NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-digests-1-531 1/31

Policarpio v. Manila TimesPetitioner: Lumen PolicarpioRespondent: The Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc., ConstanteRoldan, Manuel Villa-Real, E. !uilar Cru" and Consorcio#or$e%ate: Ma& '(, )*+ Concepcion, .

/ummar&: Policarpio is an e0ecutive secretar& o1 2nesco. /he1ired Re&es and Re&es 1iled char!es a!ainst her 1or malversation and esta1a. Manila Times published articlesabout her char!es, complete 3ith a picture o1 her and the 1alse

assumption that it 3as the presidential complaint and actioncommission that 1iled the char!es a!ainst her and that thecriminal char!es 3as a result o1 a pendin! administrativeinvesti!ation. I: 456 Manila Times is liable 1or dama!es7 8E/./C held that b& not mentionin! the number o1 stencils alle!edl&mis-used and the transportation e0penses undul& claimed93hich are both o1 nominal amount, Policarpio 3as presentedin a bad li!ht. lso, the statement that it 3as PCC that 1iledthe case, 3hen it 3as onl& a private individual, Re&es, 3ho didso, !ives the impression that the evidence o1 Policarpio;s !uiltis stron!. 6e3spapers must en$o& a certain de!ree o1 discretion in determinin! the manner in 3hich a !iven eventshould be presented to the public, and the importance to beattached thereto, as a ne3s item, and that its presentation in asensational manner is not per se ille!al. 6e3spaper ma&publish ne3s items relative to $udicial, le!islative or other o11icial proceedin!s, 3hich are not o1 con1idential nature,because the public is entitled to <no3 the truth 3ith respect tosuch proceedin!s, 3hich, bein! o11icial and non-con1idential,are open to public consumption. #ut, to en$o& immunit&, apublication containin! dero!ator& in1ormation must be not only true, but, also, fair , and it must be made in !ood 1aith and3ithout an& comments or remar<s.

=acts:Lumen Policarpio see<s to recover dama!es, =, and costs, b&reason o1 the publication in the /aturda& Mirror o1 u!ust )),)*>+, and in the %ail& Mirror o1 u!ust )', )*>+, o1 articles or ne3s items 3hich are claimed to be per se de1amator&, libelous

and 1alse, and to have e0posed her to ridicule, $eopardi"ed her inte!rit&, !ood name and business and o11icial transactions,and caused her !rave embarrassment, untold and e0trememoral, mental and ph&sical an!uish and incalculable material,moral, pro1essional and business dama!es. The de1endantsare The Manila Times Publishin! Co., Inc., as publisher o1 The/aturda& Mirror and The %ail& Mirror, 3hich are ne3spapers o1 !eneral circulation in the Philippines, and Constante C. Roldan,Manuel V. Villa-Real, E. !uilar Cru" and Consorcio #or$e, asthe reporter or author o1 the 1irst article and the mana!in!editor, the associate editor and the ne3s editor, respectivel&, o1 said ne3spapers.Policarpio is a member o1 the Philippine bar. /he 3ase0ecutive secretar& o1 the local 26E/C? 6ationalCommission. /he caused @erminia Re&es to be separated

1rom the service. Re&es pre1erred counter-char!es 3hich 3erere1erred to Col. Crisanto lba, a /pecial Investi!ator in the?11ice o1 the President.Pendin! completion o1 the administrative investi!ation, Re&es1iled 3ith the ?11ice o1 the Cit& =iscal o1 Manila, a complainta!ainst Policarpio 1or alle!ed malversation o1 public 1unds andanother complaint 1or alle!ed esta1a thru 1alsi1ication o1 publicdocuments.9Just a backgrounder: The charges were based on alleged mis-use of stencils owned by UNESC by !olicar"io for her

"ersonal use and undue reimbursement for tra#el e$"ensesMean3hile, on u!ust )), the 1ollo3in! appeared, 3ith apicture o1 Policarpio, in the 1ront pa!e o1 The /aturda& Mirror:4?M6 ?==ICIL /2E% PCC RP/ L. P?LICRPI? ?6

=R2%/ 2nesco ?11icial @ead ccused on /upplies, =unds2se b& Collea!ue #& Constante C. RoldanThe title o1 the article o1 u!ust )), )*>+ A B4?M6?==ICIL /2E%B A 3as !iven prominence 3ith a +-column9about )) inches banner headline o1 one-inch t&pes

dmittedl&, its sub-title A BPCC RP/ L. P?LICRPI? PI??6 =R2%B A printed in bold one-centimeter t&pes, is nottrue. /imilarl&, the statement in the 1irst para!raph o1 thearticle, to the e11ect that plainti11 B3as char!ed 3ithmalversation and esta1a in complaints 1iled 3ith the cit& 1iscalso11ice by the !residential Com"laint and %ction Commission

A other3ise <no3n as PCC A is untrue, the complaints 1orsaid o11enses havin! been 1iled b& Re&es. 6either is it true thasaid Bcriminal action 3as initiated as a result of currenadministrati#e, in#estigation&B,The %ail& Mirror o1 u!ust )', li<e3ise, carried on its 1irst pa!eA 3ith a picture o1 Policarpio and o1 Re&es, ta<en durin! theadministrative investi!ationA another ne3s item, readin!DPLCE ?PE6/ I6VE/TITI?6 ?= RP/ I6/TP?LICRPI? lba Probes dministrative Phase o1 =raudChar!es !ainst 2nesco 4oman ?11icialF =iscal /ets PrelimGui" ?1 Criminal /uit on u!. .Corrected that it 3as not PCC that 1iled the complaintPolicarpio maintains that the e11ect o1 these 1alse statements3as to !ive the !eneral impression that said investi!ation b&Col. lba had sho3n that Policarpio 3as !uilt&, or, at leastprobabl& !uilt& o1 the crimes a1orementioned, and that, as aconseHuence, the PCC had 1iled the correspondin!complaints 3ith the cit& 1iscals o11ice. /he alle!es, also, that idid not mention the 1act that the number o1 stencils involved inthe char!e 3as onl& ) or (, that the sum alle!edl&misappropriated b& her 3as onl& P>J, and that the 1alsi1icationimputed to her 3as said to have been committed b& claimin!that certain e0penses 1or 3hich she had sou!ht and securedreimbursement 3ere incurred in trips durin! the period 1romul& ), )*>> to /eptember '(, )*>>, althou!h the trips actuall&3ere made, accordin! to Re&es, 1rom ul& to u!ust '))*>>.

Issue: 456 Manila Times is liable 1or dama!es7 8E/

@eld: 4@ERE=?RE, the decision appealed 1rom is hereb&reversed and another one shall be entered sentencin! thede1endants herein to pa& $ointl& and severall& to the plainti11 thea1orementioned sums o1 P',(((, as moral dama!es, andP,(((, b& 3a& o1 attorne&s 1ees, in addition to the costs. It isso ordered.

Ratio:It appears that prior to u!ust )), Col. lba had alread& ta<enthe testimon& o1 the 3itnesses o1 Re&es. @ence, respondentscould have ascertained the BdetailsB a1orementioned, had the&3anted to. Indeed, some o1 them and5or their representativeshad made appropriate inHuiries 1rom Col. lba be1ore saiddate. Moreover, the penalt& prescribed b& la3 1or the crimeeither o1 esta1a or o1 embe""lement depends partl& upon the

amount o1 the dama!e caused to the o11ended part&. @encethe amount or value o1 the propert& embe""led is material tosaid o11ense.

!ain, it is obvious that the 1ilin! o1 criminal complaints 3ith thecit& 1iscals o11ice b& another a!enc& o1 the overnment, li<ethe PCC, particularl& a1ter an investi!ation conducted b& thesame, imparts the ideal that the probabilit& o1 !uilt& on the parto1 the accused is !reater than 3hen the complaints are 1iled b&a private individual. It is onl& too apparent that the articlepublished on u!ust )), )*>+, presented the plainti11 in a moreun1avorable li!ht than she actuall& 3as.6e3spapers must en$o& a certain de!ree o1 discretion indeterminin! the manner in 3hich a !iven event should bepresented to the public, and the importance to be attached

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


thereto, as a ne3s item, and that its presentation in asensational manner is not per se ille!al. 6e3spaper ma&publish ne3s items relative to $udicial, le!islative or other o11icial proceedin!s, 3hich are not o1 con1idential nature,because the public is entitled to <no3 the truth 3ith respect tosuch proceedin!s, 3hich, bein! o11icial and non-con1idential,are open to public consumption. #ut, to en$o& immunit&, apublication containin! dero!ator& in1ormation must be not only true, but, also, fair , and it must be made in !ood 1aith and3ithout an& comments or remar<s.

rticle '>J o1 the Revised Penal Code, provides: Ever&

de1amator& imputation is "resumed to be malicious, even i1 itbe true, i1 no !ood intention and $usti1iable motive 1or ma<in! itis sho3n, e0cept in the 1ollo3in! cases:

private communication made b& an& person to another in theper1ormance o1 an& le!al, moral or social dut&F and

1air and true report, made in !ood 1aith, 3ithout an&comments or remar<s, o1 an& $udicial, le!islative or other o11icial proceedin!s 3hich are not o1 con1idential nature, or o1 an& statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedin!s,or o1 an& other act per1ormed b& public o11icers in the e0erciseo1 other 1unctions.In the case at bar, aside 1rom containin! in1ormation dero!ator&to the plainti11, the article published on u!ust )), )*>+,presented her in a 3orse predicament than that in 3hich she,in 1act, 3as. In other 3ords, said article 3as not a 1air and truereport o1 the proceedin!s there in alluded to. 4hat is more, itssub-title A BPCC RP/ L. P?LICRPI? ?6 =R2%B A is acomment or remar<, besides bein! 1alse. ccordin!l&, thede1amator& imputations contained in said articleare '"resumed to be malicious' .Then too, ho3 could de1endants claim to have acted 3ith !oodintentions or $usti1iable motive in 1alsel& statin! that thecomplaints had been 1iled 3ith the ?11ice o1 the Cit& =iscal b&the PCC as a result o1 the administrative investi!ation o1 Col.

lba7 Either the& <ne3 the truth about it or the& did not <no3 it.I1 the& did, then the publication 3ould be actuall& malicious. I1 the& did not or i1 the& acted under a misapprehension o1 the1acts, the& 3ere !uilt& o1 ne!li!ence in ma<in! said statement,1or the conseHuences o1 3hich the& are liable solidaril&

9rticles )K+, )*J, ( and )* I, Civil Code o1 thePhilippinesF )K R.C.L. sec. *>, p. 'J*.4e note that the ne3s item published on u!ust )', )*>+,recti1ied a ma$or inaccurac& contained in the 1irst article, b&statin! that neither Col. lba nor the PCC had 1iled thea1orementioned complaints 3ith the cit& 1iscals o11ice. It,li<e3ise, indicated the number o1 sheets o1 stencil involved insaid complaints. #ut, this recti1ication or clari1ication does not3ipe out the responsibilit& arisin! 1rom the publication o1 the1irst article, althou!h it ma& and should miti!ate it.

Lope" v. Cul& '), )*K(Petitioner: Eu!enio Lope", Publisher nd ?3ner ?1 TheBManila, Chronicle nd uan T. atbonton

Respondents: C and =idel . Cru"

ER: In )*>+, This 4ee< Ma!a"ine o1 the Manila Chroniclepublished on ' di11erent occasions, o1 3hich had pictures,articles relatin! to the hoa0 o1 a certain sanitar& inspector =idelCru" 3ho in1ormed authorities in Manila o1 the purportede0istence o1 <illers in the #abu&an Islands. @o3ever, thepictures turned out to be that o1 1ormer Ma&or =idel . Cru" o1 /ta. Maria #ulacan. Lope" invo<ed Guisumbin! vs. Lope". /Cruled ho3ever that Guisumbin! is not sHuare on this pointbecause in the case at hand, there 3asn;t the pressure o1 adail& deadline because it 3as in 1act a 3ee<l& ma!a"ine andthat reasonable care 3as not satis1ied. /C still ruled a!ainst

the petitioner but the C rulin! 3as modi1ied 3ith re!ard to thedama!es a3arded to private respondent.

=acts:In an )*>+, there appeared on the 1ront pa!e o1 The ManilaChronicle, o1 3hich Eu!enio Lope" 3as the publisher, as 3elas on other dailies, a ne3s stor& o1 a sanitar& inspectoassi!ned to the #abu&an Islands, =idel Cru" b& name, sendin!a distress si!nal to a passin! 2/ ir1orce plane 3hich rela&edthe messa!e to Manila.@e 3as not i!nored, an merican rm& plane droppin! on the

beach o1 an island an emer!enc&-sustenance <it containin!amon! other thin!s, a -3a& radio set. @e utili"ed it to in1ormauthorities in Manila that the people in the place 3ere livin! interror, due to a series o1 <illin!s committed since Christmas o)*>>.The Philippines de1ense establishment rushed to the island aplatoon o1 scout ran!ers led. 2pon arrivin! at the reported<iller-menaced #abu&an Claro, ho3ever, Ma$or Encarnacionand his men 1ound, instead o1 the alle!ed <illers, a man, thesame =idel Cru", 3ho merel& 3anted transportation home toManila.Ma$or Encarnacion branded as a Bhoa0,B to use his o3ndescriptive 3ord, the report o1 =idel Cru".That 3as the term emplo&ed b& the other ne3spapers 3henre1errin! to incident.In This 4ee<;s Ma!a"ine;s /pecial 8ear End Gui" appearin! inits issue o1 an )', )*>+, re1erence 3as made to a healthinspector 3ho suddenl& 1elt Blonel&B in his isolated post, coo<edup a stor& about a murderer runnin! loose on the island oCala&an so that he could be 1erried bac< to civili"ation. @e 3as!iven the appellation o1 B@oa0 o1 the 8ear.BThis 4ee< Ma!a"ine o1 the Manila Chronicle, then edited b&atbonton, devoted a pictorial article to it in its issue o1 an )>)*>+. Mention 3as made that 3hile =idel Cru" stor& turned outo be 1alse, it brou!ht to li!ht the miser& o1 the people livin! inthat place, 3ith almost ever&bod& sic<, onl& individuals ableto read and 3rite, 1ood and clothin! bein! scarce.Then in the an *, )*>+ issue o1 This 4ee< Ma!a"ine, theBanuar& 6e3s Gui"B included an item on the central 1i!ure in

3hat 3as <no3n as the Cala&an @oa0, 3ho nevertheless didthe countr& a !ood turn b& callin! the !overnments attention tothat 1orsa<en and desolate corner o1 the Republic.The ma!a"ine on both 9nd and 'rd occasions carriedphoto!raphs o1 the person purportin! to be =idel Cru"2n1ortunatel&, the pictures that 3ere published on bothoccasions 3ere that o1 respondent =idel . Cru", abusinessman contractor 1rom /anta Maria, #ulacan. Thephoto!raphs o1 respondent Cru" and that o1 =idel Cru"sanitar& inspector, 3ere on 1ile in the librar& o1 the ManilaChronicle in accordance 3ith the standard procedure, but 3henthe ne3s Hui" 1ormat 3as prepared, the photos 3ereinadvertentl& s3itched.

s soon, ho3ever, as the inadvertent error 3as brou!ht to theattention o1 Lope", the 11 correction 3as published in This 4ee<

Ma!a"ine on an K, )*>K: B4hile 3e 3ere rushin! to meetthe deadline 1or an )'th, 3e inadvertentl& published thepicture o1 1ormer Ma&or =idel . Cru" o1 /ta. Maria, #ulacanin?ur ?3n 4hos 4ho 1eature in the 8ear End Gui" o1 This4ee< in lieu o1 the health inspector =idel Cru", 3ho 3asconnected 3ith a stor& about a murderer runnin! loose onCala&an Island. 4e here e0press our pro1ound re!rets thasuch an error occurred.B The photo!raphs and the correction3ere enclosed b& 1our lines the t&pe used 3as bolder thanordinar&, and the item 3as placed in a conspicuous place inorder to call the attention o1 the readers

Respondent Cru" sued Lope" and atbonton 1or the recover&o1 dama!es alle!in! the de1amator& character o1 the abovepublication o1 his picture.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


Issue: 35n Lope" and atbonton can be held liable. 8es.It is on the 1reedom o1 the press that Lope" and atbonton3ould sta<e their case to demonstrate that no action 1or libel3ould lie arisin! 1rom the publication o1 the picture o1 respondent Cru" identi1ied as responsible 1or the hoa0 o1 the&ear, 3hen such 3as not the case at all.6o liabilit& 3ould be incurred i1 it could be demonstrated that itcomes 3ithin the 3ell-ni!h all embracin! scope o1 1reedom o1 the press. Included therein is the 3idest latitude o1 choice as to3hat items should see the li!ht o1 da& so lon! as the& are

relevant to a matter o1 public interest, the insistence on thereHuirement as to its truth &ieldin! at times to unavoidableinaccuracies attendant on ne3spapers and other publicationsbein! sub$ect to the t&rann& o1 deadlines.!eck #& Tribune: BThere 3as some su!!estion that thede1endant published the portrait b& mista<e, and 3ithout<no3led!e that it 3as the plainti11s portrait, or 3as not 3hat itpurported to be. #ut the 1act, i1 it 3as one, 3as no e0cuse. I1 the publication 3as libelous, the de1endant too< the ris<. s3as said o1 such matters b& Lord Mans1ield, 4henever a manpublishes, he publishes at his peril. libel is harm1ul on its1ace. I1 a man sees 1it to publish mani1estl& hurt1ul statementsconcernin! an individual, 3ithout other $usti1ication than e0ists1or an advertisement or a piece o1 ne3s, the usual principles o1 tort 3ill ma<e him liable i1 the statements are 1alse, or are trueonl& o1 someone else.B(urton #s& Crowell : Bthat because the picture ta<en 3ith thele!ends 3as calculated to e0pose the plainti11 to more thantrivial ridicule, it 3as prima 1acie actionableF that the 1act that itdid not assume to state a 1act or an opinion is irrelevantF andthat in conseHuence the publication is actionable.Bstrowe #s& )ee: It is li<e3ise an accepted 1act that suchpublications do occasion !reater in$ur& to reputation than 3ouldmere 3ords alone. Man& thin!s that are de1amator& ma& besaid 3ith impunit& throu!h the medium o1 speech. 6ot so,ho3ever, 3hen speech is cau!ht upon the 3in! andtransmuted into print. 4hat !ives the stin! to the 3ritin! is itspermanence o1 1orm. The spo<en 3ord dissolves, but the3ritten one abide and Perpetuates the scandal. 4hen one

spea<s o1 a 3ritin! in this connection, one does not limit oneself to writings in manuscri"ts or books. n& s&mbolsu11ices A Pictures, hiero!l&phics shorthand notes A i1 onl&3hat is 3ritten is intelli!ible to him 3ho reads.BUS #& (ustos: criminal suit 1or libel should not be utili"ed as ameans 1or sti1lin! press 1reedom,T@E L/T 4?R% ?6 T@E /2#ECT came 1rom *uisumbing #& )o"e+ : The ne3spapers should be !iven such lee3a& andtolerance as to enable them to coura!eousl& and e11ectivel&per1orm their important role in our democrac&. In thepreparation o1 stories, press reporters and edition usuall& haveto race 3ith their deadlinesF and consistentl& 3ith !ood 1aithand reasonable care, the& should not be held to account, to apoint o1 suppression, 1or honest mista<es or imper1ection in thechoice o1 3ords.

New ork Times #& Suli#an: =or liabilit& to arise 3ithouto11endin! press 1reedom, there is this test to meet: BTheconstitutional !uarantees reHuire a rule that prohibits a publico11icial 1rom recoverin! dama!es 1or a de1amator& 1alsehoodrelatin! to his o11icial conduct unless he proves that thestatement 3as made 3ith actual malice, that is, 3ith<no3led!e that it 3as 1alse or 3ith rec<less disre!ard o1 3hether it 3as 1alse or not.B2/ /C in Curtis !ublishing Co& #& (utts, 3here such immunit&,3as held as coverin! statements concernin! public 1i!uresre!ardless o1 3hether or not the& are !overnment o11icials.4h& there should be such an e0tension is understandable inthe li!ht o1 the broad scope en$o&ed b& press 1reedom 3hichcertainl& allo3s a 1ull and 1ree discussion o1 public issues.

%""lied to this case:@ere, Lope" and atbonton rel& on *uisumbing #& )o"e+& Thede1amator& matter complained o1 in the *uisumbing appearedin the headline. It 3as 3ithout basis, as sho3n b& the te0t o1the ne3s item itsel1. 6onetheless, no liabilit& 3as deemedincurred b& the then publisher o1 the Manila Chronicle. ne3spaper Bshould not be held to account to a point osuppression 1or honest mista<es or imper1ection in the choiceo1 3ords.B This rulin!, coupled 3ith the reHuirement in the Nework Times, 3ould 1or the 3riter o1 this opinion, 1urnish asu11icient basis 1or the success o1 this appeal.

The Court, ho3ever, is not inclined to vie3 matters thus?#VI?2/L8 *USU.(N/ 0& )!E1 I/ 6?T /G2REL8 I6P?I6T. @ere, there 3as no pressure o1 a dail& deadline tomeet no occasion to act 3ith haste as the picture o1 responden3as published in a 3ee<l& ma!a"ine. Moreover, there is theadded reHuirement o1 reasonable care imposed b& suchdecision 3hich 1rom the 1acts here 1ound, appeared not to besatis1ied.The mandate o1 press 1reedom is not i!nored, but here it doesnot spea< uneHuivocall&. It is not decisive o1 the basic issue. #&itsel1, it does not have a controllin! si!ni1icance.The correction promptl& made b& Lope" and atbonton 3ouldcall 1or a reduction in the dama!es a3arded. It should be notedthat there 3as no proo1 o1 an& actual pecuniar& loss arisin!1rom the above publication. It is 3orth3hile to recall 3haustice Malcolm re1erred to as the tolerant attitude on the parto1 appellate courts on this score, the usual practice bein!Bmore li<el& to reduce dama!es 1or libel than to increase them.B

4@ERE=?RE, the decision o1 C a11irmin! the lo3er court ishereb& modi1ied, Eu!enio Lope" and uan T. atbonton bein!ordered to pa& $ointl& and severall& the sum o1 P>((.(( asmoral dama!es and the additional amount o1 P>((.(( 1oattorne&s 1ees.

.M. 6o. *'--('K 9J' /CR **%ate: pril +, )**>

In Re: Emil P. urado

I6 RE EMIL 9Emiliano P. 2R%? E0 Rel.: Philippine Lon!%istance Telephone Compan& 9PL%T, per its =irst VicePresident, Mr. Vicente R. /amson.

=acts:

urado had been 3ritin! about alle!ed improprieties andirre!ularities in the $udiciar& over several months 91rom about?ctober, )** to March, )**'. ?ther $ournalists had also beenma<in! reports or comments on the same sub$ect. t the sametime, anon&mous communications 3ere bein! e0tensivel&circulated, b& hand and throu!h the mail, about alle!ed venalit&and corruption in the courts. nd all these 3ere bein!repeatedl& and insistentl& adverted to b& certain sectors o

societ&. s a result, Chie1 ustice ndres 6arvasa issued dministrative ?rder 6o. ))-*' dated anuar& >, )**'DCreatin! an %d 2oc Committee to Investi!ate Reports oCorruption in the udiciar&.N

Material to the present inHuir& are urado;s publishedstatements 1rom late )** to the middle o1 =ebruar&, )**'.

?ctober ), )**: E0istence o1 DMa!ni1icent /evenN MetroManila RTC $ud!es 3ho have become so notorious in theirdealin!s 3ith liti!ants and la3&ers.=ebruar& ', )**': nother !roup also dubbed as theDMa!ni1icent /evenN, 3hich should be distin!uished 1rom the1irst. DMa!ni1icent /evenN Ma<ati RTC $ud!es 3ho 1i0 dru!

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


related casesF DMa!ni1icent /evenN O !roup o1 /C ustices 3hovote as one.?ctober ), )**: D%irt& %o"enN ud!es O 3ho are not satis1ied3ith acceptin! bribesF the& actuall& sell their decisions to theliti!ants that o11er the lar!er bribe 3ith the help o1 middle men.@e mentioned that the most corrupt are those in Ma<ati,supplantin! those 1rom Pasa&, Pasi! and Gue"on Cit&.6ovember *, )**: 1ormer Court o1 ppeals $ustice 3hoDholds o11iceN at a restaurant near the C buildin! 3ho is <no3nas the contact man o1 1ive C divisions. @e is said to beD<no3n 1or 1i0in! cases 1or 1ive C divisions 1or a 1ee and even

3rite his o3n decision usin! a C $ustice as a ponente.March J, )**': Made a claim that one can D!et a TR? 1rom aRTC in Metro Manila b& pa&in! the $ud!e an&3here bet3eenP'(,((( and P>(,(((.

Note: 3ead the full te$t

1ter the decision promul!ated b& the /C on u!ust K, )**,re!ardin! the Dcontroversial caseN o1 B!hili""ine )ong 4istanceTele"hone Com"any #& Eastern Tele"hone !hili""ines, nc&5ET!6,B penned b& Mr. ustice @u!o utierre", the B !hili""ine4aily n7uirer B and one or t3o other ne3spapers published, onanuar& , )**', a report o1 the purported a11idavit o1 a Mr.%avid Miles 8er<es, an alle!ed e0pert in lin!uistics. @e 3ascommissioned b& one o1 the parties in the case, EasternTelephone Philippines, Inc. 9ETPI, to e0amine and anal&"e thedecision o1 ustice utierre" in relation to a 1e3 o1 his prior

"onencias and the 3ritin!s o1 one o1 the la3&ers o1 PL%T, Mr.Eliseo lampa&, to ascertain i1 the decision had been 3ritten, in3hole or in part, b& the latter. @e concluded that the utierre"decision Bloo<s, reads and sounds li<e the 3ritin! o1 thePL%Ts counsel. s mi!ht be e0pected, the 8er<esBrevelationsB spa3ned more public discussion and commentabout the $udiciar& and the /upreme Court itsel1, much o1 itun1avorable. There 3ere calls 1or impeachment o1 the $ustices,1or resi!nation o1 $ud!es. There 3ere insistent and more3idespread reiterations o1 denunciations o1 incompetence andcorruption in the $udiciar&. nother dero!ator& epithet 1or

$ud!es 3as coined and Huic<l& !ained currenc&: B@oodlums in

Robes.B

#ecause o1 the public uproar re!ardin! the controvers&, urado3rote in his column on =ebruar& , )**', an item entitled,D4ho 3ill ud!e the ustices7N, in 3hich he claimed that Dsi$

8ustices, their s"ouses, children and grandchildren 5a total of 9 "ersons6 s"ent a #acation in 2ong ;ong some time last year and that lu$urious hotel accommodations and all their other e$"enses were "aid by a "ublic utility firm & & & and that the tri" & & & was arranged by the tra#el agency "atroni+ed by this "ublic utility firm.B That alle!ation directl& resulted to theproceedin! at bar. In a letter sent to the Chie1 ustice, PL%Tvehementl& denied the alle!ations. 1ter the investi!ation, eventhou!h urado 1ailed to appear, it has recommended that a1ormal investi!ation be conducted to determine the veracit& o1

the 1ormer;s alle!ations.

%urin! the course o1 the proceedin!s, urado moved1or its termination, claimin! that:

The court has no administrative supervision over him as amember o1 the press or over his 3or< as a $ournalist.

00000 00000 00000 00000

@is comments 3ould be more relevant and help1ul to the Courti1 ta<en to!ether 3ith the other evidence and reports o1 other

$ournalists !athered be1ore the %d 2oc Committee. @e

perceives no reason 3h& his comments should be sin!led ouand ta<en up in a separate administrative proceedin!.

Issue:4hether or not he is liable 1or the statements

published in the ne3spaper DManila /tandardN.

@eld:The Court declares tt&. Emil 9Emiliano P. urado

!uilt& o1 contempt o1 court and is 1ined P),(((.((

Rationale:

=reedom o1 e0pression, the ri!ht o1 speech and o1 the press isto be sure, amon! the most "ealousl& protected ri!hts in theConstitution. #ut ever& person e0ercisin! it is, as the CiviCode stresses, obli!ed Bto act 3ith $ustice, !ive ever&one hisdue, and observe honest& and !ood 1aith.B The constitutionaright of freedom of e$"ression may not be a#ailed of tobroadcast lies or half-truths O this 3ould not be Bto observehonest& and !ood 1aithFB it ma& not be used to insult othersFdestro& their name or reputation or brin! them into disrepute Othis 3ould not be Bto act 3ith $usticeB or B!ive ever&one hisdue.B

In the present proceedin!, there is also involved anac<no3led!ed and important interest o1 individual persons: theri!ht to private reputation. ud!es, b& becomin! such, arecommonl& and ri!htl& re!arded as voluntaril& sub$ectin!themselves to norms o1 conduct 3hich embod& more strin!entstandards o1 honest&, inte!rit&, and competence than arecommonl& reHuired 1rom private persons. )K 6everthelesspersons 3ho see< or accept 1rom appointment to the udiciar&cannot reasonabl& be re!arded as havin! thereb& 1or1eited an&ri!ht 3hatsoever to private honor and reputation. =or so to rule3ill be simpl&, in the !eneralit& o1 cases, to discoura!e all savethose 3ho 1eel no need to maintain their sel1-respect as ahuman bein! in societ&, 1rom becomin! $ud!es, 3ith obviousl&!rievous conseHuences 1or the Hualit& o1 our $ud!es and theHualit& o1 the $ustice that the& 3ill dispense. Thus, the

"rotection of the right of indi#idual "ersons to "ri#atere"utations is also a matter of "ublic interest and must bereckoned with as a factor in identifying and laying down thenorms concerning the e$ercise of "ress freedom and frees"eech.

Clearl&, the public interest involved in 1reedom o1 speech andthe individual interest o1 $ud!es 9and 1or that matter, all othepublic o11icials in the maintenance o1 private honor andreputation need to be accommodated one to the other. nd thepoint o1 ad$ustment or accommodation bet3een these t3ole!itimate interest is precisel& 1ound in the norm 3hich reHuiresthose 3ho, invo<in! 1reedom o1 speech, publish statements3hich are clearl& de1amator& to identi1iable $ud!es or othepublic o11icials to e0ercise bona fide care in ascertainin! the

truth o1 the statements the& publish. The norm does not reHuirethat a $ournalist !uarantee the truth o1 3hat he sa&s opublishes. #ut the norm does prohibit the reckless disre!ard oprivate reputation b& publishin! or circulatin! de1amator&statements 3ithout an& bona fide e11ort to ascertain the truththereo1. That this norm represents the !enerall& accepted poino1 balance or ad$ustment bet3een the t3o interests involved isclear 1rom a consideration o1 both the pertinent civil la3 normsand the Code o1 Ethics adopted b& the $ournalism pro1ession inthe Philippines.

I1 rel&in! on second-hand sources o1 in1ormation is, as theournalists Code states, irresponsible, su"ra, then indul!in! inpure speculation or !ossip is even more soF and a failure to

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


'"resent the other side' is e7ually re"rehensible, being what inlaw amounts to a denial of due "rocess.

urado 3ould also claim that the Court has no administrativesupervision over him as a member o1 the press or over his3or< as a $ournalist, and as<s 3h& he is bein! sin!led out, and,b& bein! reHuired to submit to a separate administrativeproceedin!, treated di11erentl& than his other collea!ues inmedia 3ho 3ere onl& as<ed to e0plain their reports andcomments about 3ron!doin! in the $udiciar& to the %d 2oc Committee. The ans3er is that upon all that has so 1ar been

said, the Court may hold anyone to answer for utterancesoffensi#e to its dignity, honor or re"utation which tend to "ut it in disre"ute, obstruct the administration of 8ustice, or interferewith the dis"osition of its business or the "erformance of itsfunctions in an orderly manner . urado has not been sin!ledout. 4hat has happened is that there have been brou!htbe1ore the Court, 1ormall& and in due course, s3orn statementsbrandin! his reports as lies and thus imposin! upon him thealternatives o1 substantiatin! those reports or assumin!responsibilit& 1or their publication.

It is 3orth stressin! that false re"orts about a "ublic official or other "erson are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free s"eech enshrined in the Constitution. Even themost liberal vie3 o1 1ree speech has never countenanced thepublication o1 1alsehoods, speciall& the persistent andunmiti!ated dissemination o1 patent lies. The 2./. /upremeCourt, 3hile assertin! that B9under the =irst mendment thereis no such thin! as a 1alse idea,B and that B9ho3ever pernicious an opinion ma& seem, 3e depend 1or its correctionnot on the conscience o1 $ud!es and $uries but on thecompetition o1 other ideasB 9citin! a passa!e 1rom the 1irstInau!ural ddress o1 Thomas e11erson, nonetheless madethe 1irm pronouncement that Bthere is no constitutional value in1alse statements o1 1act,B and Bthe erroneous statement o1 1actis not 3orth& o1 constitutional protection 9althou!h . . .nevertheless inevitable in 1ree debate.B B6either the intentionallie nor the careless error,B it said, Bmateriall& advancessociet&s interest in Bunhibited, robust, and 3ide-openB debate

on public issues. The& belon! to that cate!or& o1 utterances3hich Bare no essential part o1 an& e0position o1 ideas, and areo1 such sli!ht social value as a step to the truth that an& bene1itthat ma& be derived 1rom them is clearl& out3ei!hed b& thesocial interest in order and moralit&.B

DThe use o1 calculated 1alsehood,B it 3as observed in another case B3ould put a di11erent cast on the constitutional Huestion.

lthou!h honest utterances, even i1 inaccurate, ma& 1urther the1ruit1ul e0ercise o1 the ri!ht o1 1ree speech, it does not 1ollo3that the lie, <no3in!l& and deliberatel& published about a publico11icial, should en$o& a li<e immunit&. . . . 5T6he knowingly falsestatement and the false statement made with recklessdisregard of the truth, do not en8oy constitutional "rotection.B

#or$al v Court o1 ppeals '() /CR ) anuar& )J, )***=acts: civil action 1or dama!es based on libel 3as 1iledbe1ore the court a!ainst #or$al and /oliven 1or 3ritin! andpublishin! articlesthat are alle!edl& dero!ator&and o11ensive a!ainst =rancisco 4enceslao, attac<in! amon!others the solicitation letters he send to support a con1erenceto be launch concernin! resolvin! matters on transportationcrisis that is tainted 3ith anomalous activities. 4enceslaoho3ever 3as never named in an& o1 the articles nor 3as thecon1erence he 3as or!ani"in!. The lo3er court orderedpetitioners to indemni1& the private respondent 1or dama!es3hich 3as a11irmed b& the Court o1 ppeals. petition 1or revie3 3as 1iled be1ore the /C contendin! that private

respondent 3as not su11icientl& identi1ied to be the sub$ect othe published articles.

Issue: 4hether or not there are su11icient !rounds to constitute!uilt o1 petitioners 1or libel.@eld: In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that thevictim be identi1iable althou!h it is not necessar& that he benamed. It is also not su11icient that the o11ended part&reco!ni"ed himsel1 as the person attac<ed or de1amed, but itmust be sho3n that at least a third person could identi1& him asthe ob$ect o1 the libelous publication. These reHuisites have no

been complied 3ith in the case at bar. The element oidenti1iabilit& 3as not met since it 3as 4enceslaso 3horevealed he 3as the or!ani"er o1 said con1erence and had henot done so the public 3ould not have <no3n.

The concept o1 privile!ed communications is implicit in the1reedom o1 the press and that privile!ed communications musbe protective o1 public opinion. =air commentaries on matterso1 public interest are privile!ed and constitute a valid de1ensein an action 1or libel or slander. The doctrine o1 1aicomment means that 3hile in !eneral ever& discreditableimputation publicl& made is deemed 1alse, because ever& manis presumed innocent until his !uilt is $udiciall& proved, andever& 1alse imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless3hen the discreditable imputation is directed a!ainst a publicperson in his public capacit&, it is not necessaril& actionable. Inorder that such discreditable imputation to a public o11icial ma&be actionable, it must either be a 1alse alle!ation o1 1act or acomment based on a 1alse supposition. I1 the comment is ane0pression o1 opinion, based on established 1acts, then it isimmaterial that the opinion happens to be mista<en, as lon! asit mi!ht reasonabl& be in1erred 1rom the 1acts.

The Huestioned article dealt 3ith matters o1 public interest asthe declared ob$ective o1 the con1erence, the composition o1 itsmembers and participants, and the manner b& 3hich it 3asintended to be 1unded no doubt lend to its activities as bein!!enuinel& imbued 3ith public interest. Respondent is alsodeemed to be a public 1i!ure and even other3ise is involved in

a public issue. The court held that 1reedom o1 e0pression isconstitutionall& !uaranteed and protected 3ith the remindeamon! media members to practice hi!hest ethical standards inthe e0ercise thereo1.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

privile!ed communication ma& be either:

). bsolutel& privile!ed communication those 3hich are noactionable even i1 the author has acted in bad 1aith. ne0ample is 1ound in /ec. )), rt.VI, o1 the )*K Constitution3hich e0empts a member o1 Con!ress 1rom liabilit& 1or an&speech or debate in theCon!ress or in an& Committee thereo1.

. Guali1iedl& privile!ed communications those containin!

de1amator& imputations are not actionable unless 1ound tohave been made 3ithout !ood intention $usti1iable motive. Tothis !enre belon! Bprivate communicationsB and B1air and truereport 3ithout an& comments or remar<s.B

ra1iles vs. Philippine ournalists, Inc.

=CT/:

This is a complaint 1or dama!es 1iled b& Catalino ra1iles%irector o1 the 6ational Institute o1 tmospheric /cience 96I/a!ainst People;s ournal Toni!ht reporter, Rom& Morales

?n pril )J, )*K, Morales 3as at the 4estern Police %istrict

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


@eadHuarters 3hen 6I/ emplo&ee, Emelita %espui! lod!ed acomplaint 1or 1orcible abduction 3ith rape and 1orcibleabduction 3ith attempted rape a!ainst ra1iles. 1ter intervie3in! Emelita and chec<in! the police blotter, Morales3rote a stor& about it, 3hich 3as published that same da&.

ra1iles then 1iled a complaint a!ainst Morales, alle!in! that onaccount o1 the D!rossl& malicious and overl& sensationali"edreportin! in the ne3s itemN aspersions 3ere cast on hischaracterF his reputation as a director o1 the 6I/ at theP/ 3as in$uredF he became the ob$ect o1 public contempt

and ridicule as he 3as depicted as a se0-cra"ed stal<er andserial rapistF and the ne3s item de1erred his promotion to theposition o1 %eput& dministrator o1 P/.

=or its part, Morales et al. countered that the ne3s item, havin!been sourced 1rom the Police #lotter, 3hich is an o11icial publicdocument and bolstered b& a personal intervie3 o1 the victim,1alls 3ithin the protective constitutional provision o1 1reedom o1 the press.

The RTC ruled in 1avor o1 ra1iles, statin! that the article didnot use phrases li<e Dalle!edl&N or Dreportedl&N and that itreported the alle!ations o1 the victim as i1 it 3ere 1act and truth.?n appeal to the C, the RTC decision 3as reversed. C1ound no proo1 that respondents 3ere motivated b& a sinister intent to cause harm and in$ur& to petitioner.

@ence this case.

I//2E:

4hether or not the C erred in holdin! that the publication o1 the ne3s item 3as not attended 3ith malice to thus 1reerespondents o1 liabilit& 1or dama!es

@EL%:

The /C 1ound that the case a!ainst respondents has not been

su11icientl& established b& preponderance o1 evidence.

rticle '' contemplates a civil action 1or the recover& o1 dama!es that is entirel& unrelated to the purel& criminal aspecto1 the case. civil action 1or libel under this article shall beinstituted and prosecuted to 1inal $ud!ment and proved b&preponderance o1 evidence separatel& 1rom and entirel&independent o1 the institution, pendenc& or result o1 thecriminal action because it is !overned b& the provisions o1 the6CC and not b& the RPC !overnin! the criminal o11ensechar!ed and the civil liabilit& arisin! there1rom. These pertinent6CC provisions are rticle )* and ).

In actions 1or dama!es 1or libel, it is a0iomatic that thepublished 3or< alle!ed to contain libelous material must be

e0amined and vie3ed as a 3hole.

The article must be construed as an entiret& includin! theheadlines, as the& ma& enlar!e, e0plain, or restrict or beenlar!ed, e0plained or stren!thened or restricted b& conte0t.4hether or not it is libelous depends upon the scope, spirit andmotive o1 the publication ta<en in its entiret&.

publication claimed to be de1amator& must be read andconstrued in the sense in 3hich the readers to 3hom it isaddressed 3ould ordinaril& understand it. /o, the 3hole item,includin! displa& lines, should be read and construed to!ether,and its meanin! and si!ni1ication thus determined.

4as there malicious sensationali"ation o1 1abricated 1acts7

/C held in the ne!ative

The ar!ument o1 the petitioner is that the sole basis o1 thene3s item is the police blotter. @o3ever, said police blotterplainl& sho3s that there 3as onl& one count o1 abduction andrape reported b& Emelita

/C 1ound that 3hile the police blotter entr& recorded Emelita;scomplaint about onl& a case 1or abduction 3ith rape, her s3orn

statement !iven in the presence o1 Morales, 3ho subseHuentl&intervie3ed her, reported about the second abduction incident

The presentation o1 the ne3s item sub$ect o1 petitioner;scomplaint ma& have been in a sensational manner, but it is noper se ille!al. The 1irst seven para!raphs !ave the impressionthat a certain director o1 the 6I/ actuall& committed thecrimes, but the succeedin! para!raphs su11icientl& conve&ed tothe readers that the narration o1 events 3as onl& Emelita;saccount to the police

/C 1urther ruled that in determinin! the manner in 3hich a!iven event should be presented as a ne3s item and theimportance to be attached thereto, ne3spapers must en$o& acertain de!ree o1 discretion

Ever& citi"en o1 course has the ri!ht to en$o& a !ood name andreputation, but 3e do not consider that the respondents, undethe circumstances o1 this case, had violated said ri!ht oabused the 1reedom o1 the press. The ne3spapers should be!iven such lee3a& and tolerance as to enable them tocoura!eousl& and e11ectivel& per1orm their important role in ourdemocrac&. In the preparation o1 stories, press reporters andeditors usuall& have to race 3ith their deadlinesF andconsistentl& 3ith !ood 1aith and reasonable care, the& shouldnot be held to account, to a point o1 suppression, 1or honestmista<es or imper1ection in the choice o1 3ords.

#2I? MI%L6% C?2RIER CECILLE =#LE V/

C?2RT ?= PPEL/ RM?6 L#?, R., JJJ /CR 6ovember >, ((J=reedom o1 E0pressionF the public has the ri!ht to be in1ormedon the mental, moral and ph&sical 1itness o1 candidates 1opublic o11ice.=CT/:). In the anuar& ', )* issue o1 the #a!uio MidlandCourier 9#MC, Cecille 1able, the Editor-in-Chie1, in hecolumn DIn and ?ut o1 #a!uioN made the 1ollo3in! comments:D?1 all the candidates 1or Ma&or o1 #a!uio Cit&, Labo has themost imponderables about him. People 3ould as<: Dcan heread and 3riteN7 4h& is he al3a&s tal<in! about his apanese1ather-in-la37 Is he reall& a apanes /enator or a barrioQapitan7 Is it true that he 3ill send P)M aid to #a!uio7/omebod& 3anted to put an advertisement o1 Labo in the

Midland Courier but 3as re1used because he has not &et paidhis account o1 the last time he 3as a candidate 1or Con!ress.4e 3ill accept all advertisements 1or him i1 he pa&s his oldaccount 1irst.N. In the same column, Cecille 1able 3rote the1ollo3in! comments in her anuar& )(, )* column at theCourier:DI heard that the %umpt& in the E!!; is campai!nin! 1or Cortes6ot 1air. /ome real doctors are also bus& campai!nin! a!ainstLabo because he has not also paid their medical services 3iththem. /ince he is donatin! millions he should also settle hissmall debts li<e the reportedl& insi!ni1icant amount o1 PK,(((onl&. I1 he 3ins, several teachers 3ere si!ni1&in! to resi!n and

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


leave #a!uio 1orever, and Pan!asinan 3ill be the 1ranca-liHuao1 #a!uio.N'. s a result o1 the above articles, Ramon Labor, r.1iled a complaint 1or %ama!es be1ore the re!ional trial Court o1 #a!uio Cit& as he claimed said articles 3ere libelous. @eli<e3ise 1iled a separate criminal complaint be1ore the ?11ice o1 the Cit& Prosecutor o1 #a!uio but 3as dismissedFJ. Labo claimed that the said articles 3ere tainted 3ithmalice because he 3as alle!edl& described as D%umpt& in theE!!N or one D3ho is a 1ailure in his businessN 3hich is 1alsebecause he is a ver& success1ul businessman or to mean D"ero

or a bi! lieNF that he is a DbalasubasN due to his alle!ed 1ailureto pa& his medical e0pensesFThe petitioners, ho3ever, 3ere able to prove that Labo has anunpaid obli!ation to the Courier in the amount o1 PK,J)>.((1or the ads placed b& his campai!ners 1or the )*J #atasan!Pambansa electionsFThe Re!ional Trial Court, #ranch +, #a!uio Cit&, in its %ecisiondated une )J, )**( dismissed Labo;s complaint 1or dama!eson the !round that the article o1 petitioner 1able 3as privile!edand constituted 1air comment on matters o1 public interest as itdealt 3ith the inte!rit&, reputation and honest& o1 privaterespondent Labo 3ho 3as a candidate 1or Ma&or o1 #a!uioCit&F?n anuar& K, )**, the Court o1 ppeals reversed the RTC%ecision and ordered the petitioners to pa& Ramon Labo, r.dama!es in the total amount o1 P'>(,(((.(( a1ter concludin!that the D%umpt& in the E!!N re1ers to no one but Labo himsel1.@ence, the Petition to the /upreme Court.I//2E/:). 4as Labo the D%umpt& in the E!!N described in theHuestioned article5. 4ere the articles sub$ect o1 the case libelous or privile!ed5@EL%:). The Court o1 ppeals is 3ron! 3hen it held that Labois the D%umpt& in the E!!N in the Huestioned article. This is sobecause the article stated that DThe %umpt& in the E!! iscampai!nin! 1or CortesN, another candidate 1or ma&or andopponent o1 Labo himsel1. It is unbelievable that Labo

campai!ned 1or his opponent and a!ainst himsel1. lthou!hsuch !racious attitude on the part o1 Labo 3ould have beencommendable, it is contrar& to common human e0perience. spointed out b& the petitioners, had he done that, it is doubt1ul3hether he could have 3on as Cit& Ma&or o1 #a!uio in the)* elections, 3hich he actuall& did. In line 3ith the doctrinein #?RL V/. C, ')( /CR ), that it is also not su11icientthat the o11ended part& reco!ni"ed himsel1 as the personattac<ed or de1amed, but it must be sho3n that at least a'rd person could identi1& him as the ob$ect o1 the libelouspublication;, the case should be dismissed since Labo utterl&1ailed to dispose o1 this responsibilit&.. Labo claims that the petitioners could not invo<eDpublic interestN to $usti1& the publication since he 3as not &et apublic o11icial at that time. This ar!ument is 3ithout merit since

he 3as alread& a candidate 1or Cit& ma&or o1 #a!uio. s such,the article is still 3ithin the mantle o1 protection !uaranteed b&the 1reedom o1 e0pression provided in the Constitution since itis the public;s ri!ht to be in1ormed o1 the mental, moral andph&sical 1itness o1 candidates 1or public o11ice. This 3asreco!ni"ed as earl& as the case o1 2/ V/. /E%6?, )J Phil.'' )*(* and the case o1 6E4 8?RQ TIME/ V/./2LLIV6, 'K+ 2./. >J 3here the 2/ /upreme Court held:DSit is o1 the utmost conseHuence that the people shoulddiscuss the character and Huali1ications o1 candidates 1or their su11ra!es. The importance to the /tate and to societ& o1 suchdiscussions is so vast, and the advanta!es derived so !reat,that the& more than counterbalance the inconvenience o1 private persons 3hose conduct ma& be involved, and

occasional in$ur& to the reputations o1 individuals must &ield tothe public 3el1are, althou!h at times such in$ur& ma& be !reatThe public bene1it 1rom publicit& is so !reat and the chance o1in$ur& to private character so small, that such discussion musbe privile!ed. DClearl&, the Huestioned articles constitute 1air comment on amatter o1 public interest as it dealt 3ith the character o1 theprivate respondent 3ho 3as runnin! 1or the top elective post in#a!uio Cit& at that time.)+. ?6LE/ v. QL4-QTI#Q

Petitioner: ose ntonio 2. on"ales in behal1 o1 Mala&a=ilms, Lino #roc<a, ose =. Lacaba, and %ulce G. /a!uisa!Respondent : Chairman Maria Qala3 Qati!ba<, enera4il1redo C. Estrada 9Ret., and the #oard o1 Revie3 1or MotionPictures and Television 9#RMPT%ate: ul& , )*>

Emer!enc& Recit: Qapit sa Patalim 3as classi1ied as 1or adultsonl&. Petitioner 1iled 1or certiorari re!ardin! this classi1ication/C held that obscenit& calls 1or a hard determination becausean artists representation o1 se0 should be treated 3ith respecand comes under the purvie3 o1 constitutionall& protectede0pression. @o3ever, the& did not reach the reHuired numbeo1 votes to con1irm that respondent #oard did commit !raveabuse discretion and so the& dismissed petition. 6ote: Thisrulin! is limited to the concept o1 obscenit& applicable to motionpictures onl&. 4here television is concerned: a less liberaapproach calls 1or observance.

=acts:In a resolution o1 a sub-committee o1 respondent #oard o?ctober ', )*J, a permit to e0hibit the 1ilm Qapit sa Patalimunder the classi1ication B=or dults ?nl&,B 3ith certain chan!esand deletions enumerated 3as !ranted

motion 1or reconsideration 3as 1iled b& petitioners statin! thathe classi1ication o1 the 1ilm B=or dults ?nl&B 3as 3ithout basis?n 6ovember ), )*J, respondent #oard released itsdecision, a11irmin! the rulin! o1 the sub-committeePetitioners 1iled 3ith /C petition 1or certiorari

Issue:4o6 respondent #oard committed !rave abuse o1 discretion indeclarin! Qapit sa Patalim as B=or dults ?nl&B -- 8es bupetition 1or certiorari cannot prosper To avoid an unconstitutional taint on its creation, the po3er orespondent #oard is limited to the classi1ication o1 1ilms. It canto sa1e!uard other constitutional ob$ections, determine 3hamotion pictures are 1or !eneral patrona!e and 3hat ma&reHuire either parental !uidance or be limited to adults onl&That is to abidr b& the principle that 1reedom o1 e0pression isthe rule and restrictions the e0emtion 9hindi <i !ets &un!!rammar. The po3er to e0ercise prior restraint is not to bepresumed, rather the presumption is a!ainst its validit&Press 1reedom ma& be identi1ied 3ith the libert& to discuss

publicl& and truth1ull& an& matter o1 public concern 3ithoucensorship or punishmentIt can be limited i1 there be a clear and present dan!er o1 asubstantive evil that the /tate has a ri!ht to prevent4here the movies, theatrical productions, radio scriptstelevision pro!rams, and other such media o1 e0pression areconcerned, censorship is allo3able onl& under the clearesproo1 o1 a clear and present dan!er o1 a substantive evil topublic morals, public health, or an& other le!itimate publicinterestRoth v. 2nited /tates: Bll ideas havin! even the sli!htesredeemin! social importance-unorthodo0 ideas, controversiaideas, even ideas hate1ul to the prevailin! climate o1 opinionhave the 1ull protectiono1 the !uaranties, unless e0cludable

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


because the& encroach upon the limited area o1 the =irst mendment is the re$ection o1 obescenit& as utterl& redeemin!social importanceTest 1or determinin! obscenit& 9abandonin! the @ic<lin test3hich 3as to $ud!e merel& b& the e11ect o1 an isolated e0cerptupon particularl& susceptible persons because it mi!ht 3ellencompass material le!itimatel& treatin! 3ith se04hether to the avera!e person, appl&in! contemporar&communit& standards, the dominant theme o1 the materialta<en as a 3hole appeals to prurient interest.Provides sa1e!uards adeHuate to 3ithstand the char!e o1

constitutional in1irmit& ccordin! to ustice #rennan in Roth case: se0 and obscenit&are not s&non&mous?bscene material 3hich deals 3ith se0 in a manner appealin!to prurient interestThe portra&al o1 se0 is not itsel1 su11icient resson to den&material the constitutional protection o1 1reedom o1 speech andpressIt is le1t 3ith the artist to determine 3hat 1or him is a truerepresentation4hat is seen or perceived b& an artist is entitled to respect,unless there is a sho3in! that the product o1 his talent ri!ht1ull&ma& be considered obsceneThis Court concludes then that there 3as an abuse o1 discretion. 6onetheless, there are not enou!h votes tomaintain that such abuse can be considered !raveE0planation o1 respondent #oardThe adult classi1ication !iven the 1ilm serves as a 3arnin! totheater operators and vie3ers that some contents o1 Qapit arenot 1it 1or the &oun!. /ome o1 the scenes in the picture 3ereta<en in a theater-club and a !ood portion o1 the 1ilm shotsconcentrated on some 3omen eroticall& dancin! na<ed 9I 3antto see this movie, or at least nearl& na<ed, on the theater sta!e. nother scene on that sta!e depicted the 3omen <issin!and caressin! as lesbians 9o< no3 I reeealll& 3ant to 3atchthis movie. nd to3ard the end o1 the picture, there e0istsscenes o1 e0cessive violence attendin! the battle bet3een a!roup o1 robbers and the police. The vulnerable and imitative&outh audience 3ill misunderstand these scenes.

Respondent 1urther stated that petitioner compan& has anoption to have the 1ilm reclassi1ied =or-eneral-Patrona!e i1 it3ould a!ree to remove the obscene scenes and pare do3n theviolence in the 1ilm

4@ERE=?RE, this acourt, in the li!ht o1 the principles o1 la3enunciatrd in the opinion, dismisses this petition 1or certiorarisolel& on the !round that there are not enou!h votes 1or arulin! that there 3as a !rave abuse o1 discretion in theclassi1ication o1 Qapti sa Patalim as B=or-dults-?nl&.B

.R. 6o. ((+ ?ct. >, )** /armientoPetitioner: Leo Pita doin! business under the name and st&leo1 Pino& Pla&bo&Respondents: C, Ramon #a!atsin!, and 6arciso Cabrera

/ummar&: Pursuant to the nti-/mut Campai!n initiated b& theMa&or o1 Manila, Ma&or #a!atsin! and other public o11icers,sei"ed and con1iscated 1rom dealers, distributors, ne3sstando3ners and peddlers alon! Manila side3al<s, ma!a"ines,publications and other readin! materials believed to beobscene, porno!raphic and indecent and later burned thesei"ed materials in public. mon! the publications sei"ed andburned, 3as BPino& Pla&bo&B ma!a"ines published and co-edited b& Pita. I: 456 the police o11icers could 3ithout an& court3arrant or order sei"e and con1iscate the ma!a"ines on thebasis simpl& o1 their determination that the& are obscene. O6?. R: 2ndoubtedl&, BimmoralB lore or literature comes 3ithinthe ambit o1 1ree e0pression, althou!h not its protection. In 1reee0pression cases, there must be a Bclear and present dan!erB

that 3ould 3arrant /tate inter1erence and action. There musbe ob8ecti#e and con#incing, not sub8ecti#e or con8ectural

"roof of the e$istence of such clear and "resent danger . It isessential 1or the validit& o1 previous restraint or censorship thathe authorit& does not rely solely on his own a""raisal of whatthe "ublic welfare, "eace or safety may re7uire . To $usti1& sucha limitation, there must be proo1 o1 such weight and sufficiencyto satisfy the clear and "resent danger test . The burden is onthe /tate to demonstrate the e0istence o1 a dan!er, a dan!erthat must not onl& be: 9) clear but also, 9 present, to $usti1&/tate action to stop the speech. The Court is not convinced

that #a!atsin! and Cabrera have sho3n the reHuired proo1 to $usti1& a ban and to 3arrant con1iscation o1 the literature 1o3hich mandator& in$unction had been sou!ht belo3. =irst o1 allthe& 3ere not possessed o1 a la31ul court order: 9) 1indin! thesaid materials to be porno!raph&, and 9 authori"in! them tocarr& out a search and sei"ure, b& 3a& o1 a search 3arrant9/ee !uidelines belo3.

=acts:Pursuant to the nti-/mut Campai!n initiated b& the Ma&or o1Manila, Ma&or #a!atsin! and other public o11icers, sei"ed andcon1iscated 1rom dealers, distributors, ne3sstand o3ners andpeddlers alon! Manila side3al<s, ma!a"ines, publications andother readin! materials believed to be obscene, porno!raphicand indecent and later burned the sei"ed materials in public athe 2niversit& belt alon! Recto, in the presence o1 #a!atsin!and several o11icers and members o1 various studenor!ani"ations.

mon! the publications sei"ed and burned, 3as BPino&Pla&bo&B ma!a"ines published and co-edited b& Pita.@e 1iled a case 1or in$unction 3ith pra&er 1or issuance o1 the 3rio1 preliminar& in$unction a!ainst Ma&or #a!atsin! and 6arciscoCabrera, as superintendent o1 4estern Police %istrict oManila, to restrain them 1rom con1iscatin! Pino& Pla&bo&copies or 1rom other3ise preventin! the sale or circulationthereo1 claimin! that the ma!a"ine is a decent, artistic andeducational ma!a"ine 3hich is not "er se obscene, and thathe publication is protected b& the Constitutional !uarantees o11reedom o1 speech and o1 the press.

The TR? 3as !rantedMa&or #a!atsin! admitted the con1iscation and burnin! oobscene readin! materials but claimed that the& 3erevoluntaril& surrendered b& the vendors to the police authoritiesand that it 3as underta<en pursuant to P% *+(, as amended b&P% *+*, 3hich amended rt. () o1 the RPC. In opposin! theapplication 1or a 3rit o1 preliminar& in$unction, #a!atsin!pointed out that in that anti-smut campai!n conducted, thematerials con1iscated belon!ed to the ma!a"ine stand o3nersand peddlers 3ho voluntaril& surrendered their readin!materials, and that their establishment 3as not raided.

Issue: 456 the police o11icers could 3ithout an& court 3arranor order sei"e and con1iscate the ma!a"ines on the basissimpl& o1 their determination that the& are obscene. O 6?.

?bscenit&/on+ale+ #& ;alaw ;atigbak : the Court, 1ollo3in! trends in the2nited /tates, adopted the test: B4hether to the avera!eperson, appl&in! contemporar& standards, the dominant themeo1 the material ta<en as a 3hole appeals to prurient interest.B@o3ever, there is lac< o1 uni1ormit& in merican $urisprudenceas to 3hat constitutes Bobscenit&B. Constitutional la3 onobscenit& continues to $ourne& 1rom development todevelopmentIn the case at bar, there is no challen!e on the ri!ht o1 the/tate, in the le!itimate e0ercise o1 police po3er, to suppresssmut provided it is smut. =or obvious reasons, smut is not smusimpl& because one insists it is smut. /o is it eHuall& evident

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


that individual tastes develop, adapt to 3ide-ran!in!in1luences, and <eep in step 3ith the rapid advance o1 civili"ation. 4hat shoc<ed our 1orebears, sa&, > decades a!o,is not necessaril& repulsive to the present !eneration.#ut neither should 3e sa& that Bobscenit&B is a bare 9no punintended matter o1 opinion.2ndoubtedl&, BimmoralB lore or literature comes 3ithin theambit o1 1ree e0pression, althou!h not its protection. In 1reee0pression cases, this Court has consistentl& been on the sideo1 the e0ercise o1 the ri!ht, barrin! a Bclear and presentdan!erB that 3ould 3arrant /tate inter1erence and action.

BThere must be ob8ecti#e and con#incing, not sub8ecti#e or con8ectural, "roof of the e$istence of such clear and "resent danger .B BIt is essential 1or the validit& o1 previous restraint or censorship that the authorit& does not rely solely on his owna""raisal of what the "ublic welfare, "eace or safety may re7uire.B BTo $usti1& such a limitation, there must be proo1 o1 such weight and sufficiency to satisfy the clear and "resent danger test .B

The burden is on the /tate to demonstrate the e0istence o1 adan!er, a dan!er that must not onl& be: 9) clear but also, 9present, to $usti1& /tate action to stop the speech. Mean3hile,the overnment must allo3 it 9the speech. It has no choice.@o3ever, i1 it acts not3ithstandin! that 9absence o1 evidence o1 a clear and present dan!er, it must come to terms 3ith, andbe held accountable 1or, due process.The Court is not convinced that #a!atsin! and Cabrera havesho3n the reHuired proo1 to $usti1& a ban and to 3arrantcon1iscation o1 the literature 1or 3hich mandator& in$unction hadbeen sou!ht belo3. =irst o1 all, the& 3ere not possessed o1 ala31ul court order: 9) 1indin! the said materials to beporno!raph&, and 9 authori"in! them to carr& out a searchand sei"ure, b& 3a& o1 a search 3arrant.

Invalid /ei"ureThe 1act that the #a!atsin!;s act 3as sanctioned b& Bpolicepo3erB is no license to sei"e propert& in disre!ard o1 dueprocess. This does not e0empt our la3 en1orcers, in carr&in!out the decree 1rom the commandments o1 the Constitution, theri!ht to due process o1 la3 and the ri!ht a!ainst unreasonable

searches and sei"ures, speci1icall&.It is basic that searches and sei"ures ma& be done onl&throu!h a $udicial 3arrant, other3ise, the& becomeunreasonable and sub$ect to challen!e. In (urgos #& Chief of Staff, %<! , 4e counter-minded the orders o1 the RTCauthori"in! the search o1 the premises o1 =e <orum and.etro"olitan .ail , Metro Manila dailies, b& reason o1 ade1ective 3arrant.4e have !reater reason here to reprobate the Huestioned raid,in the complete absence o1 a 3arrant, valid or invalid. The 1actthat the instant case involves an obscenit& rap ma<es it nodi11erent 1rom (urgos, a political case, because, and as 3ehave indicated, speech is speech, 3hether political or BobsceneB.This is also not a valid 3arrantless search, under the Rules o1

Court, the search must have been an incident to a la31ularrest, and the arrest must be on account o1 a crimecommitted. @ere, no part& has been char!ed, nor are suchchar!es bein! readied a!ainst an& part&, under rt. () o1 theRPC.

uidelines:The authorities must appl& 1or the issuance o1 a search 3arrant1rom a $ud!e, i1 in their opinion, an obscenit& rap is in orderFThe authorities must convince the court that the materialssou!ht to be sei"ed are BobsceneB, and pose a clear andpresent dan!er o1 an evil substantive enou!h to 3arrant /tateinter1erence and actionF

The $ud!e must determine 3hether or not the same are indeedBobscene:B the Huestion is to be resolved on a case-to-casebasis and on @is @onors sound discretion.I1, in the opinion o1 the court, probable cause e0ists, it ma&issue the search 3arrant pra&ed 1orFThe proper suit is then brou!ht in the court under rt. () othe RPCF

n& conviction is sub$ect to appeal. The appellate court ma&assess 3hether or not the properties sei"ed are indeedBobsceneB.These do not 1oreclose, ho3ever, de1enses under the

Constitution or applicable statutes, or remedies a!ainst abuseo1 o11icial po3er under the CivCode or the RPC .

4@ERE=?RE, the petition is R6TE%. The decision o1 therespondent court is REVER/E% and /ET /I%E. It appearin!ho3ever, that the ma!a"ines sub$ect o1 the search and sei"ureave been destro&ed, the Court declines to !rant a11irmativerelie1. To that e0tent, the case is moot and academic.

=ernando v C .R. 6o. )>*K>) %ecember +, ((+

. Guisimbin!

=acts: ctin! on reports o1 sale and distribution o1 porno!raphicmaterials, o11icers o1 the Philippine 6ational Police CI%conducted police surveillance on the store bearin! the name oaudencio E. =ernando Music =air 9Music =air.?n Ma& >, )***, ud!e Per1ecto La!uio o1 the Re!ional TriaCourt o1 Manila, #ranch )*, issued /earch 4arrant 6o. **))+ 1or violation o1 rticle () o1 the Revised Penal Codea!ainst petitioner audencio E. =ernando and a certain4arren Tin!chu&.The 3arrant ordered the search o1 the store 1or copies o1 6e3Rave, @ustler, I?2 ma!a"ine, and V@/ tapes.?n the same da&, police o11icers o1 the P6P-CI% 6CR servedthe 3arrant on Rud& Estorninos, 3ho, accordin! to theprosecution, introduced himsel1 as the store attendant o1 Music=air. The police searched the premises and con1iscated

t3ent&-1ive 9> V@/ tapes and ten 9)( di11erent ma!a"ines3hich the& deemed porno!raphic. ll appellants pled not !uilt& to the o11enses char!ed. The&3aived their ri!ht to present evidence. The RTC acHuittedTin!chu& 1or lac< o1 evidence to prove his !uilt, but convictedherein petitioners =ernando and Estorninos.The C a11irmed the decision. The petitioners sou!ht 1or revie3in the /C on certiorari and assailed the C decision.The& assi!ned the 1ollo3in! errors:I. Respondent court erred in convictin! petitioner =ernandoeven i1 he 3as not present at the time o1 the raidII. Respondent erred in convictin! petitioner Estorninos 3ho3as not doin! an&thin! ille!al at the time o1 the raid.Petitioners contend that the prosecution 1ailed to prove that athe time o1 the search, the& 3ere sellin! porno!raphic

materials. =ernando contends that since he 3as not char!edas the o3ner o1 an establishment sellin! obscene materialsthe prosecution must prove that he 3as present durin! the raidand that he 3as sellin! the said materials. Estorninos, on theother hand, insists that he 3as not an attendant in Music =airnor did he introduce himsel1 so.The /olicitor eneral counters that o3ners o1 establishmentssellin! obscene publications are e0pressl& held liable unde

rticle (), and petitioner =ernando;s o3nership 3assu11icientl& proven. s the o3ner, accordin! to the /olicitoeneral, =ernando 3as naturall& a seller o1 the prohibitedmaterials and liable under the In1ormation.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


Issue: 4hether the appellate court erred in a11irmin! thepetitioners; conviction.

@eld: 6o. Petition dismissed.

Ratio: s obscenit& is an unprotected speech 3hich the /tate hasthe ri!ht to re!ulate, the /tate in pursuin! its mandate toprotect, as parens patriae, the public 1rom obscene, immoraland indecent materials must $usti1& the re!ulation or limitation.

?ne such re!ulation is rticle () o1 the Revised Penal Code.To be held liable, the prosecution must prove that 9a thematerials, publication, picture or literature are obsceneF and 9bthe o11ender sold, e0hibited, published or !ave a3a& suchmaterials. 6ecessaril&, that the con1iscated materials areobscene must be proved.People v. Qottin!er-.obscenit& as somethin! 3hich is o11ensiveto chastit&, decenc& or delicac&. The test to determine thee0istence o1 obscenit& is, 3hether the tendenc& o1 the matter char!ed as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those 3hoseminds are open to such immoral in1luences and into 3hosehands a publication or other article char!ed as bein! obscenema& 1all.

lso, Dthat 3hich shoc<s the ordinar& and common sense o1 men as an indecenc&.N The disclaimer 3as 3hether a picture isobscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances o1 the case, and that ultimatel&, the Huestion is to be decided b&the $ud!ment o1 the a!!re!ate sense o1 the communit&reached b& it.o Pin- I1 such pictures, sculptures and paintin!s are sho3nin art e0hibits and art !alleries 1or the cause o1 art, to bevie3ed and appreciated b& people interested in art, there3ould be no o11ense committed. @o3ever, the pictures here inHuestion 3ere used not e0actl& 1or art;s sa<e but rather 1or commercial purposes. In other 3ords, the supposed artisticHualities o1 said pictures 3ere bein! commerciali"ed so that thecause o1 art 3as o1 secondar& or minor importance. ain andpro1it 3ould appear to have been the main, i1 not the e0clusiveconsideration in their e0hibitionF and it 3ould not be surprisin!

i1 the persons 3ho 3ent to see those pictures and paidentrance 1ees 1or the privile!e o1 doin! so, 3ere not e0actl&artists and persons interested in art and 3ho !enerall& !o to arte0hibitions and !alleries to satis1& and improve their artistictastes, but rather people desirous o1 satis1&in! their morbidcuriosit& and taste, and lust, and 1or love o1 e0citement,includin! the &outh 3ho because o1 their immaturit& are not in aposition to resist and shield themselves 1rom the ill andpervertin! e11ects o1 these picturesPadan- n actual e0hibition o1 the se0ual act, preceded b& actso1 lasciviousness, can have no redeemin! 1eature. In it, thereis no room 1or art. ?ne can see nothin! in it but clear andunmiti!ated obscenit&, indecenc&, and an o11ense to publicmorals, inspirin! and causin! as it does, nothin! but lust andle3dness, and e0ertin! a corruptin! in1luence speciall& on the

&outh o1 the land.Qati!ba<- the Court measures obscenit& in terms o1 theDdominant themeN o1 the material ta<en as a D3holeN rather thanin isolated passa!es.Pita v. Court o1 ppeals, concernin! alle!ed porno!raphicpublications, the Court reco!ni"ed that Qottin!er 1ailed to a11orda conclusive de1inition o1 obscenit&, and that both o Pin andPadan & lova raised more Huestions than ans3ers such as,3hether the absence or presence o1 artists and personsinterested in art and 3ho !enerall& !o to art e0hibitions and!alleries to satis1& and improve their artistictastes, determine 3hat art isF or that i1 the& 1ind inspiration inthe e0hibitions, 3hether such e0hibitions cease to be obscene.o Pin and Padan & lova !ave too much latitude 1or $udicial

arbitrament, 3hich has permitted ad lib o1 ideas and Dt3o-cents3orthsN amon! $ud!es as to 3hat is obscene or 3hat is art.The Court in Pita also emphasi"ed the di11icult& o1 the Huestionand pointed out ho3 ha"& $urisprudence is on obscenit& andho3 $urisprudence actuall& 1ailed to settle Huestions on thematter. /i!ni1icantl&, the d&namism o1 human civili"ation doesnot help at all. It is evident that individual tastes develop, adapto 3ide-ran!in! in1luences, and <eep in step 3ith the rapidadvance o1 civili"ation. It seems 1utile at this point to 1ormulatea per1ect de1inition o1 obscenit& that shall appl& in all cases.There is no per1ect de1inition o1 Dobscenit&N but the latest 3ord

is that o1 Miller v. Cali1ornia 3hich established basic !uidelinesto 3it: 9a 3hether to the avera!e person, appl&in!contemporar& standards 3ould 1ind the 3or<, ta<en as a 3holeappeals to the prurient interestF 9b 3hether the 3or< depicts odescribes, in a patentl& o11ensive 3a&, se0ual conducspeci1icall& de1ined b& the applicable state la3F and 9c 3hethethe 3or<, ta<en as a 3hole, lac<s serious literar&, artisticpolitical, or scienti1ic value.#ut, it 3ould be a serious misreadin! o1 Miller to conclude thathe trier o1 1acts has the unbridled discretion in determinin!3hat is Dpatentl& o11ensive. 6o one 3ill be sub$ect toprosecution 1or the sale or e0posure o1 obscene materialsunless these materials depict or describe patentl& o11ensiveDhard coreN se0ual conduct. Ie o11ensive descriptions o1 se0acts.4hat remains clear is that obscenit& is an issue proper 1or

$udicial determination and should be treated on a case to casebasis and on the $ud!e;s sound discretion.In this case, the trial court 1ound the con1iscated materialsobscene and the Court o1 ppeals a11irmed such 1indin!s=indin!s o1 1act o1 the Court o1 ppeals a11irmin! that o1 the triacourt are accorded !reat respect, even b& this Court, unlesssuch 1indin!s are patentl& unsupported b& the evidence onrecord or the $ud!ment itsel1 is based on misapprehension o1acts. %id petitioners participate in the distribution and e0hibition oobscene materials7 4e emphasi"e that mere possession oobscene materials, 3ithout intention to sell, e0hibit, or !ivethem a3a&, is not punishable under rticle (), considerin! the

purpose o1 the la3 is to prohibit the dissemination o1 obscenematerials to the public. The o11ense in an& o1 the 1orms under rticle () is committed onl& 3hen there is publicit&. Thema&or;s permit sho3s that =ernando 3as the o3ner o1 thestore.Petitioner Estorninos is li<e3ise liable as the store attendanactivel& en!a!ed in sellin! and e0hibitin! the obscenematerials. Prosecution 3itness Police Inspector Tababan, 3holed the P6P-CI% 6CR that conducted the search, identi1iedhim as the store attendant upon 3hom the search 3arrant 3asserved.

6avarro vs. Ville!as R L-')+K, + =ebruar& )*K(Resolution: ) concur in separate opinion, dissented =acts6avarro reHuested 1or a permit to hold a meetin! at Pla"a

Miranda in the a1ternoon o1 + =ebruar& )*K(. The Ma&or oManila, Ville!as, instead o11ered the /un<en ardens, as analternative to Pla"a Miranda, as the site o1 the demonstrationMa&or Ville!as has not denied nor absolutel& re1used thepermit sou!ht b& 6avarro. 6avarro 1iledthe petition 1omandamus. The Court, a1ter considerin! the pleadin!s andar!uments o1 the parties, issued a Resolution 3ithout pre$udiceto a more e0tended opinion. Issue: 4hether the Ma&opossesses discretion to determine the public places to be used1or assembl&, i.e. the /un<en arden, instead o1 Pla"aMiranda. @eld: s stated in Primicias v. =u!oso 9( Phil. K>the Ma&or possesses reasonable discretion to determine ospeci1& the streets or public places to be used 1or the assembl&in order to secure convenient use thereo1 b& others and

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


provide adeHuate and proper policin! to minimi"e the ris<s o1 disorder and maintain public sa1et& and order. The Ma&or hase0pressl& stated his 3illin!ness to !rant permits 1or peace1ulassemblies at Pla"a Miranda durin! /aturda&s, /unda&s andholida&s 3hen the& 3ould not cause unnecessaril& !reatdisruption o1 the normal activities o1 the communit& and has1urther o11ered /un<en ardens as an alternative to Pla"aMiranda as the site o1 the demonstration sou!ht to be held inthe a1ternoon o1 + =ebruar& )*K(. E0periences in connection3ith present assemblies and demonstrations do not 3arrantthe Courts disbelievin! the Ma&ors appraisal that a public rall&

at Pla"a Miranda, as compared to one at the /un<en ardensas he su!!ested, poses a clearer and more imminent dan!er o1 public disorders, breaches o1 the peace, criminal acts, andeven bloodshed as an a1termath o1 such assemblies, andpetitioner has mani1ested that it has no means o1 preventin!such disorders. ConseHuentl&, ever& time that such assembliesare announced, the communit& is placed in such a state o1 1ear and tension that o11ices are closed earl& and emplo&eesdismissed, store1ronts boarded up, classes suspended, andtransportation disrupted, to the !eneral detriment o1 the public.Civil ri!hts and liberties can e0ist and be preserved onl& in anordered societ&. 6avarro has 1ailed to sho3 a clear speci1icle!al dut& on the part o1 Ma&or to !rant their application 1or permit unconditionall&.

Phil. #loomin! Mills Emplo&ees ?r! v. Phil #loomin! Mills Co..R. 6o. L-'))*> une >, )*K'P: P@ILIPPI6E #L??MI6 MILL/ EMPL?8ME6T?R6ITI?6, 6IC6?R T?LE6TI6?, =L?RE6CI?,P%RI6? R2=I6?, R?U/ MRI6? %E LE?6,

/E6CI?6 PCIE6TE, #?6I=CI? VC26, #E6MI6PC2 and R?%2L=? M26/?%R: P@ILIPPI6E #L??MI6 MILL/ C?., I6C. and C?2RT ?=I6%2/TRIL RELTI?6/MQ/IR, J&:

/2MMR8Philippine #loomin! Mills Emplo&ees ?r!ani"ation sta!ed amass demonstration at Malacaan! on March J, )*+*, in

protest a!ainst alle!ed abuses o1 the Pasi! police, to beparticipated in b& the 3or<ers in the 1irst shi1t 91rom + .M. to P.M. as 3ell as those in the re!ular second and third shi1ts91rom K .M. to J P.M. and 1rom .M. to > P.M., respectivel&Fand that the& in1ormed the Compan& o1 their proposeddemonstration. Petitioners claim that the& did not violate thee0istin! C# because the& !ave the respondent Compan&prior notice o1 the mass demonstration on March J, )*+*F thatthe said mass demonstration 3as a valid e0ercise o1 their constitutional 1reedom o1 speech a!ainst the alle!ed abuses o1 some Pasi! policemenF and that their mass demonstration 3asnot a declaration o1 stri<e because it 3as not directed a!ainstthe respondent 1irm. ud!e oaHuin M. /alvador 1ound P#ME?!uilt& o1 bar!ainin! in bad 1aith and herein petitioners asdirectl& responsible 1or perpetratin! the said un1air labor

practice and 3ere, as a conseHuence, considered to have losttheir status as emplo&ees o1 the respondent Compan&. 456the dismissal o1 the petitioners 3as proper7 O 6?. Thedemonstration 3as a!ainst alle!ed abuses o1 some Pasi!policemen, not a!ainst their emplo&er. %emo 3as purel& andcompletel& an e0ercise o1 their 1reedom e0pression in !eneraland o1 their ri!ht o1 assembl& and petition 1or redress o1 !rievances in particular be1ore appropriate !overnmentala!enc&, the Chie1 E0ecutive, a!ain the police o11icers o1 themunicipalit& o1 Pasi!. The& e0ercise their civil and politicalri!hts 1or their mutual aid protection 1rom 3hat the& believe3ere police e0cesses. The respondent compan& is the one!uilt& o1 un1air labor practice. #ecause the re1usal on the parto1 the respondent 1irm to permit all its emplo&ees and 3or<ers

to $oin the mass demonstration a!ainst alle!ed police abusesand the subseHuent separation o1 the ei!ht 9 petitioners 1romthe service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the1reedom o1 e0pression, 1reedom o1 assembl& and 1reedompetition 1or redress o1 !rievances.

The petitioner Philippine #loomin! Mills Emplo&ees?r!ani"ation 9hereina1ter re1erred to as P#ME? is a le!itimatelabor union composed o1 the emplo&ees o1 the respondenPhilippine #loomin! Mills Co., Inc. 9Compan&, and petitioners6icanor Tolentino, =lorencio Padri!ano, Ru1ino Ro0as, Mariano

de Leon, sencion Paciente, #oni1acio Vacuna, #en$aminPa!cu and Rodul1o Munsod are o11icers and members o1 thepetitioner 2nion.Petitioners claim that on March ), )*+*, the& decided to sta!ea mass demonstration at Malacaan! on March J, )*+*, inprotest a!ainst alle!ed abuses o1 the Pasi! police, to beparticipated in b& the 3or<ers in the 1irst shi1t 91rom + .M. to P.M. as 3ell as those in the re!ular second and third shi1ts91rom K .M. to J P.M. and 1rom .M. to > P.M., respectivel&Fand that the& in1ormed the o1 their proposed demonstration.#ecause the petitioners and their members numberin! abouJ(( proceeded 3ith the demonstration despite the pleas o1 theCompan& that the 1irst shi1t 3or<ers should not be reHuired toparticipate in the demonstration and that the 3or<ers in thesecond and third shi1ts should be utili"ed 1or the demonstration1rom + .M. to P.M., the Compan& 1iled, 3ith the CIR, achar!e a!ainst petitioners and other emplo&ees 3hocomposed the 1irst shi1t, char!in! them 3ith a Bviolation o/ection J9a-+ in relation to /ections )' and )J, as 3ell as/ection )>, all o1 Republic ct 6o. K>, and o1 the C#providin! 1or 6o /tri<e and 6o Loc<out.B.Petitioners claim that the& did not violate the e0istin! C#because the& !ave the respondent Compan& prior notice o1 themass demonstration on March J, )*+*F that the said massdemonstration 3as a valid e0ercise o1 their constitutiona1reedom o1 speech a!ainst the alle!ed abuses o1 some Pasi!policemenF and that their mass demonstration 3as not adeclaration o1 stri<e because it 3as not directed a!ainst therespondent 1irm.

ud!e oaHuin M. /alvador 1ound P#ME? !uilt& o1 bar!ainin!in bad 1aith and herein petitioners as directl& responsible 1orperpetratin! the said un1air labor practice and 3ere, as aconseHuence, considered to have lost their status asemplo&ees o1 the respondent Compan&.Petitioners 1iled MR on the !round that it is contrar& to la3 andthe evidence.CIR en banc dismissed 1or bein! 1iled be&ond the re!lementar&period.Petitioners 1iled 3ith the respondent court a petition 1or relie1rom the order on the !round that their 1ailure to 1ile theimotion 1or reconsideration on time 3as due to e0cusablene!li!ence and honest mista<e committed b& the president othe petitioner 2nion and o1 the o11ice cler< o1 their counselattachin! thereto the a11idavits o1 the said president and cler<.

4ithout 3aitin! 1or an& resolution on their petition 1or relie1 1romthe order dated ?ctober *, )*+*, herein petitioners 1iled on6ovember ', )*+*, 3ith the /upreme Court, a notice o1 appeal

I//2E:456 the dismissal o1 the petitioners 3as proper7 O 6?.

RTI?:I. #asic concepts and principles 3hich underlie the issuesposed b& the case at bar. 9Included these cause %ean mi!has< us to read plus there is a discussion o1 the hierarch& here9) In a democrac&, the preservation and enhancement o1 thedi!nit& and 3orth o1 the human personalit& is the central coreas 3ell as the cardinal article o1 1aith o1 our civili"ation. The

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


inviolable character o1 man as an individual must be Bprotectedto the lar!est possible e0tent in his thou!hts and in his belie1sas the citadel o1 his person.B

9 The #ill o1 Ri!hts is desi!ned to preserve the ideals o1 libert&, eHualit& and securit& Ba!ainst the assaults o1 opportunism, the e0pedienc& o1 the passin! hour, the erosiono1 small encroachments, and the scorn and derision o1 those3ho have no patience 3ith !eneral principles.B

Mr. ustice Robert ac<son: purpose o1 the #ill o1 Ri!hts is to3ithdra3 Bcertain sub$ects 1rom the vicissitudes o1 politicalcontrovers&, to place them be&ond the reach o1 ma$orities and

o11icials, and to establish them as legal "rinci"les to be a""lied by the courts.?nes ri!hts to li1e, libert& and propert&, to 1ree speech, or 1reepress, 1reedom o1 3orship and assembl&, and other 1undamental ri!hts ma& not be submitted to a voteF the&depend on the outcome o1 no elections.B Las<i proclaimed thatBthe happiness o1 the individual, not the 3ell-bein! o1 the /tate,3as the criterion b& 3hich its behaviour 3as to be $ud!ed. @isinterests, not its po3er, set the limits to the authorit& it 3asentitled to e0ercise.B

9' The 1reedoms o1 e0pression and o1 assembl& as 3ell as theri!ht to petition are included amon! the immunities reserved b&the soverei!n people, in the rhetorical aphorism o1 ustice@olmes, to protect the ideas that 3e abhor or hate more thanthe ideas 3e cherishF or as /ocrates insinuated, not onl& toprotect the minorit& 3ho 3ant to tal<, but also to bene1it thema$orit& 3ho re1use to listen.

nd as ustice %ou!las co!entl& stresses it, the liberties o1 oneare the liberties o1 allF and the liberties o1 one are not sa1eunless the liberties o1 all are protected.

9J The ri!hts o1 1ree e0pression, 1ree assembl& and petition,are not onl& civil ri!hts but also political ri!hts essential tomans en$o&ment o1 his li1e, to his happiness and to his 1ull andcomplete 1ul1illment. Thru these 1reedoms the citi"ens canparticipate not merel& in the periodic establishment o1 the!overnment throu!h their su11ra!e but also in theadministration o1 public a11airs as 3ell as in the discipline o1 abusive public o11icers.The citi"en is accorded these ri!hts so that he can appeal to

the appropriate !overnmental o11icers or a!encies 1or redressand protection as 3ell as 1or the imposition o1 the la31ulsanctions on errin! public o11icers and emplo&ees.9> 4hile the #ill o1 Ri!hts also protects propert& ri!hts, theprimac& o1 human ri!hts over propert& ri!hts isreco!ni"ed. #ecause these 1reedoms are Bdelicate andvulnerable, as 3ell as supremel& precious in our societ&B andthe Bthreat o1 sanctions ma& deter their e0ercise almost aspotentl& as the actual application o1 sanctions,B the& Bneedbreathin! space to survive,B permittin! !overnment re!ulationonl& B3ith narro3 speci1icit&.B

Propert& and propert& ri!hts can be lost thru prescriptionF buthuman ri!hts are imprescriptible.The superiorit& o1 these 1reedoms over propert& ri!hts isunderscored b& the 1act that a mere reasonable or rational

relation bet3een the means emplo&ed b& the la3 and its ob$ector purpose A that the la3 is neither arbitrar& nor discriminator&nor oppressive A 3ould su11ice to validate a la3 3hich restrictsor impairs propert& ri!hts. ?n the other hand, a constitutionalor valid in1rin!ement o1 human ri!hts reHuires a more strin!entcriterion, namel& e0istence o1 a !rave and immediate dan!er o1 a substantive evil 3hich the /tate has the ri!ht to prevent.The 1reedoms o1 speech and o1 the press as 3ell as o1 peace1ul assembl& and o1 petition 1or redress o1 !rievances areabsolute 3hen directed a!ainst public o11icials or D3hene0ercised in relation to our ri!ht to choose the men and 3omenb& 3hom 3e shall be !overned,N even as Mr. ustice Castrorel& on the balancin!-o1-interests test.

II. Petitioners not !uilt& o1 bar!ainin! in bad 1aith.CIR a1ter opinin! that the mass demonstration 3as not adeclaration o1 stri<e, concluded that b& their Bconcerted act andthe occurrence temporar& stoppa!e o1 3or<,B herein petitionersare !uilt& bar!ainin! in bad 1aith and hence violated thecollective bar!ainin! a!reement 3ith P#M Co.The demonstration 3as a!ainst alle!ed abuses o1 some Pasi!policemen, not a!ainst their emplo&er. %emo 3as purel& andcompletel& an e0ercise o1 their 1reedom e0pression in !eneraand o1 their ri!ht o1 assembl& and petition 1or redress o!rievances in particular be1ore appropriate !overnmenta

a!enc&, the Chie1 E0ecutive, a!ain the police o11icers o1 themunicipalit& o1 Pasi!.The& e0ercise their civil and political ri!hts 1or their mutual aidprotection 1rom 3hat the& believe 3ere police e0cesses.

s matter o1 1act, it 3as the dut& o1 herein private responden1irm to protect herein petitioner 2nion and its members 1romthe harassment o1 local police o11icers.Its 1ailure to de1end its o3n emplo&ees all the more 3ea<enedthe position o1 its laborers the alle!ed oppressive police 3homi!ht have been all the more emboldened thereb& sub$ect itslo3l& emplo&ees to 1urther indi!nities.The pretension o1 their emplo&er that it 3ould su11er loss odama!e b& reason o1 the absence o1 its emplo&ees 1rom +ocloc< in the mornin! to ocloc< in the a1ternoon, is a plea 1othe preservation merel& o1 their propert& ri!hts.The emplo&ees pathetic situation 3as a star< realit& Aabused, harassment and persecuted as the& believed the&3ere b& the peace o11icers o1 the municipalit&.

s above intimated, the condition in 3hich the emplo&ees1ound themselves #is-a-#is the local police o1 Pasi!, 3as amatter that vitall& a11ected their ri!ht to individual e0istence as3ell as that o1 their 1amilies. Material loss can be repaired oradeHuatel& compensated.The debasement o1 the human bein! bro<en in morale andbrutali"ed in spirit-can never be 1ull& evaluated in monetar&terms. The 3ounds 1ester and the scars remain to humiliatehim to his d&in! da&, even as he cries in an!uish 1or retributiondenial o1 3hich is li<e rubbin! salt on bruised tissues.The respondent 1irm claims that there 3as no need 1or all its

emplo&ees to participate in the demonstration and that the&su!!ested to the 2nion that onl& the 1irst and re!ular shi1t 1rom+ .M. to P.M. should report 1or 3or< in order that loss odama!e to the 1irm 3ill be averted.This stand 1ailed appreciate the sine 7ua non o1 an e11ectivedemonstration especiall& b& a labor union, namel& thecomplete unit& o1 the 2nion members as 3ell as their totapresence at the demonstration site in order to !enerate thema0imum s&mpath& 1or the validit& o1 their cause but alsoimmediatel& action on the part o1 the correspondin!!overnment a!encies 3ith $urisdiction over the issues the&raised a!ainst the local police. Circulation is one o1 the aspectso1 1reedom o1 e0pression.

III. P#M Co is !uilt& o1 2LP

The respondent compan& is the one !uilt& o1 un1air labopractice. #ecause the re1usal on the part o1 the respondent 1irmto permit all its emplo&ees and 3or<ers to $oin the massdemonstration a!ainst alle!ed police abuses and thesubseHuent separation o1 the ei!ht 9 petitioners 1rom theservice constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the 1reedomo1 e0pression, 1reedom o1 assembl& and 1reedom petition 1orredress o1 !rievances, the respondent 1irm committed an un1ailabor practice de1ined in /ection J9a-) in relation to /ection 'o1 Republic ct 6o. K>, other3ise <no3n as the IndustriaPeace ct./ection ' o1 Republic ct 6o. !uarantees to the emplo&eesthe ri!ht Bto en!a!e in concert activities 1or ... mutual aid orprotectionBF 3hile /ection J9a-) re!ards as an un1air labo

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


practice 1or an emplo&er inter1ere 3ith, restrain or coerceemplo&ees in the e0ercise their ri!hts !uaranteed in /ectionThree.B

IV. Procedural Rules should be disre!ardedF dismissal is tooharsh.The Court o1 Industrial Relations rule prescribes that motion 1or reconsideration o1 its order or 3rit should 1iled 3ithin 1ive 9>da&s 1rom notice thereo1 and that the ar!uments in support o1 said motion shall be 1iled 3ithin ten 9)( da&s 1rom the date o1

1ilin! o1 such motion 1or reconsideration 9/ec. )+.In the case at bar, en1orcement o1 the basic human 1reedomssheltered no less b& the or!anic la3, is a most compellin!reason to den& application o1 a Court o1 Industrial Relationsrule 3hich impin!es on such human ri!hts.Even i1 the Huestioned Court o1 Industrial Relations orders andrule 3ere to be !iven e11ect, the dismissal or termination o1 theemplo&ment o1 the petitionin! ei!ht 9 leaders o1 the 2nion isharsh 1or a one-da& absence 1rom 3or<.The respondent Court itsel1 reco!ni"ed the severit& o1 such asanction 3hen it did not include the dismissal o1 the other '*'emplo&ees 3ho are members o1 the same 2nion and 3hoparticipated in the demonstration a!ainst the Pasi! police.The appropriate penalt& A i1 it deserves an& penalt& at all Ashould have been simpl& to char!e said one-da& absence

a!ainst their vacation or sic< leave. #ut to dismiss the ei!ht 9leaders o1 the petitioner 2nion is a most cruel penalt&, since asa1orestated the 2nion leaders depend on their 3a!es 1or their dail& sustenance as 3ell as that o1 their respective 1amiliesaside 1rom the 1act that it is a lethal blo3 to unionism, 3hile atthe same time stren!thenin! the oppressive hand o1 the pett&t&rants in the localities.The case at bar is 3orse.Mana!ement has sho3n not onl& lac< o1 !ood-3ill or !oodintention, but a complete lac< o1 s&mpathetic understandin! o1 the pli!ht o1 its laborers 3ho claim that the& are bein!sub$ected to indi!nities b& the local police, It 3as moree0pedient 1or the 1irm to conserve its income or pro1its than toassist its emplo&ees in their 1i!ht 1or their 1reedoms andsecurit& a!ainst alle!ed pett& t&rannies o1 local police o11icers.

This is sheer opportunism. /uch opportunism and e0pedienc&resorted to b& the respondent compan& assaulted theimmunities and 3el1are o1 its emplo&ees. It 3as pure andimplement sel1ishness, i1 not !reed.

4@ERE=?RE, $ud!ement is hereb& rendered:9) settin! aside as null and void the orders o1 the respondentCourt o1 Industrial Relations dated /eptember )> and ?ctober *, )*+*F and9 directin! the re instatement o1 the herein ei!ht 9petitioners, 3ith 1ull bac< pa& 1rom the date o1 their separation1rom the service until re instated, minus one da&s pa& and3hatever earnin!s the& mi!ht have reali"ed 1rom other sourcesdurin! their separation 1rom the service.

Re&es v #a!atsin! )> /CR >>' 9)*'=acts: Petitioner sou!ht a permit 1rom the Cit& o1 Manila to holda peace1ul march and rall& on ?ctober +, )*' 1rom :(( to>:(( in the a1ternoon, startin! 1rom the Luneta to the !ates o1 the 2nited /tates Embass&. ?nce there, and in an open spaceo1 public propert&, a short pro!ram 3ould be held. The march3ould be attended b& the local and 1orei!n participants o1 suchcon1erence. That 3ould be 1ollo3ed b& the handin! over o1 apetition based on the resolution adopted at the closin! sessiono1 the nti-#ases Coalition. There 3as li<e3isean assurance in the petition that in the e0ercise o1 theconstitutional ri!hts to 1ree speech and assembl&, all thenecessar& steps 3ould be ta<en b& it Bto ensure a peace1ulmarch and rall&. @o3ever the reHuest 3as

denied. Re1erence 3as made to persistent intelli!ence reportsa11irmin! the plans o1 subversive5criminal elements to in1iltrateor disrupt an& assembl& or con!re!ations 3here a lar!enumber o1 people is e0pected to attend. Respondensu!!ested that a permit ma& be issued i1 it is to be held at theRi"al Coliseum or an& other enclosed area 3here the sa1et& othe participants themselves and the !eneral public ma& beensured. n oral ar!ument 3as heard and the mandator&in$unction 3as !ranted on the !round that there 3as nosho3in! o1 the e0istence o1 a clear and present dan!er o1 asubstantive evil that could $usti1& the denial o1 a permit

@o3ever ustice Huino dissented that the rall& is violative o?rdinance 6o. K*> o1 the Cit& o1 Manila prohibitin! theholdin! o1 rallies 3ithin a radius o1 1ive hundred 9>(( 1eet 1roman& 1orei!n mission or chancer& and 1or other purposes. @encethe Court resolves

Issue: 4hether or 6ot the 1reedom o1 e0pression and the ri!hto peaceabl& assemble violated.

@eld: 8es. The invocation o1 the ri!ht to 1reedom opeaceable assembl& carries 3ith it the implication that the ri!hto 1ree speech has li<e3ise been disre!arded. It is settled la3that as to public places, especiall& so as to par<s and streets,there is 1reedom o1 access. 6or is their use dependent on 3hois the applicant 1or the permit, 3hether an individual or a !roupThere can be no le!al ob$ection, absent the e0istence o1 aclear and present dan!er o1 a substantive evil, on the choice oLuneta as the place 3here the peace rall& 3ould start. Timeimmemorial Luneta has been used 1or purposes o1 assembl&communicatin! thou!hts bet3een citi"ens, and discussin!public Huestions.

/uch use o1 the public places has 1rom ancient times, been apart o1 the privile!es, immunities, ri!hts, and liberties o

citi"ens.

4ith re!ard to the ordinance, there 3as no sho3in! that there3as violation and even i1 it could be sho3n that such acondition is satis1ied it does not 1ollo3 that respondent couldle!all& act the 3a& he did. The validit& o1 his denial o1 thepermit sou!ht could still be challen!ed.

summar& o1 the application 1or permit 1or rall&The applicants 1or a permit to hold an assembl& should in1ormthe licensin! authorit& o1 the date, the public place 3here andthe time 3hen it 3ill ta<e place. I1 it 3ere a private place, onl&the consent o1 the o3ner or the one entitled to its le!apossession is reHuired. /uch application should be 1iled 3elahead in time to enable the public o11icial concerned to

appraise 3hether there ma& be valid ob$ections to the !rant o1the permit or to its !rant but at another public place. It is anindispensable condition to such re1usal or modi1ication that theclear and present dan!er test be the standard 1or the decisionreached. 6otice is !iven to applicants 1or the denial.

Crispin Malabanan, et. al. v. the @onorable nastacio %Ramento, et. al.=acts:Petitioners 3ere o11icers o1 the /upreme /tudent Council o1respondent 2niversit&. The& sou!ht and 3ere !ranted b& theschool authorities a permit to hold a meetin! 1rom :(( .M. to):(( P.M. on u!ust K, )*. lon! 3ith other students, the&held a !eneral assembl& at the Veterinar& Medicine and nima

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


/cience department lobb& instead o1 the bas<etball court 3hich3as the place indicated in the permit. t the assembl& the&mani1ested in vehement lan!ua!e their opposition to theproposed mer!er o1 the Institute o1 nimal /cience 3ith theInstitute o1 !riculture. t )(:'( .M. the same da&, the&marched to3ard the Li1e /cience #uildin! and continued their rall&. There 3as, as a result, disturbance o1 the classes bein!held. lso, the non-academic emplo&ees, 3ithin hearin!distance, stopped their 3or< because o1 the noise created.Petitioners 3ere as<ed to e0plain on the same da& 3h& the&should not be held liable 1or holdin! an ille!al assembl&. Then

on /eptember *, )*, the& 3ere in1ormed throu!h amemorandum that the& 3ere under preventive suspension 1or their 1ailure to e0plain the holdin! o1 an ille!al assembl& in 1ronto1 the Li1e /cience #uildin!. The validit& thereo1 3aschallen!ed b& petitioners both be1ore the Court o1 =irstInstance o1 Ri"al in a petition 1or mandamus 3ith dama!esa!ainst private respondents and be1ore the Ministr& o1 Education, Culture, and /ports. ?n ?ctober (, )*,respondent Ramento, as %irector o1 the 6ational CapitalRe!ion, 1ound petitioners !uilt& o1 the char!e o1 havin! violatedpar. )J+9c o1 the Manual 1or Private /chools more speci1icall&their holdin! o1 an ille!al assembl& 3hich 3as characteri"ed b&the violation o1 the permit !ranted resultin! in the disturbanceo1 classes and oral de1amation. The penalt& 3as suspension1or one academic &ear. The student leaders 1iled a petition 1or certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, see<in! the nulli1icationo1 the decision o1 respondent Ramento a11irmin! the actionta<en b& respondent re!orio raneta 2niversit& =oundation1indin! them !uilt& o1 ille!al assembl& and suspendin! them.@eld:The /upreme Court !rants the petition nulli1&in! the decision o1 respondent Ramento imposin! a one-&ear suspension isnulli1ied the penalt& bein! undul& severe.=reedom o1 peaceable assembl& limited b& sho3in! o1 a clear and present dan!er o1 a substantive evil that the state has ari!ht to prevent.

s is Huite clear 1rom the opinion in Re&es v. #a!atsin!, theinvocation o1 the ri!ht to 1reedom o1 peaceable assembl&carries 3ith it the implication that the ri!ht to 1ree speech has

li<e3ise been disre!arded. #oth are embraced in the concepto1 1reedom o1 e0pression, 3hich is identi1ied 3ith the libert& todiscuss publicl& and truth1ull&, an& matter o1 public interest3ithout censorship or punishment and 3hich Bis not to belimited, much less denied, e0cept on a sho3in! . . . o1 a clear and present dan!er o1 a substantive evil that the state has ari!ht to prevent.BRi!hts to peaceable assembl& and 1ree speech in schoolsFlimitation.Petitioners invo<e their ri!hts to peaceable assembl& and 1reespeech. The& are entitled to do so. The& en$o& li<e the rest o1 the citi"ens the 1reedom to e0press their vie3s andcommunicate their thou!hts to those disposed to listen in!atherin!s such as 3as held in this case. The& do not, toborro3 1rom the opinion o1 ustice =ortas in Tin<er v. %es

Moines Communit& /chool %istrict, Bshed their constitutionalri!hts to 1reedom o1 speech or e0pression at the schoolhouse!ate.B 4hile, there1ore, the authorit& o1 educational institutionsover the conduct o1 students must be reco!ni"ed, it cannot !oso 1ar as to be violative o1 constitutional sa1e!uards. ?n a morespeci1ic level, there is persuasive 1orce to this 1ormulation in the=ortas opinion: BThe principal use to 3hich the schools arededicated is to accommodate students durin! prescribed hours1or the purpose o1 certain t&pes o1 activities. mon! thoseactivities is personal intercommunication amon! the students.This is not onl& an inevitable part o1 the process o1 attendin!schoolF it is also an important part o1 the educational process. students ri!hts, there1ore, do not embrace merel& theclassroom hours. 4hen he is in the ca1eteria, or on the pla&in!

1ield, or on the campus durin! the authori"ed hours, he ma&e0press his opinions, even on controversial sub$ects li<e thecon1lict in Vietnam, i1 he does so 3ithout materiall& andsubstantiall& inter1erin! 3ith the reHuirements o1 appropriatediscipline in the operation o1 the school and 3ithout collidin!3ith the ri!hts o1 others. . . . #ut conduct b& the student, inclass or out o1 it, 3hich 1or an& reason -- 3hether it stems 1romtime, place, or t&pe o1 behavior -- materiall& disrupts class3or<or involves substantial disorder or invasion o1 the ri!hts oothers is, o1 course, not immuni"ed b& the constitutiona!uarantee o1 1reedom o1 speech.B

In1lamed speeches o1 students in school do not present a cleaand present dan!er o1 public disorder?b$ection is made b& private respondents to the tenor o1 thespeeches b& the student leaders. That there 3ould be avi!orous presentation o1 vie3s opposed to the proposedmer!er o1 the Institute o1 nimal /cience 3ith the Institute o

!riculture 3as to be e0pected. There 3as no concealment othe 1act that the& 3ere a!ainst such a move as it con1rontedthem 3ith a serious problem. The& believed that such a mer!e3ould result in the increase in tuition 1ees, an additionaheadache 1or their parents. I1 in the course o1 suchdemonstration, 3ith an enthusiastic audience !oadin! them onutterances, e0tremel& critical, at times even vitriolic, 3ere letloose, that is Huite understandable. /tudent leaders are hardl&the timid, di11ident t&pes. The& are li<el& to be assertive anddo!matic. The& 3ould be ine11ective i1 durin! a rall& the& spea<in the !uarded and $udicious lan!ua!e o1 the academe. t an&rate, even a s&mpathetic audience is not disposed to accord1ull credence to their 1ier& e0hortations. The& ta<e into accountthe e0citement o1 the occasion, the propensit& o1 spea<ers toe0a!!erate, the e0uberance o1 &outh. The& ma& !ive thespea<ers the bene1it o1 their applause, but 3ith the activit&ta<in! place in the school premises and durin! the da&time, noclear and present dan!er o1 public disorder is discernible.%isruptive action ma& be penali"ed, but penalt& o1 one &eaundul& severe.It does not 1ollo3, ho3ever, that petitioners can be totall&absolved 1or the events that transpired. dmittedl&, there 3as aviolation o1 the terms o1 the permit. The rall& 3as held at a

place other than that speci1ied, in the second 1loor lobb&, rathethan the bas<etball court, o1 the VM/ buildin! o1 the2niversit&. Moreover, it 3as continued lon!er than the periodallo3ed. ccordin! to the decision o1 respondent Ramento, theBconcerted activit& re1errin! to such assembl& 3ent on unti>:'( p.m.B ( Private respondents could thus, ta<e disciplinar&action. ?n those 1acts, ho3ever, an admonition, even acensure -- certainl& not a suspension -- could be theappropriate penalt&. Private respondents could and did ta<eumbra!e at the 1act that in vie3 o1 such in1raction -considerin! the places 3here and the time 3hen thedemonstration too< place -- there 3as a disruption o1 theclasses and stoppa!e o1 3or< o1 the non-academic personnelThe& 3ould not be un$usti1ied then i1 the& did ta<e a much moreserious vie3 o1 the matter. Even then a one-&ear period o1

suspension is much too severe, 4hile the discretion o1 bothrespondent 2niversit& and respondent Ramento is reco!ni"edthe rule o1 reason, the dictate o1 1airness calls 1or a muchlesser penalt&. I1 the concept o1 proportionalit& bet3een theo11ense committed and the sanction imposed is not 1ollo3edan element o1 arbitrariness intrudes. That 3ould !ive rise to adue process Huestion. To avoid this constitutional ob$ection, iis the holdin! o1 this Court that a one-3ee< suspension 3ouldbe punishment enou!h.R 6o. )+*'%ate: pril >, ((+

#a&an v. Ermita

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


Petitioner: #a&an, Qarapatan, Qilusan! Ma!bubu<id n!Pilipinas 9QMPRespondent: Eduardo Ermita as E0ecutive /ecretar&

=acts: The case is a consolidation o1 three petitions b& #a&anet al, ess del Prado, et al., and Qilusan! Ma&o 2no 9QM2. llpetitioners assail #atas Pambansa 6o. (, some o1 them intoto and others onl& /ections J, >, +, ), )'9a, and )J9a, as3ell as the polic& o1 Calibrated Preemptive Response. The&see< to stop violent dispersals o1 rallies under the Dno permit,no rall&N polic& and the CPR polic&.

s re!ards the 1irst petitioners, #a&an, et al. alle!e that the&are citi"ens and ta0pa&ers o1 the Philippines and that their ri!hts as or!ani"ations and individuals 3ere violated 3hen therall& the& participated in on ?ctober +, ((> 3as violentl&dispersed b& policemen implementin! #.P. (. The& contendthat #.P. ( is clearl& a violation o1 the Constitution and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri!hts and other human ri!hts treaties o1 3hich the Philippines is a si!nator&.

lso, the& assail the constitutionalit& o1 #.P. ( as it reHuires apermit be1ore one can sta!e a public assembl& re!ardless o1 the presence or absence o1 a clear and present dan!er. It alsoalle!edl& curtails the choice o1 venue and is thus repu!nant tothe 1reedom o1 e0pression clause as the time and place o1 apublic assembl& 1orm part o1 the messa!e 1or 3hich thee0pression is sou!ht. =urthermore, petitioners ar!ue that #.P.( is content-neutral as it does not appl& to mass actions insupport o1 the !overnment. The 3ords Dla31ul cause,NDopinion,N Dprotestin! or in1luencin!N su!!est the e0position o1 some cause not espoused b& the !overnment. lso, the phraseDma0imum toleranceN sho3s that the la3 applies to assembliesa!ainst the !overnment because the& are bein! tolerated. s acontent-based le!islation, it cannot pass the strict scrutin& test.4ith re!ard to the CPR polic&, #a&an, et. al ar!ue that it ispreemptive because the !overnment ta<es action even be1orethe rall&ist can per1orm their act. Respondent Ma&or oselito tien"a, 1or his part,submitted in his Comment that the petition in .R. 6o. )+*'should be dismissed on the !round that Republic ct 6o. K)+(!ives the Ma&or po3er to den& a permit independentl& o1 #.P.

6o. (F that his denials o1 permits 3ere under the Dclear andpresent dan!erN rule as there 3as a clamor to stop rallies thatdisrupt the econom& and to protect the lives o1 other peopleFthat $urisprudence 9i.e. . #. L. Re&es v. #a!atsin!, Primicias v.=u!oso, and acinto v. C have a11irmed the constitutionalit&o1 reHuirin! a permitF that the permit is 1or the use o1 a publicplace and not 1or the e0ercise o1 ri!htsF and that #.P. 6o. ( isnot a content-based re!ulation because it covers all rallies.

Issues:

Is #P ( content-based and not content-neutral7%oes #P (( violate rticle III, /ection J o1 the Constitution7Is the CPR polic& unconstitutional7

@eld:

6o.#P ( is constitutional.CPR polic& should be struc< do3n.

Ratio:

1air and impartial readin! o1 #.P. 6o. ( readil& sho3s that itre1ers to all <inds o1 public assemblies that 3ould use publicplaces. The re1erence to Dla31ul causeN does not ma<e itcontent-based because assemblies reall& have to be 1or la31ulcauses, other3ise the& 3ould not be DpeaceableN and entitledto protection. 6either are the 3ords Dopinion,N Dprotestin!N and

Din1luencin!N in the de1inition o1 public assembl& content basedsince the& can re1er to an& sub$ect. The 3ords Dpetitionin! the!overnment 1or redress o1 !rievancesN come 1rom the 3ordin!o1 the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. =inall&ma0imum tolerance is 1or the protection and bene1it o1 arall&ists and is independent o1 the content o1 the e0pressions inthe rall&.

The ri!ht to peaceabl& assemble and petition 1or redress o1!rievances is, to!ether 3ith 1reedom o1 speech, o1 e0pressionand o1 the press, a ri!ht that en$o&s primac& in the realm o

constitutional protection. =or these ri!hts constitute the ver&basis o1 a 1unctional democratic polit&, 3ithout 3hich all theother ri!hts 3ould be meanin!less and unprotectedurisprudence has alread& upheld the ri!ht to assembl& andpetition. 3eyes #& (agatsing 1urther e0pounded on the ri!ht andits limits:

=reedom o1 assembl& connotes the ri!ht o1 the people to meepeaceabl& 1or consultation and discussion o1 matters o1 publicconcern. It is entitled to be accorded the utmost de1erence andrespect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, e0cept on asho3in!, as is the case 3ith 1reedom o1 e0pression, o1 a clearand present dan!er o1 a substantive evil that the state has ari!ht to prevent. The sole $usti1ication 1or a limitation on thee0ercise o1 this ri!ht is the dan!er, o1 a character both !raveand imminent, o1 a serious evil to public sa1et&, public moralspublic health, or an& other le!itimate public interest. #P ( reHuires a 3ritten permit 1or an& person or persons toor!ani"e and hold a public assembl& in a public place@o3ever, no permit shall be reHuired i1 the public assembl&shall be done or made in a 1reedom par< dul& established b&la3 or ordinance 9so 1ar, onl& Cebu has complied, or in privatepropert& 3ith consent o1 o3ner, or in the campus o1 a!overnment-o3ned and operated educational institution 3hichshall be sub$ect to the rules and re!ulations o1 said educationainstitution. It shall be the dut& o1 the ma&or or an& o11icial actin!in his behal1 to !rant a permit unless there is clear andconvincin! evidence that the public assembl& 3ill create a clea

and present dan!er to public order, public sa1et&, publicconvenience, public morals or public health.#.P. 6o. ( is a valid e0ercise o1 the /tate;s police po3er. It isnot an absolute ban o1 public assemblies but a restriction thatsimpl& re!ulates the time, place, and manner o1 theassemblies, 3hich Con!ress has the ri!ht to prevent. Thepermit can onl& be denied on the !round o1 clear and presendan!er to public order, public sa1et&, public convenience, publicmorals or public health. This is a reco!ni"ed e0ception to thee0ercise o1 the ri!ht even under the 2niversal %eclaration o1@uman Ri!hts and the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Ri!hts.

The use o1 the term CPR should no3 be discontinued becauseit con1uses the public and is used b& some police a!ents to

$usti1& abuse. The ri!ht term is Dma0imum tolerance,N 3hich isde1ined as the hi!hest de!ree o1 restraint that the militar&police and peace <eepin! authorities shall observe durin!public assembl&.

LEGASPI vs. CSC

Petitioner: VLE6TI6 L. LE/PIRespondent: CIVIL /ERVICE C?MMI//I?6May 29, 1987Ponente: C?RTE/, J&:

SMMAR!: Le!aspi;s reHuest 1or in1ormation on the civiservice eli!ibilities o1 ulian /ibon!hano& and Mariano !as

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


3ho 3ere emplo&ed as sanitarians in the @ealth %epartment o1 Cebu Cit& 3as denied b& the C/C. /ibon!hano& and !as hadalle!edl& represented themselves as civil service eli!ibles 3hopassed the civil service e0ams 1or sanitarians.. Le!aspi pra&s1or the issuance o1 the 3rit o1 mandamus to compel the C/C todisclose said in1ormation. Iss"e: 4hether or not the petitioner has le!al standin! to brin! the suit7 #e$d: !ES. The petitioner has 1irml& anchored his case upon the ri!ht o1 the people toin1ormation on matters o1 public concern, 3hich, b& its ver&nature, is a public ri!ht. It has been held in the case o1 Tanadathat 3hen the Huestion is one o1 public ri!ht and the ob$ect o1

the mandamus is to procure the en1orcement o1 a public dut&,the people are re!arded as the real part& in interest, and theperson at 3hose insti!ation the proceedin!s are instituted neednot sho3 that he has an& le!al or special interest in the result,it bein! su11icient to sho3 that he is a citi"en and as suchinterested in the e0ecution o1 the la3s. Thus, 3hile the manner o1 e0aminin! public records ma& be sub$ect to reasonablere!ulation b& the !overnment a!enc& in custod& thereo1, thedut& to disclose the in1ormation o1 public concern, and to a11ordaccess to public records cannot be discretionar& on the part o1 said a!encies. Certainl&, its per1ormance cannot be madecontin!ent upon the discretion o1 such a!encies. Theconstitutional dut&, not bein! discretionar&, its per1ormancema& be compelled b& mandamus in a "ro"er case&

%AC&S:The C/C had earlier denied Le!aspis reHuest 1or in1ormationon the civil service eli!ibilities o1 certain persons emplo&ed assanitarians in the @ealth %epartment o1 Cebu Cit&.ulian /ibon!hano& and Mariano !as, had alle!edl&represented themselves as civil service eli!ibles 3ho passedthe civil service e0aminations 1or sanitarians.Claimin! that his ri!ht to be in1ormed o1 the eli!ibilities o1 ulian/ibon!hano& and Mariano !as, is !uaranteed b& theConstitution, Le!aspi pra&s 1or the issuance o1 thee0traordinar& 3rit o1 mandamus to compel the C/C to disclosesaid in1ormation.The same remed& 3as resorted to in the case o1 Tanada et& al&

#s& Tu#era, 3herein the peoples ri!ht to be in1ormed under the)*K' Constitution 3as invo<ed in order to compel thepublication in the ?11icial a"ette o1 various P%s, letters o1 instructions etc.Prior to the reco!nition o1 the ri!ht in said Constitution thestatutor& ri!ht to in1ormation provided 1or in the LandRe!istration ct 3as claimed b& a ne3spaper editor in another mandamus proceedin!, this time to demand access to therecords o1 the Re!ister o1 %eeds 1or the purpose o1 !atherin!data on real estate transactions involvin! aliens 9/ubido vs.?"aeta.The constitutional ri!ht to in1ormation on matters o1 publicconcern 1irst !ained reco!nition in the #ill o1 Ri!hts, rticle IV,o1 the )*K' Consti.)

The provision has been retained and the ri!ht therein provided

ampli1ied in rticle III, /ec. K o1 the )*K Consti 3ith theaddition o1 the phrase, Bas 3ell as to !overnment research dataused as basis 1or polic& development.B

&'ese (onstit"tiona$ provisions are se$)*e+e("tin. The&suppl& the rules b& means o1 3hich the ri!ht to in1ormation ma&

1 /ec. +. The ri!ht o1 the people to in1ormation on matters o1 public concern shall be

reco!ni"ed. ccess to o11icial records, and to documents and papers pertainin! to o11icial acts,transactions, or decisions, shall be a11orded the citi"en sub$ect to such limitations as ma& beprovided b& la3.

2 The ri!ht o1 the people to in1ormation on matters o1 public concern shall be reco!ni"ed.

ccess to o11icial records, and to documents, and papers pertainin! to o11icial acts,transactions, or decisions, as 3ell as to !overnment research data used as basis. 1or polic&development, shall be a11orded the citi"en, sub$ect to such stations as ma& be provided b& la3.

be en$o&ed b& !uaranteein! the ri!ht and mandatin! the dut&to a11ord access to sources o1 in1ormation.-'at ay /e provided )or /y t'e Leis$at"re arereasona/$e (onditions and $iitations "pon t'e a((ess to/e a))orded 0'i(' "st, o) ne(essity, /e (onsistent 0it't'e de($ared State po$i(y o) )"$$ p"/$i( dis($os"re o) a$$transa(tions invo$vin p"/$i( interest 9Constitution, rt. ))/ec. .@o3ever, it cannot be overemphasi"ed that 3hatever limitationma& be prescribed b& the Le!islature, the ri!ht and the dut&under rt. III /ec. K have become operative and en1orceable b&

virtue o1 the adoption o1 the 6e3 Charter.The /olen challen!es Le!aspis standin! to sue upon the!round that the latter does not possess an& clear le!al ri!ht tobe in1ormed o1 the civil service eli!ibilities o1 the emplo&eesconcerned. @e 1urther ar!ues that there is no ministerial dut& to1urnish the Le!aspi 3ith the in1ormation he see<s.

ISSES:456 Le!aspi has standin!7 8E/. /ee discussion 9)Is the Petition proper7 8E/. /ee %iscussion 9 and 9'.

#EL: 4@ERE=?RE, the C/C is ordered to open its re!istero1 eli!ibles 1or the position o1 sanitarian, and to con1irm or den&the civil service eli!ibilit& o1 ulian /ibon!hano& and Mariano

!as, 1or said position in the @ealth %epartment o1 Cebu Cit&as reHuested b& Le!aspi.

1. Leaspi 'as standin Petition 1or mandamus must have been instituted b& a part&a!!rieved b& the alle!ed inaction o1 an& tribunal, corporationboard or person 3hich unla31ull& e0cludes said part& 1rom theen$o&ment o1 a le!al ri!ht.Le!aspi in ever& case must there1ore be an Ba!!rieved part&Bin the sense that he possesses a clear le!al ri!ht to been1orced and a direct interest in the dut& or act to beper1ormed.Le!aspi has 1irml& anchored his case upon the ri!ht o1 thepeople to in1ormation on matters o1 public concern, 3hich is apublic ri!ht.

Tanada #s Tu#era: D3'en t'e "estion is one o) p"/$i( ri'tand t'e o/3e(t o) t'e anda"s is to pro("re t'een)or(eent o) a p"/$i( d"ty, t'e peop$e are rearded ast'e rea$ party in interest and the relator at 3hose insti!ationthe proceedin!s are instituted need not sho3 that he has an&le!al or special interest in the result, it bein! s"))i(ient tos'o0 t'at 'e is a (iti4en and as s"(' interested in t'ee+e("tion o) t'e $a0s5=rom the 1ore!oin!, it becomes apparent that 3hen amandamus proceedin! involves the assertion o1 a public ri!htthe reHuirement o1 personal interest is satis1ied b& the mere1act that the Le!aspi is a citi"en, and there1ore, part o1 the!eneral BpublicB 3hich possesses the ri!ht.The Court had opportunit& to de1ine the 3ord BpublicB in theSubido case, 3hen it held that even those 3ho have no direc

or tan!ible interest in an& real estate transaction are part o1 theBpublicB to 3hom B9all records relatin! to re!istered lands inthe ?11ice o1 the Ro% shall be openB:BPublicB is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properl&construed, it embraces ever& person. To sa& that onl& those3ho have a present and e0istin! interest o1 a pecuniar&character in the particular in1ormation sou!ht are !iven theri!ht o1 inspection is to ma<e an un3arranted distinction.NThe Le!aspi, bein! a citi"en 3ho, as such is clothed 3ithpersonalit& to see< redress 1or the alle!ed obstruction o1 thee0ercise o1 the public ri!ht.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


2. %or every ri't o) t'e peop$e re(oni4ed as)"ndaenta$, t'ere $ies a (orrespondin d"ty on t'e parto) t'ose 0'o overn, to respe(t and prote(t t'at ri't.That is the ver& essence o1 the #ill o1 Ri!hts in a constitutionalre!ime. 4ithout a !overnments acceptance o1 the limitationsimposed upon it b& the Constitution in order to upholdindividual liberties, the #ill o1 Ri!hts becomes a sophistr&, andlibert&, the ultimate illusion.In reco!ni"in! the peoples ri!ht to be in1ormed, both the )*K'and )*K Constitution e0pressl& mandate the dut& o1 the /tateand its a!ents to a11ord access to o11icial records, documents,

papers and in addition, !overnment research data used asbasis 1or polic& development, sub$ect to such limitations asma& be provided b& la3. The !uarantee has been 1urther enhanced in the )*K Consti 3ith the adoption o1 a polic& o1 1ullpublic disclosure, this time Bsub$ect to reasonable conditionsprescribed b& la3N.'

In Tanada, the constitutional !uarantee 3as bolstered b& 3hatthis Court declared as an imperative dut& o1 the !overnmento11icials concerned to publish all important le!islative acts andresolutions o1 a public nature as 3ell as all e0ecutive ordersand proclamations o1 !eneral applicabilit&.The absence o1 discretion on the part o1 !overnment a!enciesin allo3in! the e0amination o1 public records, speci1icall&, therecords in the ?11ice o1 the Ro%, is emphasi"ed in Subido:DE0cept, perhaps 3hen it is clear that the purpose o1 thee0amination is unla31ul, idle curiosit&, 3e do not believe it isthe dut& under the la3 o1 re!istration o11icers to concernthemselves 3ith the motives, reasons, and ob$ects o1 theperson see<in! access to the records. It is not their prero!ativeto see that the in1ormation 3hich the records contain is not1launted be1ore public !a"e, or that scandal is not made o1 it. f it be wrong to "ublish the contents of the records, it is thelegislature and not the officials ha#ing custody thereof which iscalled u"on to de#ise a remedy&> overnment a!encies are 3ithout discretion in re1usin!disclosure o1, or access to, in1ormation o1 public concern. Thisis not to lose si!ht o1 the reasonable re!ulations 3hich ma& beimposed b& said a!encies in custod& o1 public records on themanner in 3hich the ri!ht to in1ormation ma& be e0ercised b&

the public. In Subido, 4e reco!ni"ed the authorit& o1 the Ro%to re!ulate the manner in 3hich persons ma& inspect, e0amineor cop& records relatin! to re!istered lands. @o3ever, there!ulations 3hich the Re!ister o1 %eeds ma& promul!ate arecon1ined to:61.pres(ri/in t'e anner and 'o"rs o) e+aination tot'e end t'at daae to or $oss o), t'e re(ords ay /eavoided, t'at 2. "nd"e inter)eren(e 0it' t'e d"ties o) t'e("stodian o) t'e /oos and do("ents and ot'er ep$oyees ay /e prevented, . t'at t'e ri't o) ot'er persons entit$ed to ae inspe(tion ay /e ins"red54e reco!ni"ed a similar authorit& in a municipal $ud!e, tore!ulate the manner o1 inspection b& the public o1 criminaldoc<et records 9(aldo+a #s& 4imaano6./aid administrative case 3as 1iled a!ainst the C/C $ud!e 1or

his alle!ed re1usal to allo3 e0amination o1 the criminal doc<etrecords in his sala. 2pon a 1indin! b& the Investi!atin! ud!ethat the C/C had allo3ed the complainant to open and vie3the sub$ect records, 4e absolved the C/C. 4e have also heldthat the rules and conditions imposed b& him upon the manner o1 e0aminin! the public records 3ere reasonable.In both cases, 4e 3ere emphatic in ?ur statement that theauthorit& to re!ulate the manner o1 e0aminin! public recordsdoes not carr& 3ith it the po3er to prohibit.

3 /ub$ect to reasonable conditions prescribed b& la3, the /tate adopts and implements a

polic& o1 1ull public disclosure o1 all its t ransactions involvin! public interest. 9rt. )), /ec. .

distinction has to be made bet3een the discretion to re1useoutri!ht the disclosure o1 or access to a particular in1ormationand the authorit& to re!ulate the manner in 3hich the access isto be a11orded. The 1irst is a limitation upon the availabilit& o1access to the in1ormation sou!ht, 3hich onl& the Le!islaturema& impose. The second pertains to the a!enc& char!ed 3iththe custod& o1 public records. Its authorit& to re!ulate access isto be e0ercised solel& to the end that dama!e to, or loss o1public records ma& be avoided, undue inter1erence 3ith theduties o1 said a!encies ma& be prevented, and moreimportantl&, that the e0ercise o1 the same constitutional ri!ht b&

other persons shall be assured.&'"s, 0'i$e t'e anner o) e+ainin p"/$i( re(ords ay/e s"/3e(t to reasona/$e re"$ation /y t'e overnenaen(y in ("stody t'ereo), t'e d"ty to dis($ose t'ein)oration o) p"/$i( (on(ern, and to a))ord a((ess top"/$i( re(ords (annot /e dis(retionary on t'e part o) saidaen(ies. Certainl&, its per1ormance cannot be madecontin!ent upon the discretion o1 such a!encies. &'e(onstit"tiona$ d"ty, not /ein dis(retionary, itsper)oran(e ay /e (ope$$ed /y a 0rit o) anda"s ina proper case.

. &'e "arantee o) a((ess to in)oration o) p"/$i((on(ern is a re(onition o) t'e essentia$ity o) t'e )ree )$o0o) ideas and in)oration in a deo(ra(y #ut the constitutional !uarantee to in1ormation on matters opublic concern is not absolute. It does not open ever& door toan& and all in1ormation. 2nder the Constitution, access too11icial records, papers, etc., are Bsub$ect to limitations as ma&be provided b& la3B.The la3 ma& there1ore e0empt certain t&pes o1 in1ormation1rom public scrutin&, such as those a11ectin! national securit&.It 1ollo3s that, in ever& case, the availabilit& o1 access to aparticular public record must be circumscribed b& the nature o1the in1ormation sou!ht, i.e., 9a /ein o) p"/$i( (on(ern orone t'at invo$ves p"/$i( interest, and, 9b not /eine+epted /y $a0 )ro t'e operation o) t'e (onstit"tiona"arantee.'.a. This Huestion is 1irst addressed to a!enc& havin! custod&

o1 the desired in1ormation. In case o1 denial o1 access, the!overnment a!enc& has the burden o1 sho3in! that thein1ormation reHuested is not o1 public concern, or, i1 it is opublic concern, that the same has been e0empted b& la3 1romthe operation o1 the !uarantee. In determinin! 3hether or not a particular in1ormation is opublic concern there is no ri!id test 3hich can be appliedBPublic concernB li<e Bpublic interestB is a term that eludese0act de1inition. #oth terms embrace a broad spectrum osub$ects 3hich the public ma& 3ant to <no3, either becausethese directl& a11ect their lives, or simpl& because such mattersnaturall& arouse the interest o1 an ordinar& citi"en.In t'e )ina$ ana$ysis, it is )or t'e (o"rts to deterine in a(ase /y (ase /asis 0'et'er t'e atter at iss"e is ointerest or iportan(e, as it re$ates to or a))e(ts t'e p"/$i(

The public concern invo<ed in Tanada, 3as the need 1oadeHuate notice to the public o1 the various la3s 3hich are tore!ulate the actions and conduct o1 citi"ens. In Subido, thepublic concern deemed covered 3as the <no3led!e o1 thosereal estate transactions 3hich some believed to have beenre!istered in violation o1 the Constitution.&'e in)oration so"'t /y t'e Leaspi in t'is (ase is t'etr"t' o) t'e ($ai o) (ertain overnent ep$oyees t'att'ey are (ivi$ servi(e e$ii/$es )or t'e positions to 0'i('t'ey 0ere appointed.The Constitution e0pressl& declares as a /tate polic& that:

ppointments in the civil service shall be made onl& accordin!to merit and 1itness to be determined, as 1ar as practicable, and

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


e0cept as to positions 3hich are polic& determinin!, primaril&con1idential or hi!hl& technical, b& competitive e0amination.Public o11ice bein! a public trust, it is the le!itimate concern o1 citi"ens to ensure that positions reHuirin! civil service eli!ibilit&are occupied onl& b& persons 3ho are eli!ibles. Public o11icersare at all times accountable to the people even as to their eli!ibilities 1or their respective positions.

'.b. It is not eno"' t'at t'e in)oration so"'t is o) p"/$i( interest=or mandamus to lie in a !iven case, the in1ormation must not

be amon! the species e0empted b& la3 1rom the operation o1 the constitutional !uarantee.In the instant, case 3hile re1usin! to con1irm or den& the claimso1 eli!ibilit&, the C/C has 1ailed to cite an& provision in the Civil/ervice La3 3hich 3ould limit the Le!aspis ri!ht to <no3 3hoare, and 3ho are not, civil service eli!ibles.4e ta<e $udicial notice o1 the 1act that the names o1 those 3hopass the civil service e0aminations are released to the public.@ence, there is nothin! secret about ones civil serviceeli!ibilit&.The civil service eli!ibilit& o1 a sanitarian bein! o1 publicconcern, and in the absence o1 e0press limitations under thela3 upon access to the re!ister o1 civil service eli!ibles 1or saidposition, the dut& o1 the C/C to con1irm or den& the civilservice eli!ibilit& o1 an& person occup&in! the positionbecomes imperative.G.R. o. 7;9< %e/r"ary 1, 1989RICAR= >ALM=&E, =S-AL= CAR?=ELL, =! ELCAS&ILL=, R=LA= ?AR&=L=ME, LE= =?LIGAR, @G&IERRE, RE!AL= ?AGA&SIG, @ BI=!BAL?A, PERC! LAPI, R=MMEL C=RR= and R=LA=%AL, petitioners, vs.%ELICIA= ?ELM=&E, @R., respondent.=CT/:?n une J, )*+, petitioner Valmonte 3rote =eliciano #elmonte9/I/ eneral Mana!er, reHuestin! that he be 1urnished 3iththe list o1 the names o1 the opposition members o1 the#atasan! Pambansa 3ho 3ere able to secure a clean loan o1 P million each on !uarant& o1 Mrs. Imelda Marcos. Valmonte

also reHuested 1or the certi1ied true copies o1 the documentsevidencin! such loans, and in case the petitioner 3ould not beable to secure the said documents, he reHuested to haveaccess on them. Petitioner invo<ed rt. IV, /ec. + o1 the=reedom Constitution: ?The right of the "eo"le to informationon matters of "ublic concern shall be recogni+ed& %ccess toofficial records, and to documents and "a"ers "ertaining toofficial acts, transactions or decisions, shall be afforded theciti+en sub8ect to such limitation as may be "ro#ided by law&>

The %eput& Counsel o1 the /I/ replied in behal1 o1 #elmontesa&in! that Da con1idential relationship e0ists bet3een the /I/and all those 3ho borro3 1rom it, 3hoever the& ma& beF thatthe /I/ has a dut& to its customers to preserve thiscon1identialit&F and that it 3ould not be proper 1or the /I/ to

breach this con1identialit& unless so ordered b& the courtsN.Valmonte;s reHuest 3as denied.

pparentl&, petitioners 3ere not able to receive the repl& o1 the/I/ and sent another letter to the respondent sa&in! that 1or #elmonte;s 1ailure to repl&, the& 3ere alread& 1ree to ta<e an&action necessar& to pursue their desired ob$ective in pursuanceo1 public interest. ?n une +, )*+, petitioners 1iled 1or thisspecial action 1or mandamus. ?n ul& )*, )*+, the 4aily E$"ress carried a ne3s item reportin! that )'K 1ormer members o1 the de1unct interim and re!ular #atasan!Pambansa, includin! ten 9)( opposition members, 3ere!ranted housin! loans b& the /I/.

I//2E/:). 4hether or not petitioners are entitled access to thedocuments evidencin! loans !ranted b& the /I/ 9)st reHuisiteo1 mandamus, the in1ormation sou!ht must be o1 public interesor public concern. 4hether or not the nd reHuisite 1or mandamus, that thein1ormation sou!ht must not be amon! those e0cluded b& la3is met

@EL%:4@ERE=?RE, the instant petition is hereb& !ranted and

respondent eneral Mana!er o1 the overnment /erviceInsurance /&stem is ?R%ERE% to allo3 petitioners access todocuments and records evidencin! loans !ranted to Memberso1 the 1ormer #atasan! Pambansa, as petitioners ma& speci1&sub$ect to reasonable re!ulations as to the time and manner oinspection, not incompatible 3ith this decision, as the /I/ma& deem necessar&.

RTI?6LE:). Petitioners are practitioners in media. s such, the& haveboth the ri!ht to !ather and the obli!ation to chec< theaccurac& o1 in1ormation the& disseminate. =or them, the1reedom o1 the press and o1 speech is not onl& critical, but vitato the e0ercise o1 their pro1essions. The ri!ht to in1ormation isan essential premise o1 a meanin!1ul ri!ht to speech ande0pression. #ut this is not to sa& that the ri!ht to in1ormation ismerel& an ad$unct o1 and there1ore restricted in application b&the e0ercise o1 the 1reedoms o1 speech and o1 the press. Theri!ht to in1ormation !oes hand-in-hand 3ith the constitutionapolicies o1 full "ublic disclosure and honesty in the "ublicser#ice& It is meant to enhance the 3idenin! role o1 theciti"enr& in !overnmental decision-ma<in! as 3ell as inchec<in! abuse in !overnment.

!et, $ie a$$ t'e (onstit"tiona$ "arantees, t'e ri't toin)oration is not a/so$"te. &'e States po$i(y o) )"$dis($os"re is $iited to Btransa(tions invo$vin p"/$i(interest,B and is Bs"/3e(t to reasona/$e (onditionspres(ri/ed /y $a0.BThe /I/ is a trustee o1 contributions 1rom the !overnmen

and its emplo&ees and the administrator o1 various insurancepro!rams 1or the bene1it o1 the latter. 2ndeniabl&, its 1undsassume a public character. Considerin! this, it is the le!itimateconcern o1 the public to ensure that these 1unds are mana!edproperl&. In addition, the supposed borro3ers 3ere members othe de1unct #atasan! Pambansa 3ho themselves appropriated1unds 1or the /I/.In s", t'e p"/$i( nat"re o) t'e $oana/$e )"nds o) t'e GSISand t'e p"/$i( o))i(e 'e$d /y t'e a$$eed /orro0ers aet'e in)oration so"'t ($ear$y a atter o) p"/$i( interestand (on(ern.@& a& Confidentiality of the relationshi" between /SS and itsborrowers- /I/ ar!ued that the polic& o1 con1identialit&restricts the indiscriminate dissemination o1 in1ormation. #urespondent 1ailed to cite an& la3 !rantin! /I/ the privile!e o1

con1identialit& as re!ards the documents sub$ect o1 thispetition.b& The issue of the right to "ri#acy- /I/ contended that invie3 o1 the ri!ht to privac&, the documents evidencin! loantransactions i1 the /I/ must be deemed outside the ambit o1the ri!ht to in1ormation. 4hen the in1ormation reHuested 1romthe !overnment intrudes into the privac& o1 a citi"en, a potentiacon1lict bet3een the ri!hts to in1ormation and to privac& ma&arise. @o3ever, the competin! interests o1 these ri!hts neednot be resolved in this case. &'e ri't to priva(y /e$ons tot'e individ"a$ in 'is private (apa(ity, and not to p"/$i( andovernenta$ aen(ies $ie t'e GSIS. Moreover, t'e ri't(annot /e invoed /y 3"ridi(a$ entities $ie t'e GSIS. sheld in the case o1 0assar College #& )oose =ills (iscuit Co&, a

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


corporation has no ri!ht o1 privac& in its name since the entirebasis o1 the ri!ht to privac& is an in$ur& to the 1eelin!s andsensibilities o1 the part& and a corporation 3ould have no such!round 1or relie1. The /I/ cannot also invo<e the ri!ht to privac& o1 itsborro3ers because such ri!ht is personal in nature and canonl& be invo<ed b& the person 3hose privac& is claimed to beviolated. It ma& be observed, ho3ever, that the concernedborro3ers in the case ma& not succeed i1 the& choose toinvo<e their ri!ht to privac&, considerin! the public 1i!ures the&3ere holdin! at the time the loans 3ere alle!ed to be !ranted.

c& The ?"ri#ate> nature of the loan transactions of the /SS -/I/ also contented that since the loan transactions 3ereprivate in nature, the& are not covered b& the Constitutionalri!ht to in1ormation, 3hich pertains onl& to matters o1 publicconcern 3hich !uarantees B9access to official records, and todocuments, and papers pertainin! to official acts, transactions,or decisionsB.That /I/, in !rantin! the loans, 3as e0ercisin! a proprietar&1unction 3ould not $usti1& the e0clusion o1 the transactions 1romthe covera!e and scope o1 the ri!ht to in1ormation. Considerin!1urther that !overnment-o3ned and controlled corporations,3hether per1ormin! proprietar& or !overnmental 1unctions areaccountable to the people, the Court is convinced thattransactions entered into b& the /I/, a !overnment-controlledcorporation created b& special le!islation are 3ithin the ambito1 the peoples ri!ht to be in1ormed pursuant to theconstitutional polic& o1 transparenc& in !overnment dealin!s.WRe!ardin! the list o1 the names o1 the #atasan! Pambansamembers belon!in! to the 26I%? and P%P-Laban 3ho 3ereable to secure clean loans immediatel& be1ore the =ebruar& Kelection thru the intercession5mar!inal note o1 the then =irstLad& Imelda Marcos, the Court said: Dlthou!h citi"ens area11orded the ri!ht to in1ormation and, pursuant thereto, areentitled to Baccess to o11icial records,B the Constitution does notaccord them a ri!ht to compel custodians o1 o11icial records toprepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the li<e in their desireto acHuire in1ormation on matters o1 public concern.N

.R. 6o. *>J)

6ovember )', )**)

ADI=*SARMIE&= >S. M=RA&=

Petitioner: Ma. Carmen . Huinno-/armientoRespondents: Manuel Morato 9in his capacit& as Chairman o1 MTRC# and MTRC#

%a(ts:In =eb. )**, petitioner, as a member o1 MTRC#, 3rote therecords o11icer reHuestin! that she be allo3ed to e0amine the

board;s records pertainin! to the votin! slips accomplished b&the individual board members a1ter a revie3 o1 the movies andtelevisions productions. These 3ere the basis o1 3hether the1ilms are either banned, cut or classi1ied accordin!l&. Therecords o11icer told her that she had to secure prior clearance1rom Manuel Morato, the Chairman o1 the MTRC#. @er reHuest3as then denied b& the Chairman, on the !round that3henever the members o1 the board sit in $ud!ment over a 1ilm,their decisions as re1lected in the individual votin! slips parta<ethe nature o1 conscience votes and as such, are purel& andcompletel& private and personal, and that these are thee0clusive propert& o1 each member and an&bod& 3ho 3antsaccess to it must secure the member;s consent, other3ise, thereHuest 3ill be denied.

Petitioner contends that these votin! slips are publicin character, and other than providin! 1or reasonable conditionsre!ulatin! the manner and hours o1 e0amination, respondentsdo not have the authorit& to den& an& citi"en see<in!e0amination o1 the board;s records.

Morato then called a meetin! 3ith the board todiscuss the issue at hand. ?ut o1 the members, )K voted thathe votin! slips 3ere classi1ied documents, there1oreinaccessible to the public 3ithout clearance 1rom the ChairmanThen the& issued a resolution 3hich declared as con1identialprivate and personal, the decision o1 the revie3in! committee

and the votin! slips o1 the members.The petition 3as also tri!!ered b& Morato;s

announcement to the #oard that he ordered some deletions o1the 1ilm, DMahirap an! Ma!mahalN, 3hich 3as alread& !iven anR-) ratin! 3ithout deletions. @e sa&s that his po3er tounilaterall& chan!e the decision o1 the Revie3 Committee restson the MTRC# Resolution 3hich allo3s the chairman o1 theboard to do3n!rade a 1ilm 9alread& revie3ed especiall& thosecontroversial.

Iss"es:4hether the resolutions, namel& 9) 3hich allo3s theChairman o1 the #oard to unilaterall& do3n!rade a 1ilm9alread& revie3ed especiall& those 3hich are controversialand 9 3hich declared as strictl& con1idential, private andpersonal the a decision o1 the revie3in! committee 3hichpreviousl& revie3ed a certain 1ilm and b the individual votin!slips o1 the members o1 the committee that revie3ed the 1ilmshould be nulli1ied.

#e$d: #oth resolutions are declared as null and void.

Ratio:The decisions o1 the MTRC# are not re!arded as

private, 3hich has been de1ined as Dbelon!in! to oconcernin!, an individual person, compan& or interestNF but aspublic, 3hich means Dpertainin! to, or belon!in! to, or a11ectin!a nation, state, or communit& at lar!e.N s ma& be !leaned1rom P%)*+, the decisions are public in character, because i

is an o11ice created to serve public interest. There can be noinvasion o1 privac& in the case at bar since 3hat is sou!ht to bedivul!ed is a product o1 action underta<en in the course oper1ormin! o11icial 1unctions. The& are there1ore, public recordsaccess to 3hich is !uaranteed to the citi"enr& b& no less thanthe Constitution.

The constitutional reco!nition o1 the citi"en;s ri!ht oaccess to o11icial records cannot be made dependent upon theconsent o1 the members o1 the board concerned, other3isethe said ri!ht 3ould be rendered nu!ator&.

readin! 1rom the provisions o1 P%)*+ sho3 tharespondent Morato, as chairman o1 the MTRC#, is not vested3ith the authorit& to reverse or overrule b& himsel1 alone adecision rendered b& a committee 3hich conducted a revie3 omotion pictures or television pro!rams. The po3er to classi1&

motion pictures into cate!ories is vested 3ith the responden#oard itsel1 and not 3ith the Chairman thereo1. s ChieE0ecutive ?11icer, his 1unction as Chairman o1 the #oard is onl&1or implementation and e0ecution, not modi1ication or reversalo1 the decisions or orders o1 the latter.

C#A>E vs PRESIE&IAL C=MMISSI= = G==G=>ERME&%a(ts:-Petitioner =rancisco I Chave" 9in his capacit& as ta0pa&erciti"en and a 1ormer !overnment o11icial initiated this ori!inaaction see<in!9) to prohibit and Den$oin respondents PC and itschairman 1rom privatel& enterin! into, per1ectin! and5o

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


e0ecutin! an& a!reement 3ith the heirs o1 the late President=erdinand E. Marcos . . . relatin! to and concernin! theproperties and assets o1 =erdinand Marcos located in thePhilippines and5or abroad A includin! the so-called Marcos!old hoardBF and9 to Dcompel respondents to ma<e public all ne!otiationsand a!reement, be the& on!oin! or per1ected, and alldocuments related to or relatin! to such ne!otiations anda!reement bet3een the PC and the Marcos heirs.B-Chave" is the same person initiated the prosecution o1 theMarcoses and their cronies 3ho committed unmiti!ated

plunder o1 the public treasur& and the s&stematic sub$u!ation o1 the countr&s econom&F he sa&s that 3hat impelled him to brin!this action 3ere several ne3s reports bannered in a number o1 broadsheets sometime in /eptember )**K. These ne3sitems re1erred to 9) the alle!ed discover& o1 billions o1 dollarso1 Marcos assets deposited in various coded accounts in /3issban<sF and 9 the reported e0ecution o1 a compromise,bet3een the !overnment 9throu!h PC and the Marcosheirs, on ho3 to split or share these assets.-PETITI?6ER %EM6%/ that respondents ma<e public an&and all ne!otiations and a!reements pertainin! to PCs tas<o1 recoverin! the Marcoses ill-!otten 3ealth. @e claims thatan& compromise on the alle!ed billions o1 ill-!otten 3ealthinvolves an issue o1 Bparamount public interest,B since it has aBdebilitatin! e11ect on the countr&s econom&B that 3ould be!reatl& pre$udicial to the national interest o1 the =ilipino people.@ence, the people in !eneral have a ri!ht to <no3 thetransactions or deals bein! contrived and e11ected b& the!overnment.-RE/P?6%E6T 6/4ER/ that the& do not den& 1or!in! acompromise a!reement 3ith the Marcos heirs. The& claim,thou!h, that petitioners action is premature, because there isno sho3in! that he has as<ed the PC to disclose thene!otiations and the !reements. nd even i1 he has, PCma& not &et be compelled to ma<e an& disclosure, since theproposed terms and conditions o1 the !reements have notbecome e11ective and bindin!.-PETITI?6ER I6V?QE/Sec& A B%rticle & The right of the "eo"le to information on

matters of "ublic concern shall be recogni+ed& %ccess toofficial records, and to documents, and "a"ers "ertaining toofficial acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as togo#ernment research data used as basis for "olicy de#elo"ment, shall be afforded the citi+en, sub8ect to suchlimitations as may be "ro#ided by law&Sec& @D B%rticle & Sub8ect to reasonable conditions "rescribed by law, the State ado"ts and im"lements a "olicy of full "ublic disclosure of all its transactions in#ol#ing "ublic interest&-RE/P?6%E6T 6/4ER/ that the above constitutionalprovisions re1er to completed and operative o11icial acts, not tothose still bein! considered.Iss"e: 4hether or not the Court could reHuire the PC todisclose to the public the details o1 an& a!reement, per1ectedor not, 3ith the Marcoses.

R"$in: 64@ERE=?RE, the petition is R6TE%. Theeneral and /upplemental !reement dated %ecember ,)**', 3hich PC and the Marcos heirs entered into arehereb& declared 62LL 6% V?I% 1or bein! contrar& to la3 andthe Constitution. Respondent PC, its o11icers and all!overnment 1unctionaries and o11icials 3ho are or ma& bedirectl& ot indirectl& involved in the recover& o1 the alle!ed ill-!otten 3ealth o1 the Marcoses and their associates are%IRECTE% to disclose to the public the terms o1 an& proposedcompromise settlment, as 3ell as the 1inal a!reement, relatin!to such alle!ed ill-!otten 3ealth, in accordance 3ith thediscussions embodied in this %ecision. 6o pronouncement asto cost.NR:

* The Bin1ormationB and the BtransactionsB re1erred to in thesub$ect provisions o1 the Constitution have as &et no de1inedscope and e0tent. There are no speci1ic la3s prescribin! thee0act limitations 3ithin 3hich the ri!ht ma& be e0ercised or thecorrelative state dut& ma& be obli!ed. @o3ever, the 1ollo3in!are some o1 the reco!ni"ed restrictions:9) national securit& matters and intelli!ence in1ormation- there is a !overnmental privile!e a!ainst public disclosure3ith respect to state secrets re!ardin! militar&, diplomatic andother national securit& matters. J #ut 3here there is no needto protect such state secrets, the privile!e ma& not be invo<ed

to 3ithhold documents and other in1ormation, > provided thatthe& are e0amined Bin strict con1idenceB and !iven Bscrupulousprotection.B9 trade secrets and ban<in! transactions-trade or industrial secrets 9pursuant to the Intellectual Propert&Code K and other related la3s as 3ell as ban<in!transactions 9pursuant to the /ecrec& o1 #an< %eposits ct are also e0empted 1rom compulsor& disclosure9' criminal matters- lso e0cluded are classi1ied la3 en1orcement matters, suchas those relatin! to the apprehension, the prosecution and thedetention o1 criminals, 3hich courts neither ma& nor inHuire intoprior to such arrest, detention and prosecution. E11orts ae11ective la3 en1orcement 3ould be seriousl& $eopardi"ed b&1ree public access to, 1or e0ample, police in1ormation re!ardin!rescue operations, the 3hereabouts o1 1u!itives, or leads oncovert criminal activities.9J other con1idential in1ormation.- The Ethical /tandards ct ') 1urther prohibits public o11icialsand emplo&ees 1rom usin! or divul!in! Bcon1idential oclassi1ied in1ormation o11iciall& <no3n to them b& reason o1 theio11ice and not made available to the public.B ?theac<no3led!ed limitations to in1ormation access includediplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetin!s ande0ecutive sessions o1 either house o1 Con!ress, as 3ell as theinternal deliberations o1 the /upreme Court.* In Valmonte v. #elmonte r., the Court emphasi"ed that thein1ormation sou!ht must be Bmatters o1 public concern,B accessto 3hich ma& be limited b& la3. /imilarl&, the state polic& o1 1ul

public disclosure e0tends onl& to Btransactions involvin! publicinterestB and ma& also be Bsub$ect to reasonable conditionsprescribed b& la3.B- s to the meanin!s o1 the terms Bpublic interestB and Bpublicconcern,B the Court, in Le!aspi v. Civil /ervice Commissionelucidated: DIn determinin! 3hether or not a particulain1ormation is o1 public concern there is no ri!id test 3hich canbe applied. D DPublic concernB li<e Bpublic interestB is a term thaeludes e0act de1inition. #oth terms embrace a broad spectrumo1 sub$ects 3hich the public ma& 3ant to <no3, either becausethese directl& a11ect their lives, or simpl& because such mattersnaturall& arouse the interest o1 an ordinar& citi"en. In the 1inaanal&sis, it is 1or the courts to determine on a case b& casebasis 3hether the matter at issue is o1 interest or importanceas it relates to or a11ects the public.N

-s to 3hether or not the above cited constitutional provisions!uarantee access to in1ormation re!ardin! on!oin!ne!otiations or proposals prior to the 1inal a!reement, thissame clari1ication 3as sou!ht and clearl& addressed b& theconstitutional commissioners durin! their deliberations,.3& SU%3E1& %nd when we say 'transactions' which shouldbe distinguished from contracts, agreements, or treaties orwhate#er, does the /entleman refer to the ste"s leading to theconsummation of the contract, or does he refer to the contractitself.3& !)E& The 'transactions' used here, su""ose, is genericand, therefore, it can co#er both ste"s leading to a contract,and already a consummated contract, .r& !residing fficer&

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


.3& SU%3E1& This contem"lates inclusion of negotiationsleading to the consummation of the transaction.3& !)E& es, sub8ect to reasonable safeguards on thenational interest&- Considerin! the intent o1 the Constitution, the Court believesthat it is incumbent upon the PC and its o11icers, as 3ell asother !overnment representatives, to disclose su11icient publicin1ormation on an& proposed settlement the& have decided tota<e up 3ith the ostensible o3ners and holders o1 ill-!otten3ealth. /uch in1ormation, thou!h, must pertain to de1initepropositions o1 the !overnment, not necessaril& to intra-a!enc&

or inter-a!enc& recommendations or communications durin!the sta!e 3hen common assertions are still in the process o1 bein! 1ormulated or are in the Be0plorator&B sta!e. There is aneed, o1 course, to observe the same restrictions on disclosureo1 in1ormation in !eneral, as discussed aboveA such as onmatters involvin! national securit&, diplomatic or 1orei!nrelations, intelli!ence and other classi1ied in1ormation.

eri v. Senate 9this is an MR 9ll the issues are important.R. 6o. )(+J' /eptember J, ((

Petitioner: Romulo 6eriRespondent: /enate Committee ?n ccountabilit& ?1 Public?11icers nd Investi!ations, /enate Committee ?n Trade ndCommerce, nd /enate Committee ?n 6ational %e1ense nd/ecurit&Ponente: . Leonardo %e Castro

Summary: 6eri appeared be1ore respondent and testi1ied 1or about )) hours on matters concernin! the B6#6 Pro$ect, apro$ect a3arded b& the %?TC to TE. @e disclosed that thenC?MELEC Chairman balos o11ered him P((Mn in e0chan!e1or his approval o1 the 6#6 Pro$ect. @e 1urther narrated that hein1ormed Pres. rro&o o1 the briber& attempt and that sheinstructed him not to accept the bribe. @o3ever, 3hen probed1urther on President rro&o and his discussions relatin! to the6#6 Pro$ect, he re1used to ans3er, invo<in! Be0ecutiveprivile!e.B The Huestions that he re1used to ans3er 3ere: 9)4?6 PM 1ollo3ed up the 6#6 Pro$ect, 9 4?6 PM

directed him to prioriti"e it, and 9' 4?6 PM directed him toapprove it. @e did not appear be1ore the committees uponorders o1 the President invo<in! e0ec privile!e, throu!h a letter sent b& E0ec. /ec. Ermita. @e 3as then cited in contempt andan order 1or his arrest and detention until such time that he3ould appear and !ive his testimon&.

/C held that the Committees committed !rave abuse o1 discretion in issuin! the contempt order because there 3as avalid claim o1 e0ecutive privile!e. There is a reco!ni"edpresumptive presidential communications privile!e in our le!als&stem. In this case, it 3as the President hersel1, throu!hE0ecutive /ecretar& Ermita, 3ho invo<ed e0ecutive privile!eon a speci1ic matter involvin! an e0ecutive a!reement bet3eenthe Philippines and China, 3hich 3as the sub$ect o1 the three

9' Huestions propounded to 6eri in the course o1 the /enateCommittees; investi!ation. Moreover, the ' elements 1or a validclaim o1 e0ecutive privile!e 3as met:The protected communication relate to a Huintessential andnon-dele!able presidential po3er because the po3er to enter into an e0ecutive a!reement is in essence an e0ecutive po3er.The communications elicited b& the ' Huestions D1all under conversation and correspondence bet3een the President andpublic o11icialsN necessar& in Dher e0ecutive and polic&decision-ma<in! process,N and that Dthe in1ormation sou!ht tobe disclosed mi!ht impair our diplomatic as 3ell as economicrelations 3ith the People;s Republic o1 China.NIt must be authored, solicited, and received b& a close advisor o1 the President or the President himsel1. The $udicial test is

that an advisor must be in Doperational pro0imit&N 3ith thePresidentF thou!h the or!ani"ational test ma& also be used.There is no sho3in! o1 a compellin! need that 3ould $usti1& thelimitation o1 the privile!e and the unavailabilit& o1 thein1ormation else3here b& an appropriate investi!atin! authorit&The President;s claim o1 e0ecutive privile!e is not merel&based on a !enerali"ed interestF and in balancin! the /enateCommittees; and the President;s clashin! interests, /C did nodisre!ard the )*K Constitutional provisions on !overnmentransparenc&, accountabilit& and disclosure o1 in1ormation. In1act, there is simpl& a !enerali"ed assertion that the in1ormation

is pertinent to the e0ercise o1 the po3er to le!islate and abroad and non-speci1ic re1erence to pendin! /enate bills. It isnot clear 3hat matters relatin! to these bills could not bedetermined 3ithout the said in1ormation sou!ht b& the three 9'Huestions. Lastl&, curbin! !ra1t and corruption is merel& anoversi!ht 1unction o1 Con!ress. The need 1or in1ormation in thee0ercise o1 this 1unction is not as compellin! as in instances3hen the purpose o1 the inHuir& is le!islative in nature.

%AC&S:/eptember +, ((K - 6eri appeared be1ore respondenCommittees and testi1ied 1or about )) hours on mattersconcernin! the 6ational #roadband Pro$ect 9the B6#6Pro$ectB, a pro$ect a3arded b& the %epartment oTransportation and Communications 9B%?TCB to hon! Uin!Telecommunications EHuipment 9BTEB.@e disclosed that then Comelec Chairman #en$amin baloso11ered him P(( Million in e0chan!e 1or his approval o1 the6#6 Pro$ect. @e in1ormed President M o1 the briber&attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe.@o3ever, 3hen probed 1urther on President M and hisdiscussions relatin! to the 6#6 Pro$ect, he re1used to ans3erinvo<in! Be0ecutive privile!e.B To be speci1ic, petitioner re1usedto ans3er Huestions on:3hether or not President rro&o 1ollo3ed up the 6#6 Pro$ect,3hether or not she directed him to prioriti"e it, and3hether or not she directed him to approve it.The /enate Committees persisted in <no3in! 6eri;s ans3ersto these ' Huestions b& reHuirin! him to appear and testi1&

once more on 6ovember (, ((K.6ovember )>, ((K - E0ecutive /ecretar& Eduardo R. Ermita3rote to respondent Committees and reHuested them todispense 3ith petitioner;s testimon& on the !round o1 e0ecutiveprivile!e. The letter o1 stated:=ollo3in! the rulin! in Senate #& Ermita, the 1ore!oin!Huestions 1all under conversations and correspondencebet3een the President and public o11icials 3hich areconsidered e0ecutive privile!e. Maintainin! the con1identialit&o1 conversations o1 the President is necessar& in the e0erciseo1 her e0ecutive and polic& decision ma<in! process.The conte0t in 3hich e0ecutive privile!e is bein! invo<ed is thathe in1ormation sou!ht to be disclosed mi!ht impair oudiplomatic as 3ell as economic relations 3ith the People;sRepublic o1 China. iven the con1idential nature in 3hich these

in1ormation 3ere conve&ed to the President, he cannot providethe Committee an& 1urther details o1 these conversations3ithout disclosin! the ver& thin! the privile!e is desi!ned toprotect.Considerin! that /ec. 6eri has been len!thil& interro!ated onthe sub$ect in an unprecedented ))-hour hearin!, 3herein hehas ans3ered all Huestions propounded to him e0cept the1ore!oin! Huestions involvin! e0ecutive privile!e, 3e there1orereHuest that his testimon& on ( 6ovember ((K on the TE 6#6 pro$ect be dispensed 3ith.6ovember (, ((K - petitioner did not appear be1ore theCommittees upon orders o1 the President invo<in! e0ecutiveprivile!e.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


6ovember , ((K - the Committees issued the sho3-causeletter reHuirin! him to e0plain 3h& he should not be cited incontempt.6ovember *, ((K - in his repl&, he mani1ested that it 3as nothis intention to i!nore the /enate hearin! and that he thou!htthe onl& remainin! Huestions 3ere those he claimed to becovered b& e0ecutive privile!e. @e also mani1ested his3illin!ness to appear and testi1& should there be ne3 mattersto be ta<en up. @e $ust reHuested that he be 1urnished Binadvance as to 3hat elseB he Bneeds to clari1&.BRespondent Committees 1ound 6eri;s e0planations

unsatis1actor&. The& issued an ?rder citin! him in contemptand orderin! his arrest and detention at the ?11ice o1 the/enate /er!eant-at-rms until such time that he 3ould appear and !ive his testimon&.Petitioner moved 1or the reconsideration o1 the above?rder. @e insisted that he had not sho3n Ban& contemptibleconduct 3orth& o1 contempt and arrest.B @e emphasi"ed his3illin!ness to testi1& on ne3 matters, but respondentCommittees did not respond to his reHuest 1or advance noticeo1 Huestions. Thus he 1iled a Petition 1or Certiorari 3ith the /C=ri e(ision o) SC !ranted his petition 1or certiorari on

t3o !rounds:The communications elicited b& the ' Huestions 3ere coveredb& e0ecutive privile!e. the sub$ect communications as 1allin!under the presidential communications privile!e becausee$eentsthe& relate to a Huintessential and non-dele!able po3er o1 thePresident,the& 3ere received b& a close advisor o1 the President, andthe Committees 1ailed to adeHuatel& sho3 a compellin! needthat 3ould $usti1& the limitation o1 the privile!e and theunavailabilit& o1 the in1ormation else3here b& an appropriateinvesti!atin! authorit&.The /enate Committees committed !rave abuse o1 discretionin issuin! the contempt order becausethere 3as a valid claim o1 e0ecutive privile!e,their invitations to petitioner did not contain the Huestionsrelevant to the inHuir&,there 3as a cloud o1 doubt as to the re!ularit& o1 the

proceedin! that led to their issuance o1 the contempt order,the& violated /ection ), rticle VI o1 the Constitution becausetheir inHuir& 3as not in accordance 3ith the Bdul& publishedrules o1 procedure,B andthe& issued the contempt order arbitraril& and precipitatel&.6ot satis1ied, the Committees 1iled this MR.

Iss"e 1: 4?6 there is a reco!ni"ed presumptive presidentialcommunications privile!e in our le!al s&stem. - 8E/.Ratio:The Court, in the earlier case o1 %lmonte #& 0as7ue+ , a11irmedthat the presidentia$ (o"ni(ations privi$ee is1undamental to the operation o1 !overnment and ine0tricabl&rooted in the separation o1 po3ers under the Constitution. Thisis reiterated in %lmonte #& Cha#e+ , Cha#e+ #& !C//, Cha#e+

#& !E% and Senate #& Ermita.The Court articulated in these cases that Bt'ere are (ertaintypes o) in)oration 0'i(' t'e overnent ay 0it''o$d)ro t'e p"/$i(,B that there is a Bovernenta$ privi$eeaainst p"/$i( dis($os"re 0it' respe(t to state se(retsreardin i$itary, dip$oati( and ot'er nationa$ se("rityattersBF and that Bt'e ri't to in)oration does not e+tendto atters re(oni4ed as privi$eed in)orationH "nder t'eseparation o) po0ers, /y 0'i(' t'e Co"rt eantPresidentia$ (onversations, (orresponden(es, anddis("ssions in ($osed*door Ca/inet eetins.B Senate #& Ermita: DE0ecutive privile!e, 3hether asserteda!ainst Con!ress, the courts, or the public, is reco!ni"ed onl&in relation to certain t&pes o1 in1ormation o1 a sensitive

character. 4hile e0ecutive privile!e is a constitutional concepta claim thereo1 ma& be valid or not dependin! on the !roundinvo<ed to $usti1& it and the conte0t in 3hich it is made.N#ut unli<e in Senate #& Ermita, the constitutional in1irmit& 1oundin the blan<et authori"ation to invo<e e0ecutive privile!e!ranted b& the President to e0ecutive o11icials in /ec. 9b oE.?. 6o. J+J does not obtain in this case.In this case, it 3as the President hersel1, throu!h E0ecutive/ecretar& Ermita, 3ho invo<ed e0ecutive privile!e on a speci1icmatter involvin! an e0ecutive a!reement bet3een thePhilippines and China, 3hich 3as the sub$ect o1 the three 9'

Huestions propounded to petitioner 6eri in the course o1 the/enate Committees; investi!ation. Thus, the 1actual settin! o1this case mar<edl& di11ers.Thus, to construe the passa!e in Senate #& Ermita adverted toin the MR o1 the /enate Committees, re1errin! to the non-e0istence o1 a Bpresumptive authori"ationB o1 an e0ecutiveo11icial, to mean that the BpresumptionB in 1avor o1 e0ecutiveprivile!e Binclines heavil& a!ainst e0ecutive secrec& and in1avor o1 disclosureB is to distort the rulin! in Senate #& Ermita.Senate #& Ermita e0plained 3h& there should be no impliedauthori"ation or presumptive authori"ation to invo<e e0ecutiveprivile!e b& the President;s subordinate o11icials, as 1ollo3s:4hen Con!ress e0ercises its po3er o1 inHuir&, the onl& 3a& 1odepartment heads to e0empt themselves there1rom is b& avalid claim o1 privile!e. The& are not e0empt b& the mere 1acthat the& are department heads. ?nl& onee0ecutive o11icial ma& be e0empted 1rom this po3er - thePresident on 3hom e0ecutive po3er is vested, hence, be&ondthe reach o1 Con!ress e0cept throu!h the po3er oimpeachment.&'"s, i) 0'at is invo$ved is t'e pres"ptive privi$ee o)presidentia$ (o"ni(ations 0'en invoed /y t'ePresident on a atter ($ear$y 0it'in t'e doain o) t'eE+e("tive, t'e said pres"ption di(tates t'at t'e sae /ere(oni4ed and /e iven pre)eren(e or priority, in t'ea/sen(e o) proo) o) a (ope$$in or (riti(a$ need )odis($os"re /y t'e one assai$in s"(' pres"ption.

Iss"e 2: 4?6 there is 1actual or le!al basis to hold that the

communications elicited b& the three 9' Huestions are coveredb& e0ecutive privile!e. - 8E/. I t'in ainJRatio:The ' Huestions are covered b& e0ecutive privile!e becausethe e$eents o1 the presidential communications privile!e arepresent.)st element: The po3er to enter into an e0ecutive a!reement isa BHuintessential and non-dele!able presidential po3er.RespondentsH Ar"ent: the po3er to secure a 1orei!n loandoes not relate to a BHuintessential and non-dele!ablepresidential po3er,B because the Constitution does not vest iin the President alone, but also in the Monetar& #oard 3hich isreHuired to !ive its prior concurrence and to report toCon!ress.SC:

&'e )a(t t'at a po0er is s"/3e(t to t'e (on("rren(e o)anot'er entity does not ae s"(' po0er $ess e+e("tive.DGuintessentialB is de1ined as the most per1ect embodiment osomethin!, the concentrated essence o1 substance.Bnon-dele!ableB means that a po3er or dut& cannot bedele!ated to another or, even i1 dele!ated, the responsibilit&remains 3ith the obli!or.&'e po0er to enter into an e+e("tive areeent is inessen(e an e+e("tive po0er. 6o3, the 1act that the Presidenhas to secure the prior concurrence o1 the Monetar& #oard3hich shall submit to Con!ress a complete report o1 itsdecision be1ore contractin! or !uaranteein! 1orei!n loans, doesnot diminish the e0ecutive nature o1 the po3er.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


The inviolate doctrine o1 separation o1 po3ers amon! thele!islative, e0ecutive and $udicial branches o1 !overnment b&no means prescribes absolute autonom& in the dischar!e b&each branch o1 that part o1 the !overnmental po3er assi!nedto it b& the soverei!n people. There is the corollar& doctrine o1 chec<s and balances, 3hich has been care1ull& calibrated b&the Constitution to temper the o11icial acts o1 each o1 thesethree branches.#& analo!&, certain le!islative acts reHuire action 1rom thePresident 1or their validit& does not render such acts lessle!islative in nature. 9ever& bill passed b& Con!ress shall,

be1ore it becomes a la3, be presented to the President 3hoshall approve or veto the same.

nd element: the& 3ere received b& a close advisor o1 thePresident. 6ote that the Ddoctrine o1 operational pro0imit&B 3aslaid do3n precisel& to limit the scope o1 the presidentialcommunications privile!e but it is not conclusiveRespondentsH Ar"ent: the application o1 the Bdoctrine o1 operational pro0imit&B ma& be misconstrued to e0pand thescope o1 the presidential communications privile!e tocommunications bet3een those 3ho are operationall&pro0imate; to the President but 3ho ma& have Bno directcommunications 3ith her.BSC:The doctrine o1 Boperational pro0imit&B 3as laid do3n in n re:Sealed Case precisel& to limit the scope o1 the presidentialcommunications privile!e. In the case at bar, the dan!er o1 e0pandin! the privile!e Bto a lar!e s3ath o1 the e0ecutivebranchB 9a 1ear apparentl& entertained b& respondents isabsent because the o11icial involved here is a member o1 theCabinet, thus, properl& 3ithin the term BadvisorB o1 thePresidentF in 1act, her alter e!o and a member o1 her o11icial1amil&.6evertheless, in circumstances in 3hich the o11icial involved is1ar too remote, this Court also mentioned in the %ecisionthe orani4ationa$ test laid do3n in Judicial =atch, nc& #&4e"artment of Justice. This !oes to sho3 that the operationalpro0imit& test used in the %ecision is not considered conclusivein ever& case.

In determinin! 3hich test to use, t'e ain (onsideration is to$iit t'e avai$a/i$ity o) e+e("tive privi$ee on$y to o))i(ia$s0'o stand pro+iate to t'e President, not on$y /y reasono) t'eir )"n(tion, /"t a$so /y reason o) t'eir positions int'e E+e("tiveHs orani4ationa$ str"(t"re.

'rd element: no compellin! need that 3ould $usti1& the limitationo1 the privile!e. In 1act, the President;s claim o1 e0ecutiveprivile!e is not merel& based on a !enerali"ed interestF and inbalancin! the /enate Committees; and the President;s clashin!interests, /C did not disre!ard the )*K Constitutionalprovisions on !overnment transparenc&, accountabilit& anddisclosure o1 in1ormationThe President;s claim o1 e0ecutive privile!e is not merel&1ounded on her !enerali"ed interest in con1identialit&. The

Letter dated 6ovember )>, ((K o1 E0ecutive /ecretar& Ermitaspeci1ied presidential communications privile!e in relation todiplomatic and economic relations 3ith another soverei!nnation as the bases 1or the claim.The 6#6 Pro$ect involves a 1orei!n countr& as a part& to thea!reement. It 3as actuall& a product o1 the meetin! o1 mindsbet3een o11icials o1 the Philippines and China. 4hatever thePresident sa&s about the a!reement - particularl& 3hile o11icialne!otiations are on!oin! - are matters 3hich China 3ill surel&vie3 3ith particular interest. There is dan!er in such <ind o1 e0posure. It could adversel& a11ect our diplomatic as 3ell aseconomic relations 3ith the People;s Republic o1 China.Considerin t'at t'e in)oration so"'t t'ro"' t'e t'ree "estions s"/3e(t o) t'is Petition invo$ves t'e

PresidentHs dea$ins 0it' a )orein nation, 0it' orereason, t'is Co"rt is 0ary o) approvin t'e vie0 t'atConress ay pereptori$y in"ire into not on$y o))i(ia$do("ented a(ts o) t'e President /"t even 'e(on)identia$ and in)ora$ dis("ssions 0it' 'er ($oseadvisors on t'e prete+t t'at said "estions serve soeva"e $eis$ative need.In the case at bar, in upholdin! e0ecutive privile!e 3ith respecto three 9' speci1ic Huestions, did not in an& 3a& curb thepublic;s ri!ht to in1ormation or diminish the importance o1 publicaccountabilit& and transparenc&.

rticle III, /ec. K and rticle II, /ec. o1 the ConstitutionJ donot espouse an absolute ri!ht to in1ormation. #& their 3ordin!the intention o1 the =ramers to sub$ect such ri!ht to there!ulation o1 the la3 is unmista<able.Cha#e+ #& !residential Commission on /ood /o#ernmentthere are no speci1ic la3s prescribin! the e0act limitations3ithin 3hich the ri!ht ma& be e0ercised or the correlative statedut& ma& be obli!ed but some reco!ni"ed restrictions include:national securit& matters,trade secrets and ban<in! transactions,criminal matters, andother con1idential in1ormation.6ational securit& matters include state secrets re!ardin!militar& and diplomatic matters, as 3ell as in1ormation on inter-!overnment e0chan!es prior to the conclusion o1 treaties ande0ecutive a!reements. It 3as 1urther held that even 3herethere is no need to protect such state secrets, the& must beBe0amined in strict con1idence and !iven scrupulousprotection.BIncidentall&, the ri!ht primaril& involved here is the ri!ht orespondent Committees to obtain in1ormation alle!edl& in aid ole!islation, not the people;s ri!ht to public in1ormation.%or ($arity, it "st /e ep'asi4ed t'at t'e assai$ede(ision did not en3oin respondent Coittees )roin"irin into t'e ? Pro3e(t. A$$ t'at is e+pe(ted )rot'e is to respe(t atters t'at are (overed /y e+e("tiveprivi$ee.

Iss"e : 4?6 the Committees have sho3n that the

communications elicited b& the three 9' Huestions are criticato the e0ercise o1 their 1unctions. - 6?. ainF sti$$ part o)e$eent KJRespondentsH Ar"ent: the in1ormation elicited b& the three9' Huestions are necessar& in the dischar!e o1 their le!islative1unctions, amon! them, 9a to consider the three 9' pendin!/enate #ills, and 9b to curb !ra1t and corruption.SC:4e remain unpersuaded. US #& Ni$on the Presidents!enerali"ed assertion o1 privile!e must &ield to thedemonstrated, speci1ic need 1or evidence in a pendin! criminatrial.In the case at bar, 3e are not con1ronted 3ith a court;s need 1o1acts in order to ad$ud!e liabilit& in a criminal case but rather3ith the /enate;s need 1or in1ormation in relation to its

le!islative 1unctions. The need 1or hard 1acts in cra1tin!le!islation cannot be eHuated 3ith the compellin! odemonstrativel& critical and speci1ic need 1or 1acts 3hich is soessential to the $udicial po3er to ad$udicate actuacontroversies.

4 Arti($e III, Se(. 7.The ri!ht o1 the people to in1ormation on matters o1 public

concern shall be reco!ni"ed. ccess to o11icial records, and to documents, andpapers pertainin! to o11icial records, and to documents, and papers pertainin! too11icial acts, transactions, or decisions, as 3ell as to !overnment research dataused as basis 1or polic& development, shall be a11orded the citi"en,s"/3e(t tos"(' $iitations as ay /e provided /y $a0.Arti($e II, Se(. 28. S"/3e(t toreasona/$e (onditions pres(ri/ed /y $a0, the /tate adopts and implements apolic& o1 1ull public disclosure o1 all its transactions involvin! public interest.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


Presumption in 1avor o1 Presidential communications puts theburden on the /enate Committees to overturn the presumptionb& demonstratin! their speci1ic need 1or the in1ormation to beelicited b& the ans3ers to the three 9' Huestions sub$ect o1 thiscase, to enable them to cra1t le!islation. #ere, t'ere is sip$ya enera$i4ed assertion t'at t'e in)oration is pertinent tot'e e+er(ise o) t'e po0er to $eis$ate and a /road and non*spe(i)i( re)eren(e to pendin Senate /i$$s. It is not clear 3hat matters relatin! to these bills could not be determined3ithout the said in1ormation sou!ht b& the three 9' Huestions.

1actual basis 1or situations covered b& bills is not criticall&

needed be1ore le!islatives bodies can come up 3ith relevantle!islation unli<e in the ad$udication o1 cases b& courts o1 la3.Interestin!l&, durin! the ?ral r!ument be1ore this Court, thecounsel 1or Committees impliedl& admitted that the /enatecould still come up 3ith le!islations even 3ithout petitioner ans3erin! the three 9' Huestions. In other 3ords, thein1ormation bein! elicited is not so critical a1ter all.

nent the 1unction to curb !ra1t and corruption, it must bestressed that respondent Committees; need 1or in1ormation inthe e0ercise o1 this 1unction is not as compellin! as ininstances 3hen the purpose o1 the inHuir& is le!islative innature. This is because ("r/in ra)t and (orr"ption isere$y an oversi't )"n(tion o) Conress.The !eneral thrust and the tenor o1 the three 9' Huestions is totrace the alle!ed briber& to the ?11ice o1 the President. 4hile itma& be a 3orth& endeavor to investi!ate the potentialculpabilit& o1 hi!h !overnment o11icials, includin! the President,in a !iven !overnment transaction, it is simpl& not a tas )or t'e Senate to per)or. The role o1 the Le!islature is to ma<ela3s, not to determine an&one;s !uilt o1 a crime or 3ron!doin!.The ?11ice o1 the ?mbudsman is the bod& properl& eHuippedb& the Constitution and our la3s to preliminaril& determine3hether or not the alle!ations o1 anomal& are true and 3ho areliable there1or.

Iss"e ;: 4?6 the Committees committed !rave abuse o1 discretion in issuin! the contempt order. - 8E/. not soiportantJRatio:

Reason ): The& violated the doctrine laid do3n in Senate #&Ermita in rulin! that there 3as no valid e0ecutive privile!e 9this3as e0haustivel& discussed aboveConstant e0posure to con!ressional subpoena ta<es its toll onthe abilit& o1 the E0ecutive to 1unction e11ectivel&. ThereHuirements set 1orth in /enate v. Ermita are modestmechanisms that 3ould not undul& limit Con!ress; po3er. Thele!islative inHuir& must be con1ined to permissible areas andthus, prevent the Brovin! commissionsB.Li<e3ise, 3itnesses have their constitutional ri!ht to dueprocess. The& should be adeHuatel& in1ormed 3hat matters areto be covered b& the inHuir&. It 3ill also allo3 them to preparethe pertinent in1ormation and documents.Reason : The& issued the contempt order not in accordance3ith their internal Rules.

nent the third ar!ument, Committees contend that their Ruleso1 Procedure overnin! InHuiries in id o1 Le!islation 9theBRulesB are be&ond the reach o1 this Court. 4hile it is true thatthis Court must re1rain 1rom revie3in! the internal processes o1 Con!ress, as a co-eHual branch o1 !overnment, ho3ever,3hen a constitutional reHuirement e0ists, the Court has thedut& to loo< into Con!ress; compliance there3ith. 4e cannotturn a blind e&e to possible violations o1 the Constitution simpl&out o1 courtes&./ection ) o1 the Rules provides that DThe Committee, b& avote o1 ma$orit& o1 all its members, ma& punish 1or contemptan& 3itness be1ore it 3ho disobe& an& order o1 the Committeeor re1uses to be s3orn or to testi1& or to ans3er proper Huestions b& the Committee or an& o1 its members.B

%urin! the deliberation o1 the three 9' respondenCommittees, onl& seven 9K /enators 3ere present. Thisnumber could hardl& 1ul1ill the ma$orit& reHuirement needed b&respondent Committee on ccountabilit& o1 Public ?11icers andInvesti!ations 3hich has a membership o1 seventeen 9)K/enators and respondent Committee on 6ational %e1ense and/ecurit& 3hich has a membership o1 ei!hteen 9) /enators4ith respect to respondent Committee on Trade andCommerce 3hich has a membership o1 nine 9* /enators, onl&three 9' members 3ere present.Reason ': The& violated the reHuirement under rticle VI

/ection ) o1 the Constitution reHuirin! the publication o1 theirRules.The /enate has to publish its Rules because it is not acontinuin! bod&.The /enate as an institution is Bcontinuin!B, as it is nodissolved as an entit& 3ith each national election or chan!e inthe composition o1 its members. @o3ever, in the conduct o1 itsda&-to-da& business the /enate o1 each Con!ress actsseparatel& and independentl& o1 the /enate o1 the Con!ressbe1ore it.Reason J: Their issuance o1 the contempt order is arbitrar&.6eri is not an un3illin! 3itness. @e repeatedl& mani1ested his3illin!ness to attend subseHuent hearin!s and respond to ne3matters. @is onl& reHuest 3as that he be 1urnished a cop& othe ne3 Huestions in advance to enable him to adeHuatel&prepare as a resource person. @e did not attend the 6ovembe(, ((K hearin! because E0ecutive /ecretar& ErmitareHuested respondent Committees to dispense 3ith histestimon& on the !round o1 e0ecutive privile!e. 6ote thapetitioner is an e0ecutive o11icial under the direct control andsupervision o1 the Chie1 E0ecutive. 4h& punish petitioner 1ocontempt 3hen he 3as merel& directed b& his superior7?n the part o1 Committees, this Court observes their haste andimpatience. Instead o1 rulin! on E0ecutive /ecretar& Ermita;sclaim o1 e0ecutive privile!e, the& curtl& dismissed it asunsatis1actor& and ordered the arrest o1 petitioner. The& couldhave in1ormed petitioner o1 their rulin! and !iven him time todecide 3hether to accede or 1ile a motion 1or reconsiderationThe same haste and impatience mar<ed the issuance o1 the

contempt order, despite the absence o1 the ma$orit& o1 themembers o1 the respondent Committees, and their subseHuendisre!ard o1 petitioner;s motion 1or reconsideration alle!in! thependenc& o1 his petition 1or certiorari be1ore this Court.

ECISI=: Instant petition 1or certiorari is %I/MI//E% 1or lac<o1 merit.

A?A!A >. ADI=.R. )K(>)+ul& )+, ((

Petitioners: <ba&an Citi"ens ction Part& 9D<ba&anNPambansan! Qatipunan 6! M!a /amahan /a Qana&unan9DP<s<N, lliance ?1 Pro!ressive Labor 9DplN, Vicente

=abe, n!elito R. Mendo"a, Manuel P. Guiambao, Rose#eatri0 Cru"-n!eles, Con!. Loren"o R. Tanada Iii, Con!Mario o&o !u$a, Con!. Loreta nn P. Rosales, Con!. naTheresia @ontiveros-#araHuel, nd Con!. Emmanuel oel VillanuevaRespondents: T@?M/ . G2I6?, in his capacit& as2ndersecretar& o1 the %epartment o1 Trade and Industr& 9%TIand Chairman and Chie1 %ele!ate o1 the PhilippineCoordinatin! Committee 9PCC 1or the apan-PhilippinesEconomic Partnership !reement and other o11icials

/2MMR8: Petitioners see< to obtain 1rom respondents the1ull te0t o1 the apan-Philippines Economic Partnership

!reement 9PEP includin! the Philippine and apanese

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


o11ers submitted durin! the ne!otiation process and allpertinent attachments and anne0es thereto. The PEP, 3hich3ill be the 1irst bilateral 1ree trade a!reement to be entered intob& the Philippines 3ith another countr& in the event the /enate!rants its consent to it, covers a broad ran!e o1 topics 3hichincludes trade in !oods, rules o1 ori!in, customs procedures,paperless tradin!, trade in services, investment, intellectualpropert& ri!hts, !overnment procurement, movement o1 naturalpersons, cooperation, competition polic&, mutual reco!nition,dispute avoidance and settlement, improvement o1 thebusiness environment, and !eneral and 1inal provisions. The

issue in this case is 456 the claim o1 the petitioners is coveredb& the ri!ht to in1ormation. To the e0tent that the primar& relie1 is the disclosure o1 the 1ull te0t, the case is lar!el& moot andacademic, #2T, since the PEP is still bein! deliberated in thesenate, the a!reement is &et to be rati1ied pursuant to its o3nprovisions. There 3as a valid claim o1 privile!e in ne!otiation.The ri!ht to in1ormation and polic& o1 1ull public disclosure arenot absolute, since there are matters 35c la3 reco!ni"es asprivile!ed in nature: In1ormer;s Privile!e, PresidentialCommunications and %iplomatic 6e!otiations. In1o on inter-!overnment e0chan!es prior to the conclusion o1 treaties ande0ecutive a!reements ma& be sub$ect to reasonablesa1e!uards 1or the sa<e o1 national interest.N The 6ature o1 diplomac& reHuires the centrali"ation o1 authorit& ande0pedition o1 decision, 3hich are inherent in e0ecutive action.%ele!ates 1rom other countries tell &ou their concerns incon1idence and and i1 these thin!s 3ere ever disclosed, 3ho3ould an&one trust7 4hile the 1inal te0t o1 the PEP ma& notbe perpetuall& con1idential, the o11ers e0chan!ed b& the partiesdurin! the ne!otiations continue to be privile!ed even a1ter thePEP is published. It is reasonable to assume that theapanese dele!ates e0pect that Dhistoric con1identialit&N 3ould!overn the same. Petitioners have also 1ailed to presentDsu11icient sho3in! o1 needN to overcome the privile!e. =hilethe res"ondents contest that the doctrine laid down in !.!< #&.angla"us may not be a""lied to the case at bar because of different circumstances does not hold any water& The

"ri#ileged character accorded to di"lomatic negotiations doesnot i"so facto lose all force and effect sim"ly because the

same "ri#ilege is now being claimed under different circumstances&

=acts:

The petitioners see< via the present petition 1or mandamus andprohibition to obtain 1rom respondents the 1ull te0t o1 the apan-Philippines Economic Partnership !reement 9PEPincludin! the Philippine and apanese o11ers submitted durin!the ne!otiation process and all pertinent attachments andanne0es thereto.Con!ressmen Loren"o R. Tan III and Mario o&o !u$a 1iled@ouse Resolution 6o. >>) callin! 1or an inHuir& into the

PEP. The Resolution became the basis o1 an inHuir&subseHuentl& conducted b& the @ouse /pecial Committee onlobali"ation into the ne!otiations o1 the PEP.@ouse Committee reHuested 2sec. Huino to stud& and tone!otiate the proposed PEP, and to 1urnish the Committee3ith a cop& o1 the latest dra1t o1 the PEP. 2sec. Huino didnot heed the reHuest.Con!ressman !u$a reHuested 1or the same document, but2sec. Huino replied that the Con!ressman shall be provided3ith a cop& thereo1 Bonce the ne!otiations are completed andas soon as a thorou!h le!al revie3 o1 the proposed a!reementhas been conducted.BCon!ressman @erminio . Teves, reHuested Ermita to 1urnishit 3ith Ball documents on the sub$ect includin! the latest dra1t o1

the proposed a!reement, the reHuests and o11ers etc.B Ermitareplied that t'e Coittees re"est to /e )"rnis'ed a$do("ents on t'e @PEPA ay /e di))i("$t to a((op$is' att'is tie, sin(e t'e proposed Areeent 'as /een a 0orin proress )or a/o"t t'ree years. cop& o1 the dra1t PEP3ill ho3ever be 1or3arded to the Committee as soon as thete0t thereo1 is settled and complete.@ouse Committee resolved to issue a subpoena 1or the mosrecent dra1t o1 the PEP, but the same 3as not pursuedbecause @ouse /pea<er de Venecia had reHuested him to holdin abe&ance the issuance o1 the subpoena until the Presiden

!ives her consent to the disclosure.The a!reement 3as later si!ned on /eptember *, ((+ b&M and apanese Prime Minister unichiro Qoi"umi in@elsin<i, =inland, 1ollo3in! 3hich the President endorsed it tothe /enate 1or its concurrence pursuant to rticle VII, /ection) o1 the Constitution.The PEP, 3hich 3ill be the 1irst /i$atera$ 1ree tradea!reement to be entered into b& the Philippines 3ith anothecountr& in the event the /enate !rants its consent to it, coversa broad ran!e o1 topics 3hich respondents enumerate as1ollo3s: trade in !oods, rules o1 ori!in, customs procedurespaperless tradin!, trade in services, investment, intellectuapropert& ri!hts, !overnment procurement, movement o1 naturapersons, cooperation, competition polic&, mutual reco!nitiondispute avoidance and settlement, improvement o1 thebusiness environment, and !eneral and 1inal provisionsPEP 3hich has been re1erred to as a me!a treat&; is acomprehensive plan 1or openin! up o1 mar<ets in !oods andservices as 3ell as removin! barriers and restrictions oninvestments. It is a deal that encompasses even oucommitments to the 4T?.4hile the 1inal te0t o1 the PEP has no3 been madeaccessible to the public since /eptember )), ((+respondents do not dispute that, at the time the petition 3as1iled up to the 1ilin! o1 petitioners Repl& - 3hen the PEP 3asstill bein! ne!otiated - the initial dra1ts thereo1 3ere <ept 1rompublic vie3.

Iss"e: 4?6 the re1usal o1 the !overnment to disclose the

documents bearin! on the PEP ne!otiations violates theiri!ht to in1ormation on matters o1 public concern7

Ratio: @PEPA ELI?ERA&I=S %ALL ER EEC&I>EPRI>ILEGE 4hether a claim o1 e+e("tive privi$ee is valid depends onthe !round invo<ed to $usti1& it and the conte0t in 3hich it ismade. The !rounds used b& the respondents 3ere not onl&that it 3as a diplomatic matter but that it pertains to di"lomaticnegotiations then in pro!ress.The in1ormation on inter-!overnment e0chan!es prior to theconclusion o1 treaties and e0ecutive a!reements ma& besub$ect to reasonable sa1e!uards 1or the sa<e o1 nationainterest.NPeople;s Movement 1or Press =reedom v. Man!lapus-

Dse(re(y o) neotiations 0it' )orein (o"ntries is novio$ative o1 the constitutional provisions o1 1reedom o1 speechor o1 the press nor o) t'e )reedo o) a((ess toin)oration.N The& basicall& stated that the essentiacharacteristics o1 diplomac& are : I. a. centrali"ation o1 authorit&and b. con1idential nature. II. 1ter a treat& has been dra1tedand its terms are 1ull& published, there is ample opportunit& 1ordiscussion be1ore t is approved. nd III. The president is the/?LE ?R6 o1 the nation in its ne!otiations.@ere, it is clear that 3hile the 1inal te0t o1 the PEP ma& notbe <ept perpetuall& con1idential O since there should be Dampleopportunit& 1or discussion be1ore a treat& is approvedN Othe o11ers e0chan!ed b& the parties durin! the ne!otiationscontinue to be privile!ed even a1ter the PEP is published.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


It is reasonable to conclude that the apanese representativessubmitted their o11ers 3ith the understandin! that D'istori((on)identia$ityN 3ould !overn the same. %isclosin! theseo11ers could impair the abilit& o1 the Philippines to deal not onl&3ith apan but 3ith other 1orei!n !overnments in)"t"re neotiations. rulin! that Philippine o11ers in treat& ne!otiations should no3be open to public scrutin& 3ould discoura!e 1uture Philippinerepresentatives 1rom 1ran<l& e0pressin! their vie3s durin!ne!otiations. 4hile, on 1irst impression, it appears 3ise todeter Philippine representatives 1rom enterin! into

compromises, it bears notin! that treat& ne!otiations, or an&ne!otiation 1or that matter, normall& involve a process o1 7uid

"ro 7uo, and o)tenties neotiators 'ave to /e 0i$$in torant (on(essions in an area o) $esser iportan(e in order to o/tain ore )avora/$e ters in an area o) reater nationa$ interest.%iplomatic ne!otiations, there1ore, are reco!ni"ed as privile!edin this $urisdiction, the PEP ne!otiations constitutin! noe0ception. It bears emphasis, ho3ever, that such privile!e isonl& pres"ptive.=or as Senate #& Ermita holds, reco!ni"in! a t&pe o1 in1ormation as privile!ed does not mean that it 3ill beconsidered privile!ed in all instances. Conte0t must beconsidered in 3hich the claim is made ma& it be determined i1 there is a public interest that calls 1or the disclosure o1 thedesired in1ormation, stron! enou!h to overcome its traditionall&privile!ed status.Petitioners assume that e0ecutive privile!e is applicable ?6L8to matters o1 national securit&, IT I/ 6?T.E0amples o1 3hich are:&'e 6in)orerHs privi$ee,5 or the privile!e o1 the overnmentnot to disclose the identit& o1 a person or persons 3ho 1urnishin1ormation o1 violations o1 la3 to o11icers char!ed 3ith theen1orcement o1 that la3.The privi$ee a((orded to presidentia$ (o"ni(ations,3hich are presumed privile!ed 3ithout distin!uishin! bet3eenthose 3hich involve matters o1 national securit& and those3hich do not. This is applicable to privile!e 1or $udicialdeliberations. It bears emphasis, ho3ever, that the privile!e

accorded to presidentialcommunications is not a/so$"teGuali1ication: Dthe E0ecutive (annot, an& more than the other branches o1 !overnment, invo<e a !eneral con1identialit&privile!e to s'ie$d its o11icials and emplo&ees 1rominvesti!ations b& the proper !overnmental institutionsinto possi/$e (riina$ 0rondoin.Ne$i/erative pro(ess privi$ee 9closel& related to thepresidential communications privile!e covers documentsre1lectin! advisor& opinions, recommendations anddeliberations comprisin! part o1 a process b& 3hich!overnmental decisions and policies are 1ormulated. Theprivile!e rests, not on t'e need to prote(t nationa$se("rity but, on the Dobvious reali"ation that o11icials 3ill notcommunicate candidl& amon! themselves i1 each remar< is apotential item o1 discover& and 1ront pa!e ne3s,N the ob$ective

is to enhance the Hualit& o1 a!enc& decisions.&'e dip$oati( neotiations privi$ee bears a closeresemblance to the deliberative process and presidentialcommunications privile!e. It ma& be readil& perceived that therationale 1or the con1idential character o1 diplomaticne!otiations, deliberative process, and presidentialcommunications is similar, i1 not identical.<ulbright F Jaworski #& 4e"artment of the Treasury-6e!otiations bet3een t3o countries to dra1t a treat& representa true e0ample o1 a deliberative process. Much !ive-and-ta<emust occur 1or the countries to reach an accord.The policiesbehind the deliberative process privile!e support non-disclosure. Much harm could accrue to the ne!otiationsprocess i1 these notes 3ere revealed. E0posure o1 the pre-

a!reement positions mi!ht 3ell o11end 1orei!n!overnments and 3ould lead to less candor in recordin! theevents o1 the ne!otiations process. =inall&, releasin! thesesnapshot vie3s o1 the ne!otiations 3ould be comparable toreleasin! dra1ts o1 the treat&, particularl& 3hen the notes statethe tentative provisions and lan!ua!e a!reed on. s dra1ts o1re!ulations t&picall& are protected b& the deliberative processprivile!e, dra)ts o) treaties should /e a((orded t'e saeprote(tion. In <ulbright and CE) Cases the 2./. !overnment cited astatutor& basis 1or 3ithholdin! in1ormation O E0emption > o1 the

=reedom o1 In1ormation ct. 2nder E0emption >, a documentmust satis1& t3o conditions: 9) it must be either inter*aen(yor intra*aen(y in nature, and 9 it must be both prede(isiona$ and part o) t'e aen(ys de$i/erative ode(ision*ain pro(ess.In this $urisdiction, ho3ever, there is no counterpart o1 the=?I, nor is there an& statutor& reHuirement similar to =?IE0emption > in particular. @ence, Philippine courts, 3henassessin! a claim o1 privile!e 1or diplomatic ne!otiations, aremore 1ree to 1ocus directl& on the issue o1 0'et'er t'eprivi$ee /ein ($aied is indeed s"pported /y p"/$i(po$i(y, 3ithout havin! to consider O as the CE) court did O ithese ne!otiations 1ul1ill a 1ormal reHuirement o1 bein! Dintera!enc&.NThe privile!e 1or diplomatic ne!otiations ma& be invo<ed noonl& a!ainst citi"ens; demands 1or in1ormation, but also in theconte0t o1 le!islative investi!ations. .

-'et'er t'e privi$ee app$ies on$y at (ertain staes o) t'eneotiation pro(essPetitioners admit that Ddiplomatic ne!otiations on the PEPare entitled to a reasonable amount o1 con1identialit& so as noto $eopardi"e the diplomatic process.N The& ar!ue, ho3everthat the same is privile!ed Donl& at certain sta!es o1 thene!otiatin! process, a1ter 3hich such in1ormation musnecessaril& be revealed to the public.NIn Cha#e+ #& !E%: The constitutional ri!ht to in1ormationincludes o11icial in1ormation on on-!oin! ne!otiations be1ore a1inal contract. The in1ormation ho3ever, must (onstit"te

de)inite proposition b& the !overnment and should not (overe(oni4ed e+(eptions $ie privi$eed in)oration, i$itaryand dip$oati( se(rets, and sii$ar atters a))e(tinnationa$ se("rity and p"/$i( order. The privile!e 1odiplomatic ne!otiations is clearl& amon! the reco!ni"ede0ceptions.

-'et'er t'ere is s"))i(ient public interest to over(oeprivi$eeTo clari1&, there are <inds o1 public interest considered:presumed public interest in )avor o) eepin t'e s"/3e(in)oration (on)identia$the public interest in )avor o) dis($os"re, the e0istence o3hich must be sho3n b& the part& as<in! 1or in1ormation.U&S& #& Ni$on: need to balance such claim o1 privile!e a!ains

the constitutional dut& o1 courts to ensure a 1air administrationo1 criminal $ustice.It held that: the allo3ance o1 the privile!e to 3ithhold evidencethat is demonstrably rele#ant in a criminal trial 3ould cut deepl&into the !uarantee o1 due process o1 la3 and !ravel& impair thebasic 1unction o1 the courts. President;s ac<no3led!ed need1or con1identialit& in the communications o1 his o11ice is !enerain nature, 3hereas the constitutional need 1or production orelevant evidence in a criminal proceedin! is speci1icand central to the 1air ad$udication o1 a particular criminal casein the administration o1 $ustice./imilarl&, Senate Select Committee #& Ni$on: the need tobalance such claim 3ith the dut& o1 Con!ress to per1orm itslegislati#e 1unctions.

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


a sho3in! that the responsibilities o1 that institution cannot be1ul1illed 3ithout access to records o1 the Pres. deliberationsThe su11icienc& o1 the Committees sho3in! o1 need has cometo depend, entirel& on 3hether the subpoenaed materialsare critical to the per1ormance o1 its le!islative 1unctions.?n the need to overcome the claim o1 deliberative processprivile!e b& sho3in! a su11icient needThe deliberative process privile!e is a 7ualified privile!eand can be overcome b& a sufficient showing of need . Thisneed determination is to be made 1le0ibl& on a case-b&-case,basis. It must ta<e into account the 1ollo3in! Bthe relevance o1

the evidence,B Bthe availabilit& o1 other evidence,B Btheseriousness o1 the liti!ation,B Bthe role o1 the !overnment,B andthe Bpossibilit& o1 1uture timidit& b& !overnment emplo&ees. 0 0

Petitioners )ai$ed to present t'e stron and 6sufficient showing of need 5 re)erred to in t'e iediate$y (ited(ases.The te0t o1 the PEP havin! been published, petitioners have1ailed to convince this Court that the& 3ill not be able toe0ercise their ri!ht to participate in decision-ma<in! unless theinitial o11ers are also published.

The sub$ect o1 rticle VI /ection 9 o1 the Constitution is notthe po3er to ne!otiate treaties and international a!reements,but the po3er to 1i0 tari11 rates, import and e0port Huotas, andother ta0es.

s to the po3er to ne!otiate treaties, the constitutional basisthereo1 is /ection ) o1 rticle VII O the article on the E0ecutive%epartment O 3hich states:The doctrine in !.!< #& .angla"us that the treat&-ma<in!po3er is e0clusive to the President, bein! the sole or!an o1 thenation in its e0ternal relations: ?y (onstit"tiona$ )iat and /yt'e intrinsi( nat"re o) 'is o))i(e, t'e President, as 'ead o) State, is t'e so$e oran and a"t'ority in t'e e+terna$ a))airso) t'e (o"ntry.4hile the po3er then to 1i0 tari11 rates and other ta0es clearl&

belon!s to Con!ress, and is e0ercised b& the President onl& b&dele!ation o1 that bod&, it has lon! been reco!ni"ed that thepo3er to enter into treaties is vested directl& and e0clusivel& in

the President, sub$ect onl& to the concurrence o1 at least t3o-thirds o1 all the Members o1 the /enate 1or the validit& o1 thetreat&.In this li!ht, the authorit& o1 the President to enter into tradea!reements 3ith 1orei!n nations provided under P.%.)J+Jhttp:55sc.$udiciar&.!ov.ph5$urisprudence5((5$ul&((5)K(>)+.htm - X1tn>* ma& be interpreted as an ac<no3led!ment o1 a po0er a$ready in'erent in its o))i(e. It ma& not be used asbasis to hold the President or its representatives accountableto Con!ress 1or the conduct o1 treat& ne!otiations.It 1ollo3s 1rom the above discussion that Con!ress, 3hilepossessin! vast le!islative po3ers, ma& not inter1ere in the1ield o1 treat& ne!otiations. 4hile rticle VII, /ection )provides 1or /enate concurrence, such pertains onl& to thevalidit& o1 the treat& under consideration, not to the conduct o1

ne!otiations attendant to its conclusion. Moreover, it is noteven Con!ress as a 3hole that has been !iven the authorit& toconcur as a means o1 chec<in! the treat&-ma<in! po3er o1 thePresident, but onl& the /enate.

RespondentsH a$$eed )ai$"re to tie$y ($ai e+e("tiveprivi$eeRespondents; 1ailure to claim the privile!e durin! the @ouseCommittee hearin!s ma& not, ho3ever, be construed as a3aiver thereo1 b& the E0ecutive branch. #ein! mere reHuests,the& do not strictl& call 1or an assertion o1 e0ecutive privile!e.The privile!e is an e0emption to Con!ress; po3er o1 inHuir&. /o lon! as Con!ress itsel1 1inds no cause to en1orce

such po3er, there is no strict necessit& to assert theprivile!e. In this li!ht, respondents; 1ailure to invo<e theprivile!e durin! the @ouse Committee investi!ations did noamount to a 3aiver thereo1.The claim o1 privile!e appearin! in respondents; Comment tothis petition 1ails to satis1& in 1ull the reHuirement laid do3nin Senate #& Ermita that the claim should be invo<ed b& thePresident or throu!h the E0ecutive /ecretar& Db& order o1 thePresident&> 3es"ondentsG claim of "ri#ilege is beingsustained, howe#er, its flaw notwithstanding, because ocircumstances "eculiar to the case&

The assertion o1 e0ecutive privile!e b& the E0ecutive/ecretar&, 3ho is one o1 the respondents herein, 3ithout himaddin! the phrase Db& order o1 the President,N shall beconsidered as partiall& compl&in! 3ith the reHuirement laiddo3n in Senate #& Ermita&The reHuirement that the phrase Db& order o1 the PresidentNshould accompan& the E0ecutive /ecretar&;s claim o1 privile!eis a ne3 rule laid do3n 1or the 1irst time in Senate#& Ermita, 3hich 3as not &et 1inal and e0ecutor& at the timerespondents 1iled their Comment to the petition. stricapplication o1 this reHuirement 3ould thus be un3arranted inthis case.

/ocial /ecurit& /&stem 9/// Emplo&ees ssociationvs.Court o1 ppeals.R. 6o. >K*, ul& , )**

%a(ts:The petitioners 3ent on stri<e a1ter the /// 1ailed to act uponthe union;sdemands concernin! the implementation o1 theiC#. /// 1iled be1ore the courtaction 1or dama!es 3ith pra&e1or 3rit o1 preliminar& in$unction a!ainst petitioners 1or sta!in!an ille!al stri<e. The court issued a temporar& restrainin!ordependin! the resolution o1 the application 1or preliminar&in$unction 3hile petitioners 1iled a motion to dismiss alle!in! thecourt;s lac< o1 $urisdiction over the sub$ect matter. Petitioners

contend that the court made reversible error in ta<in!co!ni"ance on the sub$ect matter since the $urisdiction lies onthe %?LE or the 6ational Labor Relations Commission as thecase involves a labor dispute. The /ocial /ecurit& /&stemcontends on one hand that the petitioners are covered b& theCivil /ervice la3s, rules and re!ulation thus have no ri!ht tostri<e. The& are not covered b& the 6LRC or %?LE there1orethe court ma& en$oin the petitioners 1rom stri<in!.Iss"e:4hether or not /ocial /ecurit& /&stem emplo&ers have theri!ht to stri<e.R"$in:The Constitutional provisions enshrined on @uman Ri!hts and/ocial ustice provides !uarantee amon! 3or<ers 3ith the ri!hto or!ani"e and conduct peace1ul concerted activities such as

stri<es. ?n one hand, /ection )J o1 E.? 6o. )( provides thatDthe Civil /ervice la3 and rules !overnin! concerted activitiesand stri<es in the !overnment service shall be observedsub$ect to an& le!islation that ma& be enacted b& Con!ressNre1errin! to Memorandum Circular 6o. +, s. )*K o1 the Civi/ervice Commission 3hich states that Dprior to the enactmenb& Con!ress o1 applicable la3s concernin! stri<e b&!overnment emplo&ees en$oins under pain o1 administrativesanctions, all !overnment o11icers and emplo&ees 1rom sta!in!stri<es, demonstrations, mass leaves, 3al<-outs and othe1orms o1 mass action 3hich 3ill result in temporar& stoppa!e odisruption o1 public service.N There1ore in the absence o1 an&le!islation allo3in! !overnment emplo&ees to stri<e the& areprohibited 1rom doin! so.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/july2008/170516.htm#_ftn59




8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


Mani$a P"/$i( S('oo$ &ea('ers v. La"io(( /CR '' u!ust +, )**) ustice 6arvasa

Petitioners: Manila Public /chool Teachers ssoc 9)st petitionF lliance o1 Concerned Teachers 9nd petition Y other publicschool teachers similarl& situated.Respondents: RTC Manila #r.) ud!e Per1ecto La!uio, r.,%EC/ /ec. Isidro Carino, Manila /chools /uperintendentErlinda Lolar!a %#M /ec uillermo Cara!ue

S"ary: Bmass actionB 3as underta<en b& some ((public school teachers on /ept. )K, )**(, not conductin! their classes, to Bdramati"e and hi!hli!htB their pli!ht 1rom thealle!ed 1ailure o1 the !overnment to act upon !rievances thathad time and a!ain been brou!ht. /ec. o1 Education Carinobrushed aside their !rievances and directed them to return to3or< in J hours or 1ace dismissal. memorandum 3as madedirectin! %EC/ o11icials to initiate dismissal proceedin!sa!ainst those 3ho did not return to 3or<, and to hire their replacements. %espite the memorandum, the mass actionscontinued into the 3ee< 3ith more teachers $oinin! in the da&sthat 1ollo3ed. /ec. o1 Education then 1iled administrativecomplaints a!ainst the teachers 3ho had ta<en part in themass actions and placed them under *(-da& preventivesuspension. Petitioners then 1iled 3ith the RTC o1 Manila torestrain the suspension or dismissal o1 an& teacher and todeclare the %EC/ order as null and void. @o3ever, the RTCheld that the assailed return-to-3or< order valid and bindin!.@ence this petition. The /C held that the correct issue in thiscase is 4?6 due process 3as violated in the initiation,conduct, or disposition o1 the investi!ations complained o1.@o3ever, it did not ans3er the issue at hand but $ustproceeded to sa& that said issue is not ripe 1or ad$udicationbecause the Huestions are o1 1act, and not Huestions o1 la3.@o3ever it stated that: 9) The ass deonstrations are in asense a strie because it is an unauthori"ed stoppa!e o1, or absence 1rom 3or< 3hich it 3as the teachers dut& to per1orm.9 Ep$oyees in t'e p"/$i( (ivi$ servi(e do not 'ave t'eri't to strie, althou!h the Constitution !uarantees their ri!ht

to sel1-or!ani"ation.

%AC&S: mass action 3as underta<en b& some (( public schoolteachers, amon! them members o1 the petitionin! associationson /eptember )K, )**( to Bdramati"e and hi!hli!htB theteachers pli!ht resultin! 1rom the !overnment;s alle!ed 1ailureto act upon !rievances that had time and a!ain been brou!htto the latters attention.The Teachers and Emplo&ees Consultative Council 9TECC,the lliance o1 Concerned Teachers, and the petitioners,resolved to en!a!e in mass concerted actions, a1ter peace1uldialo!ues 3ith the heads o1 the %epartment o1 the #ud!et andMana!ement, /enate and @ouse o1 Representatives in publichearin!s as 3ell as a1ter e0haustin! all administrative

remedies, to press 1or amon! others:the immediate pa&ment o1 due chal<, clothin! allo3ances, )'thmonth pa& 1or )** arisin! 1rom the implementation o1 the/alar& /tandardi"ation La3,the recall o1 %EC/ ?rder '* series )**( directin! theoversi"in! o1 classes and overloadin! o1 teachers pursuant tothe cost-cuttin! measures o1 the !overnment,the hirin! o1 JK,((( ne3 teachers to ease the overload o1 e0istin! teachers

ll these did not result in the !rantin! o1 the demands o1 thepetitioners, leavin! them 3ith no other recourse but to ta<edirect mass action such as the one the& en!a!ed in three3ee<s a!o.

?n /ept. )J, the petitioners and other teachers in other citiesand municipalities in Metro Manila, sta!ed a protest rall& at the%EC/ premises 3ithout disruptin! classes as a last call 1or the!overnment to ne!otiate the !rantin! o1 demands. 6oresponse 3as made b& the %EC/ /ec despite thedemonstration, so the petitioners be!an the on!oin! protesmass actions on /ept. )K/eptember )K, )**(, Monda&, 3hich 3as also a re!ular schooda&, some (( teachers 3ho $oined the mass action did notconduct their classesF instead conver!ed at the Li3asan!#oni1acio in the mornin! 3hence the& proceeded to the

6ational ?11ice o1 %EC/ 1or a 3hole-da& assembl&. t ):(( p.m., representatives o1 the !roup 3ere allo3ed to see%EC/ /ec. Carino 3ho Bbrushed aside their !rievances,3arned them that the& 3ould lose their $obs 1or !oin! on ille!aand unauthori"ed mass leave. n order 3as handed directin!them to return to 3or< in J hours or 1ace dismissal, and amemorandum directin! the %EC/ o11icials concerned to initiatedismissal proceedin!s a!ainst those 3ho did not compl&, andto hire their replacements. @o3ever, the mass actionscontinued into the 3ee<, 3ith more teachers $oinin! in the da&sthat 1ollo3ed.%EC/ /ec. then 1iled administrative complaints a!ainst theteachers 3ho had ta<en part in the mass actions and de1iedthe return-to-3or< order on assorted char!es li<e !ravemisconduct, !ross ne!lect o1 dut&, !ross violation o1 the Civi/ervice La3, absence 3ithout o11icial leave, etc., and placedthem under *(-da& preventive suspension.Petitioners 1iled 3ith the Manila RTC a petition 1or prohibitiondeclarator& relie1 and preliminar& mandator& in$unction torestrain the implementation o1 the return-to-3or< order o/eptember )K, )**( and the suspension or dismissal o1 an&teacher pursuant thereto and to declare said order null andvoid.RTC %eclared the assailed return-to-3or< order valid andbindin!, and dismissed the petition 1or lac< o1 merit./C ?n 6ovember (, )**( the parties 3ere heard in oraar!ument on the petitioners united pleas 1or a TR? andin$unction to restore the status Huo ante. These 3ere denied b&the /C in its Resolution o1 %ecember ), )**(, and a motion

1or reconsideration 1iled b& the petitioners 3as li<e3ise denied.

&#E SC point o) vie0:The underl&in! issue here is due processF not 3hether thepetitioners have a ri!ht to stri<e, 3hich it is clear the& do nohave, ho3ever $usti1iable their reasons, nor 3hether or nothere 3as in 1act such a stri<e, it bein! eHuall& evident 1rom thepleadin!s that there 3as, and there bein! no dispute abouthis.4?6 there 3as a stri<e:1rom the pleaded and admitted 1acts, t'ese Bass a(tionsB0ere to a$$ intents and p"rposes a strieF t'ey (onstit"teda (on(erted and "na"t'ori4ed stoppae o), or a/sen(e)ro, 0or 0'i(' it 0as t'e tea('ers d"ty to per)or4?6 petitioners have a ri!ht to stri<e:

SSS Em"loyees %ssociation #& C% Emplo&ees in the public9civil service, unli<e those in the private sector, do not havethe ri!ht to stri<e, althou!h !uaranteed the ri!ht to sel1or!ani"ation, to petition Con!ress 1or the betterment oemplo&ment terms and conditions and to ne!otiate 3ithappropriate !overnment a!encies 1or the improvement o1 such3or<in! conditions as are not 1i0ed b& la3.

ISSE: 456 an& ri!hts o1 the petitioners under the dueprocess clause as it applies to administrative proceedin!s 3ereviolated in the initiation, conduct, or disposition o1 theinvesti!ations complained o1.#EL: The court did not ans3er the issue at hand but $ustproceeded to sa& that said issue is not ripe 1or ad$udication

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


RA&I=ALE:The issue is not ripe 1or ad$udication b& this Court in thee0ercise o1 its revie3 $urisdictionF and this, 1or the obviousreason that it is one o1 1act.The petitions and subseHuent pleadin!s o1 the petitionersalle!e 1acts and circumstances 3hich, it is claimed, sho3denial o1 due process, citin! as supposedl& BrepresentativesamplesB amon! others: 9a that teachers 3ere dismissed onthe sole basis o1 uns3orn reports o1 their principals and 3ithoutevidence o1 their alle!ed 1ailure to obe& the return-to-3or<

orderF 9b that the char!e sheets 1ailed to speci1& the particular char!es or o11enses alle!edl& committedF 9c that someteachers 3ere not 1urnished s3orn complaints, and others3ere suspended 3ithout an& 1ormal char!esF 9d that teachers3ho attempted to return 3ithin a reasonable time a1ter notice o1 the return-to-3or< order 3ere not accepted bac<F and similar alle!ations.These are ho3ever denied and disputed b& the publicrespondents, 3ho set 1orth their o3n version.It is not 1or the Court, 3hich is not a trier o1 1acts, as thepetitioners 3ho 3ould no3 3ithdra3 correctl& put it, to ma<ethe crucial determination o1 3hat in truth transpired concernin!the disputed incidents. This Court is a court o1 last resort. Itsrevie3 $urisdiction is limited to resolvin! Huestions o1 la3 3herethere is no dispute o1 the 1acts or the 1acts have alread& beendetermined b& lo3er tribunals, e0cept onl& in criminal actions3here capital penalties have been imposed.

ECISI=: #oth petitions are %I/MI//E%, 3ithout pre$udiceto an& appeals, i1 still timel&, that the individual petitioners ma&ta<e to the Civil /ervice Commission on the matterscomplained o1.

ISSE&IG =PII=S: yo" ay sip@. G"tierre4:The so-called investi!ations 3hich led to the initial dismissals3ere a 1arce.Instead o1 *( da& preventive suspensions, %EC/ immediatel&imposed punitive dismissals. ll other civil service emplo&ees

under!oin! investi!ation are reinstated a1ter *( da&s. ?ur teachers have been out o1 3or< 1or more than )( months3ithout income 3hile still under!oin! administrativeinvesti!ation.I cannot understand 3h& the petitioners remain suspended upto the present. The& should have been reinstated a1ter *( da&so1 preventive suspension. It is a0iomatic that civil serviceemplo&ees and even elected o11icials cannot be preventivel&suspended 1or more than *( da&s 9/ection J, P.%. (KF%eloso v. /andi!anba&an, )K' /CR J(* )**F %oromal v./andi!anba&an, )KK /CR '>J )**.I1 the suspension is preventive, it has lasted too lon!. I1 punitive, it is ille!al and violative o1 due process.The concerted action 3as more o1 a peace1ul assembl&, ane0ercise o1 speech b& a !atherin!, not a stri<e. The teachers

3ere in the main not as<in! 1or terms and conditions !reater than those accorded b& la3. Their basic demand 3as to be!iven on time 3hat the la3 alread& provides 1or them.

@. Cr"4 overnment 3or<ers have as much ri!ht as an&person in the land to voice their protests a!ainst 3hat the&believe to be a violation o1 their interests. The 1act that the&belon! to the Civil /ervice has not deprived them o1 their 1reedom o1 e0pression, 3hich is !uaranteed to ever& individualin this countr&, includin! even the alien. It 3ould be ridiculousto even su!!est that b& acceptin! public emplo&ment, themembers o1 the Civil /ervice automaticall& and impliedl&renounce this basic libert&.

@. %e$i(iano It seems to me that the ma$orit& opinion hasconsidered the administrative prohibition o1 stri<es in the!overnment sector as an absolute !iven. There appears novisible evidence o1 an e11ort to e0plore the scope and limits o1applicabilit& o1 that prohibition. 4e cannot !ive e0clusiverelevance to that simple prohibition. There are at sta<e herealso the competin! public values and interests implicit in 1reespeech and peaceable assembl& and petition, and that thoseri!hts too cannot be treated as absolutes 3ithout an& re!ard tothe necessities o1 orderl& and e11icient !overnance o1 adevelopin! countr& 3ith obviousl& 1inite resources.

@. Padi$$a %enial o1 due process is an issue 3hich is ripe 1oad$udication ri!ht in this Court, and in this case. The petitionshould be !ranted and the cases remanded to the %EC/ 1oproper redetermination o1 the culpabilit& o1 each teacher, thistime, in an atmosphere compatible 3ith due processMean3hile, the& should be reinstated pendin! the outcome o1such proceedin!s, includin! a recourse b& appeal to the Civi/ervice Commission.

@. Sariento The dut& o1 the Court, as the Constitutione0presses it, is, amon! other thin!s: to determine 4?6 thereis %LE on the part o1 an& branch or instrumentalit& o1 theovernment. It is a dut&, 1rom 3hich the Court cannot shir< on

the hand& e0cuse that it is bein! made to tr& 1acts. I submit thait is a dut& that o1ten reHuires, precisel&, a 1actual inHuir&. Thena!!in! 1act, as . utierre" points out, is that the petitionershave been under suspension 1or the last )( months, and thesole Huestion, is 456 /ecretar& Carino acted arbitraril&.

I&E PEPSI*C=LA >S. LAGESMA6?VEM#ER )K, ()' Z V#%IG.R. o. 12222N Mar(' 2O, 1998I&E PEPSI*C=LA SPER>IS=R! I= PSpetitioner,vs.#=. ?IE>EI= E. LAGESMA and PEPSI*C=LAPR=C&S, P#ILIPPIES, IC. respondents

%AC&S: Petitioner is a union o1 supervisor& emplo&ees. Iappears that on March (, )**> the union 1iled a petition 1ocerti1ication election on behal1 o1 the route mana!ers at Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. @o3ever, its petition 3asdenied b& the med-arbiter and, on appeal, b& the /ecretar& oLabor and Emplo&ment, on the !round that the route mana!ersare mana!erial emplo&ees and, there1ore, ineli!ible 1or unionmembership under the 1irst sentence o1 rt. J> o1 the LaborCode, 3hich provides:Ineli!ibilit& o1 mana!erial emplo&ees to $oin an& laboor!ani"ationF ri!ht o1 supervisor& emplo&ees. A Mana!eriaemplo&ees are not eli!ible to $oin, assist or 1orm an& laboror!ani"ation. /upervisor& emplo&ees shall not be eli!ible 1omembership in a labor or!ani"ation o1 the ran<-and-1ileemplo&ees but ma& $oin, assist or 1orm separate labo

or!ani"ations o1 their o3n.Petitioner brou!ht this suit challen!in! the validit& o1 the orderdismissed.@ence, this petition. Pressin! 1or resolution its contention thathe 1irst sentence o1 rt. J> o1 the Labor Code, so 1ar as ideclares mana!erial emplo&ees to be ineli!ible to 1orm, assisor $oin unions, contravenes rt. III, [ o1 the Constitution 3hichprovides:The ri!ht o1 the people, includin! those emplo&ed in the publicand private sectors, to 1orm unions, associations, or societies1or purposes not contrar& to la3 shall not be abrid!ed.ISSES:9) 3hether the route mana!ers at Pepsi-Cola ProductsPhilippines, Inc. are mana!erial emplo&ees and

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/united-pepsi-cola-vs-laguesma/

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/author/vbdiaz/

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/united-pepsi-cola-vs-laguesma/

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/author/vbdiaz/

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


9 3hether rt. J>, inso1ar as it prohibits mana!erialemplo&ees 1rom 1ormin!, $oinin! or assistin! labor unions,violates rt. III, [ o1 the Constitution.#EL: 8E/ and 6?

s a class, mana!ers constitute three levels o1 a p&ramid: 9)Top mana!ementF 9 Middle Mana!ementF and 9' =irst-lineMana!ement also called supervisors.=IR/T-LI6E M6ER/ A The lo3est level in anor!ani"ation at 3hich individuals are responsible 1or the 3or<o1 others is called 1irst-line or 1irst-level mana!ement. =irst-linemana!ers direct operatin! emplo&ees onl&F the& do not

supervise other mana!ers. E0amples o1 1irst-line mana!ers arethe D1oremanN or production supervisor in a manu1acturin!plant, the technical supervisor in a research department, andthe clerical supervisor in a lar!e o11ice. =irst-level mana!ersare o1ten called supervisors.MI%%LE M6ER/ A The term middle mana!ement canre1er to more than one level in an or!ani"ation. Middlemana!ers direct the activities o1 other mana!ers andsometimes also those o1 operatin! emplo&ees. Middlemana!ers; principal responsibilities are to direct the activitiesthat implement their or!ani"ations; policies and to balance thedemands o1 their superiors 3ith the capacities o1 their subordinates. plant mana!er in an electronics 1irm is ane0ample o1 a middle mana!er.T?P M6ER/ A Composed o1 a comparativel& small!roup o1 e0ecutives, top mana!ement is responsible 1or theoverall mana!ement o1 the or!ani"ation. It establishesoperatin! policies and !uides the or!ani"ation;s interactions3ith its environment. T&pical titles o1 top mana!ers are Dchie1 e0ecutive o11icer,N Dpresident,N and Dsenior vice-president.N

ctual titles var& 1rom one or!ani"ation to another and are notal3a&s a reliable !uide to membership in the hi!hestmana!ement classi1ication.

distinction e0ists bet3een those 3ho have the authorit& todevise, implement and control strate!ic and operationalpolicies 9top and middle mana!ers and those 3hose tas< issimpl& to ensure that such policies are carried out b& the ran<-and-1ile emplo&ees o1 an or!ani"ation 91irst-levelmana!ers5supervisors. 4hat distin!uishes them 1rom the

ran<-and-1ile emplo&ees is that the& act in the interest o1 theemplo&er in supervisin! such ran<-and-1ile emplo&ees.DMana!erial emplo&eesN ma& there1ore be said to 1all into t3odistinct cate!ories: the Dmana!ersN per se, 3ho compose the1ormer !roup described above, and the DsupervisorsN 3ho 1ormthe latter !roup.\): It appears that this Huestion 3as the sub$ect o1 t3oprevious determinations b& the /ecretar& o1 Labor andEmplo&ment, in accordance 3ith 3hich this case 3as decidedb& the med-arbiter.To Huali1& as mana!erial emplo&ee, there must be a clear sho3in! o1 the e0ercise o1 mana!erial attributes under para!raph 9m, rticle ) o1 the Labor Code as amended.%esi!nations or titles o1 positions are not controllin!. s to theroute mana!ers and accountin! mana!er, 3e are convinced

that the& are mana!erial emplo&ees. Their $ob descriptionsclearl& reveal so 94or<er;s lliance Trade 2nion 94T2 v.Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., 6ov. )', )**)This 1indin! 3as reiterated in Case 6o. ?/--'-K)-*. entitledIn Re: Petition 1or %irect Certi1ication and5or Certi1icationElection-Route Mana!ers5/upervisor& Emplo&ees o1 Pepsi-Cola Products Phils.Inc.W doctrine o1 res $udicata certainl& applies to adversar&administrative proceedin!sThus, 3e have in this case an e0pert;s vie3 that the emplo&eesconcerned are mana!erial emplo&ees 3ithin the purvie3 o1 rt.).

t the ver& least, the principle o1 1inalit& o1 administrativedetermination compels respect 1or the 1indin! o1 the /ecretar&

o1 Labor that route mana!ers are mana!erial emplo&ees asde1ined b& la3 in the absence o1 an&thin! to sho3 that suchdetermination is 3ithout substantial evidence to support itThe Court no3 1inds that the $ob evaluation made b& the/ecretar& o1 Labor is indeed supported b& substantiaevidence. The nature o1 the $ob o1 route mana!ers is !iven in a1our-pa!e pamphlet, prepared b& the compan&, called DRouteMana!er Position %escription,N the pertinent parts o1 3hichread:

. #/IC P2RP?/E Mana!er achieves ob$ectives throu!h others

s a Route Mana!er, &our purpose is to meet the sales planand &ou achieve this ob$ective throu!h the s<il l1uM6EME6T ?= 8?2R ?# 6% T@E M6EME6T ?=8?2R PE?PLEThese then are &our 1unctions as Pepsi-Cola Route Mana!er4ithin these 1unctions A mana!in! &our $ob and mana!in!&our people A &ou are accountable to &our %istrict Mana!e1or the e0ecution and completion o1 various tas<s and activities3hich 3ill ma<e it possible 1or &ou to achieve &our salesob$ectives.U000%istinction is evident in the 3or< o1 the route mana!ers 3hichsets them apart 1rom supervisors in !eneral. 2nli<e supervisors3ho basicall& merel& direct operatin! emplo&ees in line 3ithset tas<s assi!ned to them, route mana!ers are responsible 1othe success o1 the compan&;s main line o1 business throu!hmana!ement o1 their respective sales teams. /uchmana!ement necessaril& involves the plannin!, directionoperation and evaluation o1 their individual teams and areas3hich the 3or< o1 supervisors does not entail.The route mana!ers cannot thus possibl& be classi1ied as meresupervisors because their 3or< does not onl& involve, but !oes1ar be&ond, the simple direction or supervision o1 operatin!emplo&ees to accomplish ob$ectives set b& those above them.4hile route mana!ers do not appear to have the po3er to hireand 1ire people 9the evidence sho3s that the& onl&DrecommendedN or DendorsedN the ta<in! o1 disciplinar& actiona!ainst certain emplo&ees, this is because thisis a 1unction o1the @uman Resources or Personnel %epartment o1 the

compan&.\ : Constitutionalit& o1 rt. J> rt.J> is the result o1 the amendment o1 the Labor Code in)** b& R.. 6o. +K)>, other3ise <no3n as the @erreraVeloso La3. 2nli<e the Industrial Peace ct or the provisions othe Labor Code 3hich it superseded, R.. 6o. +K)> providesseparate de1initions o1 the terms Dmana!erialN and Dsupervisor&emplo&ees,N as 1ollo3s:

rt. ). %e1initions. . . 9m Dmana!erial emplo&eeN is one 3ho is vested 3ith po3ers oprero!atives to la& do3n and e0ecute mana!ement policiesand5or to hire trans1er, suspend, la& o11, recall, dischar!eassi!n or discipline emplo&ees. /upervisor& emplo&ees arethose 3ho, in the interest o1 the emplo&er, e11ectivel&recommend such mana!erial actions i1 the e0ercise o1 such

authorit& is not merel& routinar& or clerical in nature bureHuires the use o1 independent $ud!ment. ll emplo&ees not1allin! 3ithin an& o1 the above de1initions are considered ran<-and-1ile emplo&ees 1or purposes o1 this #oo<.The distinction bet3een top and middle mana!ers, 3ho semana!ement polic&, and 1ront-line supervisors, 3ho are merel&responsible 1or ensurin! that such policies are carried out b&the ran< and 1ile, is articulated in the present de1inition. '(4hen read in relation to this de1inition in rt. )9m, it 3ill beseen that rt. J> 1aith1ull& carries out the intent o1 theConstitutional Commission in 1ramin! rt. III, [ o1 the1undamental la3W=ramer;s Intent: MR. LER2M. M& amendment is on /ection Kpa!e , line )*, 3hich is to insert bet3een the 3ords DpeopleN

8/18/2019 NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31


and DtoN the 1ollo3in!: 4@ET@ER EMPL?8E% #8 T@E /TTE?R PRIVTE E/T#LI/@ME6T/. In other 3ords, the section3ill no3 read as 1ollo3s: DThe ri!ht o1 the people 4@ET@EREMPL?8E% #8 T@E /TTE ?R PRIVTEE/T#LI/@ME6T/ to 1orm associations, unions, or societies1or purposes not contrar& to la3 shall not be abrid!ed.N6or is the !uarantee o1 or!ani"ational ri!ht in rt. III, [in1rin!ed b& a ban a!ainst mana!erial emplo&ees 1ormin! a

union. The ri!ht !uaranteed in rt. III, [ is sub$ect to thecondition that its e0ercise should be 1or purposes Dnot contrar&to la3.N In the case o1 rt. J>, there is a rational basis 1orprohibitin! mana!erial emplo&ees 1rom 1ormin! or $oinin! laboror!ani"ations.PETITI?6 is %I/MI//E%.

NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31

Documents

Transcript of NEW DIGESTS 1-5,31