual's prlvacy and
dlgnlLy Lo wlL: (1) 2 LesLs Lo ensure Lhe
LrusLworLhlness of Lhe resulLs, (2) LesLs Lo be
conducLed by professlonals, under Lhe monlLorlng of
Lhe uCP, (3) access Lo drug resulLs wlll be on a need
Lo know" basls, hence confldenLlallLy, (4) employer's
are noL obllged Lo reporL Lo prosecuLlng agencles any
lnformaLlon or evldence regardlng Lhe posslble
resulLs of Lhe drug LesL.
8easonableness"
sLandard ls [udged by Lhe
balanclng of Lhe
governmenL-mandaLed
lnLruslon on Lhe
lndlvldual's prlvacy
lnLeresL agalnsL Lhe
promoLlon of some
compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL.

ln Lhe crlmlnal conLexL,
reasonableness"
requlres showlng of
probable cause Lo be
personally deLermlned
by a [udge.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
kLUISI1LS CI A VALID WAkkAN1
2 eople v.
veloso

C.8. no. 23031

CcLober 20,
1923
lAC1S:
uefendanL reslsLed arresL made by ueL. Ceronlmo on
accounL of Lhe warranL belng lllegal. uefendanL conLends
LhaL Lhe warranL lLself dld noL parLlcularly speclfy Lhe name
of Lhe person Lo be apprehended.
uefendanL was ln an lllegal gambllng house when Lhe
warranL was served.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL an arresL can be reslsLed on accounL of an
lllegal search warranL.

PLLu:
nC. !ohn uoe warranLs are Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe rule LhaL
warranLs shall noL lssue unless Lhe appllcaLlon parLlcularly"
descrlbe Lhe person Lo be selzed".
CourL ruled LhaL fallure Lo name Lhe person ls faLal Lo Lhe valldlLy of
Lhe search warranL. lllegal offlclal acLlon ln Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe
warranL may be forclbly reslsLed.

ersons arresLed under !ohn uoe warranLs or Ceneral warranLs are
vold. Powever Lhe CourL ruled LhaL a !ohn uoe warranL musL conLaln
Lhe 851 u5ck1ll1lON posslble of Lhe person Lo be arresLed,
5ulllclN1 Lo lndlcaLe clearly on whom lL ls Lo be served by sLaLlng
hls occupaLlon, personal appearance and pecularLlLles, place of hls
resldence, or oLher clrcumsLances by whlch he can be ldenLlfled wlLh.

CourL ruled LhaL Lhe warranL sufflclenLly sLaLed LhaL !ohn uoe had
gambllng apparaLus ln hls possesslon ln Lhe bulldlng occupled by hlm
aL no. 124 Calle Arzoblspo, ClLy of Manlla, and as Lhls !ohn uoe was
!ose Ma. veloso, Lhe manager of Lhe club, Lhe pollce could ldenLlfy
!ohn uoe as !ose Ma. veloso

8equlslLes of a WarranL:
1. lssued on robable
Cause
2. robable Cause musL
be uL1L8MlnLu
L8SCnALL? by a
!udge
3. !usL musL examlne
under oaLh or
afflrmaLlon Lhe
complalnanL and Lhe
wlLness he may
produce
4. WarranL musL
parLlcularly descrlbe
Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe
person or Lhlngs Lo
be selzed

3 Alvarez v. Cll

C.8. no.
L-43338

!anuary 29,
1937
lAC1S:
1he CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 1ayabas lssued a search and
selzure warranL for narclso Alvarez' home ln lnfanLa,
1ayabas. 1he documenLs Lo be selzed are ln connecLlon Lo hls
acLlvlLles as money lender charglng usurlous lnLeresL.
1he lnformaLlon ls noL based on Lhe chlef of Lhe AnLl-usury
8oard's personal knowledge buL upon Lhe knowledge of a
rellable lnformanL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc Lhe search and selzure was lllegal.
! robable Cause - 1he lnformaLlon ls based solely on Marlano
Almeda's oaLh LhaL he had no personal knowledge of Lhe
facLs whlch wlll serve as basls for Lhe lssuance of Lhe warranL
! ersonal deLermlnaLlon by a [udge
! !udge musL examlne under oaLh or afflrmaLlon Lhe
complalnanL and Lhe wlLnesses he may produce
1he appllcanL and Lhe wlLnesses LesLlfy on Lhe facLs
personally known Lo Lhem
! 1he warranL musL parLlcularly descrlbe Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe person or Lhlngs Lo be selzed - 8y Lhe
naLure of Lhe goods, Lhelr descrlpLlon may be made
1he Lerm unreasonable
searches and selzures"
has no flxed, absoluLe
and unchanglng meanlng
ln boLh Lhe Const|tut|on
and Genera| Crders No.
S. WlLh regard Lo lLs
reasonablllLy, lL ls purely
a joJlclol poestloo.

lurLhermore, Lhe selzure
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
?LS. 1he search warranL was lllegal because: 1) lL was based
solely on Marlano Almeda's oaLh who had no personal
knowledge of Lhe facLs, 2) lL was noL supporLed by oLher
affldavlLs noL lncludlng appllcanL's, 3) lL allowed Lhe search Lo
be conducLed aL nlghL, 4) lL lacked adequaLe descrlpLlon of
Lhe documenLs Lo be selzed, and 3) Lhe lLems Lo be selzed are
Lo be used as evldence ln a crlmlnal acLlon agalnsL Alvarez.
generally, lL ls noL requlred LhaL a Lechnlcal descrlpLlon be
glven.
of Lhe documenLs was
unconsLlLuLlonal because
Lhe documenLs were Lo
be used as evldence ln a
crlmlnal case agalnsL
Alvarez. lL's equlvalenL Lo
compellloq oo occoseJ to
testlfy oqolost blmself.
4 SLonehlll v.
ulokno

C.8. no. 19330

!une 19, 1967
lAC1S:
!udge lssued 42 warranLs dlrecLlng any peace offlcer Lo
search Lhe peLlLloners, Lhelr offlces, warehouse, and/or
resldences, and Lo selze and Lake possesslon of Lhe followlng
properLy as Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe offense:
o 'books of accounLs, flnanclal records, vouchers,
correspondence, recelpLs, ledgers, [ournals,
porLfollos, credlL [ournals, LypewrlLers, and oLher
documenLs and/or papers showlng all buslness
LransacLlons lncludlng dlsbursemenLs recelpLs,
balance sheeLs and proflL and loss sLaLemenLs and
8obblns (clgareLLewrappers)'

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL search warranLs lssued were valld.

PLLu:
nC. Search warranLs lssued were null and vold and so Lhe
selzed maLerlal cannoL be used as evldence.
Accordlng Lo Lhe requlslLes of a valld search warranL:
! robable Cause
o WarranLs were lssued speclflcally Lo flsh for
evldence," lndlcaLlve LhaL Lhere ls no sufflclenL cause.
1he warranL musL parLlcularly descrlbe Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe person or Lhlngs Lo be selzed
o lL was ln Lhe naLure of a general warranL.
o WhaL was ordered Lo be searched and selzed were
records perLalnlng Lo oll bosloess ttoosoctloos and oll
tecotJs of tbe petltlooets, whaLever Lhelr naLure.
! no speclflc offense alleged. lnsLead offense above-
menLloned was a vlolaLlon of Centra| 8ank Laws, 1ar|ff and
Custom Laws, Interna| kevenue Code, and Lhe kev|sed ena|
Code."

ulfference beLween
Lhlngs searched and
selzed ln.
(1) Cfflce - corporaLlons
have respecLlve
personallLles dlsLlncL
from employees. LegallLy
of Lhe selzure may be
conLesLed only by Lhe
parLles whose rlghLs have
been lmpalred by lL: ln
Lhls case, Lhe
corporaLlon.
(2) 8esldences - usual
sLandard, as seen ln Lhls
case.
S CenLral 8ank
v. Morfe

C.8. no. 20119
lAC1S:
A search warranL was lssued agalnsL llrsL MuLual Savlngs and
Loan CrganlzaLlon for allegedly vlolaLlng Sec. 2 of the
Genera| 8ank|ng Act when lL engaged ln banklng servlces"
! robable Cause
o 8egardless of how llrsL MuLual [usLlfles Lhelr savlngs
and loan pracLlces, record shows LhaL anyone can be

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

!une 30, 1967
when lL lenL funds" Lo lLs members" wlLhouL auLhorlLy from
Lhe MoneLary 8oard.
A wrlL of ln[uncLlon was ordered by !udge Morfe ln favor of
llrsL MuLual Savlngs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search and selzure was valld.

PLLu:
?LS. ConLrary Lo respondenL [udge's conLenLlon, fallure of Lhe
wlLness Lo menLlon parLlcular lndlvlduals does noL necessarlly
prove LhaL he had no personal knowledge of speclflc lllegal
LransacLlons of Lhe CrganlzaLlon, he mlghL be acqualnLed
wlLh Lhe LransacLlons, buL noL Lhe names of Lhe lndlvlduals
concerned.
a member," and so Lhelr servlces are open Lo Lhe
general publlc." 1here ls poLenLlal ln[ury
o upon examlnaLlon, under oaLh of a deLecLlve of Lhe
Manlla ollce ueparLmenL and sald lnLelllgence
offlcer of Lhe 8ank"
! 1he appllcanL and Lhe wlLnesses LesLlfy on Lhe facLs
o lnvesLlgaLors speclfled Lhe address of Lhe
CrganlzaLlon Lo be aL no. 2743 8lzal Avenue, Manlla

6 8ache & Co. v.
8ulz

C.8. no. L-
32409

lebruary 27,
1971
lAC1S:
8l8 Commlssloner vera soughL Lhe lssuance of a search
warranL agalnsL 8ache & Co. for vlolaLlon of Sect|on 46(a) of
the Nat|ona| Interna| kevenue Code, ln relaLlon Lo Secs. S3,
72, 73, 208 and 209.
uurlng Lhe appllcaLlon, !udge 8ulz was noL presenL. 8y meoos
of o oote, be losttocteJ bls uepoty cletk of coott to toke tbe
Jeposltloos of tespooJeots. lotet, tbe steooqtopbet, opoo
tepoest of tespooJeot IoJqe, teoJ to blm bet steooqtopblc
ootes, and LhereafLer, respondenL !udge asked respondenL
Logronlo Lo Lake Lhe oaLh and warned hlm LhaL lf hls
deposlLlon was found Lo be false and wlLhouL legal basls, he
could be charged for per[ury.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL search warranL was valld.

robable Cause
o noL havlng asked Lhem any quesLlons, Lhe [udge had
no basls for deLermlnlng probable cause.
!udge musL examlne under oaLh or afflrmaLlon Lhe
o naLure of a general warranL. ln Lhls evenL, Lhe
descrlpLlon conLalned ln Lhe hereln dlspuLed warranL
should have menLloned, aL leasL, Lhe daLes, amounLs,
persons, and oLher perLlnenL daLa regardlng Lhe
recelpLs of paymenLs, cerLlflcaLes of sLocks and
securlLles, conLracLs, promlssory noLes, deeds of sale,
messages and communlcaLlons, checks, bank
deposlLs and wlLhdrawals, records of forelgn
remlLLances, among oLhers, enumeraLed ln Lhe
1esLs Lo deLermlne
wheLher Lhe purpose
would be fulfllled:
A search warranL
may be sald Lo
Lhe Lhlngs Lo be
selzed when Lhe
descrlpLlon Lhereln ls
as speclflc as Lhe
clrcumsLances wlll
ordlnarlly allow.
When Lhe
descrlpLlon expresses
a concluslon of facL,
noL of law by whlch
Lhe warranL offlcer
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
nC. !udge falled Lo personally examlne Lhe complalnanL and
wlLness, lL was lssued for more ln connecLlon wlLh more Lhan
one speclflc offense, and lL dld noL descrlbe Lhe Lhlngs Lo be
selzed parLlcularly.
warranL.

may be gulded ln
maklng Lhe search
and selzure.
When Lhe Lhlngs
descrlbed are llmlLed
Lo Lhose whlch bear
dlrecL relaLlon Lo Lhe
offense for whlch Lhe
warranL ls belng
lssued.

7 lacer v.
vlllanueva

C.8. no. L-
60349-62

uecember 29,
1983
lAC1S:
ClLy llscal of 8uLuan ClLy, nesLorlo lacer, and hls asslsLanL
flled ln Lhe ClLy CourL of 8uLuan several crlmlnal cases almosL
all of whlch were cerLlfled by Lhe Lhem LhaL Lhere ls
reasonable ground Lo belleve LhaL Lhe crlme charged were
commlLLed and Lhe accused was probably gullLy Lhereof.
Such cerLlflcaLlon may consLlLuLe sufflclenL basls for Lhe
lssuance of a warranL of arresL under .D. Nos. 77 and 911.
8espondenL !udge napoleon u. vlllanueva (ClLy CourL of
8uLuan) requlred peLlLloners Lo submlL affldavlLs of Lhe
prosecuLlon wlLnesses and oLher documenLary evldence
before he lssues any warranLs of arresL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL clLy [udge may, for Lhe
purpose of lssulng a warranL of arresL, compel Lhe flscal Lo
submlL Lo Lhe courL Lhe supporLlng affldavlLs and oLher
documenLary evldence presenLed durlng Lhe prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon desplLe Lhelr cerLlflcaLlon.

PLLu:
8equlslLes of a valld search warranL:
! robable Cause
ueLermlnaLlon by a [udge
o lf on Lhe face of Lhe lnformaLlon Lhe [udge flnds no
probable cause, he may dlsregard Lhe flscal's
cerLlflcaLlon and requlre Lhe submlsslon of Lhe
affldavlLs of wlLnesses Lo ald hlm ln arrlvlng aL a
concluslon as Lo Lhe exlsLence of a probable cause.
searched and Lhe person or Lhlngs Lo be selzed.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?LS. 1here ls no dlspuLe LhaL Lhe [udge may rely upon Lhe
flscal's cerLlflcaLlon Lo lssue a warranL of arresL, buL such
cerLlflcaLlon does noL blnd Lhe [udge Lo come ouL wlLh a
warranL as such acL ls noL a mere mlnlsLerlal funcLlon and
Lherefore calls for Lhe exerclse of [udlclal dlscreLlon on Lhe
parL of Lhe lssulng maglsLraLe.
8 8urgos v. Chlef
of SLaff

C.8. no. L-
64261

uecember 26,
1984
lAC1S:
Assalled ls Lhe valldlLy of Lwo (2) search warranLs lssued by
respondenL !udge Lrnanl Cruz-ano, applled for by members
of Lhe hlllpplne ConsLabulary LhaL Lhe "MeLropollLan Mall"
and "We lorum" newspapers were publlshlng subverslve
maLerlals punlshable under .D. 88S.
1he premlses of Lhe "MeLropollLan Mall" and "We lorum"
newspapers were searched, and several equlpmenL, arLlcles,
documenLs and, moLor vehlcles alleged Lo be ln Lhe
possesslon and conLrol of peLlLloner !ose 8urgos, !r.
publlsher-edlLor of Lhe "We lorum" newspaper, were selzed.
1hese premlses were padlocked and sealed, wlLh Lhe furLher
resulL LhaL Lhe prlnLlng and publlcaLlon of sald newspapers
were dlsconLlnued.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search warranLs were valld.

PLLu:
1he search warranL ls vold for lacklng probable cause and for
falllng Lo speclfy wlLh sufflclenL parLlcularly Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe Lhlngs Lo be selzed.
robable Cause
o When Lhe search warranL applled for ls dlrecLed
agalnsL a newspaper publlsher or edlLor ln
connecLlon wlLh Lhe publlcaLlon of subverslve
maLerlals, as ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe appllcaLlon
and/or lLs supporLlng affldavlLs musL conLaln a
speclflcaLlon, sLaLlng wlLh parLlcularlLy Lhe alleged
subverslve maLerlal he has publlshed or ls lnLendlng
Lo publlsh. Mere generallzaLlon wlll noL sufflce.
! ueLermlnaLlon by a [udge
searched and Lhe person or Lhlngs Lo be selzed.
o eLlLloners flrsL conLended LhaL Lhe Lwo search
warranLs plnpolnLed only one place buL Lhe courL
ruled LhaL Lhe defecL polnLed ouL ls obvlously a
Lypographlcal error. reclsely 2 search warranLs were
applled for and lssued because Lhe lnLenL was Lo
search Lwo dlsLlncL premlses.
o uescrlpLlon of Lhe lLems soughL Lo be selzed were Loo
general.

9 Corro v. Llslng

lAC1S:
eLlLloner 8ommel Corro, edlLor and publlsher of Lhe
! robable Cause

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no. L-
69899

!uly 13, 1983
hlllpplne 1lmes, was charged for lnclLlng sedlLlon.
!udge Llslng of CC 81C lssued Lhe search warranL for Lhe
search and selzure of cerLaln maLerlals and equlpmenL of Lhe
hlllpplne 1lmes.
Corro's LypewrlLer and some arLlcles were among Lhose
conflscaLed and Lhe offlce of Lhe hlllpplne 1lmes was
padlocked.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search warranL lssued by Lhe lower courL
was valld.

PLLu:
nC. lL was lnvalld. 1he CourL declared Lhe warranL null and
vold (because lL lacked probable cause) and ordered pollce
respondenLs Lo remove Lhe padlocks from Lhe offlce.
o 1he appllcaLlon for Lhe search warranL falled Lo sLaLe
"#$%&'()#$)* Lhe alleged subverslve maLerlals
publlshed by peLlLloner.
o 1he affldavlLs of CasLlllo and lgnaclo ln Lhelr
appllcaLlon for a search warranL only menLloned LhaL
several lssues of Lhe hlllpplne 1lmes formenL
dlsLrusL and haLred agalnsL Lhe CovernmenL". 1hese
are [usL mere concluslons of Lhe law, whlch dld noL
saLlsfy Lhe requlremenLs of probable cause.
o 1he CourL also concluded LhaL Lhe closure of Lhe
offlce was equlvalenL Lo a resLralnL or censorshlp
vlolaLlng Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal guaranLee of freedom of
Lhe press.

CourL ClLed:
Sect|on 3, Art|c|e IV of the 1973 Const|tut|on, whlch
sLaLes:
no search warranL...shall be lssued...excepL upon probable cause Lo
be deLermlned by Lhe [udge...."#$%&'()#$)y Jesctlbloq tbe ploce to be
seotcbeJ and Lhe persons or tbloqs to be selzeJ.

Sect|on 3, ku|e 126 of the ku|es of Court also provldes Lhe requlslLes
for a search warranL, whlch requlres probable cause ln connecLlon
wlLh one speclflc offense, and LhaL Lhe ploce to be seotcbeJ be
pottlcolotly JesctlbeJ, os well os tbe tbloqs to be selzeJ.

10 Sollven v. lAC1S: ! robable Cause
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Makaslar

C.8. no. 82383

november 14,
1988
8elLran was charged wlLh llbel afLer clalmlng LhaL resldenL
Cory Aqulno hld under Lhe bed durlng an aLLempLed coup.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8elLran's consLlLuLlonal rlghLs were vlolaLed
when respondenL 81C [udge lssued a warranL of arresL
wlLhouL flrsL personally examlnlng Lhe complalnanL and
wlLnesses Lo deLermlne probable cause.

PLLu:
nC. 1he respondenL [udge dld noL devlaLe from Lhe
prescrlbed procedure for Lhe lssuance of warranL of arresL.
o 1he [udge ls noL requlred Lo personally examlne Lhe
complalnanL and hls wlLnesses 8u1 he ls requlred Lo
personally evaluaLe Lhe reporL and Lhe supporLlng
documenLs submlLLed by Lhe flscal.

11 Salazar v.
Achacoso

C.8. no. 81310

March 14,
1990
lAC1S:
8osalle 1esorlo flled a sworn sLaLemenL wlLh CLA charglng
PorLencla Salazar wlLh lllegal recrulLmenL. AfLer ascerLalnlng
LhaL peLlLloner had no llcense Lo operaLe a recrulLmenL
agency, publlc respondenL Achacoso lssued a Closure and
Selzure Crder no. 1203, sLaLlng Lhe selzure of Lhe documenLs
and paraphernalla relaLed Lo lllegal recrulLmenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CLA can valldly lssue warranL of search
and selzure or arresL under Art|c|e 38 of the Labor Code.

PLLu:
nC. 1he CLA belng a prosecuLlng body cannoL lssue
warranLs of arresL. Art|c|e 38 of the Labor Code was declared
unconsLlLuLlonal.
! robable Cause
ersonal deLermlnaLlon by a [udge - A prosecuLlng body,
such as Lhe CLA, cannoL lssue warranLs of selzure or arresL
because Lhey are prosecuLors naLurally lnLeresLed ln Lhe
success of Lhe case. 1o permlL hlm Lo lssue Lhese warranLs
would make hlm boLh a [udge and [ury ln hls own rlghL.
searched and Lhe person or Lhlngs Lo be selzed - 1he case aL
bar was ln Lhe very naLure of a qeoetol wottoot. lL dld noL
ldenLlfy speclflcally Lhe Lhlngs Lo be selzed.

xceptloo Lo prosecuLlng
bodles noL belng able Lo
lssue warranLs of arresL
or selzure: Lhe arresL of
allens for deporLaLlon.
12 8oard of
Comm. (Clu) v.
lAC1S:
eLlLloner Wllllam CaLchallan enLered Lhe hlllpplnes, from
o 1he Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon may lssue warranLs of
arresL only afLer a deLermlnaLlon by Lhe 8oard of

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
uela 8osa

C.8. numbers
93612-13

May 31, 1991
Pongkong, and was glven llllplno clLlzenshlp.
8espondenL 8oard of Clu revoked hls clLlzenshlp and lssued a
warranL of excluslon.
Commlssloner uomlngo of Commlsslon of lmmlgraLlon and
ueporLaLlon lssued mlsslon order Lo arresL respondenL
CaLchallan desplLe prevlous acLlon of AcLlng Comm. nlLuda
relnsLaLlng CaLchallan's llllplno clLlzenshlp.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe arresL of respondenL follows as a maLLer
of consequence based on Lhe warranL of excluslon lssued

PLLu:
! nC, a warranL of arresL lssued by Lhe Commlssloner of
lmmlgraLlon for purposes of lnvesLlgaLlon only, as ln Lhe case
aL bar, ls null and vold for belng unconsLlLuLlonal. Wllllam
CaLchallan ls declared a llllplno clLlzen. 8oard of
Commlssloners (Clu) was permanenLly en[olned from
conLlnulng wlLh Lhe deporLaLlon proceedlngs for lack of
[urlsdlcLlon over CaLchallan, he belng a llllplno clLlzen.

Commlssloners of Lhe exlsLence of Lhe ground for
deporLaLlon as charged agalnsL Lhe allen.
o ln oLher words, a warranL of arresL lssued by Lhe
Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon Lo be valld, most be fot tbe
sole potpose of execotloq o flool otJet of Jepottotloo.
o A readlng of Lhe mlsslon order/ warranL of arresL lssued
by Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon, clearly lndlcaLes LhaL
Lhe same was lssued only for purposes of lnvesLlgaLlon of
Lhe suspecLs, Wllllam CaLchallan lncluded (lL wasn'L
lssued pursuanL Lo a flnal order of deporLaLlon or warranL
of excluslon)

CourL ClLed:
Sec. 37 (a) of CommonwealLh AcL 613 (lmmlgraLlon AcL of 1940):
Sec. 37. (a) 1he followlng allens shall be arresLed upon
Lhe warranL of Lhe Commlssloner of lmmlgraLlon or of any
oLher offlcer deslgnaLed by hlm for Lhe purpose and
deporLed upon Lhe warranL of Lhe Commlssloner of
lmmlgraLlon oftet o Jetetmlootloo by tbe 8ootJ of
commlsslooet of tbe exlsteoce of tbe qtoooJ fot Jepottotloo
os cbotqeJ oqolost tbe olleo."

13 Llm v. lellx

C.8. no.
94034-37

lebruary 19,
1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloners flled a change of venue of Lhe Murder case whlch
was granLed by Lhe CourL (Congressman Lsplnosa, Sr. was
shoL ln MasbaLe uomesLlc AlrporL, eLlLloner was Lhe Mayor
of MasbaLe aL LhaL Llme)
1he case was raffled Lo 8espondenL !udge of Lhe MakaLl 81C,
whlch Lhen lssued warranLs of arresL for Lhe accused
lncludlng Lhe peLlLloners.
8espondenL !udge denled Lhe moLlon of Lhe peLlLloner LhaL
an order be lssued requlred Lhe LransmlLLal of Lhe lnlLlal
CourL ruled LhaL lf Lhe !udge solely relles on Lhe cerLlflcaLlon of Lhe
rosecuLor where all Lhe records of Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon are ln MasbaLe,
has noL personally deLermlned probable cause.

1here was no basls for Lhe respondenL !udge Lo make hls own
personal deLermlnaLlon regardlng Lhe exlsLence of a probable cause
for Lhe lssuance of a warranL of arresL as mandaLed by Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon.

1he !udge commlLs a grave abuse of dlscreLlon when he denled
- lssued on robable
Cause

- robable Cause musL
be uL1L8MlnLu
L8SCnALL? by a
!udge (nC1 8LSLn1)

- !usL musL examlne
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
records of Lhe prellmlnary lnqulry or lnvesLlgaLlon conducLed
by Lhe M1C !udge of MasbaLe for Lhe besL enllghLenmenL of
8espondenL for hls personal deLermlnaLlon of probable
cause.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a warranL of arresL may be lssued wlLhouL
Lhe [udge personally deLermlnlng probable cause, relylng
only on Lhe cerLlflcaLlon/recommendaLlon of a prosecuLor.

PLLu:
nC. Crder of ArresL by 8espondenL lellx ls nuLL. robable
cause musL personally be deLermlned by Lhe !udge.

peLlLloners' moLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe mere cerLlflcaLlon and
recommendaLlon of Lhe respondenL llscal LhaL a probable cause
exlsLs ls sufflclenL for hlm Lo lssue a warranL of arresL.

1he !udge does noL have Lo personally examlne Lhe complalnanL and
hls wlLnesses. (Sollven v. Makaslar)
under oaLh or
afflrmaLlon Lhe
complalnanL and Lhe
wlLness he may
produce

- WarranL musL
Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe
person or Lhlngs Lo be
selzed

14 Sllva v.
resldlng
!udge, 81C of
negros
CrlenLal

C.8. no. 81736

CcLober 21,
1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloners soughL Lhe nulllflcaLlon of Lhe Search WarranL
lssued by 8espondenL CnLal on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhe warranL
was lssued based on an AppllcaLlon for Search WarranL"
accompanled by a ueposlLlon of WlLness" and Lhe offlcers
who conducLed Lhe searched selzed money noL lncluded ln
Lhe warranL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search warranL was unconsLlLuLlonal and
!udge acLed wlLh CAuAL!

PLLu:
?LS. Search warranL was unconsLlLuLlonal.
CourL ruled LhaL Lhe [udge musL deLermlne wheLher Lhere ls probable
cause by examlnlng Lhe complalnanL and wlLnesses before lssulng a
search warranL. robable cause ln a valld search warranL has been
deflned as such facLs and clrcumsLances whlch would lead a
reasonably dlscreeL and prudenL man Lo belleve LhaL an offense has
been commlLLed and LhaL Lhe ob[ecL soughL ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe
offense are ln Lhe place soughL Lo be searched.

8oLh AppllcaLlon for Search WarranL" and ueposlLlon of WlLness"
falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe legal requlremenLs as spelled ouL by boLh
consLlLuLlonal and sLaLuLory provlslons. 1he ueposlLlon of WlLness"
conLalned quesLlons LhaL were very broad, noL problng and merely
rouLlnary.

Cfflcers lmplemenLlng Lhe search warranL also abused Lhelr auLhorlLy
when Lhey selzed Lhe money of eLlLloner.
- lssued on robable
Cause

- robable Cause musL
be uL1L8MlnLu
L8SCnALL? by a
!udge (nC1 8LSLn1)

- !usL musL examlne
under oaLh or
afflrmaLlon Lhe
complalnanL and Lhe
wlLness he may
produce

- WarranL musL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lhe place Lo be
searched and Lhe
person or Lhlngs Lo be
selzed

1S Allado v.
ulokno

C.8. no.
113630

May 3, 1994
lAC1S:
SecurlLy Cuard umbal flled a sworn sLaLemenL lmpllcaLlng
peLlLloners ln Lhe alleged kldnapplng and slaylng of Lugen
van 1wesL.
A day afLer Lhe sworn sLaLemenL was flled, Lhe ACC
operaLlves ralded Lhe 2 dwelllngs of SanLlago where Lhey
recovered assorLed flrearms and ammunlLlon. LaLer LhaL day,
Lhey arresLed AnLonlno and 8oaL who were ln possesslon of
several ammunlLlon and flrearms and van 1wesL's CarLler
sunglasses.
8espondenL [udge lssued a warranL of arresL agalnsL all
peLlLloners.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe warranL of arresL was lssued wlLhouL
flndlng of probable cause and
WheLher or noL Lhe [udge personally examlned Lhe wlLnesses
and evldence.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he evldence was lnsufflclenL ln flndlng probable cause
agalnsL peLlLloners.
nC. 8espondenL [udge merely relled on Lhe prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon reporLs submlLLed by Lhe ACC.
robable Cause - Lvldence ls lnsufflclenL because of: 1) Lhe
serlous doubL over van 1wesL's deaLh due Lo Lhe lack of
cotpos Jellctl, 2) hls counsel conLlnued Lo represenL hlm, and
3) umbal's exLra[udlclal sLaLemenL suffers from maLerlal
lnconslsLencles.
ersonal deLermlnaLlon by a [udge

robable Cause -
reasonable ground Lo
belleve LhaL a maLLer ls
well founded, such a
sLaLe of facLs ln Lhe mlnd
of Lhe prosecuLor LhaL
would lead a person of
ordlnary cauLlon and
prudence Lo belleve a
Lhlng ls so. lL does noL
mean acLual and
poslLlve cause." lL does
noL lmporL absoluLe
cerLalnLy.

ueLermlnaLlon of
probable cause ls made
by Lhe [udge. 1he
prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon
proper ls a funcLlon of
Lhe prosecuLor.
16 Webb v. ue
Leon

lAC1S:
1he n8l flled wlLh Lhe uC! a leLLer-compllanL charglng
peLlLloners PuberL Webb and 8 oLhers wlLh Lhe crlme of 8ape
! robable Cause
o A flndlng of probable cause needs only Lo resL on
evldence showlng LhaL more llkely Lhan noL a crlme

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no.
121234

AugusL 23,
1993
wlLh Pomlclde. eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe uC! falled Lo
flnd probable cause, and LhaL Lhe respondenL [udge falled Lo
conducL a prellmlnary examlnaLlon before lssulng warranLs of
arresL agalnsL Lhem as requlred by Sect|on 2, Art|c|e III.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe uC! panel abused lLs dlscreLlon ln rullng
LhaL Lhere ls probably cause agalnsL Lhe peLlLloners desplLe
Lhe lnconslsLencles of Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhe wlLnesses.
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL !udge lssued warranLs
wlLhouL conducLlng Lhe requlred prellmlnary examlnaLlon.

PLLu:
nC. 1he uC! panel dld noL abuse lLs dlscreLlon ln flndlng
probable cause, as probable cause only requlres evldence
showlng LhaL more llkely Lhan noL a crlme has been
commlLLed and was commlLLed by Lhe suspecLs.
nC. 1he sufflclency of Lhe revlew process cannoL be
measured by merely counLlng mlnuLes and hours.
has been commlLLed and was commlLLed by Lhe
suspecLs. robable cause need noL be based on clear
and convlnclng evldence of gullL, nelLher on evldence
esLabllshlng gullL beyond reasonable doubL and
deflnlLely, noL on evldence esLabllshlng absoluLe
cerLalnLy of gullL. A flndlng of probable cause merely
blnds over Lhe suspecL Lo sLand Lrlal. lL ls noL a
pronouncemenL of gullL.
o 1hey [usL personally revlew Lhe lnlLlal deLermlnaLlon
of Lhe prosecuLor flndlng a probable cause Lo see lf lL
ls supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence. 1he sufflclency
of Lhe revlew process cannoL be measured by merely
counLlng mlnuLes and hours.

17 eople v.
Woolcock

C.8. no.
110638
May 22, 1993
lAC1S:
1he n conducLed survelllance on forelgners suspecLed of
carrylng drugs.
AfLer Woolcock meL wlLh Lhe oLher suspecLs, she proceeded
sLralghL Lo nAlA. AfLer re-lnspecLlon of her bags, lL showed
LhaL she was carrylng 1 kg of Peroln. She was arresLed and
placed ln cusLody.
1he oLher suspecLs were served warranLs afLerwards and
Peroln was also found ln Lhelr possesslon.

lSSuL:
Woolcock clalms prosecuLlon falled Lo prove her ownershlp
of Lhe bag and so arresL was lllegal. Powever she merely
denled ownershlp. Moreover she was promlnenLly seend
around carrylng sald bag.
She carrled lL when she checkouL of Lhe hoLel and had lL ln
her possesslon unLll Lhe lnspecLlon aL nAlA.
Per rellance on eople v. Ammlnudln ls also mlsplaced.
unllke ln LhaL case, she volunLarlly submlLLed her bag for
lnspecLlon pursuanL Lo sLandard procedure and she was
caughL acLually commlLLlng a crlme for havlng ln her
possesslon Lhe Peroln. Per warranLless arresL falls under Lhe
SLC. 3. ArresL wlLhouL
warranL, when lawful.-
A peace offlcer or a
prlvaLe person may,
wlLhouL a warranL, arresL
a person:
(a) When, ln hls
presence, Lhe
person Lo be
arresLed has
commlLLed, ls
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL arresL of Woolcock was lllegal.

PLLu:
nC. Per warranLless arresL came under Lhe excepLlon under
Sec. S(a) ku|e 113. She reLalned possesslon of Lhe bag unLll
she volunLary submlLLed lL for Lhe sLandard cusLoms
operaLlonal lnspecLlon. lL was here LhaL she was caughL
acLually commlLLlng a crlme.
recognlzed excepLlons. acLually
commlLLlng, or ls
aLLempLlng Lo
commlL an
offense,

18 8oberLs v. CA
234 SC8A 307
lAC1S:
8oberLs and oLher LSl offlcers were charged wlLh esLafa for
Lhe number lever romoLlon" lncldenL.
!udge Asunclon denled peLlLloner's moLlon for abeyance of
Lhe crlmlnal case (as lL was pendlng revlew wlLh Lhe uC!),
and lssued Lhe challenged warranLs of arresL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL !udge Asunclon commlLLed grave abuse of
dlscreLlon ln lssulng Lhe warranLs of arresL.

PLLu:
?LS. lL was lssued wlLhouL personal deLermlnaLlon of Lhe
[udge of probable cause.
ersonal deLermlnaLlon by a [udge
o When order was lssued, he had only Lhe lnformaLlon,
amended lnformaLlon, and [olnL resoluLlon as hls
basls. Pe dld noL have any records or evldence
supporLlng Lhe prosecuLor's flndlng of probable
cause. Pe made no speclflc flndlng of probable cause
hlmself.

19 20Lh CenLury
lox lllm v. CA

C.8. nos.
76649-31

AugusL 19,
1988
lAC1S:
eLlLloner soughL Lhe asslsLance of n8l ln conducLlng
searches and selzures ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe laLLer's anLl-fllm
plracy campalgn.
3 search warranLs were lssued agalnsL vldeo ouLleLs owned
by Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs, and Lhey were ralded.
1he same courL, acLlng on moLlon Lo llfL Lhe warranLs,
reversed lLs order and dlrecLed Lhe reLurn of Lhe selzed
lLems.

robable Cause
o robable cause could noL be deLermlned slnce: (1)
none of Lhe wlLnesses acLually had personal
knowledge, (2) Lhe masLer fllms and Lhe plraLed fllms
were noL presenLed ln courL Lo be examlned.
o 1he courL cannoL presume LhaL Lhe selzed lLems were
plraLed" absenL proof.
1he lLems soughL Lo be
selzed were descrlbed as
follows: 1elevlslon seLs,
vldeo CasseLLes
8ecorders, rewlnders,
Lape head cleaners,
accessorles, equlpmenLs
and oLher machlnes used
or lnLended Lo be used ln
Lhe unlawful
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL [udged properly llfLed Lhe warranLs for belng
lnvalld.

PLLu:
?LS. lL was an acknowledgemenL of error afLer ascerLalnlng
LhaL Lhere was no probable cause slnce complalnanL and
wlLness dld noL have acLual personal knowledge, and could
noL produce Lhe quesLloned Lapes ln courL Lo be lnspecLed by
Lhe [udge.
1he appllcanL and Lhe wlLnesses LesLlfy on Lhe facLs
o none of Lhe n8l wlLnesses or agenLs acLually had
personal knowledge of Lhe plraLed" naLure of Lhe
selzed lLems.
o lL was a general warranL. 1hls ls evldenced by Lhe facL
LhaL durlng Lhe rald, lLems of leglLlmaLe buslness
(such as Lelevlslon seL, a rewlnder, and a whlLeboard
llsLlng 8eLamax Lapes, vldeo casseLLe cleaners vldeo
casseLLe recorders) were selzed as well, none of
whlch could be Lhe sub[ecL of selzure.
reproducLlon, sale,
renLal/lease dlsLrlbuLlon
of Lhe above-menLloned
vldeo Lapes whlch she ls
keeplng and conceallng
ln Lhe premlses above-
descrlbed."

20 eople v.
lranclsco

C.8. no.
129033

AugusL 22,
2002
lAC1S:
AfLer belng under survelllance, lederlco verona and hls llve-
ln glrlfrlend, Annabelle lranclsco were ascerLalned Lo be
engaged ln selllng shabu. 1helr resldence was ralded and
Lhey were charged wlLh a vlolaLlon of Sect|on 16, Art|c|e III,
k.A. No. 642S (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
A warranL was lssued for 122 M. Plzon SL., Caloocan ClLy.
Powever, Lhe acLual house was aL 120 M. Plzon SL., Caloocan
ClLy. 1he descrlpLlon of Lhe house provlded Lo Lhe [udge upon
appllcaLlon dlffered from Lhe one acLually ralded.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search conducLed by Lhe pollce aL Lhe
accused's resldence was reasonable and valld.

PLLu:
?LS. Search conducLed ln no. 120 M. Plzon was lnvalld as lL
was noL Lhe place lndlcaLed ln Lhe warranL, and was noL even
! robable Cause
o uanLe 8aradllla who was a runner for lederlco and
had soughL Lhe asslsLance of Lhe pollce
o ln Lhe lnsLanL case, Lhe pollce offlcer servlng Lhe
warranL cannoL, wlLh reasonable efforL, ascerLaln and
ldenLlfy Lhe place lnLended preclsely because lL was
wrongly descrlbed as no. 122, alLhough lL may have
been locaLed on Lhe same sLreeL as no. 120. Lven Lhe
descrlpLlon of Lhe house by pollce asseL 8aradllla
referred Lo LhaL house locaLed aL no. 122 M. Plzon
uocLrlne: 1he conLrolllng
sub[ecL of search
warranLs ls Lhe place
lndlcaLed ln Lhe warranL
lLself and noL Lhe place
ldenLlfled by Lhe pollce.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lhe place descrlbed by Lhe wlLnesses. As a consequence, Lhe
lLems (belng selzed ln vlolaLlon of ArLlcle lll, 1987
ConsLlLuLlon) are Lherefore lnadmlsslble as evldence.
SL., noL aL no. 120 M. Plzon SL.
21 ?ousef Al
Choul v. CA

C.8. no.
126839

SepLember 4,
2001
lAC1S:
A search warranL was lssued for AparLmenL no. 2 aL 134
Cblnlana Compound, ueparo 8oad, kalookan ClLy. upon
execuLlon of Lhe warranL, Lhe pollce also searched AparLmenL
no. 8 where Lhey found a plsLol, whlch was ln Lhe same
compound.
eLlLloners were charged wlLh lllegal possesslon of flrearms,
ammunlLlons and exploslves pursuanL Lo .D. 1866

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search warranL was lnvalld for lack of
parLlcularlLy as Lo Lhe place searched and arLlcles selzed

PLLu:
nC. 1he search warranL was valld wlLh Lhe lLems selzed ln
AparLmenL no. 2 belng admlsslble, buL Lhe lLems selzed from
AparLmenL no. 8 are noL slnce LhaL was noL wlLhln Lhe
purvlew of Lhe warranL lssued.
! robable Cause
o 1he arLlcles selzed durlng Lhe search of AparLmenL
no. 2 are of Lhe same klnd and naLure as Lhose lLems
enumeraLed ln Lhe search warranL.
o WarranL shows LhaL Lhey were worded ln such a
manner LhaL Lhe enumeraLed lLems Lo be selzed
could bear a dlrecL relaLlon Lo Lhe offense of vlolaLlon
of .D. 1866, penallzlng lllegal possesslon of flrearms,
ammunlLlons and exploslves.

22 u? vs. 8l8

C.8. no.
129631

CcLober 20,
2000
lAC1S:
eLlLloner uy Chln Po (ltook uy) ls Lhe dlrecLor of unlllSP
who dlsLrlbuLes canned sardlnes Lo supermarkeLs.
Cn CcLober 1993, nesLor Labarla of Lhe Speclal lnvesLlgaLlon
8ranch of Lhe 8l8 applled for a search warranL before Lhe
Cebu 81C Lo search Lhe premlses of unlllSP acklng
CorporaLlon, a cannlng facLory.
WarranL was lssued on Lhe affldavlL of a former employee of
unlllSP, 8odrlgo Abos, alleglng LhaL peLlLloner was selllng
carLons of canned sardlnes wlLhouL lssulng recelpLs, a grand
scale Lax fraud ln vlolaLlon of Lhe lnLernal 8evenue Code.
CourL 8aLlo:
1. 1he lnconslsLencles do noL lnvalldaLe Lhe search warranL.
o As regards Lo Lhe oJJtess of peLlLloner ln WarranL A-1:
P.CorLes SL., Cebu ClLy" whlle ln Lhe boJy of Lhe
warranL, lL was sLaLed P.CorLes SL., Mandaue ClLy".
o 1he descrlpLlon of Lhe place Lo be searched ls sufflclenL lf
Lhe offlcer wlLh Lhe warranL can reasonably ldenLlfy lL
and dlsLlngulsh lL from Lhe oLher places ln Lhe
communlLy. 1here was no oLher P.CorLes SL. ln Cebu.
o As regards Lo Lhe named persons ln WarranLs A-1 and A-
2: Where a warranL ls lnLended for Lhe search of a

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
AfLer hearlng Lhe LesLlmonles of Labarla and Abos, !udge
uadole lssued tbtee wottoots:
a. Warrant A-1, whlch lmpuLed Uy Ch|n no '+, UNIIISn
ack|ng Corporat|on wlLh Lhe vlolaLlon, and ordered Lhe
search and selzure of "Mu|t|p|e sets of 8ook of AccounLs,
Ledgers, Cfflclal 8ecelpLs, 8ank
SLaLemenLs....Unreg|stered De||very kece|pts,
Unreg|stered urchase and Sa|es Invo|ce, eLc."
b. Warrant A-2, was almosL ldenLlcal wlLh WarranL A- 1,
excepL LhaL Lhe lnformaLlon now alleged Uy Ch|n no
#-. UNIIISn ack|ng Corporat|on ".
c. Warrant 8 was a verbaLlm reproducLlon of WarranL A-2.

lSSuLS:
1. W/n Lhe lnconslsLencles ln Lhe dlfferenL warranLs lssued are
sufflclenL Lo declarlng such warranLs vold.
2. W/n Lhe requlslLes of a valld search warranL were meL:
a. resence of probable cause
b. 1esL of parLlcularlLy
PLLu:
1. 1he lnconslsLencles do noL lnvalldaLe Lhe search warranL.
2. 1he presence of probable cause was esLabllshed, buL Lhe
warranL falled Lo parLlcularly descrlbe Lhe lLems Lo be selzed.
1he CourL reLalns Lhe valldlLy of Lhe search warranL on|y wlLh regards
Lo Lhe search and selzure of Lhe uoteqlsteteJ tecelpts ooJ lovolce".
parLlcular place only and noL of an lndlvldual, an error ln
Lhe ldenLlLles of Lhe persons does noL consLlLuLe a faLal
defecL.
2. 1he presence of probable cause was esLabllshed, buL Lhe
warranL falled Lo parLlcularly descrlbe Lhe lLems Lo be selzed.
a. resence of probable cause
o ?es, lL was presenL ln Abos' (former manager of unlflsh)
LesLlmony LhaL deLalled uy's shady LransacLlons.
b. 1esL of parLlcularlLy
o no/lalled because !udge uadole used Lhe Lerm /()%&")0
10% of books..." whlch ls clearly general and lndeflnlLe.
noneLheless, Lhe CourL upheld Lhe valldlLy of Lhe lLems unreglsLered
recelpLs" and unreglsLered purchase and sales lnvolce", as lL was
lmposslble Lo speclfy Lhelr serlal marklngs, belng unreglsLered".
23 valle[o v. CA

C.8. no.
136413

Aprll 14, 2004
lAC1S:
resldlng !udge de Alban granLed lranklln !avler's appllcaLlon
for a search warranL agalnsL peLlLloner valle[o, a lawyer ln
Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds ln lsabela.
1he warranL sLaLed LhaL Lhe Lhlngs Lo be selzed are: 1)
undeLermlned number of fake land LlLles, 2) blank forms of
land LlLles lnslde Lhe drawers of all Lhe employees of Lhe
robable Cause - 1here was no probable cause slnce Lhe
warranL was connecLed Lo more Lhan one speclflc offense:
lalslflcaLlon of Land 1lLles under Art|c|e 171 and Art|c|e 213
of the kev|sed ena| Code, and vlolaLlon of kep. Act. No.
3019 (Ant| Graft and Corrupt ract|ces Act).

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8eglsLry of ueeds, and 3) undeLermlned number of land
Lransfer LransacLlons wlLhouL Lhe correspondlng paymenL of
CaplLal Calns 1ax and documenLary sLamps.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search warranL was ln Lhe form of a
general warranL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he search warranL ls vold for lack of parLlcularlLy.

WAkkAN1LLSS SLAkCnLS AND SLI2UkLS
24 MP
CarmenLs v.
CA

C.8. no. 86720

SepLember 2,
1994
lAC1S:
8oy ScouLs of Lhe hlllpplnes granLed peLlLloner MP
CarmenLs excluslve franchlse Lo sell and dlsLrlbuLe offlclal
8oy ScouLs unlforms. MP's employee, Larry de Cuzman,
underLook wlLh Lhe C Lhe selzure of appellanL's boy and glrl
scouLs apparel on dlsplay wlLhouL any warranL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe warranLless selzure of Lhe apparel was
valld.

PLLu:
nC. MP CarmenLs was noL glven auLhorlLy Lo selze boy and
glrl scouLs apparel of unauLhorlzed dlsLrlbuLors.
1he warranLless search and selzure was |nva||d because:
o 8ased on Lhe Letter of Instruct|on No. 1299, MP CarmenLs
musL sLlll reporL Lhe unauLhorlzed peddllng Lo secure a
proper warranL.
o 1he Llme beLween Lhe recelpL of lnformaLlon and Lhe rald of
Lhe sLore shows LhaL Lhere was sufflclenL Llme Lo apply for a
[udlclal warranL.
o 1here was no probable cause for Lhe selzure.

2S eople v. Cll
8lzal

C.8. number
L-41686

november 17,
lAC1S:
8eglonal AnLl-Smuggllng AcLlon CenLer (8ASAC) agenLs ArLhur
Manuel and Macarlo Sabado apprehended SgL. !essle Pope
and Ms. Monlna Medlna as Lhey were on Lhelr way Lo
dellverlng boxes of undeclared shlpmenL from ampanga Lo
Manlla, vla a llghL blue dodge car.
1hey also selzed Lhe arLlcles ln Lhe boxes conslsLlng of
o 8ules governlng search and selzure had been llberallzed
when a mov|ng veh|c|e ls Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe search and Lhe
necesslLy of a prlor warranL has been relaxed on Lhe ground
of pracLlcallLy, conslderlng LhaL before a warranL could be
obLalned, descrlpLlon of Lhe place, Lhlngs, persons Lo be
searched musL be Lo Lhe saLlsfacLlon of Lhe lssulng [udge - a
requlremenL LhaL ls close Lo lmposslble for a case of

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1980 wrlsLwaLches and waLch braceleLs.
Counsel for defense ob[ecLed LhaL Lhe same may noL be used
(lnadmlsslble as evldence) on Lhe ground LhaL Lhey were
selzed wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of warranL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe selzure of Lhe merchandlse ln a movlng
vehlcle by auLhorlzed agenLs commlssloned Lo enforce
cusLoms laws wlLhouL warranL of selzure breaches Lhe
consLlLuLlonal lmmunlLy agalnsL unreasonable search and
selzure and Lherefore such merchandlse are lnadmlsslble ln
evldence.

PLLu:
nC, search and selzure ln a movloq veblcle (and by cusLoms
personnel) wlLhouL a warranL ls an excepLlon.

smuggllng by Lhe use of a movlng vehlcle LhaL can LransporL
conLraband from one place Lo anoLher wlLh lmpunlLy.
o ConLraband may be selzed wlLhouL necesslLy of a search
warranL slnce Lhe ConsLlLuLlon does noL guaranLy lmmunlLy
Lo smugglers and LhaL a warranLless selzure of conLraband ln
a movlng vehlcle ls [usLlfled by Lhe LradlLlonal excepLlon
aLLached Lo Lhe 4
th
Amendment of the US Const|tut|on, such
excepLlon musL be adopLed ln lnLerpreLlng Lhe relevanL
provlslon ln Lhe new hlllpplne ConsLlLuLlon.
o letsoos exetclsloq ootbotlty ooJet tbe costoms low may
effecL search and selzure wlLhouL a search warranL. (eople
v. Mago)
26 8oan v.
Conzales

C.8. no. 71410

november 23,
1986
lAC1S:
eLlLloner seeks Lo annul a warranL, clalmlng LhaL Lhe selzed
lLems were noL llsLed ln Lhe warranL.
8espondenLs argue LhaL Lhe selzed lLems were lllegal and
Lherefore could be Laken by Lhe mlllLary.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lllegal lLems can be Laken wlLhouL belng
lncluded ln Lhe warranL.

PLLu:
nC. 1he case does noL fall wlLhln Lhe clrcumsLances where a
search and selzure can be done wlLhouL a warranL.
1he CourL ruled LhaL rohlblLed lLems may be selzed only as long as
Lhe search ls valld. ln Lhls case (a) Lhere was no valld search warranL
(b) absenL Lhe warranL, Lhe peLlLloner dld noL valldly walve Lhe rlghL.

1he CourL ruled LhaL mlllLary offlcers who enLered Lhe peLlLloner's
premlses had no rlghL Lo be aL Lhe peLlLloner's resldence and had no
rlghL elLher Lo selze Lhe prohlblLed lLems.

1he CourL ruled LhaL lLems relaLed Lo a Mala rohlblLum offense
cannoL be summarlly selzed slmply because Lhey are prohlblLed. A
valld search warranL ls sLlll necessary.

1he CourL provlded 3 lnsLances where a search/selzure may be made
wlLhouL a valld warranL.

3 lnsLances:
1) Search lncldenL Lo a
lawful arresL
2) Search of a movlng
moLor vehlcle
3) Search ln vlolaLlon of
cusLom laws
4) Selzure of evldence ln
plaln vlew
3) When Lhe accused
hlmself walves hls rlghL
agalnsL unreasonable
searches and selzures
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
27 nolasco v.
ano

C.8. no. L-
69803

november 23,
1986
lAC1S:
eLlLloners assall Lhe porLlon of Lhe ueclslon of 8 CcLober
1983, conLendlng LhaL Lhe search conducLed ln Lhe premlse
of eLlLloner was noL lncldenL Lo her arresL and should noL
have been made wlLhouL a valld search warranL. eLlLloner
Agullar-8oque was noL lawfully arresLed and hence a search
warranL wlLhouL a warranL could noL be made.
8espondenLs malnLaln LhaL Lhe sub[ecL Search WarranL
meeLs Lhe sLandards for valldlLy and LhaL lL should be
consldered ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe crlmlnal offense of 8ebelllon
for whlch Lhe WarranL was lssued.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a search could be made absenL a valld
warranL.

PLLu:
nC. 1he case does noL fall wlLhln Lhe clrcumsLances where a
search and selzure can be done wlLhouL a warranL. Search
warranL lssued on 6 Aug 84 ls annulled.
1he CourL relLeraLed Lhe dlssenLlng Cplnlon of C! 1eehankee:
1be coostltotloool mooJote of 5ecs. J ooJ 4 of Att. lll exptessly
oJoptloq tbe \clu5lONAk kul bos ptoveJ by blstotlcol
expetleoce to be tbe ooly ptoctlcol meoos of eofotcloq tbe
coostltotloool lojooctloo oqolost ooteosoooble seotcbes ooJ selzotes
by ootlowloq oll evlJeoce llleqolly selzeJ ooJ tbeteby temovloq tbe
loceotlve oo tbe pott of stote ooJ pollce offlcets to JlsteqotJ socb
boslc tlqbts.

1he CourL ruled LhaL all Lhe arLlcles Lhus selzed fall under Lhe
excluslonary rule LoLally and unquallfledly and cannoL be used agalnsL
any of Lhe peLlLloners.

3 lnsLances:
- A warranLless search
may be made
lncldenLal Lo a lawful
arresL.
- MoLor cars may be
lnspecLed aL borders Lo
prevenL smuggllng of
allens/conLraband.
- vessels and alrcrafL
because of Lhelr
moblllLy and ease ln
fleelng sLaLe's
[urlsdlcLlon.
- lndlvldual may
knowlngly agree Lo be
searched or walve
ob[ecLlons Lo an lllegal
search.
- rohlblLed arLlcles may
be Laken wlLhouL
warranL lf Lhey are
open Lo eye/hand and
Lhe offlcer comes upon
Lhem lnadverLenLly.

28 apa v. Mago

C.8. no. L-
27360

lebruary 28,
lAC1S:
1he head of Lhe counLer-lnLelllgence unlL of Lhe Manlla ollce
deparLmenL recelved rellable lnformaLlon LhaL a cerLaln
shlpmenL whlch was allegedly mlsdeclared and undervalued
would be released.
upon orders of peLlLloner apa, Chlef of ollce of Manlla and
o Chlef of ollce apa was depuLlzed by Lhe Commlssloner of
CusLoms for Lhe purposes of enforcemenL of cusLoms and
Larlff law.
Pe could legally open any conLalner when he had
reasonable cause Lo suspecL Lhe presence of duLlable
Coods ln a dwelllng
house or bulldlng are
slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL
from goods ln Lhe course
of LransporLaLlon. 1here
ls no pracLlcable way Lo
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1968 a duly depuLlzed member of Lhe 8ureau of CusLoms, Lhe
counLer-lnLelllgence unlL lnLercepLed Lhe Lrucks wlLh Lhe
goods wlLhouL a search warranL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe warranLless search and selzure was valld.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he Manlla ollce ueparLmenL could selze Lhe goods
wlLhouL a search warranL.
arLlcles.
1he 1ar|ff and Customs Code allows hlm Lo demand
asslsLance from any pollce offlcer.
o 1he Code auLhorlzes persons havlng pollce auLhorlLy Lo enLer
and search any land, dwelllng, warehouse, sLore or bulldlng,
noL belng a dwelllng house, and lnspecL ay vessel or alrcrafL
suspecLed of holdlng duLlable or prohlblLed arLlcles.
secure a warranL
because Lhe vehlcle
could be moved ouL of
Lhe locallLy of
[urlsdlcLlon.
29 eople v. Lo
Po Wlng

C.8. no.
88017

lAC1S:
Speclal CperaLlons Croup of Lhe hlllpplne ConsLabulary
recrulLed 1la Lo be a deep peneLraLlon agenL ln a drug
scheme engaged ln by accused.
AfLer accompanylng accused Lo Chlna, 1la lnformed Lhe C
LhaL Lhey wlll be smuggllng ln shabu hldden ln Lea bags.
AfLer glvlng chase Lo Lhelr cab, Lhelr luggage was lnspecLed
and Lhe shabu was found. 1hey were arresLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search and selzure was legal.

PLLu:
?LS. lL falls under search of a movlng vehlcle" excepLlon.
1haL search and selzure musL be supporLed by a warranL ls noL
absoluLe. lL admlLs of excepLlon:
Search lncldenLal Lo arresL
! Search of a movlng vehlcle
o 1he second excepLlon ls clearly appllcable. lL ls based
on pracLlcallLy slnce a vehlcle can be qulckly moved
ouL of Lhe locallLy or [urlsdlcLlon ln whlch Lhe warranL
musL be soughL.
o 1here was teosoooble qtoooJ Lo belleve LhaL Lhe
appellanL would aLLempL Lo brlng Lhe shabu back Lo
Lhe counLry as lL was based on lnLelllgence reporLs
gaLhered from survelllance acLlvlLy.
o 1he lmporLanL Lhlng ls LhaL Lhere ls ptoboble coose
conducL a warranLless search.
Selzure of evldence ln plaln vlew

30 eople v.
MalmsLedL

C.8. no. 91107

!une 19, 1991
lAC1S:
1here were perslsLenL reporLs LhaL vehlcles comlng from
Sagada were LransporLlng prohlblLed drugs. arLlcularly on
LhaL day LhaL Lhere would be a Caucaslan ln possesslon of Lhe
drug.
A Lemporary checkpolnL was seL-up by Lhe nA8CCM aL Acop,
1ublay Lo check vehlcles comlng from Lhe Cordlllera reglon.
Accused was searched and arresLed whlle LransporLlng
prohlblLed drugs (hashlsh). A ctlme wos octoolly beloq
commltteJ by Lhe accused and he was caughL ln floqtoote
Jellcto. 1hus, Lhe search and selzure made upon hls personal
effecLs falls squarely under Sec. S(a), ku|e 113 of Lhe
excepLlons under warranLless arresLs.
1here was probable cause ln Lhls case for Lhelr warranLless

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Accused was rldlng a bus from Sagada when lL was sLopped
aL Lhe checkpolnL. 1he agenLs saw a bulge on hls walsL and he
was asked Lo brlng lL ouL. 1he pouch bag revealed a
susplclous wrapped ob[ecL whlch Lurned ouL Lo be hashlsh
(marl[uana derlvaLlve).
Pe was asked Lo allghL Lhe bus, and when he reLrleved hls
luggage from Lhe comparLmenL, Lhe Leddy bears lnslde Lhe
bag slmllarly conLalned hashlsh lnslde Lhelr foam sLufflng.
Pe was arresLed and convlcLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL search was lllegal for lack of warranL.

PLLu:
nC. lL was made pursuanL Lo a lawful arresL.

search of MalmsLeadL. 1hey recelved reporLs regardlng a
Caucaslan comlng from Sagada and he was also acLlng
susplclously ln falllng Lo produce a passporL, Laken LogeLher
as a whole, Lhls led Lhe nA8CCM offlcers Lo reasonably
belleve LhaL Lhe accused was Lrylng Lo hlde someLhlng lllegal
from Lhe auLhorlLles.
31 osadas v. CA

C.8. no. 89139

AugusL 2, 1990
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was noLlced acLlng susplclously around Lhe
premlses of a college carrylng a burl" bag. When Lhe ln
members approached hlm and lnLroduced Lhemselves as
offlcers, peLlLloner fled buL was arresLed.
burl" bag conLalned guns and ammunlLlons. eLlLloner was
broughL ln for furLher lnvesLlgaLlon and falled Lo produce
llcense for Lhe flrearms. Pe was convlcLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe search and selzure was valld even Lhough
Lhere was no lawful arresL.

PLLu:
?LS. lL falls under Lhe excepLlon LhaL lL was reasonably
conducLed and was based on probable cause.
AL Lhe Llme peLlLloner was apprehended, Lhe offlcers dld noL
know he was commlLLlng or had commlLLed any crlme. Pe
was merely acLlng susplclously whlch dld noL [usLlfy an arresL
wlLhouL warranL.
Powever, Lhere are many lnsLances where a warranL and selzure can
be effecLed wlLhouL necessarlly belng preceded by an arresL. 1hls
slLuaLlon ls akln Lo a proper sLop and frlsk" slLuaLlon:
! lL was effecLed on Lhe basls of probable cause.
o eLlLloner acLed susplclously and aLLempLed Lo flee
wlLh Lhe burl bag, Lhere was a probable cause LhaL he
was conceallng someLhlng lllegal ln Lhe bag and lL
was Lhe rlghL and duLy of Lhe pollce offlcers Lo
lnspecL Lhe same. lL ls Loo much lndeed Lo requlre
Lhe pollce offlcers Lo search Lhe bag ln Lhe possesslon
of Lhe peLlLloner only afLer Lhey shall have obLalned a
search warranL for Lhe purpose.
SLop and lrlsk" (1erry
vs. Chlo): "a pollce
offlcer may ln
approprlaLe
clrcumsLances and ln an
approprlaLe manner
approach a person for
Lhe purpose of
lnvesLlgaLlng posslble
crlmlnal behavlour even
Lhough Lhere ls no
probable cause Lo make
an arresL." ln such a
slLuaLlon, lL ls reasonable
for an offlcer raLher Lhan
allow a crlme Lo occur, Lo
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
! lL was reasonably conducLed.

sLop a susplclous
lndlvldual brlefly Lo
deLermlne hls ldenLlLy or
malnLaln Lhe sLaLus quo
whlle obLalnlng more
lnformaLlon."
32 Anlag v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
104961

CcLober 7,
1994
lAC1S:
ursuanL Lo Lhe CCMLLLC Cun 8an, Congressman lranclsco
Anlag !r. lnsLrucLed hls drlver, LrnesLo Arellano, Lo reLurn Lo
Congress Lwo (2) flrearms lssued by Lhe Pouse of
8epresenLaLlves.
Arellano was sLopped aL a checkpolnL 20m from Lhe 8aLasan
Complex enLrance where Lhe pollce found Lhe guns aL Lhe
Lrunk neaLly packed ln Lhelr cases. 8ased on Lhe conflscaLed
guns, CCMLLLC dlrecLed for Lhe flllng of a case agalnsL Anlag
for gunrunnlng Lhereby dlsquallfylng hlm from runnlng.
Anlag proLesLs Lhe manner by whlch Lhe n conducLed Lhe
search of hls car l.e. wlLhouL warranL and wlLhouL lnformlng
Lhe drlver of hls rlghLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Anlag can be valldly prosecuLed for
lnsLrucLlng hls drlver Lo reLurn Lo Lhe SergeanL-aL-Arms of Lhe
Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves Lhe Lwo flrearms lssued Lo hlm on
Lhe basls of Lhe evldence gaLhered from Lhe warranLless
search of hls car.

PLLu:
nC. 1he search was lnvalld as Lhere was no reason polnLlng
Lo Lhe culpablllLy of peLlLloner and Arellano, and Lhus Lhere
was no basls for a warranLless vehlcle search. Any evldence
acqulred Lhrough ls Lhus lnadmlsslble for any proceedlng.
1hls slLuaLlon does noL fall wlLhln Lhe purvlew of a movlng vehlcle
search (a valld warranLless search).
Clven Lhe clrcumsLances and relylng on lLs vlsual observaLlon,
Lhe gun was noL ln Arellano's person nor placed wlLhln hls
reach. 1he packaglng of Lhe gun dld noL glve any reason for
Lhe n Lo suspecL LhaL lL conLalned flrearms. Arellano dld
noL acL ln any manner whlch was susplclous or unnaLural.
1here was no evldence Lo show LhaL Lhe checkpolnL was seL
up because pollcemen were lmpelled Lo so due Lo any
lnformaLlon leadlng Lhem Lo reasonably belleve LhaL cerLaln
moLorlsLs were engaged ln gunrunnlng.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

33 MalacaL v. CA

C.8. no.
123393

uecember 12,
1997
lAC1S:
ollce were paLrolllng Culapo upon lnformaLlon LhaL a
grenade was golng Lo be exploded ln Lhe area. 1hey saw
Musllm looklng men, and caughL Sammy MalacaL on whom
Lhey found a grenade Lucked lnslde hls upper garmenL. 1he
pollce sald he recognlzed MalacaL as one of Lhe men Lo Lrled
Lo make a grenade go off Lhe prevlous SaLurday.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe warranLless arresL was valld.
WheLher or noL Lhe subsequenL warranLless search of Lhe
peLlLloner's person falls wlLhln Lhe sLop and frlsk rule.

PLLu:
nC. 1here could be noL lawful warranLless arresL as MalacaL
was noL glvlng Lhe lmpresslon, nor dld Lhe pollce have
lnformaLlon, LhaL a crlme had been, ls or wlll be commlLLed.
nC. 1here ls no probable cause ln llghL of Lhe pollce offlcer's
experlence and surroundlng condlLlons, Lo warranL Lhe bellef
LhaL MalacaL had weapons concealed abouL hlm.

no lawful arresL ln accord wlLh Sect|on S, ku|e 113, ku|es of Court
1here could have been no valld ln flagranLe dellcLo or hoL
pursulL arresL precedlng Lhe search ln llghL of Lhe lack of
personal knowledge on Lhe parL of ?u, Lhe arresLlng offlcer,
or an overL physlcal acL, on Lhe parL of peLlLloner, lndlcaLlng
LhaL a crlme had [usL been commlLLed, was belng commlLLed
or was golng Lo be commlLLed.

no valld warranLless search ln accord wlLh Lhe sLop and frlsk rule
1here are doubLs LhaL peLlLloner was a member of Lhe group
whlch aLLempLed Lo bomb laza Mlranda Lwo days earller.
1here was noLhlng ln peLlLloner's behavlour or conducL whlch
could have reasonably ellclLed even mere susplclon oLher
Lhan Lhe ?u's observaLlon LhaL peLlLloner's eyes were
movlng fasL"
1here was aL all no ground, probable or oLherwlse, Lo belleve
LhaL peLlLloner was armed wlLh a deadly weapon.

34 MusLang
Lumber vs. CA

C.8. no.
104988, C.8.
no. 106424,
C.8. no.
123784

!une 18, 1996
lAC1S:
8l Chuy o ls Lhe owner of MusLang Lumber, lnc. who ls
charged wlLh lllegal possesslon of lumber.
CerLaln varleLles of lumber, as well as hls Lruck, were
conflscaLed ln hls lumberyard.
2 SLlZu8LS:
1
st
se|zure " When Lhe Lruck was lnspecLed, Lhe drlver could
noL produce Lhe requlred documenLs, so Lhe Lruck and Lhe
lumber were selzed by SAlu auLhorlLles - wltboot o wottoot.
2
nd
se|zure " WlLh valld warranL and Lhe SAlu Leam was able
1-2. Lumber ls a foresL producL. lL's possesslon wlLhouL Lhe
requlred legal documenLs ls ln vlolaLlon of SecLlon 68 of u 703.

3. 1he selzures conducLed by 8obles and hls Leam were legal.
o 1here are (3) excepLlons Lo Lhe rule on Lhe consLlLuLlonal
mandaLe of a search warranL:
o Search ls an lncldenL Lo a lawful arresL,
o Selzure of evldence ln plaln vlew,
o CusLoms searches
o ConsenLed warranLless search

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lo search and selze four Lruckloads of lumber.
1he uLn8 Sec. suspended o's permlL Lo operaLe per
recommendaLlon of 8obles, Chlef of SAlu.
o challenged Lhe valldlLy of Lhe selzure on Lhe ground LhaL lL
was done by uLn8 auLhorlLles wlLhouL a warranL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe selzures conducLed by 8obles and hls
Leam were legal.

PLLu:
?LS, Lhe selzures conducLed by 8obles and hls Leam were
legal.
o 5eotcb of o movloq veblcle.
o 1he search conducLed on Lhe second selzure was also valld,
because even Lhough lL was done for Lwo consecuLlve days,
Lhe searches were made wlLhln Lhe 10-day perlod of Lhe
warranL valldly lssued.

CourL ClLed:
Sect|on 80 of D 70S: o fotest offlcet ot employee of uNk...can
arresL wlLhouL a warranL any person who has commlLLed ln hls
presence any offense deflned ln Lhls chapLer. Pe may also conflscaLe
such producLs ln Lhe arresL. "

Sect|on 68-A of D 70S: ln case of vlolaLlon of foresLs laws, Lhe
ueparLmenL Pead or hls Joly ootbotlzeJ tepteseototlve moy
cooflscote any foresL producLs lllegally cuL, gaLhered, removed, or
possessed.
3S eople v.
AruLa

C.8. no.
120913

Aprll 3, 1998
lAC1S:
LL. Abello was Llpped off by an lnformanL, known as 8en[le,
LhaL a cerLaln Allng 8osa" would be arrlvlng wlLh a large
volume of marl[uana. Allng 8osa, as polnLed ouL by Lhe
lnformanL, goL off Lhe bus. Abello asked Allng 8osa" abouL
Lhe conLenLs of her bag and she handed her bag Lo Lhe
offlcer. upon lnspecLlon, Lhey found drled marl[uana leaves.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc Lhe resulLlng warranLless arresL resulLlng
ln Lhe arresL of accused-appellanL vlolaLed Lhe laLLer's
consLlLuLlonal rlghL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1o leglLlmlze Lhe warranLless search and selzure of
AruLa's bag, she musL have been valldly arresLed flrsL.
o Abello had more Lhan 24 hours Lo secure a warranL of arresL
agalnsL her. Per ldenLlLy was already prlorly ascerLalned
Lhrough 8en[le.
o Per arresL musL have come before Lhe search and selzure of
her bad, ln accordance Lo Sect|on S of ku|e 113.
o She was searched afLer she had walked ouL of Lhe bus.
1herefore, lL does noL fall wlLhln Lhe exempLlons of a valld
search and selzure ln a movlng vehlcle.
Sect|on S of ku|e 113:
Attest wltboot wottoot,
wbeo lowfol. - A peace
offlcer or a prlvaLe
person may, wlLhouL a
warranL, arresL a person:
(a) When ln hls presence,
Lhe person Lo be arresLed
has commlLLed, ls
octoolly commlttloq, or ls
aLLempLlng Lo commlL an
offense,
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
36 Asunclon v. CA

C.8. no.
123939

lebruary 1,
1999
lAC1S:
!ose Asunclon was charged wlLh possesslon of regulaLed
drugs punlshable under Lhe Dangerous Drugs Act. 1he
peLlLloner was found Lo be ln possesslon of 2 small packeLs of
shabu".
rlor Lo Lhe lncldenL, Lhey already had an encounLer wlLh Lhe
accused buL Lhe laLLer was able Lo evade Lhem. 1hey could
noL geL a search warranL because accused used dlfferenL
vehlcle, and Lhey could noL geL hls exacL ldenLlLy and
resldence.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was probable cause Lo affecL a
warranLless search and arresL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he search of a movlng vehlcle ls one of Lhe exempLlons
Lo Lhe general rule.
1he warranLless search and selzure was va||d because:
o Search of a movlng vehlcle ls one of Lhe recognlzed
exempLlons.
o Several facLs furLher [usLlfy Lhe lnablllLy of pollce offlcers Lo
secure a warranL ahead of Llme.
1hey were uncerLaln when accused would show up
1hey were uncerLaln as Lo Lhe vehlcle Lhe accused
would use
1here was probable cause LhaL peLlLloner may yeL
agaln evade arresL. eLlLloner's vehlcle was flagged
down" by Lhe apprehendlng offlcers upon
ldenLlflcaLlon. 1hey were [usLlfled ln searchlng Lhe
vehlcle wlLhouL a warranL because Lhe slLuaLlon
demanded lmmedlaLe acLlon.

37 eople v.
CanLon

C.8. number
148823

uecember 27,
2002
lAC1S:
Susan CanLon was bound for vleLnam when Mylene Cabunoc,
a clvlllan employee of naLlonal AcLlon CommlLLee on
Pl[acklng and 1errorlsm, found 998 grams of shabu ln her
person afLer frlsklng and lnspecLlon.
no lnvesLlgaLlon was conducLed on Susan and LhaL she slgned
a recelpL of Lhe arLlcles selzed from her.
1rlal courL found Susan gullLy beyond reasonable doubL of
vlolaLlon of Sect|on 16 Art|c|e III of kA 642S (uangerous
urugs AcL of 1972).

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe warranLless search and subsequenL
selzure of Lhe regulaLed drugs, as well as Lhe arresL of SuSAn,
were vlolaLlve of her consLlLuLlonal rlghLs.
o 1he scope of a search pursuanL Lo alrporL securlLy procedure
ln noL conflned only Lo search for weapons under Lhe 1erry
search" docLrlne.
o ln presenL case, search was made pursuanL Lo tootloe oltpott
secotlty ptoceJote " allowed under Sect|on 9 of kA 623S
whlch parL reads nolJet beteof ooJ bls booJ-cottleJ
loqqoqe(s) ote sobject to seotcb fot, ooJ selzote of, ptoblblteJ
motetlols ot sobstooces. nolJet tefosloq to be seotcbeJ sboll
oot be olloweJ to bootJ tbe oltctoft
o 1hls consLlLuLes oootbet exceptloo Lo Lhe prescrlpLlon agalnsL
warranLless search and selzures. 1haL Lhe search, unllke Lhe
1etty search, ls noL llmlLed Lo weapons. losseoqets ote olso
sobject Lo search for prohlblLed maLerlals or subsLances.
o Such warranLless search and selzure were legal. Armed wlLh
Lhe knowledge LhaL Susan was commlLLlng a crlme (ln

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
nC, lL dld noL vlolaLe her consLlLuLlonal rlghLs. 8ody searches
ln alrporLs are also lncluded ln Lhe excepLlons of arresL and
selzure wlLhouL valld warranL.

floqtoote Jellcto), Lhe alrporL securlLy personnel and pollce
auLhorlLles were duLy-bound Lo arresL her.

CourL ClLed:
Sect|on S, ku|e 113 of the ku|es of Court:
SLC. 3. Attest wltboot wottoot, wbeo lowfol. - A peace offlcer or a
prlvaLe person may, wlLhouL a warranL, arresL a person:
When, ln hls presence, Lhe person Lo be arresLed has commlLLed, ls
acLually commlLLlng, or ls aLLempLlng Lo commlL an offense, x x x

38 la[ardo v.
eople

C.8. no.
190889

!anuary 10,
2011
lAC1S:
SC2 nava saw valerlo, companlon of Lhe eLlLloner, Lhrow
an ob[ecL from Lhe Lop of peLlLloner's house. When he
recovered Lhe lLem, lL Lurned ouL Lo be 2 .43 callber plsLols.
Pe Lhen surrendered lL Lo SC1 1an who used ln applylng for
and obLalnlng a search warranL.
uslng Lhe Search WarranL, Lhe pollce was able Lo selze a
number of weapons Lhe eLlLloner and valerlo were lllegally
ln possesslon of.
eLlLloner assalled Lhe Search WarranL served Lo Lhem was
defecLlve because Lhe allegaLlon conLalned ln Lhe appllcaLlon
flled and slgned by SC1 1an was noL based on hls personal
knowledge.
81C convlcLed eLlLloner and valerlo of lllegal ossesslon of
llrearms and Lxploslves. Cnly peLlLloner flled a M8 whlch
was Lhen denled, peLlLloner Lhen flled an Appeal wlLh Lhe CA.
CA concurred wlLh Lhe facLual flndlngs of Lhe 81C buL held
LhaL Lhe search warranL was vold. All weapons selzed lnslde
peLlLloner's resldence were declared lnadmlsslble as
evldence buL Lhe weapons recovered by SC2 nava was
admlLLed as evldence pursuanL Lo Lhe LAIN VILW DCC1kINL
1he CA Lhen convlcLed eLlLloner of lllegal ossesslon of A
1he CourL ruled LhaL eLlLloner ls noL llable for lllegal possesslon of
parL of a flrearm. 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe peLlLloner was nelLher ln
physlcal or consLrucLlve possesslon of Lhe lLems selzed by SC2 nava.
1he rosecuLlon falled Lo show lnLenL Lo ossess by Lhe eLlLloner,
belng Lhe offense of lllegal ossesslon of arL of a llrearm ls Mala
rohlblLa.

1he CourL recognlzed LhaL 3 excepLlons agalnsL unreasonable
searches and selzures lald down by Sec. 2, ArL. lll. (1) Search lncldenL
Lo a lawful arresL, (2) Search of a movlng moLor vehlcle, (3) Search ln
vlolaLlon of cusLom laws, (4) selzure of evldence ln p|a|n v|ew and (3)
when Lhe accused hlmself walves hls rlghL agalnsL unreasonable
searches and selzures.

1he CourL furLher ruled LhaL ob[ecLs falllng ln Lhe plaln vlew" of an
offlcer, who has a rlghL Lo be ln Lhe poslLlon Lo have LhaL vlew, are
sub[ecL Lo selzure and may be presenLed as evldence lf Lhe followlng
requlslLes are presenL: (1) Law enforcer ln search of Lhe evldence has
a prlor [usLlflcaLlon for an lnLruslon or ls ln a poslLlon from whlch he
can vlew a parLlcular area (2) ulscovery of Lhe evldence ln plaln vlew
ls lnadverLenL and (3) lL ls lmmedlaLely apparenL Lo Lhe offlcer LhaL
Lhe lLem he observes may be evldence of a crlme or sub[ecL Lo
8equlslLes needed under
Lhe laln vlew uocLrlne:

1) Law enforcer ln search
of Lhe evldence has a
prlor [usLlflcaLlon for an
lnLruslon or ls ln a
poslLlon from whlch he
can vlew a parLlcular
area

2) ulscovery of Lhe
evldence ln plaln vlew ls
lnadverLenL and

3) lL ls lmmedlaLely
apparenL Lo Lhe offlcer
LhaL Lhe lLem he
observes may be
evldence of a crlme or
sub[ecL Lo selzure
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
A81 of a llrearm. eLlLloner now assalls Lhe ueclslon of Lhe
CA.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a eLlLloner was gullLy of lllegal ossesslon of
arL of a llrearm.

PLLu:
no. 8ullng of Lhe CA ls 8LvL8SLu and eLlLloner ls ACCul1Lu.
selzure.

1he CourL does held LhaL Lhe weapons collecLed by SC2 nava were
admlsslble as evldence. 8ased on Lhe LesLlmony, lL was valerlo who
Lhrew Lhe weapons, Lhus havlng physlcal and consLrucLlve possesslon
of Lhe weapons. 1he CourL held LhaL Lhe CA correcLly convlcLed
valerlo wlLh lllegal ossesslon of arL of a llrearm.
SLAkCnLS AND SLI2UkLS CI WnA1LVLk NA1UkL AND ICk WnA1LVLk UkCSL
39 MaLerlal
ulsLrlbuLors
(hll.) lnc. v.
naLlvldad

C.8. no. L-
1716

!une 28, 1949
lAC1S:
8espondenL Lope Sarreal flled a moLlon for Lhe producLlon
and lnspecLlon of 8ooks or apers of MaLerlal ulsLrlbuLors
(hll.) lnc. and of uefendanL Parry Lyons.
eLlLloners flled a memorandum ln opposlLlon Lo
8espondenL's moLlon. 1hey conLend LhaL 8espondenL falled
Lo provlde good cause and flshlng for evldence.
8espondenL !udge naLlvldad approved for Lhe producLlon of
Lhe 8ooks and apers hence Lhe appeal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe producLlon of Lhe 8ooks and apers
Lrampled upon peLlLloner's rlghL Lo Lhe lnvlolablllLy and
communlcaLlon guaranLeed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

PLLu:
nC. 8espondenL Sarreal esLabllshed probable cause/good
cause. 1he producLlon of 8ooks and apers were ordered noL
because of a Search WarranL buL by Sec. 1 ku|e 21 of the
ku|es of Court.
Sec. 1, ku|e 21
Sec. 1 - MoLlon for producLlon or lnspecLlon - upon moLlon
of any parLy showlng good cause Lherefor and upon noLlce Lo
all oLher parLles, Lhe courL ln whlch an acLlon ls pendlng may
(a) order any parLy Lo produce and permlL Lhe lnspecLlon. or
(b) order any parLy Lo permlL enLry upon deslgnaLed land or
oLher properLy ln hls possesslon or conLrol for Lhe purpose
of.

CourL ruled LhaL
(a) Lhe moLlon menLloned Lhe books and papers consLlLuLe or conLaln
Lhe evldence maLerlal Lo Lhe maLLers lnvolved ln Lhe case
(b) Lhe respondenL fulfllled Lhe requlremenL of showlng good cause
under 8ule 21
(c) Lhe order Lo produce Lhe books and papers perLaln Lo a clvll
procedure under kULL 21 and cannoL be ldenLlfled wlLh Lhe
uNkA5ONA8l 5Akcn5 prohlblLed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
40 Cklahoma
ress v.
Walllng

327 uS 186

lebruary 11,
1946
lAC1S:
Walllng, an AdmlnlsLraLor of Lhe uS ueparLmenL of Labor,
lssued subpoenas agalnsL peLlLloners ln pursuanL of Lhe Ia|r
Labor Standards Act. 1he subpoenas soughL Lhe producLlon
of speclfled records Lo deLermlne lf peLlLloners were vlolaLlng
Lhe sald sLaLuLe.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc Lhe Ia|r Labor Standards Act vlolaLed
Lhelr rlghL Lo Lhe lourLh AmendmenL

PLLu:
nC. WhaL was done was only a 'consLrucLlve search', noL an
'acLual search'
1he warranLless search was va||d because:
o 1he lnLenL of Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon was only Lo dlscover and
procure evldence, noL Lo prove a pendlng charge or
complalnL.
o A 'consLrucLlve search' ls noL an acLual search.
1he papers soughL are of corporaLe characLer.
Congress may exerclse wlde lnvesLlgaLlve power over
Lhem, analogous Lo Lhe 'vlslLorlal power' of Lhe
lncorporaLlng sLaLe. 1hls ls because corporaLlons are
noL enLlLled Lo all consLlLuLlonal proLecLlons as
prlvaLe lndlvlduals are.
1he lnvesLlgaLlon was for a lawful purpose and
saLlsfled Lhe requlremenL of probable cause.

41 Camara v.
Munlclpal
CourL

387 u.S. 323

!une 3, 1967
lAC1S:
Pouslng lnspecLor of Lhe San lranclsco ueparLmenL of ubllc
PealLh enLered an aparLmenL bulldlng for rouLlne annual
lnspecLlon when he was prompLed LhaL Lhe appellanL-lessee
of Lhe ground floor was uslng hls leasehold as a resldence, ln
vlolaLlon of Lhe bulldlng's permlL.
When Lhe lnspecLor demanded Lo be leL ln, appellanL
prohlblLed hlm clalmlng Lhe need for a warranL.
1he lnspecLor reLurned Lwlce, Lhe laLer Llme he was
accompanled by anoLher lnspecLor and argued LhaL Lhey
were auLhorlzed under Sec. S03 of the nous|ng Code Lo
lnspecL appellanL's aparLmenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. S03 ls vlolaLlve of Lhe 4
th
Amendment.

PLLu:
?LS. 8ouLlne lnspecLlons are noL so urgenL, and so warranLs
should sLlll be obLalned.
llre, houslng, and sanlLaLlon lnspecLlons can sLlll be made. lL
ls noL a quesLlon of wheLher such lnspecLlons are allowed,
Lhe lssue ls lf Lhey can be done wlLhouL a warranL. 1hese
Lypes of lnspecLlon programs can sLlll achleve Lhelr goals
even lf warranLs are requlred.
Moreover, probable cause musL be based on an appralsal of
a cerLaln area as a whole, noL on lndlvldual bulldlngs. 1he
purpose of Lhe law ln Lhe flrsL place ls compllance wlLh Lhe
cltys stooJotJs fot ptopetty.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

WAkkAN1LLSS AkkLS1S
42 Parvey v.
uefensor
SanLlago

C.8. no. 82344

!une 28, 1988
lAC1S:
eLlLloners are forelgners LhaL were Lhe sub[ecLed of
deporLaLlon proceedlngs afLer Lhey were verlfled as
pedophlles, havlng been caughL ln Lhe company of chlldren.
WarranLs of arresL were lssued by respondenL agalnsL
peLlLloners ln lleu of Lhe deporLaLlon proceedlngs as
undeslrable allens.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhelr arresL was valld.

PLLu:
?LS. ArresL here was based on probable cause and was
conducLed ln lleu of Lhe accepLed process ln a deporLaLlon
proceedlng.
ArresL of peLlLloners was based on probable cause
deLermlned afLer close survelllance for Lhree (3) monLhs
durlng whlch perlod Lhelr acLlvlLles were monlLored. 1he
exlsLence of probable cause [usLlfled Lhe arresL and Lhe
selzure of Lhe phoLo negaLlves, phoLographs and posLers
wlLhouL warranL
8ecords show LhaL formal deporLaLlon charges have been
flled agalnsL Lhem, as undeslrable allens, on 4 March 1988.
WarranLs of arresL were lssued agalnsL Lhem on 7 March
1988 "for vlolaLlon of Sect|on 37, 4S and 46 of the
Imm|grat|on Act and Sect|on 69 of the Adm|n|strat|ve
Code." A hearlng ls presenLly belng conducLed by a 8oard of
Speclal lnqulry. 1he resLralnL agalnsL Lhelr persons, Lherefore,
has become legal. 1he process of Lhe law ls belng followed
ueporLaLlon proceedlngs are admlnlsLraLlve ln characLer. An
order of deporLaLlon ls never consLrued as a punlshmenL. lL ls
prevenLlve, noL a penal process. lL need noL be conducLed
sLrlcLly ln accordance wlLh ordlnary CourL proceedlngs.

LssenLlal here: (1)
warranL of arresL shall
glve Lhe allen sufflclenL
lnformaLlon abouL Lhe
charges agalnsL hlm,
relaLlng Lhe facLs relled
upon. (2) glven a falr
hearlng wlLh Lhe
asslsLance of counsel, lf
he so deslres, before
unpre[udlced
lnvesLlgaLors.
43 eople v.
Amlnnudln

C.8.no. 74869

!uly 6, 1988
lAC1S:
C offlcers arresLed accused shorLly afLer he dlsembarked
from Lhe M/v Wllcon. Pe was poslLlvely ldenLlfled by Lhelr
lnformer.
Pe was slmply accosLed and hls bag was searched and
marl[uana leaves were found ln hls possesslon.
Accused clalms Lo be engaged ln selllng waLches and LhaL
Lhose leaves were planLed on hlm.
An lnformaLlon was flled and he was convlcLed.

lSSuL:
1he accused-appellanL was noL caughL ln flagranLe nor was a
crlme abouL Lo be commlLLed or had [usL been commlLLed Lo
[usLlfy Lhe warranLless arresL, as accused was dolng noLhlng
ouLwardly lllegal: merely descendlng from Lhe M/v Wllcon.
Moreover, Lhe C had aL leasL 2 days Lo flle for a warranL
whlch Lhey dld noL do as apparenLly, lL was deLermlned by
Lhe chlef of Lhe arresLlng Leam LhaL lL was noL necessary,"
conLrary Lo law.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Amlnnudln's search and selzure was valld.

PLLu:
nC. Pls arresL dld noL come under any of Lhe excepLlons
under 8ule 113.
44 eople v.
8urgos

C.8. no. L-
68933

SepLember 4,
1986
lAC1S:
8uben 8urgos was arresLed and charged wlLh lllegal
possesslon of llrearms ln lurLherance of Subverslon for belng
an alleged member of Lhe nA. 1he flrearms and subverslve
documenLs were selzed from hls properLy. 1he warranLless
arresL was based on Lhe LesLlmony of Cesar Masamlok who
had allegedly been recrulLed by 8urgos Lo Lhe nA, all of
whlch 8urgos denled.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe arresL of 8uben 8urgos was lawful.
WheLher or noL Lhe search of 8urgos' house and Lhe
subsequenL conflscaLlon of a flrearm and documenLs
allegedly found Lhereln were conducLed ln a lawful and valld
manner.

PLLu:
nC. 1here was no compelllng reason for Lhe pollce Lo bypass
Lhe acqulslLlon of a warranL of arresL, and Lhe pollce had no
personal knowledge LhaL 8urgos commlLLed sald crlme.
nC. 1he arresL belng lllegal, Lhe subsequenL search ls lllegal.
Sect|on 6(a), ku|e 113, ku|es of Court: Lhe arresLlng offlcer musL
have L8SCnAL knowledge of Lhe offense commlLLed or Lo be
commlLLed. 1he offense musL also be commlLLed ln hls presence or
wlLhln hls vlew.
ln Lhls case, Lhere ls noL such personal knowledge. 1he
knowledge of Lhe offlcers came enLlrely from Lhe lnformaLlon
by Cesar Masamlok, and Lhe locaLlon of Lhe flrearm was
glven by accused's wlfe. AL Lhe Llme of arresL, Lhe defendanL
was noL ln acLual possesslon of any flrearm or subverslve
documenL.

1he facL LhaL Lhe accused falled Lo ob[ecL Lo Lhe enLry lnLo hls house
does noL amounL Lo a permlsslon Lo make a search Lhereln or a
walver for LhaL maLLer.
1o consLlLuLe a walver, lL musL appear fltst LhaL Lhe rlghL
exlsLs, secooJly, LhaL Lhe person lnvolved had knowledge,
acLual or consLrucLlve, of Lhe exlsLence of such a rlghL, and
lostly, LhaL sald person had an acLual lnLenLlon Lo rellnqulsh
Lhe rlghL. " 1hese are noL presenL ln Lhe lnsLanL case slnce
Lhe accused was noL even appralsed of hls consLlLuLlonal
rlghLs aL Lhe Llme of arresL.
Sect|on S, ku|e 113,
ku|es of Cr|m|na|
rocedure ouLllne Lhe
Lhree lnsLances where a
person may be arresLed
wlLhouL a warranL. lL's a
carbon copy of Sect|on 6,
ku|e 113, ku|es of Court.
4S umll v. 8amos

C.8. no. 81367

CcLober 3,
1991
lAC1S:
1hese are elghL (8) cases whereln all Lhe peLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhelr warranLless arresLs were lllegal.
umll v. 8amos " 8oberLo uural was arresLed durlng hls hosplLal conflnemenL for gunshoL wounds on accounL of belng parL of Lhe
kllllng of a pollce offlcer.
o valld warranLless arresL because belng parL of Lhe nA, an ouLlawed organlzaLlon, ls a conLlnulng crlme. 1hus lL falls wlLhln
Sect|on S, ku|e 113, ku|es on Cr|m|na| rocedure.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8oque v. ue vllla, Anonuevo v. 8amos, Ccaya v. Agulrre " WlLh a valld search warranL, unllcensed flrearms, exploslves and/or
ammunlLlon were found ln Lhelr persons.
o 1hey were caughL ln flagranLe dellcLo whlch [usLlfled Lhelr ouLrlghL arresLs wlLhouL warranL, under Sect|on S(a), ku|e 113.
LsplrlLu v. Llm " LsplrlLu was arresLed for aLLerlng Lhe words 8ukas Luloy ang welga naLln . . . hanggang sa magkagulo na."
o ulsmlssed for belng mooL and academlc.
nazareno v. SLaLlon Commander " 14 days afLer Lhe kllllng, nazareno was named by one of Lhe suspecLs. Pe was arresLed LhaL
afLernoon.
o 1he arresL ls sLlll wlLhln Sect|on S(b) of ku|e 113, slnce lL was only on LhaL day LhaL Lhe pollce auLhorlLles came Lo know LhaL
nazareno was probably one of Lhose gullLy ln Lhe kllllng of 8unye ll and Lhe arresL had Lo be made prompLly, even wlLhouL
warranL.

46 Co v. CourL of
Appeals

C.8. no.
101837

lebruary 11,
1992
lAC1S:
8ollLo Co ls accused of havlng shoL Lldon Maguan afLer Lhelr
cars almosL crashed.
AfLer a manhunL was launched agalnsL hlm, peLlLloner
volunLarlly wenL Lo Lhe pollce sLaLlon. Pe was deLalned buL
balled.
1he rosecuLor admlLLed LhaL Lhere was no prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon, and LhaL Lhe accused dld noL walve Lhe
provlslons of ArLlcle 123.
!udge elayo recalled Lhe granL of ball and Co was deLalned
agaln.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL an unlawful arresL was effecLed on peLlLloner.
WheLher or noL peLlLloner effecLlvely walved hls rlghL Lo
prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon.

PLLu:
?LS. 1here was oolowfol arresL.
nC. eLlLloner ls stlll eotltleJ Lo prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon.
1. 1here was oolowfol arresL.
o CourL held LhaL Lhe warranLless arresL of peLlLloner ls oot
locloJeJ ln Lhe cases under Sect|on S ku|e 113 of the ku|es
on Cr|m|na| rocedure.
o lL ls clear LhaL peLlLloner had noL [usL commlLLed" Lhe
shooLlng when Lhe offlcers arresLed hlm. Cfflcers also dld noL
have personal knowledge" of Lhe crlme, slnce Lhey only goL
Lhelr lnformaLlon from Lhe alleged wlLnesses.

2. eLlLloner ls stlll eotltleJ Lo prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon.
o Slnce Lhere was no lawful arresL", denylng Lhe peLlLloner hls
rlghL Lo prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon dld noL come wlLhln Lhe
purvlew of Lhe exempLlon of Sect|on 7 of ku|e 112.
o eLlLloner from Lhe sLarL had been demandlng a prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon.
o AlLhough a sLaLuLory rlghL, Lhe rlghL Lo prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon ls sobstootlve.

CourL ClLed:
Sect|on S ku|e 113 of the ku|es on Cr|m|na| rocedure: a peace
offlcer may valldly arresL an offender wlLhouL a warranL upon Lhe

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
followlng condlLlons:
1. When Lhe offender has commlLLed or ls commlLLlng Lhe crlme ln
Lhe offlcer's presence,
2. When Lhe offlcer has personal knowledge of Lhe facLs lndlcaLlng
LhaL Lhe offender has [usL commlLLed Lhe crlme, and,
3. When a convlcL escapes [all or ln LranslL, or when an accused
absconds whlle hls case ls sLlll pendlng.

Sect|on 7 ku|e 112: wbeo tbete ls o lowfol ottest, a complalnL may be
flled agalnsL Lhe offender wlLhouL a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon, buL Lhe
offeoJet moy stlll osk fot ptellmlooty lovestlqotloo afLer slgnlng Lhe
walver of Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 123 of Lhe 8C.

47 eople v.
MengoLe

C.8. no. 87039

!une 22, 1992
lAC1S:
aLrolmen 8olando Mercado and AlberLo !uan saw Lwo men
looklng from slde Lo slde," wlLh one holdlng hls abdomen.
1he former ldenLlfled Lhemselves as pollcemen. 1he laLLer
Lrled Lo run away buL were unable Lo escape. Cne of Lhem,
MengoLe, was found wlLh a revolver wlLh 6 llve bulleLs. Pls
companlon, Morellos, had a fan knlfe.
WlLness uangagnan LesLlfled LhaL Lhe flrearm was robbed by
MengoLe from hls house.
MengoLe and Morellos were charged wlLh unlawful
ossesslon of llrearms.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc Lhe warranLless arresL falls under a lawful
arresL.

PLLu:
nC. 1he arresL dld noL quallfy wlLhln any of Lhe lnsLances
when arresLs wlLhouL a warranL are lawful.
1he warranLless search was |nva||d because:
o lL dld noL fall under any of Lhe lnsLances where a warranLless
arresL would be lawful
1he person Lo be arresLed was nC1 commlLLlng or
had commlLLed an offense. 1hey were merely
looklng slde Lo slde." 1here was no slgn an offense
had [usL been commlLLed.
1he pollce offlcers had nC personal knowledge of
facLs LhaL Lhe person Lo be arresLed had [usL
commlLLed an offense. rlor Lo Lhe arresL, Lhey had
no ldea abouL MengoLe's ldenLlLy or hls alleged
robbery.
1he person Lo be arresLed was nC1 a prlsoner who
had [usL escaped.
o 1here was no probable cause Lo dlspense Lhe requlremenL of
a warranL.
o uue Lo Lhe lllegal arresL, Lhe flrearm was lnadmlsslble as
evldence.

48 Manallll v. CA lAC1S: 1he warranLless search was va||d because: eople v. Lacerna: llve
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no.
113447

CcLober 9,
1997
ollcemen from Lhe AnLl-narcoLlcs unlL of Lhe Caloocan ClLy
ollce SLaLlon were conducLlng survelllance because of
lnformaLlon LhaL drug addlcLs were roamlng around Lhe
Caloocan ClLy CemeLary.
1hey saw a male person wlLh reddlsh eyes and walklng ln a
swaylng manner. Pe Lrled Lo avold Lhe pollcemen, whlch
caused Lhe laLLer Lo approach hlm and lnLroduce Lhemselves
as pollce offlcers.
Pe allowed hls walleL Lo be examlned where Lhe pollce
offlcers found crushed marl[uana leaves.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe evldence agalnsL peLlLloner was
admlsslble

PLLu:
?LS. lL ls admlsslble because lL was reLrleved durlng a valld
warranLless search.
o 1he search was akln Lo a sLop-and-frlsk.
1hls ls Lhe rlghL of a pollce offlcer Lo sLop a clLlzen on
Lhe sLreeL, lnLerrogaLe hlm, and paL hlm for weapons.
1he search ls for Lhe proLecLlon of hlmself and
oLhers ln Lhe area Lo conducL a carefully llmlLed
search of Lhe ouLer cloLhlng of such persons Lo
dlscover weapons whlch mlghL be used Lo assaulL
hlm."
1he susplclous behavlor of peLlLloner along Caloocan
ClLy CemeLary (whlch accordlng Lo pollce lnformaLlon
was a popular hangouL of drug addlcLs) gave
sufflclenL probable cause Lo sLop peLlLloner.
recognlzed excepLlons Lo
Lhe rule agalnsL
warranLless arresLs and
selzure:
1. Search lncldenLal Lo a
lawful arresL
2. Search of movlng
vehlcles
3. Selzure ln plaln vlew
4. CusLoms search
Walver by Lhe accused
Lhemselves of Lhelr rlghL
search and selzure

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -

%!*' .!%/0"+1,2 +3 #4' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
'5%&1*$+,!"6 "1&'
7 Salcedo-
CrLanez v.
CourL of
Appeals

lAC1S:
8afael flled a case for annulmenL agalnsL hls wlfe 1ereslLa. Pe
provlded wlreLapped conversaLlons sLored ln casseLLe Lapes
as evldences agalnsL her. When Lhe 81C admlLLed Lhe Lapes
as evldences, 1ereslLa flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe
CA. 1he CA dlsmlssed her peLlLlon because she should have
appealed flrsL. Pence Lhls appeal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe casseLLe Lapes can be admlLLed as
evldence ln Lhe annulmenL proceedlngs.

PLLu:
no. 1he casseLLe Lapes are lnadmlsslble as evldence ln Lhe
annulmenL proceedlngs.

1he CourL ruled LhaL "8!8 9:;; (An AcL Lo rohlblL and enallze Wlre-
1applng) expllclLly prohlblLs Lhe admlsslon of wlre-Lapped
conversaLlons as evldence ln any hearlng. AbsenL a clear showlng
LhaL <=>? @AB>CDE Lo Lhe Lelephone conversaLlons AFF=GDH Lhe
recordlng of Lhe same, Lhe lnadmlsslblllLy of Lhe sub[ecL Lapes ls
mandaLory

: ZulueLa v.
CourL of
Appeals
lAC1S:
eLlLloner ls Lhe wlfe of publlc respondenL. She wenL Lo Lhe
laLLer's cllnlc and desLroyed Lhe cablneLs Lo geL cerLaln
documenLs Lo use Lhem as evldence ln a legal separaLlon case
she flled. Lower courL and CA sald LhaL Lhe documenLs are
lnadmlsslble. Pence her appeal Lo Lhe SC.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe documenLs were admlsslble as evldence

PLLu:
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon or Lhe prlvacy of
communlcaLlon and correspondence are lnvlolable. 1he only
excepLlon ls when Lhere ls (1) lawful order from Lhe courL, or (2)
when publlc safeLy or order requlres, as prescrlbed by law. 1he CourL
furLher sLaLed LhaL Lhe lnLlmacles beLween husband and wlfe do noL
[usLlfy any one of Lhem breaklng Lhe drawers and cablneLs of Lhe
oLher and ln ransacklng Lhem for any LellLale evldence of marlLal
lnfldellLy.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
no. 1hey were accepLed ln courL because of a 18C, afLer Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe 18C, Lhe documenLs are now lnadmlsslble.

- eople v.
MarLl
lAC1S:
Andre MarLl was golng Lo have 4 packages shlpped Lo
SwlLzerland vla Manlla acklng and LxporL lorwarders.
8efore dellvery of appellanL's box Lo Lhe 8ureau of CusLoms
and/or 8ureau of osLs, Mr. !ob 8eyes (proprleLor) followlng
sLandard operaLlng procedure, opened Lhe boxes for flnal
lnspecLlon and found drled marl[uana leaves and a couple of
Labacalera clgars.
1he same was senL Lo Lhe narcoLlcs SecLlon of Lhe n8l for
lnvesLlgaLlon. MarLl was convlcLed for a vlolaLlon of 8epubllc
AcL 6423: uangerous urugs AcL. MarLl clalms LhaL Lhe
package was lllegally selzed hence lnadmlsslble as evldence.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe excluslonary rule applles.

PLLu:
no. eLlLlon ls denled, Lhe [udgmenL flndlng appellanL gullLy
beyond reasonable doubL ls afflrmed.

1he CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe evldence was prlmarlly dlscovered and
obLalned by a prlvaLe person, acLlng ln a prlvaLe capaclLy wlLhouL Lhe
lnLervenLlon of SLaLe auLhorlLles. An acL of a prlvaLe lndlvldual ln Lhe
absence of governmenLal lnLerference, allegedly ln vlolaLlon of
appellanL's consLlLuLlonal rlghLs, cannoL be lnvoked agalnsL Lhe SLaLe.

Also Lhe CourL ruled LhaL Lhe evldence comlng lnLo possesslon of Lhe
CovernmenL wlLhouL Lhe laLLer Lransgresslng appellanL's rlghLs
agalnsL unreasonable search and selzure, Lhere ls no reason why Lhe
same should noL be admlLLed agalnsL Lhe appellanL.

9 WaLerous
urug Corp. v.
nL8C
n/A n/A n/A
I kMu v. nLuA lAC1S:
1wo consolldaLed peLlLlon by kMu and 8A?An MunA
assalllng EDJ8 7 =K '+ 9:; requlrlng all governmenL agencles
Lo adopL a unlfled mulLlpurpose lu sysLem and LhaL Lhe daLa
be llmlLed Lo Lhe followlng 14 speclflc flelds.

1he CourL observed LhaL Lhe governmenL enLlLles requlred by Lhe
L.C. already have an lu sysLem ln Lhe performance of Lhelr funcLlons
and no complalnLs abouL prlvacy or abuse have been made abouL
Lhem. 1he CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe daLa collecLed wlll be llmlLed Lo Lhe
14 menLloned ln Sec. 3 and Lhe card lLself wlll show only 8 of Lhe
lnformaLlon, whlch ls even less Lhan whaL some governmenL agencles

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL '+ 9:; lnfrlnges on Lhe clLlzens' rlghL Lo
prlvacy.

PLLu:
no. '+ 9:; does noL lnfrlnge on Lhe clLlzens' rlghL Lo prlvacy.
requlre now.

Also, Lhe CourL observed LhaL Lhere are safeguards lnsLlLuLed such as
sLrlngenL sysLems of access conLrol, needed auLhorlzaLlons before
access ls granLed or lnformaLlon ls edlLed, advanced securlLy
feaLures, eLc. WlLh Lhe excepLlon of Lhe 8 lnfo LhaL wlll appear on Lhe
card, all oLher lnfo are deemed sLrlcLly confldenLlal" and personal
maLLers, whlch are ouLslde of Lhe scope of Lhe rlghL of people Lo
maLLers of publlc concern.

L!$M'" +3 "$04#* 1,2'" *'%*8 : N -
O eople v.
uamaso
lAC1S:
AppellanL-8espondenL ls appeallng hls convlcLlon of vlolaLlng
.u. 1866, he conLends LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon's evldence was
based on hearsay and Lhus lnadmlsslble. Also, appellanL
conLends LhaL Lhe evldence was gaLhered wlLhouL a valld
search warranL.
1he hlllpplne ConsLabulary wenL Lo Lhe house of Lhe
appellanL afLer recelvlng lnformaLlon from one of Lhelr
capLlves' slsLer abouL a supposed cache of C/nA
equlpmenL. 1hey searched Lhe appellanL's home wlLhouL
havlng secured a valld warranL and by galnlng access Lhrough
a vlslLor of Lhe sald home.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lower courL erred ln convlcLlng Lhe
appellanL.

PLLu:
?LS. ueclslon of Lhe lower courL ls reversed, appellanL ls noL
gullLy.

1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhere was no subsLanLlal and credlble evldence
Lo esLabllsh LhaL Lhe appellanL ls Lhe same person as Lhe lessee of Lhe
house where Lhe lLems were found. 1he CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe
LesLlmonles LhaL esLabllshed LhaL Lhe appellanL was Lhe lessee were
merely based on hearsay, noL Lhe P'"*+,!& /,+L&'20' of Lhe
wlLnesses.

1he CourL also ruled LhaL even lf Lhe appellanL was Lhe lessee of Lhe
house, Lhe case shouldn'L prosper, because Lhere was no compllance
wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of a valld search and selzure proceedlng.

3 lnsLances:

lawful arresL

moLor vehlcle

cusLom laws

plaln vlew

3) When Lhe accused
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Q Spouses veroy
v. Layague
lAC1S:
eLlLloners are husband and wlfe who llve ln Cuezon ClLy buL
Lhey own a house ln uavao ClLy Lo whlch 2 houseboys and a
careLaker was asslgned Lo malnLaln lL.
1he pollce ralded Lhe house ln uavao because Lhey recelved
lnformaLlon LhaL lL was belng used Lo hlde rebel soldlers. 1he
owners were noL Lhere so Lhey dld noL enLer Lhe house.
1he pollce Lhen called one of Lhe peLlLloners, Lulsa, Lo ask
permlsslon for Lhem Lo enLer and ascerLaln Lhe presence of
rebels. Lulsa granLed permlsslon and Lhe pollce found .43
callber gun and 7 llve bulleLs ln Lhe rooms among oLher
arLlcles.
eLlLloners were charged for lllegal possesslon of flrearms
and ammunlLlons ln furLherance of 8ebelllon (u 1866).

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe evldence gaLhered was admlsslble for
evldence.

PLLu:
no. 1he evldence gaLhered cannoL be admlLLed as evldence.

1he CourL ruled LhaL alLhough CapL. Cbrero had permlsslon Lo enLer,
lL was only for Lhe purpose of ascerLalnlng Lhe presence of rebel
soldlers. 1he permlsslon dld noL lnclude any auLhorlLy Lo conducL a
room Lo room search once lnslde Lhe house.

1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe case aL bar dld fall wlLhln any of Lhe 3
exempLlons were a valld warranL was noL needed.
Pence, Lhe CourL ruled LhaL all weapons recovered from Lhe house
are lnadmlsslble as evldence.
3 lnsLances:

lawful arresL

moLor vehlcle

cusLom laws

plaln vlew

3) When Lhe accused

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -

%!*' .!%/0"+1,2 +3 #4' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
5"$+" "'*#"!$,#
6 near v.
MlnnesoLa

283 u.S. 697

ueclded: !une 1,
1931

lAC1S:
ChapLer 283 of Lhe Sesslon Laws of MlnnesoLa provldes for
Lhe abaLemenL, as a publlc nulsance, of a "mallclous,
scandalous and defamaLory newspaper, magazlne or
oLher perlodlcal."
1be 5ototJoy ltess, a Mlnneapolls newspaper owned by
near, publlshed a serles of arLlcles whlch alleged LhaL a
!ewlsh gangsLer was ln conLrol of gambllng, rackeLeerlng
and booLlegglng ln Lhe clLy, and LhaL Lhe mayor, chlef of
pollce and Lhe counLy aLLorney were noL performlng
Lhelr duLy Lo sLop Lhe crlmlnal acLs.
1be 5ototJoy ltess was abaLed and perpeLually en[olned
from publlshlng any more perlodlcals afLer lL was found
Lo be a mallclous, scandalous and defamaLory
newspaper."
near appealed Lhe rullng Lo Lhe Supreme CourL of
MlnnesoLa, lnvoklng hls rlghLs Lo due process under Lhe
14Lh AmendmenL. 1he SC of MlnnesoLa upheld Lhe rullng
and Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe sLaLuLe. Pence, Lhe
appeal Lo Lhe uS Supreme CourL.

lSSuL:
uoes Lhe MlnnesoLa "gag law" vlolaLe Lhe free press
provlslon of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL? (1herefore
unconsLlLuLlonal?)

PLLu:
under Lhe assalled law, lL ls noL necessary Lo prove Lhe
falslLy of Lhe arLlcle ln order Lo geL an ln[uncLlon. 1he mere
proof of publlcaLlon ls enough.
1he SC of MlnnesoLa even sald LhaL Lhe purpose of Lhe law
ls Lo suppress offendlng newspapers and perlodlcals. 1hls
ls censorshlp or prlor resLralnL for Lhe alleged purpose of
preservlng publlc order and morals.
1he proper remedy for such klnd of publlcaLlons ls a llbel
case flled agalnsL Lhe publlshers, noL an ln[uncLlon or
suppresslon. ln a llbel case, Lhe facLual bases of Lhe
publlcaLlons are examlned.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe sLaLuLory scheme consLlLuLed a
prlor resLralnL and hence was lnvalld under Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL.
1hus Lhe CourL esLabllshed as a consLlLuLlonal prlnclple
Lhe docLrlne LhaL, wlLh some narrow excepLlons, Lhe
governmenL could noL censor or oLherwlse prohlblL a
publlcaLlon ln advance, even Lhough Lhe communlcaLlon
mlghL be punlshable afLer publlcaLlon ln a crlmlnal or
oLher proceedlng.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?es, Lhe Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe auLhorlzlng
Lhe ln[uncLlon was unconsLlLuLlonal as applled.
7 lreedman v.
Maryland

380 u.S. 31

ueclded: March
1, 1963

lAC1S:
Maryland requlred LhaL all fllms be submlLLed Lo a board
of censors before belng exhlblLed. 1he board could
dlsapprove fllms LhaL were obscene, debased or
corrupLed morals, or Lended Lo lnclLe crlme. 1here was no
Llme llmlL on Lhe declslon-maklng process.
AppellanL soughL Lo challenge Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
Maryland moLlon plcLure censorshlp sLaLuLe and
exhlblLed Lhe fllm, 8evenge aL uaybreak" aL hls
8alLlmore LheaLre wlLhouL flrsL submlLLlng Lhe plcLure Lo
Lhe SLaLe 8oard of Censors.
1he SLaLe conceded LhaL Lhe plcLure dld noL vlolaLe
sLaLuLory sLandards and he would have goLLen a llcense lf
he properly submlLLed for one. Slnce he dldn'L, he was
convlcLed for vlolaLlon of SecLlon 2 of Lhe acL.
AppellanL argues LhaL SecLlon 2 of Lhe acL presenLs a
danger of unduly suppresslng proLecLed expresslon. Pe
focuses parLlcularly on Lhe procedure for an lnlLlal
declslon by Lhe censorshlp board, whlch, wlLhouL any
[udlclal parLlclpaLlon, effecLlvely bars any dlsapproved
fllm, unless and unLll Lhe exhlblLor underLakes a Llme-
consumlng appeal Lo Lhe Maryland courLs and succeeds ln
havlng Lhe 8oard's declslon reversed.

lSSuL:
uld Lhe Maryland sLaLuLe vlolaLe Lhe freedom of
expresslon proLecLed by Lhe llrsL AmendmenL?

PLLu:
! ?es, Lhe Maryland law ls lnvalld and vlolaLes freedom of
! 1he burden of provldlng LhaL Lhe fllm ls unproLecLed
expresslon musL resL on Lhe censor.
! Whlle Lhe SLaLe may requlre advance submlsslon of all
fllms, ln order Lo proceed effecLlvely Lo bar all showlngs of
unproLecLed fllms, Lhe requlremenL cannoL be
admlnlsLered ln a manner whlch would lend an effecL of
flnallLy Lo Lhe censor's deLermlnaLlon wheLher a fllm
consLlLuLes proLecLed expresslon.
o 1he exhlblL musL be assured, by sLaLuLe or
auLhorlLaLlve [udlclal consLrucLlon LhaL Lhe censor
wlll, wlLhln a speclfled brlef perlod, elLher lssue a
llcense or go Lo courL Lo resLraln showlng Lhe fllm.
o 1he Maryland scheme falls Lo provlde adequaLe
safeguards agalnsL undue lnhlblLlon of proLecLed
expresslon, and Lhls renders Lhe SecLlon 2
requlremenL of prlor submlsslon of fllms Lo Lhe
8oard an lnvalld prevlous resLralnL.
! under Lhe sLaLuLe, appellanL could have been convlcLed lf
he had shown Lhe fllm afLer unsuccessfully seeklng a
llcense, even Lhough no courL had ever ruled on Lhe
obscenlLy of Lhe fllm.
! lL ls abundanLly clear LhaL Lhe Maryland sLaLuLe provldes
no assurance of prompL [udlclal deLermlnaLlon.
! CourL esLabllshed Lhree guldellnes as adequaLe safeguards
Lo proLecL agalnsL Lhe "undue lnhlblLlon of proLecLed
expresslon."

1hese guldellnes are Lo:
(1) place Lhe burden of provlng Lhe fllm ls unproLecLed
expresslon on Lhe censors,

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
expresslon.

(2) requlre [udlclal deLermlnaLlon Lo lmpose a valld
deLermlnaLlon, and
(3) requlre prompL deLermlnaLlon "wlLhln a speclfled Llme
perlod."

8 new ?ork 1lmes
Co. v. uS

376 u.S. 234

ueclded: March
9, 1964
lAC1S:
Sulllvan, Lhe Commlssloner of ubllc Affalrs of
MonLgomery, Alabama, clalms LhaL n? 1lmes commlLLed
llbel agalnsL hlm because of sLaLemenLs ln a full-page
adverLlsemenL enLlLled Peed 1helr 8lslng volces".
1he LexL was abouL Lhe wldespread demonsLraLlons of
SouLhern negro sLudenLs ln poslLlve afflrmaLlon of Lhe
rlghL Lo llve ln human dlgnlLy as guaranLeed by Lhe uS
ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs. 1hls movemenL was
headed by MarLln LuLher klng, !r.
Some sLaLemenLs Lold abouL pollce acLlon dlrecLed
agalnsL sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln sald movemenL.
Sulllvan clalms LhaL alLhough Lhe LexL does noL menLlon
hls name, Lhe word 'pollce' alludes Lo hlm for belng Lhe
supervlsor of Lhe ollce ueparLmenL.
Alabama's rule of llablllLy sLaLes LhaL a publlcaLlon ls
'llberlous per se' lf Lhe words 'Lend Lo ln[ure a person xxx
ln hls repuLaLlon' or Lo 'brlng hlm lnLo publlc conLempL'.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Alabama's rule of llablllLy abrldges Lhe
freedom of speech and of Lhe press LhaL ls guaranLeed by
Lhe llrsL and lourLeenLh AmendmenLs.

PLLu:
?LS, Alabama's rule of llablllLy A88luCLS Lhe freedom of
speech and of Lhe press.
o 1he presenL adverLlsemenL, as an expresson of grlevance
and proLesL, would seem Lo quallfy for Lhe consLlLuLlonal
proLecLlon.
o 1he rule leads Lo a comparable 'self-censorshlp' for crlLlcs
of offlclals. under such rule, would-be crlLlcs of offlclal
conducL may be deLerred from volclng Lhelr crlLlclsm even
Lhough lL ls belleved Lo be Lrue or ls ln facL Lrue because of
doubL LhaL lL can be proved ln courL.
o 1he facLs do noL supporL a flndlng of 9:;<9= >9=?:@ ln Lhe
n? 1lmes adverLlsemenL even lf Lhe ad was noL
'subsLanLlally correcL'. Also, Lhere was no reference Lo
Sulllvan ln Lhe ad - by name or offlclal poslLlon.
nC1L: 1hls case bars medla llablllLy lf Lhere ls no proof LhaL Lhe
defamaLory sLaLemenLs were made wlLh knowledge of Lhelr falslLy
or reckless dlsregard of Lhe LruLhs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

- 1olenLlno v. Sec.
of llnance

C.8. no. 113433

CcLober 30,
1993

lAC1S:
1he case ls a consolldaLlon of several moLlons seeklng
Lhe declaraLlon of unconsLlLuLlonallLy of 8.A. no. 7716,
oLherwlse known as Lhe Lxpanded value-Added 1ax Law.
1he parL of prlor resLralnL on speech ls Lhe case falls on
arL vl: Clalms of press freedom and rellglous llberLy.
1he hlllpplne ress lnsLlLue, lnc. (l) conLends LhaL by
removlng Lhe exempLlon of Lhe press from Lhe vA1 whlle
malnLalnlng Lhose granLed Lo oLhers, Lhe law
dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL Lhe press.
1he l says LhaL Lhe dlscrlmlnaLory LreaLmenL of Lhe
press ls hlghllghLed by Lhe facL LhaL some LransacLlons
llke raw agrlculLural goods, whlch are proflL orlenLed,
conLlnue Lo en[oy exempLlon under 8.A. no. 7716.
1he l asserLs LhaL lL does noL really maLLer LhaL Lhe law
does noL dlscrlmlnaLe agalnsL Lhe press because "even
nondlscrlmlnaLory LaxaLlon on consLlLuLlonally
guaranLeed freedom ls unconsLlLuLlonal."

lSSuL:
WheLher 8A 7716 (L-vaL Law) dlscrlmlnaLes or puLs a
prlor resLralnL on Lhe press because lL removed Lhelr
exempLlon from LaxaLlon.

PLLu:
no, lL does noL. As a general proposlLlon, Lhe press ls noL
exempL from Lhe Laxlng power of Lhe SLaLe and LhaL
whaL Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLee of free press prohlblLs
are laws whlch slngle ouL Lhe press or LargeL a group
belonglng Lo Lhe press for speclal LreaLmenL or whlch ln
o WlLh respecL Lo Lhe flrsL conLenLlon, lL would sufflce Lo say
LhaL slnce Lhe law granLed Lhe press a prlvllege, Lhe law
could Lake back Lhe prlvllege anyLlme wlLhouL offense Lo
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 1he reason ls slmple: by granLlng
exempLlons, Lhe SLaLe does noL forever walve Lhe exerclse
of lLs soverelgn prerogaLlve.
o ln wlLhdrawlng Lhe exempLlon, Lhe law merely sub[ecLs
Lhe press Lo Lhe same Lax burden Lo whlch oLher
buslnesses have long ago been sub[ecL. CLher exempLlons
from Lhe vA1, such as Lhose prevlously granLed Lo AL,
peLroleum concesslonalres, enLerprlses reglsLered wlLh
Lhe LxporL rocesslng Zone AuLhorlLy, and many more are
llkewlse LoLally wlLhdrawn, ln addlLlon Lo exempLlons
whlch are parLlally wlLhdrawn, ln an efforL Lo broaden Lhe
base of Lhe Lax.
1he vA1 ls noL a llcense Lax, nor a Lax on Lhe exerclse of a
prlvllege, much less a consLlLuLlonal rlghL. lL ls lmposed on Lhe
sale, barLer, lease or exchange of goods or properLles or Lhe sale
or exchange of servlces and Lhe lease of properLles purely for
revenue purposes. 1o sub[ecL Lhe press Lo lLs paymenL ls noL Lo
burden Lhe exerclse of lLs rlghL any more Lhan Lo make Lhe press
pay lncome Lax or sub[ecL lL Lo general regulaLlon ls noL Lo vlolaLe
lLs freedom under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
any way dlscrlmlnaLe agalnsL Lhe press on Lhe basls of
Lhe conLenL of Lhe publlcaLlon, and 8.A. no. 7716 ls none
of Lhese.
A Alexander v. uS

309 u.S. 344

ueclded: !une
28, 1993

lAC1S:
lerrls Alexander was Lhe owner of a chaln of adulL
booksLores and LheaLers ln MlnnesoLa LhaL dlsLrlbuLed
sexually expllclL medla.
Pe was charged wlLh vlolaLlng federal obscenlLy laws and
rackeLeerlng under Lhe 8ackeLeer lnfluenced and CorrupL
CrganlzaLlons AcL (8lCC). 1he obscenlLy convlcLlons were
based on Lhe sale of 4 magazlnes and 3 vldeoLapes.
1he federal ulsLrlcL CourL ln MlnnesoLa found hlm gullLy
of boLh charges. 1he courL ordered hlm Lo forfelL hls
buslnesses, senLenced hlm Lo a slx-year prlson Lerm, and
flned hlm $100,000.
Alexander appealed, clalmlng LhaL Lhe conflscaLlon of hls
sLores for hls deallngs ln obscene maLerlal amounLed Lo
'prlor resLralnL' on hls subsequenL dlsLrlbuLlon of adulL
maLerlals, and Lherefore vlolaLed hls llrsL AmendmenL
rlghLs. Pe also clalmed LhaL Lhe selzure of hls buslness
vlolaLed hls LlghLh AmendmenL proLecLlon agalnsL
excesslve flnes. 1he unlLed SLaLes CourL of Appeals for
Lhe LlghLh ClrculL afflrmed Lhe ulsLrlcL CourL's [udgmenL
on Lhe llrsL AmendmenL clalm, and decllned Lo revlew
Lhe LlghLh AmendmenL clalm on Lhe ground LhaL no
senLence less severe Lhan llfe lmprlsonmenL wlLhouL
parole could [usLlfy an LlghLh AmendmenL revlew.
lSSuL:
uoes properLy forfelLure under 8lCC as punlshmenL for
Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of obscene maLerlals consLlLuLe 'prlor
resLralnL' on speech ln vlolaLlon of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL?

1he ma[orlLy emphaslzes Lhe deflnlLlon of a prlor resLralnL
Lo dlsLlngulsh lL from a subsequenL [udgmenL.
1he sLores were shuL down because Lhey were relaLed Lo
pasL wrongdolngs.
Cnce Lhe peLlLloner pald Lhe flne, surrendered hls buslness
and wenL Lo prlson, he could LheoreLlcally dlsLrlbuLe adulL
medla wlLhouL pre[udlce from Lhe governmenL. So, Lhls
acLlon ls noL a conLenL-based resLralnL.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
no and undeclded. 1he appllcaLlon of 8lCC ln
Alexander's case was nelLher a 'prlor resLralnL' on
speech, nor a crlmlnallzaLlon of speech Lyplcally
proLecLed under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon. 1he lLems were selzed
as punlshmenL noL a prlor resLralnL.

B newsounds v.
uy

C.8. nos.
170270 &
179411

Aprll 2, 2009

lAC1S:
newsounds and C8S run 8ombo 8adyo uZnC and SLar lM
whlch alr ln Cauayan ClLy, lsabela.
ln 1996, newsounds relocaLed lLs sLaLlons and Lhe
company had no problems acqulrlng Lhe necessary
permlLs and zonlng clearances from 1996-2001.
ln 2002 however, 8agnos Maxlmo, ClLy Zonlng
AdmlnlsLraLor, denled renewal of Lhe mayor's permlL
because Lhere was allegedly no proof LhaL LhaL Lhe
properLy was converLed Lo commerclal land.
eLlLloners were able Lo geL an order from Lhe uA8
provlng LhaL Lhe land was ln facL commerclal, Lhls order
was declared vold by lellclslmo Meer (AcLlng ClLy
Admln). Pe sald LhaL Lhe 8eglonal CenLer for Land use
ollcy lannlng and lmplemenLaLlon dld noL have a
record of such uA8 order.
1he peLlLloners Lrled Lo seek rellef from Lhe CCMLLLC Lo
enforce Lhe Cmnlbus LlecLlon Code, whlch prohlblLed
Lhe closure of radlo sLaLlons durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe
elecLlon perlod. 8uL Meer and lernandez ordered Lhe
closure of Lhe radlo sLaLlon, hence Lhe currenL peLlLlons.
eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhelr rlghL Lo free speech ls lnfrlnged
because Lhe closure of Lhe sLaLlon ls LalnLed wlLh pollLlcal
color. 8ombo 8adyo was aggresslve ln exposlng Lhe
wldespread elecLlon lrregularlLles ln lsabela LhaL appear
o 3C@@ DE@@:F 9GH IC@@ EC@DD - Lhe llberLy Lo dlscuss publlcly
and LruLhfully any maLLer of publlc lnLeresL wlLhouL
censorshlp and punlshmenL. 1here ls Lo be no prlor
resLralnL on Lhe communlcaLlon of vlews or subsequenL
llablllLy wheLher ln llbel sulLs, prosecuLlon for sedlLlon, or
acLlon for damages, or conLempL proceedlngs unless Lhere
be a clear and presenL danger of subsLanLlve evll LhaL
Congress has a rlghL Lo prevenL.
o 5C?JC C@D;C9?G; - refers Lo offlclal governmenLal resLrlcLlons
on Lhe press or oLher forms of expresslon ln advance of
acLual publlcaLlon or dlssemlnaLlon.
o .<CH@G JI ECJJI-Lhe CovernmenL carrles a heavy burden of
showlng [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe enforcemenL of such
resLralnL.
o *;C?:; D:C<;?GK ;@D; - conLenL regulaLlon cannoL be done ln
Lhe absence of any compelllng reason Lo lnfrlnge Lhe rlghL
Lo free expresslon.
o /?GHD JI C@L<=9;?JGDM
(1) cooteot-oeottol - merely concerned wlLh Lhe
lncldenLs of Lhe speech, or one LhaL merely conLrols Lhe
Llme, place or manner, and under well deflned sLandards
(2) cooteot-boseJ - resLralnL or censorshlp based on Lhe
sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe uLLerance or speech.

8ellefs: elLher Mandamus or uamages

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lo have favored members of Lhe uy pollLlcal dynasLy.
Also, ln an arLlcle prlnLed ln Lhe hlllpplne ually lnqulrer,
uy ls quoLed as lnLendlng "Lo flle dlsenfranchlsemenL
proceedlngs agalnsL uZnC-AM."
8espondenLs counLer Lhey are capaclLaLed Lo enacL
ordlnances requlrlng Lhe obLenLlon of llcenses or permlLs
by buslnesses, under lLs legal auLhorlLy and Lhe SLaLe's
pollce power.

lSSuL:
WhaL are Lhe rules of ad[udlcaLlon when Lhere exlsLs
Lenslon beLween peLlLloners' rlghL Lo free expresslon,
and respondenLs' auLhorlLy by law Lo regulaLe local
enLerprlses (pollce power)?

PLLu:
1he peLlLloner's rlghL Lo freedom of speech and
expresslon were lnfrlnged because Lhe closure was
LalnLed wlLh pollLlcal agenda, lnlLlaLed by members of
Lhe uy pollLlcal dynasLy. AcLs of Lhe respecLlve LCus
were found Lo be conLenL-based, and were noL
sufflclenLly [usLlfled by any compelllng reason.

*1.*'N1',# 51,$*4O',#
P eople v. erez

C.8. no. L-21049

uecember 22,
1923
lAC1S:
Accused ls lSAAC L8LZ, Lhe munlclpal secreLary of llar,
Sorsogon.
Pe meL wlLh lorLunaLo Lodovlce (a clLlzen) and oLher
people ln Lhe pteslJeoclo of llar
ln Lhe course of dlscusslon made use of such language
(orlglnally Spanlsh buL LranslaLed ln Lngllsh): "1he
llllplnos, llke myself, musL use bolos for cuLLlng off
Wood's head for havlng recommended a bad Lhlng for
CrlLlclsm, no maLLer how severe, on Lhe LxecuLlve, Lhe
LeglslaLure, and Lhe !udlclary, ls wlLhln Lhe range of llberLy
of speech, ooless Lhe lnLenLlon and effecL be sedlLlous.
When Lhe lnLenLlon and effecL of Lhe acL ls sedlLlous, Lhe
consLlLuLlonal guaranLles of freedom of speech and press
and of assembly and peLlLlon musL yleld Lo punlLlve
measures deslgned Lo malnLaln Lhe presLlge of consLlLuLed
auLhorlLy, Lhe supremacy of Lhe consLlLuLlon and Lhe laws,
and Lhe exlsLence of Lhe SLaLe.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lhe llllplnos, for he has kllled our lndependence."
Leonard Wood was Lhe Covernor-Ceneral of Lhe
hlllpplne lslands.
1rlal courL charged hlm wlLh vlolaLlon of ArLlcle 236 of
Lhe enal Code.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL he was charged wlLh Lhe correcL crlme.

PLLu:
no, noL correcL crlme. CourL charged hlm wlLh vlolaLlon
of AcL. no. 292 (1reason and SedlLlon Law).

erez' words were deemed sedlLlous for sLlrrlng up
dlsLurbance agalnsL Lhe sLaLe. LlberLy of speech cannoL be
upheld when Lhe lnLenL ls sedlLlous.
Q uennls v. uS

391 u.S. 494

ueclded: !une 4,
1931

lAC1S:
1he SmlLh AcL made lL a crlmlnal offense for a person Lo
knowlngly or wlllfully advocaLes Lhe overLhrowlng of any
governmenL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes by force or Lo aLLempL
Lo commlL or consplre Lo commlL Lhe crlme Lhe same.
1he eLlLloners (Lugene uennls, Cen Sec of Comm. arLy
of uSA, and oLher hlgh-ranklng communlsL parLy
offlclals) were broughL up on charges (and were
convlcLed) under Lhe AcL for allegedly (1) wlllfully and
knowlngly consplrlng Lo organlze as Lhe CommunlsL arLy
of Lhe unlLed SLaLes, a group whose members advocaLed
Lhe overLhrow of Lhe unlLed SLaLes governmenL by force
and (2) wlllfully and knowlngly advocaLlng and Leachlng
Lhe duLy Lo do Lhe same.
lL was clear from Lhe record LhaL Lhe leaders of Lhe
CommunlsL arLy lnLended Lo lnlLlaLe a revoluLlon when
Lhe opporLunlLy came.
1he consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe sLaLuLe under whlch Lhe
eLlLloners were convlcLed was challenged because no
1he clear and presenL danger" LesL musL be applled. 1he
overLhrow of Lhe CovernmenL by force ls cerLalnly a
subsLanLlal enough lnLeresL for Lhe CovernmenL Lo llmlL
speech.
Cbvlously, clear and presenL danger" does noL mean Lhe
governmenL may noL acL unLll Lhe uLsch (revolL") has
been ploLLed and on ls Lhe verge of belng execuLed.
Cn Lhe facLs, Lhe courL was convlnced LhaL Lhe requlslLe
danger Lo acL exlsLed here
Lhe formaLlon by Lhe eLlLloners of a hlghly organlzed
consplracy wlLh rlgldly dlsclpllned members sub[ecL Lo call
when Lhe leaders (eLlLloners) felL lL was Llme for acLlon,
Lhe lnflammable naLure of world condlLlons,
slmllar uprlslngs ln oLher counLrles, and
Lhe Louch and go naLure of our relaLlons wlLh oLher
counLrles wlLh whom Lhe eLlLloners were ldeologlcally
allgned.
1hus, Lhe convlcLlons of Lhe eLlLloners were [usLlfled.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
evldence exlsLed LhaL uennls and hls colleagues had
encouraged any of Lhelr followers Lo commlL speclflc
vlolenL acLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhe SmlLh AcL vlolaLes Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

PLLu:
no, lL does noL vlolaLe Lhe llrsL AmendmenL. 1he
Supreme CourL upheld Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe SmlLh
AcL even Lhough lL puL a resLrlcLlon on proLecLed speech
because of Lhe gravlLy of Lhe offense (overLhrow of
governmenL).

R Conzales v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. L-27833

Aprll 18, 1969
lAC1S:
8A 4880 was enacLed under Lhe CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1
uAnCL8 8uLL, LhaL Lhe subsLanLlve evll of elecLlons
belng debased and degraded by unresLrlcLed
campalgnlng, excess parLlsanshlp and undue
concenLraLlon ln pollLlcs wlLh Lhe loss of boLh efflclency
and llves would be addressed by Lhls law by llmlLlng Lhe
perlod for elecLlon campalgn.
1he lssue was Laken lmmedlaLely by Lhe CourL because lL
saw lLs lmporLance glven Lhe clrcumsLances

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8A 4880 ls unconsLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
SC was noL able Lo declare 8A 4880 unconsLlLuLlonal
because Lhe requlred 2/3 voLe was noL meL
1he CourL ruled LhaL glven Lhe crlLerla for permlsslble resLrlcLlon
on freedom of speech under Lhe CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1 uAnCL8
8uLL, Lhe SLaLe has a rlghL Lo prevenL any subsLanLlve evll
assoclaLed wlLh any speech LhaL, glven Lhe clrcumsLances creaLe a
clear and presenL danger Lo socleLy.

AlLhough Lhe CourL recognlzes Lhe 5OclAl luklO5 of 8.A. 4880,
Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal ob[ecLlons regardlng cerLaln enumeraLlon of
Lerms were formldable due Lo Lhelr vACuN55.

1he CourL belleved LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe could have been more
narrowly drawn ln order Lo saLlsfy Lhe allowable llmlLaLlons under
Lhe clear and presenL danger rule.

o 1he CourL furLhered LhaL Lhough Lhe gov'L purpose be
leglLlmaLe and subsLanLlal, Lhey cannoL be pursued by
means LhaL broadly sLlfles fundamenLal personal llberLles
when Lhe end can be more narrowly achleved.
1hls case ln relaLlon Lo Lhe
.!&!,%$,0 +3 $,#'"'*#
#'*#: CourLs should 8ALAnCL
Lhe 51.&$% $,#'"'*# served
by Lhe Cov'L on one hand and
Lhe %+,*#$#1#$+,!&
3"''2+O on Lhe oLher. 1he
CourL wlll Lhen declde where
Lhe greaLer welghL should be
placed."
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
6S LasLern
8roadcasLlng
CorporaLlon
(u?8L) v. uans,
!r.

C.8. no. L-39329

!uly 19, 1983
lAC1S:
Crlglnally a peLlLlon Lo compel respondenLs Lo allow Lhe
reopenlng of 8adlo SLaLlon u?8L, whlch had been
summarlly closed on grounds of naLlonal securlLy. Sald
radlo sLaLlon was closed because lL was alleged LhaL Lhe
sLaLlon was used Lo lnclLe people Lo sedlLlon.
eLlLloner asserLs LhaL Lhe grounds LhaL Lhey lnclLlng
people Lo commlL sedlLlon was due Lo Lhe shlfL by Lhe
radlo sLaLlon Lowards publlc evenLs coverage and
programs geared Lowards publlc affalrs.
Powever, Lhe case had become mooL and academlc,
hence Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss.

lSSuL:
nCnL.

PLLu:
MoLlon Lo dlsmlss
CourL lssued guldellnes for lnferlor courLs and
admlnlsLraLlve Lrlbunals exerclslng quasl-[udlclal
funcLlons.
1he CourL ruled Lhe followlng:
- rlmary requlremenLs ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs lald down
ln !GL #?T9K UV %$" should be followed.
- uue process furnlshes an 1,!W$+2!.&' sLandard Lo whlch
gov'L acLlon musL conform ln order LhaL any deprlvaLlon of
llfe, llberLy or properLy may be valld.
- !&& 3+"O* of medla are enLlLled Lo Lhe broad proLecLlon of
Lhe freedom of speech and expresslon clause (1esL for Lhls ls
Lhe CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1 uAnCL8 8uLL).
- 8efore Lhe Clear and resenL uanger 8ule can be applled,
cerLaln crlLerla musL be meL:
o Llcensed broadcasLlng
o AllocaLlon of alrwaves Lo all quallfled users
o Cov'L regulaLlon durlng usage of alrwaves
- 3C@@HJ> of 1LLLvlSlCn and 8AulC 88CAuCAS1lnC ls =@DD@C
?G D:JE@ due Lo lLs E@CU9D?U@ EC@D@G:@ Lo all clLlzens.
- ClrcumsLances of broadcasL medla musL also be Laken lnLo
accounL: balance beLween LJUX; C?LF; ;J T@ ECJ;@:;@H ICJ>
T@?GL U?J=@G;=K JU@C;FCJYG and E@JE=@XD C?LF; ;J T@
?GIJC>@HV
- 8roadcasL sLaLlons H@D@CU@D ;F@ DE@:?9= ECJ;@:;?JG glven Lo all
forms of medla by Lhe uuL 8CCLSS and l8LLuCM Cl
Lx8LSSlCn CLAuSL

66 Ayer
roducLlons v.
Capulong

C.8. no. 82380

Aprll 29, 1988
lAC1S:
Pal MacLlroy, an AusLrallan fllmmaker envlsloned for
commerclal vlewlng Lhe hlsLorlcal peaceful sLruggle aL
LuSA. Pe was Lold Lo consulL Ceneral lldel 8amos and
SenaLor !uan once Lnrlle, boLh of whom played ma[or
roles ln Lhe evenL.
Lnrlle dld noL approve Lhe use of hls or hls famlly's name
ln Lhe producLlon. 1hey deleLed hls name ln Lhe scrlpL
o lreedom of speech and expresslon lncludes Lhe rlghL Lo
produce moLlon plcLures and dlffuse Lhem. 1he facL LhaL lL
ls a commerclal acLlvlLy ls noL a dlsquallflcaLlon from
avalllng freedom of speech and proLecLlon.
o 8lghL Lo prlvacy ls noL an absoluLe rlghL.
LlmlLed lnLruslon on a person's prlvacy ls
permlsslble lf he ls a publlc flgure and Lhe facLs Lo
be ellclLed from hlm are of publlc characLer.
1he sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe fllm
ls one of publlc lnLeresL and
concern. lL has passed lnLo Lhe
publlc domaln.

ubllc llgure:
erson who, by hls
accompllshmenLs, fame, or
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
and proceeded Lo fllm Lhe moLlon plcLure.
Lnrlle flled a 1emporary resLralnlng Crder Lo en[oln
peLlLloners from creaLlng a movle slnce, he clalmed, lL
Lrespassed on hls rlghL Lo prlvacy. 1he peLlLloner clalms
LhaL Lhe resLralnlng order amounLed Lo prlor resLralnL on
Lhelr rlghL Lo free expresslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe rellmlnary ln[uncLlon vlolaLed
peLlLloner's freedom of speech and expresslon.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he rellmlnary ln[uncLlon amounLed Lo prlor
resLralnL.
lL cannoL be used Lo reslsL Lhe dlssemlnaLlon of
maLLers of publlc lnLeresL.
WhaL ls proLecLed ls Lhe tlqbt to be ftee ftom
oowottooteJ pobllclty, wtooqfol pobllclzloq of
pobllc offolts of Lhe lndlvldual ouLslde Lhe realm
of leglLlmaLe publlc concern.
mode of llvlng, or by
adopLlng a professlon or
calllng whlch glves Lhe publlc
a leglLlmaLe lnLeresL ln hls
dolngs, hls affalrs, and hls
characLer. Pe ls oLher words
a celebrlLy.
1hey have losL ln a way Lhelr
rlghL Lo prlvacy.
67 8oxas v. ue
Zuzuarregul

C.8. no. 132072

!uly 12, 2007

lAC1S:
ALLy. 8oxas handled Lhe exproprlaLlon case of Lhe ue
Zuzuarregul's and per Lhelr earller arrangemenL was seL
Lo recelved 19-M ln aLLorney's fees.
!usLlce nazarlo ruled LhaL Lhls was an unconsclonable
amounL agalnsL Lhe Canons of rofesslonal LLhlcs and of
Lhe 8ules of CourL. 8oxas' fee was reduced Lo 2.3-M.
8oxas wroLe a leLLer Lo Lhe SC crlLlclzlng !. nazarlo's
rullng ln a dlsrespecLful manner and called Lhe Supreme
CourL a dlspenser of ln[usLlce." Pe furLher requesLed
Lhls declslon Lo be revlewed and Lo be heard by Lhe courL
en banc.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhls was a valld exerclse of hls rlghL of
expresslon.

PLLu:
SC does noL prohlblL a lawyer Lo be crlLlcal of courLs and
[udges as long as Lhey are made ln properly respecLful
Lerms and Lhrough leglLlmaLe channels, whlch ls noL Lhe
case aL hand.
1he aLLack on Lhe person of !usLlce nazarlo has caused her
paln and embarrassmenL. Pls leLLer ls full of
conLempLuous remarks Lendlng Lo degrade Lhe dlgnlLy of
Lhe CourL and erode publlc confldence LhaL should be
accorded lL. Lven lf he lnvokes such rlghL, he cannoL
escape llablllLy.
8oxas' accusaLlons were unfalr and unfounded agalnsL
!usLlce nazarlo, and ln hls mocklng of Lhe CourL, for
allegedly belng parL of a wrongdolng and belng a
dlspenser of ln[usLlce, he abused hls llberLy of speech.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
nC. Pe ls found gullLy ln conLempL of CourL and flned
30-k.
*5''%4 !,2 #4' '&'%#+"!& 5"+%'**
68 Sanldad v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 90878

!anuary 29,
1990

lAC1S:
"! BPBB) Z!, !%# 5"+W$2$,0 3+" !, +"0!,$% !%#
3+" #4' %+"2$&&'"! !1#+,+O+1* "'0$+,Z was
enacLed lnLo law. ursuanL Lo Lhls, 8agulo and Lhe CA8
was Lo Lake parL ln a pleblsclLe. "@DJ=<;?JG 76BP was
promulgaLed Lo govern Lhe pleblsclLe.
eLlLloner, a columnlsL, quesLloned Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy
of *@:V6R JI "@DJ=<;?JG 76BP whlch prohlblLed a medla
colunlsL, commenLaLor, announcer or personallLy Lo use
hls column or radlo or Lelevlslon Llme Lo campalgn for or
agalnsL Lhe pleblsclLe lssues."

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL *@:V 6R ls vlolaLlve of Lhe freedom of
expresslon.

PLLu:
?LS. *@:V 6R exceeds Lhe supervlsory and regulaLory
powers granLed Lo CCMLLLC over Lhe medla, lL has no
sLaLuLory basls.
8equlslLes for a valld regulaLlon of freedom:
" lL ls wlLhln Lhe consLlLuLlonal power of Lhe governmenL.
o nelLher Lhe ConsLlLuLlon nor ln 8A6646 can be
consLrued as glvlng CCMLLLC supervlsory and
regulaLory powers over Lhe exerclse of medla
pracLlLloners Lhemselves of Lhelr rlghL Lo
expresslon durlng pleblsclLe perlods.
o Medla pracLlLloners durlng pleblsclLe perlods are
nelLher Lhe franchlse holders nor Lhe candldaLes.
ln facL, Lhere are no candldaLes lnvolved ln a
pleblsclLe.
" lL furLhers an lmporLanL or subsLanLlal governmenLal
lnLeresL
1he governmenLal lnLeresL ls unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon
of free expresslon.
1he lncldenL resLrlcLlon on alleged llrsL AmendmenL
freedoms ls no greaLer Lhan ls essenLlal Lo Lhe furLherance
of LhaL lnLeresL.
o Whlle Lhe llmlLaLlon embodled ln *@:V 6R dld noL
absoluLely llmlL freedom of expresslon, lL placed
an un[usLlfled resLrlcLlon on Lhe freedom of
speech whlch respondenL falled Lo glve reason
for.

6- naLlonal ress
Club v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 102633
lAC1S:
LlecLoral 8eforms Law of 1987 was passed whlch
prohlblLed ooy oewspopets, toJlo btooJcostloq ot
televlsloo stotloo, otbet moss meJlo, ot ooy petsoo
mokloq ose of tbe moss meJlo to sell ot to qlve ftee of
o *@:V 66 [T\ does noL auLhorlze lnLervenLlon or
conLrol on Lhe parL of CCMLLLC ln respecL Lo Lhe
conLenL of medla operaLlons nor Lo Lhe cooteot of
1
LlmlLaLlons:
(1) lts llmlteJ lo tbe Jototloo
of lts oppllcoblllty ooJ
eofotceoblllty - elecLlon
perlods.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

March 3, 1992
cbotqe ptlot spoce ot olt tlme fot compolqo ot otbet
polltlcol potposes except to tbe commlssloo (*@:V 66]T^)
Medla peLlLloners clalm LhaL lL vlolaLes Lhelr freedom of
expresslon, and ls prlor censorshlp (as lL deals of
suppresslon of parLlcular conLenL)
CandldaLe peLlLloners clalm lL vlolaLes Lhelr freedom of
speech.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL acL consLlLuLes unconsLlLuLlonal
represslon of freedom of speech and freedom of Lhe
press.

PLLu:
nC. *@:V 66 [T\ has noL gone ouLslde Lhe permlsslble
bounds of supervlslon or regulaLlon of medla operaLlons
granLed Lo CCMLLLC durlng elecLlon perlods.
pollLlcal adverLlsemenLs LhaL candldaLes are free
Lo presenL wlLh Lhelr allocaLed Llme and space.
lnLeresL
" 1he governmenLal lnLeresL ls unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon
of free expresslon.
" 1he lncldenL resLrlcLlon on alleged llrsL AmendmenL
of LhaL lnLeresL.
o ln revlewlng Lhls provlslon, Lhe characLer and
exLenL of Lhe llmlLaLlons on Lhe freedom of
speech and freedom of Lhe press resulLlng from
Lhe parLlcular measures, are essenLlal
conslderaLlons. lL's lmporLanL Lo noLe LhaL Lhe
resLrlcLlve lmpacL upon freedom of speech and
freedom of Lhe press of Sec. 11 (b) ls
clrcumscrlbed by cerLaln lmporLanL llmlLaLlons
and ls oot ooJoly teptesslve ot ooteosoooble.
1

(2) lts llmlteJ lo lts scope of
oppllcotloo - applles only Lo
Lhe purchase and sale,
lncludlng purchase and sale
dlsgulsed as a donaLlon, of
prlnL space and alr Llme for
"campalgn or oLher pollLlcal
purposes."
(3) lt exempts ftom lts
ptoblbltloo tbe potcbose by ot
Joootloo to tbe cOMlc of
ptlot spoce ot olt tlme, wblcb
spoce ooJ tlme cOMlc ls
tbeo offltmotlvely tepolteJ to
ollocote foltly ooJ epoolly to
oll cooJlJotes.
6A Adlong v
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 103936

March 31, 1992
lAC1S:
8lo umpar Adlong, senaLorlal candldaLe, assalls
CCMLLLC 8esoluLlon no. 2347 whlch prohlblLs Lhe
posLlng of decals and sLlckers on moblle places llke cars.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Commlsslon on LlecLlons (CCMLLLC)
may prohlblL Lhe posLlng of decals and sLlckers on
"moblle" places, publlc or prlvaLe, and llmlL Lhelr locaLlon
or publlcaLlon Lo Lhe auLhorlzed posLlng areas LhaL lL
flxes

PLLu:
nC. 1he prohlblLlon unduly lnfrlnges on Lhe clLlzen's
lnLeresL
of free expresslon.
o 1he CCMLLLC ls empowered Lo regulaLe and
provlde measures Lo equallze Lhe playlng fleld of
candldaLes.
1he lncldenL resLrlcLlon on alleged llrsL AmendmenL
of LhaL lnLeresL.
o 1he regulaLlon sLrlkes aL Lhe freedom of an
lndlvldual Lo express hls preference and, by

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
fundamenLal rlghL of free speech enshrlned ln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon (*@:V -) !C;?:=@ $$$). 1here ls no publlc
lnLeresL subsLanLlal enough Lo warranL Lhe klnd of
resLrlcLlon lnvolved ln Lhls case.
dlsplaylng lL on hls car, Lo convlnce oLhers Lo
agree wlLh hlm. A sLlcker may be furnlshed by a
candldaLe buL once Lhe car owner agrees Lo have
lL placed on hls prlvaLe vehlcle, Lhe expresslon
becomes a sLaLemenL by Lhe owner.
6B Csmena v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 132231

March 31, 1998
lAC1S:
1hls ls a reexamlnaLlon of Lhe valldlLy of Sec. 11(b) of
8.A. no. 6646, Lhe LlecLoral 8eforms Law of 1987, whlch
prohlblLs mass medla from selllng or glvlng free of charge
prlnL space or alr Llme for campalgn or oLher pollLlcal
purposes, excepL Lo Lhe Commlsslon on LlecLlons.
Csmena (candldaLe for presldenL) and Carcla (governor
of Cebu seeklng reelecLlon) clalms LhaL Lhe law had Lhe
negaLlve effecL of playlng agalnsL Lhe poorer candldaLes.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe rullng whlch upheld Lhe valldlLy of
Sec. 11(b) of 8A 6646 should be reversed ln vlew of Lhe
allegaLlons LhaL lL abrldged freedom of speech and has
worked Lo Lhe dlsadvanLage of Lhe poor candldaLes.

PLLu:
nC. WhaL Lhe law mandaLes merely ls regulaLlon of Llme
and space for such ads by Lhe CCMLLLC Lo ensure
equallLy among candldaLes. 8esLrlcLlon of speech ls
merely lncldenLal.
lnLeresL
of free expresslon.
o 1he law's concern ls noL wlLh Lhe message or
conLenL of Lhe ad buL wlLh ensurlng medla
equallLy beLween candldaLes wlLh deep pockeLs,"
and Lhose wlLh less resources.
of LhaL lnLeresL.

6P A8S C8n v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 133486

!anuary 29,
lAC1S:
o A8S-C8n collaboraLed wlLh oLher 8 groups Lo conducL
radlo-1v coverage of Lhe May 11, 1998 LlecLlons and Lo
make an exlL survey of Lhe resulLs Lo be broadcasL
lmmedlaLely.
o CCMLLLC lssued a resoluLlon Lo sLop A8S-C8n from
1. 1he peLlLlon ls noL mooL and premaLure.
1he peLlLloners were pressed for Llme, consLlLuLlonal
rlghLs were aL sLake, and LhaL Lhls case ls capable of
repeLlLlon ln Lhe nexL elecLlon. (Also of LranscendenLal
lmporLance)
2. Clear and presenL danger rule" noL appllcable.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
2000 lmplemenLlng lLs survey because Lhe exlL poll may
confllcL wlLh Lhe Cfflclal CCMLLLC counL as well as LhaL
of Lhe unofflclal qulck-counL of nAMl8LL. lL also had noL
auLhorlzed A8S-C8n Lo underLake Lhe survey.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL CCMLLLC commlLLed grave abuse of
dlscreLlon by lssulng Lhe resLralnlng order en[olnlng
peLlLloner or any oLher group from conducLlng exlL polls.

PLLu:
CCMLLLC commlLLed grave abuse of dlscreLlon. eLlLloner A8S-
C8n ls allowed Lo conducL Lhe exlL polls wlLhouL lnLerference
from respondenL.
o CCMLLLC has also falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe presence
of exlL poll represenLaLlves creaLed dlsorder or
unduly lnfluenced Lhe voLers.
o 1he exlL poll ls noL only for Lhe promoLlon and
proLecLlon of such freedom and rlghLs, buL also for
Lhe generaLlon of lmporLanL research daLa.
o 1he groups conducLlng Lhe survey have sLrlcL rules
and procedures Lo avold sowlng confuslon" among
voLers and produclng unrellable resulLs.
o arLlclpanLs are selecLed aL random Lo have a falr
represenLaLlon of Lhe enLlre voLlng populaLlon.
o 1he survey ls merely an oplnlon and noL Lo be placed
aL par wlLh CCMLLLC's offlclal counL.
o Cnly voLers who have already casLed Lhelr balloLs (as
evldenced by Lhe lnk on Lhelr flngers) are Lo be
lnLervlewed, and Lhe poll resulLs wlll be released Lo
Lhe publlc a day afLer Lhe elecLlons.
o ConLenLs of Lhe offlclal balloL are noL exposed. 1he
parLlclpaLlon of Lhe lnLervlewees ls sLrlcLly volunLary.
lnsLead of dlsrupLlng Lhe elecLlons, exlL polls can even conLrlbuLe
Lo CCMLLLC's ob[ecLlve of a peaceful and credlble elecLlon by
ellmlnaLlng voLe-flxlng and oLher elecLoral llls.
6Q SWS v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. 147371

May 3, 2001
lAC1S:
eLlLloners wlsh Lo conducL an elecLlon survey
LhroughouL Lhe perlod. 1hey seek Lo en[oln Lhe
Commlsslon on LlecLlons from enforclng *@:V AV- JI ;F@
39?C '=@:;?JGD !:;, whlch provldes: Surveys affecLlng
naLlonal candldaLes shall noL be publlshed 13 days
before an elecLlon and surveys affecLlng local candldaLes
shall noL be publlshed 7 days before an elecLlon."

lSSuL:
o 1he granL of power Lo Lhe CCMLLLC ls llmlLed Lo
ensurlng equal opporLunlLy, Llme, space, and Lhe
rlghL Lo reply."
lnLeresL
of free expresslon.
o 8y prohlblLlng Lhe publlcaLlon of elecLlon survey
unlLed SLaLes v. C'8rlen sLaLed
Lhe LesL Lo deLermlne lf
governmenL regulaLlon ls
sufflclenLly [usLlfled.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL *@:V AV- JI ;F@ 39?C '=@:;?JGD !:; ls
unconsLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
?LS. *@:V AV- JI ;F@ 39?C '=@:;?JGD !:; ls unconsLlLuLlonal
because lL ls an abrldgemenL of freedom of speech,
expresslon, and Lhe press.
resulLs, lL acLually suppresses a whole class of
expresslon, whlle allowlng Lhe expresslon of
oplnlon concernlng Lhe same sub[ecL maLLer by
newspaper columnlsLs, radlo and 1v
commenLaLors, and oLher oplnlon makers.
o lL prefers personal oplnlon Lo sLaLlsLlcal resulLs.
of LhaL lnLeresL.
o lLs alm Lo prevenL lasL-mlnuLe pressure on voLers,
creaLlon of Lhe bandwagon effecL, and [unklng"
of weak or loslng" candldaLes can be more
narrowly pursued by punlshlng oolowfol octs,
raLher Lhan speech.
%+OO'"%$!& *5''%4
6R 8ubln v. Coors
8rewlng Co.

314 uS 476

Aprll 19, 1993
lAC1S:
*@:V A[@\[7\ JI ;F@ 3@H@C9= !=:JFJ= !H>?G?D;C9;?JG !:;
prohlblLed beer labels from dlsplaylng alcohol conLenL.
1he federal 8ureau of Alcohol, 1obaco, and llrearms
(8Al1) re[ecLed Coors 8rewlng Co.'s appllcaLlon for
approval of labels LhaL dlsclosed such conLenL.
8espondenL clalms lL vlolaLed Lhe llrsL AmendmenL's
proLecLlon of commerclal speech. 1he CovernmenL
clalms LhaL lL was necessary Lo suppress Lhe LhreaL of
sLrengLh wars" among brewers.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc *@:V A[@\[7\ JI ;F@ 3@H@C9= !=:JFJ=
!H>?G?D;C9;?JG !:; vlolaLes Lhe llrsL AmendmenL's
proLecLlon of commerclal speech

PLLu:
1he %@G;C9= 4<HDJG #@D; requlres:
" 1he speech aL lssue concerns lawful acLlvlLy and ls noL
mlsleadlng
" 1he asserLed governmenL lnLeresL ls subsLanLlal
o 1he CovernmenL has a slgnlflcanL lnLeresL ln
proLecLlng Lhe healLh, safeLy, and welfare of lLs
clLlzens by prevenLlng brewers from compeLlng on
Lhe basls of alcohol sLrengLh whlch could lead Lo
greaLer alcohollsm and lLs aLLendanL soclal cosLs.
o Powever, lLs addlLlonal asserLed lnLeresL ln
faclllLaLlng sLaLe efforLs Lo regulaLe alcohol ls noL
sufflclenLly subsLanLlal.
1he regulaLlon dlrecLly advances Lhe governmenLal
lnLeresL asserLed
o lL permlLs Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon of cerLaln beers wlLh

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?LS. *@:V A[@\[7\ JI ;F@ 3@H@C9= !=:JFJ= !H>?G?D;C9;?JG
!:; vlolaLes Lhe llrsL AmendmenL's proLecLlon of
commerclal speech.
hlgh alcohol conLenL as malL llquors," and Lhey
requlre dlsclosure of conLenL on labels of wlnes
and splrlLs. 1here ls llLLle chance Lhe secLlon can
dlrecLly and maLerlally advance lLs alm.
o lL ls noL more exLenslve Lhan ls necessary Lo serve LhaL
lnLeresL.
1here are oLher alLernaLlves Lo Lhe labelllng ban
such as: a) dlrecLly llmlLlng Lhe alcohol conLenL of
beers, b) prohlblLlng markeLlng efforLs
emphaslzlng hlgh alcohol conLenL, or c) llmlLlng
Lhe ban Lo malL llquors.
7S ClnclnnaLl v.
ulscovery
neLwork

307 u.S. 410

March 24, 1993
lAC1S:
1989 # eLlLloner clLy auLhorlzed respondenL
companles (ulscovery neLwork and Parmon ubllshlng
Co.) Lo place 38 and 24 (respecLlvely) freesLandlng
newsracks on publlc properLy for Lhe purpose of
dlsLrlbuLlng free magazlnes LhaL conslsLed prlmarlly of
adverLlsemenLs for respondenLs' servlces (llke adulL
educaLlonal/recreaLlonal courses for ulscovery and real
esLaLe/markeL Lrends for Parmon).
1990 # MoLlvaLed by lLs lnLeresL ln Lhe sofety ooJ
otttoctlve oppeotooce of lts stteets ooJ slJewolks, Lhe
clLy C@UJ_@H respondenLs' permlLs on Lhe ground LhaL
Lhe magazlnes were "commerclal handbllls," - whose
dlsLrlbuLlon on publlc properLy was prohlblLed by a pre-
exlsLlng ordlnance
ClLy gave Lhem 30 days Lo remove Lhelr newsracks.
ln respondenLs' ensulng lawsulL, Lhe ulsLrlcL CourL
concluded LhaL Lhls caLegorlcal ban vlolaLed Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL under Lhe ZC@9DJG9T=@ I?;Z D;9GH9CH
1he record amply supporLs Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe clLy
has noL meL lLs burden of esLabllshlng a "C@9DJG9T=@ I?;"
beLween lLs leglLlmaLe lnLeresLs ln safeLy and esLheLlcs (Lo
geL rld of 'nulsances' ln lLs sLreeLs and sldewalks) and Lhe
means lL chose Lo serve Lhose lnLeresLs.
1he lower courLs correcLly ruled LhaL Lhe beneflL Lo be
derlved from Lhe removal of 62 LoLal newsracks ouL of a
LoLal of 1,300-2,000 on publlc properLy was small.
1he ClLy Lrled Lo dlfferenLlaLe beLween Lhe speech conLenL
of Lhe commerclal handbllls" aka free ad magazlnes"
LhaL respondenLs puL ln Lhelr racks versus ordlnary
newspapers. - Powever, Lhe courL proved LhaL Lhe
amounL of ads found ln boLh are almosL equal, also, Lhe
commerclal handbllls conLalned currenL evenLs Loo.
8ecause Lhe clLy's regulaLlon of newsracks ls predlcaLed on Lhe
dlfference ln cooteot beLween ordlnary newspapers and
commerclal speech, lL ls oot cooteot-oeottol and cannoL quallfy as
a valld Llme, place, or manner resLrlcLlon on proLecLed speech.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
applled Lo Lhe regulaLlon of commerclal speech.

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhe refusal of Lhe ClLy of ClnclnnaLl Lo allow
respondenLs Lo dlsLrlbuLe Lhelr commerclal publlcaLlons Lhrough
freesLandlng newsracks locaLed on publlc properLy vlolaLes Lhe
llrsL AmendmenL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he clLy's selecLlve and caLegorlcal ban on Lhe
dlsLrlbuLlon, vla newsracks, of "commerclal handbllls" ls
noL conslsLenL wlLh Lhe dlcLaLes of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

76 ClLy of Ladue v.
Cllleo
lAC1S:
A ClLy of Ladue ordlnance prohlblLed homeowners from
dlsplaylng any slgns on properLy excepL for resldence
ldenLlflcaLlon, for sale slgns and slgns warnlng of safeLy
hazards.
eLlLloner, ClLy of Ladue, ls appeallng from Lhe declslon
rendered by Lhe ulsLrlcL CourL and afflrmed by Lhe CourL
of Appeals declarlng Lhe ClLy Crdlnance prohlblLlng Lhe
posLlng of any slgns excepL for cerLaln exempLlons
vlolaLes Lhe rlghL of free speech under Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL.
eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe ordlnance ls a valld Llme,
manner and place" resLrlcLlon on speech

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ClLy Crdlnance on slgns ls
unconsLlLuLlonal based on conLenL-resLrlcLlon of speech.

PLLu:
1he CourL ruled LhaL alLhough Llme, place, manner resLrlcLlon on
speech ls permlsslble, such resLrlcLlon musL leave open ample
alLernaLlve channels for communlcaLlon.

1he CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe broad and sweeplng deflnlLlon of whaL a
slgn" ls as used ln Lhe assalled Crdlnance, forecloses an avenue
for whlch Lhe resldenLs can volce Lhelr oplnlons and concern.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?LS. ClLy Crdlnance ls unconsLlLuLlonal.
1,5"+#'%#'2 *5''%4M &$.'&
77 ollcarplo v.
Manlla 1lmes
ub. Co., lnc.

(C.8. no. L-
16027)

May 30, 1962
lAC1S:
Appeal from a declslon of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of
Manlla dlsmlsslng plalnLlff's complalnL and defendanL's
counLerclalm.
lalnLlff-appellanL asserLs LhaL because of some omlsslon
of cerLaln deLalls and lnaccuracles reporLed ln Lhe
conLended arLlcles, lL had Lhe effecL of conveylng Lhe
ldea LhaL Lhe offenses lmpuLed Lo her were more serlous
Lhan Lhey really were.
uefendanL on Lhe oLher hand counLers LhaL Lhe
lnaccuracles ln Lhe arLlcle were lnslgnlflcanL and
lmmaLerlal slnce lL does noL affecL ln any Lhe LruLhfulness
of Lhe arLlcle as a whole.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Lwo arLlcles ln quesLlon were
defamaLory, llbelous and false.

PLLu:
Cnly 1 arLlcle was llbelous. ueclslon of Lhe CA was
reversed.

1he CourL ruled LhaL only 1 of Lhe arLlcles were derogaLory,
mallclous and unLrue. 1he arLlcle found ln Lhe SaLurday Mlrror
presenLed Lhe plalnLlff ln a more unfavorable llghL LhaL she
acLually was. Whlle Lhe arLlcle found ln Lhe ually Mlrror recLlfled a
ma[or lnaccuracy conLalned ln Lhe flrsL arLlcle.

1he CourL sLaLed LhaL alLhough newspapers en[oy a cerLaln degree
of dlscreLlon ln deLermlnlng Lhe manner ln whlch an evenL should
be presenLed Lo Lhe publlc, ln order Lo en[oy lmmunlLy, a
publlcaLlon musL be Lrue, falr and made ln good falLh w/o any
commenLs or remarks.

Applylng such sLandard, Lhe CourL found LhaL Lhe SaLurday Mlrror
arLlcle conLalned defamaLory lmpuLaLlons, conLalned false
remarks or commenLs and are Lherefore presumed Lo be
mallclous.

lmmunlLy of ubllcaLlon:
- ubllcaLlon musL be Lrue
and falr
- Made ln good falLh
- And wlLhouL any
commenLs or remarks
78 Lopez v. CA

C.8. no. L-26349

!uly 31, 1970
lAC1S:
1he Manlla Chronlcle and oLher dallles released a news
sLory abouL a man who lnvenLed a sLory regardlng a klller
on Lhe loose ln order Lo geL LransporLaLlon back Lo
Manlla.
1hls Week Magazlne lssued Lhe plcLure of lldel Cruz
along wlLh arLlcles relaLed Lo Lhe sLory. 1he plcLures of
lldel Cruz and lldel C. Cruz were accldenLally swlLched.
o WlLhouL showlng of a demandlng deadllne, Lhe concluslon
of a quasl-dellcL may be reached.
ubllcaLlon of a person's phoLograph ln
connecLlon wlLh an arLlcle llbelous of a Lhlrd
person ls llbel on Lhe person whose plcLure was
publlshed.
ubllcaLlons cause greaLer ln[ury Lo repuLaLlon
Lhan words alone.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1hus, Lhe plcLure of lldel C. Cruz was prlnLed.
1he magazlne publlshed a correcLlon regardlng Lhe
phoLographs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc llbel can be ouLwelghed freedom of
speech

PLLu:
o ?LS. ln Lhls case, Lhe peLlLloners were charged for
commlLLlng llbel Lhough Lhe penalLy was mlLlgaLed by
Lhe courL.
o 1helr correcLlon has Lhe force of a reLracLlon buL cannoL
be Lhe basls of belng absolved from any pecunlary
responslblllLy. Powever, lL may and should mlLlgaLe lL.
7- new ?ork 1lmes
Co. v. Sulllvan

376 uS 234

March 9, 1964
lAC1S:
Sulllvan clalms LhaL n? 1lmes commlLLed llbel agalnsL
hlm when lL publlshed Lhelr arLlcle Peed Lhelr 8lslng
volces" regardlng Lhe demonsLraLlon of SouLhern negro
sLudenLs.
As a commlssloner ln charge of Lhe pollce deparLmenL,
he felL he was belng personally referred Lo when Lhe
arLlcle menLloned pollce" LhaL suppressed Lhe sLudenLs
and aLLacked ur. MarLln LuLher klng.
Alabama's rule of llablllLy sLaLes LhaL a publlcaLlon ls
llbelous per se" lf Lhe words Lend Lo ln[ure a person ln
hls repuLaLlon or Lo brlng hlm lnLo publlc conLempL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Alabama's rule of llablllLy abrldges
freedom of speech and of Lhe press.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he Alabama law requlres proof of acLual mallce for
an award of punlLlve damages buL noL for general
A rule compelllng crlLlcs Lo guaranLee Lhe LruLh of all hls
facLual asserLlons - under Lhe paln of a llbel [udgmenL -
leads Lo a comparable self-censorshlp."
1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLee requlres LhaL a publlc offlclal
cannoL recover damages unless he proves LhaL Lhe
sLaLemenL was made wlLh octool mollce - LhaL ls, wlLh
knowledge LhaL lL was false or wlLh reckless dlsregard of
wheLher lL was false or noL."
lacLs do noL supporL flndlng of acLual mallce on Lhe parL
of n? Llmes, especlally when evldence shows LhaL Lhere
was no reference Lo Sulllvan ln Lhe adverLlsemenL,
wheLher by name or offlclal poslLlon.
Landmark Case for awardlng
damages for a publlc offlclal's
llbel case.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
damages, where mallce ls presumed, Lhls ls lnconslsLenL
wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLee.
7A 8osenbloom v.
MeLromedla lnc.

403 u.S. 29

!une 7, 1971
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was a dlsLrlbuLor of nudlsL magazlnes ln
hlladelphla. 1he pollce boughL samples of hls magazlnes
and deLermlned LhaL Lhey vlolaLed obscenlLy laws of Lhe
sLaLe
AfLer Lhe second arresL, Lhe pollce Lelephoned
respondenL's radlo sLaLlon (Wl), anoLher radlo sLaLlon, a
wlre servlce, and a local newspaper Lo lnform Lhem
abouL Lhe rald and arresL.
1he lnlLlal 630pm broadcasL of Wl descrlbed Lhe arresL
as ClLy Cracks uown on SmuL MerchanLs", possesslng
obscene llLeraLure". Powever, Lhls was correcLed ln Lhe
Lhlrd and subsequenL broadcasLs by 8pm ln uslng words
allegedly" and reporLedly" Lo descrlbe Lhe books.
1he peLlLloner was acqulLLed of obscenlLy charges afLer
whlch he flled a llbel sulL agalnsL respondenL ln ulsLrlcL
CourL seeklng damages under ennsylvanla's llbel law.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL as a prlvaLe lndlvldual he has Lo prove
acLual mallce" on Lhe parL of respondenL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he burden of proof ls on peLlLloner Lo show LhaL
Lhere was acLual mallce" on Lhe parL of respondenL.
1he new ?ork 1lmes sLandard applles Lo peLlLloner desplLe Lhe
facL LhaL he's a prlvaLe lndlvldual.
ConLrary Lo common bellef, a publlc flgure does noL have
an advanLage over a prlvaLe lndlvldual ln defendlng
hlmselfherself ln news. uenlals, reLracLlons, or correcLlons
of hoL news" do noL recelve Lhe same aLLenLlon as Lhe
orlglnal sLory.
A llbel sulL agalnsL a radlo sLaLlon may be susLalned upon clear and
convlnclng proof LhaL news was publlshed wlLh acLual mallce,
moreover, reasonable care ls an eluslve sLandard" LhaL would be
an lnLolerable burden Lo Lhe press.
ln Lhe lnsLanL case, respondenL relled on lnformaLlon
provlded by pollce offlclals, and ln face of Lhe error,
correcLlon was done wlLh Lhe 8pm and subsequenL
broadcasLs anyway.
8espondenL checked lLs lasL reporL wlLh presldlng [udge.

As of Lhls case ln 1971, a
prlvaLe lndlvldual was glven
Lhe same sLandard as publlc
offlclals" and publlc flgures."
7B CerLz v. 8oberL
Welch

418 u.S. 323

lAC1S:
8oberL Welch lnc, publlshed an arLlcle ln Lhelr magazlne
Amerlcan Cplnlon," LhaL falsely sLaLed LhaL peLlLloner
had arranged nucclo's "frame-up," and lmplled LhaL
peLlLloner had a crlmlnal record, and labeled hlm a
new ?ork 1lmes LesL ls lnappllcable due Lo Lhe dlfferences of a
prlvaLe lndlvldual wlLh a publlc offlclal" and a publlc flgure":
ltlvote loJlvlJools ote mote voloetoble to lojoty, ooJ tbe
stote lotetest lo ptotectloq tbem ls cottespooJloqly
qteotet. ln Lerms of self-help as a remedy, publlc offlclals
As of Lhls case ln 1974, prlvaLe
lndlvldual's case for llbel ls
LreaLed dlfferenLly from a
publlc offlclal" or a publlc
flgure."
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!une 23, 1974

"LenlnlsL" and a "CommunlsL-fronLer," Lhls
noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe facL LhaL peLlLloner had played no
parL ln Lhe crlmlnal proceedlng and had noL dlscussed
Cfflcer nucclo ln Lhe sulL for damages by Lhe nelson
famlly.
CerLz sued for llbel.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a newspaper or broadcasLer can clalm
proLecLlon under Lhe llrsL AmendmenL for Lhe ln[ury
caused ln publlshlng defamaLory sLaLemenLs abouL a
prlvaLe lndlvldual.

PLLu:
?LS. 8uL Lhere musL be dlfferenL sLandards for prlvaLe
lndlvlduals, as opposed Lo publlc offlclals and publlc
flgures ln llbel cases.
and publlc flgures usually en[oy slgnlflcanLly greaLer
access Lo Lhe channels of effecLlve communlcaLlon and
hence have a more reallsLlc opporLunlLy Lo counLeracL
false sLaLemenLs Lhan prlvaLe lndlvlduals normally en[oy.
A pobllc flqote toos tbe tlsk of closet pobllc sctotloy os o
oecessoty coosepoeoce of tbot lovolvemeot lo pobllc
offolts. And socleLy's lnLeresL ln Lhe offlcers of
governmenL exLends Lo "anyLhlng whlch mlghL Louch on
an offlclal's flLness for offlce."
1bose wbo ottolo tbe stotos of o pobllc flqote bove
ossomeJ toles of especlol ptomloeoce lo tbe offolts of
soclety ooJ by tbot teosoo tbey lovlte otteotloo ooJ
commeot.
A ptlvote loJlvlJool bos tellopolsbeJ oo pott of bls lotetest
lo tbe ptotectloo of bls owo qooJ oome, ooJ coosepoeotly
be bos o mote compellloq coll oo tbe cootts fot teJtess of
lojoty lofllcteJ by Jefomototy folsebooJ. 1hus, prlvaLe
lndlvlduals are noL only more vulnerable Lo ln[ury, Lhey
are also more deservlng of recovery.
Accordlngly, we hold LhaL so long as Lhey do noL lmpose llablllLy
wlLhouL faulL or negllgence, Lhe sLaLes may deflne for Lhemselves
Lhe approprlaLe sLandard of llablllLy for a publlsher or broadcasLer
of defamaLory falsehood ln[urlous Lo a prlvaLe lndlvldual. 1hls
approach provldes a more equlLable boundary beLween Lhe
compeLlng concerns lnvolved here.
7P PusLler
Magazlne v.
lalwell

483 uS 46
(1988)
lAC1S:
PusLler Magazlne made a parody of !erry lalwell's ad
wlLh Camparl Llqueur whlch porLrayed hlm as drunk and
lmmoral. lL was noLed ln Lhe magazlne LhaL Lhe ad was a
parody LhaL shouldn'L be Laken serlously. lalwell sued for
damages resulLlng from emoLlonal harm/dlsLress.

8equlremenL of good falLh (absence of acLual mallce):
A publlc flgure may hold a speaker llable for Lhe damage
Lo repuLaLlon caused by publlcaLlon of a defamaLory
falsehood, buL only lf Lhe sLaLemenL was made "wlLh
knowledge LhaL lL was false or wlLh reckless dlsregard of
wheLher lL was false or noL" (l.e. acLual mallce). lf an
uLLerance was made wlLh Lhe honesL bellef of conLrlbuLlng
2J:;C?G@: A publlc flgure may
hold a speaker/wrlLer llable for
llbel only when acLual mallce ls
proven.
# AcLual mallce connoLes LhaL
such sLaLemenL was made wlLh
knowledge LhaL lL was false or
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL
WheLher or noL a publlc flgure may recover damages for
emoLlonal harm caused by Lhe publlcaLlon of an ad
parody offenslve Lo hlm, and doubLless gross and
repugnanL ln Lhe eyes of mosL.

PLLu:
no. unless peLlLloner can prove LhaL Lhere was acLual
mallce lnvolved ln Lhe publlcaLlon of such parody.

Lo Lhe free lnLerchange of ldeas and Lhe ascerLalnmenL of
LruLh, lL ls proLecLed by Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.
wlLh reckless dlsregard of
wheLher lL was false or noL.
7Q ln 8e !urado

A.M. no. 93-2-
037 SC

Aprll 6, 1993
lAC1S:
!urado ls a lawyer and [ournallsL of Manlla SLandard. Pe
had been wrlLlng abouL alleged lrregularlLles ln Lhe
[udlclary for several monLhs. 1he seed of Lhe proceedlng
was Lhe declslon of Lhe SC re: Lu1 v. LasLern 1elephone
hlllpplnes, lnc whereln Lu1 won Lhe case wlLh a voLe
of 9-4. ln an arLlcle enLlLled Who wlll [udge Lhe
!usLlces," !urado alleged LhaL 6 [usLlces and Lhelr famllles
wenL abroad and LhaL sald Lrlp was arranged and
flnanced by a publlc uLlllLy flrm.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL !urado should be held llable for
publlshlng mlsleadlng and derogaLory sLaLemenLs agalnsL
Lhe courLs and [udges.

PLLu:
?LS. uerogaLory and defamaLory sLaLemenLs musL noL be
made recklessly and musL be made wlLh a bona flde care
Lo ascerLaln Lhe LruLh Lhey publlsh. no such efforL was
seen from !urado.
1he SC held LhaL freedom of speech (press) and Lhe lndlvldual
lnLeresLs of Lhe [udges musL be accommodaLed wlLh one anoLher.
uerogaLory and defamaLory sLaLemenLs musL noL be made
recklessly and musL be made wlLh a bona flde care Lo ascerLaln
Lhe LruLh Lhey publlsh. no such efforL was seen from !urado,
hence he was declared gullLy of conLempL of courL and senLenced
Lo pay 1,000.
no record shows LhaL !urado made an efforL Lo ascerLaln
Lhe LruLhfulness of hls clalms.
WhaL appears ls LhaL wlLhouL flrsL havlng made an efforL
Lo Lalk Lo any one from Lhe Lu1 or Lhe SC Lo ascerLaln Lhe
veraclLy of hls accusaLlons, !urado wenL ahead and
publlshed lL.
2J:;C?G@M
7R 8or[al v. CA lAC1S: 6V ldenLlLy of Lhe organlzer was noL sufflclenLly proven Lo be
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. 126466

!anuary 14,
1999
8or[al, a wrlLer for 1be lblllpploe 5tot, wroLe under Lhe
Ioywolket column abouL a cerLaln organlzer" Lrylng Lo
exLorL funds from dlfferenL agencles for a supposed land
and LransporLaLlon blll.
8espondenL Wenceslao, appolnLed LxecuLlve ulrecLor of
Lhe llrsL naLlonal Conference on Land 1ransporLaLlon
(lnCL1), clalms Lo be Lhe organlzer" and flles a sulL for
damages agalnsL 8or[al, where Lhe Lrlal courL and CA
ruled ln respondenL's favour.
8or[al now comes Lo Lhe Supreme CourL Lo lnvoke hls
rlghL Lo press freedom, clalmlng LhaL hls arLlcles abouL an
unnamed publlc flgure are non-acLlonable. (Clalm of
prlvllege communlcaLlon)

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe arLlcles of peLlLloner consLlLuLe
prlvlleged communlcaLlon.

PLLu:
1he Supreme CourL rules ln favour of peLlLloner.
8espondenL falled Lo sufflclenLly esLabllsh Lhe ldenLlLy of
Lhe organlzer" as hls own. ArLlcles of peLlLloner are
consldered prlvlleged communlcaLlon.

LhaL of respondenL.
o Wenceslao was noL ldenLlfled as Lhe organlzer", nor was
lnCL1 menLloned as Lhe conference ln quesLlon.
o lL was respondenL who came forward wlLh Lhe leLLer
clalmlng LhaL he was Lhe organlzer" peLlLloner was
Lalklng abouL. Pe supplled Lhe lnformaLlon on Lhe
organlzer's ldenLlLy.
7V 1he arLlcles of Lhe peLlLloner are prlvlleged
communlcaLlon and proLecLed by Lhe freedom of speech
and expresslon.
o rlvlleged communlcaLlon may be absoluLe or quallfledly
prlvlleged.
o !"#$%&'( *+,-,%(.(/ 0$11&2,03',$2# are Lhose noL
acLlonable even lf Lhe auLhor of such communlcaLlon ls ln
bad falLh. An example would be Lhe speeches of
leglslaLors under SecLlon 11, ArLlcle vl of Lhe 1987
ConsLlLuLlon. 4&3%,5,(/%6 *+,-,%(.(/ 0$11&2,03',$2# are
Lhose conLalnlng defamaLory lmpuLaLlons LhaL are non-
acLlonable ooless Lhey are found Lo be mallclous and false.
1hey can be found ln Lhe prlvaLe communlcaLlon and falr
and Lrue reporLs done ln good falLh and wlLhouL
commenLarles.
o 8or[al's arLlcles are sLlll consldered poollfleJly ptlvlleqeJ,
because Lhe CourL adheres Lo Lhe prlnclple LhaL folt
commeototles oo mottets of pobllc lotetests ote
cooslJeteJ ptlvlleqeJ.
! 2+%#"$,' +3 3!$" %+OO',#M whlle ln general, every
dlscredlLable lmpuLaLlon ls deemed false (because a person
ls deemed lnnocenL unLll proven gullLy), lf Lhe dlscredlLable
lmpuLaLlon ls oqolost o pobllc petsoo lo bls pobllc copoclty, lL
ls oot necessarlly acLlonable.
! 1hls docLrlne was creaLed Lo proLecL crlLlcs from self-
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
censorshlp, whlch lnfrlnge on Lhelr freedom of speech and
expresslon.
! 8ulleLln ubllshlng Corp vs. noel: Lhe CourL held LhaL a
newspaper of naLlonal coverage should be free Lo reporL on
evenLs whlch Lhe publlc has a leglLlmaLe lnLeresL wlLh
mlnlmum lnLerference from Lhe courLs. lL ls parL of Lhe
publlc's rlghL Lo lnformaLlon on maLLers of publlc concern.

1,5"+#'%#'2 *5''%4M +.*%',$#`
8S Mlller v.
Callfornla

37 L. Ld. 2d 419

!une 21, 1973
lAC1S:
eLlLloner mass malled adverLlsemenLs for adulL"
maLerlals for sale. Some descrlpLlve language, plcLures,
and drawlngs of men and women engaged sexually were
dlsplayed. 1he reclplenLs ln no way lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey
were lnLeresLed ln recelvlng such a maLerlal. A sLaLe [ury
characLerlzed such maLerlal as obscene.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL sLaLe sLaLuLes may regulaLe obscene
maLerlals wlLhouL llmlLs

PLLu:
o nC. 1he sLaLe musL follow a sLandard before
characLerlzlng Lhe maLerlal as obscene.
o 8oLh v. uS: Cbscene maLerlal ls noL covered by Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL
o Memolrs v. MassachuseLLs: WhaL ls prohlblLed are only
Lhose whlch are paLenLly offenslve" and uLLerly wlLhouL
redeemlng soclal value."
o ln deLermlnlng wheLher speech ls obscene, Lhe CourL
creaLed lLs own guldellnes, deparLlng from Lhe Lwo earller
rullngs. 1he baslc guldellnes asks:
WheLher Lhe average person, applylng
conLemporary communlLy sLandards" would flnd
Lhe maLerlal, Laken as a whole, appeallng Lo Lhe
prurlenL lnLeresL of sex
WheLher Lhe work deplcLs or descrlbes, ln a
paLenLly offenslve way, sexual conducL speclflcally
deflned by Lhe appllcable sLaLe law
WheLher Lhe work, Laken as a whole, lacks serlous
llLerary, arLlsLlc, pollLlcal, or sclenLlflc value.

86 Conzales v.
kalaw-kaLlgbak

C.8. no.
L-69300

lAC1S:
eLlLloner was Lhe producer of Lhe movle kaplL sa
aLallm" whlch Lhe 8oard of revlew for MoLlon lcLures
and 1elevlslon gave a raLlng of lor AdulLs Cnly," wlLh
Lhe added requlremenL of changlng or deleLlng some
parLs of Lhe fllm.
o 1he power of Lhe 8oard ls llmlLed Lo Lhe classlflcaLlon of
fllms. lreedom of expresslon ls Lhe rule and resLrlcLlons
are Lhe exempLlon. 1he power Lo exerclse prlor resLralnL ls
noL presumed, raLher Lhe presumpLlon ls agalnsL lLs
valldlLy.
o 1he LesL Lo deLermlne wheLher freedom of expresslon
MoLlon plcLures are an
lmporLanL medlum for Lhe
communlcaLlon of ldeas and
Lhe expresslon of arLlsLlc
lmpulse.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!uly 22, 1983
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL such classlflcaLlon wlLh Lhe requlred
changes ls an lmpermlsslble resLralnL of arLlsLlc
expresslon

PLLu:
?LS. Such a classlflcaLlon was vlolaLlve of peLlLloner's
freedom of expresslon.
may be llmlLed ls Lhe cleot ooJ pteseot Jooqet tole.
1here musL be a reasonable apprehenslon abouL
Lhe lmmlnence of danger.
lL cannoL be only probable. lL requlres Lhe danger
ls well-nlgh lnevlLable.
o 8eglna v. Plcklln: 1he LesL ln deLermlnlng whaL ls obscene
ls wheLher Lo Lhe average person, applylng conLemporary
communlLy sLandards, would Lhe domlnanL Lheme of Lhe
maLerlal Laken as a whole appeals Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL.
o Sex and obscenlLy are noL synonymous. 1he porLrayal of
sex ls noL ln lLself sufflclenL.
1he rullng ls llmlLed Lo moLlon
plcLures. A less llberal
approach ls applled Lo
Lelevlslon slnce lL reaches
every home, chlldren may be
exposed Lo lL.
87 lLa v. CA

C.8. number
80806

CcLober 3, 1989

lAC1S:
Mayor 8amon 8agaLslng of Manlla lnlLlaLed an AnLl-SmuL
Campalgn wlLh Lhe pollce, Lhey selzed and conflscaLed
magazlnes, publlcaLlons, eLc from dealers, dlsLrlbuLors,
newssLand owners, and peddlers along Manlla sldewalks
(Lhese were belleved Lo be obscene, pornographlc, and
lndecenL)
1hese were laLer burned ln publlc aL Lhe unlverslLy belL
along C. M. 8ecLo Avenue Manlla
lnoy layboy" magazlnes publlshed and co-edlLed by
LLC l1A were among Lhese selzed and burned
publlcaLlons
lLa clalms LhaL Lhe magazlne ls a decenL, arLlsLlc, and
educaLlonal magazlne, whlch ls noL per se obsceoe, and
LhaL Lhe publlcaLlon ls proLecLed by Lhe consLlLuLlonal
guaranLees of freedom of speech and of Lhe press.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe defendanLs and/or Lhelr agenLs can
wlLhouL a courL order conflscaLe or selze plalnLlff's
magazlne before any [udlclal flndlng ls made wheLher
! 1esL ln deLermlnlng Lhe exlsLence of obscenlLy: WheLher
Lhe Lendency of Lhe maLLer charged as obscene ls Lo
deprave or Lo corrupL Lhose whose mlnds are open Lo
such lmmoral lnfluences and lnLo whose hands a
publlcaLlon or oLher arLlcle charged as belng obscene may
fall.
! lf Lhe plcLures here ln quesLlon were used noL exacLly fot
otts soke buL raLher for commerclal purposes, Lhe
plcLures are noL enLlLled Lo any consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon.
! undoubLedly, lmmoral" lore or llLeraLure comes wlLhln
Lhe amblL of free expresslon alLhough noL lLs proLecLlon.
! lL ls essenLlal fot vollJlty of ptevloos testtolot ot ceosotsblp
LhaL Lhe ootbotlty Joes oot tely solely oo bls owo opptolsol
of whaL Lhe publlc welfare, peace or safeLy may requlre.
! 1he respondenLs have shown Lhe requlred proof Lo [usLlfy
a ban and Lo warranL conflscaLlon of Lhe llLeraLure for
whlch mandaLory ln[uncLlon has been soughL.
! 1hey dld noL have a lawful courL order (1) flndlng Lhe sald
maLerlals Lo be pornographlc and (2) auLhorlzlng Lhem Lo
carry ouL a search and selzure by way of a search warranL.
! Searches and selzures may be done only Lhrough a [udlclal
"@D<>@ JI ;F@ %J<C;:
1. AuLhorlLles musL apply for
Lhe lssuance of a search
warranL from a [udge, lf ln
Lhelr oplnlon, an obscenlLy
rap ls ln order,
2. AuLhorlLles musL convlnce
Lhe courL LhaL Lhe
maLerlals soughL Lo be
selzed are obscene", and
pose a clear and presenL
danger of an evll
subsLanLlve enough Lo
warranL SLaLe lnLerference
and acLlon,
3. 1he [udge musL deLermlne
WCn Lhe same are lndeed
obscene": Lhe quesLlon ls
Lo be resolved on a case-
Lo-case basls and on Pls
Ponor's sound dlscreLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
sald magazlne ls obscene or noL.

PLLu:
! ?LS a lawful courL order/warranL ls needed.
warranL oLherwlse Lhey become unreasonable and sub[ecL
Lo challenge. (Sec. 3, ArL. lv)
4. lf, ln Lhe oplnlon of Lhe
courL, probable cause
exlsLs, lL may lssue Lhe
warranL prayed for,
3. 1he proper sulL ls Lhen
broughL ln Lhe courL under
ArLlcle 201 of Lhe 8C,
6. Any convlcLlon ls sub[ecL
Lo appeal. 1he appellaLe
courL may assess WCn Lhe
properLles selzed are
lndeed obscene".
88 8arnes v. Clen
1heaLre, lnc.

301 u.S. 360

!une 21, 1991
lAC1S:
8espondenLs are Lwo esLabllshmenLs ln SouLh 8end,
lndlana LhaL wlsh Lo provlde LoLally nude danclng as
enLerLalnmenL, LogeLher wlLh lndlvldual dancers who are
employed aL Lhese esLabllshmenLs
1hey clalm LhaL Lhe llrsL AmendmenL's guaranLee of
freedom of expresslon prevenLs Lhe SLaLe of lndlana
from enforclng lLs ubllc lndecency Law Lo prevenL
LoLally nude danclng as enLerLalnmenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lndlana's ubllc lndecency Law ls
vlolaLlve of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL

PLLu:
! no. 1he provlslonary requlremenLs of Lhe ubllc
lndecency Law does noL vlolaLe Lhe llrsL AmendmenL
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe danclng as conLemplaLed by Lhe
8espondenLs are consldered expresslve conducL sLlll covered,
alLhough marglnally, by Lhe lreedom of Lxpresslon under Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL.

1he CourL also ruled LhaL, by applylng Lhe O8tleo 1est (unlLed
SLaLes v. C'8rlen), Lhe lndlana ubllc lndecency Law ls [usLlfled
desplLe lLs lncldenLal llmlLaLlons on some expresslve acLlvlLy. 1he
CourL ruled LhaL Lhe assalled sLaLuLe ls clearly wlLhln Lhe
consLlLuLlonal power of Lhe SLaLe and furLhers subsLanLlal
governmenLal lnLeresLs.

+X.C?@G #@D;M
A governmenL regulaLlon ls sufflclenLly [usLlfled lf:
1) lL ls wlLhln Lhe consLlLuLlonal power of Lhe Cov'L
2) lL furLhers an lmporLanL or subsLanLlal Cov'L lnLeresL
3) Lhe Cov'L lnLeresL ls unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of free
expresslon
o Lhe lncldenLal resLrlcLlon on alleged llrsL AmendmenL
freedoms ls noL greaLer Lhan ls essenLlal Lo Lhe

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
furLherance of LhaL lnLeresL
8- lederal
CommunlcaLlons
Commlsslon v.
aclflca
loundaLlon

438 u.S. 726

Aprll 30, 1937
lAC1S:
Appeal from a [udgmenL of Lhe u.S. CA whlch ruled
agalnsL eLlLloner.
eLlLloner lCC clLed aclflca loundaLlon for broadcasLlng
a paLenLly offenslve Lhough noL necessarlly obscene 12-
mlnuLe monologue by Ceorge Carlln. 1he monologue
conLalned cerLaln words deplcLlng sexual and excreLory
acLlvlLles ln a paLenLly offenslve manner whlch prompLed
a complalnL from a concerned clLlzen.
eLlLloner Lhen released a declaraLory order sLaLlng LhaL
ln Lhe evenL LhaL subsequenL complalnLs are recelved,
Lhe Commlsslon wlll Lhen declde wheLher lL should uLlllze
any of Lhe avallable sancLlons lL has been granLed by
Congress.
A case was Lhen flled ln Lhe lower courL and Lhen ln Lhe
CA, whlch ruled agalnsL eLlLloner lCC, hence Lhls
appeal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lndecenL" speech may be resLrlcLed
WheLher or noL Lhe order of lCC vlolaLes Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL of Lhe u.S. ConsLlLuLlon.

PLLu:
! nC. CourL rules LhaL Sec. 701 ls noL a law respecLlng Lhe
esLabllshmenL of rellglon wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL
1he CourL ruled LhaL alLhough Lhe lCC has, Lhrough *@:V 87B JI
;F@ 6R8- %J>><G?:9;?JGD !:;, no power Lo sub[ecL broadcasLlng
maLLer Lo scruLlny prlor Lo lL's release, lL has Lhe rlghL Lo Lake noLe
of pasL program conLenL when :JGD?H@C?GL 9 =?:@GD@@XD C@G@Y9=
9EE=?:9;?JG and LhaL Lhls rlghL ls GJ; :@GDJCDF?E.

1he CourL also ruled LhaL Lhe llrsL AmendmenL does noL deny
governmenL Lhe power Lo resLrlcL publlc broadcasL of lndecenL
language. 1he CourL clLed Schenk v. unlLed SLaLes ( 249 u.S. 47) ln
applylng Lhe CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1 uAnCL8 ln any prohlblLlon of
speech.

Applylng Lhe %&'!" !,2 5"'*',# 2!,0'" "1&', Lhe CourL ruled
LhaL obscene or lndecenL speech, havlng no essenLlal parL of any
exposlLlon of ldeas, are of sllghL soclal value and LhaL any beneflL
LhaL may be derlved from lL ls clearly ouLwelghed by Lhe soclal
lnLeresL ln order and morallLy, cannoL be covered by Lhe
proLecLlon of speech as conLemplaLed ln Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

8A 8enLon v.
layLlme
1heaLers

lAC1S:
8enLon ClLy enacLed +CH?G9G:@ ,JV 87B7 whlch
prohlblLed any adulL moLlon plcLure LheaLer" from
locaLlng wlLhln 1,000 feeL of any resldenLlal zone, church,
o 1he ordlnance was a form of Llme, place, and manner
regulaLlon. lL ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe deflnlLlon of conLenL-
neuLral" speech regulaLlon.
lL does noL ban adulL LheaLers alLogeLher. lL
ConLenL-neuLral Llme, place,
and manner regulaLlons are
accepLable so long as Lhey are
deslgned Lo serve a subsLanLlal
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
473 uS 41

AugusL 22, 2002
or park, and wlLhln one mlle of any school. 1hls ls
because a sLudy ln SeaLLle revealed Lhe severe lmpacL of
such buslnesses upon Lhe surroundlng buslnesses and
resldences.
8espondenL had acqulred 2 exlsLlng LheaLers ln
downLown 8enLon Lo exhlblL feaLure-lengLh adulL fllms.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL eLc Lhe ordlnance vlolaLes Lhe llrsL
AmendmenL

PLLu:
o no. 1he ordlnance ls a conLenL-neuLral regulaLlon whlch
was enacLed for a valld governmenL concern.
merely provldes LhaL Lhey cannoL be locaLed
wlLhln 1,000 feeL of any resldenLlal zone, church,
school or park.
lL ls almed noL aL Lhe conLenL of Lhe fllms buL
raLher aL Lhe secondary effecLs of such LheaLers
on Lhe communlLy
o 1he ordlnance was for a valld governmenL concern.
lL was deslgned Lo prevenL crlme, proLecL Lhe
clLy's reLall Lrade, malnLaln properLy values, and
generally proLecL Lhe quallLy of Lhe clLy's
nelghborhoods.
o 1he ordlnance allows for reasonable alLernaLlve avenues
of communlcaLlon. lL leaves some land open Lo use as
adulL LheaLer slLes.
governmenLal lnLeresL and do
noL unreasonably llmlL
alLernaLlve avenues of
communlcaLlon.
8B 8eLhel School
ulsL. v. lraser

478 uS 673

!uly 7, 1986
lAC1S:
MaLLhew lraser dellvered a speech nomlnaLlng a fellow
sLudenL aL an assembly, where he used elaboraLe,
graphlc, and expllclL sexual" references.
Pe was lnformed LhaL he vlolaLed Lhe 8PS rule on uslng
obscene language and gesLures and was suspended.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL llrsL AmendmenL rlghLs prevenLs school
dlsLrlcL from dlsclpllnlng a sLudenL for glvlng a lewd
speech aL a school assembly.

PLLu:
nC. lL ls an approprlaLe funcLlon of publlc school
educaLlon, as an avenue for lnculcaLlng hablLs and
manners of clvlllLy as values, Lo prohlblL Lhe use of vulgar
and offenslve Lerms ln publlc dlscourse.
1he deLermlnaLlon of whaL manner of speech ln Lhe
classroom or ln school assembly ls lnapproprlaLe resLs
wlLh Lhe school board.
Schools musL Leach by example Lhe shared values of a
clvlllzed soclal order.
lraser's speech was plalnly offenslve Lo boLh Leachers and
sLudenLs.
1he school dlsLrlcL ls wlLhln lLs permlsslble auLhorlLy ln
lmposlng sancLlons upon lraser because of hls offenslve
speech and gesLures.

8P Pazelwood lAC1S: 1here ls a fundamenLal dlfference beLween prlvaLe
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
School ulsL. v.
kuhlmeler

484 u.S. 260

!anuary 13,
1988

1hree former sLudenLs who were sLaff members of
SpecLrum, Lhe school newspaper, sued 8oberL 8eynolds
and Poward Lmerson, Lhe prlnclpal and Lhelr !ournallsm
ll Leacher respecLlvely for censorlng 2 arLlcles Lhey were
golng Lo publlsh ln May 1983.
1he flrsL arLlcle was abouL pregnancy, lLs lnformaLlon
was so descrlpLlve LhaL any of Lhe sLudenLs or faculLy
could ldenLlfy Lhe pregnanL sLudenLs from Lhe LexL
wlLhouL glvlng ouL Lhelr ldenLlLles. 8eynolds was also
concerned Lhe references Lo sexual acLlvlLy and blrLh
conLrol were lnapproprlaLe for younger sLudenLs
1he second arLlcle LhaL was removed, a sLudenL argued
abouL Lhe lmpacL of dlvorce on sLudenLs aL Lhe school ln
her own oplnlons and feaLured an lnLervlew wlLh a
sLudenL whose parenLs were dlvorced. 8eynolds,
unaware LhaL Lhe name of Lhe glrl would also be
changed, was concerned LhaL her famlly should have
been glven an opporLunlLy Lo respond ln Lhe sLory, or Lo
consenL Lo lLs publlcaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL school offlclals can remove sLudenL
publlcaLlons when Lhey belleve maLerlal ls unsulLable for
younger sLudenLs, or for reasons lL could posslbly dlsrupL
Lhe educaLlonal currlculum.

PLLu:
?LS. School offlclals may valldly censor school-sponsored
sLudenL publlcaLlons when Lhey have purposes
reasonably relaLed Lo leglLlmaLe educaLlonal concerns.
sLudenL speech and sLudenL speech LhaL occurs ln school-
sponsored acLlvlLles.
LducaLors have greaLer auLhorlLy Lo conLrol school-
sponsored sLudenL speech because Lhe publlc mlghL
reasonably belleve such speech bears "Lhe lmprlmaLur of
Lhe school."
o A school need noL LoleraLe sLudenL speech LhaL ls
lnconslsLenL wlLh lLs baslc educaLlonal mlsslon,
even Lhough Lhe governmenL could noL censor
slmllar speech ouLslde Lhe school.
LducaLors "do noL offend Lhe llrsL AmendmenL by
exerclslng edlLorlal conLrol over Lhe sLyle and conLenL of
sLudenL speech ln school-sponsored expresslve acLlvlLles
so long as Lhelr acLlons are reasonably relaLed Lo
leglLlmaLe pedagoglcal concerns."
o 1he school ls allowed Lo conslder Lhe emoLlonal
maLurlLy of Lhe audlence when chooslng Lo
suppress cerLaln forms of speech.
A publlcaLlon creaLed as parL of a class ls clearly school-
sponsored and a parL of Lhe currlculum. 1he school never
adopLed a pollcy whereby Lhe publlcaLlon slmply became
a publlc forum open Lo any and all vlews, Lhe school
admlnlsLraLlon Lhus properly acLed as edlLor of Lhe
newspaper.
8Q lernando v. CA

lAC1S:
AcLlng on reporLs of sale and dlsLrlbuLlon of
CbscenlLy ls an unproLecLed speech whlch Lhe SLaLe has Lhe rlghL
Lo regulaLe, buL Lhe SLaLe ln pursulng lLs mandaLe Lo proLecL,

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no. 139731

uecember 6,
2006

pornographlc maLerlals, n conducLed pollce
survelllance on Lhe sLore bearlng Lhe name of Caudenclo
L. lernando Muslc lalr.
A warranL was lssued orderlng Lhe search of Caudenclo
L. lernando Muslc lalr and Lhe selzure of several adulL
magazlnes." WarranL was served 8udy LsLornlnos, who,
accordlng Lo Lhe prosecuLlon, lnLroduced hlmself as Lhe
sLore aLLendanL.
1he pollce searched Lhe premlses and conflscaLed 23
vPS Lapes and 10 dlfferenL magazlnes, whlch Lhey
deemed pornographlc.
lnformaLlon was flled agalnsL peLlLloners and Lhey were
convlcLed.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe appellaLe courL erred ln afflrmlng Lhe
peLlLloner's convlcLlon.

PLLu:
nC. CA dld noL err, Lhe maLerlals were obscene" and
could be Lhe sub[ecL of regulaLlon.
as poteos pottloe, Lhe publlc from obscene, lmmoral and lndecenL
maLerlals musL [usLlfy Lhe regulaLlon or llmlLaLlon. Cne such
regulaLlon ls !C;?:=@ 7S6 JI ;F@ "5%V 1o be held llable, Lhe
prosecuLlon musL prove:
" Lhe maLerlals, publlcaLlon, plcLure or llLeraLure are
obscene,
" Lhe offender sold, exhlblLed, publlshed or gave away such
maLerlals.
Applylng Lhe Mlller sLandard, Lhe maLerlals were lndeed
obscene."
" wheLher Lo Lhe average person, applylng conLemporary
sLandards would flnd Lhe work, Laken as a whole, appeals
Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL,
o 1he Lrlal courL and CA boLh found Lhe maLerlal
offenslve Lo morals."
" wheLher Lhe work deplcLs or descrlbes, ln a paLenLly
offenslve way, sexual conducL speclflcally deflned by Lhe
appllcable sLaLe law,
o 1he sexual acL ln Lhelr magazlnes ls buL a clear and
unmlLlgaLed obscenlLy, lndecency and an offense
Lo publlc morals, lnsplrlng lusL and lewdness.
" wheLher Lhe work, Laken as a whole, lacks serlous llLerary,
arLlsLlc, pollLlcal, or sclenLlflc value.
o lL was also found LhaL lL was made noL for Lhe
sake of arL buL raLher for purely commerclal
purposes, LhaL ls galn and proflL are Lhe excluslve
conslderaLlon ln Lhelr exhlblLlon.

!**'O.&` !,2 5'#$#$+,
8R navarro v.
vlllegas
lAC1S:
nelson navarro, ln behalf of MovemenL of a uemocraLlc
1he respondenL Mayor has noL denled nor absoluLely
refused Lhe permlL soughL by Lhe peLlLloner as he has

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. L-31687

lebruary 24,
1970
hlllpplnes, applled Lo hold a rally aL laza Mlranda on a
weekday. 1hls was re[ecLed on accounL of recenL evenLs.
lnsLead, Lhey were offered use of Lhe Sunken Cardens
near lnLramuros.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Mayor's acL on denylng Lhe requesL
of Lhe peLlLloner vlolaLes Lhe peLlLloners' rlghL Lo
peaceable assembly and rlghL Lo Lhe equal proLecLlon of
Lhe law.

PLLu:
nC. 1he recenL experlences ln connecLlon wlLh presenL
assemblles and demonsLraLlons provlde reasonable basls
for Lhe Mayor's assessmenL LhaL a publlc rally aL laza
Mlranda poses more rlsks for danger and dlsorder Lhan
on aL Lhe Sunken Cardens. eLlLloner has manlfesLed
LhaL lL has no means Lo prevenL such dlsorder.
expressly sLaLed hls wllllngness Lo granL permlLs for
peaceful assemblles aL laza Mlranda durlng SaLurdays,
Sundays and holldays when such acLlvlLles would noL
cause unnecessary dlsrupLlon of Lhe communlLy's dally
acLlvlLles.
-S 8MLC v. 8MC

C.8. no. L-31193

!une 3, 1973
lAC1S:
8espondenL 8loomlng Mllls Co., lnc lald off elghL (8) of lLs
workers afLer Lhey - along wlLh oLher workers ln Lhe flrsL
and second shlfL - parLlclpaLed ln a mass demonsLraLlon
agalnsL alleged pollce abuses desplLe Lhe company's
refusal Lo allow Lhem Lo Lake a leave of work for lL.
8espondenLs clalm LhaL such acL of Lhe employees was a
sLrlke ln vlolaLlon of Lhelr CollecLlve 8argalnlng
AgreemenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe declslon of Lhe CourL of lndusLrlal
8elaLlons ln flndlng peLlLloners gullLy of unfalr labor
pracLlce ln vlolaLlon of 8A 873 and Lhelr C8A should be
8efusal on Lhe parL of Lhe respondenL flrm Lo permlL all lLs
employees and workers Lo [oln Lhe mass demonsLraLlon
agalnsL alleged pollce abuses and Lhe subsequenL
separaLlon of Lhe elghL (8) peLlLloners from Lhe servlce
consLlLuLed an unconsLlLuLlonal resLralnL on Lhe freedom
of expresslon, freedom of assembly and freedom peLlLlon
for redress of grlevances.
1he Cl8 dld noL make any flndlng as Lo Lhe acLual loss of
Lhe company. 1hls only means LhaL lL dld noL susLaln any
loss or damage. Cn Lhe conLrary, Lhe company even saved
a slzable amounL due Lo Lhe absence of lLs workers.
1he acLlons of Lhe company consLlLuLe a denlal of soclal
[usLlce.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
reversed.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he peLlLloners dld noL commlL unfalr labor pracLlce
because Lhe demonsLraLlon was noL a sLrlke as lL was
LargeLed aL Lhe aslg ollce. roLecLlon of company's
properLy rlghLs musL glve way Lo Lhe proLecLlon of
freedom of expresslon and assembly.
-6 !8L 8eyes v.
Mayor 8agaLslng

C.8. no. L-63366

november 9,
1993

lAC1S:
!8L 8eyes and Lhe AnLl-8ases CoallLlon planned Lo hold a
peaceful march and rally aL 2:00 pm marchlng from
LuneLa ark Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes Lmbassy (Lwo blocks
away).
upon arrlvlng, a shorL program wlll be held.
1here was also an assurance ln Lhe peLlLlon LhaL
everyLhlng wlll be done Lo ensure a peaceful march and
assembly".
eLlLloner flled a peLlLlon for mandamus and ln[uncLlon
slnce he has noL recelved any updaLes regardlng Lhe rally
from Lhe ClLy of Manlla.
8espondenL flled hls answer, saylng LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon
of permlL had been denled because lnLelllgenL reporLs
had declared Lhe exlsLence of cerLaln subverslve/crlmlnal
elemenLs aLLempLlng Lo dlsrupL any assembly or rally
where a large number of people would aLLend.
8espondenL lnsLead suggesLed 8lzal Collseum and oLher
enclosed areas Lo ensure Lhe safeLy of Lhe parLlclpanLs.
Cn Lhe same day respondenL flled hls answer, Lhe
Supreme CourL lssued a mandaLory ln[uncLlon agalnsL
hlm, as Lhere was no showlng of any clear and presenL
danger ln Lhe conducL of Lhe assembly.

o lreedom of speech and assembly cannoL be unduly
llmlLed. 1he only [usLlflable resLrlcLlon on Lhese
fundamenLal llberLles ls a sLrong showlng of a clear and
presenL danger of a subsLanLlve evll LhaL Lhe sLaLe has Lhe
rlghL Lo prevenL". (Amerlcan Supreme CourL 1homas vs.
Colllns)
o Pague vs. ClC: Lhe cltlzeos bove tbe tlqbt to ose tbe stteets
ooJ potks fot ossemblles to Jlscoss pobllc poestloos. lL
may however be regulaLed by Lhe SLaLe ln pursulL of
naLlonal lnLeresL and publlc safeLy.
o 1he rlghL Lo assemble publlcly ls noL absoluLe-only
relaLlve, buL lL cannoL be abrldged or denled ln Lhe gulse
of regulaLlons for Lhe sake of peace and order
(MunlclpallLy of CavlLe vs. 8o[as).
o Powever Lhe program whlch wlll be held ln fronL of Lhe uS
Lmbassy was a novel lssue:
1he hlllpplnes, as a slgnaLory Lo Lhe vlenna ConvenLlons
on ulplomaLlc 8elaLlons (1961) adopLs lLs prlnclples as
parL of Lhe law of Lhe land.
ArLlcle 22 sLaLes LhaL tbe tecelvloq 5tote bos tbe Joty to
ptotect tbe ptemlses of Lhe mlsslon agalnsL any lnLruslon
or damage and Lo prevenL any dlsLurbance Lo lLs peace
and dlgnlLy.
lf Lhere was a clear lnLruslon or lmpalrmenL, Lhere would
!EE=?:9;?JG IJC 9 E@C>?; ;J
FJ=H 9G 9DD@>T=KM
(lotopbtoseJ, 8 oot of tbe 10
polots)
1. AppllcanL(s) musL lnform Lhe
llcenslng auLhorlLy of Lhe daLe,
Llme, and Lhe pobllc place
where Lhe assembly wlll be
held.
2. lf lL ls a prlvaLe place, only
Lhe consenL of Lhe owner or
Lhe legal possessor ls needed.
3. 1he appllcaLlon musL be
flled ahead of Llme Lo glve Lhe
auLhorlLy sufflclenL allowance
Lo deny Lhe permlL or Lo
suggesL an alLernaLlve place.
4. Cnly Lhe 'clear and presenL
danger LesL' wlll deLermlne Lhe
[usLlflcaLlon of Lhe denlal of
Lhe permlL.
3. lf Lhe permlL ls denled based
on Lhe precedlng ground,
appllcanL(s) has Lhe rlghL Lo be
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of Lhe permlL vlolaLed Lhe
people's rlghL Lo exerclse free speech and assembly?

PLLu:
1he permlL was seL aslde. 1he CourL allowed Lhe
assembly Lo proceed.

be a [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe denlal of Lhe permlL Lo conducL
Lhe assembly. 8uL a peaceful march and assembly was
assured.
o As far as Lhe locaLlon ls concerned, Lhe parLlclpanLs have
freedom of access Lo a publlc paLhway. (8oxas 8lvd)
o wbeo lo Joobt, tbe ptesomptloo most be to loclloe tbe
welqbt of tbe scoles of jostlce oo tbe slJe of tbe tlqbt to
ftee speecb ooJ ossembly.
o 1he CourL, heedlng Lhe urgency of Lhe slLuaLlon (slnce Lhe
rally was scheduled Lhe day afLer Lhe hearlng of Lhls case),
granLs Lhe mandaLory ln[uncLlon prayed for by peLlLloner.
heard on Lhe maLLer.
6. 1he declslon, whaLever lL
may be, musL be relayed Lo Lhe
appllcanL(s) aL Lhe earllesL
opporLunlLy. Pe has Lhe rlghL
Lo resorL Lo [udlclal remedy lf
necessary.
-7 Malabanan v.
8amenLo

C.8. no. L-62270

May 21, 1984
lAC1S:
eLlLloners are sLudenLs of Cregorlo AraneLa unlverslLy
loundaLlon and offlcers of Lhe Supreme SLudenL Councll.
WlLh Lhe necessary permlL, Lhey demonsLraLed Lhelr
opposlLlon agalnsL Lhe proposed merger lf Lhe lnsLlLuLe
of Anlmal Sclence wlLh Lhe lnsLlLuLe of AgrlculLure.
1he really was held aL a place oLher Lhan LhaL speclfled ln
Lhe permlL and resulLed ln Lhe dlsLurbance of classes and
work of non-academlc employees. 1hey were penallzed
for 1 academlc year for vlolaLlng Lhe O9G<9= IJC 5C?U9;@
*:FJJ=DV

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe dlsclpllnary lmposed agalnsL
peLlLloners was an lnfrlngemenL of Lhelr rlghL Lo
peaceably assemble and Lhelr freedom of speech

PLLu:
nC. Powever, Lhe penalLy ls Loo severe and Lhe speeches of Lhe
sLudenLs dld noL presenL a clear and presenL danger.
no clear and presenL danger of publlc dlsorder ls dlscernlble.
o 1hls ls wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe dlsclpllnary acLlon for
conducL whlch maLerlally dlsrupLs class work or lnvolves
subsLanLlal dlsorder or lnvaslon of Lhe rlghLs of oLhers."
o 1helr conducL cannoL be lmmunlzed by Lhe consLlLuLlonal
guaranLee of free speech. eLlLloners cannoL be LoLally
absolved.
lf Lhe assembly ls Lo be held ln
school premlses:
ermlL musL be soughL from
school auLhorlLles, who are
devold of power Lo deny Lhe
requesL unreasonably
ln granLlng Lhe permlL, Lhere
may be condlLlons as Lo Lhe
Llme and place of assembly
Lven lf Lhere ls a vlolaLlon of
Lhe Lerms, Lhe penalLy
should noL be
dlsproporLlonaLe Lo Lhe
offense
MaLLers lnvolvlng Lhelr
welfare or publlc lnLeresL
should noL be sub[ecL Lo
prlor resLralnL
-8 8ayan v. LrmlLa lAC1S: .V5V QQS ls noL an absoluLe ban of publlc assemblles buL a
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. 169838

Aprll 29, 2006
8A?An's rally was vlolenLly dlspersed. 1he same was
done wlLh Lhe rallles sponsored by kMu. kMu asserLs
LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo peaceful assembly, are affecLed by 8aLas
ambansa no. 880, speclflcally SecLlons 4, 3, 6, 12, 13(a),
and 14(a), as well as Lhe pollcy of C8, and Lhe pollcy of
CallbraLed reempLlve 8esponse" (C8) belng followed
Lo lmplemenL lL.
eLlLloners 8ayan, eL al., conLend LhaL 8 880 ls clearly a
vlolaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon and Lhe lnLernaLlonal
CovenanL on Clvll and ollLlcal 8lghLs and oLher human
rlghLs LreaLles of whlch Lhe hlllpplnes ls a slgnaLory.
AddlLlonally, Lhey argue LhaL Lhe requlremenL of a permlL
desplLe Lhe absence of clear and presenL danger curLalls
Lhe cholce of venue whlch ls repugnanL Lo Lhe freedom
of expresslon clause as lL puLs a condlLlon for Lhe valld
exerclse of LhaL rlghL.
8espondenLs argue LhaL 8.. 880 ls merely a conLenL-
neuLral regulaLlon of Lhe Llme, place and manner of
holdlng publlc assemblles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8.. 880 and Lhe C8 ollcy ls conLenL-
neuLral or conLenL-based regulaLlons
WheLher or noL lL consLlLuLes prlor resLralnL.

PLLu:
?LS. 8uL Lhe C8 ls sLruck down because lL can be used
Lo [usLlfy pollce abuses ln dlspersal of rallles.
nC. 1he conLenL of Lhe speech of Lhe rallles ls noL
relevanL Lo Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe regulaLlon.
resLrlcLlon LhaL slmply regulaLes Lhe Llme, place and
manner of Lhe assemblles. lL refers Lo all klnds of publlc
assemblles LhaL would use publlc places. 1he reference Lo
lawful cause" does noL make lL conLenL-based because
assemblles really have Lo be for lawful causes, oLherwlse
Lhey would noL be peaceable" and enLlLled Lo proLecLlon.
Maxlmum Lolerance ls for Lhe proLecLlon and beneflL of all
rallylsLs and ls lndependenL of Lhe conLenL of Lhe
expresslons ln Lhe rally.
PCWLvL8, Lhe so-called callbraLed preempLlve response
pollcy has no place ln our legal flrmamenL and musL be
sLruck down as a darkness LhaL shrouds freedom. lL
merely confuses our people and ls used by some pollce
agenLs Lo [usLlfy abuses. lnsofar as lL would purporL Lo
dlffer from or be ln lleu of maxlmum Lolerance, Lhls was
declared null and vold.
1here ls, llkewlse, no prlor resLralnL, slnce Lhe conLenL of
Lhe speech ls noL relevanL Lo Lhe regulaLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Ak1ICLL III, SLC1ICN S

NCN-LS1A8LISnMLN1 CI kLLIGICN
1 Agllpay v. 8ulz

C.8. no.
L-43439

March 13,
1937
lAC1S:
Mons. Cregorlo Agllpay, Lhe Supreme Pead of Lhe hlllpplne
lndependenL Church, seeks Lo prevenL respondenL 8ulz, Lhe
ulrecLor of osLs, from lssulng and selllng posLage sLamps
commemoraLlve of Lhe 33rd lnLernaLlonal LucharlsLlc
Congress, organlzed by Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Church.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenL, ln lssulng and selllng posLage
sLamps commemoraLlve of Lhe 33rd lnLernaLlonal LucharlsLlc
Congress, vlolaLed Art. 6 Sec 23(3) of the 193S Const|tut|on

PLLu:
nC. ubllc funds were noL used Lo beneflL Lhe 8oman
CaLhollc Church when lL as used Lo fund Lhe commemoraLlve
sLamps.
8ellglous freedom ls noL lnhlblLlon of reverence for rellglon
and ls noL a denlal of lLs lnfluence ln human affalrs.
ln Act No. 40S2, Lhe amounL allocaLed for Lhe plaLes and
prlnLlng of posLage sLamps wlLh new deslgns and oLher
expenses were Lo be approprlaLed as ofLen as may be
deemed advanLageous Lo Lhe CovernmenL."
o Act No. 40S2 conLemplaLes no rellglous purpose ln
vlew. 1he sLamps were noL lssued for Lhe beneflL of
Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Church. no money from Lhe sale
was glven Lo LhaL church. Any resulLlng propaganda
recelved by Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Church was noL Lhe
alm and purpose.
o 1he purpose was Lo adverLlse Lhe hlllpplnes and
aLLracL more LourlsLs Lo Lhls counLry." 1he offlclals
merely Look advanLage of an evenL of lnLernaLlonal
lmporLance. 1he sLamps emphaslzed Manlla as Lhe
seaL of Congress.

2 Carces v.
LsLenzo

C.8. number
L-33487

May 23, 1981
lAC1S:
1he 8arangay Councll of valencla, Crmoc ClLy adopLed
8esoluLlons 3 and 6 whlch provlded for Lhe acqulslLlon of a
wooden lmage of San vlcenLe lerrer and a walLlng shed as
Lhelr pro[ecLs Lhrough gaLherlng of funds vla LlckeL selllng and
cash donaLlons from Lhelr Lown and nelghborlng places.
1hey acqulred Lhe lmage ln order Lo celebraLe Lhe feasL day
of Lhelr paLron salnL San vlcenLe lerrer.
laLher Csmena refused Lo reLurn Lhe lmage saylng LhaL lL was
1he resoluLlons do noL dlrecLly or lndlrecLly esLabllsh any
rellglon nor abrldge rellglous llberLy nor approprlaLe publlc
money or properLy for Lhe beneflL of any secL, prlesL, or
clergyman. 1he lmage was purchased wlLh ptlvote fooJs, noL
wlLh Lax money. And consLrucLlon of walLlng shed ls enLlrely
a secolot mottet.
1he wooden lmage was purchased ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe
celebtotloo of tbe bottlo flesto boootloq tbe pottoo solot and
noL for Lhe purpose of favorlng Lhe CaLhollc rellglon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
church properLy and conLendlng LhaL Lhe resoluLlons
conLravene Lhe provlslon of Lhe consLlLuLlon LhaL no law
shall be passed respecLlng an esLabllshmenL of rellglon" and
LhaL no publlc money or properLy shall ever be
approprlaLed.dlrecLly or lndlrecLly, for Lhe use, beneflL, or
supporL of any prlesL."

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhe parlsh prlesL or a layman should have Lhe
cusLody of Lhe lmage.

PLLu:
1he layman should have cusLody because Lhe wooden lmage
was purchased Lhrough prlvaLe funds.
Slnce havlng a barrlo paLron salnL ls noL lllegal, Lhen Lhe acL
of acqulrlng and dlsplaylng hls lmage ls also noL lllegal.
1he lmage belongs Lo Lhe barangay councll. lf lL chooses Lo
glve lL Lo Lhe CaLhollc Church, lL would noL vlolaLe Lhe
consLlLuLlon because Lhe lmage was acqulred wlLh prlvaLe
funds and ls prlvaLe properLy.
noL every governmenLal acLlvlLy whlch lnvolves Lhe
expendlLure of publlc funds and whlch has some rellglous LlnL
ls vlolaLlve of Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslons.
3 8oard of
LducaLlon of
CenLral School
no. 1 v. Allen,
!r.

392 u.S. 236

Aprll 30, 1937
lAC1S:
SecLlon 701 of Lhe LducaLlon Law of Lhe SLaLe of new ?ork
was amended, addlng LhaL local schools boards were now
requlred Lo loan LexLbooks Lo sLudenLs boLh ln publlc schools
and ln prlvaLe schools.
AppellanLs wlshed Lo appeal from Lhe rullng of Lhe CA LhaL
ruled LhaL Lhe conLended provlslon does noL vlolaLe Lhe llrsL
and lourLeenLh AmendmenL [usL because lL supporLs
parochlal school sLudenLs by loanlng LexLbooks boughL wlLh
sLaLe money.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 701 of Lhe LducaLlon Law vlolaLes Lhe
llrsL and lourLeenLh AmendmenLs

PLLu:
nC. CourL rules LhaL Sec. 701 ls noL a law respecLlng Lhe
esLabllshmenL of rellglon wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe llrsL
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe assalled provlslon does noL come wlLhln Lhe
meanlng of Lhe prohlblLlon on Lhe esLabllshmenL of rellglon clause
found ln Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

1he CourL clLed AblngLon School ulsLrlcL v. Schempp (374 u.S. 203)
whereln sald case esLabllshed a test dlsLlngulshlng beLween Lhe
allowed lnvolvemenL of Lhe SLaLe wlLh 8ellglon and Lhose LhaL are noL
allowed.

1he CourL found ln hereln case LhaL Lhe assalled Sec. 701 had a
secular leglslaLlve purpose and a prlmary effecL LhaL nelLher advances
nor lnhlblLs a rellglon.
Secular purpose - lmprove quallLy of educaLlon
rlmary effecL - allow ALL S1uuLn1S wlLhln Lhe SLaLe easler access
Lo LexLbooks and learnlng maLerlals (beneflLLed sLudenLs and parenLs
CnL?)

Ab|ngton Schoo| D|str|ct
v. Schempp (374 U.S.
203) 1est:
1) WhaL are Lhe
purpose and Lhe
prlmary effecL of
Lhe enacLmenL?
2) lf elLher ls Lhe
oJvoocemeot or
loblbltloo of
rellglon, enacLmenL
exceeds scope of
leglslaLlve power.
3) urpose and effecL
musL be secular and
nelLher advances
nor lnhlblLs.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
AmendmenL
4 AblngLon
School ulsLrlcL
v. Schempp

374 u.S. 203

lAC1S:
AppellanLs conLend LhaL Lhe mornlng exerclses and Lhe law
requlrlng Lhem are unconsLlLuLlonal. 1he exerclses lncludes
Lhe readlng of a blble passage, Lhe prayer of Lhe Lord's rayer
and followed by Lhe flag saluLe.
AppellanLs Ldward and Sldney Schempp conLends LhaL even
Lhough Lhe parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe exerclses are mandaLory, Lhey
are sLlll unconsLlLuLlonal as prohlblLed by Lhe non-
esLabllshmenL clause of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe School ulsLrlcL's openlng exerclses and
Lhe law requlrlng lL vlolaLes Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause found
ln Lhe llrsL AmendmenL

PLLu:
?LS. 1he mornlng exerclses are of a rellglous characLer, and
lLs pracLlce as prescrlbed by Lhe school currlculum ls a
prohlblLed lnvolvemenL beLween Lhe SLaLe and rellglon.
1he CourL explalned LhaL Lhe esLabllshmenL clause as provlded by Lhe
llrsL AmendmenL prohlblLs Lhe fuslon or dependency of Lhe SLaLe and
8ellglon Lo Lhe end LhaL offlclal supporL of Lhe SLaLe would be placed
behlnd Lhe LeneLs of one or all orLhodoxles.

1he CourL also sLaLed LhaL free exerclse clause as provlded by Lhe
llrsL AmendmenL guaranLees Lhe rlghL of every person Lo freely
choose hls own rellglon and pracLlce as he so chooses.

1he CourL furLher ruled LhaL Lhese Lwo clauses overlap, hence for an
enacLmenL Lo sLand boLh of Lhese clauses, a LesL may be sLaLed as
follows:
1) WhaL are Lhe purpose and Lhe prlmary effecL of Lhe
enacLmenL?
2) 1o sLand Lhe sLrlcLures of Lhe of Lhe esLabllshmenL clause:
Lhere musL be a secular leglslaLlve purpose and a prlmary
effecL LhaL nelLher advances nor lnhlblLs rellglon.
3) 1o sLand Lhe sLrlcLures of Lhe free exerclse clause: clvll
auLhorlLy musL noL lnLrude lnLo rellglous llberLy

8ecause of Lhese Lwo enacLmenLs, Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres sLrlcL
neuLrallLy ln Lerms of lnvolvemenL beLween Lhe SLaLe and 8ellglon.
Ab|ngton Schoo| D|str|ct
v. Schempp (374 U.S.
203) 1est:

WhaL are Lhe purpose
and Lhe prlmary effecL of
Lhe enacLmenL?

lf elLher ls Lhe
oJvoocemeot or
loblbltloo of rellglon,
enacLmenL exceeds
scope of leglslaLlve
power.

urpose and effecL musL
be secular and nelLher
advances nor lnhlblLs.
S Lemon v.
kurLzman

403 uS 602

!une 28, 1971
lAC1S:
ennsylvanla has enacLed a sLaLuLe whlch relmburses
rellglous nonpubllc schools for Leacher salarles, LexLbooks,
and oLher lnsLrucLlonal maLerlals. 8hode lsland has a slmllar
sLaLuLe LhaL allows Lhe sLaLe Lo pay prlvaLe school Leachers a
13 salary supplemenL.
MosL of Lhe non-publlc schools LhaL beneflL from Lhe sLaLuLes
are schools afflllaLed wlLh Lhe CaLhollc Church.
1he sLaLuLe requlres LhaL Leacher separaLe rellglon from Lhe
1hree LesLs may be gleaned from prevlous cases.
o 1he sLaLuLe musL have a secular leglslaLlve purpose.
1he lnLenLlon was Lo enhance Lhe quallLy of secular
educaLlon. A sLaLe always has a leglLlmaLe concern
for malnLalnlng mlnlmum sLandards ln all schools lL
allows Lo operaLe.
1he secular and rellglous educaLlon are ldenLlflable
and separable.
o lLs prlmary effecL ls noL one whlch advances or lnhlblLs
3 Maln Lvlls whlch Lhe
LsLabllshmenL Clause
soughL Lo prevenL:
sponsorshlp, flnanclal
supporL, and acLlve
lnvolvemenL of Lhe
soverelgn ln rellglous
acLlvlLy."

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
secular sub[ecL Lhey wlll be Leachlng.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ennsylvanla and 8hode lsland sLaLuLes
vlolaLed Lhe LsLabllshmenL and lree Lxerclse Clause

PLLu:
?LS. 1he law ls ln danger of fosLerlng excesslve governmenL
enLanglemenL wlLh rellglon.

rellglon. 1hls was noL dlscussed.
o 1he sLaLuLe musL noL fosLer excesslve governmenL
enLanglemenL wlLh rellglon.
1he sLaLuLes fall Lhe Lhlrd LesL. 1he conslderable
rellglous acLlvlLles of Lhe schools provlde for careful
governmenLal conLrols and survelllance.
ln Lhe ennsylvanla sLaLuLe has Lhe furLher defecL of
provldlng sLaLe flnanclal ald dlrecLly Lo Lhe church-
relaLed schools.

6 1llLon v.
8lchardson

403 uS 672

!une 28, 1971
lAC1S:
Plgher LducaLlon laclllLles AcL was passed granLlng loans for
Lhe consLrucLlon of a varleLy of academlc faclllLles" provlded
LhaL lL wlll noL be used for secLarlan lnsLrucLlon or as a place
for rellglous worshlp.
lour-church relaLed colleges and unlverslLles ln ConnecLlcuL
recelved an PLl AcL loan for 3 pro[ecLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL PLl AcL ls unconsLlLuLlonal for havlng Lhe
purpose and effecL of promoLlng rellglon.

PLLu:
nC. LxcepL for Lhe 20-year clause, Lhe acL was carefully
drafLed Lo ensure LhaL federally subsldlzed faclllLles would be
devoLed Lo Lhe secular and noL Lhe rellglous funcLlon of Lhe
reclplenL lnsLlLuLlons.

AcL does noL promoLe Lhe enLanglemenL beLween Lhe church and
sLaLe. 1he governmenL provldes faclllLles LhaL are Lhemselves
rellglously neuLral.
Congress lnLended Lhe acL Lo lnclude oll colleges and
unlverslLles regardless of afflllaLlon or sponsorshlp wlLh
rellglous bodles.
lL auLhorlzes granLs and loans only for academlc faclllLles for
secular purposes, and expressly prohlblLs Lhelr use for
rellglous lnsLrucLlon, Lralnlng, or worshlp.
8eclplenL lnsLrucLlons presenLed evldence of sufflclenL compllance:
! no rellglous servlce or worshlp had been conducLed
! no rellglous symbols or plaques were placed ln Lhem
! no rellglon seeps lnLo Lhe use of any of Lhe faclllLles
1he 20-year clause ls vlolaLlve as Lhe penalLy glves Lhe lmpresslon
LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon's obllgaLlon noL Lo use Lhe faclllLy for secLarlan
lnsLrucLlon or rellglous worshlp would explre aL Lhe end of 20 years.

7 CounLy of
Allegheny v.
Amerlcan Clvll
LlberLles
lAC1S:
1he CounLy seL up Lwo dlsplays ln or around publlc properLy
ln downLown lLLsburgh: (1) a creche deplcLlng Lhe ChrlsLlan
naLlvlLy scene wlLh a banner readlng Clory Lo Cod ln Lhe
!usLlce 8lackmun applled Lwo LesLs from Lynch v. uonnelly: Lhe two-
ptooq eoJotsemeot test and Lhe plostlc teloJeet tole.
Creche - AlLhough Lhe governmenL may acknowledge ChrlsLmas as a
culLural phenomenon, lL may noL observe lL as a ChrlsLlan holy day by
SLandards from Lynch v.
uonnelly:
(1) two-ptooq
eoJotsemeot test -
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
unlon

492 u.S. 373,
109 S. C1.
3086

!uly 3, 1989

PlghesL" ln LaLln, was placed on Lhe Crand SLalrcase of Lhe
Allegheny CounLy CourLhouse, whlch ls Lhe "maln," "mosL
beauLlful," and "mosL publlc" parL of Lhe courLhouse, (2) 1he
second was an 18-fooL-Lall menorah or candelabrum, whlch
was placed [usL ouLslde Lhe ClLy-CounLy 8ulldlng nexL Lo Lhe
clLy's 43-fooL decoraLed ChrlsLmas Lree.
1he ACLu and seven local resldenLs flled sulL Lo en[oln
permanenLly boLh dlsplays. lL conLended LhaL Lhe dlsplays
vlolaLed the Lstab||shment C|ause of the I|rst Amendment

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a sLaLe pracLlce permlsslble when lL lnvolves
rellglon buL does noL prlmarlly advance or lnhlblL lL.

PLLu:
?LS. lL ls permlsslble buL Lhe creche does noL meeL Lhls
crlLerla.

suggesLlng LhaL people pralse Cod for Lhe blrLh of !esus.
! two-ptooq eoJotsemeot test - falls.
o When vlewed ln lLs overall conLexL, Lhe creche
dlsplay vlolaLes Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause. 1he creche
angel's words endorse a paLenLly ChrlsLlan message:
Clory Lo Cod for Lhe blrLh of !esus ChrlsL
! llostlc teloJeet tole - falls.
o Moreover, ln conLrasL Lo Lynch, noLhlng ln Lhe
creche's seLLlng deLracLs from LhaL message
Menorah - does noL have Lhe prohlblLed effecL of endorslng rellglon,
glven lLs "parLlcular physlcal seLLlng."
! two-ptooq eoJotsemeot test - pass.
o lLs comblned dlsplay wlLh a ChrlsLmas Lree and a slgn
saluLlng llberLy does noL lmpermlsslbly endorse boLh
Lhe ChrlsLlan and !ewlsh falLhs, buL slmply recognlzes
LhaL boLh ChrlsLmas and Chanukah are parL of Lhe
same wlnLer hollday season, whlch has aLLalned a
secular sLaLus ln our socleLy. 1he wldely accepLed
vlew of Lhe ChrlsLmas Lree as Lhe preemlnenL secular
symbol of Lhe ChrlsLmas season emphaslzes Lhls
polnL.
! llostlc teloJeet tole - pass.
o 1he Lree, moreover, by vlrLue of lLs slze and cenLral
poslLlon ln Lhe dlsplay, ls clearly Lhe predomlnanL
elemenL, and Lhe placemenL of Lhe menorah beslde lL
ls readlly undersLood as slmply a recognlLlon LhaL
ChrlsLmas ls noL Lhe only LradlLlonal way of
celebraLlng Lhe season.
comblned Lhe purpose
and effecL prongs of Lhe
Lemon LesL and placed a
sLrong emphasls on Lhe
message Lhe symbol
senL.
(2) plostlc teloJeet tole -
CourL repeaLedly place
Lhe acLlons of Lhe clLy ln
Lhe conLexL of hlsLory
and placed Lhe rellglous
symbols wlLhln Lhe
conLexL of Lhe secular
symbols and Lo see lf
Lhey have been dlluLed"
enough.
8 ZobresL v.
CaLallna

no. 92-94,
lAC1S:
eLlLloner has been deaf slnce blrLh and wenL Lo a school for
deaf Llll Crade 3.
lrom grade 6 Lo 8, he wenL Lo a publlc school where Lhe
We have never sald LhaL "rellglous lnsLlLuLlons are dlsabled by Lhe
I|rst Amendment from parLlclpaLlng ln publlcly sponsored soclal
welfare programs."
lor lf Lhe Lstab||shment C|ause dld bar rellglous groups from

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
309 u.S.1

!une 18, 1993

school dlsLrlcL provlded hlm wlLh an lnLerpreLer.
lor Crade 9, he Lransferred Lo SalpolnLe CaLhollc Plgh School.
Pls parenLs requesLed Lhe school dlsLrlcL for anoLher
lnLerpreLer buL Lhls was denled for allegedly belng vlolaLlve
of Lhe esLabllshmenL clause." laclng an employee ln Lhe
secLarlan school would glve Lhe appearance LhaL Lhe
governmenL was a [olnL sponsor" of Lhe school's acLlvlLles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause bars Lhe school
dlsLrlcL from provldlng Lhe requesLed lnLerpreLer.
PLLu:
nC. 8ellglous lnsLlLuLlons can Lake parL ln soclal welfare and
servlces programs, moreover, Lhe prlmary beneflclary ls Lhe
chlld noL Lhe school.
recelvlng general governmenL beneflLs, Lhen "a church could
noL be proLecLed by Lhe pollce and flre deparLmenLs, or have
lLs publlc sldewalk kepL ln repalr."
CovernmenL programs LhaL neuLrally provlde beneflLs Lo a broad
class of clLlzens deflned wlLhouL reference Lo rellglon are noL readlly
sub[ecL Lo an Lstab||shment C|ause challenge [usL because secLarlan
lnsLlLuLlons may also recelve an aLLenuaLed flnanclal beneflL.
Pere, Lhe cbllJ ls tbe ptlmoty beoeflcloty, ooJ tbe scbool
tecelves ooly oo loclJeotol beoeflt. ln addlLlon, oo lotetptetet,
oollke o teocbet ot qolJooce coooselot, oeltbet oJJs to oot
sobttocts ftom tbe sectotloo scbool's eovltoomeot bot metely
lotetptets wbotevet motetlol ls pteseoteJ to tbe closs os o
wbole. 1here ls no absoluLe bar Lo Lhe placlng of a publlc
employee ln a secLarlan school.
9 CaplLol Square
8evlew 8oard
v. lneLLe

313 uS 733
(1993)
lAC1S:
CaplLol Square ls a 10-acre sLaLe-owned plaza surroundlng
Lhe SLaLehouse ln Columbus, Chlo. 1he square had been
consLanLly made avallable for Lhe use of varlous groups for
varlous reasons, even rellglous ones. Powever, ln november
1993, Lhe 8oard denled Lhe appllcaLlon of Chlo ku klux klan
Lo place a cross on Lhe square on Lhe ground LhaL lL mlghL
glven Lhe lmpresslon LhaL Lhe sLaLe ls promoLlng or favourlng
a rellglon - ln vlolaLlon of Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a SLaLe vlolaLes Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause
when, pursuanL Lo a rellglously neuLral sLaLe pollcy, lL permlLs
a prlvaLe parLy Lo dlsplay an unaLLended rellglous symbol ln a
LradlLlonal publlc forum locaLed nexL Lo lLs seaL of
governmenL.

1he rlghL Lo use governmenL properLy for one's prlvaLe expresslon
depends upon wheLher:
1. 1he properLy has by law or LradlLlon been glven Lhe sLaLus of
a publlc forum, C8
2. 8aLher has been reserved for speclflc offlclal uses.

1he SLaLe dld noL sponsor respondenLs' expresslon, Lhe
expresslon was made on governmenL properLy LhaL had been
opened Lo Lhe publlc for speech, and permlsslon was
requesLed Lhrough Lhe same appllcaLlon process and on Lhe
same Lerms requlred of oLher prlvaLe groups.
LndorsemenL 1esL connoLes an expresslon or demonsLraLlon
of approval or supporL of a sLaLe for a parLlcular
falLh/rellglon, ln conLravenLlon Lo Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause.
o We flnd lL pecullar Lo say LhaL governmenL
"promoLes" or "favors" a rellglous dlsplay by glvlng lL
Lhe same access Lo a publlc forum LhaL all oLher
Doctr|ne: 1he rlghL Lo
use publlc properLy for
prlvaLe expresslon
depends
1. W/n Lhe properLy
was by LradlLlon or
law a publlc forum.
2. W/n lL ls reserved for
offlclal uses.

Doctr|ne: 1he prohlblLlon
of Lhe LsLabllshmenL
Clause applles only Lo
words and acLs of Lhe
governmenL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
nC. CaplLol Square ls a publlc forum, and Lhe respondenLs
rellglous dlsplay ln CaplLol Square was a prlvaLe expresslon
proLecLed by Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

dlsplays en[oy.
10 Manosca v. CA

C.8. no.
106440

!anuary 29,
1996
lAC1S:
eLlLloners lnherlLed a land whlch was ascerLalned by Lhe nPl
Lo be Lhe blrLh place of lellx ?. Manalo, Lhe founder of lglesla
nl CrlsLo. As such, lL was exproprlaLed by Lhe governmenL
Lhrough Lhe power of emlnenL domaln for lLs hlsLorlcal
lnLeresL.
eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe exproprlaLlon would be for Lhe
beneflL lf lnC, and Lhe land was noL golng Lo be used by Lhe
publlc per se. As such lL was conLrary Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL CA erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe exproprlaLlon
was valld as lL was for a publlc purpose.

PLLu:
nC. "ubllc use" ls noL conflned Lo acLual use by Lhe publlc,
so long as lL confers Lhe same beneflL or advanLage Lo Lhe
publlc, Lhen Lhe exerclse of emlnenL domaln ls valld.

LmlnenL uomaln
ueflned " lL ls a rlghL Lo Lake or reasserL domlnlon over
properLy wlLhln Lhe sLaLe for publlc use or Lo meeL a publlc
exlgency... 1he only dlrecL consLlLuLlonal quallflcaLlon ls LhaL
prlvaLe properLy shall noL be Laken for publlc use wlLhouL
[usL compensaLlon."
o Also referred Lo as exproprlaLlon or condemnaLlon,
slmllar Lo Lhe characLerlsLlcs of pollce power and
LaxaLlon.
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe beneflL Lo Lhe lnC was merely
lncldenLal and secondary ln naLure, and LhaL Lhe seLLlng up
of Lhe marker was Lo recognlze Lhe dlsLlncLlve conLrlbuLlon of
Lhe laLe lellx Manalo Lo Lhe culLure of Lhe hlllpplnes, raLher
Lhan Lo commemoraLe hls foundlng and leadershlp of Lhe
lglesla nl CrlsLo", LhaL only a few would acLually beneflL from
Lhe exproprlaLlon of properLy does noL necessarlly dlmlnlsh
Lhe essence and characLer of publlc use.

11 lslamlc ua'wah
v. LxecuLlve
SecreLary

C.8. no.
133888

!uly 9, 2003
lAC1S:
eLlLloner lslamlc ua'wah Councll of Lhe hlllpplnes (luC) ls
an nCC under Lhe uSWu LhaL servlces Lhe llllplno Musllm
CommunlLy ln Lhe counLry.
luC was glven Lhe auLhorlLy by Lhe 8eglonal lslamlc ua'wah
Councll of SouLheasL Asla and Lhe aclflc (8lSLA) Lo lssue
halal cerLlflcaLlon ln Lhe hlllpplnes. (1993)
ln 2001, Lhe Cfflce of Lhe LxecuLlve SecreLary lssued
1. LC 46 vlolaLes separaLlon of Lhe Church and of Lhe SLaLe.
o closslfyloq o fooJ ptoJoct os bolol ls cooslJeteJ o
tellqloos fooctloo becoose lt ls boseJ oo tbe
Ootoo ooJ otbet lslomlc bellefs.
2. L.C. 46 vlolaLes Lhe exerclse of rellglon of Musllms.
o 1be ooly teosoo to jostlfy tbe loftloqemeot of
tellqloos fteeJom ls tbe pteveotloo of oo
lmmeJlote ooJ qtove Jooqet to tbe secotlty ooJ

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lxecut|ve Crder No. 46 creaLlng Lhe hlllpplne Palal
CerLlflcaLlon Scheme and gave excluslve auLhorlLy over CMA
Lo lssue halal cerLlflcaLes.
CMA Lold Musllm consumers Lo purchase only producLs wlLh
lLs offlclal halal seal and also lnsLrucLed manufacLurers Lo
reglsLer only wlLh Lhem for Lhe Palal cerLlflcaLlon. As a resulL,
peLlLloner losL revenues because manufacLurers sLopped
securlng cerLlflcaLlons from Lhem.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL LC 46 vlolaLes Lhe freedom of rellglon by
regulaLlng a purely Musllm pracLlce.

PLLu:
?LS, LC 46 ls null and vold.

welfote of tbe commoolty.
o lf Lhe governmenL falls Lo show Lhe serlousness
and lmmedlacy of Lhe LhreaL, SLaLe lnLruslon ls
unaccepLable. 1he CourL flnds no lmmedlaLe and
serlous LhreaL Lo Lhe safeLy of Lhe Musllm
communlLy Lo valldaLe Lhe lssuance of LC 46.
o 1he non-secular sLeps LhaL Lhe SLaLe makes Lo ald
Musllms ln deLermlnlng whlch producLs comply
wlLh Lhelr rellglous sLandards are sufflclenL Lo
ensure LhaL Lhelr rlghL Lo healLh ls proLecLed. 1he
halal seal lssued by peLlLloner and oLher slmllar
organlzaLlon ls Lhe offlclol tellqloos opptovol of
foods flL for Musllm consumpLlon.
12 1aruc v. ue la
Cruz

C.8. no.
144801

March 10,
2003
lAC1S:
Lay members of Lhe hlllpplne lndependenL Church clamored
for Lhe Lransfer of lr. llorano Lo anoLher parlsh. lL appears
LhaL Lhe famlly of lr. llorano's wlfe belonged Lo a pollLlcal
parLy opposed Lo peLlLloner 1aruc's.
1he hosLlllLy worsened and Lhls resulLed 8lshop de la Cruz
declared peLlLloners expelled from Lhe hlllpplne
lndependenL Church. eLlLloner's conLended LhaL Lhelr
expulslon was lllegal because lL was done wlLhouL Lrlal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe courLs have [urlsdlcLlon Lo hear cases
lnvolvlng Lhe expulslon of members of a rellglous lnsLlLuLlon

PLLu:
nC. 1he clvll courLs musL noL allow Lhemselves Lo lnLrude
1he courLs cannoL exerclse conLrol over church auLhorlLles ln
Lhe performance of Lhelr dlscreLlonary and offlclal funcLlons.
lL ls for members of rellglous lnsLlLuLlons Lo conform Lo [usL
church regulaLlons.
lonacler v. CA: 1he power of excludlng from Lhe church Lhose
allegedly unworLhy of membershlp ls unquesLlonably an
eccleslasLlcal maLLer whlch are ouLslde Lhe provlnce of clvll
courLs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
unduly ln maLLers of eccleslasLlcal naLure.
IkLL LkLkCISL CI kLLIGICN
13 vlcLorlano v.
Lllzalde

C.8. no.
L-23246

SepLember 12,
1974
lAC1S:
8en[amln vlcLorlano, a member of lnglesla nl CrlsLo," was
employed by Lllzalde 8ope lacLory, lnc. We was a member of
Lhe Lllzalde 8ope Workers' unlon, whlch had wlLh a company
a C8A conLalnlng a closed shop provlslon whlch sald LhaL
membershlp ln Lhe unlon shall be requlred as a condlLlon of
employmenL.
kA 33S0 was enacLed and lnLroduced an amendmenL LhaL
such agreemenLs shall noL cover members of rellglous secLs,
whlch prohlblL afflllaLlon of Lhelr members ln any such labor
organlzaLlon."
8elng a member of a rellglous secL whlch prohlblLs afflllaLlon,
vlcLorlano presenLed hls reslgnaLlon Lo Lhe unlon. Pe was
noLlfled LhaL unless he could achleve a saLlsfacLory
arrangemenL wlLh Lhe unlon, Lhe company would be forced
Lo dlsmlss hlm.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8A 3330 ls consLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
?LS. 1he AcL does noL vlolaLe Lhe esLabllshmenL of rellglon
clause or Lhe mandaLe of separaLlon of Church and SLaLe.

ln enacLlng Lhe sald law, Congress merely accommodaLed Lhe
rellglous needs of Lhose workers whose rellglon prohlblLs lLs
members from [olnlng labor unlons.
o lL balanced Lhe collecLlve rlghLs of organlzed labor
wlLh Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo freely exerclse a
person's chosen rellglon.
o 1o help clLlzens flnd galnful employmenL where Lhey
can make a llvlng Lo supporL Lhemselves and Lhelr
famllles ls a valld ob[ecLlve of Lhe sLaLe.
o 1he provlslon was lnLended Lo relleve Lhe exerclse of
rellglon of a burden lmposed by unlon securlLy
agreemenLs.
1he rlghL Lo exerclse one's rellglon has prlmacy over unlon
securlLy measures whlch are merely conLracLual.

14 CanLwell v.
ConnecLlcuL

310 u.S. 296

ueclded: May
lAC1S:
newLon CanLwell and hls Lwo sons were members of
!ehovah's WlLnesses who wenL house Lo house ln new
Paven, ConnecLlcuL playlng Lhelr phonograph and glvlng
pamphleLs ln exchange for some donaLlon or paymenL. 1hese
were found Lo be agalnsL CaLhollcs - ma[orlLy of Lhe people
1he AmendmenL embraces Lwo concepLs -- freedom Lo
belleve and freedom Lo acL. 1he flrsL ls absoluLe, buL, ln Lhe
naLure of Lhlngs, Lhe second cannoL be. ConducL remalns
sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon for Lhe proLecLlon of socleLy.
1hus Lhe requlremenL of Lhe sLaLe gov'L, of acqulrlng a
permlL/cerLlflcaLe before Lhey wlll be allowed Lo do whaL

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
20, 1940 ln LhaL communlLy.
1hey were arresLed and each was charged wlLh sLaLuLory and
common law offenses. Lach of Lhem was convlcLed on Lhe
vlolaLlon of 294 of Lhe Ceneral SLaLuLes of ConnecLlcuL and
on Lhe commlsslon of Lhe common law offense of lnclLlng a
breach of Lhe peace.
1he convlcLlons were challenged as denylng Lhe
consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of Lhe defendanLs. 1he appellanLs
pressed Lhe conLenLlon LhaL lL denled Lhem freedom of
speech and prohlblLed Lhelr free exerclse of rellglon.
lSSuL:
WheLher Lhe convlcLlon of CanLwell was vlolaLlve of Lhe
consLlLuLlonal guaranLees of rellglous llberLy and freedom of
speech.
PLLu:
?LS, Lhe sLaLuLe, as consLrued and applled Lo Lhe appellanLs,
deprlves Lhem of Lhelr llberLy wlLhouL due process of law ln
conLravenLlon of Lhe lourLeenLh AmendmenL.

Lhey dld, amounLs Lo a ptlot testtolot on Lhe exerclse of Lhelr
rellglon wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
1S uS v. 8allard

322 u.S. 78

Aprll 24, 1944
lAC1S:
8espondenLs Cuy W. 8allard, Ldna W. 8allard and uonald
8allard consplred Lo use mall Lo defraud people by
represenLlng Lhemselves as Lhe selecLed dlvlne messengers
Lhrough whlch Lhe words of Lhe ascended masLers"
lncludlng SalnL Cermaln would be communlcaLed Lo Lhem
under Leachlngs known as Lhe l Am" MovemenL.
1hey were Lhen lndlcLed for consplracy Lo defraud. Larly ln
Lhe Lrlal however, Lhe lower courL conferred wlLh boLh
counsel, who Lhen approved such, Lo conflne Lhe lssues of
Lhe case Lo Lhe quest|on of the good fa|th of respondents.
When 8espondenLs were convlcLed, Lhey soughL a reversal of
Lhe convlcLlon sLaLlng LhaL Lhe wlLhdrawal of lssues from Lhe
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe lower courL wlLhdrew from Lhe [ury's
conslderaLlon only Lhe LruLh or falslLy of Lhe represenLaLlon made by
8espondenLs whlch relaLed Lo rellglous concepLs or bellefs. 1he CourL
furLher sLaLed LhaL Lhe only lssue submlLLed Lo Lhe [ury was Lhe
quesLlon of respondenLs' bellef ln Lhelr represenLaLlons and
promlses.

1he CourL furLher sLaLed LhaL slnce Lhe 8espondenLs only ob[ecLed Lo
Lhe submlsslon of Lhe slngular lssue Lo Lhe [ury, Lhey are noL barred
from movlng for a new Lrlal. 1he Court stated a|so that the quest|on
of truth or ver|ty of the respondents' re||g|ous representat|ons
shou|dn't have been subm|tted to the [ury |n the f|rst p|ace on the
bas|s of the I|rst Amendment.
1wo-fo|d aspect of k|ght
to ke||g|ous rofess|on
and Worsh|p (Lhls case
clLes CanLwell v.
ConnecLlcuL)

Ireedom to 8e||eve:
AbsoluLe as long as Lhe
bellef ls conflned wlLhln
Lhe realm of LhoughL

Ireedom to Act on Cne's
8e||efs: Sub[ecL Lo
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
[ury was error because lL was an amendmenL of Lhe
lndlcLmenL. Pence Lhls appeal.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe reversal of convlcLlon was proper on Lhe
ground of rellglous freedom.

PLLu:
no. 1he CourL reversed Lhe [udgmenL and remanded Lhe Lrlal
back Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals for furLher proceedlngs.

Pavlng a dual aspecL, Lhe llrsL AmendmenL embraces noL only Lhe
concepL of freedom Lo acL buL also freedom Lo belleve. Pence, even lf
8espondenLs belleved ln Lheorles of llfe and deaLh LhaL may seem
lmprobable, Lhey are free Lo belleve so, represenL Lhemselves as such
and convlnce oLhers of LruLh" LhaL Lhey possess".
regulaLlon where Lhe
bellef ls trans|ated |nto
exLernal acLs LhaL affecL
publlc welfare.

16 Amerlcan
8lble SocleLy
v. ClLy of
Manlla

C.8. no. L-
9637

Aprll 30, 1937
lAC1S:
lalnLlff ls appeallng Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Cll of Manlla,
dlsmlsslng Lhelr sulL agalnsL Lhe ClLy 1reasurer of Manlla.
1he ClLy 1reasurer of Manlla lnformed Lhe lalnLlff LhaL lL was
conducLlng Lhe buslness of general merchandlse slnce 1943
wlLhouL Lhe necessary Mayor's permlL and munlclpal llcense
ln vlolaLlon of ClLy Crdlnance nos. 3000, 2329, 3028 and
3364
lalnLlff-appellanL conLends LhaL Lhe lmposlLlon of Lax
ordlnance for lLs dlsLrlbuLlon and sale of blbles are
unconsLlLuLlonal because lL resLralns Lhe free exerclse and
en[oymenL of lLs rellglous professlon and worshlp

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL ClLy Crdlnance nos. 3000, 2329 3028 and
3364 are unconsLlLuLlonal/appllcable Lo lalnLlff-AppellanL.

PLLu:
ClLy Crdlnance nos. 3000, 2329, 3028 and 3364 are
CCnS1l1u1lCnAL buL lnALlCA8LL Lo lalnLlff-AppellanL.
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe rlghL of free exerclse and en[oymenL of
rellglous professlon and worshlp can on|y be [ust|f|ed on Lhe grounds
LhaL Lhere ls a CLLAk AND kLSLN1 DANGLk of any SU8S1AN1IVL
LVIL that the State has the kIGn1 1C kLVLN1.

1he CourL ln Lhe hereln case, flnds no such lmpalrmenL of rlghLs.
Whlle Crdlnance no. 2329 as amended and 3000 are appllcable as
Laxlng ordlnances for dealers engaged ln general merchandlse, sald
ordlnances are noL lmposed dlrecLly upon any rellglous lnsLlLuLlons
parLlcularly Lhe lalnLlff-appellanL.

1he CourL also ruled LhaL whlle Lhe lalnLlff-appellanL ls engaged ln
Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon and sale of rellglous paraphernalla, sald occupaLlon
of Lhe plalnLlff does noL come wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Crdlnance no.
2329 whlch ls lmposed on Lhose engaged ln Lhe occupaLlon of selllng
merchandlse" for proflL.

lmposlng Crdlnance no. 2329 on Lhe lalnLlff Lherefore would be
LanLamounL Lo an lmpalrmenL of lLs rellglous professlon and worshlp
as well as lLs rlghL of dlssemlnaLlon of rellglous bellef.

Clear and resenL uanger
1esL:

When words used under
such clrcumsLances are
of such a naLure as Lo
creaLe a CLLA8 Anu
8LSLn1 uAnCL8 LhaL
Lhey wlll brlng abouL Lhe
subsLanLlve evlls LhaL Lhe
SLaLe has a rlghL Lo
prevenL
17 Lbrallnag v. lAC1S: 8lghL Lo rellglous professlon has a Lwo-fold aspecL: freedom Cerona v. SecreLary of
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
ulvlslon Super-
lnLendenL

C.8. no.
93770

March 1, 1993
!ehovah's WlLnesses admlLLedly LaughL Lhelr chlldren noL Lo
saluLe Lhe flag. 1hey feel bound by Lhe 8lble's command Lo
guard ourselves from ldols." 1hey conslder Lhe flag as an
lmage or ldol represenLlng Lhe sLaLe.
1he chlldren and Lhe Leachers who refused Lo parLlclpaLe ln
Lhe flag ceremony were elLher dlsmlssed or expelled from
Lhe schools.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner's freedom of rellglon was vlolaLed

PLLu:
?LS. lreedom of rellglon ls a fundamenLal rlghL and should be
accorded wlLh greaL respecL.
Lo belleve and freedom Lo acL on one's bellef.
1here ls no danger ln allowlng Lhe !ehovah's WlLnesses Lo be
exempLed from Lhe flag ceremony.
lorclng a rellglous group Lo parLlclpaLe ln a ceremony LhaL
vlolaLes Lhelr rellglous bellefs ls noL conduclve Lo love of
counLry.
Slmllar exempLlons have been granLed Lo oLher rellglous
groups.
o vlcLorlano v. Lllzalde " When general laws confllcL
wlLh Lhe consclence, exempLlons oughL Lo be granLed
unLLSS some compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL" lnLervenes.
LducaLlon: 1he flag ls noL
an lmage buL a symbol of
Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe
hlllpplnes. 1he flag
ceremony has no
rellglous slgnlflcance, Lhe
flag ceremony ls noL a
rellglous ceremony. 1he
sLaLe ls merely enforclng
a non-dlscrlmlnaLory
school regulaLlon
appllcable Lo all.
18 Wlsconsln v.
?oder

406 uS 203

May 13, 1972

lAC1S:
Wlsconsln passed Lhe Compu|sory Attendance Law whlch
requlres klds Lo aLLend school unLll Lhey are 16.
8espondenLs are members of Lhe Amlsh rellglon. 8ecause of
Lhelr bellefs, Lhey refused Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo school
afLer Lhe 8
Lh
Crade.
1he school dlsLrlcL admlnlsLraLor for publlc schools flled a
complalnL agalnsL respondenL, Lhey were found gullLy of CAL
and were flned.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL CAL ls vlolaLlve of Lhelr rlghLs under Lhe Iree
Lxerc|se C|ause.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he Amlsh musL be exempLed from Lhe CAL, Lhe sLaLe's
responslblllLy ln ensurlng educaLlon for all lLs clLlzens musL
yleld Lo Lhe rlghL of Lhe parenLs Lo provlde educaLlon for Lhelr
1he lmpacL of Lhe CAL on respondenL's pracLlce of Lhe Amlsh
rellglous ls noL only severe, buL also lnescapable. 1hey wlll be forced
Lo elLher (1) abandon Lhelr bellef or, (2) mlgraLe Lo some oLher more
LoleranL rellglon.
1he LradlLlonal way of llfe of Lhe Amlsh ls noL merely a maLLer
of personal preference, buL of a Jeep tellqloos coovlctloo,
shared by an organlzed group, and lnLlmaLely relaLed Lo dally
llvlng.
1hrough secondary schoollng, Amlsh chlldren are exposed Lo
worldly lnfluences ln Lerms of aLLlLudes, goals, and values
conLrary Lo bellefs. 8y subsLanLlally lnLerferlng wlLh Lhe
rellglous developmenL of Lhe Amlsh chlld and hls lnLegraLlon
lnLo Lhe way of llfe of Lhe Amlsh communlLy, Lhelr baslc
rellglous LeneLs and pracLlce of Lhe Amlsh falLh ls
conLravened.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
chlldren as Lhey deem approprlaLe.
19 amll v.
1eleron

C.8. no. L-
34834

november 20,
1978

lAC1S:
ln 1971, 8everend laLher Conzaga was elecLed as mayor of
Alburquerque. rlor Lo belng elecLed, hls candldacy was
upheld by CCMLLLC as Sec. 23 of the L|ect|on Code was
deemed Lo have llfLed Lhe absoluLe dlsquallflcaLlon over
eccleslasLlcs when lL was dropped ln Lhe enumeraLed llsL.
AfLer elecLlons, amll, Lhe prevlous mayor, lnvoked Sec. 217S
of the kev|sed Adm|n|strat|ve Code of 1917 whlch
dlsquallfles clergymen from holdlng a munlclpal offlce.
Lower CourL ruled LhaL Sec. 23 of the 1917 L|ect|on Code
lmplledly repealed Sec. 217S and susLalned Conzaga as
mayor.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 217S of the kev|sed Adm|n|strat|ve
Code has been lmplledly repealed by Lhe 1917 L|ect|on Code.

PLLu:
lSSuL nC1 8uLLu Cn. 8 voLes needed Lo make a declslon
could noL be garnered whlch led Lo Lhe reversal of Lhe lower
courL's declslon and Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of lr. Conzaga.

1he challenged provlslon ls on lLs face lnconslsLenL wlLh rellglous
freedom guaranLeed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon as lL lmposes a rellglous LesL.
As held ln 1orcaso v. Waklns, lL was lack ln bellef ln Cod LhaL
was a dlsquallflcaLlon. ln Lhe presenL case, belng an
eccleslasLlc and Lherefore professlng a rellglous falLh sufflces
Lo dlsquallfy for a publlc offlce.
1he 1933 ConsLlLuLlon acLed Lo prevenL Lhe ban lmposed by
Lhe Adm|n|strat|ve Code from survlvlng as lL lmposes a
rellglous LesL" LhaL ls noL allowed under Lhe fundamenLal
law.
ulssenLlng Cplnlon of
1eebookee. Lo dlsquallfy
Lhem from belng voLed
for and elecLed Lo
munlclpal offlce ls Lo
exacL a rellglous LesL for
Lhe exerclse of Lhelr
pollLlcal rlghLs as lL
compels Lhem Lo shed off
Lhelr rellglous mlnlsLry
for Lhe exerclse of Lhelr
pollLlcal rlghL Lo run for
offlce. 1o enforce Lhe
dlsquallflcaLlon agalnsL
eccleslasLlcs ls Lo
wrongfully lnvade
freedom of bellef and
rellglon and Lo lmpose
upon hlm a rellglous LesL.
20 Mcuanlel v.
aLy

433 u.S. 618

Aprll 19, 1978
lAC1S:
Mcuanlel ls an ordalned mlnlsLer ln 1ennessee durlng Lhe call
for Lhe 1977 llmlLed consLlLuLlonal convenLlon.
Ch. 848, 4, of 1976 1enn.ub.Acts was enacLed whlch
llmlLed poLenLlal delegaLes Lo Lhose who can quallfy Lo be
leglslaLors. under lLs ConsLlLuLlon, mlnlsLers are expressly
lnellglble Lo a seaL ln elLher Pouse of LeglslaLure.
4 of ch. 848 was sLrlcken down by Lhe Chancery CourL for
belng vlolaLlve of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL and declared
noL a vlolaLlon ln Lerms of resLralnlng freedom of rellglous bellef.
Powever, Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe free exerclse of rellglon
undoubLedly encompasses Lhe rlghL Lo perform rellglous
funcLlons or Lo be a mlnlsLer of Lhe Lype Mcuanlel was found
Lo be. 1he mlnlsLerlal sLaLus ls deflned ln Lerms of cooJoct
and octlvlty, raLher Lhan ln Lerms of bellef.
1ennessee acknowledges Lhe rlghL of lLs adulL clLlzens
generally Lo seek and hold offlce as leglslaLors or delegaLes Lo
Lhe sLaLe consLlLuLlonal convenLlon. 8uL under Lhe clergy

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Mcuanlel ellglble, he was laLer elecLed.
1ennessee SC reversed Lhe declslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 4 of ch. 848 deprlves Mcuanlel of hls rlghL
Lo Lhe free exerclse of rellglon

PLLu:
?LS. under Lhe clergy dlsquallflcaLlon provlslon, Lhe SLaLe has
condlLloned Lhe exerclse of one on Lhe surrender of Lhe
oLher, by dolng so, 1ennessee has encroached on Mcuanlel's
rlghL Lo Lhe free exerclse of rellglon

dlsquallflcaLlon provlslon, Mcuanlel cannoL exerclse boLh
rlghLs slmulLaneously, because Lhe SLaLe has condlLloned Lhe
exerclse of one on Lhe surrender of Lhe oLher. 8y dolng so,
1ennessee has encroached on Mcuanlel's rlghL Lo Lhe free
exerclse of rellglon.
21 Coldman v.
Welnberger

473 u.S. 303
lAC1S:
Slmcha Coldman (who serves ln Lhe hosplLal aL Lhe alr force
base ln Callfornla) was prohlblLed from wearlng hls yarmulke
afLer a complalnL was flled wlLh hls superlor, Colonel !oseph
Cregory, LhaL Coldman was vlolaLlng A|r Iorce kegu|at|on
3S-10 whlch demands LhaL all personnel adhere Lo a unlform
aLLlre. eLlLloner's counsel argues LhaL such prohlblLlon
conLravenes an lndlvlduals rlghL Lo exerclse rellglous bellefs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe mlllLary's appllcaLlon of AIk 3S9-10,
whlch prevenLs peLlLloner from wearlng hls yarmulke,
lnfrlnged upon hls llrsL AmendmenL freedom Lo exerclse hls
rellglous bellef.

PLLu:
nC. 1he mlllLary ls a speclallzed socleLy separaLe from clvlllan
socleLy. lL ls undersLandable LhaL Lhey wlll have cerLaln
requlremenLs for respecL and dlsclpllne whlch has no
lndlvldual freedom musL glve way Lo Lhe requlremenLs of a
speclallzed communlLy llke LhaL of Lhe mlllLary:
1o accompllsh lLs mlsslon, Lhe mlllLary musL fosLer lnsLlncLlve
obedlence, unlLy, commlLmenL, and esprlL de corps.
1he mlllLary auLhorlLles have been charged by Lhe LxecuLlve
and LeglslaLlve branches wlLh carrylng ouL Lhe naLlon's
mlllLary pollcy. !udlclal deference musL be aL lLs hlghesL
polnL.
1he lnescapable demands of mlllLary dlsclpllne and
obedlence Lo orders cannoL be LaughL on baLLleflelds, Lhe
hablL of lmmedlaLe compllance wlLh mlllLary procedures and
orders musL be vlrLually reflex, wlLh no Llme for debaLe or
reflecLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
counLerparL ln clvlllan llfe.

22 Cerman v.
8arangan

C.8. no. L-
68828

March 27,
1983
lAC1S:
lnvoklng freedom Lo rellglous worshlp and locomoLlon,
peLlLloners seek Lo compel respondenLs Lo allow Lhem Lo
enLer and pray lnslde SL. !ude Chapel aL !.. Laurel SLreeL,
Manlla (whlch ad[olns Lhe Malacanang grounds).
1hey seek Lo en[oln respondenLs from prevenLlng Lhem from
geLLlng lnLo and praylng ln sald church on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
peLlLloners lnLenLs were noL really Lo perform an acL of
rellglous worshlp, buL Lo conducL an anLl- governmenL rally aL
a place close Lo Lhe resldence of Lhe resldenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenLs vlolaLed Lhe freedom Lo
rellglous worshlp and locomoLlon of Lhe peLlLloners and may
be en[olned from prevenLlng Lhe laLLer from hearlng mass aL
sub[ecL church.

PLLu:
nC. eLlLloners were noL denled or resLralned of Lhelr
freedom of bellef or cholce of Lhelr rellglon, buL only ln Lhe
manner by whlch Lhey aLLempLed Lo exerclse such.

8lghLs musL be exerclsed ln good falLh.
Whlle everyone has Lhe rlghL Lo freedom of rellglous worshlp
and locomoLlon, Lhese rlghLs musL be exerclsed ln good falLh.
o As columnlsL !.. lenlx correcLly observed, Lhe
peLlLloners were members of Lhe AugusL 1wenLy-Cne
MovemenL and Lhey Lrled Lo geL close Lo Malacanang
vla Lhe church.
1he resLrlcLlon lmposed by Lhe respondenLs was lnLended Lo
secure Lhe several execuLlve offlces LhaL llnk Lhe cenLral
governmenL Lo all places ln Lhe land. 1he resLrlcLlon ls
necessary Lo ensure Lhe smooLh funcLlonlng of governmenL.
1he resLrlcLlon on Lhe peLlLloners' rlghL Lo worshlp aL SL. !ude
Chapel was merely lncldenLal.

23 CenLeno v.
vlllalon-
ornlllos

C.8. no.
113092

SepLember 1,
lAC1S:
MarLln CenLeno, LogeLher wlLh vlcenLe ?co, wenL Lo !udge
Adoraclon Angeles Lo sollclL a conLrlbuLlon of 1,300 for Lhe
renovaLlon of Lhe chapel of 8arrlo 1lkay ln Malolos, 8ulacan.
1hls was done wltboot a permlL.
!udge Angeles Lhen flled a case agalnsL Lhe Lwo of Lhem for
vlolaLlon of u 1364 or Lhe SollclLaLlon ermlL Law. 1he Lwo
were found gullLy.
1. 8ellglous purposes are noL lncluded ln for charlLable
purposes" of u 1364.
o 1he 1987 ConsLlLuLlon, as well as oLher sLaLuLes, have
always separaLed Lhe words charlLable" and
rellglous".
o Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL sollclLaLlons for a rellglous
purpose are also acLs of charlLy, noL all charlLable
purposes are of rellglous naLure.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1994

When CenLeno and ?co Lhen appealed Lhe declslon Lo Lhe
81C of Malolos, !udge vlllalon-ornlllos afflrmed Lhe
[udgmenL buL lncreased Lhe penalLy Lo a flne of 1,000 and
lmprlsonmenL of slx monLhs.
eLlLloner Lhen appealed hls case Lo Lhe Supreme CourL. Pe
argued LhaL sollclLaLlons for rellglous purposes" no longer
need a permlL because u 1364 expllclLly sLaLes for
charlLable and publlc welfare purposes" only.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe SLaLe may penallze rellglous sollclLaLlon
wlLhouL abrldglng Lhe freedom Lo exerclse one's rellglon.

PLLu:
SollclLaLlons for rellglous purposes are nC1 A81 of for
charlLable purposes" ln u 1364. eLlLloner could have
sollclLed donaLlons even wlLhouL securlng a permlL.

2. 1he SLaLe may regulaLe Lhe free exerclse of rellglon, and may
lmpose penalLles on rellglous sollclLaLlons, under proper
safeguards.
o 8ellglous freedom has Lwo aspecLs-Lhe freedom Lo
belleve ln any rellglon and Lhe freedom Lo pracLlce lL.
(lormer ls absoluLe)
o 1he SLaLe has Lhe freedom Lo regulaLe Lhe manner of
sollclLaLlon generally ln Lhe lnLeresL of publlc safeLy,
peace, comforL, and convenlence.
24 Lee v.
Welsman

C.8. no.
L-43439

March 13,
1937
lAC1S:
ueborah Welsman graduaLed from naLhan 8lshop Mlddle
School, a publlc school ln rovldence, aL a formal ceremony.
1he school offlclals lncluded an lnvocaLlon or benedlcLlon aL
Lhe graduaLlon ceremony.
A case was flled by her faLher, uanlel Welsman, Lo bar
peLlLloners from lnvlLlng Lhe clergy Lo dellver lnvocaLlons and
benedlcLlons aL fuLure graduaLlons.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL rellglous exerclse may be conducLed aL a
graduaLlon ceremony ln clrcumsLances where young
graduaLes who ob[ecL are lnduced Lo conform

PLLu:
1here ls real ln[ury on Lhe parL of Lhe nonbellever when he ls
forced Lo pray by Lhe SLaLe ln a manner her consclence wlll
noL allow.
1he SLaLe's lnvolvemenL wlLh school prayers vlolaLes Lhe
cenLral prlnclples of Lhe LsLabllshmenL Clause.
o 1here ls a consLlLuLlonal guaranLee LhaL Lhe
governmenL may noL coerce anyone Lo supporL or
parLlclpaLe ln rellglon, or acL ln a way whlch
esLabllshes a sLaLe rellglon, or Lends Lo do so."
8ellglous expresslon ls a personal cholce ln one's personal
sphere.
Cood falLh on Lhe parL of
defendanLs ls lmmaLerlal.

1he argumenL LhaL Lhe
aLLendance Lo graduaLlon
ceremonles ls opLlonal ls
noL an an excuse
because hlgh school
graduaLlon ls one of Lhe
mosL slgnlflcanL occaslon
ln Amerlcan culLure.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
nC. lncludlng clerlcal members Lo offer prayer as a parL of
Lhe offlclal school ceremony ls noL conslsLenL wlLh Lhe
8ellglon Clause of Lhe llrsL AmendmenL.

2S 1he Church of
Lukuml 8abalu
v. Palleah

308 uS 320

!uly 11, 1993
lAC1S:
Crdlnances ln Palleah, llorlda, were passed, forblddlng Lhe
unnecessary kllllng" of an anlmal ln a publlc or prlvaLe
rlLual noL for Lhe prlmary purpose of food consumpLlon." 1he
Church of Lhe Lukuml 8abalu Aye, adhered Lo SanLerla, a
rellglon where many of lLs rlLuals lnvolve anlmal sacrlflce.
1he law was enacLed soon afLer Lhe councll of Palleah
learned LhaL Lhe church, whlch pracLlced SanLerla, was
plannlng Lo locaLe Lhere

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a vlolaLlon of Lhe lree Lxerclse
Clause

PLLu:
?LS. 1he law was enacLed Lo suppress SanLerla's cenLral
elemenL, anlmal sacrlflce.
Where a law ls noL neuLral or noL of general appllcaLlon, lL
musL undergo rlgorous scruLlny.
o lL musL be [usLlfled by compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL and
musL be narrowly Lallored Lo advance LhaL lnLeresL.
o 1he ordlnances' varlous prohlblLlons, deflnlLlons, and
exempLlons demonsLraLe LhaL Lhey were made Lo
proscrlbe rellglous kllllngs of anlmals by SanLerla
church.
o 1hey also suppress much more rellglous conducL
Lhan necessary.
1he ordlnances are also underlncluslve." 1he law prohlblLs
anlmal kllllngs relaLed Lo rellglous sacrlflce buL do noL
prohlblL or approve by express provlslon anlmal kllls for
nonrellglous reasons.

26 Lamb's Chapel
v. School
ulsLrlcL

no. 91-2024

!une 11, 1993

lAC1S:
new ?ork law auLhorlzes local school boards Lo adopL
reasonable regulaLlons permlLLlng Lhe afLer-hours use of
school properLy for 10 speclfled purposes, oot locloJloq
meetloqs fot tellqloos potposes.
ursuanL Lo Lhls law, respondenL school board (ulsLrlcL)
lssued rules and regulaLlons allowlng, lotet ollo, soclal, clvlc,
and recreaLlonal uses of lLs schools (8ule 10), buL prohlblLlng
use by any group fot tellqloos potposes (8ule 7).
Lamb's Chapel LogeLher wlLh lLs asLor applled Lo Lhe School
Lo show a fllm, uslng school faclllLles, a rellglous-orlenLed fllm
1here ls no quesLlon LhaL Lhe ulsLrlcL may legally preserve Lhe
properLy under lLs conLrol, and need noL have permlLLed
afLer-hours use for any of Lhe uses permlLLed under sLaLe
law.
Powever 8ule 7 Jlsctlmlootes on Lhe basls of vlewpolnL by
permlLLlng school properLy Lo be used for Lhe presenLaLlon of
all vlews abouL famlly lssues and chlldrearlng except Lhose
deallng wlLh Lhe sub[ecL from a rellglous sLandpolnL.
ermlLLlng ulsLrlcL properLy Lo be used Lo exhlblL Lhe fllm
would noL have been an esLabllshmenL of rellglon under Lhe
Lhree-parL LesL arLlculaLed ln Lemon v. kurLzman

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
serles on famlly values and chlldrearlng.
1he School ulsLrlcL refused on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe fllm
appeared Lo be church-relaLed
1he Church flled sulL ln Lhe ulsLrlcL CourL, clalmlng LhaL Lhe
ulsLrlcL's acLlons vlolaLed Lhe llrsL AmendmenL's lreedom of
Speech Clause.

lSSuL:
WheLher Lhls sLaLe law, vlolaLes Lhe lree Speech Clause of
Lhe llrsL AmendmenL, made appllcable Lo Lhe SLaLes by Lhe
lourLeenLh AmendmenL, Lo deny a church access Lo school
premlses Lo exhlblL for publlc vlewlng and for asserLedly
rellglous purposes, a fllm deallng wlLh famlly and chlldrearlng
lssues faced by parenLs Loday.

PLLu:
?LS, denylng Lhe Church access Lo school premlses Lo exhlblL
Lhe fllm vlolaLes Lhe lreedom of Speech Clause.

1here would be oo teollstlc Jooqet LhaL Lhe communlLy
would Lhlnk LhaL Lhe ulsLrlcL was endorslng rellglon or any
parLlcular creed, and any beneflL Lo rellglon or Lhe Church
would have been lncldenLal.
27 Long v. 8asa

C.8. no.
134963-64

SepLember 27,
2001
lAC1S:
eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhelr expulslon from membershlp
wlLh Lhe CPu8CP by lLs 8oard of ulrecLors Lhrough a
resoluLlon was noL ln accordance wlLh law.
1he CPu8CP ASSLM8L? PALL, duly lncorporaLed Lhrough Lhe
SLC, has for lL's 8y-Laws found ln ArL. vll par. 4 Lhe procedure
for expelllng errlng or dlssldenL members. Such expulslon as
sLaLed by Lhe by-laws ls based elLher on Lhe fallure of any
member Lo observe any regulaLlons of Lhe CPu8CP or Lhe
conducL of such member has been dlshonorable or lmproper
Lo Lhe lnLeresL/characLer of Lhe CPu8CP.
eLlLloners, as sLaLed by Lhe 8espondenL 8oard of ulrecLors,
were found Lo be lnLroduclng docLrlnes and Leachlngs noL
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe lssue of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe expulslon can no
longer be ralsed for lL has already been deflnlLlvely resolved ln earller
declslon by Lhe SLC.

1he CourL also ruled LhaL Lhe 8y-laws of Lhe CPu8CP, duly
lncorporaLed by Lhe SLC and approved by lL, provldes LhaL lf any
member commlLs any of Lhe causes for expulslon may be expelled
Lhrough a resoluLlon by Lhe CPu8CP 8oard of ulrecLors wlLhouL
glvlng Lhe errlng member any noLlce prlor Lo hls expulslon.

1he CourL explalns LhaL Lhe lack of need of prlor noLlce ls Lhe nature
of a re||g|ous corporat|on. 1he relaLlonshlp beLween a rellglous
corporaLlon and lLs members ls Lhe laLLer's abso|ute adherence Lo a
8ellglous corporaLlon vls-
a-vls Secular corporaLlon:
no need for prlor noLlce
ln Lhe former
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
based on Lhe Poly 8lble and Lhe rlnclples of lalLh embraced
by Lhe Church, hence Lhelr expulslon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe expulslon of eLlLloners from
membershlp wlLh Lhe CPu8CP ls ln accordance wlLh law.

PLLu:
?LS. Lxpulslon of Lhe eLlLloners from Lhe CPu8CP by Lhe
8oard of ulrecLors ls ln accordance wlLh law.

common rellglous or splrlLual bellef hence, any dlssenL wlLh Lhls
common bellef glves rlse Lo Lhe LermlnaLlon of membershlp wlLh Lhe
rellglous corporaLlon. Such expu|s|on of any member who espouses
doctr|nes]teach|ngs contrary to that of h|s church, such act|on from
the church author|t|es |s conc|us|ve upon the c|v|| courts.
28 lglesla nl
CrlsLo (lnC) v.
CourL of
Appeals

C.8. no.
119673

!uly 26, 1996
lAC1S:
A peLlLlon for revlew of Lhe ueclslon daLed 24 March 1993 of
Lhe respondenL CourL of Appeals afflrmlng Lhe acLlon of Lhe
respondenL 8oard of 8evlew for Movlng lcLures and
1elevlslon whlch x-raLed Lhe 1v rogram Ang lglesla nl
CrlsLo".
eLlLloner conLends LhaL 8espondenL gravely abused lLs
dlscreLlon when lL prohlblLed Lhe alrlng of peLlLloner's
rellglous Lv programs for Lhe reason LhaL Lhey consLlLuLe an
aLLack agalnsL oLher rellglons.
eLlLloner also conLends LhaL 8espondenL has no power Lo
regulaLe 8LLlClCuS Lv programs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8espondenL graved abused lLs dlscreLlon and
has Lhe power Lo regulaLe peLlLloner's 1v program

PLLu:
?LS 1C 8C1P. 8espondenL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo regulaLe
peLlLloner's Lv program buL lL gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon
when lL had no ground Lo prohlblL lL by glvlng lL an x-raLlng"
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe 8espondenL 8oard has Lhe power Lo
regulaLe peLlLloner's rellglon Lv program as mandaLed by Sec. 3 D
1986, sLaLlng LhaL lf Lhe CourL allowed eLlLloner's clalm, LhaL
because of Lhe rellglous naLure of lLs Lelevlslon program lL should be
exempLed from Lhe 8oard's power Lo regulaLe, lL would be
LanLamounL Lo a vlolaLlon of Sec. S, Art. III of the Const|tut|on

1he CourL also ruled LhaL whlle Lhe 8espondenL dld ln facL have Lhe
power Lo regulaLe, lL saw Lhe need Lo reverse Lhe rullng of Lhe CA and
hold LhaL
1) 8espondenL falled Lo overLhrow Lhe presumpLlon of lnvalldlLy
when lL gave Lhe peLlLloner's program an x raLlng
2) WhaL Lhe 8oard and Lhe CA saw as an aLLack agalnsL oLher
rellglons, Lhe CourL merely called lL crlLlclsm
3) 8espondenLs couldn'L rely on Lhe ground aLLacks agalnsL anoLher
rellglon" ln glvlng Lhe Lv program an x raLlng because lL wasn'L found
under .u. no. 1986, Sec. 3
4) 8oLh respondenLs falled Lo apply Lhe CLLA8 Anu 8LSLn1 uAnCL8
8uLL

1he rlghL of free exerclse and en[oymenL of rellglous professlon and
1wo-fo|d aspect of k|ght
to ke||g|ous rofess|on
and Worsh|p (by !.
lsaganl Cruz)

1) lreedom Lo 8elleve:
AbsoluLe as long as
Lhe bellef ls conflned
wlLhln Lhe realm of
LhoughL

2) lreedom Lo AcL on
Cne's 8ellefs: Sub[ecL
Lo regulaLlon where
Lhe bellef ls
trans|ated |nto
exLernal acLs LhaL
affecL publlc welfare.

Cnce exLernallzed, hls
freedom of rellglous
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
worshlp can only be [usLlfled on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhere ls a CLLAk
AND kLSLN1 DANGLk of any SU8S1AN1IVL LVIL LhaL Lhe SLaLe has
Lhe kIGn1 1C kLVLN1

professlon and worshlp ls
sub[ecL Lo Lhe auLhorlLy
of Lhe SLaLe
29 LsLrada v.
LscrlLor

A.M. no. -02-
1631

AugusL 4, 2003
lAC1S:
Ale[andro LsLrada requesLed for an lnvesLlgaLlon of
respondenL for llvlng wlLh a man noL her husband whlle she
was sLlll legally marrled and havlng borne a chlld wlLhln Lhls
llve-ln arrangemenL. LsLrada belleved LhaL LscrlLor ls
commlLLlng a grossly lmmoral acL whlch Larnlshes Lhe lmage
of Lhe [udlclary, Lhus she should noL be allowed Lo remaln
employed.
8espondenL admlLLed she sLarLed llvlng wlLh Luclano
Cullaplo, !r. more Lhan 20 years ago when her husband was
sLlll allve buL llvlng wlLh anoLher woman. She llkewlse
admlLLed havlng a son wlLh Cullaplo buL denles any llablllLy
for alleged grossly lmmoral conducL because: 1) she ls a
member of Lhe !ehovah's WlLnesses and Lhe WaLch 1ower
SocleLy, 2) her con[ugal arrangemenL was ln conformlLy wlLh
Lhelr rellglous bellefs, and 3) her con[ugal arrangemenL wlLh
Cullaplo has Lhe approval of her congregaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenL should be found gullLy of gross
and lmmoral conducL

PLLu:
nC. LscrlLor's con[ugal arrangemenL cannoL be penallzed as
she has made ouL a case for exempLlon from Lhe law based
on her fundamenLal rlghL Lo rellglon.

1he hlllpplnes leans Lowards benevolenL neuLrallLy raLher
Lhan sLrlcL neuLrallLy.
1he hlllpplne Supreme CourL has adopLed a posLure
of noL lnvalldaLlng a law offenslve Lo rellglous
freedom buL carvlng ouL an excepLlon or upholdlng
an excepLlon Lo accommodaLe rellglous exerclse
where lL ls [usLlfled.
ln applylng Lhe compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL LesL from a
benevolenL neuLrallLy sLance, Lhere are Lwo sLeps.
o 1he flrsL lnqulry ls wheLher respondenL's rlghL Lo
rellglous freedom has been burdened. Chooslng
beLween keeplng her employmenL and abandonlng
her rellglous bellef and pracLlce and famlly on Lhe
one hand, and glvlng up her employmenL and
keeplng her rellglous pracLlce and famlly on Lhe oLher
hand, puLs a burden on her free exerclse of rellglon.
o 1he second sLep ls Lo ascerLaln respondenL's slncerlLy
ln her rellglous bellef. 8espondenL appears Lo be
slncere ln her rellglous bellef and pracLlce and ls noL
merely uslng Lhe "ueclaraLlon of ledglng
lalLhfulness" Lo avold punlshmenL for lmmorallLy.
She dld noL secure Lhe ueclaraLlon only afLer
enLerlng Lhe [udlclary where Lhe moral sLandards are
sLrlcL and deflned, much less only afLer an
admlnlsLraLlve case for lmmorallLy was flled agalnsL
her.
SLrlcL neuLrallLy proLecLs
Lhe prlnclple of church-
sLaLe separaLlon wlLh a
rlgld readlng of Lhe
prlnclple.

8enevolenL neuLrallLy
proLecLs rellglous
reallLles, LradlLlon, and
esLabllshed pracLlce wlLh
a flexlble readlng of Lhe
prlnclple.
30 ln 8e: 8equesL lAC1S: llrsL requesL has sLaLuLory basls under Sec. 3 of D291, as amended 2-fold aspecL of lree
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
of Musllm
Lmployees ln
Lhe ulfferenL
CourL of lllgan
ClLy

A.M. no. 02-2-
10-SC

uecember 14,
2003
Several Musllm employees of dlfferenL courLs ln lllgan ClLy
requesLed 2 Lhlngs: (1) hold offlce hours from 7:30-3:30pm,
wlLhouL breaks durlng Lhe monLh of 8amadan, (2) be excused
from work from 10-2pm every lrlday (musllm prayer day).
LxecuLlve !udge Salazar granLed Lhe flrsL buL expressed
mlsglvlngs on Lhe second.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Lwo requesLs should be granLed.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he flrsL requesL ls granLed, and Lhe second one ls
denled.
by D322.
lL ls expllclLly allowed by law.
Second requesL lacks sLaLuLory basls and ls based solely on Lhe CSC
keso|ut|on No. 81-1277.
1he decrees do noL menLlon lrlday, Lhe Musllm rayer uay,"
as a recognlzed hollday.
lree exerclse clause's 2 aspecLs:
! lreedom Lo 8elleve
! lreedom Lo AcL
o CovernmenL offlce hours musL be enforced unlformly
on all clvll servanLs, absenL a clear exempLlon.
o 1he performance of rellglous pracLlces should noL
pre[udlce Lhe courLs and Lhe publlc. CLher rellglous
pracLlces mlghL requesL for slmllar LreaLmenL.
Lxerclse Clause:
(1) lreedom Lo 8elleve -
Man ls free Lo belleve as
he pleases. Pe may noL
be requlred Lo prove hls
bellefs. Lveryone has a
rlghL Lo hls bellefs and he
may noL be called Lo
accounL because he
cannoL prove whaL he
belleves.
(2) lreedom Lo AcL -
8ellglous pracLlces whlch
are lnlmlcal Lo socleLy
musL be prevenLed. 1hls
llberLy can be en[oyed
only wlLh proper regard
lor Lhe rlghL of oLhers.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -

%!*' .!%/0"+1,2 +3 #4' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
&$.'"#5 +3 !.+2' !,2 "$04# #+ #"!6'&
7 vlllavlcenclo v.
Lukban

C.8. no. L-
14639

March 29,
1919
lAC1S:
Mayor Lukban ordered Lhe deporLaLlon of 170 prosLlLuLes Lo
uavao where Lhey were recelved as laborers.
Pabeas Corpus was flled by Lhe frlends and relaLlves of Lhe
prosLlLuLes, and was granLed by Lhe CourL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Mayor acLed wlLh legal basls, maklng Lhe
lssuance of habeas corpus lmproper

PLLu:
nC. 1here was no legal basls, ln facL hls acL ls prohlblLed
under Lhe enal Code, Lhe wrlL was properly lssued.
1here ls no law whlch empowers Lhe Mayor of Manlla Lo force any
clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes Lo change Lhelr domlclle from Manlla Lo any
oLher locallLy, ln facL, hls acLlons are agalnsL Lhe law
1
.
Lven Lhe hlllpplne Covernor-Ceneral, or Lhe uS resldenL
does noL have Lhe power Lo compel anyone Lo change Lhelr
domlclle. WhaL more for a mayor.
8espondenLs are mlsLaken ln Lhelr argumenL LhaL Lhe persons ln
quesLlon are noL resLralned of Lhelr llberLy slnce Lhey are free ln
uavao and noL under any resLralnL.
1he forclble Laklng of Lhese women from Manlla deprlved
Lhem of freedom of locomoLlon [usL as lf Lhey were
lmprlsoned. 8ecause Lhey dld noL have any money or
personal belonglngs, Lhey were prevenLed from golng Lo
wherever Lhey wanL when Lhey were broughL Lo uavao.
1
ArL. 211 of Lhe Cld enal
Code punlshes a publlc
offlcer who, noL belng
expressly auLhorlzed by
law or regulaLlon,
compels any person Lo
change hls resldence.
8 Marcos v.
Manglapus

C.8. no. 88211

SepLember 13,
1989
lAC1S:
Marcos ls dylng and requesLs Lo be allowed Lo reLurn Lo Lhe
hlllpplnes, lnvoklng hls rlghL Lo Lravel and llberLy of abode as
well as slmllar rlghLs under lnLernaLlonal law.
resldenL Aqulno has barred hlm from reLurnlng for naLlonal
securlLy reasons.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe resldenL acLed arblLrarlly or ln CAuALL!
ln barrlng hls reLurn

PLLu:
nC. 1here was facLual bases Lo supporL her declslon.
1he rlghL Lo Lravel and llberLy of abode are noL absoluLe rlghLs and
may be llmlLed ln llghL of governmenLal lnLeresLs such as naLlonal
securlLy, and general welfare.
So Lhe requesL or demand of Lhe Marcoses cannoL be
consldered solely on Lhelr rlghL Lo Lravel or llberLy of abode,
lL should submlL Lo Lhe exerclse of a broader dlscreLlon on
Lhe parL of Lhe resldenL Lo deLermlne whaL ls necessary Lo
safeguard and proLecL general welfare.
1he resldenL has deLermlned LhaL Lhe desLablllzaLlon caused
by Lhe reLurn of Lhe Marcoses would wlpe away Lhe galns
achleved durlng Lhe pasL few years and lead Lo LoLal
economlc collapse.
1he CourL cannoL close lLs eyes Lo presenL reallLles and
**Welrd 8ullng LhaL
uean does noL agree
wlLh - 1he rlghL Lo reLurn
Lo one's counLry ls noL ln
Lhe 8lll of 8lghLs, whlch
LreaLs only of Lhe llberLy
of abode and Lhe rlghL Lo
Lravel, buL lL ls our well-
consldered vlew LhaL Lhe
rlghL Lo reLurn may be
consldered, as a
generally accepLed
prlnclple of lnLernaLlonal
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
preLend LhaL Lhe counLry ls noL besleged from wlLhln by a
well-organlzed communlsL lnsurgency, a separaLlsL
movemenL ln Mlndanao, rlghLlsL consplracles Lo grab power,
urban Lerrorlsm, Lhe murder wlLh lmpunlLy of mlllLary men,
pollce offlcers and clvlllan offlclals, Lo menLlon only a few.
1he documenLed hlsLory of Lhe efforLs of Lhe Marcose's and
Lhelr followers Lo desLablllze Lhe counLry, as earller narraLed
ln Lhls !"#$#%&' bolsLers Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe %'(')*(&%
$,,$%( of Lhe reLurn of Lhe Marcoses aL Lhls Llme would only
exacerbaLe and lnLenslfy Lhe vlolence dlrecLed agalnsL Lhe
SLaLe and lnsLlgaLe more chaos.

law and, under our
ConsLlLuLlon, ls parL of
Lhe law of Lhe land.
Powever, lL ls dlsLlncL
and separaLe from Lhe
rlghL Lo Lravel and en[oys
a dlfferenL proLecLlon
under Lhe lCC8.

9 Sllverlo v. CA

C.8. no. 94284

Aprll 8, 1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was charged wlLh vlolaLlon of Lhe *:;<=>? 8@ABC)
":D=E:F *:;GH=<=:E !;<. LaLer, he posLed ball.
1he CourL found LhaL slnce Lhe flllng of Lhe case, Lhe
peLlLloner has noL been arralgned because he had gone
abroad several Llmes wlLhouL necessary courL approval.
1he lower courL lssued a hold deparLure order agalnsL hereln
peLlLloner, and had lssued several warranLs for hls arresL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CA "glarlngly erred" ln flndlng LhaL Lhe
rlghL Lo Lravel can be lmpalred upon lawful order of Lhe
CourL, even on grounds oLher Lhan Lhe "lnLeresL of naLlonal
securlLy, publlc safeLy or publlc healLh."

PLLu:
nC. 1he rlghL Lo Lravel may be lmpalred on grounds C1PL8
1PAn of naLlonal securlLy, publlc safeLy, or publlc healLh."

1he posLlng of ball ls for provlslonal llberLy under Lhe condlLlon LhaL
Lhe accused musL make hlmself avallable aL all Llmes whenever Lhe
CourL requlres hls presence.
ManoLoc !r. v. CA, eL al ! 1he condlLlon for ball bond
operaLes as a valld resLrlcLlon of one's rlghL Lo Lravel.

1he rlghL Lo Lravel may be lmpalred on grounds C1PL8 1PAn of
naLlonal securlLy, publlc safeLy, or publlc healLh"
!H<=;I: $$$) *:;<=>? - >J <K: 7LMN %>?E<=<G<=>? should be
lnLerpreLed Lo mean LhaL whlle Lhe llberLy of Lravel may be
lmpalred even wlLhouL CourL Crder, Lhe approprlaLe
execuLlve offlcers or admlnlsLraLlve auLhorlLles are noL armed
wlLh arblLrary dlscreLlon Lo lmpose llmlLaLlons. 1hey can
lmpose llmlLs only on Lhe basls of "naLlonal securlLy, publlc
safeLy, or publlc healLh" and "as may be provlded by law."

B SanLlago v. lAC1S: Lvery regularly consLlLuLed courL has Lhe power Lo do all Lhlngs LhaL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
vasquez

C.8. nos.
99289-90

!anuary 27,
1993
SanLlago was charged for vlolaLlon of "O!O 9@7L (AnLl-CrafL
and CorrupL racLlces AcL). Cn Lhe same day LhaL Lhe warranL
of arresL was lssued agalnsL her, and she flled a cash ball
bond, Lhus effecLlvely puLLlng her under CourL cusLody.
endlng her moLlon for reconslderaLlon, news clrculaLed LhaL
SanLlago lnLends Lo leave Lhe counLry for sLudy ln Lhe uS.
SubsequenLly, Lhe Sandlganbayan lssued a hold deparLure
order.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe hold deparLure order was lssued ln
vlolaLlon of peLlLloner's rlghL Lo due process of law, Lhe rlghL
Lo Lravel and Lhe rlghL Lo freedom of speech.

PLLu:
nC. 1he posLlng of ball operaLes as a valld resLrlcLlon on Lhe
freedom of Lhe lndlvldual. 1he courLs have Lhe power Lo do
all Lhlngs reasonably necessary for admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce.

are reasonably necessary for Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce wlLhln Lhe
scope of lLs [urlsdlcLlon.
eLlLloner made a publlc sLaLemenL LhaL she had Lhe
lnLenLlon of leavlng Lhe counLry. 1he acLlon of Lhe S8 ln
lssulng a hold deparLure order was upheld ln llghL of such
facL. 1he hold deparLure order ls buL an exerclse of
respondenL courL's lnherenL power Lo preserve and Lo
malnLaln Lhe effecLlveness of lLs [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case
and Lhe person of peLlLloner.
P Marcos v.
Sandlganbayan

C.8. no.
113132-34

AugusL 9, 1993
lAC1S:
lmelda Marcos flled a MoLlon for Leave Lo 1ravel Abroad Lo
seek LreaLmenL for a serlous and llfe-LhreaLenlng condlLlon
requlrlng faclllLles noL avallable ln Lhe hlllpplnes. AfLer Lhe
flrsL denlal, she flled a second Llme wlLh supporLlng
documenLs from her physlclan. ur. 8oberLo AnasLaclo.
resldlng !usLlce lrancls CarchlLorena asked ur. Cregorlo
aLacsll for experL oplnlon regardlng Lhe requesL of Marcos.
Pls resulLs were conLrary Lo Lhe flndlngs of Marcos' physlclan
and Lhus Lhe Sandlganbayan ruled LhaL peLlLloner falled Lo
esLabllsh Lhe lmperaLlve necesslLy Lo Lravel abroad.

lSSuL:
lf Lhe courL could lnvlLe amlcus curlae Lo shed llghL on lssues of law,
Lhere ls no reason Lo prohlblL Lhe courL from seeklng Lhe oplnlon of
experLs ln Lhe fleld of medlclne. lurLhermore:
eLlLloner should have ob[ecLed Lo Lhe procedures lald down,
lf she dld noL agree wlLh lL, aL Lhe earllesL posslble
opporLunlLy.
eLlLloner falled Lo prove Lhe necesslLy of her Lrlp.
Conslderlng LhaL peLlLloner has several charges agalnsL her,
Lhere ls reason Lo resLrlcL her freedom Lo Lravel. ln addlLlon,
Lhe LesLs she requesLs are avallable here ln Lhe hlllpplnes,
and Lhe level of experLlse and faclllLles are adequaLe Lo LreaL
her condlLlon.
Per rlghL Lo Lravel ls noL absoluLe, and conslderlng LhaL she
uocLrlne: 1he rlghL Lo
Lravel ls sub[ecL Lo
consLralnLs lmposed Lo
safeguard Lhe sysLem of
[usLlce. lL ls ln Lhe courL's
dlscreLlon Lo granL Lhe
requesL Lo Lravel for
humanlLarlan reasons.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe Sandlganbayan gravely abused lLs
dlscreLlon when lL dlsregarded Lhe flndlngs of Marcos'
physlclan ln favor of Lhe medlcal commlLLee's whlch never
personally examlned her.

PLLu:
nC. Sadlganbayan was correcL ln seeklng a separaLe experL
oplnlon on Lhe healLh condlLlon of peLlLloner. ln Lhe pursulL
of LruLh and [usLlce, respondenL courL cannoL be expecLed Lo
[usL accepL Lhe flndlngs of peLlLloner's physlclans especlally
when her condlLlon ls alleged Lo be serlous and llfe-
LhreaLenlng.

has been convlcLed by Lhe Lrlal courL on her lasL crlmlnal
cases, Lhere ls a need for greaLer cauLlon.
- ?ap v. CA

C.8.
no.141329

!une 6, 2001
lAC1S:
?ap ls convlcLed of esLafa by aslg 81C.
CA ordered Lhe peLlLloner Lo posL ball ln Lhe amounL of
3.3M.
eLlLloner ls also requlred Lo secure a
cerLlflcaLlon/guaranLy" from Lhe Mayor Lhe clLy of hls
resldence and LhaL he wlll remaln a resldenL of LhaL area unLll
flnal [udgmenL. lf he decldes Lo Lransfer resldence, lL musL be
wlLh prlor noLlce Lo Lhe courL and prlvaLe complalnanL.
eLlLloner argues LhaL hls ball ls excesslve, vlolaLlng hls rlghL
agalnsL excesslve ball, and LhaL <K: QGRHR?<S JH>T <K: URS>H
=E D=>IR<=D: >J K=E H=QK< <> <HRD:I.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe CA denled peLlLloner's rlghL Lo ball.
WheLher or noL Lhe CA unduly resLrlcLed peLlLloner's
freedom of abode and Lravel.

PLLu:

3.3 M was unreasonable and excesslve. lL was an effecLlve
denlal of peLlLloner's rlghL Lo ball.
o 8all ls noL lnLended as a punlshmenL or as a
saLlsfacLlon for clvll llablllLy.

8lCP1 1C 18AvLL nC1 A8SCLu1L.
o 1he measure lmposed by Lhe CA colncldes wlLh Lhe
naLure and funcLlon of a bond, whlch ls Lo ensure
LhaL peLlLloner wlll make hlmself avallable aL all Llmes
whenever Lhe CourL requlres hls presence.
o eLlLloner ls noL prevenLed from changlng hls abode,
he ls merely requlred Lo lnform Lhe courL lf he does
so.
urpose for ball: Lo
guaranLee Lhe
appearance of Lhe
accused aL Lhe Lrlal, or
whenever so requlred by
Lhe courL. 1he amounL
should be hlgh enough Lo
assure Lhe presence of
Lhe accused when
requlred buL no hlgher
Lhan ls reasonably
calculaLed Lo fulflll Lhls
purpose.

1he CourL may lmpose
addlLlonal necessary
condlLlons Lo ensure LhaL
Lhe accused does appear
ln Lrlal.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8all ls LxCLSSlvL. 8lghL Lo Lravel was nC1 vlolaLed.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

INICkMA1ICN AND ACCLSS 1C CIIICIAL kLCCkDS
1 Legaspl v. CSC

C.8. no. L-
72119

May 29, 1987
lAC1S:
eLlLloner Legazpl flled mandamus before Lhe SC because Lhe
CSC denled hls requesL Lo open publlc records of cerLaln
sanlLarlans of Cebu's PealLh ueparLmenL who clalm LhaL Lhey
are clvll-servlce ellglble.
eLlLloner's conLenLlons:
o Pe has Lhe rlghL Lo be lnformed of Lhe ellglblllLy of
Lhe Lwo sanlLarlans (Slbanghonoy and Agas).
o Pls peLlLlon for mandamus ls [usLlfled because he has
no oLher avallable remedy.
SollclLor Ceneral challenges Lhe peLlLloner's sLandlng because
he has no rlghL Lo quesLlon Lhe sanlLarlans' ellglblllLy and Lo
be lnformed of lL. SC also conLends LhaL Legazpl has falled Lo
show acLual lnLeresL ln securlng lnformaLlon.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner ha sLandlng Lo flle Lhe sulL.

PLLu:
?LS. eLlLloner PAS S1AnulnC. LllglblllLy of governmenL
offlclals are parL of publlc records.
et|t|oner, as a pr|vate c|t|zen des|r|ng the enforcement of a
pub||c r|ght, has stand|ng to f||e mandamus.
Sect|on 28, Art|c|e II of 1987 Const|tut|on
o lull publlc dlsclosure of all offlclal documenLs, sub[ecL Lo
llmlLaLlons lmposed by law.
1anada vs. 1uvera: a prlvaLe clLlzen ls parL of Lhe general publlc",
Lherefore he has Lhe rlghL Lo asserL a publc" rlghL Lhrough mandamus.
Subldo vs. CzaeLa: deflned Lhe word publlc"
CovernmenL offlclals and employees have nC ulSC8L1lCn ln
allowlng Lhe examlnaLlon of publlc records, excepL when
purpose ls unlawful.
1he power Lo regulaLe Lhe manner of dlscloslng records does
noL lnclude Lhe power Lo prohlblL.
ower to deny or refuse outr|ght the d|sc|osure of pub||c
records- CNL ALLCWLD 8 LAW.
ower Lo regulaLe Lhe manner of access- resLs on
governmenL auLhorlLles ln charge of Lhe documenLs.
kLUISI1LS CI 1nL AVAILA8ILI1 1C ACCLSS U8LIC
kLCCkDS:
o Nature of documents must be of pub||c |nterest
o NC1 LkLM1LD by |aw from the const|tut|ona|
guarantee
eLlLloner seeks Lhe LruLh of sanlLarlans' ellglblllLy
o Clvll servanLs= publlc offlce= publlc LrusL
o !"#$% '( $)*+*,)$ "-$ -$)$"%$. /' /0$ 12,)*34 /0$-$('-$
/0$5 "-$ 12,)*3 .'32#$6/%7

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
2 valmonLe, eL
al. v. 8elmonLe
!r.

C.8. no. 74930

lebruary 13,
1989
lAC1S:
8lcardo valmonLe (lawyer and medla member) asked CSlS
Ceneral Manager lellclano 8elmonLe !r. Lo release Lhe llsL of
names of Lhe opposlLlon member of Lhe 8aLasang ambansa
who were glven loans of 2mllllon each secured by lmelda
Marcos.
CSlS denled Lhe requesL on Lhe ground LhaL a confldenLlal
relaLlonshlp whlch exlsLs beLween Lhe CSlS and all Lhose who
borrow from lL and lL would noL be proper for Lhe CSlS Lo
breach Lhls confldenLlallLy unless so ordered by Lhe courLs.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL valmonLe eL al. are enLlLled Lo Lhe
documenLs soughL by vlrLue of Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he CSlS documenLs are of publlc characLer, and
peLlLloners as members of Lhe medla have boLh Lhe rlghL Lo
gaLher and Lhe obllgaLlon Lo check Lhe accuracy of such
lnformaLlon whlch Lhey wlll dlssemlnaLe.

1he CSlS ls a LrusLee of conLrlbuLlons from Lhe governmenL and lLs
employees and Lhe admlnlsLraLor of varlous lnsurance programs for
Lhe beneflL of Lhe laLLer. undenlably, lLs funds assume a publlc
characLer. lL ls Lherefore Lhe leglLlmaLe concern of Lhe publlc Lo
ensure LhaL Lhese funds are managed properly wlLh Lhe end ln vlew
of maxlmlzlng Lhe beneflLs LhaL accrue Lo Lhe lnsured governmenL
employees.

CSlS asserLs Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy of lLs members.
1he rlghL Lo prlvacy belongs Lo Lhe CSlS members ln Lhelr
prlvaLe capaclLy and nC1 Lo CSlS as an enLlLy.
CSlS as a [urldlcal enLlLy does noL en[oy and cannoL lnvoke
rlghL Lo prlvacy.
1he documenLs of CSlS are noL prlvaLe ln naLure because
CSlS as a governmenL-conLrolled corporaLlon exerclses a
proprleLary funcLlon, whlch Lhen falls wlLhln Lhe
ConsLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo lnformaLlon.
lnformaLlon goes hand-
ln-hand wlLh Lhe
consLlLuLlonal pollcles of
full publlc dlsclosure and
honesLy ln Lhe publlc
servlce.

lnformaLlon ls noL
absoluLe. lL ls llmlLed Lo
(1) LransacLlons lnvolvlng
publlc lnLeresL, and (2)
sub[ecL Lo reasonable
condlLlons prescrlbed by
law.
3 Aqulno-
SarmlenLo v.
MoraLo

C.8. no. 92341

november 13,
1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloner seeks Lhe nulllflcaLlon of M18C8 8esoluLlon no.
88-1-23 whlch allows Lhe Chalrman of Lhe 8oard Lo
unllaLerally downgrade a fllm already revlewed especlally
Lhose whlch are conLroverslal and M18C8 8esoluLlon no. 10-
89 declarlng as str|ct|y conf|dent|a|, pr|vate and persona| a)
the dec|s|on of a rev|ew|ng comm|ttee wh|ch prev|ous|y
rev|ewed a certa|n f||m and b) the |nd|v|dua| vot|ng s||ps of
the members of the members of the comm|ttee that
rev|ewed the f||m.
1he CourL ruled ln Lhe afflrmaLlve for Lhe eLlLloner. As
gleamed from Lhe decree lLself, Lhe creaLlon of Lhe
8espondenL 8oard ls of publlc ln characLer. As such, lL ls an
offlce creaLed Lo serve publlc lnLeresL. lL belng Lhe case,
respondenLs can lay no valld clalm Lo prlvacy.
1he r|ght to pr|vacy be|ongs to the |nd|v|dua| act|ng |n h|s
pr|vate capac|ty and not to a governmenta| agency or
off|cers tasked w|th, and act|ng |n, the d|scharge of pub||c
dut|es.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhere can be no lnvaslon of prlvacy ln Lhe
! Sec. 7, Art. III ls self-
execuLory and supplles
Lhe rules by means of
whlch Lhe rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon may be
en[oyed by guaranLeelng
Lhe rlghL and mandaLlng
Lhe duLy Lo afford access
Lo sources of
lnformaLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe declslon of Lhe respondenL M18C8 and
Lhe lndlvldual members concerned, arrlved aL ln an offlclal
capaclLy, may be consldered prlvaLe.

PLLu:
nC. 8esoluLlon nos. 10-89 and 88-1-23 lssued by Lhe M18C8
are hereby declared nuLL and vClu.
case aL bar slnce whaL ls soughL Lo be dlvulged ls a product of
act|on undertaken |n the course of perform|ng off|c|a|
funct|ons.
lurLher, Lhe declslons of Lhe 8oard and Lhe lndlvldual voLlng
sllps accompllshed by Lhe members concerned are acts made
pursuant to the|r off|c|a| funct|ons, and as such, are ne|ther
persona| nor pr|vate |n nature but rather pub||c |n
character.
! WhaL may be
provlded for by Lhe
LeglslaLure are
reasonab|e cond|t|ons
and ||m|tat|ons upon the
access to be afforded
wh|ch must be cons|sted
w|th the dec|ared State
o||cy of fu|| pub||c
d|sc|osure of a||
transact|ons |nvo|v|ng
pub||c |nterest.
4 Lchegaray v.
SecreLary of
!usLlce

C.8. no.
132601

CcLober 12,
1998
lAC1S:
Lchegaray quesLlons Lhe l88 of k.A. No. 8177, lmplemenLlng
Lhe use of leLhal ln[ecLlon as Lhe means of carrylng ouL hls
senLence.
Lchegaray poslLs LhaL k.A. No. 8177ls unconsLlLuLlonal.
eLlLloner dld noL ralse as an lssue LhaL Sec. 19 of Lhe l88 of
k.A. No. 8177 vlolaLed hls rlghLs under Sec. 7, Art. III buL Lhe
CourL saw lL flL Lo rule on Lhe maLLer.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe lmplanLlng rules and regulaLlons of k.A.
No.8177 are valld.

PLLu:
nC. Lhe l88 of k.A. No. 8177 speclflcally Sec. 19 ls lnvALlu.

1he CourL held LhaL Lhe conLenLs of Lhe manual under Sec. 19
are maLLers of publlc concern. Sec. 19 sLaLes LhaL Lhe deLalls
of Lhe procedure of admlnlsLerlng Lhe leLhal ln[ecLlon shall be
seL forLh ln a manual Lo be prepared by Lhe ulrecLor of
rlsons and LhaL Lhe manual shall be conf|dent|a| and |ts
d|str|but|on sha|| be ||m|ted to author|zed pr|son personne|
on|y.
1he CourL ruled LhaL Sec. 19 does noL prov|de for an avenue
of rev|ew and approva|. 1hus Lhe CourL held LhaL a mere
consLlLuenL body cannot promu|gate a manua| w|thout the
|mpr|matur of the adm|n|strat|ve super|or, that sa|d manua|
must be free|y accessed by anyone more so the conv|ct and
that there |s no |ega| |mped|ment for the conv|ct, shou|d he
so des|re, to obta|n a copy of the manua|.

S Chavez v.
CCC

C8 no. 133230
lAC1S:
CovernmenL slgned a conLracL wlLh ConsLrucLlon
developmenL CorporaLlon of Lhe hlllpplnes (CuC) Lo
reclalm cerLaln foreshore and offshore areas of Manlla 8ay
SLaLe adopLs a pollcy of full publlc dlsclosure of all lLs LransacLlons
lnvolvlng publlc lnLeresL:
A consummaLed conLracL ls noL a requlremenL for Lhe
exerclse of Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

!uly 9, 2002
1hrough D 1084, LA was creaLed, whlch was Lasked Lo
reclalm land and lmprove, lease, and sell any and all klnds of
lands
LA enLered lnLo a !olnL venLure AgreemenL (!vA) Lo develop
Lhe reclalmed lands. 1he !vA was enLered Lhrough
negoLlaLlon 8*/0'2/ 12,)*3 ,*..*6+7
8ecause Lhe agreemenL was manlfesLly un[usL and lllegal,
peLlLloner Chavez prays LhaL LA publlcly dlsclose Lhe Lerms
of any renegoLlaLlon of Lhe !vA.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo lnformaLlon
lncludes offlclal lnformaLlon on on-golng negoLlaLlons before
flnal agreemenL

PLLu:
?LS. 1he ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon undersLood LhaL Lhe
rlghL Lo lnformaLlon conLemplaLes lncluslon of negoLlaLlons
leadlng Lo Lhe consummaLlon of Lhe LransacLlon.

o CLherwlse, Lhe people can never exerclse Lhe rlghL lf
Lhe conLracL ls never consummaLed.
o 8equlrlng a consummaLed conLracL wlll keep Lhe
publlc ln Lhe dark unLll Lhe conLracL, whlch may be
grossly dlsadvanLageous Lo Lhe governmenL or even
lllegal, becomes ("*/ "33'#1)*.
uoes noL exLend Lo
o MaLLers recognlzed as prlvlleged lnformaLlon rooLed
ln separaLlon of powers
o lnformaLlon on mlllLary and dlplomaLlc secreLs
o lnformaLlon affecLlng naLlonal securlLy
o lnvesLlgaLlon of crlmes by law enforcemenL before
Lhe prosecuLlon of Lhe accused
1here ls no clalm by LA LhaL Lhe lnformaLlon demanded by
peLlLloner ls prlvlleged lnformaLlon rooLed ln separaLlon of
powers
6 Conzales v.
narvasa

C.8. no.
140833

AugusL 14,
2000
lAC1S:
Conzales senL a leLLer Lo LxecuLlve SecreLary Zamora for Lhe
followlng:
o LlsL of names of execuLlve offlclals holdlng mulLlple
poslLlons ln Lhe governmenL
o Coples of Lhelr appolnLmenLs
o LlsL of reclplenLs of luxury vehlcles selzed by Lhe
8ureau of CusLoms and Lurned over Lo Malacanang
LeLLer was never answered. lL was argued LhaL he dld noL
have any rlghL Lo Lhe requesLed lnformaLlon.

lSSuL:
1he lnformaLlon Lo whlch Lhe publlc ls enLlLled are Lhose
concernlng 'maLLers of publlc concern'.
o MaLLers are of publlc concern - Lhe appolnLmenLs
made Lo publlc offlces and Lhe uLlllzaLlon of publlc
properLy.
Zamora, as Lhe LxecuLlve SecreLary, has Lhe consLlLuLlonal
and sLaLuLory duLy Lo answer peLlLloner's leLLer whlch deal
wlLh maLLers whlch are of publlc concern.
Zamora ls also obllged Lo allow Lhe lnspecLlon and copylng of
Lhe same sub[ecL Lo Lhe reasonable llmlLaLlons requlred for
Lhe orderly conducL of offlclal buslness.
o AlLhough he ls noL obllged Lo make llsLs of any klnd.
uocLrlne: MaLLers of
publlc concern (see glven
deflnlLlon) musL be made
avallable Lo people.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Conzales has Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe lnformaLlon he
requesLed.

PLLu:
?LS. Pe has Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe lnformaLlon he ls requesLlng for.

7 Chavez v. LA

C8. no.
133230

!uly 9, 2002
lAC1S:
LA was creaLed Lo reclalm foreshore and submerged areas.
LA enLered lnLo a !olnL venLure AgreemenL (!vA") wlLh
AMA8l, a prlvaLe corporaLlon, Lo develop Lhe lreedom
lslands. 1hls was done wlLhouL publlc blddlng
uue Lo several lssues regardlng Lhe legallLy of Lhe !vA, LA
and AMA8l enLered lnLo re-negoLlaLlons and slgned an
Amended !vA. resldenL LsLrada approved Lhe same.
LA asserLs, clLlng Chavez v. CCC, LhaL ln cases of on-golng
negoLlaLlons Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon ls llmlLed Lo "deflnlLe
proposlLlons of Lhe governmenL." LA malnLalns Lhe rlghL
does noL lnclude access Lo "lnLra-agency or lnLer-agency
recommendaLlons or communlcaLlons durlng Lhe sLage when
common asserLlons are sLlll ln Lhe process of belng
formulaLed or are ln Lhe 'exploraLory sLage'."

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo lnformaLlon
lncludes offlclal lnformaLlon on on-golng negoLlaLlons before
a flnal agreemenL

PLLu:
?LS. Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo lnformaLlon lncludes offlclal
lnformaLlon on '69+'*6+ 6$+'/*"/*'6% before a flnal conLracL.
1he rlghL covers Lhree caLegorles of lnformaLlon whlch are
"maLLers of publlc concern," namely:
(1) offlclal records,
(2) documenLs and papers perLalnlng Lo offlclal acLs,
LransacLlons and declslons, and
(3) governmenL research daLa used ln formulaLlng pollcles.
ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon undersLood LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon !3'6/$#1)"/$% *63)2%*'6 '( 6$+'/*"/*'6% )$".*6+
/' /0$ 3'6%2##"/*'6 '( /0$ /-"6%"3/*'67: CerLalnly, a
consummaLed conLracL ls noL a requlremenL for Lhe exerclse
of Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon. CLherwlse, Lhe people can never
exerclse Lhe rlghL lf no conLracL ls consummaLed, and by
Lhen, lL may be Loo laLe for Lhe publlc Lo expose lLs defecLs.
1he lnformaLlon, however, #2%/ 3'6%/*/2/$ .$(*6*/$
1-'1'%*/*'6% by Lhe governmenL and %0'2). 6'/ 3';$-
-$3'+6*<$. $=3$1/*'6% )*>$ 1-*;*)$+$. *6('-#"/*'6, mlllLary
and dlplomaLlc secreLs and slmllar maLLers affecLlng naLlonal
securlLy and publlc order.
Powever, Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon does noL compel LA Lo
prepare llsLs, absLracLs, summarles and Lhe llke relaLlng Lo
Lhe renegoLlaLlon of Lhe !vA.

1he rlghL only affords access Lo
records, documenLs and papers, whlch means Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo lnspecL and copy Lhem. Cne who exerclses
Lhe rlghL musL copy Lhe records, documenLs and papers aL hls
expense.
*ln Lerms of when Lhe
rlghL may be exerclsed ln
an agreemenL
(exploraLory sLage !
negoLlaLlons sLage !
consummaLed sLage), lL
may noL be asserLed ln
Lhe exploraLory sLage as
noLhlng yeL ls surely
conLemplaLed.
8 Pllado v. lAC1S: 8lghL Lo lnformaLlon ls dependenL on wheLher or noL lnformaLlon ls
1
?$3*%*'6% "6. '1*6*'6%
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8eyes

C.8. no.
163133

!uly 21, 2006
!ullLa 8enedlcLo recognlzed peLlLloners as clalmanLs ln Lhe
lnLesLaLe case of her deceased spouse 8oberLo.
eLlLloners were allowed Lo regularly examlne Lhe records of
Lhe lnLesLaLe case and Lo secure cerLlfled Lrue coples.
1hey were laLer on denled access
1hey demanded access Lo Lhe same as Lhey are publlc
records"

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL wrlL of mandamus may lssue Lo compel
publlc respondenL Lo allow peLlLloners Lo examlne and obLaln
coples of any or all documenLs formlng parL of Lhe records of
Lhe case

PLLu:
?es, peLlLlon for mandamus ls merlLorlous, peLlLloners belng
"lnLeresLed persons" who have a leglLlmaLe reason or
purpose for accesslng Lhe records of Lhe case.
of publlc concern" or lnLeresL." ln Lhe lnsLanL case, Lhe lnformaLlon
soughL ls noL of publlc concern or lnLeresL."
1he [udlclal record soughL ls noL one whlch ls necessarlly
publlc.
1
ln Lhus deLermlnlng whlch parL or all of Lhe records of
a case may be accessed Lo, Lhe 12-1'%$ for whlch Lhe parLles
flled Lhem ls Lo be consldered. ln Lhls case parLles are mere
credlLors, Lhelr purpose ls Lo esLabllsh Lhelr clalm Lo Lhe
esLaLe and be pald Lherefor before lLs dlsposlLlon.
ln Lhls case however, lnformaLlon regardlng Lhe flnanclal
sLandlng of a person aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh and Lhe manner
by whlch hls prlvaLe esLaLe may ulLlmaLely be seLLled ls noL a
maLLer of general, publlc concern or one ln whlch a clLlzen or
Lhe publlc has an lnLeresL.
1hough lnformaLlon may or may noL be of a publlc" characLer, rlghL
Lo access lL may sLlll be regulaLed on a showlng of good cause" or on
Lhe exerclse of Lhe courL of lLs lnherenL supervlsory and proLecLlve
powers over lLs own records and flles.
2
"
ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe peLlLloner's purpose appears leglLlmaLe as
Lhey have an acLual lnLeresL, as credlLors, over Lhe ouLcome of Lhe
seLLlemenL of hls esLaLe, hence access ls allowed.
'( " 3'2-/ are of course
maLLers of publlc
concern or lnLeresL.
Powever, 1)$".*6+% "6.
'/0$- .'32#$6/% flled by
parLles Lo a case need
noL be maLLers of publlc
concern or lnLeresL. lor
Lhey are flled for Lhe
purpose of esLabllshlng
Lhe basls for Lhe courL's
order or a [udgmenL
whlch affecL Lhelr rlghLs
and lnLeresLs.

2
1he followlng are
consldered: (1) "3/2")
2%$ or purpose for whlch
Lhe requesL for access ls
based, (2) Lhe ',;*'2%
1-$@2.*3$ Lo any of Lhe
parLles.

9 Sablo v.
Cordon

C.8. nos.
174340,
174318,
174177

CcLober 17,
lAC1S:
L.C. 1 creaLed Lhe resldenLlal Commlsslon on Cood
Covernance (CCC) and sLaLed LhaL no member or sLaff of
Lhe Commlsslon shall be requlred Lo LesLlfy or produce
evldence ln any [udlclal, leglslaLlve or admlnlsLraLlve
proceedlng concernlng maLLers wlLhln lLs offlclal cognlzance."
CCC Chalrman Camllo L. Sablo was lnvlLed Lo be a resource
person ln Lhe SenaLe dellberaLlons regardlng Lhe anomalous
losses of several governmenL corporaLlons.
valmonLe v. 8elmonLe !r. ! an lnformed clLlzenry ls essenLlal Lo Lhe
exlsLence and proper funcLlonlng of any democracy.
Sect|on 4(b) effecLlvely llmlLs or obsLrucLs Lhe power of Lhe
Congress Lo secure from Lhe CCC lnformaLlon and daLa ln
ald of lLs power Lo leglslaLe.
Any execuLlve lssuance Lendlng Lo unduly llmlL dlsclosures of
lnformaLlon ln such lnvesLlgaLlons necessarlly deprlves Lhe
people of lnformaLlon whlch, belng presumed Lo be ln ald of
leglslaLlon, ls presumed Lo be a maLLer of publlc concern. 1he

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
2006 Sablo lnvoked Sect|on 4(b), L.C. 1 saylng LhaL Lhls serves as a
llmlLaLlon on Lhe power of leglslaLlve lnqulry ln order Lo
ensure Lhe unhampered performance of CCC duLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sect|on 4(b) has been repealed by Lhe 1987
ConsLlLuLlon (wlLh respecL Lo C.8. no. 174318).

PLLu:
?LS. (WlLh respecL Lo Sect|on 7, Art|c|e III) L.C. 1 ls
lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon as lL puLs Lhe CCC
beyond Lhe reach of Lhe Congress and oLher admlnlsLraLlve
bodles, and Lhus lnLerferes wlLh Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon.

clLlzens are Lhereby denled access Lo lnformaLlon whlch Lhey
can use ln formulaLlng Lhelr own oplnlons on Lhe maLLer
before Congress.
10 nerl v. SenaLe

C.8. no.
180643

SepLember 4,
2008
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was lnvlLed by Lhe SenaLe Lo answer Lhree
quesLlons concernlng Lhe n8n-Z1L: (a) wheLher or noL CMA
followed up on Lhe n8n ro[ecL, (b) wheLher or noL
peLlLloner was dlrecLed by CMA Lo prlorlLlze lL, and (c)
wheLher or noL CMA dlrecLed hlm Lo approve lL. eLlLloner
refused Lo answer and lnvoked execuLlve prlvllege.
SenaLe clLed peLlLloner ln conLempL of courL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere ls facLual or legal basls Lo hold LhaL Lhe
communlcaLlons ellclLed by Lhe Lhree quesLlons were
covered by execuLlve prlvllege (and Lherefore beyond Lhe
coverage of Lhe rlghL Lo lnformaLlon).

PLLu:
?LS. 1he communlcaLlons ellclLed by Lhe Lhree quesLlons
were covered by execuLlve prlvllege as Lhey perLalned Lo
nerl may avall of Lhe execuLlve prlvllege whlch exempLs from Lhe
coverage of Lhe publlc's rlghL Lo lnformaLlon dlplomaLlc relaLlons.
1he resldenL's clalm of execuLlve prlvllege ls noL merely
based on a generallzed lnLeresL, and ln balanclng respondenL
CommlLLees' and Lhe resldenL's clashlng lnLeresLs, Lhe CourL
dld noL dlsregard Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlonal provlslons on
governmenL Lransparency, accounLablllLy and dlsclosure of
lnformaLlon.
1he CourL dld noL rule LhaL Lhe SenaLe has no power Lo
lnvesLlgaLe Lhe n8n ro[ecL ln ald of leglslaLlon. 1hey could
conLlnue Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon and even call peLlLloner nerl Lo
LesLlfy agaln. 1he ueclslon merely excludes from Lhe scope of
respondenLs' lnvesLlgaLlon Lhe Lhree (3) quesLlons LhaL ellclL
answers covered by execuLlve prlvllege.

Ml v. Manglapus ! secrecy of negoLlaLlons wlLh forelgn counLrles
ls noL vlolaLlve of Lhe freedom of speech or of Lhe press or of Lhe
freedom of access Lo lnformaLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
dlplomaLlc negoLlaLlons wlLh Chlna.

11 Supllco v.
nLuA

C.8. no.
178830

!uly 14, 2008
lAC1S:
8olex Supllco asked Lhe CourL Lo en[oln Lhe respondenLs from
lmplemenLlng Lhe Z1L-uC1C n8n deal.
8espondenLs clalm LhaL Lhere ls no acLual conLroversy
because Lhere was no conLracL Lo belng wlLh slnce Lhe
agreemenLs were sLlll ln Lhe negoLlaLlon sLage. Pence, Lhls
peLlLlon ls mooL and academlc.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLlon ls mooL and academlc.

PLLu:
?LS. lL ls lmposslble Lo gaLher enough facLual evldence Lo rule
on Lhe case.

1he presenL case ls mooL because Lhe resoluLlon of wheLher a wrlL of
prellmlnary ln[uncLlon may be lssued Lo prevenL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon
of Lhe assalled conLracLs calls for an appralsal of facLual
conslderaLlons whlch are pecullar only Lo Lhe parLles and Lhelr acLs
lnvolved ln Lhe case. WlLhouL evldence, Lhe facLual lssues cannoL be
resolved, and when Lhere are noL facLual lssues, Lhe CourL cannoL
compleLely rule on Lhe merlLs of Lhe case.
lL ls lmposslble for Lhe CourL Lo annul and seL aslde Lhe
award of Lhe Z1L-n8n deal" wlLhouL evldence Lo supporL a
facLual flndlng of any vlolaLlon of law.

12 Akbayan v.
Aqulno

C.8. no.
170316

lAC1S:
LxecuLlve Crder no. 213 creaLed !AAn-PlLllnLS
LCCnCMlC AC8LLMLn1 (!LA)
o llrsL bllaLeral Lrade agreemenL wlLh anoLher counLry
o 1rade ln goods, cusLom procedure, lnvesLmenLs,
compeLlLlon pollcy, and oLher muLual obllgaLlons.
eLlLloners soughL Lo obLaln from respondenLs Lhe full LexL of
!LA lncludlng Lhe offers durlng Lhe negoLlaLlon process all
oLher aLLached and relevanL documenLs
o CovernmenL's refusal ls a vlolaLlon of Lhelr rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon, pollcy of Lransparency
o 8efusal also undermlnes Lhe publlc's acLlve
parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe process.
endlng dellberaLlon ln Lhe SenaLe, Lhe full LexL has been
made avallable Lo Lhe publlc slnce SepLember 2006.
eLlLlon noL enLlrely mooL
o eLlLloners soughL noL only Lhe LexL of !LA buL
oLher '(($-% *6 /0$ 3'2-%$ '( /0$ 6$+'/*"/*'6%
8espondenLs' fallure Lo clalm Lhe prlvllege durlng Lhe Pouse
CommlLLee hearlngs ls nC1 walver

nC sufflclenL publlc lnLeresL Lo overcome Lhe clalm of
prlvllege based on Lhe showlng of need" LesL (balanclng of
lnLeresL LesL)
o lf Lhe documenLs were lndeed crlLlcal, Lhe Pouse
CommlLLee should have aL leasL lssued a %2,1'$6"
.23$% /$32#, or flled Lhe presenL peLlLlon as a
)$+*%)"/*;$ ,'.5 (llke ln SenaLe vs. LrmlLa) lnsLead of
leavlng lL Lo Lhe lndlvldual Congressmen Lhe acLlon Lo
pursue Lhe case.

! Chavez vs. CCC
8ecognlzed Lhe prlvllege
characLer of dlplomaLlc
negoLlaLlons.

A6('-#"/*'6 '6
*6/$-+';$-6#$6/")
$=0"6+$% 1-*'- /' /0$
3'63)2%*'6 '( /-$"/*$% "6.
$=$32/*;$ "+-$$#$6/%
#"5 ,$ %2,@$3/ /'
-$"%'6",)$ %"($+2"-.%
('- /0$ %">$ '( 6"/*'6")
*6/$-$%/7"
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe lssue has become mooL and academlc
WheLher or noL Lhe alleged fallure of respondenLs Lo clalm
execuLlve prlvllege consLlLuLes a walver.
WheLher or noL Lhere ls sufflclenL publlc lnLeresL Lo
overcome Lhe clalm of prlvllege

PLLu
lssue ls noL enLlrely mooL. LxecuLlve prlvllege was nelLher
walved nor supersede.

o Congress musL show LhaL Lhe lnformaLlon ls vlLal, noL
slmply for Lhe saLlsfacLlon of Lhelr curloslLy.
o 1he llllplno people have been exerclslng Lhelr rlghL
Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe dlscusslon on Lhe lssue of !LA
wlLhouL Lhe need Lo access !LA's negoLlaLlon
documenLs.
Clear and presenL danger LesL does noL apply for Lhe
assessmenL of clalms of prlvllege agalnsL clLlzens' demand for
lnformaLlon.

13 rovlnce of
norLh
CoLabaLo v.
C8 anel

C.8. no.
183391

CcLober 14,
2008
lAC1S:
Memorandum of AgreemenL on Lhe AncesLral uomaln (MCA-
Au) beLween Lhe CovernmenL of Lhe hlllpplnes and Lhe
MlLl as an aspecL of Lhe 1rlpoll eace AgreemenL of 2001
was slgned ln kuala Lumpur, Malaysla.
norLh CoLabaLo flled a peLlLlon for l and 18C.
o Assalls Lhe 8angsamoro !urldlcal LnLlLy
" CranLs auLhorlLy and [urlsdlcLlon over
ancesLral domaln and ancesLral lands of Lhe
8angsamoro.
" !urlsdlcLlon over Lhe naLural resources and
lnLernal waLers.
" AgreemenL ls composed of Lwo local
sLaLuLes:
1. Crganlc AcL of A8MM
2. l8A

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL C8 anel vlolaLed Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal and
sLaLuLory provlslons on publlc consulLaLlon and lnformaLlon
C8 ls requlred by law Lo carry our publlc consulLaLlon on Lhe
naLlonal and local levels.
o 1o bulld consensus for peace agenda and faclllLaLe
people's parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe peace process.
vlolaLlon of people's rlghL Lo lnformaLlon
o 1here musL be a conLlnulng dlalogue or process of
communlcaLlon beLween governmenL and people.
o MCA-Au ls a maLLer of publlc concern
LxecuLlve prlvllege cannoL be lnvoked.
o 8espondenLs were held Lo have walved Lhe prlvllege
when Lhey uncondlLlonally dlsclosed Lhe drafL for
[udlclal compllance and publlc scruLlny.
8espondenLs admlL LhaL lL ls of publlc concern
o AffecLs Lhe soverelgnLy and LerrlLorlal lnLegrlLy of Lhe
SLaLe
o AffecLs Lhe publlc aL large.
resldenLlal advlser on Lhe peace process commlLLed
CAuALL! when lL falled Lo carry ouL Lhe consulLaLlon process
(vlolaLlons of LC 3, 8A 7610, 8A 8371)
: WhaL sLage do you
enLer Lhe peace process
when Lhe rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon ls lnvoked?
CCUk1: AL any sLage
because lL's a maLLer of
publlc concern.
DLAN: nCnL. ?ou cannoL
enLer Lhe peace process
aL any polnL. 1here ls a
confldenLlallLy LhaL you
have Lo proLecL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
when Lhey lnlLlaLed and negoLlaLed Lhe MCA-Au
WheLher or noL MCA-Au ls consLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
C8 vlolaLed provlslons on publlc consulLaLlon and rlghL Lo
lnformaLlon. MCA-Au ls unCCnS1l1u1lCnAL.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

kIGn1 1C ICkM ASSCCIA1ICNS
1 1uC v. n8C

C.8. no.
L-49677

May 4, 1989
lAC1S:
1he naLlonal Pouslng CorporaLlon (nPC) was organlzed ln
accordance wlLh L.C. No. 399 and varlous governmenL
corporaLlons own lLs sLocks from lLs lncorporaLlon under Act
4S9 (former corporaLlon law).
1he 1rade unlons of Lhe hlllpplnes and Allled Servlces
(1uAS) wanLed Lo conducL an elecLlon Lo deLermlne Lhe
excluslve bargalnlng represenLaLlve of Lhe workers ln nPC.
1helr peLlLlon was denled on Lhe ground LhaL belng a
governmenL-owned and/or conLrolled corporaLlon (CCCC),
workers of Lhe nPC are prohlblLed from organlzlng for
purposes of collecLlve bargalnlng.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a holdlng of a cerLlflcaLlon of elecLlon among
Lhe workers of Lhe nPC (belng a CCCC wlLhouL an orlglnal
charLer) ls allowed.

PLLu:
?LS. 1hey are covered by Lhe Labor Code because Lhe Clvll
Servlce does noL cover CCCC's organlzed under Lhe general
corporaLlon law.

As a general rule, Lhe ma[orlLy of Lhe world's counLrles now enLerLaln
publlc servlce unlons. 1he employees of Lhe governmenL form Lhelr
own assoclaLlon. Cenerally, Lhey do noL bargaln for wages because
Lhese are flxed ln Lhe budgeL buL Lhey do acqulre a forum where,
among oLher Lhlngs, professlonal and self-developmenL ls promoLed
and encouraged. 1hey also acL as waLchdogs of Lhelr own bosses so
LhaL when grafL and corrupLlon ls commlLLed, generally, lL ls Lhe
unlons who are no longer afrald by vlrLue of Lhe armor of self-
organlzaLlon LhaL become Lhe publlc's own allles for deLecLlng grafL
and corrupLlon and for exposlng lL...."
uocLrlne: Workers of
CCCC's wlLh orlglnal
charLers cannoL unlonlze
for Lhe purpose of
collecLlve bargalnlng.
8u1 workers of CCCC's
formed under Lhe
general corporaLlon law
can unlonlze for
collecLlve bargalnlng.
2 SSS Lmployees
v. CA

C.8. no. 83279
lAC1S:
Members of Lhe SSSLA sLaged an lllegal sLrlke and barrlcaded
Lhe enLrance Lo Lhe SSS 8ulldlng, prevenLlng non-sLrlklng
employees from reporLlng for work and SSS members from
1he CourL noLed LhaL whaL was aL lssue was wheLher
employees of Lhe SSS have Lhe rlghL Lo sLrlke.
1he CourL noLed LhaL alLhough Art. 13, Sec. 31 guarantees
and recogn|zes the r|ghts of a|| workers, even those under
AL presenL, ln Lhe
absence of any
leglslaLlon allowlng gov'L
employees Lo sLrlke,
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

!uly 28, 1989
LransacLlng buslness.
1hey were ordered Lo reLurn Lo work buL Lhey refused Lo do
so. 8espondenL SSS flled wlLh Lhe 81C of CC a complalnL for
damages wlLh a prayer for a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon
agalnsL peLlLloners. 1he 81C ruled ln favor of 8espondenL SSS,
Lhls was Lhen appealed Lo Lhe CA, whlch Lhen dlsmlssed Lhelr
peLlLlon. Pence Lhls peLlLlon for revlew of Lhe CA's declslon

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL employees of Lhe Soclal SecurlLy SysLem
(SSS) have Lhe rlghL Lo sLrlke.

PLLu:
nC. 1he eLlLlon for revlew ls hereby uLnlLu. ueclslon of Lhe
CA ls hereby Alll8MLu.
the emp|oy of the C|v|| Serv|ce (Art. Ik(8), Sec. 2(1) and (S),
"to se|f-organ|ze.", the Const|tut|on |tse|f fa||s to express|y
conf|rm th|s |mpress|on, |t |s s||ent as to whether such
recogn|t|on a|so |nc|udes the r|ght to str|ke.
1he CourL Lhen relled on Lhe lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
lramers, quoLlng Commlssloner adllla, the r|ght to form an
organ|zat|on does not carry w|th |t the r|ght to str|ke."
Also Lhe CourL hlghllghLed L.C. No. 180, Sec. 14 when lL
referred Lo Memorandum C|rcu|ar No. 6, Ser|es of 1987 of
Lhe Clvll Servlce Commlsslon, LhaL sub[ect to any |eg|s|at|on
that may be enacted by Congress, a|| governmenta|
emp|oyees and off|cers are en[o|ned under pa|n of
adm|n|strat|ve sanct|ons from stag|ng str|kes,
demonstrat|ons, mass |eaves, wa|k outs and other forms of
mass act|on wh|ch w||| resu|t |n temporary stoppage or
d|srupt|on of pub||c serv|ce.

recognlzlng Lhelr rlghL Lo
do so, or regulaLlng Lhe
exerclse of Lhe rlghL, Lhey
are prohlblLed from
sLrlklng, by express
provlslon of
Memorandum C|rcu|ar
No. 6 as |mp||ed |n L.C.
No. 180
3 Manlla ubllc
Schools
1eachers
AssoclaLlon v.
Lagulo, !r.

C.8. no. 93443
& 93390

AugusL 6, 1991
lAC1S:
800 publlc school Leachers Look a mass acLlon by golng on
sLrlke. 1hls was Lo hlghllghL Lhelr pllghL resulLlng from Lhe
alleged fallure of publlc auLhorlLles Lo acL upon grlevances
LhaL had been broughL Lo Lhelr aLLenLlon.
1hey were ordered Lo reLurn Lo work or else suffer
admlnlsLraLlve sancLlons. MosL defled Lhe order, Lhus
prompLlng Lhe 8espondenL SecreLary Lo flle charges agalnsL
Lhe Leachers who parLlclpaLed.
1he eLlLloners prayed for Lhe lssuance of a 18C/MandaLory
ln[uncLlon Lo resLore Lhe sLaLus quo anLe and en[oln Lhe
publlc respondenL from conLlnulng wlLh Lhe lssuance of
suspens|on orders and adm|n|strat|ve proceed|ngs aga|nst
the teachers. 1hey were denled by Lhe lower courL Lhus
comes before Lhe SC for an appeal.
1he CourL Look noLe LhaL Lhe eLlLloners have noL presenLed
any new conslderaLlon of law or esLabllshed any new facL
LhaL would lmpalr Lhe valldlLy of Lhe grounds upon whlch Lhe
lower courL lssued lLs rullng.
1he CourL also noLed LhaL Lhe lssue of denlal of due process ls
noL rlghL for ad[udlcaLlon because facLs upon whlch Lhe
quesLlon of alleged denlal are sLlll ln lssue and acLlvely
conLroverLed.
1he CourL was of Lhe oplnlon LhaL eLlLloners cannoL lump
LogeLher whaL amounLs Lo a class acLlon hundreds of
lndlvldual cases each wlLh lLs own pecullar seL of facLs.
1he CourL sLaLed LhaL Lhe case lllusLraLes Lhe error of seeklng
recourse wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL especlally when numerous
parLles dlsparaLely slLuaLed as far as Lhe facLs are concerned
gaLher under Lhe umbrella of a common plea, and
1he Lrlal courL denled Lhe
eLlLloners based on Lhe
followlng grounds:
IIkS1: 800 Leachers wenL
on an unauLhorlzed
absence ln order Lo
parLlclpaLe ln a mass
acLlon" Lo dramaLlze
Lhelr pllghLs
SLCCND: More mass
acLlon was underLaken
desplLe Lhe 8eLurn-1o-
Work Crder belng lssued.
1nIkD: Mass acLlons
were for all lnLenLs and
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL any rlghLs of Lhe peLlLloner under Lhe due
process clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon as lL applles Lo
admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs were vlolaLed.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls hereby ulSMlSSLu.
CourL has no [urlsdlcLlon Lo revlew facLs whlch are noL yeL
deLermlned or are sLlll ln lssue.
CourL ruled LhaL peLlLloners as Leachers do noL have a rlghL Lo
sLrlke however [usLlflable Lhelr reasons were (See raLlo of
precedlng case above, some slmllarlLy)
generallzaLlon of whaL should be alleged wlLh Lhe
parLlcularlLy becomes unavoldable.
purposes a str|ke,
underLaken for
essenLlally economlc
reasons.
ICUk1n: 1he Court had
a|ready ru|ed that
emp|oyees |n the C|v||
Serv|ce do not have the
r|ght to str|ke (due to
Statutory restr|ct|ons)
however are guaranteed
the r|ght to se|f-
organ|ze.
III1n: lL was prlma facle
lawful for Lhe SecreLary
of uLCS Lo lssue Lhe
8eLurn-Lo-Work Crder,
proffer admlnlsLraLlve
charges agalnsL
peLlLloners, place under
prevenLlve suspenslon
and dlsmlss from servlce
Lhose who falled Lo
answer or conLroverL Lhe
charges.
4 uSu v.
Laguesma

C8 no. 122226

March 23,
1998
lAC1S:
eLlLloner, a unlon of supervlsory employees, flled a peLlLlon
for cerLlorarl for cerLlflcaLlon elecLlon on behalf of Lhe rouLe
managers aL epsl-Cola roducLs hlllpplnes.
lLs peLlLlon was denled by boLh Lhe med-arblLer and
SecreLary of Labor and LmploymenL on Lhe ground LhaL
managerlal employees are lnellglble for unlon member shlp
8ouLe managers are noL allowed Lo self-organlze
8ouLe managers are managerlal employees, noL supervlsory
employees
lndusLrlal eace AcL - afflrmed Lhe rlghL of supervlsors Lo
form Lhelr own organlzaLlons. lL dld noL deflne Lhe Lerm
manager."
1974 Labor Code - denled Lhe supervlsors, or fronL-llne

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
under Art|c|e 24S of the Labor Code.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Art|c|e 24S, lnsofar as lL prohlblLs managerlal
employees from formlng, [olnlng, or asslsLlng labor unlons,
vlolaLes Art|c|e 3, Sec. 8 of the Const|tut|on
PLLu:
no. 1he ConsLlLuLlon allows only supervlsory employees Lo
form unlons.
managers, Lhe rlghL Lo self-organlze.
ArLlcle 3, SecLlon 8 of Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon - lnLended Lo
resLore Lhe rlghL of supervlsory employees Lo self-organlze.
Commlssloner Lerum repeaLedly referred Lo supervlsory
employees."
1989 Labor Code - provlded separaLe deflnlLlons for Lhe
Lerms managerlal and supervlsory employees. 1he dlsLlncLlon
carrled ouL Lhe lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal commlsslon.
All managerlal employees are confldenLlal employees. lf
Lhese managerlal employees would belong Lo or be afflllaLed
wlLh a unlon, Lhe laLLer mlghL noL be assured of Lhelr loyalLy
Lo Lhe unlon ln vlew of evldenL confllcL of lnLeresL.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

LkkCkIA1ICN IN GLNLkAL, kLVLkSICN
1 vda. ue Cuna
v. 8epubllc

C8 168770

lebruary 9,
2011
lAC1S:
naLlonal AlrporL CorporaLlon (nAC) soughL Lo expand
Lahug AlrporL. lL meL and negoLlaLed wlLh Lhe owners
of Lhe properLles slLuaLed around Lhe alrporL. 1he
negoLlaLlng Leam assured Lhem Lhey could
repurchase Lhelr respecLlve lands should Lahug
AlrporL close.
uecades laLer, Lahug AlrporL formally ceased lLs
operaLlons. 1he owners of Lhe lands formally
demanded LhaL Lhey be allowed Lo exerclse Lhelr
rlghL Lo repurchase.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe abandonmenL of Lhe publlc use
for whlch Lhe lands were approprlaLed enLlLles
peLlLloners Lo reacqulre Lhem.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he mandaLory requlremenL of due process
oughL Lo be sLrlcLly followed. A genulne need musL
be presenLed Lo Lake prlvaLe properLy.
8lghLs of Lhe exproprlaLed loLs musL be equlLably ad[usLed beLween Lhe
governmenL and Lhe former owners:
lf Lhe land ls exproprlaLed for a parLlcular purpose, wlLh Lhe condlLlon
LhaL lf Lhe purpose ls ended or abandoned, Lhe properLy shall be
reLurned Lo lLs former owner, Lhen Lhe purpose ls LermlnaLed, Lhe
former owner reacqulres Lhe properLy so exproprlaLed.
ower of emlnenL domaln has 2 mandaLory requlremenLs
o lL ls for a parLlcular publlc use
! LxproprlaLor musL commlL Lhe use of Lhe properLy
pursuanL Lo Lhe purpose sLaLed ln Lhe peLlLlon for
exproprlaLlon
! lf noL, lL ls lncumbenL upon Lhe exproprlaLor Lo reLurn
Lhe properLy, lf Lhe laLLer so deslres. CLherwlse, Lhe
prlvaLe owner would be deprlved due process.
o !usL compensaLlon be pald Lo Lhe owner
ubllc use - any use
LhaL ls of usefulness,
uLlllLy, or advanLage,
or whaL ls producLlve
of general beneflL (of
Lhe publlc)."
CWLk 1C UNDLk1AkL LkkCkIA1ICN CASL
2 lron and SLeel
AuLhorlLy v.
CA

C.8. no.
lAC1S:
lron and SLeel AuLhorlLy (lSA) was creaLed by u272
and had Lhe power Lo lnlLlaLe exproprlaLlon of land
requlred for baslc lron and sLeel faclllLles.
lSA lnlLlaLed exproprlaLlon proceedlngs agalnsL Marla
lSA falls under Lhe second caLegory of parLles ln a clvll acLlon recognlzed under
ku|e 3, Sec. 1 of the ku|es of Court. Powever, lL does noL possess general or
comprehenslve [urldlcal personallLy dlsLlncL and separaLe from LhaL of Lhe
governmenL.
lSA ln facL appears Lo be a non-lncorporaLed agency or lnsLrumenLallLy

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
102976

CcLober 23,
1993

CrlsLlna lerLlllzer CorporaLlon (MClC). 8uL whlle Lhe
Lrlal was ongolng, Lhe sLaLuLory exlsLence of lSA
explred.
MClC moves for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case as Lhe
oLher parLy ceased Lo be a [urldlcal person, lSA
moves LhaL Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes should be
allowed Lo subsLlLuLe for lSA slnce Lhe 8epubllc ls Lhe
real parLy-ln-lnLeresL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes ls
enLlLled Lo subsLlLuLe lSA.

PLLu:
?LS. When Lhe sLaLuLory Lerm of a !"!#$!%"&'"&()*+
agency explres, Lhe powers, duLles and funcLlons,
asseLs and llablllLles of LhaL agency reverL back Lo and
are reassumed by Lhe 8.
of Lhe governmenL of Lhe 8, as dlsLlngulshed from oLher enLlLles LhaL
are vesLed wlLh a [urldlcal personallLy dlsLlncL from Lhe personallLy of
Lhe 8 (l.e. nACCC8, nPA, eLc.)
As an agenL or mere delegaLe of Lhe 8, lLs powers, duLles and funcLlons, asseLs
and llablllLles naLurally reverL Lo Lhe 8 when lL ceased Lo exlsL. SubsequenLly,
Lhe 8 may subsLlLuLe lL as Lhe real parLy-ln-lnLeresL.
AL Lhe commencemenL of Lhe proceedlng, lSA was a real parLy-ln-
lnLeresL and lL lnsLlLuLed Lhe exproprlaLlon proceedlng ln lLs capaclLy as
an agenL or represenLaLlve of Lhe 8. ln oLher words, lL was broughL on
behalf of and for Lhe beneflL of Lhe 8 who ls Lhe prlnclpal or real parLy-
ln-lnLeresL.
kIGn1S CI CWNLk 8LICkL LkkCkIA1ICN
3 8epubllc v.
Salem

C.8. no.
137369

!une 23, 2000
lAC1S:
1he ue la 8ama's owned land, a porLlon of whlch was
belng exproprlaLed by Lhe governmenL. 8uL durlng
Lhe exproprlaLlon proceedlngs, Lhey sold Lhe enLlre
land (lncludlng Lhe porLlon belng exproprlaLed) Lo
Cuerrero.
AfLer Lhe 81C deLermlned Lhe [usL compensaLlon for
Lhe sald porLlon, boLh parLles clalm Lo be enLlLled Lo
lL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL ue la 8ama's had ownershlp of Lhe
porLlon of land belng exproprlaLed when lL sold Lhe
1he exproprlaLlon of land has Lwo sLages: (1) deLermlnaLlon of Lhe auLhorlLy of
Lhe plalnLlff Lo exerclse emlnenL domaln, and (2) deLermlnaLlon of [usL
compensaLlon. lL ls only afLer boLh are done when exproprlaLlon can be sald Lo
be compleLe. 1lLle over Lhe properLy passes Lo Lhe governmenL CnL? upon
paymenL of [usL compensaLlon. 1herefore, durlng Lhe pendency, Lhe ownershlp
remalns wlLh Lhe reglsLered owner and he may exerclse all rlghLs over lL:
lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose.
1hus, Lhe ue la 8amas sLlll had auLhorlLy Lo Lransfer ownershlp of Lhelr
land and convey all rlghLs, lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo recelve [usL
compensaLlon, Lo Cuerrero.
1helr conLracL Lo sell enLered by boLh parLles covered Lhe enLlre loL, lncludlng
exproprlaLed area.
1he ue la 8amas, havlng wlLhdrawn and approprlaLed Cuerrero's full

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
enLlre parcel Lo Cuerrero.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he sale of Lhe land lncluded Lhe sale of Lhelr
lnLeresL ln Lhe porLlon of land belng exproprlaLed,
Cuerrero ls enLlLled Lo Lhe [usL compensaLlon.
paymenL, cannoL clalm LhaL Lhey sLlll somehow reLalned ownershlp of
Lhe loL. 1hls would un[usLly enrlch Lhem.
LLLMLN1S CI 1AkING
4 8epubllc v. de
CasLellvl

C.8. no. L-
20620

AugusL 13,
1974
lAC1S:
ln 1947, Lhe 8epubllc enLered lnLo a conLracL of lease
wlLh CasLellvl for properLy ln ampanga sub[ecL Lo
renewal on a year basls.
ln 1936, CasLellvl refused Lo renew Lhe conLracL of
lease and wroLe Lo Lhe Chlef of SLaff of Lhe Al Lo
vacaLe Lhe properLy. 1he Al resolved Lo exproprlaLe
lL and flled sulL.
1he Lrlal courL, ln decldlng when Lo sLarL counLlng for
[usL compensaLlon, ruled LhaL Lhe Laklng" of Lhe
properLy commenced wlLh Lhe flllng of Lhe sulL and
noL when 8epubllc leased lL ln 1947. Pence [usL
compensaLlon should be counLed from 1939.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lower courL erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe
Laklng" under exproprlaLlon commenced wlLh Lhe
flllng of Lhe complalnL.

PLLu:
nC. 1he "Laklng" of Lhe CasLellvl properLy should be
reckoned when Lhe exproprlaLlon commenced wlLh
Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL and noL as of 1947 when
Lhe 8epubllc flrsL occupled Lhe same pursuanL Lo Lhe
conLracL of lease, Lhe [usL compensaLlon Lo be pald
1he Laklng" of CasLellvl's properLy for purposes of
emlnenL domaln can'L be consldered Lo have Laken place ln 1947 slnce 2
essenLlal requlslLes for emlnenL domaln are lacklng:
" LxproprlaLor musL enLer a prlvaLe properLy - resenL, slnce by vlrLue of
Lhe lease agreemenL, Lhe 8epubllc Look possesslon of Lhe properLy of
CasLellvl.
! Such enLrance musL be for more Lhan a momenLary
1
perlod - noL
resenL, Lease conLracL was for a perlod of one year, renewable from
year Lo year. 1he enLry on Lhe properLy, under Lhe lease, ls Lemporary,
and consldered LranslLory.
" LnLrance should be under warranL or color of legal auLhorlLy - resenL,
8epubllc enLered Lhe properLy as lessee
" roperLy musL be devoLed Lo a publlc use or oLherwlse lnformally
approprlaLed or ln[urlously affecLed. - resenL, roperLy was used by
Lhe alr force of Lhe Al
! uLlllzaLlon musL be ln such a way as Lo ousL Lhe owner and deprlve hlm
of all beneflclal en[oymenL of Lhe properLy - noL resenL, 8epubllc's
uLlllzaLlon dld noL deprlve CasLellvl of al beneflclal en[oymenL of Lhe
properLy. She remalned as owner and was conLlnuously recognlzed as
such as evldenced by Lhe lease. Moreover, 8epubllc has bound Lo pay
and has been paylng monLhly renLals unLll Lhe Llme when lL flled for
emlnenL domaln.

unLenable also ls Lhe 8epubllc's conLenLlon LhaL alLhough Lhe conLracL was a
yearly lease, lL was "ln reallLy a more or less permanenL rlghL Lo occupy Lhe
1
"momenLary" when
applled Lo possesslon
or occupancy of (real)
properLy should be
consLrued Lo mean "a
llmlLed perlod" - noL
lndeflnlLe or
permanenL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
for Lhe CasLellvl properLy should noL be deLermlned
on Lhe basls of Lhe value of Lhe properLy as of 1947.
premlses under Lhe gulse of lease wlLh Lhe 'rlghL and prlvllege' Lo buy Lhe
properLy should Lhe lessor wlsh Lo LermlnaLe Lhe lease," and "Lhe rlghL Lo buy
Lhe properLy ls merged as an lnLegral parL of Lhe lease relaLlonshlp ... so much so
LhaL Lhe falr markeL value has been agreed upon, noL, as of Lhe Llme of purchase,
buL as of Lhe Llme of occupancy. 1o hold oLherwlse would sancLlon a decepLlve
scheme whlch would have Lhe effecL of deprlvlng Lhe owner of Lhe properLy of
lLs Lrue and falr markeL value aL Lhe Llme when Lhe exproprlaLlon proceedlngs
were acLually lnsLlLuLed ln courL slnce Lhe Laklng" would hold Lhe value aL Lhe
Llme when Lhe lease was enLered (noLably when Lhe properLy was worLh far
less).

S uS v. Causby

328 uS 236

May 27, 1946
lAC1S:
8espondenL ls an owner of a parcel of land
conLalnlng hls dwelllng and a chlcken farm. Ad[acenL
Lo Lhelr properLy ls an alrporL used by uS bombers,
LransporLs and flghLers.
1he paLh of gllde of Lhe planes pass dlrecLly over Lhe
properLy of Lhe respondenL, someLlmes barely
mlsslng Lree Lops. 8espondenLs also had Lo glve up
Lhelr chlcken buslness due Lo deaLhs of Lhe poulLry
resulLlng from frlghL when Lhe planes would Lake-off.
1he CourL of Clalms also found LhaL Lhe respondenLs'
properLy has depreclaLed ln value as a resulL.

lSSuL:
WheLher respondenLs' properLy was Laken wlLhln Lhe
meanlng of Lhe llfLh AmendmenL by frequenL and
regular fllghLs of army and navy alrcrafL over
respondenLs' land aL low alLlLudes.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he easemenL of navlgable alr space amounLed
1he landowner owns aL leasL as much of Lhe space above Lhe ground as he can
occupy or use ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe land.
lf Lhe landowner ls deprlved excluslve conLrol of Lhe lmmedlaLe reaches
of Lhe enveloplng aLmosphere, bulldlngs, Lrees, or even fences could noL
be erecLed. 1hls would affecL Lhe characLer and value of Lhe land ln
connecLlon wlLh lLs usablllLy.
1he facL LhaL Lhe planes never Louched Lhe surface would be as
lrrelevanL as Lhe owner's rlghL Lo possess and explolL Lhe land - l.e. hls
beneflclal ownershlp of lL - would be desLroyed.

uS v. owelson # Lhe meanlng of properLy" as used ln Lhe llfLh AmendmenL
wlll normally obLaln lLs conLenL by reference Lo local law.
(norLh Carollna Law) Gen.Stats.1943 63-13 sLaLes LhaL fllghLs over
prlvaLe land are noL a Laklng, unless Lhey are so low and so frequenL as
Lo be a dlrecL and lmmedlaLe lnLerference wlLh Lhe en[oymenL and use
of Lhe land.
uCC18lnL: Meanlng
of Laklng of properLy"
ln connecLlon wlLh
[usL compensaLlon ls
lnLerpreLed ln
accordance wlLh local
law.

uCC18lnL: 1he naLure
of Lhe Laklng
(permanenL or
Lemporary easemenL)
ls also cruclal Lo Lhe
deLermlnaLlon of
wheLher [usL
compensaLlon ls due
Lo Lhe parLy or noL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lo Laklng whlch can be compensaLed under Lhe llfLh
AmendmenL.

6 eople v.
la[ardo

C.8. no. L-
612172

AugusL 29,
1938
lAC1S:
!uan l. la[ardo and edro 8abllonla of a vlolaLlon of
Crd|nance No. 7, of Lhe MunlclpallLy of 8aao,
Camarlnes Sur, for havlng consLrucLed wlLhouL a
permlL from Lhe munlclpal mayor a bulldlng LhaL
desLroys Lhe vlew of Lhe publlc plaza. 1he ordlnance
was agalnsL Lhe consLrucLlon of bulldlngs LhaL would
obsLrucL Lhe vlew of Lhe ubllc laza.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Crd|nance No. 7 ls consLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
nC. Crd|nance No. 7 ls unconsLlLuLlonal for belng
arblLrary and amounLlng Lo Laklng of prlvaLe properLy
wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon.

1he mayor's sLandard ls LhaL when Lhe proposed bulldlng "desLroys Lhe vlew of
Lhe publlc plaza or occuples any publlc properLy." Lven Lhls lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe
ordlnance ls unreasonable and oppresslve, ln LhaL lL operaLes Lo permanenLly
deprlve appellanLs of Lhe rlghL Lo use Lhelr own properLy, hence, lL oversLeps Lhe
bounds of pollce power, and amounLs Lo a Laklng of appellanLs' properLy wlLhouL
[usL compensaLlon.
Whlle properLy may be regulaLed ln Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe general welfare,
and ln lLs pursulL, Lhe SLaLe may prohlblL sLrucLures offenslve Lo Lhe
slghL, Lhe SLaLe may noL, under Lhe gulse of pollce power, permanenLly
dlvesL owners of Lhe beneflclal use of Lhelr properLy and pracLlcally
conflscaLe Lhem solely Lo preserve or assure Lhe aesLheLlc appearance of
Lhe communlLy.

7 8epubllc v.
Lu1

C.8. no. L-
18841

lAC1S:
Lu1 and Lhe 8ureau of 1elecommunlcaLlons enLered
lnLo an agreemenL whereby Lhe 8ureau shall renL Lhe
Lelephone Lrunks of Lu1 ln order Lo open a
connecLlon beLween governmenL and prlvaLe
Lelephone llnes.
?ears laLer, Lu1 complalns of Lhe 8ureau of
1elecommunlcaLlons' paraslLlc use" of lLs Lelephone
wlres and LhreaLens severance of communlcaLlon
servlces unless Lhe governmenL ceases lLs operaLlons.

lSSuL:
ursuanL Lo Sect|on 6 Art|c|e kIII of the Const|tut|on, Lhe SLaLe may
requlre a publlc uLlllLy Lo render servlces ln Lhe general lnLeresL upon
paymenL of [usL compensaLlon.
Sect|on 78b of L.C. 94 sLaLes Lhe 8ureau's powers and funcLlons ln
malnLalnlng a communlcaLlon sysLem ln Lhe hlllpplnes, and lL +"*- !")
*.%/0+* condemnaLlon proceedlngs lf necessary Lo allow Lhe efflcacy of
peLlLloner's operaLlons. ln addlLlon, Lhe provlslons of L.C. 94 do noL
prohlblL Lhe 8ureau from venLurlng lnLo commerclal servlces, and lL does
noL prevenL lL from servlng Lhe prlvaLe secLor.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL may compel
peLlLloner Lo enLer lnLo a conLracL of lnLerconnecLlon
wlLh lL.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he Supreme CourL upholds Lhe power of Lhe
8ureau Lo compel Lu1 Lo leL lL uLlllze lLs faclllLles for
publlc use, and lL furLher sLaLes LhaL, when a prlvaLe
enLlLy 1"/0!)(&$/2 allows Lhe SLaLe Lo make use of lLs
properLy or servlces for publlc use, Lhe general publlc
lmmedlaLely acqulres an lnLeresL ln lL, conferrlng
upon Lhe properLy a publlc sLaLus.

8 enn CenLral
1ransporLaLlon
v. new ?ork
ClLy

438 uS 104

!une 26, 1978
lAC1S:
Landmark reservaLlon Law- proLecLs hlsLorlc
landmarks and nelghborhoods from alLeraLlons
o L Commlsslon- deslgnaLed landmark slLes
and bulldlngs.
Crand CenLral 1ermlnal, a landmark slLe, ls owned by
enn CenLral.
enn CenLral enLered lnLo a lease agreemenL wlLh
unlon Ceneral roperLles Lo consLrucL a 30-sLorey
offlce bulldlng over Lhe 1ermlnal.
Commlsslon prohlblLed Lhe consLrucLlon pursuanL Lo
Lhe Landmark reservaLlon Law.
eLlLloner clalms Law ls a Laklng" of properLy
wlLhouL [usL compensaLlon, and LhaL Lhey were
arblLrarlly deprlved of Lhelr properLy wlLhouL due
process.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Landmark Law consLlLuLes a Laklng"
1he naLure and exLenL of Lhe acLlon Laken musL be seen as a whole
raLher Lhan lLs dlscreLe elemenLs.
nC1 a Zonlng Law
o Zonlng law affecLs whole properLles. Landmarks Law only alms
Lo preserve lndlvldual bulldlngs and small areas for Lhelr
hlsLorlcal and aesLheLlc value.
Landmark laws merely resLrlcL occupanLs and owners from uslng cerLaln
parLs of Lhelr space wlLhouL deprlvlng Lhem of reasonable and proflLable
use of Lhelr properLles.
A smaller, harmonlzlng sLrucLure above Lhe Lermlnal may be auLhorlzed
lf proposed.
8esLrlcLlons lmposed were subsLanLlally relaLed Lo Lhe promoLlon of
publlc welfare.
uCC18lnL: Landmark
laws merely resLrlcL
occupanLs and owners
from uslng cerLaln
parLs of Lhelr space
wlLhouL deprlvlng
Lhem of reasonable
and proflLable use of
Lhelr properLles.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
of Lhe 1ermlnal roperLy. (lssue ls on Lhe alrspace
whlch enn CenLral clalms LhaL lL was deprlved of by
Lhe law.)

PLLu:
nC. Law does noL Lake Lhe properLy from Lhelr
owners.

9 CSC v. Ayala

C.8. no.
177036
lAC1S:
eLlLloner Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral (CSC), seeks
Lhe reversal and seLLlng aslde of Lhe ueclslon daLed
of Lhe CourL of Appeals afflrmed ln LoLo Lhe !olnL
ueclslon of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of MakaLl
ClLy. 1he 81C ad[udged LhaL respondenLs Ayala Land
lncorporaLed (Ayala Land), 8oblnsons Land
CorporaLlon (8oblnsons), Shangrl&la laza
CorporaLlon (Shangrl&la), and SM rlme Poldlngs,
lnc. (SM rlme) could noL be obllged Lo provlde free
parklng spaces ln Lhelr malls Lo Lhelr paLrons and Lhe
general publlc.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Nat|ona| 8u||d|ng Code requlres
shopplng mall operaLors Lo provlde parklng for free.

PLLu:
nC. 1he LoLal prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe collecLlon by
respondenLs of parklng fees from persons who use
Lhe mall parklng faclllLles has no basls ln Lhe naLlonal
8ulldlng Code or lLs l88. 1he SLaLe also cannoL
lmpose Lhe same prohlblLlon by generally lnvoklng
pollce power, slnce sald prohlblLlon amounLs Lo a
When Lhere ls a Laklng or conflscaLlon of prlvaLe properLy for publlc use, Lhe
SLaLe ls no longer exerclslng pollce power, buL anoLher of lLs lnherenL powers,
namely, emlnenL domaln. LmlnenL domaln enables Lhe SLaLe Lo forclbly acqulre
prlvaLe lands lnLended for publlc use upon paymenL of [usL compensaLlon Lo Lhe
owner...Slmllarly, a pollce regulaLlon LhaL unreasonably resLrlcLs Lhe rlghL Lo use
buslness properLy for buslness purposes amounLs Lo a Laklng of prlvaLe properLy,
and Lhe owner may recover Lherefor.

AlLhough ln Lhe presenL case, LlLle Lo and/or possesslon of Lhe parklng faclllLles
remaln/s wlLh respondenLs, Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhelr collecLlon of parklng
fees from Lhe publlc, for Lhe use of sald faclllLles, ls already LanLamounL Lo a
Laklng or conflscaLlon of Lhelr properLles. 1he SLaLe ls noL only requlrlng LhaL
respondenLs devoLe a porLlon of Lhe laLLer's properLles for use as parklng
spaces, buL ls also mandaLlng LhaL Lhey glve Lhe publlc access Lo sald parklng
spaces for free. Such ls already an excesslve lnLruslon lnLo Lhe properLy rlghLs of
respondenLs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Laklng of respondenLs' properLy wlLhouL paymenL of
[usL compensaLlon.

U8LIC USL
10 Sumulong v.
Cuerrero

C.8. L-48683

SepLember 30,
1987
lAC1S:
1he naLlonal Pouslng AuLhorlLy flled a complalnL for
exproprlaLlon for parcels of land coverlng 23
hecLares, lncludlng loLs owned by peLlLloners Lorenzo
Sumulong and Lmllla vldanes-8alaolng. 1he nPA
Lhen deposlLed a sum of money deemed as falr
markeL value" pursuanL Lo D 1224.
8espondenL !udge Cuerrero Lhen lssued Lhe
exproprlaLlon order wlLhouL however glvlng
peLlLloners an opporLunlLy Lo be heard.
eLlLloners conLend LhaL .u. 1224 allows Laklng of
properLy regardless of slze, LhaL soclallzed houslng"
ls noL for a publlc purpose, LhaL Lhe decree deprlves
Lhe courL of dlscreLlon Lo deLermlne [usL
compensaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL .u. 1224 and Lhe exproprlaLlon
order were consLlLuLlonal.

PLLu:
.u. 1224 ls consLlLuLlonal however Lhe order musL
be sLrlcken down for fallure Lo accord [usL
compensaLlon and noLlce and hearlng.

1he CourL held LhaL as Lo publlc use, whatever may be benef|c|a||y
emp|oyed for the genera| we|fare |s covered by that term. 1hey added
LhaL publlc use" now has an expanded scope, and because of Lhe
presslng need for more houslng the court |s sat|sf|ed that "soc|a||zed
hous|ng" |s w|th|n the conf|nes of pub||c use. As such, Lhe Lerm publlc
use" covered ln .u. 1224 saLlsfles Lhe consLlLuLlonal requlremenL.
As Lo Lhe Laklng of prlvaLe properLy, Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhe power of
emlnenL domaln cannoL be curLalled by how small or large Lhe land LhaL
ls Lo be exproprlaLed.
Cn Lhe maLLer of [ust compensat|on and due process, Lhe courL held
LhaL [usL compensaLlon was noL glven and LhaL due process was vlolaLed.
Cn [usL compensaLlon, Lhe CourL found Lhe nPA's valuaLlon Lo unlform
and unfalr, noL Laklng lnLo accounL any lndlvldual dlfferences.
And because Lhere was auLomaLlc Laklng wlLhouL glvlng Lhe peLlLloners
Lhe opporLunlLy Lo prove LhaL Lhe valuaLlon was unfalr, Lhe CourL found
LhaL provlslons declarlng auLomaLlc Laklng wlLhouL noLlce and hearlng
unconsLlLuLlonal.

11 hlllpplne
Columblan
AssoclaLlon v.
lAC1S:
hlllpplne Columblan AssoclaLlon (CA) owns a parcel
of land ad[acenL Lo Lhe loL where lL operaLes lLs
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe ClLy of Manlla has Lhe power Lo exproprlaLe
under Lhe 8evlsed CharLer of Lhe ClLy of Manlla. Speclflcally, k.A. 409,
Sec. 100, Lhe clLy ls auLhorlzed Lo condemn prlvaLe properLy for publlc
ower of LmlnenL
uomaln:
- 1aklng
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
anls

C.8. no.
106328

uecember 31,
1993
buslness. CA Lhen lnsLlLuLed an e[ecLmenL
proceedlng agalnsL Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs
occupylng Lhe land. 1hls was granLed by Lhe lower
courL and afflrmed by Lhe SC.
Powever, Lhe ClLy of Manlla passed an ordlnance
exproprlaLlng Lhe sad loL. 8ellevlng Manlla Lo have no
power Lo exproprlaLe prlvaLe lands, CA flled for
execuLlon of [udgmenL and laLer a wrlL of demollLlon
was laLer lssued.
rlvaLe respondenLs resldlng ln Lhe loL Lhen flled for
an ln[uncLlon, requesLlng LhaL CA be en[olned from
e[ecLlng Lhem and demollshlng Lhelr homes.
1he ClLy of Manlla on Lhe oLher hand flled a
complalnL agalnsL CA for exproprlaLlon of Lhe
sub[ecL of Lhe e[ecLmenL proceedlng.
CA flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss, conLendlng LhaL Lhe
ClLy of Manlla had no power Lo exproprlaLe prlvaLe
land and LhaL Lhe exproprlaLlon ls noL for publlc use
and welfare.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe exproprlaLlon proceedlng of Lhe
ClLy of Manlla should prosper

PLLu:
?LS. ClLy of Manlla has Lhe power Lo exproprlaLe.

use and Lo acqulre prlvaLe land and subdlvlde Lhe same lnLo home loLs
for sale on easy Lerms Lo clLy resldenLs"
1he ClLy of Manlla ls granLed by Lhe 8evlsed CharLer Lhe power of
emlnenL domaln-Lhls lncludes prlvaLe lands.
Cn Lhe sub[ecL of publlc use, Lhe CourL held LhaL "ub||c use now
|nc|udes the broader not|on of |nd|rect pub||c benef|t or advantage,
|nc|ud|ng, urban |and reform and hous|ng".
As such, Lhe CourL held LhaL [usL because only a few could beneflL from
Lhe exproprlaLlon of Lhe properLy, does noL dlmlnlsh lLs publlc use
characLer.
- ubllc use
!usL CompensaLlon
12 MacLan v.
1udLud

C.8. no.
174012
lAC1S:
1udLud eL al. were owners of a loL ln Cebu ClLy whlch
was acqulred by Lhe naLlonal AlrporL CorporaLlon
and laLer Lransferred Lo MClAA
8espondenLs demanded Lo repurchase sald loL buL
lery v. MunlclpallLy of CabanaLuan # lf. land ls exproprlaLed for a parLlcular
purpose, wlLh Lhe condlLlon LhaL when LhaL purpose ls ended or abandoned Lhe
properLy shall reLurn Lo lLs former owner, Lhen, of course, when Lhe purpose ls
LermlnaLed or abandoned, Lhe former owner reacqulres Lhe properLy so
exproprlaLed."

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

november 14,
2008
demand remalned unheeded
MClAA sald LhaL Lhere was no condlLlon LhaL Lhe
exproprlaLed loL would be reLurned Lo Lhe owners

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe exproprlaLlon of LoL no. 988 was
absoluLe and uncondlLlonal.
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenLs' clalm of verbal
assurances from Lhe governmenL vlolaLe Lhe SLaLe of
lrauds
PLLu:
nC. Lven Lhough Lhe acqulslLlon was granLed wlLhouL
any condlLlon LhaL Lhe loL would be reLurned,
reconveyance depends on Lhe characLer of Lhe LlLle.
1he SLaLuLe of lrauds applles only Lo execuLory
conLracLs, noL Lo conLracLs whlch have been
compleLely or parLlally performed.

Statute of Irauds:
lf a conLracL has been LoLally or parLlally performed, Lhe excluslon of parol
evldence would promoLe fraud or bad falLh."

IUS1 CCMLNSA1ICN
13 ClLy of Manlla
v. LsLrada

lAC1S:
1he ClLy of Manlla soughL Lo exproprlaLe an enLlre
parcel of land for use ln connecLlon wlLh a new
markeL belng erecLed aL Lhe Llme ln Lhe dlsLrlcL of
aco.
uurlng exproprlaLlon proceedlngs, Lwo real esLaLe
proceedlngs were presenLed. 1hey sLaLed LhaL 10
per square meLer was a good prlce for Lhe land. 1hey
made negoLlaLlons regardlng land opposlLe lL [usL 30
days before and Lhe owner managed Lo sell lL aL 6
per square meLer.
AdmlnlsLraLor of Lhe land Lo be exproprlaLed also
LesLlfled, sLaLlng LhaL anoLher land opposlLe Lhem
When deLermlnlng [usL compensaLlon
1esLlmony as Lo mere offers are lnadmlsslble
1esLlmony relaLlve Lo real esLaLe LransacLlon ln Lhe vlclnlLy ls admlsslble
o LocaLlon and characLer of such properLy should be slmllar
o Sales of such properLy should be relaLlvely close ln polnL of Llme
Lvldence showlng prlce pald under emlnenL domaln proceedlngs are
lnadmlsslble
o 1hey are noL a falr crlLerlon because Lhey are ln Lhe naLure of a
compromlse. lL resulLs from one parLy paylng more or one parLy
Laklng less Lhan whaL ls consldered falr markeL value.
o LxcepLlon Lo Lhe rule LhaL sales of such land may be offered ln
evldence.
o ln Lhe Clarke Case, Lhe amounL of 19.83 was made up of Lhe
MarkeL value - should
be Lhe prlce whlch Lhe
properLy wlll brlng
when lL ls offered by
Lhe person who
deslres buL ls noL
obllged Lo sell lL, and
boughL by one who ls
under no necesslLy of
havlng lL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
was also exproprlaLed by Lhe clLy. 1he land was
boughL aL 19.83 per square meLer. 8ecause Lhls
happened Lhree years ago, Lhe LsLrada land should
be worLh aL leasL 23 per square meLer.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 10 ls [usL compensaLlon

PLLu
?LS. 1he real esLaLe LransacLlons near Lhe land durlng
Lhe pasL monLh should be preferred Lo LransacLlons
whlch happened years prlor.

6.30 per square meLer of Lhe land lLself plus consequenLlal
damages Lo Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe land adversely
affecLed. ln Lhe presenL case, Lhere are no consequenLlal
damages slnce Lhe enLlre land ls belng Laken.
14 Maddumba v.
CSlS

C.8. no. L-
61293

lebruary 13,
1990
lAC1S:
CovernmenL Servlce lnsurance SysLem (CSlS)
conducLed a publlc blddlng for a house and loL, whlch
uomlngo 8. Maddumba won.
Maddumba offered Lo pay hls balance wlLh Land
8ank bonds slnce Sect|on 8S, k.A. No. 3844 as
amended by .D. No. 2S1 sLaLes LhaL such bonds
may be used as paymenL for purchase of sLocks or
asseLs of any governmenL-owned or conLrolled
corporaLlon (CCCC).
CSlS sald LhaL lL wlll only accepL such bonds aL a
dlscounLed raLe.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL under Lhe provlslons of Sect|on 8S of
k.A. No. 3844, as amended by .D. No. 2S1, Lhe CSlS
may be compelled Lo accepL Land 8ank bonds aL Lhelr
face value ln paymenL for a resldenLlal house and loL
purchased by Lhe bondholder from Lhe CSlS.
1he Land 8ank 8onds were lssued by Lhe governmenL under .D. No. 27 Lo
Maddumba as paymenL for hls 26-hecLare 8lceland ln Cordon, lsabela whlch Lhe
governmenL had exproprlaLed.
Sect|on 8S ls deslgned Lo cushlon Lhe lmpacL of dlspossesslon resulLlng
from Lhe acqulslLlon/exproprlaLlon of farm loLs under land reform.
lnsLead of money, Lhe governmenL may pay land-owners Lhrough Land
8ank bonds. ln such case, Lhe landowner seldom geLs Lhe prlce he
deslres ln exchange for hls farm loL.
1hese bonds are deemed conLracLs and Lhe obllgaLlons resulLlng
Lherefrom fall wlLhln Lhe purvlew of Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon, and any lmpalrmenL Lhereof may Lake any encroachmenL
ln any respecL upon Lhe obllgaLlon and cannoL be permlLLed. 1hus, Lhe
value of Lhese bonds cannoL be dlmlnlshed by any dlrecL or lndlrecL acL,
parLlcularly, slnce sald bonds are fully guaranLeed by Lhe CovernmenL of
Lhe hlllpplnes.
uCC18lnL: Land 8ank
8onds may be lssued
ln lleu of cash
paymenL ln
exproprlaLlon cases ln
order Lo saLlsfy Lhe
[usL compensaLlon
requlremenL of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. ln order
for such Lo consLlLuLe
[usL compensaLlon, lL
ls only accepLable LhaL
CCCCs should accepL
Lhe bonds aL Lhelr face
value. CLherwlse, lL
would resulL Lo an
ln[usLlce whereln Lhe
landowner noL only
falls Lo geL Lhe prlce
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
?LS. 1houghL Lhe sLaLuLe does noL expllclLly provlde
LhaL Land 8ank bonds shall be accepLed by CCCCs
llke Lhe CSlS aL Lhelr face value, Lhere can be no
quesLlon LhaL such ls Lhe lnLendmenL of Lhe law
parLlcularly ln Lhe absence of any provlslon expressly
permlLLlng dlscounLlng.

he wanLs for hls
exproprlaLed land, buL
Lhe paymenL made Lo
hlm ls of lesser value
when pald back Lo Lhe
one who flrsL gave lL
Lo hlm (l.e. Lhe
governmenL)
1S MacLan v.
urgello

C.8. no.
162288

Aprll 4, 2007
lAC1S:
1964- urgello enLered lnLo a CondlLlonal ueed of Sale
wlLh Lhe Clvll AeronauLlcs AdmlnlsLraLlon (CAA)
o 8esoluLory condlLlon LhaL lf Lhe governmenL
would no longer use Lhe alrporL, lL wlll be
reconveyed Lo Lhe landowners upon
relmbursemenL of Lhe purchase prlce.
A 8eglonal 8ase Shop Complex was bullL on lL.
1989- res. Aqulno lssued Memorandum LhaL alrporL
was Lransferred Lo MacLan lA before Lhe end of 1990,
Lahug AlrporL ceased operaLlons (loL no longer
needed).
1991- Compromlse AgreemenL enLered beLween
urgello and 8A1 (Alr 1ransporLaLlon Cfflce) and
uWP ang 1longco consLrucLlon.
o urgello agrees Lo sell Lhe land and uWP
agrees Lo purchase Lhe loL.
uWP wlLhdraws lLs complalnL for emlnenL domaln
uWP lgnored Lhe courL order Lo pay urgello as
agreed ln Lhe compromlse.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL uWP's fallure Lo pay urgello ls

lallure of uWP Lo reLurn loL Lo urgello desplLe her reLurn of Lhe
purchase prlce ls unfalr = no [usL compensaLlon.

Cebu 81C ruled ln favour of respondenL ln her complalnL for
reconveyance
o Crderlng uWP, MClAA, and A1C Lo solldarlly convey Lo plalnLlff
wlLhouL anymore paylng Lhe purchase prlce as lL was pald
already.

MClAA ls Lhe successor-ln-lnLeresL of A1C, Lherefore, solldarlly llable
wlLh uWP.

345678
9:; 5;937<4;595:43 4==:>6 ?(- "!* "@ )A* "&$B$!(/ '*)$)$"!*&- $! )A$-
%(-*C
70%%**+*+ D2 E(%)(! >*D0 :!)*&!()$"!(/ 9$&'"&) 90)A"&$)2C
;9 FGHI# ($&'"&) @(%$/$)$*- ?*&* )&(!-@*&&*+ )" )A* "?!*&-A$' (!+
(0)A"&$)2 "@ E>:99C

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
LanLamounL Lo exproprlaLlon wlLhouL [usL
compensaLlon.
WheLher or noL MClAA ls solldarlly llable wlLh hls co-
peLlLloners.

PLLu:
1here was Laklng wlLhouL compensaLlon.

IUDICIAL kLVILW
16 ue knechL vs.
8auLlsLa

C.8. no.
L-31078

CcLober 30,
1980

lAC1S:
1970's- uWC declded Lo exLend LuSA Lo 8oxas
8oulevard for Lhe Manlla-CavlLe CoasLal 8oad ro[ecL
1he orlglnal plan was Lo exproprlaLe properLles along
CuneLa Avenue, asay.
1974- SecreLary Aqulno wanLed Lhe rouLe Lo pass
Lhrough lernando 8eln and uel an sLreeLs lnsLead.
ue knechL flled a peLlLlon Lo res. Marcos praylng for
Lhe adopLlon of Lhe orlglnal plan.
Aqulno defended Lhe new proposal of Lhe new rouLe.
1he CovernmenL would save 2,000,000.
res. Marcos referred Lhe maLLer Lo Lhe Commlsslon
on Puman SeLLlemenLs: recommended Lhe orlglnal
plan, buL MlnlsLry sLlll lnslsLed on lernando and uel
an sLreeLs.
!udge 8auLlsLa ruled ln favor of Lhe governmenL, and
lssued a wrlL of execuLlon agalnsL Lhe homeowners
locaLed along Lhe Lwo sLreeLs.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL !udge 8auLlsLa commlLLed CAuALL!
ln lssulng Lhe wrlL.

PLLu:
1horough sLudles musL have been conducLed Lo lnlLlally declde on
CuneLa Avenue rouLe, unllke Lhe spurlous declslon of chooslng uel an-
lernando SLreeLs.
o CuneLa Avenue meL Lhe plannlng and deslgn crlLerla of Lhe
pro[ecL.
1he rlghL-of-way acqulslLlon cosL dlfference facLor was very mlnlmal:
o 200,000 only lnsLead of 2M.
1he governmenL was sLlll wllllng Lo spend on Lhe pro[ecL regardless of
whlch rouLe was chosen.
ln CuneLa Avenue rouLe, moLels and slmllar esLabllshmenLs would be
mosLly affecLed. 1he rouLe was more favorable conslderlng Lhe Lrafflc
and englneerlng facLors.

CondlLlons lmposed:
1. Compose a deLalled and comprehenslve plan for Lhe relocaLlon of
esLabllshmenLs adversely and genulnely affecLed.
2. rompL paymenL of [usL compensaLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?LS. Crave abuse of dlscreLlon was commlLLed.
CovernmenL musL use Lhe orlglnal rouLe.

17 8epubllc v. ue
knechL

C.8. 87333

lebruary 12,
1990
lAC1S:
AfLer Lhe CourL ruled ln favor of ue knechL ln ue
knechL v. 8auLlsLa (C.8. no. L-31078), Lhe 8aLasang
ambansa passed 8 8lg. 340 ln lebruary 17, 1983,
exproprlaLlng Lhe land of ue knechL whlch was Lhe
sub[ecL ln Lhe menLloned case.
1he 8epubllc wanLed Lo exLend LuSA up Lo 8oxas
8oulevard ln order Lo ease Lrafflc, hence an
exproprlaLlon proceedlng was flled agalnsL Lhe
owners of Lhe houses sLandlng along lernando 8eln-
uel an sLreeLs. ue knechL ln (ue knechL v. 8auLlsLa)
conLesLed, on whlch Lhe CourL ruled LhaL "the cho|ce
of Iernando ke|n-De| an streets as the ||ne through
wh|ch the LDSA shou|d be extended to koxas
8ou|evard |s arb|trary and shou|d not rece|ve
[ud|c|a| approva|"
1he 8epubllc Lhen flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe
exproprlaLlon acLlon clLlng 8 8lg. 340 exproprlaLlng
Lhe same properLles for Lhe same purpose whlch Lhe
lower courL granLed. 8espondenL ue knechL
appealed clLlng Lhe declslon ln ue knechL v. 8auLlsLa
whlch Lhe CourL of Appeals granLed. Pence Lhls
appeal by Lhe 8epubllc.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL an exproprlaLlon proceedlng LhaL
was deLermlned by a flnal [udgmenL of Lhls CourL
may be sub[ecL of a subsequenL leglslaLlon for
exproprlaLlon.
1he CourL held LhaL alLhough Lhe rullng ln ue knechL v. 8auLlsLa became
Lhe law of Lhe case beLween Lhe parLles, 8 8lg. 340 effecLlvely
superseded Lhe declslon.
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe exproprlaLlon proceedlngs may lndeed be
underLaken by Lhe peLlLloner not on|y by vo|untary negot|at|on w|th
the |and owner but a|so by tak|ng appropr|ate court act|on or by
|eg|s|at|on.
AL Lhe Llme of Lhe presenL peLlLlon, Lhe 8epubllc acqulred Lhrough
negoLlaLlon 80 Lo 83 of Lhe lands lnvolved, only 10-13 remalned, of
LhaL 3 belonged Lhe ue knechL.
1he CourL also noLed LhaL Lhe soc|a| |mpact factor clLed ln Lhe prevlous
rullng had already dlsappeared, only Lhe pr|vate respondent rema|ned
as the so||tary obstac|e to the pro[ect that w||| so|ve not on|y dra|nage
and f|ood contro| prob|em but a|so m|n|m|ze the traff|c bott|eneck |n
the area.
Slnce Lhe soclal lmpacL facLor was Lhe conLrolllng reason ln Lhe rullng ln
ue knechL v. 8auLlsLa, Lhere was no longer any obsLacle Lo Lhe leglslaLlve
arm of Lhe governmenL ln maklng lLs own lndependenL assessmenL of
Lhe clrcumsLance Lhen prevalllng as Lo Lhe proprleLy of underLaklng Lhe
exproprlaLlon of Lhe properLles ln quesLlon and LhereafLer enacLlng Lhe
correspondlng leglslaLlon.
uCC18lnL: !udlclal
revlew ls noL a bar Lo
a leglslaLlve acL of
exproprlaLlon when
such ls done ln llghL of
clrcumsLances noL
presenL prlor.

AspecL of !udlclal
8evlew ln Lhe exerclse
of LmlnenL uomaln:
Adequacy of Lhe
compensaLlon
necesslLy of Lhe
Laklng
ubllc use"
characLer of Lhe
purpose of Lhe
Laklng
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
?LS.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

1 Pome 8ulldlng
and Loan
AssoclaLlon v.
8lalsdell

290 u.S. 398

!anuary 8,
1934
lAC1S:
1he SLaLe of MlnnesoLa passed Lhe MorLgage MoraLorlum
Law durlng Lhe CreaL uepresslon. 1he law, declarlng LhaL a
sLaLe of emergency exlsLed and as such Lhe SLaLe musL
address Lhe presslng concern, provlded for Lhe exLenslon of
morLgages so LhaL borrowers would have enough Llme Lo pay
back Lhelr debLs.
ursuanL Lo Lhls, Lhe spouses 8lalsdell was granLed an
exLenslon ln Lhelr perlod of redempLlon. AppellanL Pome
8ulldlng and Loan AssoclaLlon conLesLed Lhls, argulng LhaL
Lhe MorLgage MoraLorlum Law was repugnanL Lo Lhe non-
lmpalrmenL clause of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe MlnnesoLa MorLgage MoraLorlum Law
vlolaLes Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause of Lhe lourLeenLh
AmendmenL.
PLLu:
nC.

1he CourL held LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal llmlL on Lhe power Lo
lmpalr conLracLs musL be relaLed Lo SLaLe power. As such, Lhe
CourL held LhaL an emergency exlsLed furnlshlng Lhe proper
occaslon for Lhe SLaLe Lo exerL lLs reserved power Lo proLecL
vlLal lnLeresLs of Lhe communlLy.
1he CourL also held LhaL Lhe non-|mpa|rment of contracts
must be construed |n harmony w|th the reserved power of
the State to safeguard the v|ta| |nterests of her peop|e.
8eservaLlon of such essenLlal soverelgn power ls read lnLo
conLracLs.
1he CourL furLher held LhaL any law lmpalrlng conLracLs musL
be LesLed on wheLher there |s a |eg|t|mate end (1) and
reasonab|e and appropr|ate means to meet such an end (2).
1he CourL concluded LhaL Lhe MorLgage MoraLorlum Law
passed boLh requlremenLs.
SLaLe power may be
addressed dlrecLly Lo
lnfrlnge Lhe conLracL
clause only when Lhese
conLracLs may be
denounces as hosLlle Lo
publlc morals (1), publlc
healLh, safeLy or welfare
(2), where Lhe
prohlblLlon ls merely of
ln[urlous pracLlces.

2 8uLLer v.
LsLeban

C.8. no. L-
3708

May 18, 1933
lAC1S:
8uLLer sold LsLeban Lwo parcels of land buL LsLeban falled Lo
pay Lhe balance and lnLeresL
LsLeban based hls defense on kA 342 or the Morator|um
Law LhaL sLaLed ln SecLlon 2: CbllgaLlons made before
uecember 8, 1941 cannoL be demandable unLll afLer Lhe
lapse of elghL years from Lhe seLLlemenL of hls clalm by Lhe
hlllpplne War uamage Commlsslon, Lhls perlod has noL yeL
explred. SecLlon 3: Should Lhls be nulllfled, Lhe prevlous
lnsLances when Lhe bounds can be Lransgressed by pollce power:
1. lmpalrmenL should only refer Lo Lhe remedy and noL a subsLanLlve
rlghL
2. roprleLy of Lhe remedy (musL noL be burdened wlLh resLrlcLlons
whlch would make remedy hardly pursulng)

ollce power may only be lnvoked:
1. !usLlfled by an emergency Lemporary ln naLure
2. Can only be exerclsed upon reasonable condlLlons

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
moraLorlum orders lssued by Lhe resldenL shall be revlved

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8.A. no. 342 ls unconsLlLuLlonal for vlolaLlng
Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon agalnsL lmpalrmenL of conLracLs
WheLher or noL Lhe 8 year perlod granLed debLors under 8A
no 342 ls reasonable under Lhe clrcumsLances

PLLu:
MoraLorlum laws are noL necessarlly unconsLlLuLlonal
because Lhey are a valld exerclse of pollce power buL Lhe 8-
year perlod ls unreasonable. Also, Lhe clrcumsLances ln Lhe
hlllpplnes no longer requlre Lhe 8 years.

W.8. WorLhen Co. vs. kavanaugh
- "Changes ln Lhe remedles avallable for Lhe enforcemenL of a
morLgage may noL, even when Lhe publlc welfare ls lnvoked
as an excuse, be pressed so far as Lo cuL down Lhe securlLy
of a morLgage wlLhouL moderaLlon or reason or ln a splrlL of
oppresslon."
3 Abella v. nL8C

C.8. no. L-
71813

!uly 20, 1987
lAC1S:
Abella leased a farmland for 10 years, renewable aL her
opLlon. uurlng Lhls Llme, she employed respondenLs.
AL Lhe end of Lhe 10 years, she dld noL renew Lhe lease and
she dlsmlssed Lhe respondenLs.
8espondenLs flled a complalnL, demandlng separaLlon pay.
Abella clalms LhaL maklng her glve respondenL separaLlon pay
vlolaLes Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause because when she leased
Lhe haclenda, nelLher she nor lessor conLemplaLed Lhe
creaLlon of Lhe obllgaLlon Lo pay separaLlon pay Lo workers aL
Lhe end of Lhe lease.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenLs are enLlLled Lo separaLlon pay.

PLLu:
?LS. 1helr conLracL cannoL have Lhe effecL of annulllng
subsequenL leglslaLlon deslgned Lo proLecL Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe
1he non-lmpalrmenL clause ls noL absoluLe, osslble exerclse of
reasonable pollce power ls also read lnLo all conLracLs.
1he reservaLlon of essenLlal aLLrlbuLes of soverelgn power ls
also read lnLo conLracLs.
LeglslaLlon lmpalrlng Lhe obllgaLlon of conLracLs (such as Art.
284 of the Labor Code) can be susLalned when lL ls enacLed
for Lhe promoLlon of Lhe general good of Lhe people, and
when Lhe means adopLed musL be leglLlmaLe.
All conLracLs made wlLh reference Lo any maLLer LhaL ls
sub[ecL Lo regulaLlon under Lhe pollce power musL be
undersLood as made ln reference Lo Lhe posslble exerclse of
LhaL power
Art. 284 of the Labor Code ls one such leglslaLlon. lLs purpose ls Lo
proLecL workers whose employmenL ls LermlnaLed because of Lhe
closure of esLabllshmenL and reducLlon of personnel. WlLhouL sald
law, employees llke prlvaLe respondenLs, wlll lose Lhe beneflLs Lo
whlch Lhey are enLlLled. Moreover, prlvaLe respondenLs were noL
parLles Lo Lhe lease agreemenL aL all
uCC18lnL: 1o come
under Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
prohlblLlon, Lhe law musL
effecL a change ln Lhe
rlghLs of Lhe parLles wlLh
reference Lo each oLher
and noL wlLh reference
Lo non-parLles.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
worklng class.
4 resley v. 8el-
Alr

C.8. no. 86774

AugusL 21,
1991
lAC1S:
Almendras were reglsLered home-owners ln 8el-Alr vlllage
wlLh resley, as lessee. resley ls Lhe owner and operaLor of
'PoL an de Sal SLore' locaLed ln Lhe same address.
A complalnL for speclflc performance and damages was flled
by 8el-Alr vlllage AssoclaLlon, lnc. (8AvA for shorL) agalnsL
Lhe Almendras (now boLh deceased and subsLlLuLed by
defendanL-appellanL Lnedlna resley) for vlolaLlon of Lhe
ueed 8esLrlcLlons of 8el-Alr Subdlvlslon LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
house and loL shall be used only for resldenLlal and noL for
commerclal purposes and for non-paymenL of assoclaLlon
dues Lo plalnLlff

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhere was a vlolaLlon of Lhe non-lmpalrmenL
Clause wlLh Lhe openlng of Lhe sLore.

PLLu:
nC. 1he sLreeL has been valldly reclasslfled and Lhls breach ls
allowable because lL was Lhrough Lhe exerclse of valld pollce
power of Lhe sLaLe ln zonlng.

1he peLlLloners have no cause of acLlon on Lhe sLrengLh alone of Lhe
sald deed resLrlcLlons."
As ln Lhe Sanggalang case, Lhls CourL exculpaLes Lhe prlvaLe
respondenLs, . chlefly because Lhe naLlonal CovernmenL
lLself, Lhrough Lhe MeLro Manlla Commlsslon (MMC), had
reclasslfled !uplLer SLreeL lnLo a 'hlgh denslLy commerclal (C-
3) zone,' pursuanL Lo lLs Crdlnance no. 81-01
noL Lo say LhaL Lhe ueed of 8esLrlcLlons are lnvalld or lneffecLlve.
1he provlslons of Lhe ueed of 8esLrlcLlons are ln Lhe naLure of
conLracLual obllgaLlons freely enLered lnLo by Lhe parLles.
undoubLedly, Lhey are valld and can be enforced agalnsL Lhe
peLlLloner.
Powever, Lhese conLracLual sLlpulaLlons on Lhe use of Lhe
land even lf sald condlLlons are annoLaLed on Lhe Lorrens LlLle
can be lmpalred lf necessary Lo reconclle wlLh Lhe leglLlmaLe
exerclse of pollce power.

S CrLlgas & Co.
v. leaLl 8ank
and 1rusL Co.

C.8. no.
L-24670

uecember 14,
1979
lAC1S:
eLlLloner sold Lwo subdlvlslon loLs ln Mandaluyong Lo Lmma
Chavez, on Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhe loLs were Lo be used for
resldenLlal purposes only.
Cne of Lhe loLs was sold Lo respondenL who sLarLed consLrucL
a bulldlng for banklng purposes.
peLlLloner demanded Lo sLop Lhe consLrucLlon, buL
respondenL conLended LhaL Lhe bulldlng was belng
consLrucLed ln accordance Lo zonlng regulaLlons sLaLed ln
SecLlon 3, 8A 2262 (Local AuLonomy AcL)
o Lmpowers munlclpal counclls Lo adopL zonlng and
subdlvlslon ordlnances for MunlclpallLles.
o rovlslon Lo be applled llberally ln munlclpal's
favor".

8esoluLlon no. 27 was ln Lhe exerclse of pollce power
o 1o safeguard Lhe healLh, safeLy, peace and order and
Lhe general welfare of Lhe people

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Munlclpal 8esoluLlon 27 declarlng Lhe WesL parL of LuSA
(lncludlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy) a commerclal and lndusLrlal
zone.
81C ruled ln favor of leaLl.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL 8esoluLlon no. 27 declarlng Lhe loLs ln
quesLlon as parL of commerclal and lndusLrlal zone prevalls
over Lhe conLracL sLlpulaLlon ln Lhe 1ransfer of CerLlflcaLe
1lLles.

PLLu:
?LS.

o Area where loLs were locaLed was noL conduclve for
resldenLlal purposes as lL was surrounded by Lrafflc,
polluLlon and nolse caused by surroundlng
commerclal and lndusLrlal esLabllshmenLs.

non-lmpalrmenL of conLracLs ls noL absoluLe.
o MusL be reconclled wlLh pollce power
6 8epubllc v.
Caguloa

C.8. no.
168384

CcLober 13,
2007
lAC1S:
1he S8MA, Lhrough 8.A. no. 7227, was creaLed envlslonlng a
self-susLalnlng, lndusLrlal, commerclal, flnanclal and
lnvesLmenL cenLer. 8ecause of Lhls, Sec. 12, 8.A. 7227
provlded for Lax lncenLlves and duLy free lmporLaLlon.
Powever, when 8.A. no. 9334 was passed, Sec. 6 of LhaL law
made all lmporLed clgars, clgareLLes, dlsLllled splrlLs,
fermenLed llquors and wlnes even lf desLlned for Lax and
duLy free shops shall be sub[ecL Lo all appllcable Laxes.
rlvaLe 8espondenLs, lmporLers of Lhe producLs affecLed by
Lhe law, broughL before Lhe 81C a speclal clvll acLlon for rellef
Lo have cerLaln provlslons of 8.A. 9334 declared
unconsLlLuLlonal. 81C granLed Lhe lssuance of Lhe wrlL of
prellmlnary ln[uncLlon. Pence Lhls appeal.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Crder of Lhe 81C on 4 May 2003 and Lhe
WrlL of rellmlnary ln[uncLlon are valld.
PLLu:
1he CourL, comparlng 8.A. no. 7227 and 8.A. no. 9334, found
LhaL Congress lnLended Lo remove Lhe exempLlon from
naLlonal and local Lax granLed by 8.A. no. 7227. 1he CourL
furLher held LhaL Lhe cerLlflcaLes of reglsLraLlon and Lax
exempLlon glven Lo prlvaLe respondenLs Lo operaLe are noL
absoluLe.
1he cerLlflcaLes of reglsLraLlon and Lax exempLlon are nelLher
a properLy nor a properLy rlghL and Lhus lL may be revoked
any Llme slnce lL does noL confer an absoluLe rlghL. Also, Lhe
CourL found LhaL any exempLlons granLed Lo Lhe rlvaLe
8espondenLs are far from belng conLracLual ln naLure ln Lhe
sense LhaL Lhe non-lmpalrmenL clause can rlghLly be lnvoked.
Pavlng no clear and unquesLloned legal rlghL, any lncldenLal
rlghL or beneflL Lhe rlvaLe 8espondenLs may have acqulred
Lhrough Lhe cerLlflcaLes musL yleld Lo Lhe power of Lhe sLaLe's

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
?LS. 1he Crder and Lhe ln[uncLlon ls lnvalld. 1he !udge acLed
wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon.

7 Land 8ank of
Lhe hlllpplnes
v. 8epubllc

C.8. no.
130824

lebruary 4,
2008
lAC1S:
1he 1C1 of Lourdes larms over Lhe morLgaged properLles
were cancelled and declared vold ab lnlLlo slnce lL was
dlscovered LhaL Lhe orlglnal LlLle from where Lhe 1C1 of
Lourdes larms were lnallenable foresLland aL Lhe Llme lL was
lssued.
Land 8ank of Lhe hlllpplnes conLended LhaL lL was a
morLgagee ln good falLh and lf such 1C1 would be annulled,
lLs morLgagor should be ordered Lo pay lLs ouLsLandlng
obllgaLlons or provlde a new collaLeral securlLy. Such 1C1s
were annulled hence Lhls appeal.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lalnLlff has any valld and subslsLlng lnLeresL
over Lhe land and wheLher or noL Lhe conLracL beLween Land
8ank and Lourdes larms was lmpalred.
PLLu:
nC.

1he CourL held LhaL Lhe Land 8ank had no valld and
subslsLlng lnLeresL over Lhe land covered by 1C1 no. 1-37348.
Slnce Lhe 1C1 came from an lnvalld CC1, no prlvaLe person
can own such land, furLher, lL cannoL be sub[ecL Lo any
morLgaged.
Also, Lhe CourL held LhaL Lhere was no lmpalrmenL of
conLracL buL a va||d exerc|se of po||ce power of the State.
ClLlng D|rectory of Iorestry v. Munoz (23 SCkA 1183), Lhe
CourL held LhaL Lhe SLaLe may lnLerfere wlLh personal llberLy
wlLh properLy and wlLh buslness and occupaLlons lf such
lnLerference beneflLs Lhe greaLer lnLeresL of Lhe SLaLe.

8 Paclenda
LulslLa v. A8C

C.8. no.
171101

!uly 3, 2011
lAC1S:
!une 13, 1988: kA 66S7 or the Comprehens|ve Agrar|an
keform Law of 1988 (CAkL or the CAk Law) Look effecL
Paclenda LulslLa was requlred Lo undergo a SLock
ulsLrlbuLlon lan (Su), and laLer, a SLock ulsLrlbuLlon CpLlon
AgreemenL (SuCA)
2003: ueparLmenL of Agrarlan 8eform found LhaL Paclenda
LulslLa dld noL fully comply wlLh lLs obllgaLlons under CA8
Law
resldenLlal Agrarlan 8eform Councll (A8C) puL Paclenda
lands under CA8
1. Sect|on 4, Art|c|e kIII of the 1987 Const|tut|on
1he SLaLe shall, by law, underLake an agrarlan reform
program founded on Lhe rlghL of Lhe farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are landless, Lo CWn dlrecLly or
CCLLLC1lvLL? 1PL LAnuS 1PL? 1lLL xxx"
2. Sec. 31 of kA 66S7, wlLh lLs dlrecL and lndlrecL Lransfer
feaLures, ls noL lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe SLaLe's commlLmenL Lo
farmers and farmworkers Lo advance Lhelr lnLeresLs under
Lhe pollcy of soclal [usLlce. 1he leglslaLure has chosen a
modallLy for collecLlve ownershlp by whlch Lhe lmperaLlves
of soclal [usLlce may be approxlmaLed.
Corona, I. (d|ssent|ng):
8y allowlng Lhe
dlsLrlbuLlon of caplLal
sLock, noL land, as
"compllance" wlLh
agrarlan reform, SecLlon
31 of 8A 6637 dlrecLly
and expllclLly
conLravenes SecLlon 4,
ArLlcle xlll of Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon. 1he
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Paclenda's Su was revoked

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL SecLlon 31 of 8A 6637 ls consLlLuLlonal
WheLher or noL A8C has [urlsdlcLlon ln recalllng or revoklng
PLl's Su
WheLher or noL Lhe recall and revocaLory acLlon was proper
and valld

PLLu:
?LS. 1he ConsLlLuLlon allows Lhe collecLlve ownershlp of land.
?LS. A8C has Lhe power Lo revoke Lhe Su because because
every sLaLuLe ls undersLood, by lmpllcaLlon, Lo conLaln all
such provlslons as may be necessary Lo effecLuaLe lLs ob[ecL
and purpose
?LS. 1he SuCA falled Lo dlsLrlbuLe equal number of shares Lo
Lhe farmer beneflclarles and Lhe Llmeframe of sLock Lransfer
(30 years) was much longer Lhan whaL was requlred (3
monLhs)

3. A law auLhorlzlng lnLerference, when approprlaLe, ln Lhe
conLracLual relaLlons beLween or among parLles ls deemed
read lnLo Lhe conLracL and lLs lmplemenLaLlon cannoL
successfully be reslsLed by force of Lhe non-lmpalrmenL
guaranLee. 8A 6637 Lhus does noL vlolaLe Lhe non-
lmpalrmenL clause.
corporaLe landowner
remalns Lo be Lhe owner
of Lhe agrlculLural land.
Cuallfled beneflclarles
are glven ownershlp only
of shares of sLock, noL
Lhe lands Lhey Llll.
Landless farmers and
farmworkers become
landless sLockholders buL
sLlll Lllllng Lhe land of Lhe
corporaLe owner,
Lhereby perpeLuaLlng
Lhelr sLaLus as landless
farmers and
farmworkers."

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

CASL 8ACkGkCUND CI 1nL CASL kA1IC DCC1kINL
MILI1Ak 1kI8UNAL
Claguer vs
MlllLary
Commlsslon

C8 no: L-34338

May 22, 1987

IAC1S
eLlLloners (10 of Lhem), who were all clvlllans, were arresLed
by Lhe mlllLary. 1hey were deLalned ln Camp Crame CC. 1hey
were all charged of subverslon by Lhe recommendaLlon of
!udge AdvocaLe Ceneral wlLh Lhe approval of MlnlsLer of
naLlonal uefense.
Al Chlef of SLaff creaLed MlllLary Commlsslon 34 Lo Lry Lhelr
case
1hey were charged of 7 offenses: unlawful possesslon of
exploslves and lncendlary devlces, consplracy Lo assasslnaLe
resldenL, and Mrs. Marcos, consplracy Lo assasslnaLe cablneL
members !uan once Lnrlle, lranclsco 1aLad and vlcenLe
aLerno, consplracy Lo assasslnaLe ArLuro 1angco, !ose 8ono
and Cnofre Corpus, arson of nlne bulldlngs, aLLempLed
murder of Messrs. Leonardo erez, 1eodoro valencla and
Cenerals 8omeo Lsplno and lablan ver, and consplracy and
proposal Lo commlL rebelllon, and lnclLlng Lo rebelllon
eLlLloners wenL Lo SC sLaLlng LhaL mlllLary commlsslons have
no power Lo Lry offenses commlLLed by clvlllans durlng
MarLlal Law
endlng resoluLlon, MlllLary courL found Lhem gullLy of
charges wlLh penalLy of ueaLh by elecLrocuLlon

Issue: WheLher or noL a mlllLary Lrlbunal has Lhe [urlsdlcLlon Lo
Lry clvlllans whlle Lhe clvll courLs are open and funcLlonlng

ne|d: no.
1lme of Marcos, mlllLary courLs have [urlsdlcLlon over clvlllans
durlng marLlal law or as long as Lhere ls a naLlonal emergency.
Ceneral Crder 12, whlch glves [urlsdlcLlon Lo MlllLary courLs Lo
Lry crlmes agalnsL publlc order lncludlng subverslon and
rebelllon. Powever, slnce marLlal law was llfLed (u 2043)
durlng Lhe course of Lhe proceedlngs, power of mlllLary courLs
Lo Lry clvlllan cases musL reverL back Lo clvll courLs.
uue process requlres Lrlal by [udlclal process noL execuLlve or
mlllLary process. 1he [udlclary does noL cover mlllLary courLs.
MlllLary courLs are under Lhe execuLlve branch and by
prlnclple separaLlon of powers, Lhey do noL have [urlsdlcLlon.
WlLh Lhe presenL consLlLuLlon, even durlng marLlal law, as long
as clvll courLs are funcLlonlng, mlllLary courLs have no power
Lo hear cases. (Sec 18, ArL 7)
1he case reversed Lhe
rule ln Aqulno !r. v.
MlllLary Commlsslon

DCC1kINL: MlllLary
CourL cannoL Lry clvlllan
cases even durlng
marLlal law lf clvll courLs
are open
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
kLSUM1ICN CI INNCCLNCL
uS v Lullng

C8 # L-11162
lAC1S:
ln May, 1913, defendanL l. Lullng was charged wlLh a
vlolaLlon of AcL no. 333 of Lhe unlLed SLaLes hlllpplne
Commlsslon.
1he complalnL alleged LhaL Lullng, an employee ln Lhe
cusLoms servlce of Lhe CovernmenL of Lhe hll. lslands,
sollclLed from a cerLaln 8uflno Llord Lhe sum of 100 so LhaL
Lullng could go Lhrough cusLoms and dellver Lo Llord rolls of
paper whlch conLalned oplum.
Lullng was found gullLy and was ordered Lo pay 1,000. Pence
Lhls appeal.
Lullng clalms LhaL Sec 316 of AcL no. 333 ls unconsLlLuLlonal
because lL requlres Lhe accused Lo prove hls lnnocence and
also because Lhe evldence adduced durlng Lhe Lrlal does noL
show LhaL he ls gullLy of Lhe crlme charged.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec 316 of AcL no. 333 ls consLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
Sec 316 of AcL no 333 ls CCnS1l1u1lCnAL

ln crlmlnal law, every man ls presumed Lo be lnnocenL unLll hls
gullL ls proved beyond reasonable doubL.
Powever, Lhere ls a dlfferenL rule when Lhe burden shlfLs Lo
Lhe defendanL Lo prove or explaln LhaL hls acLs are noL crlmlnal
and LhaL he ls noL gullLy.
no consLlLuLlonal provlslon ls vlolaLed by a sLaLuLe whlch
provldes LhaL proof by Lhe sLaLe of some maLerlal facLs shall
consLlLuLe prlma facle evldence of gullL.
1he sLaLe has Lhe rlghL Lo declare whaL acLs are crlmlnal and
whaL proof shall consLlLuLe prlma facle evldence of gullL,
whlch wlll place Lhe burden of proof of lnnocence on Lhe
defendanL.
AfLer careful examlnaLlon of evldence, lL ls found LhaL Lullng
dld recelve 100 from Llord and LhaL Lhe money was recelved
ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe lmporLaLlon of goods and Lhe money
was recelved for purposes conLrary Lo law - lmporLaLlon of a
large quanLlLy of oplum.
DCC1kINL: Lvery man ls
presumed lnnocenL
unLll proven gullLy.
Powever, Lhe sLaLe has
Lhe rlghL Lo deLermlne
whlch acLs are crlmlnal
and whaL proof
consLlLuLes prlma facle
evldence of gullL. (1hus,
burden shlfLs Lo
defendanL Lo prove hls
lnnocence.) Such power
by Lhe Congress ls noL
vlolaLlve of Lhe rlghL
agalnsL presumpLlon of
lnnocence.
uumlao v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no. L-32243

!anuary 22, 1980

lAC1S:
eLlLlon for rohlblLlon wlLh rellmlnary ln[uncLlon, seeklng Lo
en[oln respondenL CCMLLLC from |mp|ement|ng certa|n
prov|s|ons of 8 8lg. 31, 32 and 33. (ArL. lll, Sec. 14 Speclflc:
Sec. 4 ar. 2 of 8 8ldg. 32)
!"#$%&' )*
o +', -"./&' 01& 12/ #&33%$$"4 2', 2#$ &5 4%/6&,26$,
$& $1" !$2$"7 %'#684%'9 2#$/ 23&8'$%'9 $& /8:;"./%&'7
%'/8.."#$%&'7 .":"66%&'7 &. &$1". /%3%62. #.%3"/7 /1266
'&$ :" <826%5%"4 $& :" #2'4%42$" 5&. 2', &5 $1" &55%#"/
#&;"."4 :, $1%/ +#$7 &. $& -2.$%#%-2$" %' 2', -2.$%/2'
Const|tut|ona| guarantee: ln all crlmlnal prosecuLlons, Lhe
accused shall be presumed |nnocent unt|| the contrary ls
proved, and shall en[oy Lhe rlghL Lo be heard by hlmself and
counsel.
An accusaLlon ls not synonymous wlLh gullL.
1he challenged prov|so contravenes presumpt|on of
lnnocence, as a candldaLe ls dlsquallfled from runnlng for
publlc offlce on the ground a|one that charges have been
f||ed agalnsL hlm before a clvll or mlllLary Lrlbunal.
lL condemns before one ls fully heard.
kesu|t: LxcepL as Lo Lhe degree of proof, no d|st|nct|on ls
DCC1kINL: A law
sLaLlng LhaL one shall be
dlsquallfled Lo run for
offlce on Lhe ground
alone LhaL charges have
been flled agalnsL hlm
before Lhe courL ls
consldered as vlolaLlve
of Lhe rlghL Lo be
presumed lnnocenL.
AlLhough Lhe flllng
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
-&6%$%#26 2#$%;%$, $1"."%'*
o =.&;%4"4 $12$ 2 >8493"'$ &5 #&';%#$%&' 5&. 2', &5 $1"
25&."3"'$%&'"4 #.%3"/ /1266 :" #&'#68/%;" ";%4"'#" &5
/8#1 52#$ 2'4
o !"# %&''&() *% +",-)#. %*- !"# +*//&..&*( *% .0+"
+-&/#. 1#%*-# , +&2&' +*0-! *- /&'&!,-3 !-&10(,' ,%!#-
4-#'&/&(,-3 &(2#.!&),!&*( .",'' 1# 4-&/, %,+&#
#2&5#(+# *% .0+" %,+!6
atr|c|o Dum|ao (lormer Covernor of nueva vlzcaya),
runnlng for Lhe same poslLlon ln Lhe 1980 LlecLlon.
eLlLloners have no |ega| stand|ng, buL SC was compelled Lo
resolve Lhe case because of Lhe paramount pub||c |nterest
and Lhe prox|m|ty of the e|ect|ons.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Sec. 4, ar. 2 of 8 32 ls valld - Lhe fllllng of
charges for Lhe commlsslon of such crlmes before a clvll courL
or mlllLary Lrlbunal afLer prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon shall be
prlma facle evldence of such facL"

PLLu:
NC. ueclared nu|| and vo|d, for belng vlolaLlve of Lhe
consLlLuLlonal presumpLlon of lnnocence guaranLeed Lo an
accused.
made beLween a person convlcLed of acLs of dlsloyalLy and
one agalnsL whom charges have been flled for such acLs, as
both of them wou|d |ne||g|b|e Lo run for publlc offlce.
AlLhough, Lhe fllllng of charges ls consldered as buL prlma facle
evldence and may be rebuLLed. ?eL, Lhere ls c|ear and
present danger" LhaL because of Lhe proxlmlLy of Lhe
elecLlons, Llme consLralnLs wlll prevenL one charged wlLh acLs
of dlsloyalLy from offerlng conLrary proof Lo overcome Lhe
prlma facle evldence agalnsL Lhem.
of charges may be
properly rebuLLed,
Lhe proxlmlLy of Lhe
elecLlon and Lhe
Llme consLralnL wlll
resulL Lo Lhe
arblLrary
dlsquallflcaLlon of
Lhe candldaLe, a
gross vlolaLlon of hls
consLlLuLlonal rlghL
of presumpLlon of
lnnocence.
kIGn1 1C 8L nLAkD AND 1C kCDUC1ICN CI LVIDLNCL
Marquez v.
SAnulCAn8A?An

C.8. no. 187912-
14

!anuary 31, 2011
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was charged ln Lhe SAnulCAn8A?An wlLh vlolaLlon
of 8.A. 3019, Sec. 3(e) for havlng secured anomalous
conLracLs regardlng overprlced ammunlLlon ln hls capaclLy as
aranaque ClLy Mayor from 1996-1998.
eLlLloner, alleglng forgery, Lhen moved before arralgnmenL
for Lhe referral of Lhe vouchers, purchase requesLs and oLher
uue process ln crlmlnal proceedlngs requlres four Lhlngs.
o CourL/Lrlbunal Lrylng Lhe case ls properly cloLhed wlLh
[udlclal power Lo hear and deLermlne Lhe maLLer
before lL
o !urlsdlcLlon ls lawfully acqulred by lL over Lhe person
of Lhe accused.
o 1he accused |s g|ven an opportun|ty to be heard.
DCC1kINL: 1he accused
musL be glven Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo be
heard, whlch lncludes
allowlng Lhe accused Lo
seLup hls own defense
agalnsL Lhe charges
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
documenLs Lo Lhe n8l.
8espondenL CourL denled eLlLloner's moLlon hence Lhls
appeal.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe 3
Lh
ulvlslon of Lhe SAnulCAn8A?An
commlLLed a CAuALL! when lL denled Lhe peLlLloner's
moLlon.

PLLu:
?LS. 8y denylng Lhe moLlon of Lhe peLlLloner, Lhe respondenL
CourL offered no valld explanaLlon for denylng Lhe same
hence commlLLlng CAuALL!.
o !udgmenL ls rendered only upon lawful hearlng.
1he peLlLloner submlLs LhaL hls slgnaLures ln Lhe vouchers,
purchase requesLs and auLhorlzaLlons were forged. As a rule,
Lhe parLy alleglng forgery has Lhe burden of provlng Lhe same
by clear, poslLlve and convlnclng evldence (Cregorlo v. CourL
of Appeals 360 hll. 733)
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe peLlLloner Lherefore bears Lhe burden
of submlLLlng evldence Lo prove Lhe facL LhaL hls slgnaLures
were ln facL forged. 1hus, he musL be afforded reasonable
opporLunlLy Lo presenL evldence Lo supporL hls allegaLlon.
1he CourL was of Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhls opporLunlLy ls Lhe
acLual examlnaLlon of Lhe slgnaLures ln quesLlon by Lhe n8l. lf
he ls denled such opporLunlLy, hls only evldence on Lhls maLLer
ls negaLlve LesLlmonlal evldence whlch ls generally consldered
as weak.
proffered agalnsL hlm.
kIGn1 1C CCUNSLL
eople v. Polgado

C.8. no. L-2809

March 22, 1930
lAC1S:
lrlsco Polgado was charged wlLh sllghL lllegal deLenLlon ln
Lhe Cll ln 8omblon.
ln quesLlonlng Lhe accused, Lhe courL asked uo you have
an aLLorney or are you golng Lo plead gullLy?" Polgado
pleaded gullLy wlLhouL counsel. LaLer, he pleaded gullLy
buL added LhaL he was lnsLrucLed by a Mr. numerlano
Ccampo. llscal was Lold Lo lnvesLlgaLe buL flscal sald he
found Ccampo had noLhlng Lo do wlLh Lhe case.
1rlal courL rendered a [udgmenL of kldnapplng and
serlous lllegal deLenLlon, a caplLal offense, deduclng from
facLs pleaded ln lnformaLlon.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe courL dld noL comply wlLh Lhe duLles
accordlng Lo ku|e 112 Sect|on 3 of the ku|es of Court ln
reachlng lLs [udgmenL.
Accordlng Lo Lhe requlslLes ln Lhe ku|es of Court, ku|e 112, Sect|on
3:
1he courL musL lnform Lhe defendanL LhaL lL ls hls rlghL Lo
have aLLorney before belng arralgned
! Cnly asked uo you have an aLLorney or are you golng Lo
plead gullLy?" and dld noL lnform hlm of such a rlghL
AfLer glvlng hlm such lnformaLlon Lhe courL musL ask hlm lf
he deslres Lhe ald of an aLLorney
! uld noL ask hlm such
lf he deslres and ls unable Lo employ aLLorney, Lhe courL
musL asslgn aLLorney 4" &5%#%& Lo defend hlm
! uld noL asslgn hlm an aLLorney de oflclo and slmply
rendered [udgmenL
lf Lhe accused deslres Lo procure an aLLorney of hls own
Lhe courL musL granL hlm a reasonable Llme Lherefor.
uld noL granL hlm Llme elLher
DCC1kINL: 1he courL
musL lnform Lhe
defendanL of hls rlghL Lo
have an aLLorney and
musL ask hlm lf he
deslres Lhe ald of an
one, so lf deslres one
buL cannoL employ one,
Lhe courL musL asslgn an
aLLorney de oflclo, or lf
he deslres Lo procure
one of hls own, Lhe
courL musL granL a
reasonable Llme Lo
obLaln one.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
nC. 1he [udgmenL appealed from ls reversed and Lhe case ls
remanded Lo Lhe CourL below for a new arralgnmenL and a
new Lrlal afLer Lhe accused ls apprlsed of hls rlghL Lo have and
Lo be asslsLed by counsel.
" 2$$&.'", 4" &5%#%&: an
aLLorney appolnLed by
Lhe courL Lo defend an
lndlgenL defendanL ln a
crlmlnal acLlon.

Salaw v.
nL8C

C.8. no. 90786

SepLember 27,
1991
lAC1S:
eLlLloner Lspero SanLos Salaw was employed by prlvaLe
respondenL AssoclaLed 8ank as a credlL lnvesLlgaLor-
appralser.
1he Crlmlnal lnvesLlgaLlon Servlce (ClS) of Lhe hlllpplne
ConsLabulary exLracLed from Salaw - wlLhouL Lhe asslsLance
of counsel - a Sworn SLaLemenL whlch made lL appear LhaL
Salaw, LogeLher wlLh 8eynaldo Madrlgal (Lhe supervlsor ln
charge of Lhe bank's acqulred asseLs), sold and dlvlded
equally, Lhe proceeds from 20 sewlng machlnes and elecLrlc
generaLors, whlch had been foreclosed by Lhe bank from
Worldwlde CarmenL and L.. Money CarmenL for 60,000.
Salaw was Lhen requesLed by Lhe bank manager, 8ollle
1uazon, Lo appear before Lhelr ersonnel ulsclpllne and
lnvesLlgaLlon CommlLLee (ulC) wlLhouL counsel or
represenLaLlve." 1he peLlLloner as LhereafLer dlsmlssed.
Salaw's subsequenL complalnL for lllegal dlsmlssal before Lhe
nL8C was granLed by Labor ArblLer 8enlgno vlllarenLe, !r.,
who ordered hls relnsLaLemenL wlLh backwages and beneflLs.

lSSuL:
WCn peLlLloner Salaw's dlsmlssal was legally [usLlfled

PLLu:
no. Pe was LermlnaLed wlLhouL Lhe due process of law.
1he lnvesLlgaLlon of peLlLloner Salaw by Lhe respondenL bank's
lnvesLlgaLlon commlLLee vlolaLed hls consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo
due process, as he was noL glven a chance Lo defend hlmself.
1he records show LhaL Salaw was denled hls rlghL Lo counsel
when hls subsequenL requesL Lo refuLe Lhe allegaLlons agalnsL
hlm concernlng Lhe Worldwlde case was granLed and a hearlng
was seL wlLhouL counsel or represenLaLlve."
1he respondenLs premlsed Lhelr acLlon ln (1) dlsmlsslng Lhe
peLlLloner on hls supposed admlsslon of Lhe offense lmpuLed
Lo hlm by Lhe ClS, (2) presenLlng oLher evldence Lo esLabllsh
Lhe culpablllLy of Lhe peLlLloner ln Lhe fraudulenL sale of Lhe
bank's foreclosed properLles, and (3) noL presenLlng Lhe
mlnuLes of Lhe proceedlng Laken durlng Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon-all
of whlch were a denlal of due process.
under Lhe Labor Code, noL only musL Lhe cause for dlsmlssal
be valld or auLhorlzed by law, buL Lhe baslc requlremenLs for
due process-noLlce and hearlng-musL also be observed
before an employee may be dlsmlssed.
1he landmark case of Ang 1lbay v. Cl8 provldes Lhe general
requlslLes for admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs, namely: (1) 8lghL Lo
a hearlng and Lo submlL evldence, (2) 1rlbunal musL conslder
Lhe evldence, (3) ueclslon musL have someLhlng Lo supporL
lLself, (4) Lvldence musL be subsLanLlal, (3) ueclslon musL be
based on Lhe evldence presenLed ln Lhe hearlng, (6) 1rlbunal
acLs on lLs own lndependenL conslderaLlon of Lhe law and Lhe
facLs, and (7) 1he Lrlbunal should render lLs declslon ln such
DCC1kINL: 1he rlghLs Lo
counsel and Lo due
process are Lwo of Lhe
fundamenLal rlghLs
guaranLeed by Lhe 1987
ConsLlLuLlon Lo person
under lnvesLlgaLlon, be
lL an admlnlsLraLlve,
clvll, or crlmlnal
proceedlng. 1hese
rlghLs cannoL be walved
excepL ln wrlLlng ln Lhe
presence of counsel.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
manner LhaL Lhe parLles know Lhe varlous lssued lnvolved and
Lhe reason for Lhe declslon.
1he rullng ln SanLos v. nL8C was relLereaLed whereln an employee
who was lllegally dlsmlssed ls (1) enLlLled Lo relnsLaLemenL Lo hls
former poslLlon wlLhouL loss of senlorlLy rlghLs, and (2) enLlLled Lo
backwages coverlng Lhe perlod from hls lllegal dlsmlssal up Lo hls
acLual relnsLaLemenL.
kIGn1 1C 8L INICkMLD
eople v. 8egala

C.8. no. L-23693
Aprll 27, 1982
IAC1S:
8udy 8egala and uelfln llores were charged wlLh Lhe crlme of
murder wlLh assaulL upon an agenL of a person ln auLhorlLy.
1he prosecuLlon sald LhaL 8egala sLabbed SergeanL uesllos
wlLh a sharp ob[ecL, whlch was conflrmed by auLopsy reporLs.
uefense provlded allbls, LhaL Lhe accused was nowhere near
Lhe scene of Lhe crlme. 1hey also conLend LhaL Lhe accused
were noL glven a falr Lrlal, because Lhey had Laken lnLo
accounL Lhe perverslLy of Lhe offender (LhaL he had
commlLLed Lhe crlmes of mallclous mlschlef and sllghL
physlcal ln[urles before), and LhaL Lhere was undue pre[udlce
agalnsL Lhe accused.

ISSUL:
WheLher or noL Lhe courL erred ln convlcLlng 8egala wlLh Lhe
crlme of murder wlLh assaulL upon an agenL of a person ln
auLhorlLy.

nLLD:
NC. AlLhough Lhe prosecuLlon alleged assaulL upon an agenL
of a person ln auLhorlLy, Lhey falled Lo allege Lhe essenLlal
elemenLs of assaulL (LhaL ls, LhaL Lhe accused Lhen knew LhaL,
before or aL Lhe Llme of Lhe assaulL, Lhe vlcLlm was an agenL
of a person ln auLhorlLy).
1he SC ruled LhaL Lhere was an lmparLlal Lrlal
by an lmparLlal [udge, because Lhere was no evldence of blas
or pre[udlce.
1he SC ruled LhaL Lhe allbl puL-up by Lhe defense cannoL
prevall over Lhe afflrmaLlve LesLlmonles presenLed by Lhe
prosecuLlon whlch ldenLlfled hereln accused as Lhe one who
sLabbed SgL. uesllos.
1he lnformaLlon flled musL conLaln all Lhe charges agalnsL Lhe
accused. lallure Lo ob[ecL cannoL cure Lhls deflclency, because
lL ls vlolaLlve of Lhe rlghL of Lhe accused Lo be lnformed of Lhe
naLure and Lhe cause of accusaLlon agalnsL hlm.
llnal convlcLlon was homlclde aggravaLed by lnsulL Lo publlc
auLhorlLles and recldlvlsm (lnlLlally, lL was murder).

DCC1kINL: An
lnformaLlon flled musL
conLaln all Lhe charges
agalnsL Lhe accused Lo
be lnformed of Lhe
naLure and Lhe cause of
accusaLlon agalnsL hlm.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
ln 1PL MA11L8
Cl 1PL L1l1lCn
lC8 PA8LAS
CC8uS. !uAn
CnCL
Ln8lLL, peLlLloner
vs.
!uuCL SALAZA8

C.8. no. 92163

!une 3, 1990

lAC1S:
SenaLe MlnorlLy lloor Leader !uan once Lnrlle was arresLed,
wlLh warranL of arresL, by law enforcemenL offlcers led by
ulrecLor Alfredo Llm of Lhe n8l for Lhe crlme of rebelllon wlLh
murder and mulLlple frusLraLed murder allegedly commlLLed
durlng Lhe falled coup aLLempL.
SenaLor Lnrlle was Laken Lo and held overnlghL aL Lhe n8l
headquarLers on 1afL Avenue, Manlla, wlLhouL ball, none
havlng been recommended ln Lhe lnformaLlon and none flxed
ln Lhe arresL warranL.
1he nexL day, SenaLor Lnrlle, Lhrough counsel, flled Lhe
peLlLlon for 12:"2/ #&.-8/ hereln (whlch was followed by a
supplemenLal peLlLlon flled on March 2, 1990), alleglng LhaL
he was deprlved of hls consLlLuLlonal rlghLs ln belng, or havlng
been:
(a) held Lo answer for crlmlnal offense whlch does noL exlsL ln
Lhe sLaLuLe books,
(b) charged wlLh a crlmlnal offense ln an lnformaLlon for
whlch no complalnL was lnlLlally flled or prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon was conducLed, hence was denled due process,
xxx

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of Lhe accused were
vlolaLed for belng Laken ln cusLody and deLalned wlLhouL ball
on Lhe sLrengLh of sald warranLs of non-exlsLenL crlme?

PLLu:
no, Lhe quesLloned lnformaLlon flled agalnsL peLlLloners !uan
once Lnrlle and Lhe spouses 8ebecco and Lrllnda anllllo
musL be read as charglng slmple rebelllon only.
Lven under hypoLhesls of charglng a non-exlsLenL crlme, Lhe
peLlLlon for habeas corpus ls an lmproper cholce of remedy as
Lhe obvlous recourse would have been a moLlon Lo quash
broughL ln Lhe crlmlnal acLlon before Lhe respondenL !udge.
1he ob[ecLlonable phraslng of complex rebelllon wlLh murder
and mulLlple frusLraLed murder" ls Lo be read as charglng
slmple rebelllon.
1here ls no vlolaLlon of due process as Lhe record shows LhaL a
complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner for slmple rebelllon was flled by
Lhe ulrecLor of Lhe naLlonal 8ureau of lnvesLlgaLlon and LhaL
on Lhe sLrengLh of sald complalnL, a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon
was conducLed by Lhe respondenL prosecuLors, culmlnaLlng ln
Lhe flllng of Lhe quesLloned lnformaLlon.
DCC1kINL: 1here
should be valld
charge/lnformaLlon
before an accused can
be convlcLed/Lrled.

DCC1kINL: 1here ls
noLhlng lnherenLly
lrregular or conLrary Lo
law ln flllng agalnsL a
respondenL an
lndlcLmenL for an
offense dlfferenL from
whaL ls charged ln Lhe
lnlLlaLory complalnL, lf
warranLed by Lhe
evldence developed
durlng Lhe prellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlon."
kIGn1 1C A SLLD 1kIAL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Conde vs. 8lvera

C.8. no.
L-21741

!anuary 23, 1924
lAC1S:
Aurella Conde ls a former munlclpal mldwlfe ln Lucena
1ayabas.
She ls charged wlLh flve lnformaLlon for varlous crlmes and
mlsdemeanors, has appeared elghL Llmes wlLh wlLnesses and
counsel aL hearlngs only Lo have her case posLponed, and has
asked proLecLlon from Lhe Supreme CourL 2 Llmes.
AfLer more Lhan a year, Lhe case has remalned unsolved.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe accused has been denled of her rlghL Lo a
speedy and lmparLlal Lrlal.

PLLu:
Per rlghL has been ;%&62$"46

roper remedles
o Mandamus:
! 1o compel dlsmlssal of Lhe lnformaLlon, lf Lhe
accused ls reLralned of hls llberLy.
o nabeas Corpus
! lor Lhe accused Lo obLaln hls freedom.
When Lhese remedles may be avalled of:
o When a -.&/"#8$%'9 &55%#". ls 0%$1&8$ 9&&4 #28/" Lo
secure -&/$-&'"3"'$/ &5 $1" $.%26 292%'/$ Lhe -.&$"/$
&5 4"5"'42'$ :",&'4 2 ."2/&'2:6" -".%&4 &5 $%3".
DCC1kINL: uenlal of
Lhe rlghL Lo speedy Lrlal
warranLs Lhe dlsmlssal
of Lhe case whlch
llkewlse glve rlse Lo
double [eopardy.

DCC1kINL: When a
prosecuLlng offlcer who,
wlLhouL good cause,
seeks posLponemenLs of
Lhe Lrlal of an accused
agalnsL hls wlll and
beyond a reasonable
perlod of Llme, Lhe
remedy of mandamus
may be soughL Lo
compel Lhe dlsmlssal of
Lhe case.
eople v. Clnes

C.8. no. 83463

May 27, 1991
lAC1S:
8eLlred !usLlce Cuerrero flled a llbel case agalnsL Labo,
erfecLo, and Manaols for Lhelr publlcaLlon of lnlhablang Lx-
!usLlce" on AugusL 3, 1986.
AfLer a serles of posLponemenLs, Manaols was laLer excluded
and Lhe hearlng was reseL Lo CcLober 13, 1987.
Cn SepLember 23, 1987 and ln lleu of Manaols' dlscharge, a
complalnL for llbel was flled agalnsL Lsqulvel who admlLLed
responslblllLy for Lhe publlcaLlon.
Cn CcLober 13, respondenL [udge dlsmlssed Lhe case for
Cuerrero's fallure Lo appear agaln.

lSSuL:
1he rlghL of an accused Lo a speedy Lrlal ls guaranLeed Lo hlm by
Lhe ConsLlLuLlon buL Lhe same shall noL be uLlllzed Lo deprlve Lhe
SLaLe of a reasonable opporLunlLy of falrly lndlcLlng crlmlnals. lL
secures rlghLs Lo a defendanL buL lL does noL preclude Lhe rlghLs of
publlc [usLlce."
rlvaLe complalnanL's absences aL Lhe hearlngs of Lhe case
were ln good falLh and LhaL he had [usLlflable and merlLorlous
reasons.
Absences are evldenLly noL caprlclous, oppresslve, nor vexaLlous
Lo Lhe Lwo accused"
1he case was dlsmlssed on CcLober 13, 1987, some elghL and a
half monLhs afLer Lhe lnformaLlon was flled. 1hls perlod ls noL
such an exLended, prolonged or lengLhy duraLlon as Lo cause
DCC1kINL: lL should
be remembered LhaL
Lhe rlghL Lo a speedy
Lrlal ls relaLlve, sub[ecL
Lo reasonable delays
and posLponemenLs
arlslng from lllness,
medlcal aLLenLlon, body
operaLlons, as ln Lhe
lnsLanL case where lL
was saLlsfacLorlly
proven LhaL prlvaLe
complalnanL had Lo
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
WheLher or noL Lhe rlghL of Lhe accused Lo speedy Lrlal had
been vlolaLed Lo enLlLle Lhem Lo Lhe case's dlsmlssal.

PLLu:
nC. 8lghL has noL been vlolaLed and Lhe dlsmlssal as regards
Labo and lloresca ls premaLure and erroneous.
caprlclous and vexaLlous delay.
Speedy Lrlal: one LhaL can be had as soon afLer lndlcLmenL ls flled
as Lhe prosecuLlon can 0%$1 ."2/&'2:6" 4%6%9"'#" -."-2." 5&. $.%26."
Whlle accused persons do have rlghLs, Lhe aggrleved also have
Lhe same rlghLs.

undergo eye operaLlons,
hosplLallzaLlon and a
medlcal check-up
abroad."

kIGn1 1C IMAk1IAL 1kIAL
MaLeo v. vlllaluz

C.8. nos. L-34736-
39

March 31, 1973
lAC1S:
eLlLloners were charged wlLh 8obbery wlLh Pomlclde.
endlng hearlng and afLer prosecuLlon resLed Lhelr case,
peLlLloners flled moLlon Lo dlsmlss whlch was lgnored.
Meanwhlle, 8eyes flled an exLra-[udlclal sLaLemenL whlch
respondenL !udge noLarlzed hlmself as Lo lLs LruLhfulness.
1hls sLaLemenL was laLer flled as addlLlonal evldence by
prosecuLlon buL 8eyes, as Lhelr wlLness, repudlaLed lL
clalmlng he was LhreaLened lnLo maklng lL.
eLlLloners flled MoLlon Lo ulsquallfy Lhe respondenL [udge
from Lhe case as he would be Lhe one Lo pass on Lhe valldlLy
of Lhe repudlaLlon when he was also Lhe one who lL was
sworn Lo.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL !udge vlllaluz should be dlsquallfled from
hearlng Lhe crlmlnal case.

PLLu:
?LS. rohlblLlon ls granLed as he cannoL be sald Lo possess Lhe
degree of lmparLlallLy requlred ln Lhe presenL case.
uue process cannoL be saLlsfled ln Lhe absence of LhaL degree of
ob[ecLlvlLy on Lhe [udge sufflclenL Lo reassure llLlganLs of hls belng
falr and [usL.
uue process of law requlres a hearlng before an lmparLlal and
dlslnLeresLed Lrlbunal, and LhaL every llLlganL ls enLlLled Lo
noLhlng less Lhan cold neuLrallLy of an lmparLlal [udge
WlLh Lhe posslblllLy of Lrlal LalnLed by parLlallLy (lf lL can be
shown LhaL Lo refuse lnhlblLlon ls Lo casL valld doubLs as Lo a
courL's lmparLlallLy), Lhe SC can exerclse correcLlve auLhorlLy
and sLep ln Lo assure Lhe demands of due process.
1he absence of Lhe requlslLe due process elemenL ls Lhus
noLlceable.
8espondenL !udge could noL be LoLally lmmune Lo whaL was
asserLed before hlm ln such exLra[udlclal sLaLemenL.
Moreover, lL ls unllkely LhaL he was noL ln Lhe sllghLesL blL
offended by Lhe afflanL's clalm of lnLlmldaLlon by a
governmenL agenL exerLed on hlm.
ln aLLesLlng Lo Lhe sworn sLaLemenL and refuslng Lo rule on Lhe
moLlons Lo dlsmlss unLll prosecuLlon presenLed lLs evldence
agalnsL 8eyes, lL cannoL be doubLed Lhen LhaL respondenL ln
effecL ruled LhaL Lhe exLra-[udlclal sLaLemenL was execuLed
freely. WlLh lLs repudlaLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhere was
coerclon, Lhe [udge wlll pass on a quesLlon LhaL by lmpllcaLlon
had already been answered by hlm.
DCC1kINL: !udge ls
dlsquallfled from
hearlng a case where hls
ob[ecLlvlLy ln such case
has been/could be
eroded.

DCC1kINL: A [udge
may, ln Lhe exerclse of
sound dlscreLlon,
dlsquallfy hlmself from
slLLlng ln a case, for [usL
or valld reasons oLher
Lhan (1) pecunlary
lnLeresL, (2)
relaLlonshlp, or (3)
prevlous parLlclpaLlon ln
Lhe maLLer LhaL calls for
ad[udlcaLlon slnce Lhere
may be oLher causes
LhaL could concelvably
erode Lhe LralL of
ob[ecLlvlLy, Lhus calllng
for lnhlblLlon, whlle Lhe
dlscreLlon Lo lnhlblL
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
belongs Lo respondenL
!udge, lLs exerclse ls
sub[ecL Lo our correcLlve
auLhorlLy.

kIGn1 1C CCNIkCN1A1ICN, 1C CkCSS-LkAMINA1ICN, Ck 1C MLL1 WI1NLSSLS IACL-1C-IACL
1ampar vs. usman

C.8. no. 82077

AugusL 16, 1991

lAC1S:
Cn !une 11, 1947, peLlLloners enLered lnLo an LxLra-[udlclal
SeLLlmenL and Sale of roperLy wlLh respondenL Lsmael
usman, who laLer sold lL Lo hls co-respondenLs.
LaLer on, peLlLloners soughL Lo annul Lhe seLLlemenL. 1hey
denled ever enLerlng lnLo an agreemenL wlLh respondenL.
1hey also clalmed LhaL Lhelr slgnaLures were forged. 1hey
cannoL, however, produce wlLnesses Lo supporL Lhelr clalm.
lor Lhe fallure of peLlLloners Lo produce evldence, Lhe Sharl'a
CourL requlred usman Lo Lake an lslamlc oaLh, or yamln", Lo
aLLesL LhaL he dld noL commlL forgery. AfLer he Look Lhe oaLh,
Lhe Sharl'a CourL dlsmlssed Lhe case.
eLlLloners assalled Lhe yamln" procedure, clalmlng LhaL lL
deprlved Lhem of Lhelr consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo be heard.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe dlsmlssal by vlrLue of yamln was
arblLrary.

PLLu:
Supreme CourL upheld Lhe declslon of Lhe Sharl'a CourL, buL lL
recommended Lhe posslble deleLlon of Lhe yamln"
procedure under Sect|on 7 of the Spec|a| ku|es of rocedure
|n Shar|a Courts.

CourL upheld Lhe Sharl'a CourL's declslon based on Sect|on 1,
ku|e 131 of the ku|es of Court (52%68." &5 -"$%$%&'". $& 2448#"
/8--&.$%'9 ";%4"'#" /1266 4%/3%// $1" #2/"?7 and @AB because
of Lhe ?amln procedure.

am|n rocedure:
8urden of proof ls on Lhe plalnLlff. lf Lhe plalnLlff has no
evldence Lo supporL hls clalm, defendanL shall Lake an
oaLh and Lhe CourL shall rule ln hls favor. lf defendanL
refuses, Lhe plalnLlff shall afflrm hls clalm under oaLh, and
[udgmenL shall be rendered ln hls favor. lf plalnLlff also
refuses Lo afflrm hls clalm under oaLh, Lhe case shall be
dlsmlssed.

1he CourL flnds Lhe ?amln procedure Lo be %' ;%&62$%&' of
llLlganL's rlghL Lo due process:
o lL den|es Lhe parLy hls r|ght to confront the w|tnesses
aga|nst h|m and to cross-exam|ne them.

DCC1kINL: A case
cannoL be dlsmlssed by
a mere oaLh or
afflrmaLlon Lo Lhe LruLh
of Lhe facLs wlLhouL
cross-examlnaLlon by
each parLy of Lhe
evldence and wlLnesses
1kIAL IN A8SLN1IA, kIGn1 1C 8L kLSLN1
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Carredo vs.
eope.

C.8. no. 77342

March 19, 1990
lAC1S:
eLlLloner was charged on 3 lebruary 1983 wlLh mallclous
mlschlef before Lhe M1C of Malabuyoc, Cebu ClLy. Pe
deposlLed a cash bond for hls provlslonal llberLy. upon
arralgnmenL, he enLered a plea of noL gullLy and flled a
wrlLLen walver of appearance.
uurlng Lhe hearlng, Lhe prosecuLlon moved for Lhe recall of lLs
prlnclpal wlLness for Lhe purpose of ldenLlfylng Lhe accused-
peLlLloner who was noL presenL aL Lhe Lrlal. uefense [usLlfled
peLlLloner's absence sLaLlng LhaL hls presence can no longer
be requlred as he already flled a wrlLLen walver of
appearance.
1he M1C [udge neverLheless lssued an order of arresL of Lhe
peLlLloner, Lhe conflscaLlon of Lhe cash bond and orderlng Lhe
peLlLloner Lo show cause why no [udgmenL should be
rendered agalnsL hlm.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL an accused who walves hls furLher
appearance durlng Lhe Lrlal can be ordered arresLed by Lhe
courL for non-appearance upon summons Lo appear for
purposes of ldenLlflcaLlon.

PLLu:
?LS. An accused may walve hls rlghL Lo be presenL aL all
sLages of Lhe Lrlal excepL upon when he ls Lo be ldenLlfled as
Lhe defendanL ln Lhe case.
Aqu|no, Ir. v. M|||tary Comm|ss|on No. 2 (63 SCkA S46)
1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe peLlLloner may walve hls rlghL Lo be
presenL aL all sLages of Lhe proceedlngs excepL upon when he
ls Lo be ldenLlfled.

eop|e v. res|d|ng Iudge (12S SCkA 269)
1he CourL relLeraLed Lhe same rule lald down ln Aqulno, !r. v.
MlllLary Commlsslon no. 2 (63 SC8A 346) LhaL he may walve
hls presence aL Lhe Lrlal of Lhe case however hls presence may
be compelled when he ls Lo be ldenLlfled.

! 1he CourL ruled LhaL Lhe excepLlon conLemplaLed ln eop|e v.
res|d|ng Iudge ls when Lhe accused unquallfledly admlLs ln
open courL afLer hls arralgnmenL LhaL he ls Lhe person named
as defendanL ln Lhe case on Lrlal no more no less.

DCC1kINL: Walver of
rlghL Lo appear does noL
deprlve Lhe courL Lo
compel Lhe accused Lo
fulflll hls duLy Lo Lhe
courL, l.e. Lo appear and
be ldenLlfled by wlLness.
lf he really does noL
wanL Lo appear, he
musL unquallfledly
admlL LhaL every Llme a
wlLness menLlons a
name by whlch he ls
known, Lhe wlLness ls Lo
be undersLood as
referrlng Lo hlm.

DCC1kINL: 1he accused
may walve hls rlghL Lo
be presenL aL any Llme
durlng Lhe proceedlng,
however he may be
compelled Lo be presenL
aL Lhe Llme of
ldenLlfylng hlm/her as
Lhe defendanL ln Lhe
sald case.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -.

%!*' /!%01"+2,3 +4 #5' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
"$15# #+ *6''37 3$*6+*$#$+, +4 %!*'*
- Culanl v.
Sandlganbayan

C8 no.
146897-917

AugusL 6, 2002
lAC1S:
CCA lnsLlLuLed a complalnL for Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe AnLl-
CrafL and CorrupL racLlces AcL (8A 3019) agalnsL reglonal
offlclals ln CoLabaLo ClLy and uWP-A8MM afLer flndlngs of
bloaLed accompllshmenL reporLs and oLher lrregularlLles.
1he crlmlnal lnformaLlons were flled ln CcLober 1998, 6
years afLer Lhe complalnL of CCA was flled.
ArralgnmenL and pre-Lrlal were seL on lebruary 2001.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner's rlghL Lo a speedy dlsposlLlon
of cases has been vlolaLed

PLLu:
nC. 1here are no clrcumsLances whlch would render Lhe
delay oppresslve.
erlod LhaL elapsed ln Lhls case was warranLed.
8ecause of Lhe complexlLy of Lhe LransacLlons, Lhe CrafL
lnvesLlgaLlon Cfflcer soughL furLher subsLanLlaLlon of Lhe
allegaLlons and requesLed a compleLe reporL from CCA. 1he
reporL was recelved only on november 1994, Lhus, lL was
only Lhen Lhey could requlre all 41 respondenLs Lo flle Lhelr
counLer-affldavlLs.
MosL of Lhe respondenLs moved for exLenslons.
lL was only afLer Lhe submlsslon of Lhe lasL pleadlng, l.e., Lhe
reply-affldavlLs, LhaL Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon can be
sald Lo have been concluded/ Lhe Llme Lo resolve cases
commences from Lhls daLe.
8lghL Lo a speedy Lrlal may be walved.
lL musL be asserLed
CannoL be uLlllzed Lo deprlve Lhe SLaLe reasonable
opporLunlLy of falrly lndlcLlng crlmlnals.
1aLad v. Sandlganbayan:
lL was clearly shown LhaL
Lhe delay ln Lhe
resoluLlon of Lhe
crlmlnal cases were
pollLlcally moLlvaLed.
1he complalnL
conLalnlng Lhe alleged
vlolaLlon was flled ln
1974. 1he 1anodbayan
only acLed on Lhe
complalnL ln 1980, 2
monLhs afLer 1aLad's
reslgnaLlon.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

kIGn1 AGAINS1 SLLI-INCkIMINA1ICN
1 uS v. navarro

C.8. no. 1272

!anuary 11,
1904

lAC1S:
uefendanL and oLher persons were convlcLed for lllegally
deLalnlng unsalan.
up Llll Lhe daLe of Lhe lnformaLlon, unsalan's whereabouLs
are unknown. 1here ls no proof LhaL he was seL free by Lhe
defendanLs.
navarro ls belng compelled Lo LesLlfy regardlng Lhe
whereabouLs of Lhe person or else hls punlshmenL wlll be
lncreased Lo llfe lmprlsonmenL pursuanL Lo Art. 483 of the
ena| Code.
1

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL pracLlce under Art. 483 ls lllegal as lL compels
a person Lo be a wlLness agalnsL hlmself.

PLLu:
?LS. lf Lhe dlsclosure made ls capable of belng used agalnsL
Lhe defendanL as a confesslon of a crlme Lhen such dlsclosure
would be an accusaLlon agalnsL hlmself.

lf Lhe dlsclosure made ls capable of belng used agalnsL Lhe defendanL
as a confesslon of a crlme Lhen such dlsclosure would be an
accusaLlon agalnsL hlmself.
lf defendanL dlsclosed Lhe whereabouLs of Lhe person Laken,
or says LhaL he seL Lhe vlcLlm free, Lhen lL could be used Lo
obLaln a convlcLlon under lllegal deLenLlon under Art. 481. Pe
would be ln essence admlLLlng Lo acLually kldnapplng Lhe
vlcLlm.
lL ls Lhe duLy of Lhe prosecuLlon, ln order Lo convlcL one of a crlme, Lo
produce evldence showlng gullL beyond reasonable doubL.
1he accused cannoL be called upon Lo asslsL ln Lhe producLlon
of such evldence.
1he sllence of Lhe accused should noL be Laken as proof
agalnsL hlm.
1
one who lllegally deLalns
anoLher and falls Lo glve
lnformaLlon concernlng
hls whereabouLs, or does
noL prove LhaL he seL hlm
aL llberLy, shall be
punlshed wlLh cadena
Lemporal ln lLs maxlmum
degree Lo llfe
lmprlsonmenL.
2 uS v. 1an 1eng

C.8. no. 7081

SepLember 7,
1912

lAC1S:
1an 1eng was convlcLed of !"#$%$ '($)%*($+%$ afLer Lhe
subsLance Laken from hls body durlng Lhe pollce's
examlnaLlon LesLed poslLlve for gonorrhea: Lhe same dlsease
Lhe llLLle glrl who was abused was sufferlng from.
Pe clalms LhaL Lhe subsLance and Lhe flndlng on lL ls
lnadmlsslble as evldence slnce Lo admlL lL was Lo compel hlm
1he prohlblLlon on self-lncrlmlnaLlon ls a prohlblLlon of Lhe use of
physlcal or moral compulslon Lo exLorL communlcaLlons from hlm.
1he accused here was noL compelled Lo make any
admlsslons or answer any quesLlons.
lL ls noL an excluslon of hls body as evldence, when lL may be
maLerlal. lL would be Lhe same as lf Lhe offender
apprehended was a Lhlef and Lhe ob[ecL he sLole may be

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lo LesLlfy agalnsL hlmself.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe physlcal examlnaLlon conducLed was a
vlolaLlon of Lhe defendanL's rlghLs agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.

PLLu:
nC. 1he prohlblLlon on self-lncrlmlnaLlon does noL cover
evldence Laken from Lhe body of Lhe accused.

used as evldence agalnsL hlm.
Moreover, Lhe subsLance was Laken from hls body wlLhouL
hls ob[ecLlon. lL was conducLed by compeLenL medlcal
auLhorlLy.
3 uS v. Cng Slu
Pong

C.8. no. L-
12778

AugusL 3, 1917

lAC1S:
Accused quesLlons Lhe admlsslblllLy of Lhe morphlne Laken
from hls mouLh as evldence used by Lhe Lrlal courL agalnsL
hlm for hls convlcLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe accused was compelled Lo be a wlLness
agalnsL hlmself.

PLLu:
nC. rullng oLherwlse would amounL Lo a forced consLrucLlon
of Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon Lo hold LhaL any arLlcle,
subsLance, or Lhlng Laken from a person accused of crlme
could noL be glven ln evldence.

1he maln purpose of Lhls consLlLuLlonal provlslon ls Lo prohlblL
LesLlmonlal compulslon by oral examlnaLlon ln order Lo exLorL
unwllllng confesslons from prlsoners lmpllcaLlng Lhem ln Lhe
commlsslon of a crlme."
1he conLenLlon ls LhaL Lhe accused was compelled Lo be a
wlLness agalnsL hlmself when he was forced Lo dlscharge Lhe
morphlne from hls mouLh.
1hls ls a forced consLrucLlon of Lhe rlghL lnvoked.
1o force a prohlblLed drug from Lhe person of an accused ls
along Lhe same llne as requlrlng hlm Lo exhlblL hlmself
before Lhe courL, or puLLlng ln evldence papers and oLher
arLlcles Laken from Lhe room of an accused ln hls absence,
or, llke ln 1an 1eng, Laklng a subsLance from Lhe body of Lhe
accused Lo be used ln provlng hls gullL

4 vlllaflor v.
Summers

C.8. no.
L-16444

SepLember 8,
lAC1S:
LmeLerla vlllaflor was charged wlLh adulLery, and Lhe Lrlal
courL held her ln conLempL for refuslng Lo submlL herself Lo
an examlnaLlon whose ob[ecL ls Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL
she ls pregnanL. vlllaflor clalms LhaL such an examlnaLlon
vlolaLes her rlghL agalnsL self- lncrlmlnaLlon.

1he Supreme CourL could permlL subsLances Laken from Lhe person
of an accused Lo be offered as evldence.
1hls ls ln llne wlLh Lhe purpose of crlmlnal Lrlal, LhaL ls Lo
purge Lhe communlLy of persons who vlolaLe Lhe laws.
Crlmlnal procedure ls presenL Lo proLecL Lhe lnnocenL, noL
Lhe gullLy. no accused person should be afrald of Lhe use of
any meLhod whlch wlll Lend Lo esLabllsh Lhe LruLh.
uCC18lnL: 1aklng of
samples from Lhe body
of Lhe accused does noL
consLlLuLe self-
lncrlmlnaLlon because lL
does noL requlre Lhe
accused Lo produce
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1920 lSSuL:
WheLher or noL compelllng of a woman Lo permlL her body Lo
be examlned by physlclans Lo deLermlne lf she ls pregnanL,
vlolaLes LhaL porLlon of Lhe hlllpplne 8lll of 8lghLs and LhaL
porLlon of our Code of Crlmlnal rocedure provldlng LhaL no
person shall be compelled ln any crlmlnal case Lo be a
wlLness agalnsL hlmself.

PLLu:
nC. 1he prohlblLlon ls llmlLed Lo LesLlmonlal self-
lncrlmlnaLlon.

AlLhough compelllng a woman Lo submlL her body Lo Lhe Louch of a
sLranger may be an assaulL, an lndlvldual's rlghL Lo be lefL alone ls
lnferlor Lo Lhe publlc's requlremenL for an orderly admlnlsLraLlon of
[usLlce.
lL ls a reasonable presumpLlon LhaL ln an examlnaLlon by
repuLable and dlslnLeresLed physlclans due care wlll be Laken
noL Lo use vlolence and noL Lo embarrass Lhe paLlenL any
more Lhan ls absoluLely necessary. lndeed, no ob[ecLlon Lo
Lhe physlcal examlnaLlon belng made by Lhe famlly docLor of
Lhe accused or by docLor of Lhe same sex can be seen.

evldence whlch ls noL
already presenL.
S 8elLran v.
Samson

C.8. no. 32023

SepLember 23,
1929
lAC1S:
lranclsco 8elLran, on Lhe moLlon of Lhe provlnclal flscal, was
compelled Lo wrlLe a documenL Lo be compared wlLh an
allegedly falslfled documenL Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL he
was Lhe one who falslfled Lhe sald documenL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal provlslon prohlblLs
respondenLs from compelllng peLlLloner 8elLran from
accedlng Lo Lhe order of produclng Lhe wrlLlng.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he consLlLuLlonal lnhlblLlon ls dlrecLed noL only Lo oral
LesLlmony, buL also covers Lhe furnlshlng of evldence by
oLher means, Lhe dlvulglng of any facL whlch Lhe accused has
a rlghL Lo hold secreL.

Pad 8elLran walved hls rlghL and volunLarlly furnlshed samples of hls
handwrlLlng (as was ln Lhe case of 8radford v. eople and Sprouse v.
Com), Lhen a vlolaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon would noL be an lssue.
1here ls a slmllarlLy beLween one who ls compelled Lo
produce a documenL, and one who ls compelled Lo furnlsh a
speclmen of hls handwrlLlng, for ln boLh cases, Lhe wlLness ls
requlred Lo furnlsh evldence agalnsL hlmself.
1he wlLness ls compelled Lo wrlLe and creaLe, by means of
Lhe acL of wrlLlng, evldence whlch does noL exlsL, and whlch
may ldenLlfy.
1he CourL also clLed LhaL because of peLlLloner's poslLlon as
munlclpal Lreasurer, Lhere are oLher ways ldenLlfy hls
handwrlLlng.

6 8ermudez v.
CasLlllo

lAC1S:
8ermudez was a wlLness agalnsL CasLlllo ln an admlnlsLraLlve
case agalnsL Lhe laLLer. CasLlllo, ln hls defense, furnlshed slx
ln 8e Mackenzle
8ullng ln Lhls case ls lnappllcable because peLlLloner lnvoked Lhe
prlvllege agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon early on.
Slmllar Lo 8elLran v.
Samson and !ose case
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
rec. 8ec. no.
714-A (64
PlL. 483)

!uly 26, 1937
leLLers, alleglng LhaL Lhey were ln Lhe handwrlLlng of
8ermudez.
She denled wrlLlng Lhe slx leLLers, buL admlLLed Lo wrlLlng
Lhree oLher leLLers whlch were also used as evldence.
CasLlllo requlred 8ermudez Lo copy Lhe Lhree leLLers ln Lhe
presence of Lhe lnvesLlgaLor, Lo deLermlne wheLher she really
was Lhe auLhor of Lhese. She however refused Lo copy Lhem,
lnvoklng her rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner can be compelled by respondenL
Lo copy Lhe leLLers ln her own handwrlLlng.

PLLu:
nC. eLlLloner cannoL be compelled Lo copy Lhe leLLers under
Lhe rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon

1he rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon ls noL vlolaLed when Lhe wlLness ls
compelled Lo answer quesLlons regardlng Lhe LruLhfulness of hls
prevlous LesLlmonles.

1he reason for Lhe prlvllege ls Lo ,-(.(*+ +)( -(,(+/+/%* %0 +)(
/*)#1!* ,-%2('#-( %0 2%1,(33/*4 ! ,(-$%* +% 0#-*/$) 1/$$/*4
(./'(*2( *(2($$!-5 0%- )/$ 2%*./2+/%*. lf such ls Lhe purpose, Lhe
evldence musL be obLalned elsewhere, and lf Lhere really ls a need
for Lhe person hlmself Lo produce evldence, he should be promlsed
absoluLe lmmunlLy.
7 Chavez v. CA

C.8. no.
L- 29169

AugusL 19,
1968
lAC1S:
Chavez was lmpllcaLed ln Lhe crlme of moLor LhefL by sLeallng
a 1hunderblrd car model.
Cn Lhe flrsL day of Lrlal, Lhe flscal moved Lo presenL Chavez,
desplLe belng an accused, Lo be an ordlnary wlLness Lo Lhe
case.
Chavez's counsel ob[ecLed Lo Lhe moLlon, buL Lhe Lrlal courL
granLed lL, on Lhe followlng grounds:
o rosecuLlon has Lhe rlghL Lo ask anybody Lo be a
wlLness and Lake Lhe sLand.
o CourL assured Chavez LhaL he would noL be requlred
Lo answer quesLlons whlch Lend Lo lncrlmlnaLe hlm.
81C acqulLLed oLher accused buL convlcLed Chavez and
labeled hlm a self-confessed culprlL".
CA afflrmed 81C declslon and ordered Chavez conflned ln
CourLs may noL exLracL from Lhe defendanL's own llps and
agalnsL hls wlll an admlsslon of gullL
8lghL ls mandaLory and noL merely Lechnlcal, on Lhe basls of
po||cy and human|ty.
!udge's sLaLemenLs ( on Lhe rlghL of Lhe prosecuLlon Lo ask
quesLlons and on Lhe lnablllLy of defense Lo ob[ecL) lndlcaLed
coerclon on Chavez.
Accused rlghL of proLecLlon occuples a dlfferenL Ller Lhan LhaL
of an ordlnary wlLness .
o Crdlnary wlLness may be called on Lhe sLand and may
only refuse Lo answer quesLlons whlch Lend Lo
lncrlmlnaLe hlm.
o Accused may refuse Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand and
answer quesLlons alLogeLher.
Chavez dld noL walve hls rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon. Pe

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8lllbld.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Chavez was compelled Lo be a wlLness
agalnsL hlmself.

PLLu
Chavez's rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon was vlolaLed.
ob[ecLed Lo belng called Lo Lhe wlLness sLand aL Lhe flrsL
opporLunlLy.
o Walver musL be unequlvocal and express.
8 Cabal v.
kapunan

C8 no. L-
19032

uecember 29,
1962
lAC1S:
Col. MarlsLela of Lhe Al charged Lhen Chlef of SLaff Cabal
wlLh grafL and corrupLlon. 1he resldenL of Lhe hlllpplnes
Lhen creaLed an lnvesLlgaLlng commlLLee Lo address such
charge of unexplalned wealLh.
MarlsLela ordered Cabal Lo sLand as wlLness Lo supporL Lhe
former's charge of grafL and corrupLlon agalnsL hlm, buL Lhe
laLLer refused Lo comply, lnvoklng hls consLlLuLlonal rlghL
agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.
1he ClLy llscal of Manlla Lhen charged Cabal wlLh conLempL
under Lhe 8AC and Lhe 8ules of CourL.
1he crlmlnal case was Lhen asslgned Lo respondenL [udge,
kapunan, !r. Cabal subsequenLly flled a moLlon Lo quash Lhe
charge agalnsL hlm. Cne such ground lnvoked was LhaL Lhe
CommlLLee had no power Lo order and requlre Cabal Lo be
MarlsLela's wlLness, lnasmuch as sald order vlolaLed hls
consLlLuLlonal rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner's rlghL agalnsL self-
lncrlmlnaLlon wlll be vlolaLed

PLLu:
?LS. 1he proceedlngs are crlmlnal ln naLure, Lherefore, hls
Cabal may exerclse hls rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon.
kA 1379 or 1he Ant|-Graft Law auLhorlzes Lhe forfelLure Lo
Lhe SLaLe of properLy of a publlc offlcer or employee whlch ls
manlfesLly ouL of proporLlon Lo hls salary, oLher lawful
lncome, or leglLlmaLely acqulred properLy.
lorfelLure has Lhe naLure of a penalLy.
o As a consequence, Lhe proceedlngs are deemed
crlmlnal or penal, and, hence, Lhe exempLlon of
defendanLs ln Lhe crlmlnal case from Lhe obllgaLlon
Lo be wlLnesses agalnsL Lhemselves ls appllcable.
ConsLlLuLlonal rlghL applles only Lo crlmlnal, quasl-crlmlnal,
and penal proceedlngs, lncludlng a proceedlng clvll ln form
for forfelLure of properLy by reason of Lhe commlsslon of an
offense
o 8uL noL a proceedlng ln whlch Lhe penalLy
recoverable ls clvll or remedlal ln naLure
o Applles when Lhe proceedlng ls noL purely
remedlal," or lnLended as redress for prlvaLe
grlevance," buL prlmarlly Lo punlsh a vlolaLlon of
duLy or publlc wrong and Lo deLer oLhers from
offendlng ln llkewlse manner."
lorfelLure - dlvesLlLure
of properLy wlLhouL
compensaLlon, ln
consequence of a defaulL
or an offense. lL ls
lmposed by way of
punlshmenL by Lhe
lawmaklng power.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
consLlLuLlonal rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon may be
lnvoked.
9 ascual, !r. v.
8oard

C.8. no. L-
23018

May 26, 1969
lAC1S:
AL a hearlng for an admlnlsLraLlve case for malpracLlce,
counsel for Lhe complalnanLs Lhe flrsL wlLness would be
peLlLloner, who was Lhe respondenL ln Lhe malpracLlce
charge.
eLlLloner lnvoked hls rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon. Pe
alleged LhaL Lhe 8oard of Medlcal Lxamlners commlLLed
grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln compelllng hlm Lake Lhe wlLness
sLand
1he respondenL sLaLed LhaL Lhe rlghL agalnsL self-
lncrlmlnaLlon was only avallable durlng quesLlonlng.
lnLervenors added LhaL such rlghL was noL avallable ln an
admlnlsLraLlve hearlng.
1he lower courL ruled ln favor of peLlLloner

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe ueclslon of Lhe Cll prohlblLlng Lhe board
Lo compel Lhe peLlLloner Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand ls valld.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he Supreme CourL adheres Lo Lhe prlnclple as seL ln Lhe
case of Cabal v. kapunan. 1he consLlLuLlonal guaranLee
agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon also proLecLs Lhe rlghL Lo sllence.
Cabal v. kapunan
1he revocaLlon of hls llcense ls slmllar Lo Lhe forfelLure of
properLy
ln accordance wlLh Lhe well-seLLled prlnclple LhaL Lhe
accused ln a crlmlnal case may refuse, noL only Lo answer
lncrlmlnaLory quesLlons, buL also, Lo Lake Lhe wlLness sLand."
8lghL Lo remaln sllenL:
1he accused has Lhe rlghL Lo remaln sllenL and hls sllence
cannoL be used as a presumpLlon of hls gullL. (as relLeraLed ln
Chavez v. CourL of Appeals)

10 SLandard
CharLered
8ank (SC8) v.
SenaLe

C.8. no.
167173
lAC1S:
SenaLor !L dellvered a prlvllege speech based on a leLLer
from ALLy. 8ocobo, denounclng SC8-hll. for selllng
unreglsLered forelgn securlLles ln vlolaLlon of 8.A. no. 8799.
Lnrlle urged Lhe SenaLe Lo lmmedlaLely conducL an lnqulry ln
ald of leglslaLlon.
1he SenaLe CommlLLee on 8anks, llnanclal lnsLlLuLlons and
8egardlng Lhe lssue of self-lncrlmlnaLlon, Lhe peLlLloners, and
offlcers of SC8, are noL belng lndlcLed as accused ln a crlmlnal
proceedlng. 1he SenaLe summoned Lhem merely as resource
persons, or as wlLnesses, ln a leglslaLlve lnqulry.
As dlsLlngulshed by Lhe CourL, an accused occuples a
'/00(-(*+ +/(- %0 ,-%+(2+/%* from an ord|nary w|tness.
Whereas an ord|nary w|tness may be compe||ed to take the

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

uecember 27,
2007
Currencles seL Lhe lnlLlal hearlng on 28 lebruary 2003 Lo
lnvesLlgaLe Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe speech.
eLlLloner SC8 was lnvlLed Lo aLLend, desplLe Lhe lnvlLaLlon,
SC8 dld noL aLLend Lhe SenaLe hearlng. 1hey were laLer
served by 8espondenL wlLh subpoenae ad LesLlflcandum and
duces Lecum, compelllng Lhem Lo aLLend and LesLlfy aL Lhe
hearlng seL on 13 March 2003.

lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Lhe SenaLe CommlLLee acLed wlLhouL
[urlsdlcLlon and/or acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon
amounLlng Lo lack of [urlsdlcLlon ln compelllng SC8, some of
whom are respondenLs ln Lhe pendlng crlmlnal and clvll
acLlons broughL by sald cllenLs, ln vlolaLlon of peLlLloner's
rlghL agalnsL self-lncrlmlnaLlon and rlghL Lo pursue and
defend Lhelr cause ln courL raLher Lhan engage ln Lrlal by
publlclLy.

PLLu:
eLlLlon uLnlLu. SC8 offlclals nelLher sLands as an accused ln
a crlmlnal case nor wlll Lhe CommlLLee sub[ecL Lhem Lo any
penalLy by reason of Lhelr LesLlmonles. Pence, Lhey cannoL
decllne appearlng before 8espondenL, alLhough Lhey may
lnvoke Lhe prlvllege when a quesLlon calllng for an
lncrlmlnaLlng answer ls propounded.
w|tness stand and c|a|m the pr|v||ege as each quest|on
requ|r|ng an |ncr|m|nat|ng answer |s shot at h|m, an accused
may a|together refuse to take the w|tness stand and refuse
to answer any and a|| quest|ons."
1he r|ght of the accused aga|nst se|f-|ncr|m|nat|on ls
exLended Lo respondenLs ln admlnlsLraLlve lnvesLlgaLlons LhaL
partake of the nature of or are ana|ogous to cr|m|na|
proceed|ngs.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -.

%!*' /!%01"+2,3 +4 #5' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
%"2'&) 3'1"!3$,1) +" $,526!, 72,$*56',#8 '9%'**$:' 4$,'*
- eople v.
LsLolsLa

C.8. no. L-
3793

AugusL 27,
1933
lAC1S:
Albero LsLolsLa, whlle shooLlng aL a wlld roosLer, shoL and hlL
ulragon ulma, a laborer of Lhe famlly who was seLLlng a Lrap
for wlld chlckens and whose presence was noL percelved by
Lhe accused.
uefendanL-AppellanL AlberLo LsLolsLa was prosecuLed ln Lhe
Cll of Lanao for Pomlclde Lhrough 8eckless lmprudence and
lllegal ossesslon of llrearms.
Pe was acqulLLed ln Lhe flrsL offense buL was found gullLy of
Lhe second offense, hence he was senLenced Lo one-year
lmprlsonmenL.
Pence he comes before Lhe CourL conLendlng LhaL Lhe
penalLy provlded by 8.A. no. 4, from 3 Lo 10 years of
lmprlsonmenL and flnes, ls cruel and unusual.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe penalLy provlded by 8.A. no. 4 ls cruel
and unusual.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls uLnlLu. !udgmenL ls modlfled.

1he CourL afflrmed Lhe rullng of Lhe lower courL, holdlng LhaL
lf Lhe correspondlng penalLy of lmprlsonmenL from 3 Lo 10
years ls ouL of proporLlon Lo Lhe presenL case ln llghL of
cerLaln clrcumsLances, Lhe law ;<=>?@ ,+# AB <B?@
2,%+,*#$#2#$+,!&.
1he CourL was of Lhe oplnlon LhaL small Lransgressors for
whlch Lhe heavy neL was noL spread are, llke small flshes,
bound Lo be caughL, and lL ls Lo meeL such a slLuaLlon LhaL
Lhey are advlsed Lo make a recommendaLlon Lo Lhe Chlef
LxecuLlve for clemency or reducLlon of Lhe penalLy.

C eople v.
Lchegaray

C.8. no.
117472
lAC1S:
!une 23 1996: SC rendered declslon afflrmlng convlcLlon of
Lchegaray of raplng hls 10-year-old daughLer, lmposlng "D!D
EFG. =H I<B 3BJI< 7BKJ?IL &JM whlch was already ln effecL aL
Lhe Llme of Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme ln 1994. Lchegaray
lor Lhe relmposlLlon of Lhe deaLh penalLy, Lhe followlng condlLlons
musL be presenL:
1. Congress should so provlde such relmposlLlon of Lhe deaLh
penalLy,

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

lebruary 7,
1997
flled a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon, saylng he was falsely
accused because of slnlsLer moLlves of Lhe vlcLlm's
grandmoLher
AugusL 6, 1996: Lchegaray dlscharged hls counsel ALLy. vlLug
buL reLalned servlces of lree Legal AsslsLance Croup (lLAC)
Lchegaray flled a MoLlon whlch asked for reversal of deaLh
senLence

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8A 7639 ls unconsLlLuLlonal

PLLu:
nC. ln order Lo secure socleLy agalnsL LhreaLened or acLual
evll, Lhe leglslaLure has Lhe power Lo enacL laws LhaL deflne
and punlsh evll acLs, lncludlng Lhe deaLh penalLy. 8A 7639
meeLs all Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe relmposlLlon of Lhe deaLh
penalLy.
2. 1here are !"#$%&&'() +%,-"(-,
3. 1hese lnvolve .%'("/- !+'#%-
1he consLlLuLlonal exerclse of Lhe llmlLed power Lo re-lmpose Lhe
deaLh penalLy enLalls:
1. Congress 0%1'(% "+ 0%-!+'2% 3.,4 '- #%,(4 25 .%'("/- !+'#%-
2. Congress -$%!'15 ,(0 $%(,&'6% 25 0%,4.7 "(&5 !+'#%- 4.,4
8/,&'15 ,- .%'("/s ln accordance wlLh Lhe deflnlLlon or
descrlpLlon seL ln Lhe deaLh penalLy blll and/or deslgnaLe
crlmes punlshable by recluslon perpeLua Lo deaLh ln whlch
laLLer case, deaLh can only be lmposed upon Lhe aLLendance
of clrcumsLances duly proven ln courL LhaL characLerlze Lhe
crlme Lo be helnous ln accordance wlLh Lhe deflnlLlon or
descrlpLlon seL ln Lhe deaLh penalLy blll
3. Congress, ln enacLlng Lhls deaLh penalLy blll be slngularly
moLlvaLed by 9!"#$%&&'() +%,-"(- '(:"&:'() .%'("/- !+'#%-;9

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $$$) *'%#$+, -.

%!*' /!%01"+2,3 +4 #5' %!*' "!#$+ ,+#'*
$67"$*+,6',# 4+" 3'/#
8 Lozano v.
MarLlnez

C8 no. L-
63419

uecember 18,
1986
lAC1S:
uefendanLs were charged of vlolaLlons of /7 --.
1hey moved Lo quash Lhe lnformaLlons on Lhe ground LhaL
Lhe acLs charged dld noL consLlLuLe an offense, Lhe sLaLuLe
belng unconsLlLuLlonal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL /7 -- vlolaLes Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL
lmprlsonmenL for debL or nonpaymenL of poll Lax

PLLu:
nC. 1he prohlblLlon was meanL Lo cover llablllLles arlslng
from acLlons from conLracLs, noL damages ln acLlons from
dellcLs.

A person may noL be lmprlsoned for a conLracLual debL
lL does noL apply Lo damages lmposed upon a defendanL for
Lhe wrong he has done and are consldered as punlshmenL,
nor Lo flnes and penalLles lmposed by Lhe courLs.
/7 -- was meanL Lo banlsh a pracLlce harmful Lo publlc
welfare, noL a measure Lo coerce paymenL of an obllgaLlon.
o /7 -- was deslgned Lo prevenL Lhe deleLerlous
effecL on Lhe publlc lnLeresL Lhrough Lhe maklng
worLhless checks and puLLlng Lhem ln clrculaLlon.
o 1he law punlshes Lhe acL as an offense agalnsL publlc
lnLeresL, noL an offense agalnsL properLy.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

A11ACnMLN1 CI ILCAkD
1 eople v.
?lagan

C.8. no. L-
38443

november 23,
1933

lAC1S:
A complalnL for physlcal ln[urles was flled agalnsL ?lagan. 1hls
however was dlsmlssed upon plea of noL gullLy" and
?lagan's aLLorney sald noLhlng regardlng Lhe dlsmlssal.
11 days laLer, Lhe flscal flled anoLher lnformaLlon charglng
?lagan wlLh Lhe same offense.
eace CourL dlsmlssed Lhe case on Lhe grounds of double
[eopardy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe courL was correcL ln dlsmlsslng Lhe case
on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe second complalnL flled agalnsL ?lagan
puLs her ln double [eopardy.

PLLu:
?LS. Second complalnL consLlLuLed double [eopardy.

?lagan has already been once ln legal [eopardy
1
for Lhe offense for
whlch she ls now prosecuLed.
1he rule agalnsL double [eopardy proLecLs Lhe accused noL
agalnsL Lhe perll of second punlshmenL, buL agalnsL belng
Lrled agaln for Lhe same offense.
Counsel for Lhe governmenL conLends LhaL Lhe flrsL case broughL
agalnsL ?lagan was dlsmlssed wlLh her consenL, on Lhe Lheory LhaL
Lhe phrase 'wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe accused' ln Sec. 28 of the
Code of Cr|m|na| rocedure, should be consLrued Lo mean 'over Lhe
ob[ecLlon of Lhe accused' or 'agalnsL Lhe wlll of Lhe accused.'
1hls Lheory ls unaccepLable. 1he mere sllence of Lhe
defendanL or hls fallure Lo ob[ecL Lo Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case
does noL consLlLuLe consenL wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe
provlslon. 1he rlghL noL Lo be puL ln [eopardy a second Llme ls
[usL as lmporLanL as oLher consLlLuLlonal rlghLs. lLs walver
should noL be predlcaLed on mere sllence.
1
8equlslLes of legal
[eopardy
(1) CourL of compeLenL
[urlsdlcLlon
(2) upon a valld
complalnL or lnformaLlon
(3) AfLer he has been
arralgned
(4) AfLer he has pleaded
Lo Lhe complalnL or
lnformaLlon.
1LkMINA1ICN CI ILCAkD, LkIS1LNCL, NCN-1LkMINA1ICN
2 8ulaong v.
eople

C.8. no. L-
19344

!uly 27, 1966
lAC1S:
8ulaong and oLhers were charged wlLh Lhe crlme of rebelllon.
uurlng Lhe pendency, kA1700 was passed. ConsequenLly, he
was also charged wlLh subverslon under Sec. 4 of kA1700.
Pe was convlcLed of 8ebelllon. Pe clalms double [eopardy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8ulaong can lnLerpose Lhe defense of double
[eopardy ln vlew of Lhe flllng of subverslon slnce lL lnvolves
none of Lhe slLuaLlons spelled ouL ln Sec. 9 of ku|e 113 are presenL,
accused cannoL lnLerpose defense of double [eopardy.
Sec. 9 of ku|e 113 of the ku|es of Court: defense of double
[eopardy ls avallable Lo Lhe accused only where he was elLher
convlcLed or acqulLLed or Lhe case agalnsL hlm was dlsmlssed
or oLherwlse LermlnaLed wlLhouL hls consenL.
Accused has noL been convlcLed nor acqulLLed ln Lhe case
flled for subverslon. nor was Lhe case dlsmlssed or
LermlnaLed wlLhouL hls consenL, for as sLaLed, lL ls sLlll

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Lhe same facLs ln Lhe charge of rebelllon.

PLLu:
nC. ConvlcLlon, acqulLLal of Lhe accused or
dlsmlssal/LermlnaLlon of Lhe case are Lhe only grounds whlch
bar furLher prosecuLlon for Lhe same offense.
pendlng ln sald courL.
1he CourL saw Lhe need Lo hlghllghL LhaL convlcLlon, acqulLLal
of Lhe accused or dlsmlssal/LermlnaLlon of Lhe case are Lhe
only grounds whlch bar furLher prosecuLlon for Lhe same
offense.
kULL CN "SULkVLNING IAC1S"
3 Melo v. eople

C8 no. L-3380

March 22,
1930
lAC1S:
Melo was charged wlLh frusLraLed homlclde, for havlng
allegedly lnfllcLed upon Cblllo, wlLh a klLchen knlfe and wlLh
lnLenL Lo klll, several serlous wounds on hls body, requlrlng
medlcal aLLendance, and lncapaclLaLlng work. Melo pleaded
noL gullLy Lo Lhe charge.
Cblllo subsequenLly dled from hls wounds.
An amended lnformaLlon was Lhen flled, charglng Melo wlLh
consummaLed homlclde. Pe flled a moLlon Lo quash sald
charge, whlch was denled by respondenL Cll of 8lzal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Melo's consLlLuLlonal rlghL agalnsL uouble
!eopardy has been lnfrlnged by Lhe Cll of 8lzal

PLLu:
nC. lL was proper for Lhem Lo dlsmlss Lhe flrsL lnformaLlon
and order Lhe flllng of a new one for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe
proper offense was noL charged ln Lhe former and Lhe laLLer
dld noL place Lhe accused ln a second [eopardy for Lhe same
or ldenLlcal offense.

1he proLecLlon granLed ls agalnsL a second [eopardy for Lhe same
offense
Same offense means LhaL Lhe second offense charged ls
exacLly Lhe same as Lhe one alleged ln Lhe flrsL lnformaLlon
Anu LhaL Lhe Lwo offenses are ldenLlcal.
1here ls ldenLlLy beLween Lhe Lwo offenses when Lhe when
Lhe evldence Lo supporL a convlcLlon for one offense would
be sufflclenL Lo warranL a convlcLlon for Lhe oLher.
o 1he except|on on Lhls rule of ldenLlLy applles when
Lhe second offense was noL ln exlsLence aL Lhe Llme
of Lhe 1
sL
prosecuLlon, because Lhere ls no posslblllLy
for Lhe accused, durlng Lhe 1
sL
prosecuLlon, Lo be
convlcLed for an offense LhaL was Lhen lnexlsLenL.
o ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe homlclde was noL yeL
consummaLed unLll afLer Lhe flllng of Lhe lnformaLlon
when Cblllo dled.
Same Lv|dence 1est
means LhaL Lhere ls
ldenLlLy beLween Lwo
offenses when:
1he 2
nd
offense ls "#$%&'(
&)" *$+" as Lhe 1
sL
, Anu
When Lhe 2
nd
offense ls
an $&&"+,& Lo commlL
Lhe 1
sL
or a -./*&.$&012
Lhereof, C8 when lL
2"%"**$.( 02%'/3"* or ls
2"%"**$.0'( 02%'/3"3 ln
Lhe offense charged ln
Lhe flrsL lnformaLlon

4 eople v.
8ullng

lAC1S:
8uenavenLura 8ullng was charged and convlcLed for less
serlous physlcal ln[urles. 1hls was based on Lhe uecember 10,
Melo v. eople ! "where afLer Lhe flrsL prosecuLlon a new facL
supervenes for whlch Lhe defendanL ls responslble, whlch changes
Lhe characLer of Lhe offense and, LogeLher wlLh Lhe facLs exlsLlng aL
uCC18lnL: uouble
!eopardy ls noL a bar Lo
subsequenL prosecuLlon
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no.
L-13313

Aprll 27, 1960
1936 examlnaLlon of Lhe physlclan, alLhough Lhere was no x-
8ay examlnaLlon.
Cn !anuary 18, 1937, an x-8ay examlnaLlon was conducLed
showlng LhaL Lhere was a fracLure caused by Lhe ln[urles LhaL
would Lake much longer Lo heal Lhan prevlously LhoughL. As
such, 8ullng was convlcLed for serlous physlcal ln[urles.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe prosecuLlon and convlcLlon of 8ullng for
less serlous physlcal ln[urles ls a bar Lo Lhe second
prosecuLlon for serlous physlcal ln[urles.

PLLu:
?LS. 1here ls double [eopardy because no new lnformaLlon or
clrcumsLance has arlsen whlch changes Lhe characLer of Lhe
offense from less serlous Lo serlous physlcal ln[urles.
Lhe Llme, consLlLuLes a new and dlsLlncL offense" (13 Am. !ur., 66),
Lhe accused cannoL be sald Lo be ln second [eopardy lf lndlcLed for
Lhe new offense.
ln eople v. Manolong, Lhe subsequenL deformlLy and Lhe
loss of Lhe use of Lhe rlghL hand was noL apparenL and could
noL have been dlscernlble aL Lhe Llme of Lhe flrsL
examlnaLlon. As such, lLs havlng arlsen ln Lhe second medlcal
examlnaLlon consLlLuLes nLW lnformaLlon whlch ls noL
barred by double [eopardy.
ln Lhe lnsLanL case, had an x-ray examlnaLlon been
conducLed durlng Lhe flrsL examlnaLlon, Lhe fracLure would
have been dlsclosed. 1he wound causlng Lhe delay ln heallng
was already ln exlsLence aL Lhe Llme of Lhe flrsL examlnaLlon,
buL sald delay was caused by Lhe very superflclal examlnaLlon
Lhen made.
of Lhe same acL ll Lhere
ls nLW lnformaLlon or
clrcumsLances prevlously
absenL.
SAML CIILNSLS
S eople v.
1lozon

C.8. no. 89823

!une 19, 1991
lAC1S:
1he accused was drunk when he came Lhe Lo house of and
showed hls gun Lo Lhe deceased. LaLer, Lhe deceased was
shoL by Lhe accused.
1he accused was found gullLy of .D. 1866 (lllegal possesslon
of flrearms), and murder (as quallfled by Lreachery).

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe 81C erred ln convlcLlng Lhe accused of
Lhe crlme of lllegal possesslon wlLh murder as deflned ln
Sect|on 1 of .D. 1866.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he accused ls gullLy of only homlclde as Lhe facL of
lllegal possesslon of flrearm was noL proven.
eople v. uomlguez ! roLecLlon for double [eopardy may be
lnvoked only for Lhe same offense or ldenLlcal offenses. An acL may
offend agalnsL Lwo dlsLlncL and unrelaLed provlslons of law,and lf one
requlres proof of an addlLlonal facL or elemenL whlle Lhe oLher does
noL, and acqulLLal or convlcLlon or dlsmlssal of one does noL bar
prosecuLlon under Lhe oLher.
1he kllllng of a person wlLh Lhe use of an unllcensed flrearm
may glve rlse Lo separaLe prosecuLlons for (a) vlolaLlon of D
1866 and (b) elLher Murder or Pomlclde.
1he rule on double [eopardy cannoL be lnvoked because Lhe
flrsL ls punlshed by a speclal law whlle Lhe second ls punlshed
by Lhe 8C.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
nC ALAL l8CM ACCul11AL, lnS1AnCLS Cl vClu ACCul11AL
6 Mupas v.
eople

C.8. no.
189363

CcLober 12,
2011
lAC1S:
CarmellLa Zafra, a Supply Cfflcer ln uSWu, was charged wlLh
malversaLlon and vlolaLlon of kA 3019 (Ant| Graft and
Corrupt ract|ces Act) for allegedly mlsapproprlaLlng 200
boxes of 8ear 8rand Mllk LogeLher wlLh her slsLer and uSWu
workers.
1he Lrlal courL granLed her demurrer of evldence and
acqulLLed her.
1he CourL of Appeals reversed Lhe lower courL's declslon,
sLaLlng LhaL alLhough Lhe evldence falled Lo esLabllsh her
acLlve parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe crlme, her negllgence makes her
equally culpable. 1he CA Lhen declared her gullLy of Lhe sald
crlmes.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe rlghL of peLlLloner agalnsL double
[eopardy was vlolaLed when Lhe appellaLe courL rendered
vold Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon granLlng demurrer of evldence
and acqulLLlng Lhe accused.

PLLu
nC. 1he Supreme CourL held LhaL when Lhe accused ls
acqulLLed because of Lhe granL of demurrer of evldence, only
Lo be declared vold laLer on by Lhe appellaLe courL, a
subsequenL convlcLlon of Lhe accused ls noL LanLamounL Lo
double [eopardy.
eople v. Lagulo, !r.
When a Lrlal courL granLs Lhe 3"+/..". 1- "403"2%" and
dlsmlsses Lhe case, Lhe appellaLe courL may revlew Lhe
dlsmlssal order Lhrough %".&01.$.0 on Lhe ground of grave
abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack or excess of
[urlsdlcLlon.
Such dlsmlssal order ls consldered a 4103 5/36+"2& and does
noL resulL Lo double [eopardy.
When Lhe order of dlsmlssal ls annulled or seL aslde by an
appellaLe courL Lhrough %".&01.$.07 Lhe rlghL of Lhe accused
agalnsL double [eopardy ls noL vlolaLed.
Demurrer to Lv|dence
(Sect|on 1 ku|e 33 on the
ku|es of Court)
AfLer Lhe plalnLlff has
compleLed Lhe
presenLaLlon of hls
evldence, Lhe defendanL
may move for dlsmlssal
on Lhe ground LhaL upon
Lhe facLs and Lhe law Lhe
plalnLlff has shown no
rlghL Lo rellef. lf hls
moLlon ls denled he shall
have Lhe rlghL Lo presenL
evldence. lf Lhe moLlon ls
granLed buL on appeal
Lhe order of dlsmlssal ls
reversed, he shall be
deemed Lo have walved
Lhe rlghL Lo presenL
evldence.
CkDINANCL AND S1A1U1L
7 eople v.
8elova

C.8. no.
lAC1S:
Manuel Cpulencla was charged wlLh vlolaLlon of ClLy
Crd|nance No.1 for lnsLalllng elecLrlc wlres and devlces Lo
decrease elecLrlc consumpLlon of hls lce lanL wlLhouL

89- $2 $%& 0* ,/20*)"3 :( $ '$; $23 $2 1.302$2%"7 %1240%&012 1.
$%</0&&$' /23". "0&)". *)$'' %12*&0&/&" $ :$. &1 $21&)".
,.1*"%/&012 -1. &)" *$+" $%&=>

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
L-43129

March 6, 1987
auLhorlLy.
8aLangas CourL dlsmlssed Lhe case on Lhe ground of
prescrlpLlon, slnce lL was a llghL felony whlch prescrlbed afLer
Lwo monLhs (lnformaLlon was flled 9 monLhs afLer Lhe
offense was dlscovered).
AnoLher case was flled agalnsL Cpulencla
o 1hefL of elecLrlc power under Art|c|e 308 of the kC
Cpulencla complalned LhaL he was prevlously acqulLLed for
Lhe same offense- vlolaLlon of hls rlghL agalnsL double
[eopardy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL second offense charged ls barred by
Cpulencla's rlghL agalnsL double [eopardy.

PLLu:
?LS.
o LxcepLlon Lo Lhe general proposlLlon: proLecLlon
agalnsL double [eopardy applles Lo a slLuaLlon where
a prlor offense charged under an ord|nance be
dlfferenL from Lhe offense subsequenLly charged
under a naLlonal sLaLuLe (kev|sed ena| Code),
provlded LhaL boLh offenses sprlng from Lhe same acL
or seL of acLs.

ulsmlssal of Lhe flrsL case due Lo prescrlpLlon amounLs Lo an
acqulLLal of Lhe accused for LhaL offense.
o rescrlpLlon ls one of Lhe grounds of LoLally
exLlngulshlng crlmlnal llablllLy.

ALILD 1C IMLACnMLN1
8 LsLrada v.
ueslerLo

C.8. no.
146710-13

March 2, 2001
lAC1S:
AfLer LsLrada sLepped down, several cases prevlously flled
agalnsL hlm ln Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman were seL ln
moLlon.
LsLrada flled wlLh Lhls CourL C8 no. 146710-13, a peLlLlon for
prohlblLlon wlLh a prayer for a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon.
lL soughL Lo en[oln Lhe respondenL Cmbudsman from
"conducLlng any furLher proceedlngs ln cases flled before lL
or ln any oLher crlmlnal complalnL LhaL may be flled ln hls
offlce, unLll afLer Lhe Lerm of peLlLloner as resldenL ls over
and only lf legally warranLed."

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner should flrsL be convlcLed ln Lhe
Conslderlng Lhe pecullar clrcumsLance LhaL Lhe lmpeachmenL process
agalnsL Lhe peLlLloner has been aborLed and LhereafLer he losL Lhe
presldency, peLlLloner LsLrada cannoL demand as a condlLlon slne qua
non Lo hls crlmlnal prosecuLlon before Lhe Cmbudsman LhaL he be
convlcLed ln Lhe lmpeachmenL proceedlngs.
LsLrada makes Lhe submlsslon LhaL Lhe cases flled agalnsL hlm
before Lhe respondenL Cmbudsman should be prohlblLed
because he has noL been convlcLed ln Lhe lmpeachmenL
proceedlngs agalnsL hlm
Slnce, Lhe lmpeachmenL CourL ls now funcLus offlclo, lL ls
unLenable for peLlLloner Lo demand LhaL he should flrsL be
lmpeached and Lhen convlcLed before he can be prosecuLed.
1he plea lf granLed, would puL a perpeLual bar agalnsL hls
prosecuLlon. Such a submlsslon wlll place hlm ln a beLLer

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
lmpeachmenL proceedlngs before he may be crlmlnally
prosecuLed.

PLLu:
nC. 1he lmpeachmenL CourL ls now -/2%&/* 1--0%01.

slLuaLlon Lhan a non-slLLlng resldenL who has noL been
sub[ecLed Lo lmpeachmenL proceedlngs and yeL can be Lhe
ob[ecL of a crlmlnal prosecuLlon.
9 LsLrada v.
ueslerLo (M8)

C.8. no.
146710-13

March 2, 2001
lAC1S:
MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon on Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CourL ln
Lhe maln case of LsLrada v. ueslerLo

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe rullng would vlolaLe Lhe double [eopardy
clause of Lhe consLlLuLlon, conslderlng LhaL peLlLloner was
acqulLLed ln Lhe lmpeachmenL proceedlngs.

PLLu:
nC. uouble [eopardy dld noL aLLach as Lhere was no
convlcLlon, acqulLLal nor dlsmlssal wlLhouL hls consenL.
Assumlng arguendo LhaL Lhe flrsL four requlslLes of double [eopardy
were complled wlLh, peLlLloner falled Lo saLlsfy Lhe flfLh requlslLe for
he was noL acqulLLed nor was Lhe lmpeachmenL proceedlng
dlsmlssed wlLhouL hls express consenL.

eLlLloner's clalm of double [eopardy cannoL be predlcaLed on prlor
convlcLlon for he was noL convlcLed by Lhe lmpeachmenL courL.

We also re[ecL peLlLloner's submlsslon LhaL Lhe dlsmlssal due Lo
fallure Lo prosecuLe" amounLs Lo an acqulLLal.
AL besL, hls clalm of prevlous acqulLLal may be scruLlnlzed ln
llghL of a vlolaLlon of hls rlghL Lo speedy Lrlal, whlch amounLs
Lo a fallure Lo prosecuLe. Powever, Lhe 4-day perlod from Lhe
Llme Lhe lmpeachmenL proceedlng was suspended Lo Lhe day
Lhe peLlLloner reslgned dld noL consLlLuLe an unreasonable
perlod of delay vlolaLlve of Lhe rlghL of Lhe accused Lo speedy
Lrlal.

nor can Lhe clalm of double [eopardy be grounded on Lhe dlsmlssal
or LermlnaLlon of Lhe case wlLhouL Lhe express consenL of Lhe
accused.
1he lmpeachmenL proceedlng was closed only afLer Lhe
peLlLloner had reslgned from Lhe presldency. 8y reslgnlng
from Lhe presldency, peLlLloner more Lhan consenLed Lo Lhe
LermlnaLlon of Lhe lmpeachmmenL case agalnsL hlm, for he
broughL abouL Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe lmpeachmenL
uouble [eopardy
aLLaches only: (1) upon a
valld complalnL, (2)
before a compeLenL
courL, (3) afLer
arralgnmenL, (4) when a
valld plea has been
enLered, and (3) when
Lhe defendanL was
acqulLLed or convlcLed or
Lhe case was dlsmlssed
or oLherwlse LermlnaLed
wlLhouL Lhe express
consenL of Lhe accused.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
proceedlngs.
We have conslsLenLly ruled LhaL when Lhe dlsmlssal or
LermlnaLlon of Lhe case ls made aL Lhe lnsLance of Lhe
accused, Lhere ls no double [eopardy.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

Lk CS1 IAC1C LAWS AND 8ILLS CI A11AINDLk
1 eople v.
lerrer

C.8. no. L-
32613-14

uecember 27,
1972
lAC1S:
Crlmlnal ComplalnLs were flled agalnsL Lhe respondenLs for
vlolaLlng Lhe Ant|-Subvers|on Act (kA 1700). Cne of Lhe
respondenLs moved Lo quash, lmpugnlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
sLaLuLe on varlous grounds, one of whlch ls LhaL lL ls a blll of
aLLalnder.
1he Lrlal courL declared Lhe law unconsLlLuLlonal.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8A 1700 ls a blll of aLLalnder

PLLu:
nC. 1he AcL applles noL only Lo members of Lhe CommunlsL
arLy buL also Lo any oLher organlzaLlon wlLh Lhe same
purpose. lL focuses on conducL, noL on lndlvlduals. lL ls also
noL enough LhaL [usL because Lhe law speclfles groups of
people LhaL lL would fall under Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL bllls of
aLLalnder.
A sLaLuLe ls a blll of aLLalnder lf lL applles Lo named lndlvlduals or Lo
easlly ascerLalnable members of a group so as Lo lnfllcL punlshmenL
upon Lhem wlLhouL a Lrlal.

uS v. 8rown
1he law (uS lederal Labor-ManagemenL 8eporLlng and
ulsclosure AcL) deslgnaLed ln cerLaln Lerms Lhe persons who
possessed Lhe feared characLerlsLlcs (members of Lhe
CommunlsL arLy), Lhus lL was a blll of aLLalnder

A sLaLuLe ls a blll of aLLalnder lf:
lL applles reLroacLlvely
lL ls also an ex posL facLo law
enalLles are lnescapable
8A 1700 expressly sLaLes LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon applles only Lo Lhose
afLer Lhe approval of such AcL. Members of Lhe parLy were also glven
Lhe chance Lo renounce Lhelr assoclaLlon, Lhus lL was noL
lnescapable.

Cardner v. 8oard of ubllc Works
1he provlslon applled prospecLlvely was a reasonable
regulaLlon Lo proLecL munlclpal servlce by esLabllshlng an
employmenL quallflcaLlon of loyalLy Lo Lhe uS

8lll of ALLalnder ! A
leglslaLlve acL whlch
lnfllcLs punlshmenL
wlLhouL Lrlal
2 vlraLa v.
Sandlganbayan

lAC1S:
1hls ls a consolldaLlon of 2 peLlLlons praylng for Lhe CourL Lo
revlew and annul Lhe resoluLlons of respondenL
1he CourL held LhaL Lhe CCC CharLer does noL vlolaLe Lhe
equal proLecLlon clause and ls noL a blll of aLLalnder or an ex
posL facLo law. 1he consLlLuLlonallLy of laws ls presumed. ln
CGG v. ena
- Imperat|ve need for
the Gov't of Lhe resLored
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no. 86926

CcLober 13,
1991
Sandlganbayan ln Clvll Case no. 0033 enLlLled 8epubllc of Lhe
hlllpplnes v. 8en[amln (kokoy) 8omualdez, eL. al. denylng
Lhe separaLe moLlons Lo dlsmlss flled by peLlLloners as well as
Lhelr moLlon for reconslderaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe SAnulCAn8A?An acLed wlLhouL or ln
excess of [urlsdlcLlon or wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln
concludlng LhaL Lhe CCC CharLer ls CCnS1l1u1lCnAL and
noL an ex posL facLo law.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls hereby ulSMlSSLu.
prevlously held cases (CGG v. ena, 8ASLCC v. CGG), Lhe
CourL susLalned and afflrmed Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe
CCC CharLer. 1here ls a valld and reasonable basls for Lhe
classlflcaLlon.
1he CourL held LhaL lL ls unLenable for Lhe peLlLloner Lo clalm
LhaL Lhe CCC CharLer ls an ex posL facLo law because lL
alLers Lhe legal rules of evldence and recelves less or
dlfferenL LesLlmony Lhan whaL Lhe law requlred aL Lhe Llme of
Lhe commlsslon of Lhe offense ln order Lo convlcL Lhe
offender.
lor boLh Lhe clvll and crlmlnal cases covered by Lhe CCC
CharLer, noLhlng has been alLered ln Lerms of Lhe quanLum of
proof requlred for an adverse [udgmenL agalnsL Lhe
defendanL or a [udgmenL of convlcLlon agalnsL Lhe accused.
1he plalnLlff's burden Lo esLabllsh a preponderance of
ev|dence |n c|v|| cases and proof beyond reasonab|e doubt
|n cr|m|na| cases has noL been alLered or modlfled.

8epubllc as lLs flrsL
offlclal acL Lo creaLe Lhe
Commlsslon as a
admlnlsLraLlve and quasl-
[udlclal commlsslon Lo
recover Lhe lll-goLLen
wealLh."
3 Lacson v.
LxecuLlve
SecreLary

C.8. no.
128096

lAC1S:
uurlng Lhe pendency of peLlLloner's Lrlal, 8.A. 8249 was
approved lnLo law, expandlng Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
Sandlganbayan by deleLlng Lhe word prlnclpal" from Lhe
phrase prlnclpal accused".
eLlLloner now quesLlons Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Sec. 4, 8.A.
no. 8249, lncludlng Sec. 7 Lhereof whlch provldes LhaL Lhe
sald law shall apply Lo all cases pendlng ln any courL over
whlch Lrlal has noL begun as of Lhe approval hereof."

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL 8.A. no. 8249 ls an ex-posL facLo law

PLLu:
Lx posL facLo law, generally, prohlblLs reLrospecLlvlLy of penal
law. k.A. 8249 |s not a pena| |aw. lL ls a subsLanLlve law on
[urlsdlcLlon whlch ls noL penal ln characLer. enal laws are
Lhose acLs of Lhe LeglslaLure whlch prohlblL cerLaln acLs and
esLabllsh penalLles for Lhelr vlolaLlons.
8.A. no. 7973, whlch amended .u. 1606 as regards Lhe
Sandlganbayan's [urlsdlcLlon, lLs mode of appeal and oLher
procedural maLLers, has been declared by Lhe CourL as noL a
penal law, buL clearly a procedural sLaLuLe, l.e. one whlch
prescrlbes rules of procedure by whlch courLs applylng laws
of all klnds can properly admlnlsLer [usLlce.
Not be|ng a pena| |aw, the retroact|ve app||cat|on of k.A.
No. 8249 cannot be cha||enged as unconst|tut|ona|.
8.A. no. 8249 perLalns only Lo maLLers of procedure, and
enal laws are Lhose acLs
of Lhe LeglslaLure whlch
prohlblL cerLaln acLs and
esLabllsh penalLles for
Lhelr vlolaLlons, or Lhose
LhaL deflne crlmes, LreaL
of Lhelr naLure, and
provlde for Lhelr
punlshmenL.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Sec. 4 and 7 of 8.A. no. 8249 ls CCnS1l1u1lCnAL. belng merely an amendaLory sLaLuLe, lL does noL parLake Lhe
naLure of an ex posL facLo law. It does not mete out a
pena|ty and, therefore, does not come w|th|n the
proh|b|t|on.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $)* +'%#$,- .

%!+' /!%01",2-3 ,4 #5' %!+' "!#$, -,#'+
. valles v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
137000

AugusL 9, 2000
lAC1S:
8osallnd ?basco Lopez was born ln 1934 ln AusLralla Lo a
llllplno faLher and AusLrallan moLher. She lefL AusLralla Lo
seLLle ln Lhe hlllpplnes and ran for governor of uavao
CrlenLal a few Llmes. Per opponenLs ln each elecLlon
quesLloned her candldacy based on her clLlzenshlp. ln 1998,
when she ran for reelecLlon agaln, valles quesLloned her
clLlzenshlp. 1he CCMLLLC dlsmlssed hls peLlLlon saylng lL had
no reason Lo dlsLurb Lhelr prevlous declslons regardlng her
clLlzenshlp.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL CCMLLLC correcLly held LhaL 8osallnd Lopez
ls a llllplno clLlzen.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he hlllpplne law adheres Lo Lhe prlnclple of [us
sangulnls, and Lopez dld noL expressly renounce her
clLlzenshlp. Also, Lhe facL LhaL she had dual clLlzenshlp dld
noL auLomaLlcally dlsquallfy her from runnlng for publlc
offlce.
67898::8;< /899 => .?@AB
all lnhablLanLs of Lhe hlllpplne lslands conLlnulng Lo reslde Lhereln
who were Spanlsh sub[ecLs on Lhe elevenLh day of Aprll, elghLeen
hundred and nlneLy-nlne, and Lhen reslded ln Lhe hlllpplne lslands,
and Lhelr chlldren born subsequenL LhereLo, shall be deemed and
held Lo be clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplne lslands"

C=;<D &EF
all lnhablLanLs of Lhe hlllpplne lslands who were Spanlsh sub[ecLs
on Lhe elevenLh day of Aprll, elghLeen hundred and nlneLy-nlne, and
Lhen reslded ln sald lslands, and Lhelr chlldren born subsequenL
LhereLo, shall be deemed and held Lo be clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplne
lslands"

1he .?GH E;I .?JG %=;DK8KLK8=;D adopLed !"# #%&'"(&(#.

%=MM=;F<E9K7 !NK -=O PG:
a llllplno clLlzen may lose hls clLlzenshlp:
xxx (2) 8y express renunclaLlon of clLlzenshlp, xxx

Aznar v. CCMLLLC
an appllcaLlon for an allen cerLlflcaLe of reglsLraLlon was noL
LanLamounL Lo renunclaLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

&=NE9 1=Q<R;M<;K %=I< => .??.:
"SLC. 40. ulsquallflcaLlons. 1he followlng persons are dlsquallfled
from runnlng for any elecLlve local poslLlon:
x x x x x x x x x (d) 1hose wlLh dual clLlzenshlp"
)"# #%&'"(&(# ! one's
clLlzenshlp ls based on
Lhe clLlzenshlp of hls or
her parenLs, noL on
where he or she was
born
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
8uL. Mercado vs. Manzano
o "xxx Lhe phrase 'dual clLlzenshlp' ln 8.A. no. 7160,
xxx 40 (d) and ln 8.A. no. 7834, xxx 20 musL be
undersLood as referrlng Lo 'dual alleglance'.
ConsequenLly, persons wlLh mere dual clLlzenshlp do
noL fall under Lhls dlsquallflcaLlon."

ln 8urca v. 8epubllc, Lhe SC sLaLed LhaL res [udlcaLa ln clLlzenshlp
cases may apply when Lhe followlng are presenL:
1. a person's clLlzenshlp be ralsed as a maLerlal lssue ln
a conLroversy where sald person ls a parLy
2. Lhe SollclLor Ceneral or hls auLhorlzed represenLaLlve
Look acLlve parL ln Lhe resoluLlon Lhereof
3. Lhe flndlng on clLlzenshlp ls afflrmed by Lhls CourL

A Cng Chla v.
8epubllc

C8 no. 127240

March 27,
2000

lAC1S:
eLlLloner was born ln Amoy, Chlna. Pe came Lo Lhe
hlllpplne when he was nlne years old. Slnce Lhen, he has
sLayed ln Lhe hlllpplnes. Pere, he found employmenL, and
evenLually sLarLed hls own buslness. Pe marrled a llllplna,
wlLh whom he had four chlldren
AL age 66, he flled a verlfled peLlLlon Lo be admlLLed as a
llllplno clLlzen under %! -=O SJG =R K7< "<Q8D<I
-EKLRE98TEK8=; &EFO 1he Lrlal courL granLed hlm clLlzenshlp.
1he SLaLe appealed Lhe declslon Lo Lhe CA.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL subsLanLlal compllance wlLh naLurallzaLlon
laws are enough

naLurallzaLlon laws are rlgldly enforced and sLrlcLly consLrued agalnsL
Lhe appllcanL
eLlLloner already admlLLed he falled Lo menLlon hls former
address and hls oLher allas ln hls peLlLlon
Whlle he subsLanLlally complled (he fully publlshed hls lmmlgranL
CerLlflcaLe of 8esldence), and already gave Lhe lnvesLlgaLlng agencles
of Lhe governmenL an opporLunlLy Lo check Lhe background of Lhe
appllcanL and prevenL Lhe suppresslon of lnformaLlon, lL ls noL
enough.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
PLLu:
nC. noLhlng buL full compllance wlLh naLurallzaLlon laws wlll
sufflce.
%5$&3"'- ,4 4$&$6$-, 4!#5'"+ ," U,#5'"+
G CaLchallan v.
8oard of
Commlssloners

C.8. no.
93612-13

May 31, 1991
lAC1S:
Wllllam's CrandfaLher was recognlzed by Lhe 8ureau of
lmmlgraLlon as a naLlve born llllplno ClLlzen.
Wllllam and hls faLher were admlLLed as llllplno ClLlzens by
Lhe 8oard of Speclal lnqulry (8Sl). SecreLary of !usLlce called
for Lhe revlew of Lhe 8Sl declslon. 8oard of Commlssloners
reversed Lhe 8Sl declslon. Wllllam flled for reconslderaLlon.
11 years laLer, AcLlng Commlssloner nlLuda admlLLed Wllllam
as a llllplno ClLlzen.
17 years laLer, Commlsslon of lmmlgraLlon and ueporLaLlon,
flled a deporLaLlon proceedlngs agalnsL Wllllam.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Wllllam CaLchallan ls llllplno.

PLLu:
?LS. Wllllam ls llllplno, Lhe 8oard of Commlssloner's declslon
was noL res [udlcaLa and Wllllam had good reason Lo rely on
AcLlng Commlssloner nlLuda's order.

8CC's declslon was noL *+# !",(-%.%/
1he declslon dld noL make any caLegorlcal sLaLemenL LhaL
Wllllam ls Chlnese.
0+# !",(-%.% does noL usually apply Lo quesLlons of
clLlzenshlp.
1

resumpLlon of ClLlzenshlp lles ln favor of Wllllam CaLchallan.
1he order of AcLlng Commlssloner nlLuda admlLLlng Wllllam
as a llllplno ClLlzen ls Lhe lasL offlclal acL of Lhe governmenL
on Lhe basls of whlch Wllllam conLlnually exerclsed Lhe rlghLs
of a llllplno clLlzen.
no quesLlon LhaL Wllllam's grandfaLher ls a llllplno clLlzen,
Lhls facL can no longer be quesLloned.
Slnce hls admlsslon as a llllplno ClLlzen: (1) Wllllam has
conLlnuously reslded ln Lhe hlllpplnes, (2) has a llllplno
passporL, (3) reglsLered voLer of valenzuela, (4) engaged ln
buslness wlLh Lhe employmenL of 4000 people.
AbsenL any proof LhaL Wllllam's grandfaLher and faLher's marrlages ln
Chlna Lo Lhelr Chlnese spouses were celebraLed under dlfferenL rules,
Lhey're presumed Lo be Lhe same as hlllpplne Law and valld.
1
8equlslLes for lL Lo
apply: (1) ClLlzenshlp
musL be ralsed as a
maLerlal lssue where sald
person ls a parLy. (2)
SollclLor Ceneral or hls
auLhorlzed
represenLaLlve Look
acLlve parL ln Lhe
resoluLlon. (3) llndlng or
clLlzenshlp ls afflrmed by
Lhls CourL.
S 1ecson v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
161434,
161634,
161824

lAC1S:
8onald Allan kelly oe (lernando oe !r.) was a presldenLlal
candldaLe when hls clLlzenshlp was quesLloned.
eLlLloners argue LhaL he ls Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld of 8essle
kelly (an Amerlcan) and Allan oe (a Spanlsh naLlonal, by
vlrLue of hls grandfaLher belng a Spanlsh sub[ecL).
8elng an llleglLlmaLe chlld, he follows Lhe clLlzenshlp of hls
moLher, and ls dlsquallfled ln hls candldacy.
Allan oe was a llllplno belng Lhe son of a llllplno clLlzen.
1hough Lhere ls no concluslve proof of hls grandfaLher's
sLaLus, lL can be lnferred from hls deaLh cerLlflcaLe LhaL he
was a Spanlsh sub[ecL and an lnhablLanL of Lhe hlllpplnes aL
Lhe Llme of Lhe hlllpplne 8lll of 1902 whlch made hlm a
clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes.
Pls grandfaLher belng a llllplno, Allan oe was also a llllplno.
l!, Lhough belng an llleglLlmaLe chlld, should noL be dlsquallfled
1
Sec. 1, ArL. lll (3) 1hose
whose faLhers are
clLlzens of Lhe
hlllpplnes.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
March 3, 2004 lSSuL:
WheLher or noL an llleglLlmaLe chlld of a llllplno faLher and
an allen moLher ls a naLural-born clLlzen.

PLLu:
?LS. Whlle Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe evldence may noL esLabllsh
concluslvely LhaL respondenL l! ls a naLural-born clLlzen of
Lhe hlllpplnes, Lhe evldence would preponderaLe ln hls
favor, hence he cannoL be held gullLy of havlng made a
mlsrepresenLaLlon.

from becomlng a publlc offlcer.
l! was born on AugusL 20, 1939, Lhe 1933 ConsLlLuLlon
made no quallflcaLlon abouL belng leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe.
1

Lven Lhen, Allan oe recognlzed hls paLernal relaLlonshlp
wlLh l!. Pe llved LogeLher wlLh 8essle kelly and hls chlldren
ln one house, and as one famlly.
lr. 8ernas, as 12(-"# 3"*(%+, 1o dlsquallfy an llleglLlmaLe
chlld from holdlng an lmporLanL publlc offlce ls Lo punlsh hlm
for Lhe lndlscreLlon of hls parenLs."
6!"!1"!65 G
H Co v. LlecLoral
1rlbunal

C.8. no.
92191-92
!uly 30, 1991

C.8. nC.
92202-03
!uly 30, 1991

lAC1S:
Cng !r.'s grandfaLher goL a cerLlflcaLe of resldence ln Laoang,
Samar when he goL here from Chlna ln 1893.
Cng !r.'s faLher sLayed ln Laoang and marrled a naLural-born
llllplna. Pls faLher sLarLed a buslness as well. ln 1934, hls
faLher flled for naLurallzaLlon and lL was approved ln 1933.
Cng !r. compleLed hls elemenLary educaLlon ln Laoang and
wenL Lo Manlla for furLher educaLlon. Pe also passed Lhe CA
8oard LxamlnaLlons. Pe soughL work ln Manlla as well. 8uL all
Lhe whlle, he made frequenL Lrlps back Lo Laoang.
1984, he reglsLered as a voLer ln Laoang and ln 1987 he ran
for elecLlons as a represenLaLlve of Lhe second dlsLrlcL of
Samar and was overwhelmlngly voLed for.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Cng !r. ls a naLural born llllplno.

PLLu:
?LS. !ose Cng !r. ls a naLural born clLlzen Lhrough hls moLher
and he has lnformally elecLed hls clLlzenshlp.
ArL. lv also applles Lo Lhose who, havlng been born of llllplno
moLhers, elecLed clLlzenshlp before LhaL daLe. Also, Lhere ls no
dlspuLe LhaL !ose Cng !r.'s moLher was a llllplna.
1here ls no dlspuLe LhaL Lhe respondenL's moLher was a
naLural born llllplna aL Lhe Llme of her marrlage. Cruclal Lo
Lhls case ls Lhe lssue of wheLher or noL Lhe respondenL
elecLed or chose Lo be a llllplno clLlzen.
!ose Cng !r.'s elecLlon was lnformal buL no less valld.
lormal wrlLLen elecLlon ls unnaLural and unnecessary slnce
he was already a clLlzen. noL only was hls moLher a naLural
born clLlzen buL hls faLher had been naLurallzed when Lhe
respondenL was only 9.
lor Lhose ln Lhe pecullar slLuaLlon of Lhe respondenL who
cannoL be expecLed Lo have elecLed clLlzenshlp as Lhey were
already clLlzens, we apply Lhe ln 8e Mallare rule whlch held
LhaL Lhe exerclse of Lhe rlghL of suffrage and Lhe parLlclpaLlon
ln elecLlon exerclses consLlLuLe a poslLlve acL of elecLlon of
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.
1he prlvaLe respondenL dld more Lhan merely exerclse hls
rlghL of suffrage. Pe has esLabllshed hls llfe here ln Lhe
uocLrlne: 1he flllng of
sworn sLaLemenL or
formal declaraLlon ls a
requlremenL for Lhose
who sLlll have Lo elecL
clLlzenshlp: llke an
allen. 45* .65#+ %7*+%,8
4(7(9(&5# when Lhe Llme
Lo elecL came up, Lhere
are acLs of dellberaLe
cholce whlch cannoL be
less blndlng (LnLerlng a
professlon open only Lo
llllplnos, servlng ln
publlc offlce where
clLlzenshlp ls a
quallflcaLlon, voLlng
durlng elecLlon Llme,
runnlng for publlc offlce).
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
hlllpplnes.

&,++ ,4 %$#$V'-+5$6
P ?u v. uefensor-
SanLlago

C.8. no.
L-83882

!anuary 24,
1989
lAC1S:
Wllllam ?u prevlously possessed a orLuguese passporL, and
was naLurallzed as a llllplno ln 1978. Powever, ln Lhe 1980s
he (1) represenLed hlmself as orLuguese ln several
commerclal documenLs, and (2) applled for a orLuguese
passporL ln Lhe orLuguese Lmbassy ln 1okyo.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL hereln peLlLloner renounced hls hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp by applylng for orLuguese passporL.
WheLher or noL due process of law was denled Lo peLlLloner
on accounL LhaL he was noL glven a full Lrlal before a Lrlal
courL of law.

PLLu:
?LS. 1he acLs of Lhe peLlLloner consLlLuLe an express
renunclaLlon of hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp acqulred Lhrough
naLurallzaLlon.
nC. Such process has become unnecessary as Lhe Supreme
CourL lLself has looked lnLo Lhe facLs and declded on wheLher
or noL Lhe peLlLloner's clalm Lo hlllpplne clLlzenshlp ls
merlLorlous.

lSSuL 1:
?u acLed wlLh full knowledge and legal capaclLy ln applylng
for a orLuguese passporL and ln represenLlng hlmself as a
orLuguese clLlzen ln several commerclal documenLs. 1he
presumpLlon Lhen ls LhaL he has resumed or reacqulred hls
prlor sLaLus as a orLuguese clLlzen.
Such resumpLlon or reacqulslLlon of orLuguese clLlzenshlp ls
grossly lnconslsLenL wlLh hls malnLenance of hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp.

lSSuL 2:
Whlle normally Lhe quesLlon of wheLher or noL a person has
renounced hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp should be heard before a
Lrlal courL of law ln adversary proceedlngs, Lhls has become
unnecessary as Lhls CourL, no less, upon Lhe lnslsLence of
peLlLloner, had Lo look lnLo Lhe facLs and saLlsfy lLself on
wheLher or noL peLlLloner's clalm Lo conLlnued hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp ls merlLorlous.
uocLrlne: 8enunclaLlon
musL be express and noL
lmplled.

uocLrlne: 1he general
rule ls LhaL when Lhe
clLlzenshlp of a person ls
belng quesLloned, he
musL be glven a full-
blown Lrlal ln Lhe Lrlal
courLs under Lhe rlgld
rules of evldence.
J lrlvaldo v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
120293
!une 28, 1996
lAC1S:
!uan lrlvaldo acqulred uS clLlzenshlp ln order Lo escape Lhe
Lyranny LhaL was Marcos. ln 1988 and 1992, he ran for
governor of Sorsogon and goL Lhe hlghesL number of voLes.
ln boLh occaslons, Lhe SC dlsquallfled hlm for lack of
clLlzenshlp. Pe ran for governor for a Lhlrd Llme ln 1993.
Slnce Lhe purpose of Lhe clLlzenshlp requlremenL ls Lo ensure LhaL no
allen shall govern our people, Lhe SC llberally consLrued LhaL
clLlzenshlp musL be presenL aL Lhe Llme an offlclal beglns Lo govern or
dlscharge funcLlon.
Slnce lrlvaldo re-assumed clLlzenshlp on !une 30 - Lhe day
Lhe Lerm of offlce beglns - he was already quallfled Lo be

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. nC.
123733
!une 28, 1996
When he flled hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy, hls opponenL, 8aul
Lee, flled for lrlvaldo's dlsquallflcaLlon.
1he CCMLLC dlsquallfled lrlvaldo buL a moLlon for
reconslderaLlon was flled. Slnce Lhe moLlon was sLlll pendlng
on LlecLlon uay (May 8, 1993), lrlvaldo's candldacy was sLlll
subslsLlng and Lhe people of Sorsogon could sLlll voLe for hlm,
and he won. Cn May 11, 1993, CCMLLLC lssued a resoluLlon
afflrmlng Lhe dlsquallflcaLlon of lrlvaldo. Lee was Lhen
proclalmed wlnner on !une 30, 8: 30 M.
lrlvaldo Look hls oaLh of alleglance Lo Lhe hlllpplnes afLer hls
peLlLlon for repaLrlaLlon was granLed on !unL 30, 2: 00 M
and so he flled a peLlLlon Lo annul Lee's proclamaLlon.
CCMLLLC granLed Lhls and declared LhaL Le was noL enLlLled
Lo be proclalmed governor and LhaL lrlvaldo ls quallfled Lo be
governor.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe repaLrlaLlon of lrlvaldo valld and legal,
Lhus curlng hls lack of clLlzenshlp as Lo quallfy hlm Lo be
proclalmed and Lo hold Lhe Cfflce of Covernor?

PLLu:
?LS. 8epaLrlaLlon ls a valld way of reacqulrlng one's sLaLus as
a naLural-born llllplno, and such rullng ls reLroacLlve Lo Lhe
Llme Lhe appllcaLlon for repaLrlaLlon was flled.

proclalmed. 1he code also Lalks abouL quallflcaLlons of
elecLlve offlclals and noL of candldaLes.

SC llkewlse held LhaL lrlvaldo's repaLrlaLlon reLroacLed Lo Lhe daLe of
Lhe flllng of hls appllcaLlon on AugusL 17, 1994.
Ceneral 8ule: laws shall have no reLroacLlve effecL unless Lhe
conLrary ls provlded.
LxcepLlon: when Lhe sLaLue ls curaLlve, remedlal, or creaLes
new rlghLs.
8epaLrlaLlon falls under Lhe excepLlon because 6O3O JAH
provldes a new remedy and a new rlghL because before 6O3O
JAH, llllplnos who losL clLlzenshlp musL undergo Lhe Ledlous
and cumbersome process of naLurallzaLlon, buL wlLh 6O3O JAH
Lhey now reacqulre Lhelr clLlzenshlp under a slmpllfled
procedure.
W Labo !r. v.
CCMLLLC

C.8. no.
103111
C.8. no.
lAC1S:
Labo !r. lnslsLed LhaL he was a llllplno clLlzen and soughL Lo
be promulgaLed as Mayor-elecL of 8agulo ClLy desplLe belng
prevlously dlsquallfled by Lhe CCMLLLC. CrLega on Lhe oLher
hand moved for Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Labo's
dlsquallflcaLlon and lnslsLed LhaL he assume as Mayor slnce
'&'%#,"!& "'4,"U+ &!X
!"#$ &$ '(("#) *( +,-./01,(,#0),*2 30-"$ - Any candldaLe who has
been declared by flnal [udgmenL Lo be dlsquallfled shall noL be voLed
for, and Lhe voLes casL for hlm shall noL be counLed/ :; ;5* %&8 *+%#5&
% -%&,(,%.+ (# &5. ,+-7%*+, <8 ;(&%7 !",'2+&. <+;5*+ %& +7+-.(5& .5 <+
,(#="%7(;(+, %&, 6+ (# >5.+, ;5* %&, *+-+(>+# .6+ ?(&&(&' &"2<+* 5;

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
103384

!uly 3, 1992
he obLalned Lhe second hlghesL number of voLes.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Labo (who had already won Lhe elecLlon
before Lhls case had been declded) ls quallfled Lo assume as
Mayor of 8agulo ClLy.

PLLu:
nC. 1he Supreme CourL dlsmlssed boLh cases, sLaLlng LhaL
Labo was noL able Lo glve subsLanLlve proof LhaL he was
repaLrlaLed. As Lo CrLega's case, Supreme CourL flnds lL
unLenable Lo proclalm hlm wlnner of Lhe elecLlons slmply
because he was a defeaLed candldaLe. Pe was noL Lhe cholce
of Lhe soverelgn wlll.
>5.+# (& #"-6 +7+-.(5&, Lhe CourL or Lhe Commlsslon shall conLlnue
wlLh Lhe Lrlal and hearlng of Lhe acLlon, lnqulry, or proLesL and, upon
moLlon of Lhe complalnanL or any lnLervenor, may ,"*(&' .6+
9+&,+&-8 .6+*+5; 5*,+* .6+ #"#9+&#(5& 5; .6+ 9*5-7%2%.(5& 5; #"-6
-%&,(,%.+ ?6+&+>+* .6+ +>(,+&-+ 5; 6(# '"(7. (# #.*5&'.

U,3'+ 4," "'!%Y2$+$#$,- ,4 65$&$66$-' %$#$V'-+5$6 Z%! -=O PG*
ED EM<;I<I [\ 63 JAH]
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp may be reacqulred Lhrough ,(*+-. %-. 5;
35&'*+##@ &%."*%7(A%.(5&@ 5* *+9%.*(%.(5&.

Y2!&$4$%!#$,-+ 4," '&'%#$)' ,44$%$!&+ $- #5' &,%!&
1,)'"-U'-# %,3' Z+<NK8=; G?]
1& +7+-.(>+ 75-%7 5;;(-(%7 2"#. <+ % -(.(A+& 5; .6+ B6(7(99(&+#, a
reglsLered voLer ln Lhe barangay, munlclpallLy, clLy, or provlnce or, ln
Lhe case of a member of Lhe sanggunlang panlalawlgan, sanggunlang
panlungsod, sanggunlang bayan, Lhe dlsLrlcL where he lnLends Lo be
elecLed, a resldenL Lhereln for aL leasL one (1) year lmmedlaLely
precedlng Lhe day of Lhe elecLlon, and able Lo read and wrlLe llllplno
or any oLher local language or dlalecL.

l8lvALuC vs. CCMLLLC
1he quallflcaLlons prescrlbed for elecLlve offlce cannoL be erased by
Lhe elecLoraLe alone.
? Mercado v.
Manzano

C.8. no.
133083

May 26, 1999
lAC1S:
Manzano alleged LhaL he was a llllplno clLlzen, because he
was born ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes Lo parenLs who were 8C1P
llllplnos (dld noL lose hls llllplno clLlzenshlp).
1998- hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy was cancelled on Lhe
ground LhaL he was a dual clLlzen (under Lhe LCC, persons
wlLh dual clLlzenshlp are dlsquallfled from runnlng any
elecLlve poslLlon).

Manzano only had dual clLlzenshlp "&.(7 Lhe flllng of hls
cerLlflcaLe of candldacy on march 21, 1998.
Aznar vs. CCMLLLC
o Pavlng a cerLlflcaLe sLaLlng LhaL one ls an Amerlcan
does noL mean LhaL one ls noL #.(77 a llllplno.
o 8y declarlng ln hls cerLlflcaLe of candldacy LhaL he ls a
llllplno clLlzen and LhaL he swears alleglance Lo Lhe

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
1998- Manzano won as vlce-mayor of MakaLl agalnsL Lwo
oLher opponenLs, one of whom was Mercado.
CCMLLLC reversed lLs earller declslon and declared Manzano
quallfled Lo be vlce-Mayor of MakaLl ClLy.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Mercado has locus sLandl.
WheLher or noL Manzano possesses dual clLlzenshlp.

PLLu:
Mercado has sLandlng. Manzano's dual clLlzenshlp was
exLlngulshed upon Lhe flllng of hls candldacy.
hlllpplnes, he effecLlvely repudlaLed hls Amerlcan
clLlzenshlp and anyLhlng whlch he may have
embodled as a dual clLlzen.

osslble for Lhe followlng classes of clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes
Lo have dual clLlzenshlp:
o 1hose born of llllplno parenLs ln forelgn counLrles
adopLlng Lhe !"# #57( docLrlne.
o 1hose born of a llllplno moLher and an allen faLher
when Lhe law ln Lhelr faLher's counLry declare Lhem
Lo have Lhe same clLlzenshlp as Lhelr faLher.
o 1hose who marry allens lf by Lhe laws of Lhe laLLer's
counLry Lhe former are consldered clLlzens.

.@ 1abasa v. CA

C8 no. 123793

AugusL 29,
2006
lAC1S:
1abasa was a naLural born clLlzen. ln 1968, hls faLher became
a naLurallzed clLlzen of Lhe unlLed SLaLes. 8y derlvaLlve
naLurallzaLlon, peLlLloner also acqulred Amerlcan clLlzenshlp.
1abasa was admlLLed as a ballkbayan" for one year. Pe was
laLer arresLed for vlolaLlng Lhe .?WJ !IM8;8DKREK8Q< %=I<, ln
whlch hls charge sheeL sLaLed LhaL upon arrlvlng ln Lhe
hlllpplnes, 1abasa's passporL had been revoked by Lhe uS.
Pe was now an undocumenLed allen Lo be deporLed
pursuanL Lo &EF E;I $;K<998^<;N< $;DKRLNK8=;D HGO
1he Lrlal courL ruled LhaL he had losL hls prlvllege Lo remaln ln
Lhe counLry. 1abasa, however, clalms LhaL he had acqulred
llllplno clLlzenshlp by repaLrlaLlon ln accordance Lo "! W.J.
and LhaL he was now a llllplno clLlzen.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner valldly reacqulred hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp under "! W.J.
Pe does noL quallfy
1o clalm Lhe beneflL under "! W.J., Lhe chlld musL be of
mlnor age aL Lhe Llme Lhe peLlLlon for repaLrlaLlon ls flled by
Lhe parenL.
o 1hls ls because on Lhelr own, mlnors cannoL apply for
repaLrlaLlon separaLely from Lhelr parenLs.
o eLlLloner was no longer a mlnor aL Lhe Llme of hls
repaLrlaLlon."
eLlLloner dld noL lose hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp due Lo
pollLlcal or economlc exlgencles as requlred by "! W.J.
o eLlLloner losL hls clLlzenshlp by operaLlon of law.
o lL was hls faLher who could have been moLlvaLed for
such reasons.
Pe dld noL flle repaLrlaLlon ln Lhe proper place
1abasa Look an oaLh of alleglance Lo Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe
hlllpplnes, Lhen, execuLed an affldavlL of repaLrlaLlon, whlch
he reglsLered, LogeLher wlLh Lhe cerLlflcaLe of llve blrLh, wlLh
Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Local 8eglsLrar ln Manlla

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

PLLu:
nC. 1abasa dld noL acqulre hlllpplne clLlzenshlp because of
Lhree reasons: he dld noL quallfy, he dld noL flle repaLrlaLlon
ln Lhe proper place, and he dld noL presenL Lhe requlremenLs
needed for repaLrlaLlon.
Pe should have flled lL wlLh Lhe Speclal CommlLLee on
naLurallzaLlon
Pe dld noL presenL Lhe proper requlremenLs for naLurallzaLlon
Lven lf he can sLlll apply for repaLrlaLlon, he falled Lo prove
LhaL hls parenLs rellnqulshed Lhelr llllplno clLlzenshlp due Lo
pollLlcal or economlc reasons
Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL renunclaLlon of alleglance ls necessarlly a
pollLlcal acL, lL does noL follow LhaL Lhe acL ls lnevlLable
pollLlcally or economlcally moLlvaLed.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' $)* +'%#$,- .

%!+' /!%01",2-3 ,4 #5' %!+' "!#$, -,#'+

66 8engson v.
P8L1

C.8. no.
137000

AugusL 9, 2000
lAC1S:
1eodoro Cruz was a naLural-born clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes. ln
1983, he enllsLed ln Lhe uS Marlne Corps and wlLhouL
consenL of Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes, Look alleglance Lo
Lhe uSA. Pe losL hls hlllpplne clLlzenshlp under
%78879:;<=>? !@> -7A BC* +;@A 6DEF. Pe became a
naLurallzed uS clLlzen. ln 1994, he reacqulred hls hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp Lhrough repaLrlaLlon under "A!A .BCG. Pe ran as
8epresenLaLlve of Lhe 2
nd
dlsLrlcL of angaslnan ln 1998 and
won over 8engson, who flled a case ln P8L1 clalmlng LhaL
Cruz was noL quallfled slnce he was noL a naLural-born
clLlzen. P8L1 dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Cruz, a naLural-born llllplno who became an
Amerlcan clLlzen, can be consldered a naLural-born llllplno
clLlzen afLer reacqulslLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

PLLu:
?LS. A person who aL Lhe Llme of hls blrLh ls a clLlzen of a
parLlcular counLry ls a naLural-born clLlzen Lhereof. llllplno
clLlzens who have losL Lhelr clLlzenshlp may reacqulre Lhe
same ln Lhe manner provlded by law.
%78879:;<=>? !@> -7A EHC D";IJK;L -<>MN<=JO<>J79 &<:F
1o be naLurallzed, an appllcanL has Lo prove LhaL he
possesses all Lhe quallflcaLlons and none of Lhe
dlsquallflcaLlon provlded by law Lo become a llllplno clLlzen
A clLlzen who ls noL a naLurallzed llllplno, who dld noL have
Lo undergo Lhe process of naLurallzaLlon Lo obLaln hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp, ls necessarlly a naLural-born llllplno
no separaLe caLegory for persons who, afLer loslng
clLlzenshlp, subsequenLly reacqulre lL

%78879:;<=>? !@> -7A BC ! 3 modes Lo acqulre hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp
naLurallzaLlon
8epaLrlaLlon
ulrecL acL of Congress

8epaLrlaLlon may be had by Lhose who losL Lhelr clLlzenshlp due Lo:
ueserLlon of Lhe Armed lorces
Servlces ln Lhe Armed lorces of Lhe Allled lorces ln World
War ll
Servlce ln Lhe Armed lorces of Lhe uSA aL any oLher Llme
Marrlage of a llllplno woman Lo an allen
ollLlcal economlc necesslLy

AngaL v. 8epubllc (N;P;NNJ9Q >7 "! RBS <9L .BCG),
1he person deslrlng Lo reacqulre hlllpplne clLlzenshlp would noL
even be requlred Lo flle a peLlLlon ln courL, and all LhaL he had Lo do
!"#$%"&'()%* ,-#-./*0
! clLlzens of Lhe
hlllpplnes from blrLh
wlLhouL havlng Lo
perform any acL Lo
acqulre or perfecL hls
hlllpplne clLlzenshlp.

1/2"#%-"#-)*
! recovery of orlglnal
naLlonallLy
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
was Lo Lake an oaLh of alleglance Lo Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes
and Lo reglsLer LhaL facL wlLh Lhe clvll reglsLry ln Lhe place of hls
resldence or where he had lasL reslded ln Lhe hlllpplnes.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Ak1ICLL IV, SLC1ICN S

CI1I2LNSnI
12 ""#$#%&'()(*+,
-.
/'0*1'+2+,

3.4. 52.
67897:

;'< 66= >88?
@"&A#B
&'()(*+, CD'<E 0F'0 ' GD)0 2H CD2F)I)0)2+ IJ )EE*JK
)11JK)'0J(< 02 E0'C /'0*1'+2+, HD21 )1C(J1J+0)+, 4.".
52. :>>L J+0)0(JK= !"# "%& '()*#+ &,- .*&*/-#0,*1 23
4,*5*11*#- .*&*/-#0 6,2 "%78*9- :29-*+# .*&*/-#0,*1
4-9;(#-#&< ";-#=*#+ 329 &,- 489120- .2;;2#6-(5&, "%&
>2? @A< "0 ";-#=-=< (#= 329 B&,-9 489120-0?C
MJ0)0)2+JD &'()(*+, )+E)E0E 0F'0 4.". :>>L )E *+N2+E0)0*0)2+'( 'E
)0 -)2('0JE #JN. L= "D0. OP 2H 0FJ &2+E0)0*0)2+ 0F'0 E0'0JE= Q/*'(
'((J,)'+NJ 2H N)0)RJ+E )E )+)1)N'( 02 0FJ +'0)2+'( )+0JDJE0 '+K
EF'(( IJ KJ'(0 G)0F I< ('G.S

O##TU#B
VFJ0FJD 2D +20 4.". 52. :>>L )E *+N2+E0)0*0)2+'(.

WUX/B
MJ0)0)2+ )E /O#;O##U/.
AFJ (J,)E('0)-J )+0J+0 )+ KD'H0)+, 4.". :>>L )E 02 K2 'G'< G)0F
0FJ CD2-)E)2+ )+ &2112+GJ'(0F "N0 52. 7Y GF)NF 0'ZJE 'G'<
MF)()CC)+J N)0)RJ+EF)C HD21 +'0*D'(%I2D+ @)()C)+2E GF2
IJN21J +'0*D'()RJK N)0)RJ+E 2H 20FJD N2*+0D)JE.
4.". 52. :>>L '((2GE K*'( N)0)RJ+EF)C 02 +'0*D'(%I2D+ @)()C)+2
N)0)RJ+E GF2 F'-J (2E0 MF)()CC)+J N)0)RJ+EF)C I< DJ'E2+ 2H
0FJ)D +'0*D'()R'0)2+ 'E N)0)RJ+E 2H ' H2DJ),+ N2*+0D<.
4.". 52. :>>L K2JE +20 DJN2,+)RJ K*'( '((J,)'+NJ. "E )0 )E
J[C(')+JK HD21 0FJ 0D'+END)C0= Sec. 3 of k.A. No. 922S stayed
c|ear out of the prob|em of dua| a||eg|ance '+K EF)H0JK 0FJ
I*DKJ+ 2H N2+HD2+0)+, 0FJ )EE*J 2H GFJ0FJD 2D +20 0FJDJ )E
K*'( '((J,)'+NJ 02 0FJ N2+NJD+JK H2DJ),+ N2*+0D<. VF'0
F'CCJ+E 02 0FJ 20FJD N)0)RJ+EF)C G'E +20 1'KJ ' N2+NJD+ 2H
4.". 52. :>>L.
#JN. L= "D0. OP 2H 0FJ &2+E0)0*0)2+ )E ' dec|arat|on of a po||cy
and |t |s not a se|f-execut|ng prov|s|on.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
Ak1ICLL V, SLC1ICN 2


1 MacallnLal v.
Commlsslon
on LlecLlons

C.8. no.
137013

!uly 10, 2003
lAC1S:
8.A. no. 9189 approprlaLes funds under Sec. 29 Lhereof
whlch provldes LhaL a supplemenLal budgeL on Lhe Ceneral
ApproprlaLlons AcL of Lhe year of lLs enacLmenL lnLo law shall
provlde for Lhe necessary amounL Lo carry ouL lLs provlslons.
As a Laxpayer, Lhe CourL sald LhaL peLlLloner MacallnLal may
assall Lhe valldlLy of a law approprlaLlng publlc funds because
expendlLure of publlc funds by an offlcer of Lhe SLaLe for Lhe
purpose of execuLlng an unconsLlLuLlonal consLlLuLes a
mlsappllcaLlon of such funds.
eLlLloner argues LhaL Sec. 3(d), 8.A. no. 9189 ls
unconsLlLuLlonal because lL vlolaLes Lhe resldency
requlremenL, clLlng Caas| v. Court of Appea|s where Lhe
CourL held LhaL a green card" holder lmmlgranL Lo Lhe u.S. ls
deemed Lo have abandoned hls domlclle and resldence ln Lhe
hlllpplnes.
eLlLloner furLhers LhaL Sec. 1, ArL. v of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon does
noL allow provlslonal reglsLraLlon or a promlse by a voLer Lo
perform a condlLlon Lo be quallfled Lo voLe ln a pollLlcal
exerclse.
lSSuLS:
WheLher or noL Sec. 3(d) of 8.A. no. 9189 vlolaLes Lhe
resldency requlremenL ln Sec. 1 of ArL. v of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

PLLu:
eLlLlon ls A81lALL? C8An1Lu. Sec. 3(d) ls
CCnS1l1u1lCnAL, buL Sec. 17.1, Sec. 19 and Sec. 23 are
under SecLlon 3(d) of 8.A. no. 9189 one of Lhose dlsquallfled
from voLlng ls an lmmlgranL or permanenL resldenL who ls
recognlzed as such ln Lhe hosL counLry unless he/she
execuLes an affldavlL declarlng LhaL he/she shall resume
acLual physlcal permanenL resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes noL
laLer Lhan 3 years from approval of hls/her reglsLraLlon under
sald AcL.
1he CourL on Lhe oLher hand was of Lhe oplnlon LhaL 8.A. no.
9189 was enacLed ln accordance Lo Lhe mandaLe of Lhe flrsL
paragraph of Sec. 2, ArL. v of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon LhaL Congress
shall provlde a sysLem for voLlng by quallfled llllplnos
abroad.
AddlLlonally, Lhe CourL deferred Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal
Commlsslon on Lhe wlsdom of Lhe resldency requlremenL ln
Sec. 1 of ArL. v. 1he lnLenL of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon
was Lo enLrusL Lo Congress Lhe responslblllLy of devlslng a
sysLem of absenLee voLlng.
lL ls ln pursuance of LhaL lnLenLlon LhaL Lhe Commlsslon
provlded for Sec. 2 lmmedlaLely afLer Lhe res|dency
requ|rement of Sec. 1. ClLlng Lhe doctr|ne of necessary
|mp||cat|on ln sLaLuLory consLrucLlon, Lhe same Commlsslon
had ln effecL declared LhaL quallfled llllplnos who are noL ln
Lhe hlllpplnes may be a||owed to vote even though they do
not sat|sfy the res|dency requ|rement |n Sec. 1, Art. V of the
Const|tut|on by a law passed by Congress.
1he CourL sLressed LhaL Sec. 2 does noL provlde for Lhe
parameLers of Lhe exerclse of leglslaLlve auLhorlLy ln enacLlng
8esldency 8equlremenL
for Suffrage (ArL. v, Sec.
1):
1) All clLlzens noL
dlsquallfled by
law
2) AL leasL 18 years
of age
3) 8eslded ln Lhe
hlls. lor aL leasL
1 year
4) 8eslded ln Lhe
place whereln
Lhey propose Lo
voLe for aL leasL
6 monLhs
lmmedlaLely
precedlng Lhe
elecLlon.
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
declared unCCnS1l1u1lCnAL. Lhe sald law. Pence ln Lhe absence of resLrlcLlons, Congress ls
presumed Lo have duly exerclsed lLs funcLlon as deflned ln
ArL. 6 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.
2 nlcolas-Lewls
v. CCMLLLC

C.8. number
162739

AugusL 4, 2006

lAC1S:
eLlLloners are dual clLlzens and successful appllcanLs for
recognlLlon of hlllpplne clLlzenshlp under kA 922S or the
C|t|zensh|p ketent|on and ke-acqu|s|t|on Act of 2003, whlch
allows Lhem Lhe rlghL Lo suffrage among oLhers. Long before
Lhe May 2004 elecLlons, peLlLloners soughL reglsLraLlon as
overseas absenLee voLer". ln a CCMLLLC leLLer addressed Lo
ueparLmenL of lorelgn Affalrs, hlllpplne Lmbassy ln Lhe
unlLed SLaLes Lold Lhem LhaL Lhey have yeL no rlghL Lo voLe
because of Lhe lack of Lhelr one-year resldency requlremenL.
nlcolas-Lewls asked for clarlflcaLlon and CCMLLLC responded
sLaLlng LhaL Lhe CAVL (Cverseas Absentee Voter Law) was
noL enacLed for Lhem. eLlLloners were noL able Lo voLe ln
May 2004 elecLlons. Cn May 20, 2004, Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor
Ceneral sald: "all quallfled overseas llllplnos, lncludlng dual
clLlzens who care Lo exerclse Lhe rlghL of suffrage, may do
so". Powever, because Lhe elecLlons have already passed, lL
has become mooL.
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloners and oLhers who mlghL have
meanwhlle reLalned and/or reacqulred hlllpplne clLlzenshlp
pursuanL Lo 8.A. 9223 may voLe as absenLee voLer under 8.A.
9189.

PLLu:
?LS. 1here ls no provlslon ln Lhe dua| c|t|zensh|p |aw - k.A.
922S - requlrlng "duals" Lo acLually esLabllsh resldence and
physlcally sLay ln Lhe hlllpplnes before Lhey can exerclse
Lhelr rlghL Lo voLe.
Art|c|e V of the 1987 Const|tut|on:
! Sect|on 1 prescrlbes resldency requlremenL as a general
ellglblllLy facLor for Lhe rlghL Lo voLe.
! Sect|on 2 auLhorlzes Congress Lo devlse a sysLem whereln an
absenLee may voLe, lmplylng LhaL a non!resldenL may, as an
excepLlon Lo Lhe resldency prescrlpLlon ln Lhe precedlng
secLlon, be allowed Lo voLe.

Sect|on S(d) of kA 9189
1he affldavlL requlred ln SecLlon 3(d) ls noL only proof of Lhe
lnLenLlon of Lhe lmmlgranL or permanenL resldenL Lo go back and
resume resldency ln Lhe hlllpplnes, buL more slgnlflcanLly, lL serves
as an expllclL expresslon LhaL he had noL ln facL abandoned hls
domlclle of orlgln.

kA 922S.
Sect|on S(1) sLaLes LhaL Lhose who re-acqulre Lhelr hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp shall en[oy full clvll and pollLlcal rlghLs under Lhe
condlLlon LhaL Lhey musL meeL Lhe requlremenLs under
SecLlon 1, ArLlcle v of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, 8epubllc AcL no.
9189, oLherwlse known as "1he Cverseas AbsenLee voLlng
AcL of 2003" and oLher exlsLlng laws
Sect|on 4: uerlvaLlve ClLlzenshlp. - 1he unmarrled chlld,
wheLher leglLlmaLe, llleglLlmaLe or adopLed, below elghLeen
(18) years of age, of Lhose who re-acqulre hlllpplne
clLlzenshlp upon effecLlvlLy of Lhls AcL shall be deemed
clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes.

"Absentee Vot|ng"
! refers Lo Lhe process
by whlch quallfled
clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes
abroad exerclse Lhelr
rlghL Lo voLe
"Cverseas Absentee
Voter"
! refers Lo a clLlzen of
Lhe hlllpplnes who ls
quallfled Lo reglsLer and
voLe under Lhls AcL, noL
oLherwlse dlsquallfled by
law, who ls abroad on
Lhe day of elecLlons
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

3 8omualdez v.
81C

C8 no. 104960

SepLember 14,
1993

lAC1S:
hlllp 8omualdez ls a naLural born clLlzen of Lhe hlllpplnes.
Pe ls Lhe nephew of Lhe Lhen llrsL Lady lmelda Marcos.
ln Lhe early parL of 1980, peLlLloner caused Lhe consLrucLlon
of hls legal resldence Lo esLabllsh hls legal resldence Lhere.
8ecause of Lhe lebruary 1986 8evoluLlon, he and some oLher
assoclaLes and relaLlves of Lhe deposed resldenL fled" Lhe
hlllpplnes, fearlng for Lhelr safeLy.
llve years laLer, he came back Lo Lhe hlllpplnes. uurlng Lhe
reglsLraLlon of voLers conducLed by Lhe CCMLLLC, peLlLloner
successfully managed Lo reglsLer hlmself anew as a voLer.
Advlcula flled a peLlLlon, praylng LhaL 8omualdez be excluded
from Lhe llsL of voLers.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL respondenL courL erred ln flndlng Lhe
peLlLloner Lo have volunLarlly lefL Lhe counLry and abandones
hls resldence

PLLu:
nC. 8omualdez dld noL leave Lhe counLry and change hls
resldence volunLarlly.
8omualdez dld noL abandon hls resldence
1he Lerm "resldence" as used ln Lhe elecLlon law ls
synonymous wlLh "domlclle", whlch lmporLs noL only an
lnLenLlon Lo reslde ln a flxed place buL also personal presence
ln LhaL place, coupled wlLh conducL lndlcaLlve of such
lnLenLlon.
1he purpose Lo remaln ln or aL Lhe domlclle of cholce musL
be for an lndeflnlLe perlod of Llme, Lhe change of resldence
musL be !"#$%&'(), and Lhe resldence aL Lhe place chosen for
Lhe new domlclle musL be acLual.
o 1he pollLlcal slLuaLlon broughL abouL by Lhe "eople's
ower 8evoluLlon" musL have Lruly caused greaL
apprehenslon Lo Lhe 8omualdezes, as well as a
serlous concern over Lhe safeLy and welfare of Lhe
members of Lhelr famllles.
o 1helr sudden deparLure from Lhe counLry cannoL be
descrlbed as "volunLary,"
ln order acqulre a new
domlclle by cholce, Lhere
musL concur:
1. 8esldence or bodlly
presence ln Lhe new
locallLy,
2. An lnLenLlon Lo
remaln Lhere, and
3. An lnLenLlon Lo
abandon Lhe old
domlclle.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' )$$$* +'%#$,- .

%!+' /!%01",2-3 ,4 #5' %!+' "!#$, -,#'+
!1"!"$!- "'4,"6
7 Assn. of Small
Landowners v.
Sec. of
Agrarlan
reform

C8 no. 78742

!uly 14, 1989
lAC1S:
lour consolldaLed peLlLlons by landowners affecLed by Lhe
Agrarlan 8eform rogram were submlLLed Lo Lhe courL
1he dlfferenL landowners are assalllng Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of
Lhe laws relaLed Lo Lhe Agrarlan 8eform rogram (', 889* ',
88:* ;3 8<* "! ==>< and ;?@ABCDCEF@G -@H 7I7)

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe program lacks Lhe requlremenLs of
emlnenL domaln

PLLu:
nC. 1he requlremenLs of publlc use and [usL compensaLlon
have been saLlsfled.
ubllc use
8equlremenL of publlc use has been seLLled ln Lhe 7:9<
%@GJEFEKEF@G whlch calls for an agrarlan reform.
1he purposes speclfled ln ;3 8<* "! ==>< and ;?@ABCDCEF@G
-@H 7I7 are only an elaboraLlon of Lhe consLlLuLlonal
ln[uncLlon LhaL Lhe SLaLe adopL Lhe necessary measures Lo
encourage and underLake Lhe [usL dlsLrlbuLlon of all
agrlculLural lands Lo enable farmers who are landless Lo own
dlrecLly or collecLlvely Lhe lands Lhey Llll."
!usL CompensaLlon
SaLlsfled even lf Land 8ank bonds were glven as paymenL
8ecause Lhls ls a revoluLlonary klnd of exproprlaLlon,
affecLlng all prlvaLe agrlculLural lands, lL wlll have a
Lremendous cosL. Such amounL ls noL fully avallable aL Lhls
Llme. 1hus, oLher lnnovaLlons Lo pay Lhe debL may be
uLlllzed.
1o deLermlne, [usL compensaLlon, Lhe measure ls noL Lhe
Laker's galn buL Lhe owner's loss. 1he word [usL" ls used Lo
lnLenslfy Lhe meanlng of Lhe word compensaLlon" Lo convey
Lhe ldea LhaL Lhe equlvalenL Lo be rendered for Lhe properLy
Lo be Laken shall be real, subsLanLlal, full, ample.

8 Luz larms v.
Sec. of
Agrarlan
8eform

lAC1S:
Luz larms ls engaged ln Lhe llvesLock and poulLry buslness.
Comprehenslve Agrarlan 8eform Law was passed whlch
lncluded Lhe ralslng of llvesLock, poulLry and swlne ln lLs
coverage, and noL [usL farmlands used for crops.
1he LranscrlpLs of Lhe dellberaLlons of Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal Commlsslon
of 1986 on Lhe meanlng of agrlculLural" clearly show LhaL lL was
never Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe framers Lo lnclude llvesLock and poulLry
lndusLry ln Lhe agrarlan reform program of Lhe governmenL.
ueflnlLlon of agrlculLural land" ls land devoLed Lo any

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
C.8. no. 86889

uecember 4,
1990
1hey conLend LhaL Lhey'll be adversely affecLed by Lhe CA8L
and clalms LhaL llvesLock and poulLry ralslng ls noL slmllar Lo
crop or Lree-farmlng, lL should noL have been lncluded.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL lands lnvolved ln Lhe ralslng of llvesLock,
poulLry, and swlne should be lncluded ln Lhe CA8L

PLLu:
nC. LlvesLock, poulLry, and swlne are noL lncluded as
agrlculLural enLerprlse. 1he assalled provlslons are null and
vold for belng unconsLlLuLlonal.
growLh, lncludlng buL noL llmlLed Lo croplands, salL beds,
flshponds, ldle and abandoned land.
1he word agrlculLure" was Lo be llmlLed Lo arable."
Commerclal, lndusLrlal, and resldenLlal lands are noL lncluded
ln Lhe Lerm agrlculLural lands."
lrom Commlssloner 8egalado: 'prlvaLe agrlculLural lands
devoLed Lo commerclal llvesLock, poulLry, and swlne ralslng'
should noL be lncluded under 'commerclal farms.'
1herefore, provlslons of CA8L whlch lnclude llvesLock and
poulLry ralsers" Lo execuLe and lmplemenL producLlon-
sharlng plans" are unreasonable for belng conflscaLory, and
vlolaLlve of due process.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' )$$$* +'%#$,- ./

%!+' 0!%12",3-4 ,5 #6' %!+' "!#$, -,#'+
3"0!- &!-4 "'5,"7 !-4 6,3+$-2
. eople v.
Leachon

C.8. no.
108723

SepLember 23,
1998

lAC1S:
Maplndan and Lscala were charged wlLh vlolaLlng Lhe !89:;
+<=>99:8? &>@A
!udge Leachon dlsmlssed Lhe case for lack of [urlsdlcLlon.
CourL of Appeals reversed LhaL declslon and ordered Lhe
conLlnuance of Lhe Lrlal. !udge Leachon dlsmlssed Lhe case
agaln, oplnlng LhaL +BCA D >8E ./ FG !H9A )$$$, repealed Lhe
!89:;+<=>99:8? &>@.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL !89:;+<=>99:8? &>@ ls lnvalld for belng
repugnanL Lo Lhe ConsLlLuLlon.

PLLu:
nC. 1he consLlLuLlonal requlremenL does noL mean LhaL Lhe
valldlLy or legallLy of Lhe demollLlon or evlcLlon ls hlnged on
Lhe exlsLence of a reseLLlemenL area deslgnaLed or
earmarked by Lhe governmenL.
under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon, whaL makes Lhe evlcLlon and demollLlon of
urban or rural poor dwellers lllegal or unlawful ls when Lhe same are
noL done ln accordance wlLh law and ln [usL and humane manner.
1he consLlLuLlonal requlremenL does noL mean LhaL Lhe
valldlLy or legallLy of Lhe demollLlon or evlcLlon ls hlnged on
Lhe exlsLence of a reseLLlemenL area deslgnaLed or
earmarked by Lhe governmenL.
WhaL ls meanL by ln accordance wlLh law" and [usL and humane
manner" ls LhaL Lhe person Lo be evlcLed ls accorded due process or
an opporLunlLy Lo conLroverL Lhe allegaLlon LhaL hls or her occupaLlon
or possesslon of Lhe properLy lnvolved ls unlawful or agalnsL Lhe wlll
of Lhe landowner, and LhaL should Lhe occupaLlon be lllegal or
unlawful, Lhe occupanL musL be sufflclenLly noLlfled before acLual
evlcLlon or demollLlons ls done, and LhaL Lhere be no loss of llves,
physlcal ln[urles or unnecessary loss of or damage Lo properLles.
!89:;I<=>99:8? &>@ affords Lhe squaLLers' Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
presenL Lhelr case before a compeLenL courL where Lhelr
rlghLs wlll be amply proLecLed and due process sLrlcLly
observed. 8y flllng Lhe proper lnformaLlon ln courL, due
process ls belng afforded Lhem.

C0NSTIT0TI0NAL LAW II REvIEWER (2u12 - 2u1S) ATTY. SEBFREY CANBELARIA

CASTEL0 uANA u0TIERREZ NABAL S0PERI0 TAN vARELA
!"#$%&' )$$$* +'%#$,- ./

%!+' 0!%12",3-4 ,5 #6' %!+' "!#$, -,#'+
7,8'"+ ,5 #6' %,99$++$,- ,- 639!- "$26#+
. Carlno v. CP8

C.8. no. 96681

uecember 2,
1991
lAC1S:
8ecause of Lhe concerLed mass acLlons by publlc school
Leachers aL Lhe uLCS, prlvaLe respondenLs were dlsmlssed
and suspended from Lhelr posL.
1hey flled a complalnL agalnsL SecreLary Carlno before Lhe
CP8. uurlng Lhe pendency of Lhe hearlng before Lhe CP8, Lhe
SC ruled on Lhe merlLs abouL Lhe legallLy of Lhe mass
concerLed acLlon and Lhe admlnlsLraLlve acLlon Laken by
SecreLary Carlno agalnsL Lhe Leachers.
CP8, ln dlsregard of Lhe SC order, wanLs Lo conLlnue
ad[udlcaLlng Lhe complalnLs flled before lL.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe Commlsslon on Puman 8lghLs has Lhe
power under Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo ad[udlcaLe.

PLLu:
nC. 1he Commlsslon on Puman 8lghLs has no such power, lL
was noL meanL by Lhe fundamenLal law Lo be anoLher courL
or quasl-[udlclal agency ln Lhls counLry, or dupllcaLe much
less Lake over Lhe funcLlons of Lhe laLLer.
1he ConsLlLuLlonal rovlslon speclfylng Lhe powers of Lhe
Commlsslon on Puman 8lghLs makes lL clear LhaL Lhe Commlsslon ls
noL meanL Lo exerclse ad[udlcaLory powers.
1he Commlsslon was creaLed by Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon as an
lndependenL offlce Lo supersede Lhe resldenLlal CommlLLee
on Puman 8lghLs exlsLlng aL Lhe Llme. lLs powers and
funcLlons are speclflcally enumeraLed. lL's clear LhaL only Lhe
flrsL of Lhe enumeraLed powers and funcLlons
!
(Lo
"#$%&'"()'%) ls relaLed Lo ad[udlcaLlon or ad[udgmenL.
8uL facL flndlng ls noL ad[udlcaLlon, and cannoL be llkened Lo
Lhe *+,"-"). 0+#-'"1# of a courL of [usLlce, or even a quasl-
[udlclal agency or offlclal. 1hese Lerms have well undersLood
and qulLe dlsLlncL meanlngs.
Pence lL ls LhaL Lhe Commlsslon on Puman 8lghLs, havlng
merely Lhe power "Lo lnvesLlgaLe,"
2
cannoL and should noL
"Lry and resolve on Lhe merlLs" (ad[udlcaLe) Lhe maLLers
lnvolved ln SLrlklng 1eachers P8C Case no. 90-773 even lf
Lhere ls an alleged vlolaLlon of Lhe human rlghLs, or clvll or
pollLlcal rlghLs of Lhe Leachers lnvolved.

1
1he ConsLlLuLlon clearly
and caLegorlcally
empowers Lhe CP8 Lo
"#$%&'"()'% ).. 0123& 10
4+3)# 2"(4'& $"1.)'"1#&
"#$1.$"#( -"$". )#,
51."'"-). 2"(4'&.
2
1he funcLlon of
recelvlng evldence and
ascerLalnlng Lhe facLs of
a conLroversy ls noL a
[udlclal funcLlon. 1o be
consldered such, lL musL
be accompanled by Lhe
auLhorlLy of )55.6"#(
'4% .)7 '1 '41&% 0)-'+).
-1#-.+&"1#& '1 '4% %#,
'4)' '4% -1#'21$%2&6 3)6
8% ,%-",%, 12 ,%'%23"#%,
)+'412"')'"$%.69 0"#)..6
)#, ,%0"#"'"$%.69 &+8*%-'
'1 &+-4 )55%).& 12 31,%&
10 2%$"%7 )& 3)6 8%
521$",%, 86 .)7."

: LZA v. CP8

lAC1S:
1he LxporL rocesslng Zone AuLhorlLy (LZA), along wlLh
CP8 ls noL a courL of [usLlce nor even a quasl-[udlclal body, and
Lherefore does noL possess Lhe power Lo ad[udlcaLe.
uocLrlne: 1o be
consldered as havlng Lhe

C.8. no.
101476

Aprll 14, 1992
Covernor 8emulla, ls alleged of havlng commlLLed human
rlghLs vlolaLlons agalnsL prlvaLe respondenLs valles, Aledla
and Crdonez who are lnformal seLLlers on Lhe land owned by
LZA. 8espondenLs flled a complalnL aL Lhe Commlsslon on
Puman 8lghLs (CP8) who ln Lurn lssued an ln[uncLlon order
commandlng LhaL peLlLloner and Cov. 8emulla Lo deslsL from
Lhe demollLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe CP8 has [urlsdlcLlon Lo lssue a wrlL of
ln[uncLlon or resLralnlng order agalnsL supposed vlolaLors of
human rlghLs, Lo compel Lhem Lo cease and deslsL from
conLlnulng acLs complalned of?

PLLu:
nC. 1he CP8 has no power Lo resolve on Lhe merlLs of a case.
lL has Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe only.
AL mosL, Lhe CP8 has Lhe power Lo lnvesLlgaLe (l.e. recelve
evldence and make flndlngs of facL as regards clalmed
human rlghLs vlolaLlons), buL facL-flndlng ls noL ad[udlcaLlon
and cannoL be llkened Lo a [udlclal or quasl-[udlclal funcLlon.
1he consLlLuLlonal provlslon dlrecLlng Lhe CP8 Lo "provlde
for prevenLlve measures and legal ald servlces" refer Lo
exLra[udlclal and [udlclal remedles (lncludlng a prellmlnary
wrlL of ln[uncLlon) whlch Lhe CP8 may seek from Lhe proper
courLs
1
on behalf of Lhe vlcLlms of human rlghLs vlolaLlons.

power Lo ad[udlcaLe, Lhe
faculLy of facL-flndlng
musL be accompanled by
Lhe auLhorlLy of applylng
Lhe law Lo Lhose facLual
concluslons Lo Lhe end
LhaL Lhe conLroversy may
be declded or
deLermlned
auLhorlLaLlvely, flnally
and deflnlLely, sub[ecL Lo
such appeals or modes of
revlew as may be
provlded by law.

; Slmon !r. v.
Commlslon on
Puman 8lghLs

C.8. no.
100130

!anuary 3,
1994
lAC1S:
CP8 lssued a order Lo deslsL" agalnsL peLlLloners Lo sLop Lhe
demollLlon of sLalls and shanLles aL norLh LuSA pendlng Lhe
resoluLlon on squaLLer/vendor complalnLs before Lhe CP8.
eLlLloner flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss and quesLloned Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon of CP8, alleglng LhaL lLs auLhorlLy ls only <=>=?@A
?B =CD@E?=FG?=BC of rlghLs vlolaLed. 1hey also alleged LhaL Lhe
lnvesLlgaLlon musL also be resLrlcLed Lo clvll and pollLlcal
rlghLs", and LhaL Lhe supposed vlolaLlons were noL of rlghLs,
buL Lhe prlvllege Lo engage ln buslness".

lSSuL:
!H?=I<@ )$$$ +@I?=BC ./J.K provldes Lhe power of Lhe CP8 Lo
!"#$%&!'(&$ 1# "'& 17# 12 1# '4% -135.)"#' 86 )#6 5)2'69 1#
'4% ).. 4+3)# 2"(4'& $"1.)'"1#&9 "#$1.$"#( *!#!+ (", -.+!&!*(+
/!'0&%1
1he order Lo deslsL" ls noL an lnvesLlgaLory power buL
ad[udlcaLlve, whlch lL does noL possess.
1he ConsLlLuLlonal provlslon dlrecLlng CP8 Lo provlde for
prevenLlve measures and legal servlces" means LhaL CP8 may
ald vlcLlms of human rlghL vlolaLlons ln seeklng [udlclal orders
from Lhe proper courLs.
WrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon may only be lssued by a
compeLenL !udge.

1
(!"#$ &' ()*" +,' ()*"- ./ 0.)12) A wiit of pieliminaiy injunction may only be issueu "by the juuge of any couit in which the action is penuing |within his uistiictj, oi by a }ustice of the Couit of Appeals, oi of the Supieme
Couit. It may also be gianteu by the juuge of a Couit of Fiist Instance |now Regional Tiial Couitj in any action penuing in an infeiioi couit within his uistiict."

WheLher or noL Lhe lssuance of an BHA@H ?B A@E=E?" ls wlLhln
Lhe power of CP8?

PLLu:
nC. CP8 has no power Lo lssue orders agalnsL alleged
vlolaLors.
CP8 ls prohlblLed from proceedlng wlLh Lhe CP8 case.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' )$*+ ,'%#$-. /

%!,' 0!%12"-3.4 -5 #6' %!,' "!#$- .-#',
/ uLCS v. San
ulego

C8 no. 89372

uecember 21,
1989
lAC1S:
8amon Cuevara ls a graduaLe of Lhe unlverslLy of Lhe LasL
wlLh a degree ln Zoology
uLCS clalms LhaL he Look Lhe nMA1 Lhree Llmes - he
applled Lo Lake lL agaln buL uLCS re[ecLed Lhe appllcaLlon on
Lhe basls of nMA1 rule LhaL a sLudenL shall only be allowed
only 3 chances Lo Lake Lhe nMA1 - afLer 3 successlve
fallures, a sLudenL shall noL be allowed Lo Lake Lhe nMA1 for
Lhe fourLh Llme
Cuevara wenL Lo Lhe 81C of valenzuela Lo compel hls
admlsslon Lo Lhe LesL - lnvoklng academlc freedom and
quallLy educaLlon
!udge Capulong rendered a declslon declarlng Lhe rule
lnvalld - peLlLloner had been deprlved of hls rlghL Lo pursue
a medlcal educaLlon
lSSuL:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner had been deprlved of hls rlghL Lo
pursue a medlcal educaLlon
PLLu:
nC. rohlblLlng Lhe Laklng of Lhe nMA1 afLer falllng lL 3
consecuLlve Llmes ls a valld exerclse of pollce power.
Lawful Sub[ecL
lL ls Lhe rlghL and responslblllLy of Lhe SLaLe Lo lnsure LhaL
Lhe medlcal professlon ls noL lnfllLraLed by lncompeLenLs Lo
whom paLlenLs may unwarlly enLrusL Lhelr llves and healLh.
nMA1 ls lnLended Lo llmlL Lhe admlsslon Lo medlcal schools
only Lo Lhose who have lnlLlally proved Lhelr compeLence
and preparaLlon for medlcal educaLlon.
Lawful Means
1he meLhod ls noL lrrelevanL Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe law nor ls
lL arblLrary or oppresslve. 1he Lhree-flunk rule ls lnLended Lo
lnsulaLe Lhe medlcal schools and medlcal professlon from
Lhose noL quallfled Lo be docLors.
1he rlghL Lo quallLy educaLlon lnvoked by Lhe prlvaLe
respondenL ls noL absoluLe. 1he ConsLlLuLlon also provldes
LhaL every clLlzen has Lhe rlghL Lo choose a professlon or
course of sLudy, sub[ecL Lo falr, reasonable and equlLable
admlsslon and academlc requlremenLs, pursuanL Lo ArL. xlv,
Sec. 3(3). lL ls noL enough Lo slmply lnvoke Lhe rlghL Lo
quallLy educaLlon as a guaranLee of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon: one
musL show LhaL he ls enLlLled Lo lL because of hls
preparaLlon and promlse.

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(
!"#$%&' )$*+ ,-./012 3

%!,' 4!%56"789: 7; #<' %!,' "!#$7 97#',
!%!:'=$% ;"'':7= 7; $9,#$#8#$79, 7; <$6<'" &'!"9$96
Carcla v.
laculLy
Admlsslon

C.8. no. L-
40779

november 23,
1973
lAC1S:
Lplcharls Carcla was denled re-enrollmenL for a course ln Lhe
Loyola School of 1heology by lr. Lamblno, explalnlng LhaL Lhe
faculLy found her Lo be dlfflculL and her frequenL quesLlons
delayed Lhe class.
eLlLloner Carcla wanLed Lo appeal buL she could noL, hence
Lhe peLlLlon for mandamus. 1he 8espondenL argues LhaL
Carcla was noL offlclally enrolled wlLh Lhe unlverslLy, hence,
an appeal could noL be made.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLlon for mandamus ls proper and
valld.

PLLu:
nC. eLlLlon uLnlLu.
1he LS1 has no clear duLy Lo admlL Carcla slnce Lhe school
has clearly Lhe dlscreLlon Lo Lurn down even quallfled
appllcanLs due Lo llmlLaLlons of space, faclllLles, professors
and opLlmum classroom slze.
Admlsslon Lo an lnsLlLuLe of hlgher learnlng does noL resL on
Lhe sole and unconLrolled dlscreLlon of Lhe appllcanL. Cn Lhe
conLrary, Lhere are sLandards LhaL musL be meL.
Accordlng Lo Lhe CourL Lhere are > ?@A-./@ 1B ?.?C-D0.
BE--C1DF
o 1he freedom of professlonally quallfled persons Lo
lnqulre, dlscover, publlsh and Leach Lhe LruLh as Lhey
see lL ln Lhe fleld of Lhelr compeLence. lL ls sub[ecL Lo
no conLrol or auLhorlLy excepL Lhe conLrol or
auLhorlLy of Lhe raLlonal meLhods by whlch LruLhs or
concluslons are soughL and esLabllshed ln Lhese
dlsclpllnes.
o 1he school or college lLself ls possessed of such a
rlghL Lo declde for lLself lLs alms and ob[ecLlves and
how Lo besL Lo aLLaln Lhem. lL ls free from ouLslde
coerclon or lnLerference save posslbly when Lhe
overrldlng publlc welfare calls for some resLralnL.
8ecause of Lhls Lhe CourL held LhaL mandamus ls noL proper
Lo compel LS1 Lo admlL Carcla for Lhe course.
lour LssenLlal Academlc
lreedoms
- Who may Leach
- WhaL may be
LaughL
- Pow lL shall be
LaughL
- Who may be
admlLLed Lo
sLudy
unlverslLy of
San Carlos v.
CourL of
Appeals
lAC1S:
eLlLloner unlverslLy of San Carlos ls appeallng Lhe declslon
of Lhe 81C, sald declslon ordered Lhe unlverslLy Lo granL Lo
!ennlfer Lee Lhe honors she deserved when she graduaLed.
1he CourL held LhaL lL ls an accepLed prlnclple and parL of
academlc freedom for lnsLlLuLlons Lo formulaLe rules and
guldellnes ln Lhe granLlng of honors. lL ls wlLh Lhe dlscreLlon
and compeLence of unlverslLles and colleges Lo deLermlne
lour LssenLlal Academlc
lreedoms
- Who may Leach
- WhaL may be
!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !(#8-)(,&(

!($%-)" :(#( :'%&-,,-; #(8() $'<-,&" %(# .(,-)(

C.8. no. L-
79237

CcLober 18,
1988
1he unlverslLy however argued LhaL !ennlfer C. Lee had
falllng marks ln her prevlous course, LhaL she dld noL meeL
Lhe requlremenLs needed Lo graduaLe wlLh honors and Lhe
change of grades were done wlLhouL proper auLhorlLy and
wlLhouL any [usLlflcaLlon.

lSSuL:
WheLher or noL a unlverslLy may be compelled by mandamus
Lo granL graduaLlon honors Lo any sLudenL who does noL
quallfy for such honors accordlng Lo Lhe unlverslLy's
sLandards.

PLLu:
no. eLlLlon ls hereby C8An1Lu. ueclslon of Lhe lower courL
ls hereby 8LvL8SLu.
who are enLlLled Lo Lhe granL of honors and Lhls dlscreLlon
may noL be dlsLurbed much less conLrolled by Lhe courLs
unless Lhere ls grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln lLs exerclse.
1he CourL also held LhaL when lL was dlscovered LhereafLer
LhaL Lhe change of prlvaLe respondenL's grades from lC" 1C
1.9" was noL supporLed by Lhe correspondlng class records
and lLs producLlon was requlred Lhe same could noL be
produced. 1here ls Lhus no [usLlflcaLlon for sald change of
grade. Moreover, rlvaLe 8espondenL dld noL make Lhe
requesL for Lhe change of Lhe grade of lncompleLe wlLhln one
(1) year so LhaL lL became flnal accordlng Lo Lhe rules
LaughL
- Pow lL shall be
LaughL
Who may be admlLLed Lo
sLudy

Constitutional Law II Case Charts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law II Case Charts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!"#$%&%'%&"#() )(+ && ,-.&-+-, /0120 3 01245 (%%67 $-89,-6 !

You might also like