1

TAWANG VS LA TRINIDAD WATER

TMPC is a cooperative organized to provide domestic water services in Barangay Tawang, LaTrinidad, Benguet. On the other hand, LTWD is a local water utility created under PD 198 which authorized to LTWD supply water for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes within the municipality of La Trinidad, Benguet.

On 9 October 2000, TMPC filed with the NWRB an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate and maintain a waterworks system in Barangay Tawang. LTWD opposed TMPC’s application claiming that under Section 47 of PD No. 198 its franchise is exclusive. In its Resolution No. 04- 0702 dated 23 July 2002, the NWRB approved TMPC’s application for a CPC.

In its 15 August 2002 Decision, the NWRB held that LTWD’s franchise cannot be exclusive since exclusive franchises are unconstitutional and found that TMPC is legally and financially qualified to operate and maintain a waterworks system.

ISSUE: Whether the authority granted to LTWD by virtue of P.D. 198 is exclusive.

RULING: NO. The constitution provides in Section 11, Article XII that: No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. The Constitution is clear that franchises for the operation of a public utility cannot be exclusive in character. This constitutional prohibition is absolute and accepts no exception. On the other hand, PD No.198, as amended, allows the BOD of LTWD and LWUA to create franchises that are exclusive in character. Section 47 states that, "No franchise shall be granted to any other person or agency x x x unless and except to the extent that the board of directors consents thereto x x x subject to review by the Administration." Section 47 creates a glaring exception to the absolute prohibition in the Constitution. Clearly, it is patently unconstitutional.

Emilio Gancayco vs City Government of Quezon City and MMDA

Facts: In 1950s, retired justice Emilio Gancayco bought a parcel of land located in EDSA. Then on March 1956, Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No. 2904 requiring the construction of arcades for commercial buildings to be constructed. At the outset, it bears emphasis that at the time Ordinance No. 2904 was passed by the city council, there was yet no building code passed by the national legislature. Thus, the regulation of the construction of buildings was left to the discretion of local government units. Under this particular ordinance, the city council required that the arcade is to be created by constructing the wall of the ground floor facing the sidewalk a few meters away from the property line. Thus, the building owner is not allowed to construct his wall up to the edge of the property line, thereby creating a space or shelter under the first floor. In effect, property owners relinquish the use of the space for use as an arcade for pedestrians, instead of using it for their own purposes.

The ordinance covered the property of Justice Gancayco. Subsequently, sometime in 1965, Justice Gancayco sought the exemption of a two-storey building being constructed on his property from the application of Ordinance No. 2904 that he be exempted from constructing an arcade on his property.

2

On 2 February 1966, the City Council acted favorably on Justice Gancayco’s request and issued Resolution No. 7161, S-66, “subject to the condition that upon notice by the City Engineer, the owner shall, within reasonable time, demolish the enclosure of said arcade at his own expense when public interest so demands.”

Decades after, in March 2003, MMDA conducted operations to clear obstructions along EDSA, in consequence, they sent a notice of demolition to Justice Gancayco alleging that a portion of his building violated the National Building Code.

Gancayco did not comply with the notice and filed a petition for TRO with the RTC Quezon City to prohibit the MMDA from demolishing his property. The RTC rendered its Decision on 30 September 2003 in favor of Justice Gancayco. It held that the questioned ordinance was unconstitutional, ruling that it allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The RTC said that because 67.5 square meters out of Justice Gancayco’s 375 square meters of property were being taken without compensation for the public’s benefit, the ordinance was confiscatory and oppressive. It likewise held that the ordinance violated owners’ right to equal protection of laws.

MMDA appealed with the CA. CA held that the MMDA went beyond its powers when it demolished the subject property. It further found that Resolution No. 02-28 only refers to sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila, thus excluding Justice Gancayco’s private property. Lastly, the CA stated that the MMDA is not clothed with the authority to declare, prevent or abate nuisances.

Issues: (1) WHETHER OR NOT JUSTICE GANCAYCO WAS ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2904. (2) WHETHER OR NOT ORDINANCE NO. 2904 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.(3) WHETHER OR NOT THE WING WALL OF JUSTICE GANCAYCO’S BUILDING IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE. (4) WHETHER OR NOT THE MMDA LEGALLY DEMOLISHED THE PROPERTY OF JUSTICE GANCAYCO.

Ruling:

(1) We find that petitioner was not guilty of estoppel. When it made the undertaking to comply with all issuances of the BIR, which at that time it considered as valid, petitioner did not commit any false misrepresentation or misleading act.(2) Justice Gancayco may not question the ordinance on the ground of equal protection when he also benefited from the exemption. It bears emphasis that Justice Gancayco himself requested for an exemption from the application of the ordinance in 1965 and was eventually granted one. Moreover, he was still enjoying the exemption at the time of the demolition as there was yet no valid notice from the city engineer. Thus, while the ordinance may be attacked with regard to its different treatment of properties that appears to be similarly situated, Justice Gancayco is not the proper person to do so.(3) The fact that in 1966 the City Council gave Justice Gancayco an exemption from constructing an arcade is an indication that the wing walls of the building are not nuisances per se. The wing walls do not per se immediately and adversely affect the safety of persons and property. The fact that an ordinance may declare a structure illegal does not necessarily make that structure a nuisance. Clearly, when Justice Gancayco was given a permit to construct the building, the city council or the city engineer did not consider the building, or its demolished portion, to be a threat to the safety of persons and property. This fact alone should have warned the MMDA against summarily demolishing the structure.

3

Sangguniang Bayan cannot declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its condemnation. It does not have the power to find, as a fact, that a particular thing is a nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per se; nor can it authorize the extrajudicial condemnation and destruction of that as a nuisance which in its nature, situation or use is not such. Those things must be determined and resolved in the ordinary courts of law.

MARTIN CENTENO, vs. HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS

Facts: The officers of a group of elderly men of a civic organization known as the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Martin Centeno, the chairman of the group, approached Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of Tikay, and solicited from her a contribution of P1,500.00. It is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. As a consequence, an information was filed against Centeno, for violation of PD No. 1564 or the Solicitation Permit Law. Centeno filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense, claiming that PD No. 1564 only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel.

Issue: Should the phrase "charitable purposes" be construed in its broadest sense so as to include a religious purpose?

Ruling: No and that legislative enactments specifically spelled out "charitable" and "religious" in an enumeration, whereas Presidential Decree No. 1564 merely stated "charitable or public welfare purposes," only goes to show that the framers of the law in question never intended to include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage. Otherwise, there is no reason why it would not have so stated expressly.

Solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. However, in the case at bar, considering that solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable therefor and therefore acquitted.

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phils v Duque III

Facts: Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51 (Milk Code). Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond what it is supposed to implement. Milk Code was issued by President Cory Aquino under the Freedom Constitution on Oct.1986. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Art 11 of the Int’l Code of Marketing and Breastmilk Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly(WHA). From 1982-2006, The WHA also adopted severe resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR.

4

Issue: Sub- Issue: W/N the pertinent int’l agreements e ntered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is in accord with int’l agreements MAIN: W/N the DOH acted w/o or in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction and in violation of the Constitution by promulgating the RIRR.

Held: Sub-issue:Yes for ICBMS. Under 1987 Consti, int’l law can become domestic law by transformation (thru constitutional mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation (mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had been transformed into domestic law through a local legislation such as the Milk Code. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of ICBMS. No for WHA Resolutions.

The Court ruled that DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are customary int’l law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. For an int’l rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they consider it as obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris). The WHO resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were enforced or practiced by at least a majority of member states. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for breastmilk substitutes) have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their babies as they see fit. WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW – non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of int’l law.

Main issue: Yes. Some parts of the RIRR were not in consonance with the Milk Code such as Sec. 4(f) ->advertising, promotions of formula are prohibited, Sec 11 -> prohibitions for advertising breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children uo to 24 months And Sec 46 -> sanctions for advertising . These provisions are declared null and void. The DOH and respondents are prohibited from implementing said provisions. Ichong vs Hernandez FACTS: The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business). Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. fromhaving a stranglehold upon the people’s economic life.

a prohibition against aliens and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by Filipinos, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade aliens actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are allowed to continue their business, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with law, until their death or voluntary retirement. In case of juridical persons, ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term. Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from this Act. provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in the retail business for violation of the laws on nationalization, economic control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry. provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships affected by the Act, filed an action to declare it unconstitutional for the ff: reasons: it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty

5

and property without due process the subject of the Act is not expressed in the title the Act violates international and treaty obligations the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession

ISSUE: WON the Act deprives the aliens of the equal protection of the laws.

HELD: The law is a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the aliens the equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive and fundamental differences between an alien and a citizen, which fully justify the legislative classification adopted.

RATIO: The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among residents. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated alike. The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. Official statistics point out to the ever-increasing dominance and control by alien of the retail trade. It is this domination and control that is thelegislature’s ta rget in the enactment of the Act.

The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of the distinction between the alien and the national as a trader. The alien is naturally lacking in that spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he temporarily stays and makes his living. The alien owes no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or emergency. While the citizen holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of the country, the alien may become the potential enemy of the State. The alien retailer has shown such utter disregard for his customers and the people on whom he makes his profit.

Through the illegitimate use of pernicious designs and practices, the alien now enjoys a monopolistic control on the nation’s economy endangering the national security in times of crisis and emergency. Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringe d by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not .”

6

For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that “our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Phils v Duque IIIFacts:Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of E.O. 51 (Milk Code). Petitioner claims that the RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond what it is supposed to implement. Milk Code was issued by President Cory Aquino under the Freedom Constitution on Oct.1986. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Art 11 of the Int’l Code of Marketing and Breastmilk Substitutes(ICBMS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly(WHA). From 1982-2006, The WHA also adopted severe resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes. In 2006, the DOH issued the assailed RIRR.

Issue:Sub-Issue: W/N the pertinent int’l agreements entered into by the Phil are part of the law of the land and may be implemented by DOH through the RIRR. If yes, W/N the RIRR is in accord with int’l agreements

MAIN: W/N the DOH acted w/o or in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction and in violation of the Constitution by promulgating the RIRR.

Held: Sub-issue:Yes for ICBMS. Under 1987 Consti, int’l law can become domestic law by transformation (thru constitutional mechanism such as local legislation) or incorporation (mere constitutional declaration i.e treaties) The ICBMS and WHA resolutions were not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of all members of the Senate as required under Sec, 21, Art 8. However, the ICBMS had been transformed into domestic law through a local legislation such as the Milk Code. The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of ICBMS.

No for WHA Resolutions. The Court ruled that DOH failed to establish that the provisions pertinent WHA resolutions are customary int’l law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. For an int’l rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because

7

they consider it as obligatory to comply with such rules (opinion juris). The WHO resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were enforced or practiced by at least a majority of member states. Unlike the ICBMS whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions into the law via the Milk Code, the WHA Resolutions (specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, breastfeeding up to 24 Months and absolutely prohibiting ads for breastmilk substitutes) have not been adopted as domestic law nor are they followed in our country as well. The Filipinos have the option of how to take care of their babies as they see fit. WHA Resolutions may be classified as SOFT LAW – non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior. Soft law is not part of int’l law.

Main issue: Yes. Some parts of the RIRR were not in consonance with the Milk Code such as Sec. 4(f) ->advertising, promotions of formula are prohibited, Sec 11 -> prohibitions for advertising breastmilk substitutes intended for infants and young children uo to 24 months And Sec 46 -> sanctions for advertising . These provisions are declared null and void. The DOH and respondents are prohibited from implementing said provisions.

Social Justice Society (SJS) vs. Atienza; Police Power of LGU's

Facts: Pursuant to the police power delegated to local government units. the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8027. The said ordinance, in essence, reclassified portions of Pandacan and Sta. Ana as well as its adjoining areas from industrial to commercial areas [reservoir of oils of big oil companies are located in this area- this is called as the Pandacan terminals] and owners or operators of industries and other businesses, of the Pandacan terminals are given a period of 6 months from the date of effectivity of the Ordinance within which to cease and desist from the operation of businesses which are disallowed. Subsequent to the approval of the ordinance, the City of Manila and the Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil companies in which they agreed that the scaling down of the Pandacan Terminals was the most viable and practicable option and not total removal of the Pandacan terminals as demanded by Ordinance 8027. Under the MOU, the oil companies agreed to scale down the oils reservoir and agreed that the joint operations of the OIL COMPANIES in the Pandacan Terminals shall be limited to the common and integrated areas/facilities. The said MOU was adopted by a resolution of the Sanggunian Panglunsod of Manila.

Petitioners filed a mandamus compelling respondent in his capacity as Mayor of Manila to enforce the said ordinance and order the immediate removal of the terminals of the oil companies.

Atienza contended that Ordinance 8027 was superseded by the MOU, hence he cannot enforce it.

Issue: Whether or not respondent can be compelled to enforce Ordinance 8027. Whether or not the MOU superseded Ordinance 8027.

Ruling: Yes, the Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the duty, as city mayor, to 'enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city.' One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He has no other choice. It is his ministerial duty to do so. The Court ratiocinated, "these officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might seriously

8

hinder the transaction of public business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to question the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not judicially been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

As to the second issue, assuming that the terms of the MOU were inconsistent with Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the City of Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is nothing that legally hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027.

Barangay Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. G.R. No. 150640, 22 March 2007Facts Barangay Sindalan, pursuant to its resolution, filed a complaint for eminent domain against the Sindayan spouses who were the registered owners of the parcel of land subject of the expropriation. The barangay sought to convert a portion of spouses Sindayan’s land into Barangay Sindalan’s feeder road. The spouses argued that the expropriation of their property was improper because it was sought for a private use. They alleged that the expropriation of their property, which was adjacent to Davsan II Subdivision, would benefit only the homeowners of said subdivision. The RTC ruled that the barangay had the lawful right to take the property of the Sindayan spouses. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue Whether the proposed exercise of the power of eminent domain would be for a public purpose – No, the contemplated road to be constructed by the barangay would benefit only the residents of a subdivision.

Held In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, it is basic that the taking of private property must be for a public purpose. In this jurisdiction, "public use" is defined as "whatever is beneficially employed for the community." The intended feeder road sought to serve the residents of the subdivision only. It has not been shown that the other residents of Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, will be benefited by the contemplated road to be constructed. While the number of people who use or can use the property is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use or purpose, the factual milieu of the case reveals that the intended use of respondents’ lot is confined solely to the Davsan II Subdivision residents and is not exercisable in common. Considering that the residents who need a feeder road are all subdivision lot owners, it is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a right-of-way for them. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling the subdivision owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power of eminent domain and is patently illegal. Without doubt, expropriation cannot be justified on the basis of an unlawful purpose.

Municipality of Paranaque v VM Realty G.R. No. 127820. July 20, 1998Petition for review on certiorari

Facts: Under a city council resolution, the Municipality of Parañaque filed on September 20, 1993, a Complaint for expropriation against Private Respondent V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of

9

land of 10,000 square meters. The city previously negotiated for the sale of the property but VM didn’t accept.

The trial court issued an Order dated February 4, 1994, authorizing petitioner to take possession of the subject property upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount equivalent to 15 percent of its fair market value based on its current tax declaration.

According to the respondent, the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code); and (b) the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata. Petitioner claimed that res judicata was not applicable.

The trial court dismissed the case. The petitioner’s MFR was denied. The CA affirmed.

Issues:

1. WON a resolution duly approved by the municipal council has the same force and effect of an ordinance and will not deprive an expropriation case of a valid cause of action.

2. WON the principle of res judicata as a ground for dismissal of case is not applicable when public interest is primarily involved.

Held: No to 1st Yes to 2nd. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:

1. Petitioner contends that a resolution approved by the municipal council for the purpose of initiating an expropriation case “substantially complies with the requirements of the law” because the terms “ordinance” and “resolution” are synonymous for “the purpose of bestowing authority [on] the local government unit through its chief executive to initiate the expropriation proceedings in court in the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

To strengthen this point, the petitioner cited Article 36, Rule VI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, which provides: “If the LGU fails to acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare through purchase, the LGU may expropriate said property through a resolution of the Sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceedings.”

Court-No. The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of government, which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public utilities. An LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the latter’s control and restraints, imposed “through the law conferring the power or in other legislations.

Sec 19, RA 7160

A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws.

10

Thus, the following essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.

2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.

3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.

4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor be authorized through an ordinance.

We are not convinced by petitioner’s insistence that the terms “resolution” and “ordinance” are synonymous. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.

If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise eminent domain through a mere resolution, it would have simply adopted the language of the previous Local Government Code. But Congress did not. In a clear divergence from the previous Local Government Code, Section 19 of RA 7160 categorically requires that the local chief executive act pursuant to an ordinance.

Moreover, the power of eminent domain necessarily involves a derogation of a fundamental or private right of the people.[35] Accordingly, the manifest change in the legislative language -- from “resolution” under BP 337 to “ordinance” under RA 7160 -- demands a strict construction.

When the legislature interferes with that right and, for greater public purposes, appropriates the land of an individual without his consent, the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation.

Petitioner relies on Article 36, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules, which requires only a resolution to authorize an LGU to exercise eminent domain. It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation.

Strictly speaking, the power of eminent domain delegated to an LGU is in reality not eminent but “inferior” domain, since it must conform to the limits imposed by the delegation, and thus partakes only of a share in eminent domain.

2. As correctly found by the Court of Appeals and the trial court, all the requisites for the application of res judicata are present in this case. There is a previous final judgment on the merits in a prior expropriation case involving identical interests, subject matter and cause of action, which has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over it.

11

Be that as it may, the Court holds that the principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property.

Eminent Domain can reach every form of property which the State might need for public use whenever they need it.

While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State to exercise eminent domain, it does apply to specific issues decided in a previous case.

In Republic vs De Knecht, the Court ruled that the power of the State or its agent to exercise eminent domain is not diminished by the mere fact that a prior final judgment over the property to be expropriated has become the law of the case as to the parties. The State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right to expropriate the same property, once all legal requirements are complied with.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Salem Investment Corporation

Facts: On 17 February 1983, Batas Pambansa 340 was passed authorizing the expropriation of parcels oflands in the names of Maria del Carmen Roxas de Elizalde and Concepcion Cabarrus Vda. de Santos, including a portion of the land, consisting of 1,380 square meters, belonging to Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama covered by TCT 16913. On 14 December 1988, or 5 years thereafter, Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama entered into a contract with Alfredo Guerrero whereby the De la Ramas agreed to sell to Guerrero the entire property covered by TCT 16213, consisting of 4,075 square meters for the amount of P11,800,000.00.

The De la Ramas received the sum of P2,200,000.00 as partial payment of the purchase price, the balancethereof to be paid upon release of the title by the Philippine Veterans Bank. On 3 November 1989, Guerrero filed in the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City a complaint for specific performance (Civil Case 6974-P) to compel the De la Ramas to proceed with the sale. On 10 July 1990, while the case was pending, the Republic of the Philippines filed the case (Civil Case 7327) for expropriation pursuant to BP 340. Among the defendants named in the complaint were Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama as registered owners of Lot 834, a portion of which (Lot 834-A) was part of the expropriated property. Upon the deposit of P12,970,350.00 representing 10% of the approximate market value of the subject lands, a writ of possession was issued on 29 August 1990 in favor of the government. On 2 May 1991, Guerrero filed a motion for intervention alleging that the De la Ramas had agreed to sell to him the entire Lot 834 on 14 December 1988 and that a case for specific performance had been filed by him against the De la Ramas. On 9 September 1991, the trial court approved payment to the De la Ramas at the rate of P23,976.00 per square meter for the taking of 920 square meters out of the 1,380 square meters.

Meanwhile, on 18 September 1991, the trial court rendered a decision in the case for specific performance upholding the validity of the contract to sell and ordering the De la Ramas to execute the corresponding deed of sale covering the subject property in favor of Guerrero. The De la Ramas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CV-35116) but their petition was dismissed on 28 July 1992. They tried to appeal to the Supreme Court (GR 106488) but again they failed in their bid as their petition for review was denied on 7 December 1992. Meanwhile, on 2 October 1991, Guerrero filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the just compensation for the land be deposited in court pursuant to Rule 67, §9 of

12

the Rules of Court. As his motion for intervention and omnibus motion had not yet been resolved, Guerrero filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and injunction with temporary restraining order (CA-GR SP 28311) to enjoin the Republic from releasing or paying to the De la Ramas any amount corresponding to the payment of the expropriated property and to compel the trial court to resolve his two motions. On 12 January 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the writ of mandamus.

Nonetheless, the De la Ramas filed on 17 March 1993 a Motion for Authority to Withdraw the deposit made by the Republic in 1991, which was denied on 7 May 1993. On 16 June 1993, the De la Ramas filed a Motion for Execution again praying that the court's order dated 9 September 1991, approving the recommendation of the appraisal committee, be enforced. On 22 June 1993, the trial court denied the motion of the De la Ramas holding that there had been a change in the situation of the parties, therefore, making the execution of 9 September 1991 Order inequitable, impossible, or unjust. Thus, with the decision in the action for specific performance in Civil Case 6974-P having become final, an order of execution was issued by the Pasay City RTC, and as a result of which, a deed of absolute sale was executed by the Branch Clerk of Court on 8 March 1994 in favor of Guerrero upon payment by him of the sum of P8,808,000.00 on 11 January 1994 and the further sum of P1,608,900.00 on 1 February 1994 as full payment for the balance of the purchase price under the contract to sell. The entire amount was withdrawn and duly received by the De la Ramas. Thereafter, the De la Ramas sought the nullification of the 22 June 1993 order of the trial by filing a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals. This petition was, however, dismissed in a decision dated 29 July 1994 of the appellate court. Finally, on 5 April 1995, the Pasay City Regional Trial Court, Branch 111, declared Guerrero the rightful owner of the 920-square meter expropriated property and ordered payment to him of just compensation for the taking of the land. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The De la Ramas filed a petition for review.

Issue: Whether the legal interest should be 6% or 12%

Held: The decision dated 18 September 1991 has long become final and executory. The decision thereinordered the De la Ramas to pay Guerrero, among others, the legal interest of the amount of P2,200,000.00from 2 August 1989 until the deed of absolute sale is executed in favor of Guerrero. Specifically, the courttherein rationalized that (1) the legal rate of interest for damages, and even for loans where interest was not stipulated, is 6% per annum (Article 2209, Civil Code); that (2) the rate of 12% per annum was established by the Monetary Board when, under the power vested in it by PD 116 to amend Act 2655 (more commonly known as the Anti Usury Law), it amended Section 1 by increasing the rate of legal interest for loans, renewals and forbearance thereof, as well as for judgments, from 6% per annum to 12% per annum; and that (3) inasmuch as the Monetary Board may not repeal or amend the Civil Code, in the face of the apparent conflict between Article 2209 and Act 2655 as amended, the ruling of the Monetary Board applies only to banks, financing companies, pawnshops and intermediaries performing quasi-banking functions, all of which are under the control and supervision of the Central Bank and of the Monetary Board.

Thus, the court held therein that (1) the interest rate on the P2,200,000.00 paid to the de la Ramas by Guerrero at the inception of the transactions should be only 6% per annum from 2 August 1989, and as of 2 January 1994 this amounts to the sum of P583,000.00 and P11,000.00 every month thereafter until the deed of absolute sale over the property subject matter of this case is executed; that (2) the amounts

13

payable by the de la Ramas to Guerrero therefore stands at a total of P1,383,000.00. Offsetting this amount from the balance of P8,800,000.00, Guerrero must still pay to the de la Ramas the sum of P7,417,000.00; and that (3) since Guerrero has already deposited with the Clerk of Court of the court the sum of P5,808,100.00 as of 11 January 1994; he should add to this the sum of Pl,608,900.00. The De la Ramas can no longer question a judgment which has already become final and executory. Hence, they are already barred from questioning it in a proceeding before the Supreme Court.

CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY- Minimum Corporate Income Tax

FACTS: CREBA assails the imposition of the minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) as being violative of the due process clause as it levies income tax even if there is no realized gain. They also question the creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets stating that (1) they ignore the different treatment of ordinary assets and capital assets; (2) the use of gross selling price or fair market value as basis for the CWT and the collection of tax on a per transaction basis (and not on the net income at the end of the year) are inconsistent with the tax on ordinary real properties; (3) the government collects income tax even when the net income has not yet been determined; and (4) the CWT is being levied upon real estate enterprises but not on other enterprises, more particularly those in the manufacturing sector.

ISSUE: Are the impositions of the MCIT on domestic corporations and CWT on income from sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets unconstitutional?

HELD: NO. MCIT does not tax capital but only taxes income as shown by the fact that the MCIT is arrived at by deducting the capital spent by a corporation in the sale of its goods, i.e., the cost of goods and other direct expenses from gross sales. Besides, there are sufficient safeguards that exist for the MCIT: (1) it is only imposed on the 4th year of operations; (2) the law allows the carry forward of any excess MCIT paid over the normal income tax; and (3) the Secretary of Finance can suspend the imposition of MCIT in justifiable instances.

The regulations on CWT did not shift the tax base of a real estate business’ income tax from net income to GSP or FMV of the property sold since the taxes withheld are in the nature of advance tax payments and they are thus just installments on the annual tax which may be due at the end of the taxable year. As such the tax base for the sale of real property classified as ordinary assets remains to be the net taxable income and the use of the GSP or FMV is because these are the only factors reasonably known to the buyer in connection with the performance of the duties as a withholding agent.

Neither is there violation of equal protection even if the CWT is levied only on the real industry as the real estate industry is, by itself, a class on its own and can be validly treated different from other businesses.

CIR vs CA and YMCA, [298 SCRA 83]

Facts: The main question in this case is: “is the income derived from rentals of real property owned by Young Men’s Christian Association of the Philippines (YMCA) – established as “a welfare, educational

14

and charitable non-profit corporation” – subject to income tax under the NIRC and the Constitution? In 1980, YMCA earned an income of P676,829 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators and P44k form parking fees.

Issue: Is the rental income of the YMCA taxable?

Held: Yes. The exemption claimed by the YMCA is expressly disallowed by the very wording of the last paragraph of then Sec. 27 of the NIRC; court is duty-bound to abide strictly by its literal meaning and to refrain from resorting to any convoluted attempt at construction. The said provision mandates that the income of exempt organizations (such as YMCA) from any of their properties, real or personal, be subject to the tax imposed by the same Code. Private respondent is exempt from the payment of property tax, but nit income tax on rentals from its property.

CIR vs CA and YMCA, [298 SCRA 83]

FACTS: Private Respondent YMCA--a non-stock, non-profit institution, which conducts various programs beneficial to the public pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives--leases out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, deriving substantial income for such. Seeing this, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent for deficiency income tax, deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages. YMCA opposed arguing that its rental income is not subject to tax, mainly because of the provisions of Section 27 of NIRC which provides that civic league or organizations not organized for profit but operate exclusively for promotion of social welfare and those organized exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other non-profitble businesses shall not be taxed.

ISSUE: Is the contention of YMCA tenable?

HELD: No. Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the Court has always applied the doctrine of strict in interpretation in construing tax exemptions. Furthermore, a claim of statutory exemption from taxation should be manifest and unmistakable from the language of the law on which it is based. Thus, the claimed exemption "must expressly be granted in a statute stated in a language too clear to be mistaken."

CIR V SC JOHNSON INC. June 25, 1999

Facts: Respondent is a domestic corporation organized and operating under the Philippine Laws, entered into a licensed agreement with the SC Johnson and Son, USA, a non-resident foreign corporation based in the USA pursuant to which the respondent was granted the right to use the trademark, patents and technology owned by the later including the right to manufacture, package and distribute the products covered by the Agreement and secure assistance in management, marketing and production from SC Johnson and Son USA.

For the use of trademark or technology, respondent was obliged to pay SC Johnson and Son, USA royalties based on a percentage of net sales and subjected the same to 25% withholding tax on royalty payments which respondent paid for the period covering July 1992 to May 1993 in the total amount of P1,603,443.00.

15

On October 29, 1993, respondent filed with the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) of the BIR a claim for refund of overpaid withholding tax on royalties arguing that, the antecedent facts attending respondents case fall squarely within the same circumstances under which said MacGeorge and Gillette rulings were issued. Since the agreement was approved by the Technology Transfer Board, the preferential tax rate of 10% should apply to the respondent. So, royalties paid by the respondent to SC Johnson and Son, USA is only subject to 10% withholding tax.

The Commissioner did not act on said claim for refund. Private respondent SC Johnson & Son, Inc. then filed a petition for review before the CTA, to claim a refund of the overpaid withholding tax on royalty payments from July 1992 to May 1993.

On May 7, 1996, the CTA rendered its decision in favor of SC Johnson and ordered the CIR to issue a tax credit certificate in the amount of P163,266.00 representing overpaid withholding tax on royalty payments beginning July 1992 to May 1993.

The CIR thus filed a petition for review with the CA which rendered the decision subject of this appeal on November 7, 1996 finding no merit in the petition and affirming in toto the CTA ruling.

Issue: Whether or not tax refunds are considered as tax exemptions.

Held: It bears stress that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such they are registered as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption. The burden of proof is upon him who claims the exemption in his favor and he must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law. Private respondent is claiming for a refund of the alleged overpayment of tax on royalties; however there is nothing on record to support a claim that the tax on royalties under the RP-US Treaty is paid under similar circumstances as the tax on royalties under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty.

PHILEX MINING CORP. v. CIR

FACTS: Petitioner Philex Mining Corp. assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Court of Tax Appeals decision ordering it to pay the amount of P110.7 M as excise tax liability for the period from the 2nd quarter of 1991 to the 2nd quarter of 1992 plus 20% annual interest from 1994 until fully paid pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code of 1977. Philex protested the demand for payment of the tax liabilities stating that it has pending claims for VAT input credit/refund for the taxes it paid for the years 1989 to 1991 in the amount of P120 M plus interest. Therefore these claims for tax credit/refund should be applied against the tax liabilities.

ISSUE: Can there be an off-setting between the tax liabilities vis-a-vis claims of tax refund of the petitioner?

HELD: No. Philex's claim is an outright disregard of the basic principle in tax law that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. Evidently, to countenance Philex's whimsical reason would render ineffective our tax collection system. Too simplistic, it finds no support in law or in jurisprudence.

16

To be sure, Philex cannot be allowed to refuse the payment of its tax liabilities on the ground that it has a pending tax claim for refund or credit against the government which has not yet been granted. taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a material distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the Government in its sovereign capacity. xxx There can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the government.

Skippers United Pacific, Inc. vs. Doza,

Facts: Petitioner deployed De Gracia, Lata and Aprosta to work on board the vessel MV Wisdom Star. On December 3 1998, Skippers alleges that De Garcia smelling strongly of alcohol, went to the cabin of Gabriel Oleszek, MV Wisdom Stars’ Master. Skippers claims that he was rude and shouted noisily to the master. De Gracia left the master’s cab in after a few minutes and was heard shouting very loudly somewhere down the corridors. The incident was evidenced by the Captain’s Report sent on said date. Furthermore, Skippers also claim that on January 22, 1999, Aprosta, De Gracia, Lata and Daza arrived in the master’s cabin and demanded immediate repatriation because they were not satisfied with the ship. De Gracia, et al. threatened that they may become crazy any moment and demanded for all outstanding payments due to them. The incident is evidenced by a telex of Cosmoship MV Wisdom to skippers but had conflicting dates. De Gracia claims that Skippers failed to remit their respective allotments, compelling them to vent their grievances with the Romanian Seafarers Union. On January 28, 1999, the Filipino seafarers were unceremoniously discharged and immediately repatriated. Upon arrival in the Philippines, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the LA.

Issue:Whether or not the seafarer’s demand for immediate repatriation can be considered an act of voluntary resignation.

Held/Ratio: For a worker's dismissal to be considered valid, it must comply with both procedural and substantive due process. The legality of the manner of dismissal constitutes procedural due process, while the legality of the act of dismissal constitutes substantive due process. Procedural due process in dismissal cases consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second notice informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a hearing must be complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard.

It is not necessary that an actual hearing be conducted. Substantive due process, on the other hand, requires that dismissal by the employer be made under a just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code. In this case, there was no written notice furnished to De Gracia, et al., regarding the cause of their dismissal. Cosmoship furnished a written notice (telex) to Skippers, the local manning agency, claiming that De Gracia, et al., were repatriated because the latter voluntarily pre-terminated

17

their contracts. This telex was given credibility and weight by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC in deciding that there was pre-termination of the employment contract "akin to resignation" and no illegal dismissal. However, as correctly ruled by the CA, the telex message is "a biased and self-serving document that does not satisfy the requirement of substantial evidence." If, indeed, De Gracia, et al., voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts, then De Gracia, et al., should have submitted their written resignations.

Dismissal; resignation vs. illegal dismissal; telex is not equivalent to tender of resignation . Article 285 of the Labor Code recognizes termination by the employee of the employment contract by “serving written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance.” Given that provision, the law contemplates the requirement of a written notice of resignation. In the absence of a written resignation, it is safe to presume that the employer terminated the seafarers. In this case, the Supreme Court found the dismissal of De Gracia, et al. to be illegal since Cosmoship merely sent a telex to Skippers, the local manning agency, claiming that De Gracia, et al. were repatriated because the latter voluntarily pre-terminated their contracts.

CORONA VS. HARBOR PILOTSFACTS: Pursuant to its power of control, regulation, and supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession, the PPA through PPA General Manager Rogelio Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92. Providing therein that "all existing regular appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only" and that "all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance."

ISSUE: Whether or not, the PPA violated the respondents' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law in issuing PPA-AO No. 04-92, limiting the term of appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation.

HELD: Yes. Unconstitutional—No due process of law. The Court is convinced that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of respondents' right against deprivation of property without due process of law.Consequently, the instant petition must be denied. Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays down what is known as the "due process clause" of the Constitution, viz.: Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, . . .

In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two conditions must concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is done without proper observance of due process. When one speaks of due process of law, however, a distinction must be made between matters of procedure and matters of substance . In essence, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS "refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced," while SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS "requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just." PPAAO No. 04-92 must be examined in light of this distinction.

As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicialfunction. In the performance of its

18

executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing.

There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. Pilotage, just like other professions, may be practiced only by duly licensed individuals. Licensure is "the granting of license especially to practice a profession." It is also "the system of granting licenses (as for professional practice) in accordance with establishment standards." A license is a right or permission granted by some competent authority to carry on a business or do an act which, without such license, would be illegal.

It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. In the past, they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing five examinations and undergoing years of on-the-job training, they would have a license which they could use until their retirement, unless sooner revoked by the PPA for mental or physical unfitness. Under the new issuance, they have to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. Renewal of their license is now dependent on a "rigid evaluation of performance" which is conducted only after the license has already been cancelled. Hence, the use of the term "renewal." It is this pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. In a real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law.

Arsenio Lumiqued vs Apolonio Exevea

Lumiqued was the Regional Director of DAR-CAR. He was charged by Zamudio, the Regional Cashier, for dishonesty due to questionable gas expenses under his office. It was alleged that he was falsifying gas receipts for reimbursements and that he had an unliquidated cash advance worth P116,000.00. Zamudio also complained that she was unjustly removed by Lumiqued two weeks after she filed the two complaints. The issue was referred to the DOJ. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date, he moved for its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him to employ the services of counsel. The committee granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution. The Investigating Committee recommended the dismissal of Lumiqued. DOJ Sec Drilon adopted the recommendation. Fidel Ramos issued AO 52 dismissing Lumiqued.

ISSUES: Whether or not Lumiqued’s right to due process has been violated.

HELD: No. This is an administrative proceeding. Right to counsel is only strictly observed in criminal proceedings. Lumiqued is a well educated man, he can ably represent himself as he in fact did. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. Whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee was cured by Lumiqued’s appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the constitutional provision on due process safeguards life, liberty and property. Public office is a public trust. It is not a property guaranteed of due process. But

19

when the dispute concerns one’s constitutional right to security of tenure, however, public office is deemed analogous to property in a limited sense; hence, the right to due process could rightfully be invoked. Nonetheless, the right to security of tenure is not absolute especially when it was proven, as in this case, that the public officer (Lumiqued) did not live up to the Constitutional precept i.e., that all public officers and employees must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION

FACTS: Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States.

On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or the governments ironclad duties under a treaty.

RULING: Petition dismissed. The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the law of the land.The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the local state.

Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.

“Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

“The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.

20

“Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision.

“In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.

“The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution

Secretary of Justice vs Judge Ralph Lantion

Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple crimes ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to conspiracy to defraud the USA. Jimenez was then wanted in the US. The US government, pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty requested to have Jimenez be extradited there. Jimenez requested for a copy of the complaint against him as well as the extradition request by the USA. The DOJ sec refused to provide him copy thereof advising that it is still premature to give him so and that it is not a preliminary investigation hence he is not entitled to receive such copies. Jimenez sued the DOJ Sec and the lower court ruled in favor of Jimenez.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jimenez is deprived of due process.

HELD: The SC affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case against Jimenez refer to an impending threat of deprivation of one’s property or property right. No less is this true, but even more so in the case before us, involving as it does the possible deprivation of liberty, which, based on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, is placed second only to life itself and enjoys precedence over property, for while forfeited property can be returned or replaced, the time spent in incarceration is irretrievable and beyond recompense.

Ang Tibay v CIR (1940) 69 Phil 635

Facts: Toribio claimed to have laid off workers due to the shortage of leather soles in the Ang Tibay factory.The Court of industrial relations forwarded a motion for recon with the supreme court.In pursuit of a retrial in the Court of Industrial Relations, the national labor union, the respondent, averred:1. The shortage of soles has no factual basis2. The scheme was to prevent the forfeiture of his bond to cover the breach of obligation with the Army3. The letter he sent to the army was part of this scheme4. The company union was an employer dominated one.

21

5. laborers rights to CBA is indispensable.6. Civil code shouldn’t be used to interpret a legislation of American industrial origins.7. Toribio was guilty of unfair labor practice for favoring his union.8. Exhibits are inaccessible to respondents.9. The exhibits can reverse the judgment.

Issue: Is the Court of Industrial Relations the proper venue for the trial?

Held: Yes. Case remanded to the CIR. There was no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity.

The nature of the CIR is that of an administrative court with judicial and quasi-judicial functions for the purpose of settling disputes and relations between employers and employees. It can appeal to voluntary arbitration for dispute. It can also examine the industries in a locality by order of the president. There is a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which constitutes a departure from the separation of powers.

The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and is not bound by technical rules of legal procedure. It may also include any matter necessary for solving the dispute.

The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.Some examples that it must follow are:1. right to a hearing2. consideration of evidence by the court3. duty to deliberate implies a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached4. substance of evidence and the non-binding aspect of judicial decisions in an admin court so as to free them from technical rules5. the decision must be rendered at the evidence presented at the hearing. The court may also delegate some powers to other judicial bodies.6. The court must act on its own decision at reaching a controversy. It mustn’t merely accept the views of a subordinate.7. The court must clearly state the issues and the rationale for the decision.The record is barren and doesn’t satisfy a factual basis as to predicate a conclusion of law.Evidence was still inaccessible.The motion for a new trial should be granted and sent to the CIR.

QUINTO V COMELEC

Facts: Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8678, the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections. Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 8678 provide:

22

SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy.—a) Any person holding a public appointive office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position. Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their CoCs, petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive positions in the government and who intend to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 as null and void. Petitioners also contend that Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, the basis of the assailed COMELEC resolution, contains two conflicting provisions. These must be harmonized or reconciled to give effect to both and to arrive at a declaration that they are not ipso facto resigned from their positions upon the filing of their CoCs. Issue: whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection clauseHeld: Yes. In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment. In order that there can be valid classification so that a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional norm of equal protection, it is necessary that the four (4) requisites of valid classification be complied with, namely: (1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law;(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and(4) It must apply equally to all members of the class. The first requirement means that there must be real and substantial differences between the classes treated differently. As illustrated in the fairly recent Mirasol v. Department of Public Works and Highways, a real and substantial distinction exists between a motorcycle and other motor vehicles sufficient to justify its classification among those prohibited from plying the toll ways. Not all motorized vehicles are created equal—a two-wheeled vehicle is less stable and more easily overturned than a four-wheel vehicle. Nevertheless, the classification would still be invalid if it does not comply with the second requirement—if it is not germane to the purpose of the law.

23

The third requirement means that the classification must be enforced not only for the present but as long as the problem sought to be corrected continues to exist. And, under the last requirement, the classification would be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not treated similarly, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. Applying the four requisites to the instant case, the Court finds that the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not germane to the purposes of the law. The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote one’s candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence on the electorate. The measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The restriction is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electoral arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than to their office work. If we accept these as the underlying objectives of the law, then the assailed provision cannot be constitutionally rescued on the ground of valid classification. Glaringly absent is the requisite that the classification must be germane to the purposes of the law. Indeed, whether one holds an appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain. For example, the Executive Secretary, or any Member of the Cabinet for that matter, could wield the same influence as the Vice-President who at the same time is appointed to a Cabinet post (in the recent past, elected Vice-Presidents were appointed to take charge of national housing, social welfare development, interior and local government, and foreign affairs). With the fact that they both head executive offices, there is no valid justification to treat them differently when both file their CoCs for the elections. Under the present state of our law, the Vice-President, in the example, running this time, let us say, for President, retains his position during the entire election period and can still use the resources of his office to support his campaign. As to the danger of neglect, inefficiency or partisanship in the discharge of the functions of his appointive office, the inverse could be just as true and compelling. The public officer who files his certificate of candidacy would be driven by a greater impetus for excellent performance to show his fitness for the position aspired for. There is thus no valid justification to treat appointive officials differently from the elective ones. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of the law. The measure encapsulated in the second proviso of the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and in Section 66 of the OEC violates the equal protection clause.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Facts:

24

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections. The latter moved to question an earlier decision of the Supreme Court declaring the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, the basis of the COMELEC resolution, and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 unconstitutional. The resolution provides that, “Any person holding a public appointive office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.” RA 9369 provides that “For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. Issue: Issue: whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection clause and therefore unconstitutional Held: No To start with, the equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. The test developed by jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness, which has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class. Our assailed Decision readily acknowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy the first, third and fourth requisites of reasonableness. It, however, proffers the dubious conclusion that the differential treatment of appointive officials vis-à-vis elected officials is not germane to the purpose of the law, because "whether one holds an appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain." In the instant case, is there a rational justification for excluding elected officials from the operation of the deemed resigned provisions? There is. An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people. It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote. Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will

25

of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned. The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore germane to the purposes of the law. For the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the public service; the Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial scrutiny, also thought it wise to balance this with the competing, yet equally compelling, interest of deferring to the sovereign will. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondent’s and the intervenors’ Motions for Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Court’s December 1, 2009 Decision; DISMISS the Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and (3) Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.

PHIL JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS PRADO ENBANC

FACTS: Petitioners assailed the validity of Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 which withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices.The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its title embraces more than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its passage; and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.

ISSUE:Whether or not Sec 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional.

RULING: No. SC held that Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 is unconstitutional.

1. Article VI, Sec. 26(l), of the Constitution providing that "Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof."The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has been held that if the title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.We are convinced that the withdrawal of the franking privilege from some agencies is germane to the accomplishment of the principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is the creation of a more efficient and effective postal service system. Our ruling is that, by virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did not have to be expressly included in the title of the said law.

2. The petitioners maintain that the second paragraph of Sec. 35 covering the repeal of the franking privilege from the petitioners and this Court under E.O. 207, PD 1882 and PD 26 was not included in the original version of Senate Bill No. 720 or House Bill No. 4200. As this paragraph appeared only in the Conference Committee Report, its addition, violates Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. The

26

petitioners also invoke Sec. 74 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring that amendment to any bill when the House and the Senate shall have differences thereon may be settled by a conference committee of both chambers.Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez laid down the rule that the enrolled bill, is conclusive upon the Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill). The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme Court.Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department of the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.

3. SC annuls Section 35 of the law as violative of Article 3, Sec. 1, of the Constitution providing that no person shall "be deprived of the equal protection of laws."It is worth observing that the Philippine Postal Corporation, as a government-controlled corporation, was created and is expected to operate for the purpose of promoting the public service. While it may have been established primarily for private gain, it cannot excuse itself from performing certain functions for the benefit of the public in exchange for the franchise extended to it by the government and the many advantages it enjoys under its charter. 14 Among the services it should be prepared to extend is free carriage of mail for certain offices of the government that need the franking privilege in the discharge of their own public functions.

Ishmael Himagan vs People of the Philippines & Judge Hilario Mapayo

Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, Davao City. He was charged for the murder of Benjamin Machitar Jr and for the attempted murder of Benjamin’s younger brother, Barnabe. Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was placed into suspension pending the murder case. The law provides that “Upon the filing of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the accused from office until the case is terminated. Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the accused. Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of the Civil Service Decree, that his suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition of preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and would be a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of laws.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.

HELD: The language of the first sentence of Sec 47 of RA 6975 is clear, plain and free from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning than that the suspension from office of the member of the PNP charged with grave offense where the penalty is six years and one day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The suspension cannot be lifted before the termination of the case. The second sentence of the same Section providing that the trial must be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment does not qualify or limit the first sentence. The two can stand independently of each other. The first refers to the period of suspension. The second deals with the time from within which the trial should be finished.

27

The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions.

If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his post while his case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in uniform and armed. the imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

Suppose the trial is not terminated within ninety days from arraignment, should the suspension of accused be lifted?

The answer is certainly no. While the law uses the mandatory word “shall” before the phrase “be terminated within ninety (90) days”, there is nothing in RA 6975 that suggests that the preventive suspension of the accused will be lifted if the trial is not terminated within that period. Nonetheless, the Judge who fails to decide the case within the period without justifiable reason may be subject to administrative sanctions and, in appropriate cases where the facts so warrant, to criminal or civil liability. If the trial is unreasonably delayed without fault of the accused such that he is deprived of his right to a speedy trial, he is not without a remedy. He may ask for the dismissal of the case. Should the court refuse to dismiss the case, the accused can compel its dismissal by certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or secure his liberty by habeas corpus.

International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) vs. Quisumbing

Facts: The International School, Inc., pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment, except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees.

Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire, i.e. (a) What is one's domicile? (b) Where is one's home economy? (c) To which country does one owe economic allegiance? (d) Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines? The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate 25% more than local-hires.

The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. The compensation scheme is simply

28

the School's adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education. The compensation package given to local-hires has been shown to apply to all, regardless of race. There are foreigners who have been hired locally and who are paid equally as Filipino local hires. When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, the International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE), "a legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members" of the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties.

On 7 September 1995, ISAE filed a notice of strike. The failure of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. On 10 June 1996, the DOLE Acting Secretary, Crescenciano B. Trajano, issued an Order resolving the parity and representation issues in favor of the School. Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing subsequently denied ISAE's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 19 March 1997. ISAE sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the School unduly discriminated against the local-hires.

Held: That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils. The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities." The very broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. International law, which springs from general principles of law, likewise proscribes discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention against Discrimination in Education, the Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation 16 — all embody the general principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice.

The Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its national laws. In the workplace, where the relations between capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This presumption is borne by logic and human experience. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. That would be adding insult to injury. The employer has discriminated against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. Herein, the International School has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions. The School cannot invoke the need to entice foreign-hires to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction in salary rates without violating the principle of equal work for equal pay. The point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy.

29

People v. Jalosjos [G.R. Nos. 132875-76. February 3, 2000]FACTS: The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.

ISSUE: Whether or not being a Congressman is a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law by reason of the “mandate of the sovereign will”.

RULING: NO. While the Constitution guarantees: “x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws.”, this simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The duties imposed by the “mandate of the people” are multifarious. The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. Here, election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. Hence, the performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison.

PEOPLE V JALOSJOS

Facts: The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-fledged member of Congress who is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense on the basis of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be represented

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as member of House of Representatives

Held: Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, inspite of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law.

30

The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution. The privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations.

The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

People vs. de Gracia [GR 102009-10, 6 July 1994]

Facts: The incidents took place at the height of the coup d'etat staged in December, 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) against the Government. At that time, various government establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were being bombarded by the rightist group with their "tora-tora" planes. At around midnight of 30 November 1989, the 4th Marine Battalion of the Philippine Marines occupied Villamor Air Base, while the Scout Rangers took over the Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the Army Operations Center, and Channel 4, the government television station. Also, some elements of the Philippine Army coming from Fort Magsaysay occupied the Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. On 1 December 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of the Intelligence Division, National Capital Region Defense Command, was on board a brown Toyota car conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City, together with his team composed of Sgt. Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt. Ramon Briones, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino, one S/Sgt. Simon and a Sgt. Ramos. The surveillance, which actually started on the night of 30 November 1989 at around 10:00 p.m., was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report received by the division that said establishment was being occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command post. Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked the vehicle around 10 to 15 meters away from the Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino had earlier alighted from the car to conduct his surveillance on foot.

A crowd was then gathered near the Eurocar office watching the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a while a group of 5 men disengaged themselves from the crowd and walked towards the car of the surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in front, saw the approaching group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the car and leave the area. As they passed by the group, then only 6 meters away, the latter pointed to them, drew their guns and fired at the team, which attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh. Nobody in the surveillance team was able to retaliate because they sought cover inside the car and they were afraid that civilians or bystanders might be caught in the cross-fire. As a consequence, at around 6:30 a.m. of 5 December 1989, searching them composed of F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as team leader, M/Sgt. Lacdao, Sgt. Magallion, Sgt. Patricio Pacatang, and elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion under one Col. delos

31

Santos raided the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and confiscate 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col.

Matillano which is located at the right portion of the building. St. Oscar Obenia, the first one to enter theEurocar building, saw Rolando De Gracia inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. De Gracia was the only person then present inside the room. A uniform with the nametag of Col. Matillano was also found. As a result of the raid, the team arrested de Gracia, as well asSoprieso Verbo and Roberto Jimena who were janitors at the Eurocar building. They were then made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, at that time there was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently closed. The group was able to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office is a certain Mr. Gutierrez and that de Gracia is supposedly a "boy" therein. de Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted homicide (Criminal Cases Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756, respectively), which were tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103.

During the arraignment, de Gracia pleaded not guilty to both charges. However, he admitted that he is not authorized to posses any firearms, ammunition and/or explosive. The parties likewise stipulated that there was a rebellion during the period from November 30 up to 9 December 1989. On 22 February 1991, the trial court rendered judgment acquitting de Gracia of attempted homicide, but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion and sentenced him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. De Gracia appealed.

Issue: Whether the military operatives made a valid search and seizure during the height of the December1989 coup d’etat.

Held: It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. When the military operatives raided the place, the occupants thereof refused to open the door despite the requests for them to do so, thereby compelling the former to break into the office. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained.

In addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the building and houses therein were deserted. Under the foregoing circumstances, the case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was

32

being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on 5 December 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

Abdula vs. Guiani [GR 118821, 18 February 2000]

Facts: On 24 June 1994, a complaint for murder (IS 94-1361) was filed before the Criminal Investigation Service Command, ARMM Regional Office XII against Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula and 6 other persons in connection with the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The complaint alleged that the Abdulas paid the 6 other persons the total amount of P200,000.00 for the death of Dimalen. Acting on this complaint, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao, Salick U. Panda, in a Resolution dated 22 August 1994, dismissed the charges of murder against the Abdulas and 5 other respondents on a finding that there was no prima facie case for murder against them. Prosecutor Panda, however, recommended the filing of an information for murder against one of the respondents, a certain Kasan Mama. Pursuant to this Resolution, an information for murder was thereafter filed against Kasan Mama before the sala of Judge Japal M. Guiani.

In an Order dated 13 September 1994, the Judge ordered that the case (Criminal Case 2332), be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. In this Order, the judge noted that although there were 8 respondents in the murder case, the information filed with the court "charged only 1 of the 8 respondents in the name of Kasan Mama without the necessary resolution required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court to show how the investigating prosecutor arrived at such a conclusion." As such, the judge reasons, the trial court cannot issue the warrant of arrest against Kasan Mama. Upon the return of the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Maguindanao, it was assigned to 2nd Assistant Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further investigation. In addition to the evidence presented during the initial investigation of the murder charge, two new affidavits of witnesses were submitted to support the charge of murder against the Abdulas and the other respondents in the murder complaint. Thus, Prosecutor Dimaraw treated the same as a re-filing of the murder charge and pursuant to law, issued subpoena to the respondents named therein.

On 6 December 1994, the Abdulas submitted and filed their joint counter-affidavits. After evaluation of the evidence, Prosecutor Dimaraw, in a Resolution dated 28 December 1994, found a prima facie case for murder against the Abdulas and 3 other respondents. He thus recommended the filing of charges against the Abdulas, as principals by inducement, and against the 3 others, as principals by direct participation. Likewise in this 28 December 1994 Resolution, Provincial Prosecutor Salick U. Panda, who conducted the earlier preliminary investigation of the murder charge, added a notation stating that he was inhibiting himself from the case and authorizing the investigating prosecutor to dispose of the case without his approval. The reasons he cited were that the case was previously handled by him and that the victim was the father-in-law of his son.

On 2 January 1995, an information for murder dated 28 December 1994 was filed against the Abdulas and Kasan Mama, Cuenco Usman and Jun Mama before Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, then the sala of Judge Guiani. This information was signed by investigating prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw. A notation was likewise made on the information by Provincial Prosecutor Panda, which explained the reason for his inhibition. The following day, the judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the Abdulas. Upon learning of the issuance of the said warrant, the Abdulas filed on 4 January 1995 an

33

Urgent Ex-parte Motion for the setting aside of the warrant of arrest on 4 January 1995. In this motion, the Abdulas argued that the enforcement of the warrant of arrest should be held in abeyance considering that the information was prematurely filed and that the Abdulas intended to file a petition for review with the Department of Justice. A petition for review was filed by the Abdulas with the Department of Justice on 11 January 1995. Despite said filing, the judge did not act upon the Abdulas' pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of Arrest. The Abdulas filed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the judge may rely upon the findings of the prosecutor in determining probable cause in the issuance of search or arrest warrant.

Held: The 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable cause "personally," a requirement which does not appear in the corresponding provisions of our previous constitutions. This emphasis evinces the intent of the framers to place a greater degree of responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under previous Constitutions. Herein, the Judge admits that he issued the questioned warrant as there was "no reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation was conducted and that probable cause was found to exist as against those charged in the information filed." The statement is an admission that the Judge relied solely and completely on the certification made by the fiscal that probable cause exists as against those charged in the information and issued the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's findings and recommendations. He adopted the judgment of the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause as his own. Clearly, the judge, by merely stating that he had no reason to doubt the validity of the certification made by the investigating prosecutor has abdicated his duty under the Constitution to determine on his own the issue of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. Consequently, the warrant of arrest should be declared null and void.

Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [GR 123595, 12 December 1997]

Facts: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting suspiciously with "their eyes moving very fast." Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehendedSammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade).

Upon searching Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter's "front waist line." Yu's companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1866. At arraignment on 9 October 1990, petitioner, assisted by counsel de officio, entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. However, several other police officers mauled him, hitting him with benches and guns. Petitioner was once again searched, but nothing was found on him. He saw the grenade

34

only in court when it was presented. In its decision dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994, the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a "stop and frisk," where a "warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest" and "whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information"; and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, and not more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum.

On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to theSupreme Court. However, the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). In its decision of 24 January 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk.”

Held: The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plainview; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk."

The concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. Plainly, the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. On the other hand, while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk."

A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. Here, there are at least three (3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid: First, there is grave doubts as to Yu's claim that Malacat was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. Second, there was nothing in Malacat's behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving very fast" — an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it

35

was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble. Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of Malacat, and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat, any telltale bulge, assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. What is unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat's rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution.

People vs. Doria [GR 125299, 22 January 1999]

Facts: In November 1995, members of the North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from 2 civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation. As arranged by one of the CI's, a meeting between the Narcom agents and "Jun" was scheduled on 5 December 1995 at E. Jacinto Street in Mandaluyong City. On 5 December 1995, at 6:00 a.m., the CI went to the PNP Headquarters at EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City to prepare for the buy-bust operation. The Narcom agents formed Team Alpha composed of P/Insp. Nolasco Cortes as team leader and PO3 Celso Manlangit, SPO1 Edmund Badua and four (4) other policemen as members. P/Insp. Cortes designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Badua as his back-up, and the rest of the team as perimeter security. Superintendent Pedro Alcantara, Chief of the North Metropolitan District PNP Narcom, gave the team P2,000.00 to cover operational expenses. From this sum, PO3 Manlangit set aside P1,600.00 — a one thousand peso bill and six (6) one hundred peso bills — as money for the buy-bust operation.

The market price of one kilo of marijuana was then P1,600.00. PO3 Manlangit marked the bills with his initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter. The team rode in two cars and headed for the target area. At 7:20 a.m., "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. An hour later, "Jun" appeared at the agreed place where PO3 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the team were waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun" revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth." "Jun" led the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal. The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and at woman inside. "Jun" identified the woman as his associate. SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box.

He peeked inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from "Neneth." The policemen arrested "Neneth." They took "Neneth" and "Jun," together with the box, its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. The 1 brick of dried marijuana leaves recovered from "Jun" plus the 10 bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The bricks were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights totalling 7,641.08 grams. On 7 December 1995, Doria and Gadda were charged with

36

violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City convicted Dorria and Gaddao. The trial court found the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group" and sentenced both to death and pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: Whether the warrantless arrests of Doria and Gaddao are legally permissible.

Held: It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of entrapment used to outwit the persons violating or about to violate the law. Not every deception is forbidden. The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is entrapment and no conviction may be had. Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person acting as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no entrapment and the accused must be convicted. The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal. The warrantless arrest of Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: "A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. xxx" Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Herein, Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

The warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills, however, are different matters. Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is, however, not absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances enumeratedin Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. Neither could the arrest of Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused, Doria. Save for Doria's word, the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is no showing that the person

37

who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.

Manalili v. CA [GR 113447, 9 October 1997]

Facts: At about 2:10 p.m. of 11 April 1988, policemen from the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance along A. Mabini street, Kalookan City, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The policemen were Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas and a driver named Arnold Enriquez was driving a Tamaraw vehicle which was the official car of the Police Station of Kalookan City. The surveillance was being made because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the policemen alighted from their vehicle. They then chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. When this male person tried to avoid the policemen, the latter approached him and introduced themselves as police officers.

The policemen then asked the male person what he was holding in his hands. The male person tried to resist. Pat. Romeo Espiritu asked the male person if he could see what said male person had in his hands. The latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat. Romeo Espiritu to examine the same. Pat. Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. He found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents. The male person was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Headquarters and was turned over to Cpl. Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Pat. Espiritu also turned over to Cpl. Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected marijuana contents. The man turned out to be Alain Manalili y Dizon. On 11 April 1988, Manalili was charged by Assistant Caloocan City Fiscal E. Juan R. Bautista with violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act 6425. Upon his arraignment on 21 April 1988, Manalili pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. With the agreement of the public prosecutor, Manalili was released after filing a P10,000.00 bail bond. After trial in due course, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 124, acting as a Special Criminal Court, rendered on 19 May 1989 a decision convicting appellant of illegal possession of marijuana residue. Manalili remained on provisional liberty.

Atty. Benjamin Razon, counsel for the defense, filed a Notice of Appeal dated 31 May 1989. On 19 April 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court. The appellate court denied reconsideration via its Resolution dated 20 January 1994. Manalili filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest.

Held: In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s). In allowing such a search, the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest. What justified the limited search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him.

38

It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent circumstances. In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, gives this guarantee. This right, however, is not absolute. The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure." In People vs. Encinada, the Court further explained that in these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as the essential requirement. Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. To require the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur. Herein, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that Manalili had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During such investigation, they found marijuana in his possession. The search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk.

People vs. Escano, Usana and Lopez [GR 129756-58, 28 January 2000]

Facts: On 5 April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police, namely, PO3 Eduardo P. Suba, PO3 Bernabe Nonato, SPO4 Juan de los Santos, and Inspector Ernesto Guico, were manning a checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil Puyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX). They were checking the cars going to Pasay City, stopping those they found suspicious, and imposing merely a running stop on the others. At about past midnight, they stopped a Kia Pride car with Plate TBH 493. P03 Suba saw a long firearm on the lap of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked the driver, identified as Julian D. Escaño, to open the door. P03 Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US Carbine, from Usana. When Escaño, upon order of the police, parked along Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., the other passengers were searched for more weapons. Their search yielded a .45 caliber firearmwhich they seized from Escaño. The three passengers were thereafter brought to the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by PO3 Nonato. Upon reaching the precinct, Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer.

Since SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escaño to open the trunk.Escaño readily agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked Escaño to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, which, upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemist Emilia A. Rosaldos, was found positive for hashish weighing 3.3143 kilograms. Virgilio T. Usana and Jerry C. Lopez, together with Julian D. Escaño, were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case 95-936 with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended. Escaño and Usana were also charged

39

in Criminal Cases 95-937 and 95-938 with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree 1866.

The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. In its Decision of 30 May 1997, which was promulgated on 17 June 1997, the trial court convicted Escaño, Lopez and Usana in Criminal Case 95-936, Escaño in Criminal Case 95-937, and Usana in Criminal Case 95-938. Escaño filed on 19 June 1997 a Notice of Appeal, but on 16 July 1997, he filed a Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appeal, which was granted by the trial court in its Order of 17 July 1997. Usana and Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal on 30 June 1997, manifesting therein that they were appealing to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Appeals. Considering the penalties imposed, the decision in Criminal Case 95-936 was appealed to the Supreme Court, while the Court of Appeals took cognizance of the appeal from Criminal Case 95-938. In its Order of 30 June 1997, the trial court gave due course to the appeal and ordered the transmittal of the record in Criminal Case 95-936 to the Supreme Court and the record of Criminal Case 95-938 to the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, it is only the appeal from the judgment in Criminal Case 95-936 that is before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the search conducted on Escano’s car is illegal, and whether the evidence acquired therein would be sufficient to convict Lopez and Usana for possession of illegal drugs.

Held: The Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists' right to "free passage without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard putto implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious designs. The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping cars they deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best they would merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they would stop, without opening the car's doors or subjecting its passengers to a body search.

There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands. Despite the validity of the search, the Court cannot affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation of RA 6425, as amended. The following facts militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car belonged toEscaño; (2) the trunk of the car was not opened soon after it was stopped and after the accused were searched for firearms; (3) the car was driven by a policeman from the place where it was stopped until the police station; (4) the car's trunk was opened, with the permission of Escaño, without the presence of Usana and Lopez; and (5) after arrival at the police station and until the opening of the car's trunk, the car was in the possession and control of the police authorities. No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the trunk of the car. Their having been with Escaño in the latter's car before the "finding" of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time and without their presence left much to be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling, distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized.

40

Bureau of Customs vs. Ogario [GR 138081, 30 March 2000]

Facts: On 9 December 1998, Felipe A. Bartolome, District Collector of Customs of Cebu, issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention of 25,000 bags of rice, bearing the name of "SNOWMAN, Milled in Palawan" shipped on board the M/V "Alberto," which was then docked at Pier 6 in Cebu City. The warrant was issued on the basis of the report of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), Region VII that the rice had been illegally imported. The report stated that the rice was landed in Palawan by a foreign vessel and then placed in sacks marked "SNOWMAN, Milled in Palawan." It was then shipped to Cebu City on board the vessel M/V "Alberto." Forfeiture proceedings were started in the customs office in Cebu (Cebu Seizure Identification Case 17-98). On 10 December 1998, Mark Montelibano, the consignee of the sacks of rice, and his buyer, Nelson Ogario, filed a complaint for injunction (Civil Case CEB-23077) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. In separate motions, the Bureau of Customs (BOC), Port of Cebu and the EIIB, as well as the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard, sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction, but their motions were denied in a resolution dated 11 January 1999. BOC and EIIB moved for a reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the RTC in its order dated 25 January 1999.

In the same order, the RTC also increased the amount of Ogario and Montelibano’s bond to P22,500,000.00. On certiorari to the Court of Appeals, the resolution and order of the RTC were sustained on 15 April 1999. Accordingly, on 26 April 1999, upon motion of Ogario, et. al., the RTC ordered the sheriff to place in their possession the 25,000 bags of rice. Meanwhile, in the forfeiture proceedings before the Collector of Customs of Cebu, a decision was rendered forfeiting the vessel M/V "Alberto"; the 25,000 bags of rice brand "Snowman"; and the two (2) trucks bearing Plates GCC 844 and GHZ 388 in favor of the government to be disposed of in the manner prescribed by law while releasing the 7 trucks bearing Plates GFX 557; GFX 247; TPV 726; GBY 874; GVE 989; and GDF 548 in favor of their respective owners upon proper identification and compliance with pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Montelibano did not take part in the proceedings before the District Collector of Customs despite due notice sent to his counsel because he refused to recognize the validity of the forfeiture proceedings On 30 April 1999, Ogario and Montelibano filed the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether the Regional Trial Courts are competent to pass upon the validity or regularity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs.

Held: Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial Courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. Under the law, the question of whether probable cause exists for the seizure of the subject sacks of rice is not for the Regional Trial Court to determine. The customs authorities do not have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the articles on board a vessel were imported from abroad or are intended to be shipped abroad before they may exercise the power to effect customs’ searches, seizures, or arrests provided by law and continue with the administrative hearings.