Estrada vs.

Sandiganbayan Facts: Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act efining and Penali!ing the "ri#e of Plunder$, % as a#ended b& RA 7'(), * +ishes to i#press upon us that the assailed la+ is so defecti,el& fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line +hich di,ides the ,alid fro# the constitutionall& infir#- .e therefore #akes a stringent call for this "ourt to subject the Plunder /a+ to the crucible of constitutionalit& #ainl& because, according to hi#, (a$ it suffers fro# the ,ice of ,agueness0 (b$ it dispenses +ith the 1reasonable doubt1 standard in cri#inal prosecutions0 and, (c$ it abolishes the ele#ent of #ens rea in cri#es alread& punishable under 2he Re,ised Penal "ode, all of +hich are purportedl& clear ,iolations of the funda#ental rights of the accused to due process and to be infor#ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi#2hat during the period fro# June, %))8 to Januar& *00%, in the Philippines, and +ithin the jurisdiction of this .onorable "ourt, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, 2.E PRE34 E52 67 2.E REP89/4" 67 2.E P.4/4PP45E3, b& hi#self A5 :6R in "6554;A5"E:"653P4RA"< +ith his co-accused, =.6 ARE >E>9ER3 67 .43 7A>4/<, RE/A24;E3 9< A774542< 6R "653A5?84542<, 98345E33 A336"4A2E3, 3896R 45A2E3 A5 :6R 62.ER PER3653, 9< 2A@45? 85 8E A ;A52A?E 67 .43 6774"4A/ P6342465, A82.6R42<, RE/A24653.4P, "655E"2465, 6R 457/8E5"E, did then and there +illfull&, unla+full& and cri#inall& a#ass, accu#ulate and acAuire 9< .4>3E/7 4RE"2/< 6R 45 4RE"2/<, ill-gotten +ealth in the aggregate a#ount or 262A/ ;A/8E of 768R 94//465 545E2< 3E;E5 >4//465 E4?.2 .85 RE 768R 2.683A5 65E .85 RE 3E;E52< 2.REE A5 3E;E52EE5 "E52A;63 (PB,0)7,80B,%7C-%7$, #ore or less, 2.ERE9< 85J832/< E5R4".45? .4>3E/7 6R 2.E>3E/;E3 A2 2.E EDPE53E A5 26 2.E A>A?E

67 2.E 74/4P456 PE6P/E A5 2.E REP89/4" 67 P.4/4PP45E3 through A5< 6R A co#bination 6R A series of o,ert 6R cri#inal acts, 6R 34>4/AR 3".E>E3 6R >EA53RE3PE"24;E/< 6R A 262A/ 67 >6RE 6R /E33 65E 94//465 E4?.2 .85 RE 76R2< 3E;E5 >4//465 74;E .85 RE 3E;E52< E4?.2 2.683A5 7472< 3E;E5 PE363 A5 7472< "E52A;63 (P%,8B7,(78,0(7-(0$0 A5 9< "6//E"245? 6R RE"E4;45?, 4RE"2/< 6R 45 4RE"2/<, 9< .4>3E/7 A5 :6R 45 "6554;A5"E =42. J6.5 6E3 JA5E 6E3, "6>>4334653 6R PER"E52A?E3 9< REA365 67 3A4 P8R".A3E3 67 3.ARE3 67 326"@ 45 2.E A>6852 67 65E .85 RE E4?.2< 545E >4//465 3E;E5 .85 RE 2.683A5 PE363 (P%8),700,000-00$ >6RE 6R /E33, 7R6> 2.E 9E//E "6RP6RA2465 =.4". 9E"A>E PAR2 67 2.E EP6342 45 2.E EE842A9/E 9A5@ 85 ER 2.E A""6852 5A>E FJ63E ;E/AR EF Issue: R-A- 5o- 7080 is unconstitutional on the follo+ing groundsG 4- 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E 8E PR6"E33 "/A83E 76R 423 ;A?8E5E33 44- 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E "65324282465A/ R4?.2 67 2.E A""83E 26 @56= 2.E 5A28RE A5 "A83E 67 2.E A""83A2465 A?A4532 .4> 444- 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E 8E PR6"E33 "/A83E A5 2.E "65324282465A/ PRE38>P2465 67 4556"E5"E 9< /6=ER45? 2.E E8A528> 67 E;4 E5"E 5E"E33AR< 76R PR6;45? 2.E "6>P65E52 E/E>E523 67 P/85 ER 4;- 42 43 9E<65 2.E "65324282465A/ P6=ER 67 2.E /E?43/A28RE 26 E/4>42 2.E REA365A9/E 6892 32A5 AR A5 26 A96/43. 2.E E/E>E52 67 >E53 REA 45 >A/A 45 3E "R4>E3 9< "65;ER245?

2.E3E 26 >A/A PR6.4942A, 45 ;46/A2465 67 2.E 8E PR6"E33 "65"EP2 67 "R4>45A/ RE3P653494/42<Held: PRE>43E3 "6534 ERE , this "ourt holds that RA 7080 other+ise kno+n as the Plunder /a+, as a#ended b& RA 7'(), is "65324282465A/- "onseAuentl&, the petition to declare the la+ unconstitutional is 43>433E for lack of #erit- 36 6R ERE Ratio: In view of vagueness and ambiguity "ongress is not restricted in the for# of eHpression of its +ill, and its inabilit& to so define the +ords e#plo&ed in a statute +ill not necessaril& result in the ,agueness or a#biguit& of the la+ so long as the legislati,e +ill is clear, or at least, can be gathered fro# the +hole act, +hich is distinctl& eHpressed in the Plunder /a+- >oreo,er, it is a +ell-settled principle of legal her#eneutics that +ords of a statute +ill be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinar& acceptation and signification, 7 unless it is e,ident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal #eaning to those +ords 8 2he intention of the la+#akers I +ho are, ordinaril&, untrained philologists and leHicographers I to use statutor& phraseolog& in such a #anner is al+a&s presu#ed- 2hus, =ebsterFs 5e+ "ollegiate ictionar& contains the follo+ing co##onl& accepted definition of the +ords 1co#bination1 and 1seriesG1 "o#bination I the result or product of co#bining0 the act or process of co#bining- 2o co#bine is to bring into such close relationship as to obscure indi,idual characters3eries I a nu#ber of things or e,ents of the sa#e class co#ing one after another in spatial and te#poral succession-

;eril&, had the legislature intended a technical or distincti,e #eaning for 1co#bination1 and 1series,1 it +ould ha,e taken greater pains in specificall& pro,iding for it in the la+- As for 1pattern,1 +e agree +ith the obser,ations of the 3andiganba&an ) that this ter# is sufficientl& defined in 3ec- B, in relation to 3ec- %, par- (d$, and 3ec- *- - - under 3ec- % (d$ of the la+, a FpatternF consists of at least a co#bination or series of o,ert or cri#inal acts enu#erated in subsections (%$ to ('$ of 3ec- % (d$- 3econdl&, pursuant to 3ec- * of the la+, the pattern of o,ert or cri#inal acts is directed to+ards a co##on purpose or goal +hich is to enable the public officer to a#ass, accu#ulate or acAuire ill-gotten +ealth- And thirdl&, there #ust either be an Fo,erall unla+ful sche#eF or Fconspirac&F to achie,e said co##on goal- As co##onl& understood, the ter# Fo,erall unla+ful sche#eF indicates a Fgeneral plan of action or #ethodF +hich the principal accused and public officer and others conni,ing +ith hi#, follo+ to achie,e the aforesaid co##on goal- 4n the alternati,e, if there is no such o,erall sche#e or +here the sche#es or #ethods used b& #ultiple accused ,ar&, the o,ert or cri#inal acts #ust for# part of a conspirac& to attain a co##on goal=ith #ore reason, the doctrine cannot be in,oked +here the assailed statute is clear and free fro# a#biguit&, as in this case- 2he test in deter#ining +hether a cri#inal statute is ,oid for uncertaint& is +hether the language con,e&s a sufficientl& definite +arning as to the proscribed conduct +hen #easured b& co##on understanding and practice- 4t #ust be stressed, ho+e,er, that the 1,agueness1 doctrine #erel& reAuires a reasonable degree of certaint& for the statute to be upheld I not absolute precision or #athe#atical eHactitude, as petitioner see#s to suggest.ence, it cannot plausibl& be contended that the la+ does not gi,e a fair +arning and sufficient notice of +hat it seeks to penali!e- 8nder the circu#stances, petitionerFs reliance on the

1,oid-for-,agueness1 doctrine is #anifestl& #isplaced- 2he doctrine has been for#ulated in ,arious +a&s, but is #ost co##onl& stated to the effect that a statute establishing a cri#inal offense #ust define the offense +ith sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinar& intelligence can understand +hat conduct is prohibited b& the statuteIn view of due process 6n the second issue, petitioner ad,ances the highl& stretched theor& that 3ec- B of the Plunder /a+ circu#,ents the i##utable obligation of the prosecution to pro,e be&ond reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the cri#e of plunder +hen it reAuires onl& proof of a pattern of o,ert or cri#inal acts sho+ing unla+ful sche#e or conspirac&- 2he running fault in this reasoning is ob,ious e,en to the si#plistic #ind- 4n a cri#inal prosecution for plunder, as in all other cri#es, the accused al+a&s has in his fa,or the presu#ption of innocence +hich is guaranteed b& the 9ill of Rights, and unless the 3tate succeeds in de#onstrating b& proof be&ond reasonable doubt that culpabilit& lies, the accused is entitled to an acAuittal=hat the prosecution needs to pro,e be&ond reasonable doubt is onl& a nu#ber of acts sufficient to for# a co#bination or series +hich +ould constitute a pattern and in,ol,ing an a#ount of at least P(0,000,000-00- 2here is no need to pro,e each and e,er& other act alleged in the 4nfor#ation to ha,e been co##itted b& the accused in furtherance of the o,erall unla+ful sche#e or conspirac& to a#ass, accu#ulate or acAuire ill- gotten +ealthIn view of mens rea As regards the third issue, again +e agree +ith Justice >endo!a that plunder is a #alu# in se +hich reAuires proof of

cri#inal intent- 2hus, he sa&s, in his "oncurring 6pinion I - - Precisel& because the constituti,e cri#es are #ala in se the ele#ent of #ens rea #ust be pro,en in a prosecution for plunder- 4t is note+orth& that the a#ended infor#ation alleges that the cri#e of plunder +as co##itted 1+illfull&, unla+full& and cri#inall&-1 4t thus alleges guilt& kno+ledge on the part of petitionerJ=ith the go,ern#entK terribl& lacking the #one& to pro,ide e,en the #ost basic ser,ices to its people, an& for# of #isappropriation or #isapplication of go,ern#ent funds translates to an actual threat to the ,er& eHistence of go,ern#ent, and in turn, the ,er& sur,i,al of the people it go,erns o,er- ;ie+ed in this conteHt, no less heinous are the effect and repercussions of cri#es like Aualified briber&, destructi,e arson resulting in death, and drug offenses in,ol,ing go,ern#ent official, e#plo&ees or officers, that their perpetrators #ust not be allo+ed to cause further destruction and da#age to societ&- 4ndeed, it +ould be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though the& are #ere prosecutions for ,iolations of the 9ouncing "heck /a+ (9-P- 9lg- **$ or of an ordinance against ja&+alking, +ithout regard to the inherent +rongness of the acts2o clinch, petitioner like+ise assails the ,alidit& of RA 7'(), the a#endator& la+ of RA 7080, on constitutional grounds3uffice it to sa& ho+e,er that it is no+ too late in the da& for hi# to resurrect this long dead issue, the sa#e ha,ing been eternall& consigned b& People ,- Echegara& C8 to the archi,es of jurisprudential histor&- 2he declaration of this "ourt therein that RA 7'() is constitutionall& ,alid stands as a declaration of the 3tate, and beco#es, b& necessar& effect, assi#ilated in the "onstitution no+ as an integral part of it-

In view of presumption of innocence At all e,ents, let #e stress that the po+er to construe la+ is essentiall& judicial- 2o declare +hat the la+ shall be is a legislati,e po+er, but to declare +hat the la+ is or has been is judicial- 3tatutes enacted b& "ongress cannot be eHpected to spell out +ith #athe#atical precision ho+ the la+ should be interpreted under an& and all gi,en situations- 2he application of the la+ +ill depend on the facts and circu#stances as adduced b& e,idence +hich +ill then be considered, +eighed and e,aluated b& the courts- 4ndeed, it is the constitutionall& #andated function of the courts to interpret, construe and appl& the la+ as +ould gi,e flesh and blood to the true #eaning of legislati,e enact#entsA construction should be rejected if it gi,es to the language used in a statute a #eaning that does not acco#plish the purpose for +hich the statute +as enacted and that tends to defeat the ends that are sought to be attained b& its enact#ent- ;ie+ed broadl&, 1plunder in,ol,es not just plain thie,er& but econo#ic depredation +hich affects not just pri,ate parties or personal interests but the nation as a +hole-1 4n,ariabl&, plunder partakes of the nature of 1a cri#e against national interest +hich #ust be stopped, and if possible, stopped per#anentl&-1 In view of vagueness according to SANDO A!" #$%I&RR&'( )* As a basic pre#ise, +e ha,e to accept that e,en a person accused of a cri#e possesses in,iolable rights founded on the "onstitution +hich e,en the +elfare of the societ& as a +hole cannot o,erride- 2he rights guaranteed to hi# b& the "onstitution are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest- 2hus, no #atter ho+ sociall&rele,ant the purpose of a la+ is, it #ust be nullified if it tra#ples upon the basic rights of the accused-

=hen 3ection B of R-A- 5o- 7080 #andates that it shall not be necessar& for the prosecution to pro,e each and e,er& cri#inal act done b& the accused, the legislature, in effect, rendered the enu#erated 1cri#inal acts1 under 3ection % (d$ #erel& as #eans and not as essential ele#ents of plunder2his is constitutionall& infir#ed and repugnant to the basic idea of justice and fair pla&- As a #atter of due process, the prosecution is reAuired to pro,e be&ond reasonable doubt e,er& fact necessar& to constitute the cri#e +ith +hich the defendant is charged- 2he 3tate #a& not specif& a lesser burden of proof for an ele#ent of a cri#e- 8 =ith #ore reason, it should not be allo+ed to go around the principle b& characteri!ing an essential ele#ent of plunder #erel& as a 1#eans1 of co##itting the cri#e- 7or the result is the reduction of the burden of the prosecution to pro,e the guilt of the accused be&ond reasonable doubt4n short, all that R-A- 5o- 7080 reAuires is that each Justice #ust be con,inced of the eHistence of a 1co#bination or series-1 As to +hich cri#inal acts constitute a co#bination or series, the Justices need not be in full agree#ent- 3urel&, this +ould co,er-up a +ide disagree#ent a#ong the# about just +hat the accused actuall& did or did not do- 3tated differentl&, e,en if the Justices are not unified in their deter#ination on +hat cri#inal acts +ere actuall& co##itted b& the accused, +hich need not be pro,ed under the la+, still, the& could con,ict hi# of plunder2he 3pecial Prosecution i,ision Panel defines it as 1at least three of the acts enu#erated under 3ection %(d$ thereof-1 CC 9ut it can ,er& +ell be interpreted as onl& one act repeated at least three ti#es- And the 6ffice of the 3olicitor ?eneral, in,oking the deliberations of the .ouse of Representati,es, contends differentl&- 4t defines the ter# series as a 1repetition1 or pertaining to 1t+o or #ore-1

3ec- *%(f$- Prohibited for#s of election propagandaA statute +hich is so ,ague as to per#it the infliction of capital punish#ent on acts alread& punished +ith lesser penalties b& clearl& for#ulated la+ is unconstitutional- 2he ,agueness cannot be cured b& judicial construction4n fine, 4 can onl& stress that the one on trial here is not >rEstrada, but R-A- 5o- 7080- 2he issue before this "ourt is not the guilt or innocence of the accused, but the constitutionalit& of the la+- 4 ,ote to grant the petition, not because 4 fa,or >rEstrada, but because 4 look be&ond toda& and 4 see that this la+ can pose a serious threat to the life, libert& and propert& of an&one +ho #a& co#e under its unconstitutional pro,isionsAs a #e#ber of this "ourt, #& dut& is to see to it that the la+ confor#s to the "onstitution and no other- 4 si#pl& cannot, in good conscience, fortif& a la+ that is patentl& unconstitutionalADIONG v. COMELEC #*R* No* +,-./0 1arc2 -+( +..3 FA4%S: 6n Januar& %C, %))*, the "6>E/E" pro#ulgated Resolution 5o- *CB7 pursuant to its po+ers granted b& the "onstitution, the 6#nibus Election "ode, Republic Acts 5os''B' and 7%'' and other election la+s- 3ection %((a$ of the resolution pro,idesG 3ec- %(- Lawful Election Propaganda. LMN 2he follo+ing are la+ful election propagandaG (a$ Pa#phlets, leaflets, cards, decalsLMO Pro,ided, 2hat decals and stickers #a& be posted onl& in an& of the authori!ed posting areas pro,ided in paragraph (f$ of 3ection *% hereof3ection *% (f$ of the sa#e resolution pro,idesG 4t is unla+fulGLMO (f$ 2o dra+, paint, inscribe, post, displa& or publicl& eHhibit an& election propaganda in an& place, +hether public or pri,ate, #obile or stationar&, eHcept in the "6>E/E" co##on posted areas and:or billboardsLMO Petitioner 9lo 8#par Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the >a& %%, %))* elections assails the "6>E/E"Ps Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in Q#obileN places like cars and other #o,ing ,ehicles- According to hi# such prohibition is ,iolati,e of 3ection 8* of the 6#nibus Election "ode and 3ection %%(a$ of Republic Act 5o''B'ISS$&: =hether or not the "6>E/E" #a& prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on Q#obileN places, public or pri,ate, and li#it their location or publication to the authori!ed posting areas that it fiHesH&!D: 2he petition is hereb& ?RA52E - 2he portion of 3ection %( (a$ of Resolution 5o- *CB7 of the "6>E/E" pro,iding that Qdecals and stickers #a& be posted onl& in an& of the authori!ed posting areas pro,ided in paragraph (f$ of 3ection *% hereofN is E"/ARE 58// and ;64 - 2he "6>E/E"Ps prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on Q#obileN places +hether public or pri,ate eHcept in designated areas pro,ided for b& the "6>E/E" itself is null and ,oid on constitutional grounds- 2he prohibition undul& infringes on the citi!enPs funda#ental right of free speech enshrined in the "onstitution (3ec- B, Article 444$- 3ignificantl&, the freedo# of eHpression curtailed b& the Auestioned prohibition is not so #uch that of the candidate or the political part&- 2he regulation strikes at the freedo# of an indi,idual to eHpress his preference and, b& displa&ing it on his car, to con,ince others to agree +ith hi#-

Also, the Auestioned prohibition pre#ised on the statute (RA ''B'$ and as couched in the resolution is ,oid for o,erbreadth2he restriction as to +here the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it enco#passes e,en the citi!enPs pri,ate propert&, +hich in this case is a pri,atel&-o+ned ,ehicle (2he pro,isions allo+ing regulation are so loosel& +orded that the& include the posting of decals or stickers in the pri,ac& of onePs li,ing roo# or bedroo#-$ 4n conseAuence of this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed b& the "onstitution +ould be ,iolated- 3ection %, Article 444 of the 9ill of Rights pro,ides that no person shall be depri,ed of his propert& +ithout due process of la+- (2he right to propert& #a& be subject to a greater degree of regulation but +hen this right is joined b& a Qlibert&N interest, the burden of justification on the part of the ?o,ern#ent #ust be eHceptionall& con,incing and irrefutable- 2he burden is not #et in this case-$ Additionall&, the constitutional objecti,e to gi,e a rich candidate and a poor candidate eAual opportunit& to infor# the electorate as regards their candidacies, #andated b& Article 44, 3ection *' and Article D444, section % in relation to Article 4D (c$ 3ection B of the "onstitution, is not i#paired b& posting decals and stickers on cars and other pri,ate ,ehicles- 4t is to be reiterated that the posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tric&cles, pedicabs and other #o,ing ,ehicles needs the consent of the o+ner of the ,ehicle- .ence, the preference of the citi!en beco#es crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate4n su#, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on Q#obileN places +hether public or pri,ate eHcept in the authori!ed areas designated b& the "6>E/E" beco#es censorship +hich cannot be justified b& the "onstitution%H& 5&O5!& OF %H& 5HI!I55IN&S(

vs* 4ARO! 1* D&!A 5I&DRA( #*R* No* +3+666 (C(0 3"RA %'C$ )anuary 37( 3,,+ 8A5$NAN( )* FA4%S: 6n the afternoon of Januar& C0, %))B, >aria /ourdes >odesto and 5anc& Araneta together +ith her friends Jennel&n 9ae!, and 3andra AAuino +ent to the house of Jas#ine Alejandro, after ha,ing learned that a +o#an is there to recruit job applicants for 3ingapore"arol dela Piedra +as alread& briefing so#e people +hen the& arri,ed- Jas#ine, on the other hand, +elco#ed and asked the# to sit do+n-2he& listened to the QrecruiterN +ho +as then talking about thebreakdo+n of the fees in,ol,edG PC0,000 for the ,isa and the round trip ticket, and P(,000 as place#ent fee and for the processing of the papers- 2he initial pa&#ent +as P*,000, +hile PC0,000 +ill be b& salar& deduction- 2he recruiter said that she +as QrecruitingN nurses for 3ingaporeAraneta, her friends and /ourdes then filled up bio-data for#s and +ere reAuired to sub#it pictures and a transcript of records- After the inter,ie+, /ourdes ga,e the initial pa&#ent of P*,000 to Jas#ine, +ho assured her that she +as authori!ed to recei,e the #one&>ean+hile, in the #orning of the said date, Erlie Ra#os, Attorne& 44 of the Philippine 6,erseas E#plo&#ent Agenc& (P6EA$, recei,ed a telephone call fro# an unidentified +o#an inAuiring about the legiti#ac& of the recruit#ent conducted b& a certain >rs- "arol 7igueroa- Ra#os, +hose duties include the sur,eillance of suspected illegal recruiters, i##ediatel& contacted a friend, a certain >a&eth 9ellotindos, so the& could both go the place +here the recruit#ent +as reportedl& being undertaken. 8pon arri,ing at the reported area at around BG00 p-#-, 9ellotindos entered the house and pretended to be an applicant- Ra#os re#ained outside and stood on the pa,e#ent, fro# +here he +as able to see around siH ('$

persons in the sala- Ra#os e,en heard a +o#an, identified as "arol 7igueroa, talk about the possible e#plo&#ent she has to pro,ide in 3ingapore and the docu#ents that the applicants ha,e toco#pl& +ith- 7ifteen (%($ #inutes later, 9ellotindos ca#e out +ith a bio-data for# in hand2hereafter, Ra#os conferred +ith a certain "apt- >endo!a of the "ri#inal 4n,estigation 3er,ice ("43$ to organi!e the arrest of the alleged illegal recruiterRaid +as eHecuted"onseAuentl&, "arol +as charged and con,icted b& the trial court ofillegal recruit#ent8pon appeal, accused Auestions her con,iction for illegal recruit#ent inlarge scale and assails, as +ell, the constitutionalit& of the la+ defining andpenali!ing said cri#eFirst, accused sub#its that Article %C (b$ of the /abor "ode defining Qrecruit#ent and place#entN is ,oid for ,agueness and, thus, ,iolates the due process clause2he pro,ision in Auestion readsG AR%* +-* Definitions*I(a$ H H H(b$ QRecruit#ent and place#entN refers to an& act of can,assing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utili!ing, hiring or procuring +orkers, and includes referrals, contract ser,ices, pro#ising or ad,ertising for e#plo&#ent, locall& or abroad, +hether for profit or notG 5rovided( %2at any person or entity w2ic2( in any manner( offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons s2allbe deemed engaged in recruitment and placement*

ISS$&S: 9+: =hether or not sec- %C (b$ of P- - BB*, as a#ended, other+ise kno+n as the illegal recruit#ent la+ is unconstitutional as it ,iolates the due process clause93: =hether or not accused +as denied eAual protection and therefore should be eHculpated H&!D: 9+: For t2e First issue( dela 5iedra submits t2at Article +9b: of t2e !abor 4ode defining ;recruitment and placement< is void for vagueness and( t2us( violates t2e due process clause* ue process reAuires that the ter#s of a penal statute #ust be sufficientl& eHplicit to infor# those +ho are subject to it +hat conduct on their part +ill render the# liable to its penalties4n support of her sub#ission, dela Piedra in,okes People ,sPanis, +here the 3upre#e "ourt Qcritici!edN the definition of Qrecruit#ent and place#ent-N 2he "ourt ruled, ho+e,er, that her reliance on the said case +as #isplaced2he issue in Panis +as +hether, under the pro,iso of Article %C (b$, the

cri#e of illegal recruit#ent could be co##itted onl& Q+hene,er t+o or #ore persons are in an& #anner pro#ised or offered an& e#plo&#ent for a fee-N 4n this case, the "ourt #erel& be#oaned the lack of records that +ould help shed light on the #eaning of the pro,iso- 2he absence of such records not+ithstanding, the "ourt +as able to arri,e at a reasonable interpretation of the pro,iso b& appl&ing principles in cri#inal la+ and dra+ing fro# the language and intent of the la+ itself- 3ection %C (b$, therefore, is not a Qperfectl& ,ague actN +hose obscurit& is e,ident on its face- 4f at all, the pro,iso therein is #erel& couched in i#precise language that +as sal,aged b& proper construction- 4t is not ,oid for ,aguenessDela 5iedra furt2er argues t2at t2e acts t2at constitute ;recruitment and placement< suffer from overbreadt2 since by merely ;referring< a person for employment( a person may be convicted of illegal recruitment* 2hat 3ection %C (b$ enco#passes +hat appellant apparentl& considers as custo#ar& and har#less acts such as Qlabor or e#plo&#ent referralN (QreferringN an applicant, according to appellant, for e#plo&#ent to a prospecti,e e#plo&er$ does not render the la+ o,erbroad- E,identl&, ela Piedra #isapprehends concept of o,erbreadth- A statute #a& be said to be o,erbroad +here it operates to inhibit the eHercise of indi,idual freedo#s affir#ati,el& guaranteed b& the "onstitution, such as the freedo# of speech or religion- A generall& +orded statute, +hen construed to punish conduct

+hich cannot be constitutionall& punished is unconstitutionall& ,ague to the eHtent that it fails to gi,e adeAuate +arning of the boundar& bet+een the constitutionall& per#issible and the constitutionall& i#per#issible applications of the statute93: Anent t2e second issue( Dela 5iedra invo=es t2e e>ual protection clause in 2er defense* 3he points out that although the e,idence purportedl& sho+s that Jas#ine Alejandro handed out application for#s and e,en recei,ed /ourdes >odestoPs pa&#ent, appellant +as the onl& one cri#inall& charged- Alejandro, on the other hand, re#ained scot-free- 7ro# this, she concludes that the prosecution discri#inated against her on grounds of regional origins- Appellant is a "ebuana +hile Alejandro is a Ra#boangueSa, and the alleged cri#e took place in Ra#boanga "it&2he 3upre#e "ourt held that the argu#ent has no #erit2he prosecution of one guilt& person +hile others eAuall& guilt& are not prosecuted, is not, b& itself, a denial of the eAual protection of the la+s- 2he unla+ful ad#inistration b& officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its uneAual application to those +ho are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of eAual protection unless there is sho+n to be present in it an ele#ent of intentional or purposeful discri#ination9ut a discri#inator& purpose is not presu#ed, there #ust be a sho+ing of Qclear and intentional discri#ination-N 4n the case at bar, ela Piedra has failed to sho+ that, in charging her, there +as a Qclear and intentional discri#inationN on the part of the prosecuting officials-

7urther#ore, the presu#ption is that the prosecuting officers regularl& perfor#ed their duties, and this presu#ption can be o,erco#e onl& b& proof to the contrar&, not b& #ere speculation- As said earlier, accused has not presented an& e,idence to o,erco#e this presu#ption- 2he #ere allegation that dela Piedra, a "ebuana, +as charged +ith the co##ission of a cri#e, +hile a Ra#boangueSa, the guilt& part& in appellantPs e&es, +as not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant eAual protection of the la+sBoard of Education v. Earls 2he 3upre#e "ourt eHpanded schoolsF abilit& to conduct drug tests inBoard of Education v. Earls, (C' 8-3- 8** (*00*$- 2he case began +hen the school board in 2ecu#seh, 6klaho#a de,eloped a polic& to test all students in eHtracurricular acti,ities- .igh school student /indsa& Earls and her fa#il&, +ith the legal backing of the A#erican "i,il /iberties 8nion, challenged the polic& as an unla+ful search that ,iolated studentsF right to pri,ac&2he docu#entar& tells the stor& of the case through inter,ie+s +ith the people in,ol,edG the Earls fa#il&, their A"/8 la+&er, #e#bers of the 2ecu#seh 3chool 9oard and their la+&er, and the federal judges +ho heard the case4n a #ajorit& opinion deli,ered b& Justice "larence 2ho#as, the "ourt held that students in eHtracurricular acti,ities had a di#inished eHpectation of pri,ac&, and that the polic& furthered an i#portant interest of the school in pre,enting drug use a#ong students- 2his rationale +as based on the precedent Vernonia School District 47 v. !cton, +hich allo+ed drug testing for athletes- Justice 3tephen 9re&er filed an opinion concurring in the "ourtFs judg#ent-

2he 3tudent Acti,ities rug 2esting Polic& adopted b& the 2ecu#seh, 6klaho#a 3chool istrict (3chool istrict$ reAuires all #iddle and high school students to consent to urinal&sis testing for drugs in order to participate in an& eHtracurricular acti,it&- 2+o 2ecu#seh .igh 3chool students and their parents brought suit, alleging that the polic& ,iolates the 7ourth A#end#ent- 2he istrict "ourt granted the 3chool istrict su##ar& judg#ent- 4n re,ersing, the "ourt of Appeals held that the polic& ,iolated the 7ourth A#end#ent- 2he appellate court concluded that before i#posing a suspicionless drugtesting progra# a school #ust de#onstrate so#e identifiable drug abuse proble# a#ong a sufficient nu#ber of those tested, such that testing that group +ill actuall& redress its drug proble#, +hich the 3chool istrict had failed to de#onstrateSocial Justic Soci ty v. Dang rous Drugs Board! G.". No. #$%&%' (and ot) r consolidat d * titions+! Nov ,b r -! .''&

D&4ISION 9&n ?anc:

&!AS4O( J.:

I*

%H& FA4%S

2hese consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionalit& of 3ec- C' of R-A- )%'(, the "o#prehensive Dangerous Drugs !ct of $%%$, insofar as it reAuires #andator& drug testing of (%$

candidates for public office0 (*$ students of secondar& and tertiar& schools0 (C$ officers and e#plo&ees of public and pri,ate offices0 and (B$ persons charged before the prosecutorPs office of a cri#e +ith an i#posable penalt& of i#prison#ent of not less than ' &ears and % da&-

drug test as contained in the co#pan&Fs +ork rules and regulations, H H H for purposes of reducing the risk in the +orkplace- An& officer or e#plo&ee found positi,e for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt +ith ad#inistrati,el& +hich shall be a ground for suspension or ter#ination, subject to the pro,isions of Article *8* of the /abor "ode and pertinent pro,isions of the "i,il 3er,ice /a+0

2he challenged section readsG HHH 3E"- C'- !uthori&ed Drug 'esting- Authori!ed drug testing shall be done b& an& go,ern#ent forensic laboratories or b& an& of the drug testing laboratories accredited and #onitored b& the 6. to safeguard the Aualit& of the test results- H H H 2he drug testing shall e#plo&, a#ong others, t+o (*$ testing #ethods, the screening test +hich +ill deter#ine the positi,e result as +ell as the t&pe of drug used and the confir#ator& test +hich +ill confir# a positi,e screening test- H H H 2he follo+ing shall be subjected to undergo drug testingG HHH HHH

(f$ All persons charged before the prosecutorFs office +ith a cri#inal offense ha,ing an i#posable penalt& of i#prison#ent of not less than siH ('$ &ears and one (%$ da& shall undergo a #andator& drug test0

(g$ All candidates for public office +hether appointed or elected both in the national or local go,ern#ent shall undergo a #andator& drug test-

HHH

HHH

HHH 3ec- C'(g$ is i#ple#ented b& "6>E/E" Resolution 5o- 'B8'-

(c$ 3tudents of secondar& and tertiar& schools- 3tudents of secondar& and tertiar& schools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the schoolFs student handbook and +ith notice to the parents, undergo a rando# drug testing H H H0

II*

%H& ISS$&S

(d$ 6fficers and e#plo&ees of public and pri,ate offices6fficers and e#plo&ees of public and pri,ate offices, +hether do#estic or o,erseas, shall be subjected to undergo a rando#

%o 3ec- C'(g$ of RA )%'( and "6>E/E" Resolution 5o'B8' i#pose an additional Aualification for candidates for senatorT "orollaril&, can "ongress enact a la+ prescribing

Aualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid do+n b& the "onstitutionT

*- Are paragraphs (c$, (d$, and (f$ of 3ec- C', RA )%'( unconstitutionalT

for senator needs onl& to #eet the Aualifications laid do+n in 3ec- C, Art- ;4 of the "onstitution, to +itG (%$ citi!enship, (*$ ,oter registration, (C$ literac&, (B$ age, and (($ residenc&9e&ond these stated Aualification reAuire#ents, candidates for senator need not possess an& other Aualification to run for senator and be ,oted upon and elected as #e#ber of the 3enate- 2he "ongress cannot ,alidl& a#end or other+ise #odif& these Aualification standards, as it cannot disregard, e,ade, or +eaken the force of a constitutional #andate, or alter or enlarge the "onstitution-

III* %H& R$!IN# Pi#entelPs contention is +ell-taken- Accordingl&, 3ec- C'(g$ of RA )%'( should be, as it is hereb& declared as, unconstitutional-

('he "ourt G"AN/ED the petition in ).*. +o. ,-,-./ and declared Sec. 0-1g2 of *! 3,-. and "45ELE" *esolution +o. -4/- as 0NCONS/I/0/IONAL. 6t also1A"/IALL2 G"AN/ED the petition in ).*. +os. ,.7/7% and ,./-00 78 declaring Sec. 0-1c2 and 1d2 of *! 3,-. CONS/I/0/IONAL, 7ut declaring its Sec. 0-1f20NCONS/I/0/IONAL. 'he "ourt thus per#anentl8 en9oined all the concerned agencies fro# i#ple#enting Sec. 0-1f2 and 1g2 of *! 3,-..:

#. 2ES! S c. -3(g+ of "A 4#3$ and COMELEC " solution No. 35&3 i,*os an additional 6ualification for candidat s for s nator7 NO! Congr ss CANNO/ nact a la8 *r scribing 6ualifications for candidat s for s nator in addition to t)os laid do8n by t) Constitution.

4n essence, Pi#entel clai#s that 3ec- C'(g$ of RA )%'( and "6>E/E" Resolution 5o- 'B8' illegall& i#pose an additional Aualification on candidates for senator- .e points out that, subject to the pro,isions on nuisance candidates, a candidate

3ec- C'(g$ of RA )%'(, as sought to be i#ple#ented b& the assailed "6>E/E" resolution, effecti,el& enlarges the Aualification reAuire#ents enu#erated in the 3ec- C, Art- ;4 of the "onstitution- As couched, said 3ec- C'(g$ un#istakabl& reAuires a candidate for senator to be certified illegal-drug clean, ob,iousl& as a pre-condition to the ,alidit& of a certificate of candidac& for senator or, +ith like effect, a condition sine ;ua non to be ,oted upon and, if proper, be proclai#ed as senator-elect- 2he "6>E/E" resolution co#pletes the chain +ith the pro,iso that QJnKo person elected to an& public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone #andator& drug test-N ;ie+ed, therefore, in its proper conteHt, 3ec- C'(g$ of RA )%'( and the i#ple#enting "6>E/E" Resolution add another Aualification la&er to +hat the %)87 "onstitution, at the #ini#u#, reAuires for #e#bership in the 3enate- =hether or not the drug-free bar set up under the challenged pro,ision is to be hurdled before or after election is reall& of no #o#ent, as getting

elected +ould be of little ,alue if one cannot assu#e office for non-co#pliance +ith the drug-testing reAuire#ent-

reAuire, as a condition for ad#ission, co#pliance +ith reasonable school rules and regulations and policies- 2o be sure, the right to enrol is not absolute0 it is subject to fair, reasonable, and eAuitable reAuire#ents-

.. NO! *aragra*)s (c+ and (d+ of S c. -3! "A 4#3$ ar NO/ 0NCONS/I/0/IONAL7 2ES! *aragra*)s (f+ t) r of is 0NCONS/I/0/IONAL.

As to *aragra*) (d+! cov ring offic rs and ,*loy *ublic and *rivat offic s

s of

As to *aragra*) (c+! cov ring stud nts of s condary and t rtiary sc)ools

"iting the 8-3- cases of 9 rnonia Sc)ool District 5%J v. Acton and Board of Education of Ind * nd nt Sc)ool District No. 4. of 1otta8ato,i County( t al. v. Earls( t al., the "ourt deduced and applied the follo+ing principlesG (%$ schools and their ad#inistrators stand in loco parentis +ith respect to their students0 (*$ #inor students ha,e conteHtuall& fe+er rights than an adult, and are subject to the custod& and super,ision of their parents, guardians, and schools0 (C$ schools, acting in loco parentis, ha,e a dut& to safeguard the health and +ell-being of their students and #a& adopt such #easures as #a& reasonabl& be necessar& to discharge such dut&0 and (B$ schools ha,e the right to i#pose conditions on applicants for ad#ission that are fair, just, and nondiscri#inator&-

As the +arrantless clause of 3ec- *, Art 444 of the "onstitution is couched and as has been held, QreasonablenessN is the touchstone of the ,alidit& of a go,ern#ent search or intrusion- And +hether a search at issue he+s to the reasonableness standard is judged b& the balancing of the go,ern#ent-#andated intrusion on the indi,idualFs pri,ac& interest against the pro#otion of so#e co#pelling state interest- 4n the cri#inal conteHt, reasonableness reAuires sho+ing of probable cause to be personall& deter#ined b& a judge- ?i,en that the drug-testing polic& for e#plo&eesIand students for that #atterIunder RA )%'( is in the nature of ad#inistrati,e search needing +hat +as referred to in Vernonia as Qs+ift and infor#al disciplinar& procedures,N the probable-cause standard is not reAuired or e,en practicable9e that as it #a&, the re,ie+ should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged ad#inistrati,e search in Auestion-

?uided b& Vernonia, supra, and Board of Education, supra, the "ourt is of the ,ie+ and so holds that the pro,isions of RA )%'( reAuiring #andator&, rando#, and suspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional4ndeed, it is +ithin the prerogati,e of educational institutions to

2he first factor to consider in the #atter of reasonableness is the nature of the pri,ac& interest upon +hich the drug testing, +hich effects a search +ithin the #eaning of 3ec- *, Art- 444 of the "onstitution, intrudes- 4n this case, the office or +orkplace ser,es as the backdrop for the anal&sis of the pri,ac& eHpectation of the e#plo&ees and the reasonableness of drug

testing reAuire#ent- 2he e#plo&eesF pri,ac& interest in an office is to a large eHtent circu#scribed b& the co#pan&Fs +ork policies, the collecti,e bargaining agree#ent, if an&, entered into b& #anage#ent and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the e#plo&er to #aintain discipline and efficienc& in the +orkplace- 2heir pri,ac& eHpectation in a regulated office en,iron#ent is, in fine, reduced0 and a degree of i#pinge#ent upon such pri,ac& has been upheld-

Just as defining as the first factor is the character of the intrusion authori!ed b& the challenged la+- Reduced to a Auestion for#, is the scope of the search or intrusion clearl& set forth, or, as for#ulated in 4ple v. 'orres, is the enabling la+ authori!ing a search 1narro+l& dra+n1 or 1narro+l& focused1T

2he poser should be ans+ered in the affir#ati,e- 7or one, 3ec- C' of RA )%'( and its i#ple#enting rules and regulations (4RR$, as couched, contain pro,isions specificall& directed to+ards pre,enting a situation that +ould undul& e#barrass the e#plo&ees or place the# under a hu#iliating eHperience- =hile e,er& officer and e#plo&ee in a pri,ate establish#ent is under the la+ dee#ed fore+arned that he or she #a& be a possible subject of a drug test, nobod& is reall& singled out in ad,ance for drug testing- 2he goal is to discourage drug use b& not telling in ad,ance an&one +hen and +ho is to be tested- And as #a& be obser,ed, 3ec- C'(d$ of RA )%'( itself prescribes +hat, in 4ple, is a narro+ing ingredient b& pro,iding that the e#plo&ees concerned shall be subjected to Qrando# drug test as contained in the co#pan&Ps +ork rules and regulations H H H for purposes of reducing the risk in the +ork place-N

7or another, the rando# drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions calculated to protect as #uch as possible the e#plo&eeFs pri,ac& and dignit&- As to the #echanics of the test, the la+ specifies that the procedure shall e#plo& t+o testing #ethods, i-e-, the screening test and the confir#ator& test, doubtless to ensure as #uch as possible the trust+orthiness of the results- 9ut the #ore i#portant consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted b& trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories #onitored b& the epart#ent of .ealth ( 6.$ to safeguard against results ta#pering and to ensure an accurate chain of custod&- 4n addition, the 4RR issued b& the 6. pro,ides that access to the drug results shall be on the Qneed to kno+N basis0 that the Qdrug test result and the records shall be JkeptK confidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the confidentialit& of the test results-N 5otabl&, RA )%'( does not oblige the e#plo&er concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies an& infor#ation or e,idence relating to the ,iolation of the "o#prehensive Dangerous Drugs !ct recei,ed as a result of the operation of the drug testing- All told, therefore, the intrusion into the e#plo&eesP pri,ac&, under RA )%'(, is acco#panied b& proper safeguards, particularl& against e#barrassing leakages of test results, and is relati,el& #ini#al-

2aking into account the foregoing factors, i-e-, the reduced eHpectation of pri,ac& on the part of the e#plo&ees, the co#pelling state concern likel& to be #et b& the search, and the +ell-defined li#its set forth in the la+ to properl& guide authorities in the conduct of the rando# testing, +e hold that the challenged drug test reAuire#ent is, under the li#ited conteHt of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional-

/ike their counterparts in the pri,ate sector, go,ern#ent officials and e#plo&ees also labor under reasonable super,ision and restrictions i#posed b& the "i,il 3er,ice la+ and other la+s on public officers, all enacted to pro#ote a high standard of ethics in the public ser,ice- And if RA )%'( passes the nor# of reasonableness for pri,ate e#plo&ees, the #ore reason that it should pass the test for ci,il ser,ants, +ho, b& constitutional co##and, are reAuired to be accountable at all ti#es to the people and to ser,e the# +ith ut#ost responsibilit& and efficienc&-

As to *aragra*) (f+! cov ring * rsons c)arg d b for t) *ros cutor:s offic 8it) a cri, 8it) an i,*osabl * nalty of i,*rison, nt of not l ss t)an 3 y ars and # day

8nlike the situation co,ered b& 3ec- C'(c$ and (d$ of RA )%'(, the "ourt finds no ,alid justification for #andator& drug testing for persons accused of cri#es- 4n the case of students, the constitutional ,iabilit& of the #andator&, rando#, and suspicionless drug testing for students e#anates pri#aril& fro# the +ai,er b& the students of their right to pri,ac& +hen the& seek entr& to the school, and fro# their ,oluntaril& sub#itting their persons to the parental authorit& of school authorities- 4n the case of pri,ate and public e#plo&ees, the constitutional soundness of the #andator&, rando#, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds fro# the reasonableness of the drug test polic& and reAuire#ent-

2he operati,e concepts in the #andator& drug testing are Qrando#nessN and Qsuspicionless-N 4n the case of persons charged +ith a cri#e before the prosecutorFs office, a #andator& drug testing can ne,er be rando# or suspicionless- 2he ideas of rando#ness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being #ade defendants in a cri#inal co#plaint- 2he& are not rando#l& picked0 neither are the& be&ond suspicion- =hen persons suspected of co##itting a cri#e are charged, the& are singled out and are i#pleaded against their +ill- 2he persons thus charged, b& the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutorPs office and peaceabl& sub#itting the#sel,es to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessaril& consent to the procedure, let alone +ai,e their right to pri,ac&- 2o i#pose #andator& drug testing on the accused is a blatant atte#pt to harness a #edical test as a tool for cri#inal prosecution, contrar& to the stated objecti,es of RA )%'(- rug testing in this case +ould ,iolate a personPs right to pri,ac& guaranteed under 3ec- *, Art- 444 of the "onstitution- =orse still, the accused persons are ,eritabl& forced to incri#inate the#sel,esGla;o vs. < lco,, FA4%S: 2ecson +as hired b& ?laHo as a #edical representati,e on 6ct- *B, %))(- "ontract of e#plo&#ent signed b& 2ecson stipulates, a#ong others, that he agrees to stud& and abide b& the eHisting co#pan& rules0 to disclose to #anage#ent an& eHisting future relationship b& consanguinit& or affinit& +ith coe#plo&ees or e#plo&ees +ith co#peting drug co#panies and should #anage#ent find that such relationship poses a prossible conflict of interest, to resign fro# the co#pan&"o#pan&Fs "ode of E#plo&ee "onduct pro,ides the sa#e +ith stipulation that #anage#ent #a& transfer the e#plo&ee to another depart#ent in a non-counterchecking position or preparation for e#plo&#ent outside of the co#pan&

=e find the situation entirel& different in the case of persons charged before the public prosecutorFs office +ith cri#inal offenses punishable +ith ' &ears and % da& i#prison#ent-

after ' #onths2ecson +as initiall& assigned to #arket ?laHoFs products in the "a#arines 3ur-"a#arines 5orte area and entered into aro#antic relationship +ith 9ets&, an e#plo&ee of Astra, ?laHoFs co#petition- 9efore getting #arried, 2ecsonFs istrict >anager re#inded hi# se,eral ti#es of the conflict of interest but #arriage took place in 3ept- %))8- 4n Jan- %))), 2ecsonFs superiors infor#ed hi# of conflict of intrest- 2ecson asked for ti#e to co#pl& +ith the condition (that either he or 9ets& resign fro# their respecti,e positions$- 8nable to co#pl& +ith condition, ?laHo transferred 2ecson to the 9utuan3urigao "it&-Agusan del 3ur sales area- After his reAuest against transfer +as denied, 2ecson brought the #atter to ?laHoFs ?rie,ance "o##ittee and +hile pending, he continued to act as #edical representati,e in the "a#arines 3ur-"a#arines 5orte sales area- 6n 5o,- %(, *000, the 5ational "onciliation and >ediation 9oard ruled that ?laHoFs polic& +as ,alid--ISS$&: =hether or not the polic& of a phar#aceutical co#pan& prohibiting its e#plo&ees fro# #arr&ing e#plo&ees of an& co#petitor co#pan& is ,alid R$!IN#:

against pesonal or #arital relationships +ith e#plo&ees of co#petitor co#panies upon ?laHoFs e#plo&ees is reasonable under the circu#stances because relationships of that nature #ight co#pro#ise the interests of the co#pan&- 2hat ?laHo possesses the right to protect its econo#ic interest cannot be denied4t is the settled principle that the co##ands of the eAual protection clause are addressed onl& to the state or those acting under color of its authorit&- "orollaril&, it has been held in a long arra& of 83 3upre#e "ourt decisions that the eAual protection clause erects to shield against #erel& pri,atel& conduct, ho+e,er, discri#inator& or +rongful2he co#pan& actuall& enforced the polic& after repeated reAuests to the e#plo&ee to co#pl& +ith the polic&- 4ndeed the application of the polic& +as #ade in an i#partial and e,enhanded #anner, +ith due regard for the lot of the e#plo&eeGu,abon vs. Dir ctor of 1risons E;ual Protection< = >ernande& Doctrine ?u#abon et al +ere charged for rebellion punished under Art %CB of the RP"- 2heir offense +as co#pleHed +ith #ultiple #urder, robber&, arson, and kidnapping- 2he& +ere all sentenced to reclusion perpetua- 2heir sentence had beco#e final and eHecutor& +hen the .ernande! octrine +as pro#ulgated b& the 3"- .ernande! octrine si#pl& states that #urder cannot be co#pleHed to rebellion as it is necessaril& absorbed therein- .ence, +ithout such co#pleHion the penalt& #ust be lo+er than reclusion perpetua- ?u#abon precisel& assert a depri,ation of a constitutional right, na#el&, the denial of eAual protection- 2he petitioners +ere con,icted b& "74 for the ,er& sa#e rebellion for +hich .ernande! and others +ere con,icted- 2he la+ under +hich the& +ere con,icted is the ,er& sa#e la+ under +hich the latter +ere con,icted- 4t had

6n EAual Protection

?laHo has a right to guard its trade secrets, #anufacturing for#ulas, #arketing strategies, and other confidential progra#s and infor#ation fro# co#petitors- 2he prohibition

not and has not been changed- 7or the sa#e cri#e, co##itted under the sa#e la+, ho+ can the 3", in conscience, allo+ petitioners to suffer life i#prison#ent, +hile others can suffer onl& prision #a&orT ISS$&: =hether or not ?u#abon et al is entitled to the effects of the .ernande! octrineH&!D: 2he 3" ruled in fa,or of ?u#abon et al- 2he continued incarceration after the t+el,e-&ear period +hen such is the #aHi#u# length of i#prison#ent in accordance +ith the controlling doctrine, +hen others si#ilarl& con,icted ha,e been freed, is fraught +ith i#plications at +ar +ith eAual protection2hat is not to gi,e it life- 6n the contrar&, it +ould render it nugator&- 6ther+ise, +hat +ould happen is that for an identical offense, the onl& distinction l&ing in the finalit& of the con,iction of one being before the .ernande! ruling and the other after, a person dul& sentenced for the sa#e cri#e +ould be #ade to suffer different penalties- 4f ?u#abon et al +ould continue to endure i#prison#ent, then this +ould be repugnant to eAual protection, people si#ilarl& situated +ere not si#ilarl& dealt +ith=hat is reAuired under this constitutional guarantee is the unifor# operation of legal nor#s so that all persons under si#ilar circu#stances +ould be accorded the sa#e treat#ent both in the pri,ileges conferred and the liabilities i#posed- As +as noted in a recent decisionG 7a,oritis# and undue preference cannot be allo+ed- 7or the principle is that eAual protection and securit& shall be gi,en to e,er& person under circu#stances, +hich if not identical are analogous- 4f la+ be looked upon in ter#s of burden or charges, those that fall +ithin a class should be treated in the sa#e fashion, +hate,er restrictions cast on so#e in the group eAuall& binding on the rest@u 4ong &ng v* %rinidad

7 June %)*' U 2aft U "ertiorari to the 3upre#e "ourt of the Philippine 4slands

7acts Act 5o- *)7* (An act to pro,ide in +hat languages account books shall be kept, and to establish penalties for its ,iolation$, also kno+n as the Q"hinese 9ookkeeping Act,N +as passed b& the Philippine /egislature and appro,ed in %)*%- 4t pro,idesG

3ection %- 4t shall be unla+ful for an& person, co#pan&, or partnership or corporation engaged in co##erce, industr& or an& other acti,it& for the purpose of profit in the Philippine 4slands, in accordance +ith eHisting la+, to keep its account books in an& language other than English, 3panish, or an& local dialect3ection *- An& person ,iolating the pro,isions of this act shall, upon con,iction, be punished b& a fine of not #ore than ten thousand pesos, or b& i#prison#ent for not #ore than t+o &ears, or both-

<u "ong Eng, a "hinese #erchant, keeps the books of account of his lu#ber business in "hinese, as he cannot read, +rite nor understand English, 3panish, or an& local dialect- .e +as arrested for ,iolating Act 5o- *)7*, and his books +ere sei!ed-

2rial +as about to proceed +hen <u "ong Eng and another petitioner "o /ia# (on behalf of all other "hinese #erchants in the Philippines$ filed a petition against the fiscal, the collector of internal re,enue, and the presiding judge-

8nder the treat& in force bet+een 83 and "hina, petitioners are entitled to the sa#e rights, pri,ileges, and i##unities as the citi!ens and subjects of ?reat 9ritain and 3pain-

B8 the respondent

Argu#ents

2he la+ is ,alid and necessar&, and it is onl& the eHercise of proper legislati,e po+er- ue to the inabilit& of internal re,enue officials to check the books of the "hinese #erchants, the treasur& loses large su#s of #one& corresponding to taHes-

Pronounce#ents of the Philippine "ourt

B8 the petitioner

E,en if he +ould e#plo& a bookkeeper +ho could keep his books in English or 3panish, he +ould ha,e no #eans of ,erif&ing the correctness of the books- 4f he +ould e#plo& a translator or interpreter, he #ight be at the #erc& of his e#plo&ees if the& #ight cheat and defraud hi#- According to the Act, he is prohibited fro# e,en keeping a duplicate set of accounts in his o+n language and he +ill be co#pelled to re#ain in total ignorance of the status of his business2he enforce#ent of the Act +ould dri,e se,eral "hinese #erchants out of business (2he& do '0V of the business in the countr&$2he enforce#ent of the Act +ould depri,e the "hinese #erchants of their libert& and propert& +ithout due process of la+, and den& the# the eAual protection of the la+s-

A literal translation of the Act #akes it unla+ful for an& "hinese #erchant to keep his account books in languages other than those listed Another interpretation of the Act is that the "hinese #erchant #a& keep his account books in "hinese, but he has to keep another set of books in the prescribed languages A third construction is that the la+ onl& intended to reAuire the keeping of such books to facilitate go,ern#ental inspection of the sa#e for taH purposes.o+e,er, the la+ does not specif& +hat kinds of books shall be kept2he Act is not unconstitutional under the "ourtPs construction of the la+- A literal interpretation +ould render it unconstitutional, so the "ourt #ade a reasonable construction to preser,e the la+-

A +rit of certiorari +as filed before the 8-3- 3upre#e "ourt to re,ie+ the Philippine 3upre#e "ourtPs decision den&ing an original petition for prohibition against the enforce#ent of cri#inal prosecution of Act 5o- *)7*, on the ground of its in,alidit&4ssues

to #ake a la+ confor# to a constitutional li#itation, cannot be sustained-

Q4t +ould certainl& be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and lea,e it to the courts to step inside and sa& +ho could be rightfull& detained and +ho should be set at large- 2his +ould, to so#e eHtent, substitute the judicial for the legislati,e depart#ent of the go,ern#ent-N (@S v. *eese$

=65 the P. 3" #ade a ,alid construction of Act 5o*)7*- 56 =65 Act 5o- *)7* is unconstitutional- <E3 4ssue W * ?4+ !ct +o. $37$ is unconstitutional. AES

4ssue W % ?4+ the P> S" #ade a valid construction of !ct +o. $37$. +4 2he la+ is in,alid because it depri,es "hinese persons of their libert& and propert& +ithout due process of la+, and denies the# the eAual protection of the la+s-

4t is the dut& of a court in considering the ,alidit& of an act to gi,e it such reasonable construction as can be reached to bring it +ithin the funda#ental la+- .o+e,er, a court #a& not eHercise legislati,e functions to sa,e the la+ fro# conflict +ith constitutional li#itation-

?uarantees eAui,alent to the due process and eAual protection clauses of the %Bth A#end#ent +ere eHtended to the P.0 hence, said guarantees are to be interpreted as #eaning +hat the pro,isions #eant at the ti#e +hen "ongress #ade the# applicable to the P.- (Serra v. 5ortiga, citing Bepner v. @S$

=hat the court did +as to change a penal prohibiti,e la+ to a #andator& la+ of great indefiniteness to confor# to +hat the court assu#es +as, or ought to ha,e been, the purpose of the legislature, and +hich in the change +ould a,oid a conflict +ith constitutional restriction- 3uch strained construction, in order

P. go,ern#ent #a& #ake e,er& reasonable reAuire#ent of its taHpa&ers to keep records of their transactions- .o+e,er, it is 562 +ithin the police po+er of the legislature to prohibit

"hinese #erchants fro# #aintaining a set of books in "hinese-

"onstitutional Law = 'reaties 5a8 Be Superseded 78 5unicipal Laws in the ECercise of Police Power /ao 4chong is a "hinese business#an +ho entered the countr& to take ad,antage of business opportunities herein abound (then$ X particularl& in the retail business- 7or so#e ti#e he and his fello+ "hinese business#en enjo&ed a Q#onopol&N in the local #arket in Pasa&- 8ntil in June %)(B +hen "ongress passed the RA %%80 or the Retail 2rade 5ationali!ation Act the purpose of +hich is to reser,e to 7ilipinos the right to engage in the retail business- 4chong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contra,ened se,eral treaties concluded b& the RP +hich, according to hi#, ,iolates the eAual protection clause (pacta sund ser,anda$- .e said that as a "hinese business#an engaged in the business here in the countr& +ho helps in the inco#e generation of the countr& he should be gi,en eAual opportunit&ISS$&: =hether or not a la+ #a& in,alidate or supersede treaties or generall& accepted principlesH&!D: <es, a la+ #a& supersede a treat& or a generall& accepted principle- 4n this case, there is no conflict at all bet+een the raised generall& accepted principle and +ith RA %%80- 2he eAual protection of the la+ clause Qdoes not de#and absolute eAualit& a#ongst residents0 it #erel& reAuires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circu#stances and conditions both as to pri,ileges conferred and liabilities enforcedN0 and, that the eAual protection clause Qis not infringed b& legislation +hich applies onl& to those persons falling +ithin a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons +ithin such class, and reasonable grounds eHist for #aking a distinction bet+een those +ho fall +ithin such class and those +ho do not-N

2o justif& the state in interposing its authorit& in behalf of the public, %$ the interests of the publicreAuire such interference and *$ the #eans are necessar& for the acco#plish#ent of the purpose, and not oppressi,e upon indi,iduals- 2he deter#ination as to +hat is a proper eHercise of the legislaturePs police po+er is subject to the courtsP super,ision- (Lawton v. Steel$

=e are likel& thus to trespass on the pro,ision of the 9ill of Rights that the accused is entitled to de#and the nature and cause of the accusation against hi#, and to ,iolate the principle that a statute +hich reAuires the doing of an act so indefinitel& described that #en #ust guess at its #eaning,iolates due process of la+-

Act 5o- *)7* depri,es the "hinese #erchants of so#ething indispensable to the carr&ing on of their business, and is ob,iousl& intended to affect the# (as distinguished fro# the rest of the co##unit&$ is a denial of the eAual protection of the la+s-

)$D#1&N% R& &RS&D* A4% NO* 3.63 IS IN A!ID* Ic)ong vs. = rnand >

7or the sake of argu#ent, e,en if it +ould be assu#ed that a treat& +ould be in conflict +ith a statute then the statute #ust be upheld because it represented an eHercise of the police po+er +hich, being inherent could not be bargained a+a& or surrendered through the #ediu# of a treat&- .ence, 4chong can no longer assert his right to operate his #arket stalls in the Pasa& cit& #arketSu,,ary of Bro8n v. Board of Education of /o* ?a! -5% 0.S. 5&-! 7B 3- "t- '8', )8 /- Ed- 87C (%)(B$Facts 2his case is a consolidation of se,eral different cases fro# @ansas, 3outh "arolina, ;irginia, and ela+are- 3e,eral black children (through their legal representati,es, Ps$ sought ad#ission to public schools that reAuired or per#itted segregation based on race- 2he plaintiffs alleged that segregation +as unconstitutional under the EAual Protection "lause of the 7ourteenth A#end#ent4n all but one case, a three judge federal district court cited 1l ssy v. @ rguson in den&ing relief under the Qseparate but eAualN doctrine- 6n appeal to the 3upre#e "ourt, the plaintiffs contended that segregated schools +ere not and could not be #ade eAual and that the& +ere therefore depri,ed of eAual protection of the la+sIssue

Protection "lause of the 7ourteenth A#end#ent and is unconstitutional3egregation of children in the public schools solel& on the basis of race denies to black children the eAual protection of the la+s guaranteed b& the 7ourteenth A#end#ent, e,en though the ph&sical facilities and other #a& be eAualEducation in public schools is a right +hich #ust be #ade a,ailable to all on eAual ter#s2he Auestion presented in these cases #ust be deter#ined not on the basis of conditions eHisting +hen the 7ourteenth A#end#ent +as adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in A#erican life toda&- 2he separate but eAual doctrine adopted in Pless& ,- 7erguson, +hich applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education3eparating black children fro# others solel& because of their race generates a feeling of inferiorit& as to their status in the co##unit& that #a& affect their hearts and #inds in a +a& unlikel& e,er to be undone- 2he i#pact of segregation is greater +hen it has the sanction of la+- A sense of inferiorit& affects the #oti,ation of a child to learn- 3egregation +ith the sanction of la+ tends to i#pede the educational and #ental de,elop#ent of black children and depri,es the# of so#e of the benefits the& +ould recei,e in an integrated school s&ste#=hate,er #a& ha,e been the eHtent of ps&chological kno+ledge at the ti#e of Pless& ,- 7erguson, this finding is a#pl& supported b& #odern authorit& and an& language to the contrar& in Pless& ,- 7erguson is rejectedDisposition Judg#ent for the plaintiffsBrad8 ll vs. Illinois

4s the race-based segregation of children into Qseparate but eAualN public schools constitutionalT

Holding and Rule 9Aarren:

5o- 2he race-based segregation of children into Qseparate but eAualN public schools ,iolates the EAual

?rief Fact Summary* >rs- >&ra 9rad+ell brought suit challenging 4llinois denial of her right to practice la+ under the 7ourteenth A#end#ent to the 8nited 3tates "onstitutionSynopsis of Rule of !aw* 3eparate spheres ideolog& allo+ed 4llinois to prohibit +o#en fro# practicing la+- =o#enPs ad#ission to the bar is not protected b& the 7ourteenth A#end#ent is a #atter reser,ed to the statesFacts* >rs- >&ra 9rad+ell +as denied an application to practice la+ in the 4llinois 3upre#e "ourt- .er petition included the reAuisite certificate attesting to her good character and Aualifications- 2he 8nited 3tates 3upre#e "ourt affir#edIssue* oes the 7ourteenth A#end#ent to the 8nited 3tates "onstitution pro,ide that one of the pri,ileges and i##unities of +o#en as citi!ens is to engage in an& professionT 6laguer ,- >ilitar& "o##ission
Habeas Corpus In 1979, Olaguer and some others were detained by military personnel and they were placed in Camp Bagong Diwa. Logauer and his group are all ci ilians. !hey were charged with "1# unlaw$ul possession o$ e%plosi es and incendiary de ices& "'# conspiracy to assassinate (resident and )rs. )arcos& "*# conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members +uan (once ,nrile, -rancisco !atad and .icente (aterno& "/# conspiracy to assassinate )essrs. 0rturo !angco, +ose 1o2o and Ono$re Corpus& "3# arson o$ nine buildings& "4# attempted murder o$ )essrs. Leonardo (ere5, !eodoro .alencia and 6enerals 1omeo ,spino and -abian .er& and "7# conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion. On 0ugust 19, 1978, the petitioners went to the 9C and $iled the instant (etition $or prohibition and habeas corpus. ISSUE: :hether or not the petition $or habeas corpus be granted.

HELD: !he petition $or habeas corpus has become moot and academic because by the time the case reached the 9C Olaguer and his companions were already released $rom military con$inement. ;:hen the release o$ the persons in whose behal$ the application $or a writ o$ habeas corpus was $iled is e$$ected, the (etition $or the issuance o$ the writ becomes moot and academic. 17 Inasmuch as the herein petitioners ha e been released $rom their con$inement in military detention centers, the instant (etitions $or the issuance o$ a writ o$ habeas corpus should be dismissed $or ha ing become moot and academic.< But the military court created to try the case o$ Olaguer "and the decision it rendered# still continues to subsist. ISSUE2: !he issue is then shi$ted to= :hether or not a military tribunal has the >urisdiction to try ci ilians while the ci il courts are open and $unctioning. HELD: !he 9C nulli$ied $or lac? o$ >urisdiction all decisions rendered by the military courts or tribunals during the period o$ martial law in all cases in ol ing ci ilian de$endants. 0 military commission or tribunal cannot try and e%ercise >urisdiction, e en during the period o$ martial law, o er ci ilians $or o$$enses allegedly committed by them as long as the ci il courts are open and $unctioning, and that any >udgment rendered by such body relating to a ci ilian is null and oid $or lac? o$ >urisdiction on the part o$ the military tribunal concerned.

Britis) A, rican /obacco (BA/+ v. Ca,ac)o +here the 3upre#e "ourt, in a %C-0 decision, ruled that the classification did not ,iolate the clause on eAual protection, sa&ing that the pro,ision for a classification free!e is not arbitrar&, nor #oti,ated b& a hostile or oppressi,e attitude to fa,or eHisting brands, but introduced to pro,ide stabilit& in the collection of re,enue- 2he "ourt said this +ould i#pro,e the efficienc& and effecti,it& of taH ad#inistration o,er eHcise products as "ongress sought to si#plif& the entire taH s&ste# to close potential +indo+s of abuse and corruption to both the

taHpa&ers (+ho #a& tr& to #anipulate their prices intentionall& or through #arket co#petition$ and the go,ern#ent (+ho #a& periodicall& adjust the taH rate and reclassif& brands in order to achie,e re,enue targets for a particular &ear$4n the sa#e case the "ourt further ruled that the present la+ does not ,iolate the constitutional prohibition on unfair co#petition- 9A2 failed to pro,e that the classification free!e pro,ision pro,ides a substantial barrier to the entr& of ne+ brands in the #arket- 4n fact, there +ere *) ne+ brands introduced in the #arket after the current #ulti-tiered specific taH s&ste# took effect in Januar& %))7- 4f the brands and their #akers are able to co#pete in the #arket despite the eHistence of the price classification free!e, +h& canPt 9A2 and other entrants also respect Philippines la+sT

ISSUE: Whether or not the Schools system of compensation is violative of the principle of equal pay for equal work RULING: Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 135, for example, prohibits and penalizes the payment of lesser compensation to female employees as against a male employee for work of equal value. Art. 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in an labor organization. Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should paid similar salaries. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. If the employer has discriminated against an employee, it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. The employer in this case had failed to do so. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions.

4nternational 3chool ,s- Euisu#bing

FACTS: The private respondent, International School, Inc. pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The school grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded to local hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local hires. The School justifies the difference on two significant economic disadvantages foreign-hires have to endure, namely (a) the dislocation factor and (b) limited tenure. The compensation scheme is simply the Schools adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education. Local hires filed a petition claiming that point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.