PS 114 CASE DIGEST

1. Oposa Vs. Factoran

G.R. no. 101083 July 30, 1993

Facts:
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient
allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human
Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy),
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the
concept of generational genocide in
Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural
law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation, per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the
people's right to a healthful... environment.
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber
License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent
Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous
allegations... concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the
state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They
then reiterate the theory that... the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political
question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore
assert that the petitioners' recourse is not to file an action in court, but to... lobby before Congress for the passage of a
bill that would ban logging totally.
Issues:
whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine
rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life-support systems and continued rape
of Mother Earth." Ruling:
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in
ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding... generations, file class suit.
Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
expounded,... considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety.
Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal
and... conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as
future... generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of... their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for
the generations to come.
The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition.
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific
legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and
conclusions based on... unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions.
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for
the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II
of the 1987 Constitution... explicitly provides:
"SEC. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature."
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article:
"SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them."
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies
and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights
enumerated in the latter. Such a... right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less
than self-preservation and self-perpetuation -- aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners -- the advancement of which
may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a... matter of fact, these basic rights need not even
be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the... rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and
protect and advance the second, the day... would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present
generation, but also for those to come -- generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life.
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
"SEC. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."[27]... cannot be invoked.
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or
even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-
impairment clause cannot as yet be... invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed
mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment
clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose, such a law could have only been...
passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare.
 2. James M. Imbing Vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa Jr.
G.R. no. 204819 April 8,2014

Facts:
GROUNDS:
The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy
against abortion, the implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-
uterine devices and... injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which
guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that
the RH Law provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes cancer and
other... health problems
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional
guarantee respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives. For the
petitioners, the use of... public funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is included in the
constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom... they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and present
danger test" and the "compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation of the right to free exercise... of religion
and the right to free speech The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary servitude.
the RH Law subjects medical practitioners to involuntary servitude because, to be accredited under the PhilHealth
program, they are compelled to... provide forty-eight (48) hours of pro bono services for indigent women, under threat
of criminal prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of punishment
The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. It is claimed that the RH Law discriminates against the poor
as it makes them the primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive use The RH Law is "void-
for-vagueness" in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.
It is claimed that, by giving absolute authority to the person who will undergo reproductive health procedure, the RH
Law forsakes any real dialogue between the spouses and impedes the right of spouses to mutually decide on matters
pertaining to the overall well-being of their... family. In the same breath, it is also claimed that the parents of a child who
has suffered a miscarriage are deprived of parental authority to determine whether their child should use
contraceptives.
Issues:
Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the controversy.
Whether the RH law is unconstitutional:
Ruling:
Actual Case or Controversy
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial
determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary
measures to carry out the law have... already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable
controversy.
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical practitioners or medical providers are in
danger of being criminally prosecuted under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly public health officers
who are threatened to be dismissed from... the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits. They must, at
least, be heard on the matter NOW.
Locus Standi
After all, the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional provisions on the right to life and... health, the freedom of
religion and expression and other constitutional rights.
the Court entertains no... doubt that the petitions raise issues of transcendental importance warranting
immediate court adjudication. the Court need not wait for a life to be taken... away before taking action.
The Court, thus, agrees with the petitioners' contention that the whole idea of contraception pervades the entire RH
Law. It is, in fact, the central idea of the RH Law.[126] Indeed, remove the provisions that refer to contraception or are
related to it and... the RH Law loses its very foundation
In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law shows that both "reproductive health" and
"responsible parenthood" are interrelated and germane to the overriding objective to control the population growth.
It is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to life.[137] Even if not formally
established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent
upon a particular... law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.
Article III of the Constitution provides:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws
The RH Law and Abortion
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn from
conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion.
A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually proscribes abortion. While the Court
has opted not to make any determination, at this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates
that protection be afforded from... the moment of fertilization.
Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article 256 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes
the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized ovum.
the RH Law is consistent in prohibiting abortifacients... the Court finds that the RH Law, consistent with the Constitution,
recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it
2-The Right to Health
Thus, the Court agrees with the... observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity of the RH Law will not lead to
the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives since the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and
devices will still require the prescription of a licensed physician.
With
R.A. No. 4729 in place, there exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are safe are
made available to the public.
In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide access to medically-safe,
non-abortifacient, effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and
supplies.
As healthful as the intention of the RH Law may be, the idea does not escape the Court that what it seeks to address is
the problem of rising poverty and unemployment in the country.
Be that as it may, it bears reiterating that the RH Law is a mere compilation and enhancement of the prior existing
contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but with coercive measures.
Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to the following
provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Principles:
a facial challenge, also known as a First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity of statutes
concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights in the First Amendment.
the traditional meaning of the word "conception" which, as described and defined by all reliable and reputable sources,
means that life begins at fertilization.
Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a
child inside the womb already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from conception,
that the
State must protect equally with the life of the mother.

3. White Light Corporations Vs. City of Manila

G.R. no. 122846 January 20, 2009

Facts:

Manila Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed an Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses,
pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila.

The City claims that it is a legitimate exercise of police power.

Herein petitioners, assails the validity and constitutionality of the ordinance arguing that it violates the right to privacy
and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive
interference in their business.

The RTC declared the ordinance null and void, thus, the City of Manila elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The CA
reversed the RTC ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not the ordinance is valid.

Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative.

The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an
ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must
not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6)
must not be unreasonable.

The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room
more than twice a day.
The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex,
prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the
police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their achievement.
Those means must a

4. Estrada Vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.

148560 November 19,2001

Facts: On 4 April 2001, an Information for plunder was filed against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Petitioner Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), as
amended by RA 7659, assailed the said law for being unconstitutional. He contends that (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness;

(b) it dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes
already punishable under The Revised Penal Code, all of which are violations of fundamental right of due process.
Issue: Whether or not the crime of plunder is unconstitutional for being vague?
Decision: The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently
definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. The “vagueness” doctrine
merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. A
facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon
protected speech. The theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests
itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally
protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the
attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.” The possible harm to
society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others
may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.

5. Disini Vs. The secretary of justice G.R.

No. 20335 February 11, 2014
FACTS: Petitioners assail the validity of several provision of the Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012.

Petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate
certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put
order into cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the system.

ISSUES:

Are the following provisions valid and constitutional?

a. Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;

b. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;
c. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;
d. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft;
e. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;
f. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
g.Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications;
h. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel;
i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrimes;
j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;
k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175; l. Section 8 on Penalties;
m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;
n. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data;
o. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data;
p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data;
q. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data;
r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;
s. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;
t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and
u. Section 26(a) on CICCs Powers and Functions.

Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC on the crime of
libel.

HELD:

Section 4(a)(1) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(1) provides:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.

Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that interfere with the
fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck down.

The Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the strict scrutiny standard since no
fundamental freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is essentially a condemnable act accessing the
computer system of another without right. It is a universally condemned conduct.

Besides, a clients engagement of an ethical hacker requires an agreement between them as to the extent of the search,
the methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. Since the ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from
the client, such permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).

Hence, valid and constitutional.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(3) provides:

(3) Data Interference. The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data,
electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth in that, while it seeks to discourage data interference, it
intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression, creating a chilling and deterrent effect on these guaranteed
freedoms.

Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not
be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected
freedoms.But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of
vandalism,the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data,
electronic document, or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no
freedom to destroy other peoples computer systems and private documents.

Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under no set of
circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid.Petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.

Hence, valid and constitutional.

Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(a)(6) provides:

(6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy the
reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate
government agency at the time of the domain name registration;
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal
name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-squatting violates the equal protection clausein that, not
being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user using his real name to suffer the same fate as those who use
aliases or take the name of another in satire, parody, or any other literary device.

The law is reasonable in penalizing the offender for acquiring the domain name in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy reputation, or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful opportunity of
registering the same.

Hence, valid and constitutional.

Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 4(b)(3) provides:

b) Computer-related Offenses:

xxxx
 (3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration,
or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right:
Provided: that if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the constitutional rights to due process and to privacy and
correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the press.

6. People of the Philippines Vs. Jerry Sapla Y Guerrero a.k.a Eric Salibad y Mallari G.R.
No. 244045 June 16, 2020

In the morning of 10 January 2014, an unnamed officer at the Regional Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) in Tabuk, Kalinga
received a text message from an informant (concerned citizen) that an individual will be transporting marijuana from
Kalinga to Isabela. PO2 Jim Mabiasan (not the officer who received the text message) then relayed the information to
the deputy commander who coordinated with the PDEA.

About 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, a follow up information via text message was received by the RPSB
this time detailing the description of the drug courier, to wit: male, wearing collared white shirt with green stripes, red
ball cap, and carrying a blue sack; he will be boarding a passenger jeepney bearing plate number AYA 270 bound for
Roxas, Isabela.

Based on this information, a checkpoint was organized by the PNP.

At around 1:20 o’clock, the jeepney arrived. The police officers stopped the jeepney and inside they saw the person
described in the text message they received. They approached said person and asked him if the blue sack in front of him
was his. The person answered yes. The police officers then requested the person to open the blue sack. The person
hesitated but he eventually complied. The content of the blue sack was four bricks of marijuana. The person was later
identified as Jerry Sapla.

In court, Sapla denied the allegations as he claimed that when he boarded the jeep, he did not have any sack with him;
that the blue sack was only attributed as belonging to him by the police. Sapla was convicted by the trial court. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and ruled that the informant’s tip was sufficient to engender probable cause
upon the minds of the police officers; that it was sufficient to conduct a warrantless search and seizure.

ISSUE: Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause?

HELD: No. In a long line of cases (Pp. vs Aminnudin, Pp. vs Cuizon, Pp. vs Encinada, Pp. vs Aruta, Pp. vs Cogaed, Veridiano
vs Pp., Pp. vs Comprado, Pp. vs Yanson, and Pp. vs Gardon-Mentoy), the Supreme Court has always said that a mere
informant’s tip is not sufficient to engender probable cause. The police officer receiving the informant’s tip must rely on
his senses. The police officer must not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. The police officer, with his/her
personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act and not merely rely on the
information passed on to him/her.

Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of a tip. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not
sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.

The Supreme Court noted that there were two previous decisions (Pp. vs Maspil and Pp. vs Bagista) which ruled that a
confidential tip was sufficient to engender probable cause, however, the Supreme Court in this case declared that these
two cases are now being abandoned to settle the issue once and for all.
 The Supreme Court also found the text message to be double hearsay: (1) the person who actually received the text
message was not presented, and (2) the person who received the text message merely relayed it to the officers who
conducted the warrantless search and seizure without the latter actually seeing/reading the actual text message.
Further, the text message was not preserved. It also appeared that the phone which received the text message was not
a government issued one – this belies the claim of the officers that the message was received by their hotline.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as a search of a moving vehicle.

HELD: No. As a rule, searches and seizures must be done with a court issued warrant. There are exceptions such as
search of a moving vehicle where a valid warrantless search and seizure may be effected. But this exception comes with
strict parameters which are: a) if the vehicle is parked on public fair grounds, the officer may only draw aside its curtain,
b) the officer may only look into the vehicle, c) the officer may only flash a light without opening the vehicle’s doors, d)
the occupants of the vehicle are not subjected to physical/body search, e) limited to visual search, f) if done as a routine
check, must be conducted in a fixed area.

This case does not fall under search of a moving vehicle because the target of the search was not the jeepney boarded
by Sapla but rather the target was the person of Sapla. Based on the testimony of the police officers, their actual target
was the person fitting the description provided by the tip which corresponded to Sapla and not the vehicle.

ISSUE 3: Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as consented search.

HELD: No. Based on the testimony of the police officers, Sapla hesitated when he was requested to open the blue sack.
This only means that he did not give his consent and that his compliance was vitiated by the presence of the police.

With all the foregoing, the search and seizure conducted was invalid and any evidence obtained therefrom is
inadmissible. Sapla was acquitted. The Supreme Court likewise emphasized the need to adhere to strict standards set by
the Constitution otherwise “A battle waged against illegal drugs that tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on
drugs; it is a war against the people.”

7. Laud Vs. People

G.R. No. 199032 November 19, 2014

FACTS : PNP, through Police Senior Superintendent Roberto B. Fajardo, applied with the RTC Manila for a warrant to search
three (3) caves located inside the Laud Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City, where the alleged remains of the
victims summarily executed by the so-called "Davao Death Squad" may be found. .In support of the application, a certain
Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was presented to the RTC and there testified that he personally witnessed the killing of six (6)
persons in December 2005. Judge William Simon P. Peralta, acting as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC, found probable
cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and thus, issued Search Warrant which was later enforced by the elements of the
PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. The search of the Laud Compound caves yielded positive results for the
presence of human remains. Herein petitioner, retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud (Laud), filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to
Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence premised on the ground that among others, that the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to issue
Search Warrant which was to be enforced in Davao City. Manila-RTC granted the motion. CA granted the Respondent’s
petition, Hence this petition to SC ISSUE: WON RTC Manila had jurisdiction to issue the said warrant despite noncompliance
with the compelling reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule126 of the Rules of Court RULING: YES. Section 12, Chapter V
of A.M.No. 03-8-02-SC states the requirements for the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City. These special criminal cases pertain to those "involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the
Intellectual Property Code, the AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other
relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court." Search warrant
applications for such cases may befiled by "the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police(PNP) and
the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF)," and "personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies." As in ordinary search warrant
applications, they "shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as
prescribed in the Rules of Court." "The Executive Judges [of these RTCs] and,whenever they are on official leave of absence or
are not physically present in the station, the ViceExecutive Judges" are authorized to act on such applications and "shall issue
the

warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts." As the records
would show, the search warrant application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was endorsed by its head, PNP
Chief Jesus Ame Versosa, particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized in connection with the
heinous crime of Murder. Finding probable cause therefor, Judge Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice-Executive Judge, issued
Search Warrant which, as the rules state, may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC. Notably,
the fact that a search warrant application involves a "special criminal case" excludes it from the compelling reason
requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The rule on search warrant applications before the Manila and
Quezon City RTCs for the above-mentioned special criminal cases "shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court." Perceptibly, the fact that a search warrant is being applied for in connection with a special criminal case as above-
classified already presumes the existence of a compelling reason; hence, any statement to this effect would be super fluous
and therefore should be dispensed with.

8. WWC worldwide web Corporation and Cheryll L. Yu Vs. People of the Philippines and PLDT G.R.
No. 161106 January 13, 2014

Facts:
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the
Philippine National Police filed applications for warrants... to search the office premises of... petitioner Worldwide
Web Corporation (WWC)... as well as the office premises of petitioner Planet Internet Corporation (Planet Internet)
The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass operations, which amounted to theft
and violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 (Penalizing... the Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or
Telephone Connections, the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and Other Acts), to the damage and
prejudice of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
Over a hundred items were seized,... including 15 central processing units (CPUs), 10 monitors, numerous wires,
cables, diskettes and files, and a laptop computer.
Issues:
Whether the assailed search warrants were issued upon probable cause, considering that the acts complained of
allegedly do not constitute theft.
Ruling:
In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires "such facts and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with
that offense are in the place to be searched."
According to PLDT, toll bypass enables international calls to appear as local calls and not overseas calls, thus
effectively evading payment to the PLDT of access, termination or bypass charges, and accounting rates; payment
to the government of taxes; and compliance with NTC... regulatory requirements.
PLDT concludes that toll bypass is prohibited, because it deprives "legitimate telephone operators, like
PLDT… of the compensation which it is entitled to had the call been properly routed through its network."
For theft to be committed in this case, the following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the taking by petitioners
(2) of PLDT's personal property (3) with intent to gain (4) without the consent of PLDT (5) accomplished without the
use of violence against or intimidation of... persons or the use of force upon things.
t is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft,
which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said
article.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 August 2003 and Resolution dated
27 November 2003 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26190 are AFFIRMED.

9. Luz Vs. People of the Philippines G.R.

No. 197788 February 29, 2012

FACTS: PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet and this
prompted him to flag down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to
wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle. He invited the accused to come inside their sub-station since the place
where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of the sub-station to where he is assigned as a traffic enforcer.
While he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that
the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something from his jacket. He was alerted and so, he told the accused to
take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a weapon inside it. The accused obliged and
slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which included two (2) plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The
RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution evidence sufficient to show
that he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid search, which led to the discovery
on his person of two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu. Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.

ISSUE: Were the search and seizure of the alleged subject shabu incident to a lawful arrest?

HELD: There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not,
ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person's voluntary submission to the
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical
restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the
parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and
impression that submission is necessary. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general
procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the driver's license
of the latter.

At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have
been under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or
take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which petitioner was at the police
station may be characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself
testified that the only reason they went to the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down
almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were waiting there. There
was no intention to take petitioner into custody.
 Even if one were to work under the assumption that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being flagged down
for a traffic violation and while awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the requirements for a valid arrest were
not complied with. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the
latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. Persons shall be
informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement they might make
could be used against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these constitutional requirements were
complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs. GRANTED.

10. The People of the Philippines Vs. Mikael Malmstedt

G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991

Facts:

Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer of the first regional command (NARCOM) stationed at camp
Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from
the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles
coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. And an information also was
received about a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.

In the afternoon the bus where accused was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus
and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the
inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a gun, the
officer asked for accused’s passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer
required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his waist. And it turned out to be a pouched bag
and when accused opened the same bag the officer noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown
packing tape. It contained hashish, a derivative of marijuana.

Thereafter, the accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before he alighted from the bus
accused stopped to get two travelling bags. The officer inspects the bag. It was only after the officers had
opened the bags that the accused finally presented his passport. The two bags contained a stuffed toy each,
upon inspection the stuff toy contained also hashish.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:

“Arrest without warrant; when lawful – a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:

a) When, in the presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;

b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
 c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or temporary confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another”
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually being committed
by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto, thus the search made upon his personal effects falls
squarely under paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of law, which allows a warrantless search incident to a
lawful arrest.

Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the object sought in connection with the
offense are in the placed sought to be searched.
When NARCOM received the information that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was carrying
with him a prohibited drug, there was no time to obtain a search warrant.

11. Francisco Chavez Vs. Raul M. Gonzales

G.R. No. 168338 February 15, 2008

Facts:

events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections.

Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition was planning to destabilize the administration by releasing an
audiotape of a mobile phone... conversation allegedly between the President of the Philippines, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

wire-tapping... manipulate the election results in the

President's favor.

respondent Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of
the compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the
AntiWiretapping Act.

Secretary Gonzales ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to go after media organizations "found to
have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape"... he was going to start with
Inq7.net, a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA7 televi... personalities have admitted
that the taped conversations are products of illegal wiretapping operations.

warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just cause
for the... suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said
companies.

NTC allegedly assured the KBP that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom of speech, of
expression, and of the press,... and the right to information. Accordingly, NTC and KBP issued a Joint Press
Statement

Petitioner Chavez filed a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against respondents Secretary Gonzales
and the NTC, "praying for the issuance of the writs of certior... prevent the... unlawful, unconstitutional and
oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents."[13]... leging that the acts of respondents are violations of
the freedom on expression and of the press, and the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern,... whether the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press.
Issues:

whether the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press.

Ruling:

Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government, and
given a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties.

history shows that the struggle to protect the freedom of speech, expression and the press was, at... bottom, the
struggle for the indispensable preconditions for the exercise of other freedoms.[30] For it is only when the
people have unbridled access to information and the press that they will be capable of rendering enlightened
judgments.

The scope of freedom of expression is so broad that it extends protection to nearly all forms of communication.
It protects speech, print and assembly regarding secular as well as political causes, and is not confined to any
particular field of human interest. The protection... covers myriad matters of public interest or concern
embracing all issues

The constitutional protection is not limited to the exposition of ideas. The protection afforded free speech
extends to speech or publications that are entertaining as well as instructive or informative.

freedom of expression is not an absolute... that in our jurisdiction slander or libel, lewd and obscene speech, as
well as "fighting words" are not entitled to constitutional... protection and may be penalized.

permits limitations on speech once a rational connection has been established between the speech... restrained
and the danger contemplated;... standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual
interests,... speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an
evil... the government has a right to prevent.

press freedom

It is the chief source of information on current affairs. It is the most pervasive and... perhaps most powerful
vehicle of opinion on public questions. It is the instrument by which citizens keep their government informed of
their needs, their aspirations and their grievances.

closure of the business and printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their
printing and publication, are... deemed as previous restraint or censorship.

law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be made, commits an
infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the courts.

A distinction has to be made whether the restraint is (1) a content-neutral regulation... or (2) a content-based
restraint or censorship,... The government has a right to be protected against broadcasts which incite the
listeners to violently overthrow it. Radio and television may not be used to organize a rebellion or to signal the
start of widespread uprising. At the same time, the people have... a right to be informed.

The stricter system of controls seems to have been adopted in answer to the view that owing to their particular
impact... on audiences, films, videos and broadcasting require a system of prior restraints, whereas it is now
accepted that books and other printed media do not. These media are viewed as beneficial to the public in a
number of respects, but are also seen as possible sources of... harm.[93]... argument persists that broadcasting
is the most influential means of communication, since it comes into the home, and so much time is spent
watching television. Since it has a unique... impact on people and affects children in a way that the print media
normally does not, that regulation is said to be necessary in order to preserve pluralism.

applicable standard to content-based restrictions on broadcast media

For this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court has
no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. There is no... showing that the feared
violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State.

It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official...
functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued
its statement as the regulatory body of media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the
government in an official capacity is covered by... the rule on prior restraint. The concept of an "act" does not
limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an
act into an official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the p

There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on record. The warnings given to media came
from no less the NTC,... petition is GRANTED. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby issued, nullifying
the official statements made by respondents on June 8, and 11, 2005 warning the media on airing the alleged
wiretapped conversation between the

President and other personalities, for constituting unconstitutio

Principles:

freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the right to free speech and free expression, that
any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and
present... would be allowed to curtail it.

free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of
public interest without censorship and punishment.

To be truly meaningful, freedom of speech and of the press should allow and even encourage the articulation of
the unorthodox view, though it be hostile to or derided by others; or though such view "induces a... condition of
unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."[39] To paraphrase
Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.
[40]... restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of three tes...
four aspects of freedom of the press. These are (1) freedom from prior restraint; (2) freedom from punishment
subsequent to publication;[53] (3) freedom of... access to information;[54] and (4) freedom of circulation.[55]

Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination.

freedom from government censorship of... publications... not all prior restraints on speech are invalid. Certain
previous restraints may be permitted by the Constitution, but determined only upon a careful evaluation of the
challenged act as... against the appropriate test by which it should be measured against.

speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental interest is
required for its validity.[62]... governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on
 content is given the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive impact. Only when the challenged act
has overcome the clear and present danger... rule will it pass constitutional muster,[65] with the government
having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.

content-based restrictions, the government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained
would bring about especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm otherwise the prior
restraint will be invalid.

showing a substantive and imminent evil... question of proximity and degree."[... prior restraint partakes of a
content-neutral regulation, it is subjected to an intermediate review. A content-based regulation,[73] however,
bears a heavy presumption of invalidity and is measured against the clear and... present danger rule. The latter
will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason,... (3)

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech
and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present
danger rule, that words... are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent,... a
governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the strictest...
scrutiny, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear
and present danger rule. This rule applies equally to all kinds of media, including broadcast media.

procedural map

(a) the test; (b) the presumption; (c) the burden of proof; (d) the party to discharge the burden; and (e) the
quantum of evidence necessary.

12. Alejandro Estrada Vs. Soledad S. Escritor

A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

Facts:

Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. She has been living with Quilapio, a man
who is not her husband, for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well. Respondent’s husband
died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.

Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. According to complainant,
respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it will appear as if the court allows such act.

Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness’ under
the approval of their congregation. Such a declaration is effective when legal impediments render it impossible
for a couple to legalize their union.

Issue:

Whether or Not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement.

Held:
 No. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The free
exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. As Jefferson
put it, it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. The State’s interest in enforcing its prohibition
cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free exercise claim. In
the case at bar, the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the concubinage or bigamy charges
against respondent or her partner. Thus the State’s interest only amounts to the symbolic preservation of an
unenforced prohibition. Furthermore, a distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality
should be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality.

The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality could
allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.
Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it has to further demonstrate that the
state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than
necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state. Thus the conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it
constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to freedom of religion.

13. Ricardo L. Manotoc Jr. Vs. The court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986

FACTS : There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities Inc which was suspected to
be fake. 6 of its clients filed separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and Leveriza, President and VP
respectively. He was charged with estafa and was allowed by the Court to post bail. Petitioner filed before each
trial court motion for permission to leave the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business
transactions and opportunities. Such was opposed by the prosecution and was also denied by the judges. He
filed petition for certiorari with CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC communication request
denying his leave to travel abroad. According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter of right,
neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him
from exercising his constitutional right to travel

ISSUE : WON the Court Acted with grave abuse of discretion

HELD : A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that
he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or
recognizance The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court
requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel If the accused were allowed to leave
the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts As petitioner has
failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well
as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel, We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied
petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country, in much the same way, albeit with contrary results, that
We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the
country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond.

14. Senate Vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 169777 April 20, 2006

FACTS:
On September 28, 2005, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued E.O. No. 464[1]. Effective on the date of
its issuance, the said order aims to (a) ensure the observance of the principle of the separation of powers; (b)
ensure adherence to the rule on executive privilege; and (c) respect the rights of public officials appearing in
inquiries in aid of legislation.

Section 1 of the said order requires all heads of the departments of the Executive Branch to secure the consent
of the President prior to appearing before either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Section 2(a) of the
same order enumerates the kind of information covered by executive privilege, while Section 2(b) lists down the
list of officials covered by the order. Finally, Section 3 requires all officials mentioned in Section 2(b) to secure
authorization from the President prior to appearing before the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Curiously, E.O. 464 was issued at a time when both the Senate and the House of Representatives were
conducting congressional inquiries, to wit: (a) the North Rail Project; (b) the "Hello Garci" wiretapping scandal;
(c) Ginintuang Masaganang Ani fertilizer fund scam; and (d) the Venable contract. With the issuance of E.O. 464,
the public officials invited to attend said inquiries were effectively barred from attending without consent from
the President.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress.
2. Whether or not E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.

3. Whether or not public officials who invoked E.O. 464 as an excuse not to attend congressional hearings should
be held liable for grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:

1. Yes, E.O. 464 frustrates the power of inquiry of Congress. But the assailed order is not entirely
unconstitutional. In fact, Section 1 is valid on the ground that it merely stresses the voluntary nature of the
"question hour" as found in Section 22, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, as opposed to "inquiries in aid of
legislation" in Section 21, Art. VI, which are mandatory in nature.

To reiterate, while the concept of question hour and inquiries in aid of legislation are closely related, the two are
not one and the same; attendance to the former is meant to be discretionary while attendance to the latter is
compulsory.

Section 2(a) of E.O. 464 is likewise valid, it being merely an enumeration of information covered by executive
privilege.

However, the Court ruled that Sections 2(b) and 3 of the assailed order are void.

Section 2(b) is unconstitutional because it allows the President to invoke executive privilege based on the
classifications or categories of persons, when in fact such categorization should only apply to information.

The unconstitutionality of Section 3, on the other hand, is due to the fact that it merely invokes executive
privilege without asserting why. Congress has the right to know why an information is subject to executive
 privilege, such that an "implied claim" of executive privilege not accompanied by any specific allegation of the
basis thereof is insufficient.

In its ruling, the Court similarly touched on the concepts of the "power of inquiry" of Congress and what
constitutes "executive privilege."

Under Article 21, Sec. VI of the 1987 Constitution, Congress is vested with the power to "conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation." This power of inquiry is co-extensive with its power to legislate. As such, Congress has the
authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch, and the latter cannot put up defenses to
frustrate such power unless the congressional hearings made in the exercise of such power involve infomation
that fall within the rubric of "executive privilege."

According to Schwartz, executive privilege is "the power of the Government to withhold information from the
public, the courts, and the Congress." It has three varieties: (a) state secrets privilege, which is invoked by US
presidents on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military
or diplomatic objectives; (b) informer's privilege, or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the
identities of persons who furnish information on violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of
that law; and (c) generic privilege, for internal deliberations or intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory
opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions
and policies are formulated.

But not all information covered by executive privilege are considered privileged in all cases (see US v. Nixon re:
Watergate scandal). The Court ruled that while executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim thereof
may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Given this,
the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure.

2. Yes. Given that congressional hearings are generally held in public, any executive issuance that tends to
unduly limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the people of information
which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are
thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their opinions on the matter before
Congress -- opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives and other government officials
through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression.

3. Laws, including presidential issuances, must be first published either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation prior to their implementation. In the instant case, E.O. 464 was immediately
invoked even if the requirement of prior publication has not been satisfied yet.

___
[1] "Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege
and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the
Constitution, and for Other Purposes"

15. Manapat Vs. CA

G.R. No. 110478 October 15, 2007

Facts:
The three-decade saga of the parties herein has for its subject parcels of land forming part of what was
originally known as the Grace Park Subdivision in Caloocan City and formerly owned by the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) and/or the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC).
Sometime in the 1960's, RCAM allowed a number of individuals to occupy the Grace Park property on condition
that they would vacate the premises should the former push through with the plan to construct a school in the
area. The plan, however, did not materialize, thus, the... occupants offered to purchase the portions they occupied.
Later, as they could not afford RCAM's proposed price, the occupants, organizing themselves as exclusive members
of the Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr. Tenants Association, Inc., petitioned the Government for the acquisition of... the said
property, its subdivision into home lots, and the resale of the subdivided lots to them at a low price.[5]
Acting on the association's petition, the Government, in 1963, through the Land Tenure Administration (LTA), later
succeeded by the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), negotiated for the acquisition of the
property from RCAM/PRC. But because of the high asking... price of RCAM and the budgetary constraints of the
Government, the latter's effort to purchase and/or to expropriate the property was discontinued. RCAM then
decided to effect, on its own, the subdivision of the property and the sale of the individual subdivided lots to the...
public.[6] Petitioners Manapat and Lim and respondents Loberanes, Quimque, Vega, Santos, Oracion and Mercado
in these consolidated cases were among those who purchased individual subdivided lots of Grace Park directly
from RCAM and/or PRC.
A significant turn of events however happened in 1977 when the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1072,[8] appropriating P1.2M out of the President's Special Operations Funds to cover
the additional amount needed for the... expropriation of Grace Park. The National Housing Authority (NHA), PHHC's
successor, then filed several expropriation proceedings over the already subdivided lots for the purpose of
developing Grace Park under the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) and subdividing it into small... lots for
distribution and resale at a low cost to the residents of the area.
NHA eventually appealed to the CA the decisions in Cases Nos. C-6225, C-6229, C-6231, C-6232, C-6237 and C-6435
on the issue of the necessity of the taking, and the amended ruling in Cases Nos. C-6227, C6228, C-6230, C-6234, C-
6235, C-6238 and C-6255 on the issue of just... compensation.[13] The CA consolidated the appeals and docketed
them as CA-G.R. CV No. 10200-10212. NHA likewise filed with the CA an appeal from the decision in C-6226, which
was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 27159.
Issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUANCE MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER, SPECIFYING THE LOTS TO BE EXPROPRIATED AND THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THEY ARE INTENDED, REMOVES FROM THE JUDICIARY THE DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY OF
THE TAKING, THERE BEING NO SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Ruling:
With respect to the second, it is well to recall that in Lagcao v. Judge Labra,[54] we declared that the foundation of
the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character. As a
rule, the... determination of whether there is genuine necessity for the exercise is a... justiciable question.[55]
However, when the power is exercised by the Legislature, the question of necessity is essentially a political
question.[56] Thus, in City of Manila v. Chinese Community,[57] we... held:
The legislature, in providing for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, may directly determine the necessity
for appropriating private property for a particular improvement for public use, and it may select the exact location
of the improvement. In such a... case, it is well-settled that the utility of the proposed improvement, the extent of
the public necessity for its construction, the expediency of constructing it, the suitableness of the location selected
and the consequent necessity of taking the land selected for its site, are... all questions exclusively for the
legislature to determine, and the courts have no power to interfere, or to substitute their own views for those of
the representatives of the people.
As to the third requisite of "public use," we examine the purpose for which the expropriation was undertaken by
NHA. As set forth in its petition, NHA justifies the taking of the subject property for the purpose of improving and
upgrading the area by constructing roads and... installing facilities thereon under the Government's zonal
improvement program and subdividing them into much smaller lots for distribution and sale at a low cost to
qualified beneficiaries, mostly underprivileged long-time occupants of Grace Park. Around 510 families with...
approximately 5 members each will be benefited by the project.[58] The only remaining obstacle in the completion
of this project is the lots subject of these consolidated petitions as the other lots in Grace Park have already been
expropriated.
In the light of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that "socialized housing" falls within the confines of "public use".
It is, particularly important to draw attention to paragraph (d) of Pres. Dec. No. 1224 which should be construed in
relation with the preceding three... paragraphs. Provisions on economic opportunities inextricably linked with low-
cost housing, or slum clearance, relocation and resettlement, or slum improvement emphasize the public purpose
of the project.[62]
It need only be added, at this juncture, that the "public use" requisite for the valid exercise of the power of eminent
domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. At present, it may not be amiss to
state that whatever is beneficially employed... for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.
To satisfy the fourth requisite, we affirm the appellate court's disposition that the subject cases be remanded to the
trial court for the determination of the amount of just compensation. Under case law, the said determination is a
judicial prerogative.[70] As to the observance of the fifth requisite, the due process clause, in the expropriation
proceedings, all the parties have been given their day in court. That they are now before this Court is attestation
enough that they were not denied due process of... law.
From the foregoing disquisitions, it is unmistakable that all the requirements for the valid exercise of the power of
eminent domain have been complied with. Thus, our answer to the singular and fundamental issue in these
consolidated cases is: YES, the NHA may validly... expropriate the subject parcels of land.
Principles:
Albeit the power partakes of a sovereign character, it is by no means absolute. Its exercise is subject to limitations,
one of which is, precisely, Section 9, Article III of the Constitution.
Over the years and in a plethora of cases, this Court has recognized the following requisites for the valid exercise of
the power of eminent domain: (1) the property taken must be private property; (2) there must be genuine
necessity to take the private property; (3) the taking... must be for public use; (4) there must be payment of just
compensation; and (5) the taking must comply with due process of law.

16. Reyes Vs. National Housing Authority

G.R. No. 147511 January 20, 2003

Facts: Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) filed complaints for the expropriation of sugarcane lands
belonging to the petitioners. The stated public purpose of the expropriation was the expansion of the
Dasmariñas Resettlement Project to accommodate the squatters who were relocated from the Metropolitan
Manila area. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the expropriation of these lots and the payment of just
compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

A few years later, petitioners contended that respondent NHA violated the stated public purpose for the
expansion of the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project when it failed to relocate the squatters from the Metro
Manila area, as borne out by the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the
expropriated properties remain unoccupied. Petitioners likewise question the public nature of the use by
respondent NHA when it entered into a contract for the construction of low cost housing units, which is
allegedly different from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings. Hence, it is claimed that
respondent NHA has forfeited its rights and interests by virtue of the expropriation judgment and the
expropriated properties should now be returned to herein petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not the judgment of expropriation was forfeited in the light of the failure of respondent NHA
to use the expropriated property for the intended purpose but for a totally different purpose.

Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA. Accordingly, petitioners cannot insist on a
restrictive view of the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by contending that the contract for low cost
housing is a deviation from the stated public use. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no
longer limited to traditional purposes. The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public
interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience." Thus, whatever may be beneficially
employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use."

In addition, the expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose
even if the developed area is later sold to private homeowners, commercials firms, entertainment and service
companies, and other private concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to undertake, for the
common good and in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and
housing which will make at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless
citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. The expropriation of private property for the purpose of
socialized housing for the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice.