FORMALEJO, DUSTIN P.

I.

If it was indeed public funds were used in the printing of the INC commemorative stamp as alleged
by the petitioner Peralta, then it is clear that the act of PhilPost in printing and issuance of the said stamps
violated Section 29(2) of Art. VI of the Constitution, it is provided in this article that, “No public money or
property shall be appropriated , applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion….”. INC is a religious
institution, thus, included in the prohibition of the above-mentioned article.

For the petitioner’s claim that PhilPost act was unconstitutional because the act was tantamount
to sponsorship of a religious activity, the Constitution does not apply, as this pertains to the act made by
the Legislative Department, PhilPost being a GOCC is part of the Executive Department.

Lemon test is applied to determine the constitutionality of laws challenged for violating the non-
establishment clause. There will be no violation of the establishment clause if, first, the statute has a
secular legislative purpose,; second, its principal or primary effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; and third, it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

II.

No, the search conducted on petitioner’s office computer and the copying of his personal files
was lawful and did not violate his constitutional right. In the case at bar the computer involved from which
the personal files of the petitioner were retrieved is a government-issued computer, hence government
property the use of which the CSC has absolute right to regulate and monitor

A scatter shot warrant is a search warrant for more than one specific offense or the caption of the
warrant reflects a violation of two laws, this warrant is totally null and void.

III.

The students cannot be expelled from school. To compel students to take part in the flag
ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious freedom. Their expulsion also
violates the duty of the State under Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution to protect and promote the
right of all citizens to quality education and make such education accessible to all.

Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but
at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality
could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state
interests.
 IV.

No, the filing of another case did not place the accused in double jeopardy because the rule of
identity did not apply. There is no possibility for the accused during the first prosecution, to be convicted
for an offense that was then inexistent.

V.

Yes, the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the
latter's handwriting constitutes evidence against the defendant because no person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself. In the case at bar writing means that the defendant herein is to furnish a
means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier.

VI.

No, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) test to determine whether or not Malandi was pregnant and
to prove and determine the crime of adultery did not violate her right against self-incrimination because
self-incrimination in a criminal case is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimony. An ocular
inspection of the body of Malandi which includes laboratory testing is permissible.

VII.

Yes, there was a violation to the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation because the absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to him the
full facts of the offense, deprived him the full and fair trial and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

VIII.

The ordinance is not a bill of attainder or ex post facto law because the ordinance was related to
professional standards of employment rather than being punitive in nature.