Public Interest Center vs Elma

7/29/2019 Public Interest Center vs Elma

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 138965 June 30, 2006

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER INC., LAUREANO T. ANGELES, and JOCELYN P.CELESTINO, Petitioners,vs.MAGDANGAL B. ELMA, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and as Chairman of thePresidential Commission on Good Government, and RONALDO ZAMORA, as ExecutiveSecretary, Respondents

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J .:

This is an original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, with a Prayer for TemporaryRestraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed on 30 June 1999.1This action seeks to declareas null and void the concurrent appointments of respondent Magdangal B. Elma as Chairman of thePresidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel(CPLC) for being contrary to Section 13,2Article VII and Section 7, par. 2,3Article IX-B of the 1987Constitution. In addition, the petitioners further seek the issuance of the extraordinary writs ofprohibition and mandamus, as well as a temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent Elma fromholding and discharging the duties of both positions and from receiving any salaries, compensationor benefits from such positions during the pendency of this petition.4Respondent Ronaldo Zamorawas sued in his official capacity as Executive Secretary.

On 30 October 1998, respondent Elma was appointed and took his oath of office as Chairman of thePCGG. Thereafter, on 11 January 1999, during his tenure as PCGG Chairman, respondent Elmawas appointed CPLC. He took his oath of office as CPLC the following day, but he waived anyremuneration that he may receive as CPLC.5

Petitioners cited the case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary6to support their position thatrespondent Elmas concurrent appointments as PCGG Chairman and CPLC contravenes Section13, Article VII and Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners also maintainedthat respondent Elma was holding incompatible offices.

Citing the Resolution7in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, respondents allege that thestrict prohibition against holding multiple positions provided under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987Constitution applies only to heads of executive departments, their undersecretaries and assistant

secretaries; it does not cover other public officials given the rank of Secretary, Undersecretary, orAssistant Secretary.

Respondents claim that it is Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution that should beapplied in their case. This provision, according to the respondents, would allow a public officer tohold multiple positions if (1) the law allows the concurrent appointment of the said official; and (2) theprimary functions of either position allows such concurrent appointment. Respondents also allegedthat since there exists a close relation between the two positions and there is no incompatibilitybetween them, the primary functions of either position would allow respondent Elmas concurrent
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt1


2/7

appointments to both positions. Respondents further add that the appointment of the CPLC amongincumbent public officials is an accepted practice.

The resolution of this case had already been overtaken by supervening events. In 2001, theappointees of former President Joseph Estrada were replaced by the appointees of the incumbentpresident, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The present PCGG Chairman is Camilo Sabio, while the

position vacated by the last CPLC, now Solicitor General Antonio Nachura, has not yet been filled.There no longer exists an actual controversy that needs to be resolved. However, this case raises asignificant legal question as yet unresolved - whether the PCGG Chairman can concurrently hold theposition of CPLC. The resolution of this question requires the exercise of the Courts judicial power,more specifically its exclusive and final authority to interpret laws. Moreover, the likelihood that thesame substantive issue raised in this case will be raised again compels this Court to resolve it .8Therule is that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is "capable of repetition,yet evading review."9

Supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering adecision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. Even in cases where supervening eventshad made the cases moot, this Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issuesraised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar, and public .10

The merits of this case may now be discussed.

The issue in this case is whether the position of the PCGG Chairman or that of the CPLC falls underthe prohibition against multiple offices imposed by Section 13, Article VII and Section 7, par. 2,

Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which provide that:

Art. VII .

x x x x

Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies orassistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office oremployment during their tenure. x x x

Art. IX-B.

x x x x

Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to anypublic office or position during his tenure.

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official

shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

To harmonize these two provisions, this Court, in the case of Civil Liberties Union v. ExecutiveSecretary,11construed the prohibition against multiple offices contained in Section 7, Article IX-B andSection 13, Article VII in this manner:

[T]hus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office oremployment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt8


3/7

functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so onlywhen expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meantto lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees,while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

The general rule contained in Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution permits an appointive official tohold more than one office only if "allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position." In thecase of Quimson v. Ozaeta,12this Court ruled that, "[t]here is no legal objection to a governmentofficial occupying two government offices and performing the functions of both as long as there is noincompatibility." The crucial test in determining whether incompatibility exists between two officeswas laid out in People v. Green13- whether one office is subordinate to the other, in the sense thatone office has the right to interfere with the other.

[I]ncompatibility between two offices, is an inconsistency in the functions of the two; x x x Where oneoffice is not subordinate to the other, nor the relations of the one to the other such as areinconsistent and repugnant, there is not that incompatibility from which the law declares that theacceptance of the one is the vacation of the other. The force of the word, in its application to thismatter is, that from the nature and relations to each other, of the two places, they ought not to beheld by the same person, from the contrariety and antagonism which would result in the attempt byone person to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of one, toward the incumbent of theother. x x x The offices must subordinate, one [over] the other, and they must, per se, have the rightto interfere, one with the other, before they are incompatible at common law. x x x

In this case, an incompatibility exists between the positions of the PCGG Chairman and the CPLC.The duties of the CPLC include giving independent and impartial legal advice on the actions of theheads of various executive departments and agencies and to review investigations involving headsof executive departments and agencies, as well as other Presidential appointees. The PCGG is,without question, an agency under the Executive Department. Thus, the actions of the PCGGChairman are subject to the review of the CPLC. In Memorandum Order No. 152, issued on 9 July2004, the Office of the President, in an effort to promote efficiency and effective coordination, clearly

delineated and specified the functions and duties of its senior officers as such:

SECTION 1. The Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) shall advise and provide the Presidentwith legal assistance on matters requiring her action, including matters pertaining to legislation.

The CPLC shall have the following duties and functions:

a. Exercise administrative supervision over the Office of the CPLC;

b. Review and/or draft legal orders referred to her by the President on the following mattersthat are subject of decisions of the President;

1. Executive Orders, proclamations, administrative orders, memorandum orders, andother legal documents initiated by the President;

2. Decision on investigation involving Cabinet Secretaries, agency heads, orPresidential appointees with the rank of Secretary conducted by the Presidential

Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC);14

As CPLC, respondent Elma will be required to give his legal opinion on his own actions as PCGGChairman and review any investigation conducted by the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, which
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt12


4/7

may involve himself as PCGG Chairman. In such cases, questions on his impartiality will inevitablybe raised. This is the situation that the law seeks to avoid in imposing the prohibition against holdingincompatible offices.

Having thus ruled that Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution enjoins the concurrentappointments of respondent Elma as PCGG Chairman and CPLC inasmuch as they are

incompatible offices, this Court will proceed to determine whether such appointments violate theother constitutional provision regarding multiple offices, Section 13, Article VII of the 1987Constitution.

While Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution applies in general to all elective and appointiveofficials, Section 13, Article VII, thereof applies in particular to Cabinet secretaries, undersecretariesand assistant secretaries. In the Resolution in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,15thisCourt already clarified the scope of the prohibition provided in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987Constitution. Citing the case of US v. Mouat16, it specifically identified the persons who are affected bythis prohibition as secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries; and categorically excluded publicofficers who merely have the rank of secretary, undersecretary or assistant secretary.

Another point of clarification raised by the Solicitor General refers to the persons affected by theconstitutional prohibition. The persons cited in the constitutional provision are the "Members of theCabinet, their deputies and assistants." These terms must be given their common and generalacceptation as referring to the heads of the executive departments, their undersecretaries andassistant secretaries. Public officials given the rank equivalent to a Secretary, Undersecretary, or

Assistant Secretary are not covered by the prohibition, nor is the Solicitor General affected thereby.(Underscoring supplied.)

It is clear from the foregoing that the strict prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987Constitution is not applicable to the PCGG Chairman nor to the CPLC, as neither of them is asecretary, undersecretary, nor an assistant secretary, even if the former may have the same rank asthe latter positions.

It must be emphasized, however, that despite the non-applicability of Section 13, Article VII of the1987 Constitution to respondent Elma, he remains covered by the general prohibition under Section7, Article IX-B and his appointments must still comply with the standard of compatibility of officerslaid down therein; failing which, his appointments are hereby pronounced in violation of theConstitution.

Granting that the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is applicable to the present

case, the defect in respondent Elmas concurrent appointments to the incompatible offices of the PCGG

Chairman and the CPLC would even be magnified when seen through the more stringent requirements

imposed by the said constitutional provision. In the aforecited case Civil Liberties Union v. Executive

Secretary,17the Court stressed that the language of Section 13, Article VII is a definite andunequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple offices or employment. The Court cautiously

allowed only two exceptions to the rule against multiple offices: (1) those provided for under theConstitution, such as Section 3, Article VII, authorizing the Vice-President to become a member ofthe Cabinet; or (2) posts occupied by the Executive officials specified in Section 13, Article VIIwithout additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by theprimary functions of said officials office. The Court further qualified that additional duties must notonly be closely related to, but must be required by the officials primary functions. Moreover, theadditional post must be exercised in an ex-officio capacity, which "denotes an act done in an officialcharacter, or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than thatconferred by the office."18Thus, it will not suffice that no additional compensation shall be received
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt15


5/7

by virtue of the second appointment, it is mandatory that the second post is required by the primaryfunctions of the first appointment and is exercised in an ex-officio capacity.

With its forgoing qualifications, it is evident that even Section 13, Article VII does not sanction thisdual appointment. Appointment to the position of PCGG Chairman is not required by the primaryfunctions of the CPLC, and vice versa. The primary functions of the PCGG Chairman involve the

recovery of ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family andassociates, the investigation of graft and corruption cases assigned to him by the President, and theadoption of measures to prevent the occurrence of corruption.19On the other hand, the primaryfunctions of the CPLC encompass a different matter, that is, the review and/or drafting of legalorders referred to him by the President.20And while respondent Elma did not receive additionalcompensation in connection with his position as CPLC, he did not act as either CPLC or PGCCChairman in an ex-officio capacity. The fact that a separate appointment had to be made forrespondent Elma to qualify as CPLC negates the premise that he is acting in an ex-officio capacity.

In sum, the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not apply torespondent Elma since neither the PCGG Chairman nor the CPLC is a Cabinet secretary,undersecretary, or assistant secretary. Even if this Court assumes, arguendo, that Section 13, ArticleVII is applicable to respondent Elma, he still could not be appointed concurrently to the offices of thePCGG Chairman and CPLC because neither office was occupied by him in an ex-officio capacity,and the primary functions of one office do not require an appointment to the other post. Moreover,even if the appointments in question are not covered by Section 13, Article VII of the 1987Constitution, said appointments are still prohibited under Section 7, Article IX-B, which covers allappointive and elective officials, due to the incompatibility between the primary functions of theoffices of the PCGG Chairman and the CPLC.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court partly GRANTS this petition and declaresrespondent Magdangal B. Elmas concurrent appointments as PCGG Chairman and CPLC asunconstitutional. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

(On Official Leave)ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Chief JusticeChairman

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGOAssociate JusticeActing Chairman

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZAsscociate Justice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#fnt19


6/7

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case wasassigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGOAssociate JusticeActing Chairman, First Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans Attestation, it ishereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before thecase was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNOActing Chief Justice

Footnotes

1Rollo, p. 3.

2Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies orassistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office oremployment during their tenure. x x x.

3Sec. 7. x x x

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no

appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government orany subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations or their subsidiaries.

4Rollo, p. 9.

5Id. at 4 and 17.

6G.R. Nos. 83896 and 83815, 22 February 1991, 194 SCRA 317.

7G.R. Nos. 83896 and 83815, 1 August 1991.

8Resolution in Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No.161113, 9 August 2005.

9Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, 28 February 2005, 452 SCRA 504, 514; Viola v. Hon.Alunan III, 343 Phil. 184, 191 (1997).

10Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 736, 757;Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 522 (2002).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt1


7/7

11Supra note 6 at 329.

1298 Phil. 705, 709 (1956).

13People v. Green, 13 Sickels 295, 58 N.Y. 295, 1874 WL 11282 (N.Y.).

14Memorandum Order No. 152, 9 July 2004.

15Supra note 6.

16124 US 303 (1888).

17Supra note 6.

18Supra note 6 at 333.

19Executive Order No. 1, 28 February 1986.

20Supra note 14.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_138965_2006.html#rnt11

Public Interest Center vs Elma

Documents

Transcript of Public Interest Center vs Elma