QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN POLITICAL LAW ANDPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAWPOLITICAL LAW1. Distinguish sovereignty from dominion. Held: Sovereignty is the right to eer!i"e the #$n!tion" o# % St%te tothee!l$"iono# %nyother St%te. It is oftenreferredtoas the&o'er o#imperium, which is defned as the government authority possessed y the !tate.Onthe other hand, do(inion, or do(ini$(, is the !%&%!ity o# the St%te to o'n or%!)$ire &ro&erty such as "ands and natura" resources. #!eparate Opinion, $apunan,%., in Isagani Cruz v. Secretary of DENR, &.'. (o. )*+*,+, -ec. ., /000, 1n 2anc,!ee 3ootnote ,.42. What was the basis for the early Spanish decrees embracing the theory of juraregalia? Is this also the basis of the declaration in Section 2 !rticle "II of the 1#$%&onstitution that all lands of the public domain are owned by the State?&onse'uently didSpainac'uiretitleover all landsinthe(hilippinesinthe1)thcentury?Held: Dominium was the asis for the ear"y !panish decrees emracing thetheory ofjura regalia.The dec"aration in !ection /, Artic"e 5II of the )6,7Constitution that a"" "ands of the pu"ic domain are owned y the !tate is "i8ewisefounded on dominium. If dominium, not imperium, is the asis of the theory of juraregalia, then the "ands which !pain ac9uired in the ). th century were "imited to non:private "ands, ecause it cou"d on"y ac9uire "ands which were not yet private"y:ownedor occupied y the 3i"ipinos.;ence, !pain ac9uired tit"e on"y over "ands which wereunoccupiedandunc"aimed,i.e., pu"ic "ands. #!eparateOpinion, $apunan, %., inIsagani Cruz v. Secretary of DENR &.'. (o. )*+*,+, -ec. ., /000, 1n 2anc, !ee3ootnote ,.4*. What is the Doctrine of &onstitutional Supremacy?Held: 0, ?)667@ ?2e""osi""o@4+. What are self,e-ecuting and non,self e-ecuting provisions of the &onstitution?Held:Provisions which l%y do'n % gener%l &rin!i&le, such as those foundin Artic"e II of the )6,7 Constitution, are usua""y not "el#-ee!$ting.2ut a provisionwhich is!o(&lete in it"el# %nd .e!o(e" o&er%tive 'itho$t the %id o#"$&&le(ent%ry or en%.ling legi"l%tion, or that which "$&&lie" "$/!ient r$le.y (e%n" o# 'hi!h the right it gr%nt" (%y .e en0oyed or &rote!ted, is "el#-ee!$ting.Thus a constitutiona" provision is se"f:e=ecuting if the nature and e=tentof the right conferred and the "iai"ity imposed are f=ed y the Constitution itse"f, sothat they can e determined y an e=amination and construction of its terms, andthereisno"anguageindicatingthat thesuAect isreferredtothe"egis"atureforaction.#Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS /.7 !C'A >0, ?)667@ ?2e""osi""o@4.. !re provisions of the &onstitution self,e-ecuting or non,self e-ecuting?Why?Held:Unle"" it i" e&re""ly &rovided th%t, % legi"l%tive %!t i"ne!e""%ry to en#or!e % !on"tit$tion%l (%nd%te, the presumption now is, that %ll&rovi"ion"%re"el#-ee!$ting. If theconstitutiona" provisions aretreatedasre9uiring "egis"ation instead of se"f:e=ecuting, the "egis"ature wou"d have the power toignoreandpractica""ynu""ifythemandateof thefundamenta" "aw. Thiscanecatac"ysmic.#Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS /.7 !C'A >0, ?)667@ ?2e""osi""o@4). Is the /0ilipino 0irst1 (olicy e-pressed in Section 12 !rticle "II of the &onstitutiona self,e-ecuting provision?Held: Bes. It is a (%nd%tory, &o"itive !o((%nd 'hi!h i" !o(&lete init"el# %nd 'hi!h need" no #$rther g$ideline" or i(&le(enting l%'" or r$le"#orit"en#or!e(ent. 3romitsverywords theprovisiondoes not re9uireany"egis"ation to put it in operation. It isper se 0$di!i%lly en#or!e%.le. When ourConstitutionmandates that3i4nthegrant of rights privileges andconcessionscoveringthenational economyandpatrimony theStateshall givepreferenceto'uali5ed 0ilipinos it means Aust that C 9ua"ifed 3i"ipinos must e preferred.#ManilaPrince Hotel v. GSIS &.'. (o. )),/6+, Day /, )667, /.7 !C'A >0, ?2e""osi""o@4%. 6ive e-amples of non,self e-ecuting provisions of the &onstitution.Held:2y its very nature, !rticle II of the Constitution is a Edec"aration ofprincip"es and state po"icies.FThese princip"es in Artic"e II are not intended to e se"f:e=ecuting princip"es ready for enforcement through the courts.They are used y theAudiciary as %id" or %" g$ide" in the eer!i"e o# it" &o'er o# 0$di!i%l revie',%nd .y the legi"l%t$re in it" en%!t(ent o# l%'".As he"d in the "eading case of"ilos#ayan Incorporate$v. Morato#/>.!C'A+>0, +.>, %u"y)7, )66+4, theprincip"es and state po"icies enumerated in Artic"e II and some sections of !rticle %IIare not Ese"f:e=ecuting provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause ofaction in courts.They do not emody Audicia""y enforcea"e constitutiona" rights utguide"ines for "egis"ation.F #&ana$av. !ngara/7/!C'A),?)667@, 1n2anc?Panganian@4$. When are acts of persons considered /State action1 covered by the &onstitution?Held:In constitutiona"Aurisprudence,the acts of persons distinct from thegovernment are considered Estate actionF covered y the Constitution 123 when the%!tivity it eng%ge" in i" % 4&$.li! #$n!tion56 173whenthegovernmentisso"igni8!%ntlyinvolved'iththe&riv%te%!tor%"to(%9ethegovern(entre"&on"i.le#or hi"%!tionG and1:3whenthegovernment has%&&rovedor%$thori;edthe%!tion. #ManilaPrinceHotel v. GSIS/.7!C'A>0,?)667@?2e""osi""o@4THE DOCTRINE O< STATE I==UNIT> , Darch)6, )66*, 1n2anc?Campos, %r.@412. State instances when a suit against the State is proper.Held:!ome instances when a suit against the !tate is proper areK)4 When the Re&$.li! i" "$ed .y n%(eG/4 When the suit is %g%in"t %n $nin!or&or%ted govern(ent %gen!yG*4 When the suit is on its face against a government oNcer ut the case issuch that $lti(%te li%.ility 'ill .elong not to the o/!er .$t to thegovern(ent.#Repu#lic v. San$oval, //0 !C'A )/>, Darch )6, )66*, 1n 2anc ?Campos, %r.@41*. 7asthegovernmentwaiveditsimmunityfromsuitintheAendiolamassacreand therefore shouldindemnifytheheirsandvictimsof theAendiolaincident?&onse'uently is the suit 5led against the 9epublic by petitioners in said case really asuit against the State?Held: Petitioners = = = advance the argument that the !tate has imp"ied"ywaiveditssovereignimmunityfromsuit. Itistheirconsideredviewthat ytherecommendation made y the Commission for the government to indemnify the heirsandvictimsof theDendio"aincident andythepu"icaddressesmadeythenPresident A9uino in the aftermath of the 8i""ings, the !tate has consented to e sued.5 = =Thi" i" not % "$it %g%in"t the St%te 'ith it" !on"ent.3irst"y, there!o((end%tionmade y the Commission regardingindemnifcation of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident y thegovernment doe" not in %ny '%y (e%n th%t li%.ility %$to(%ti!%lly %tt%!he" tothe St%te.It is important to note that A.O. )) e=press"y states that the purpose ofcreating the Commission was to have a ody that wi"" conduct an Einvestigation ofthe disorder, deaths and casua"ties that too8 p"ace.FIn the e=ercise of its functions,A.O. )) provides guide"ines, and what is re"evant to Our discussion readsKE). Itsconc"usionsregardingthee=istenceof proa"ecausefor thecommission of any oLense and of the persons proa"y gui"ty of the same sha""esuNcient comp"iancewiththeru"es onpre"iminaryinvestigationandthecharges arising therefrom may e f"ed direct"y with the proper court.FIn eLect,'h%tever (%y .e the 8nding" o# the Co((i""ion, the "%(e"h%ll only "erve %" the !%$"e o# %!tion, in the event that any party decides to"itigate hisOher c"aim. Therefore, the Commission is mere"y a &reli(in%ry ven$e.4The Commission is not the end in itse"f.Wh%tever re!o((end%tion it (%9e"!%nnot in %ny '%y .ind the St%te i((edi%tely, "$!h re!o((end%tion noth%ving .e!o(e 8n%l %nd ee!$tory+Thi" i" &re!i"ely the e""en!e o# it .eing% . 2ased on the Commission fndings,there'%" l%!9 o#0$"ti8!%tion .y the govern(ent #or!e" in the $"e o# 8re%r(".Doreover, thememers of the po"ice and mi"itary crowd dispersa" units committed a prohiited actunder 2.P. 2"g. ,,0as therewas unnecessaryfringythemindispersingthemarchers.As ear"y as )6+>, this Court has pronounced that %n o/!er !%nnot "helterhi("el# .y the &le% th%t he i" % &$.li! %gent %!ting $nder the !olor o# hi"o/!e'henhi"%!t"%re'holly'itho$t %$thority+ in (apierTerrace, 2roome, Western Austra"ia, to the spouses, Te"esforo Basco, a 3i"ipino citiMenand native of -aet, Camarines (orte, and Theresa Dar9ueM, an Austra"ian.;istorica""y, this was a year efore the )6*+ Constitution too8 into eLect and at thattime, what served as the Constitution of the Phi"ippines were the principa"organicacts y which the enship?Discuss. Held: There are two ways of ac9uiring citiMenshipK #)4 .y .irth, and #/4 yn%t$r%li;%tion.These ways of ac9uiring citiMenship correspond to the two 8inds ofcitiMensK the natura":orn citiMen, and the natura"iMed citiMen. A person, who at thetime of his irth is a citiMen of a particu"ar country, is a natura":orn citiMen thereof.As defned in the = = = Constitution, natura":orn citiMens Eare those citiMens ofthe Phi"ippines from irth without having to perform any act to ac9uire or perfect hisPhi"ippine citiMenship.F On the other hand, natura"iMed citiMens are those who have ecome 3i"ipinocitiMens through natura"iMation, genera""y underCommon(ealt)!ct No. 4,*,otherwise 8nown as the Revise$ Naturalization 'a(, which repea"ed the former(atura"iMation Law #Act (o. /6/74, and y Repu#lic !ct No. 5*-.#!ntonio6engson III v. HRE&, &.'. (o. )>/,>0, Day 7, /00), 1n 2anc ?$apunan@41). ed what must anapplicant prove?Whenandwhat aretheconditions before the decision granting (hilippine citi>enship becomes e-ecutory?Held:To e natura"iMed, an app"icant has to prove that he &o""e""e" %ll the)$%li8!%tion" %nd none o# the di")$%li8!%tion"provided y "aw to ecome a63i"ipino citiMen.The decision granting Phi"ippine citiMenship ecomes e=ecutory on"yafter two #/4 years from its promu"gation when the court is satisfed that during theintervening period, the app"icant has123not le#t the Phili&&ine"G173hasdedi!%ted hi("el# to % l%'#$l !%lling or &ro#e""ionG1:3hasnot .een!onvi!ted o# %ny o*en"e or viol%tion o# govern(ent &ro($lg%ted r$le"G or1H3 !o((itted %ny %!t &re0$di!i%l to the intere"t o# the n%tion or !ontr%ry to%ny govern(ent %nno$n!ed &oli!ie" =Section 1 9.!. .*2@.#!ntonio 6engsonIII v. HRE&, &.'. (o. )>/,>0, Day 7, /00), 1n 2anc ?$apunan@41%. What DF!BI0I&!ation?Held:Section +, !ct 4,* provides the fo""owing DF!BI0I&!/,>0, Day 7, /00), 1n 2anc ?$apunan@41$. What are the DISDF!BI0I&!ation?Held:Section 4 !ct 4,*, provides the fo""owing DISDF!BI0I&!enship Aay He Bost or 9eac'uired ?)6*.@4.enship andtherefore'uali5ed to run for &ongressman?Held: 98(!edin accordance with "aw.A !iti;en 'ho i" not % n%t$r%li;ed enship dis'uali5ed to runfor elective local positions under Section +2=d@ of the Bocal 6overnment &ode?11Held: In inc"uding Section 5 in !rticle I2 on citiMenship,the !on!ern o#the Con"tit$tion%l Co((i""ion '%"not 'ith d$%l !iti;en" &er "e .$t 'ithn%t$r%li;ed!iti;en" 'ho(%int%intheir %llegi%n!etotheir !o$ntrie" o#origin even %#ter their n%t$r%li;%tion.;ence, the phrase Ed$%l !iti;en"hi&5 inR+A+ No+ I2LM, Se!tion HM1d3 1Lo!%l Aovern(ent Code3 ($"t .e $nder"tood%" re#erring to 4d$%l %llegi%n!e.F Conse9uent"y, persons with mere dua"citiMenship do not fa"" under this dis9ua"ifcation. FnliEe those with dual allegiancewho must - - - be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of theirstatus for candidates with dual citi>enship it should suCce if upon the 5ling of theircerti5cate of candidacy they elect (hilippine citi>enship to terminate their status aspersons withdual citi>enshipconsideringthat their conditionistheunavoidableconse'uence of conJicting laws of di?erent states.By ele!ting Phili&&ine !iti;en"hi&, "$!h !%ndid%te" %t the "%(e ti(e#or"'e%r %llegi%n!e to the other !o$ntry o# 'hi!h they %re %l"o !iti;en" %ndthere.y ter(in%te their "t%t$" %" d$%l !iti;en".It may e that, from the pointof view of the foreign state and of its "aws,such anindividua" has not eLective"yrenounced his foreign citiMenship. That is of no moment. #Merca$o v. Manzano,&.'. (o. )*+0,*, *07 !C'A .*0, Day /., )666 ?DendoMa@42$. &iteinstanceswhenaciti>enof the(hilippinesmaypossessdual citi>enshipconsidering the citi>enship clause =!rticle II@ of the &onstitution.Held:)4 Those .orn o# )!C'A /6/ ?)67)@4.;e insists that the same issue of citiMenship may e threshed outanew.Petitioner is correct insofar as the genera" ru"e is concerned, i.e. the princip"eof res judicata genera""y does not app"y in cases hinging on the issue of citiMenship.;owever, in the case of 6urca v. Repu#lic #+) !C'A />, ?)67*@4, an e!e&tion tothis genera" ru"e was recogniMed.The Court ru"ed in that case that in order that thedoctrine of res judicata may e app"ied in cases of citiMenship, the fo""owing must epresentK)4 a personPs !iti;en"hi& .e r%i"ed %" % (%teri%l i""$e in % !ontrover"y'here "%id &er"on i" % &%rtyG/4 the Soli!itor Aener%l or hi" %$thori;ed re&re"ent%tive too9 %!tive&%rt in the re"ol$tion thereof, and*4 the 8nding on !iti;en"hi& i" %/r(ed .y thi" Co$rt.A"though the genera"ru"e was set forth in the case ofAoy Ka Bim Kaothecase did not forec"ose the weight of prior ru"ings on citiMenship. It e"ucidated thatre"iance may somehow e p"aced on these antecedent oNcia" fndings, though notrea""y inding, to ma8e the eLort easier or simp"er.#2alles v. C3ME'EC, **7!C'A +>*, Aug. 6, /000, 1n 2anc ?Purisima@4CIKILIAN SUPRE=AC> CLAUSE12*2. @,Artic"e 5II of the Constitution.In this regard, it is not correct to say that &enera" Ange"o 'eyes, Chief of !taLof the A3P, y his a""eged invo"vement in civi"ian "aw enforcement, has een virtua""yappointedtoacivi"ianpost inderogationof theaforecitedprovision.There%l%$thority in the"e o&er%tion", %" "t%ted in the LOI, i" lodged 'ith the he%do# % !ivili%n in"tit$tion, the PNP, %nd not 'ith the (ilit%ry+S$!h .eing the!%"e, it doe" not (%tter 'hether the A./+, Aug. *), )666, /nd -iv. ?DendoMa@4*+. What are the essential freedoms subsumed in the term /academic freedom1?Held: In !teneo $e Manila /niversity v. Capulong#&.'. (o. 66*/7, /7Day)66*4, thisCourt citedwithapprova" theformu"ationmadey%ustice3e"i=3ran8furter of theessentia" freedomssusumedinthetermEacademicfreedomFencompassing not only 4the #reedo( to deter(ineon %!%de(i! gro$nd"'ho(%yte%!h, 'h%t(%y.et%$ght1%nd3ho'it"h%ll .et%$ght,5.$tli9e'i"e4'ho(%y.e%d(ittedto"t$dy+5Weh%veth$""%n!tionedit"invo!%tion .y % "!hool in re0e!ting "t$dent" 'ho %re %!%de(i!%llydelin)$ent#&angonan v. Pano)*7 !C'A />+ ?)6,+@4,or % l%y'o(%n "ee9ing%d(i""ion to % "e(in%ry #Garcia v. 'oyola Sc)ool of &)eology, ., !C'A /77?)67+@4,or stu$ents violating CSc)ool Rules on Discipline.F #!teneo $eManila /niversity v. Capulong supra.4#Isa#elo 1r. v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal Inc., //7 !C'A +6+:+67, (ov. ,,)66*, 1n 2anc ?Iitug@4ECONO=IC POLIC>*.. Does the &onstitutional policy of a /self,reliant and independent nationaleconomy1 rule out foreign competition?Held:Theconstitutiona" po"icyof aEse"f:re"iantandindependentnationa"economyFdoe"notne!e""%rilyr$leo$ttheentryo##oreigninve"t(ent",good"%nd"ervi!e"+ It !onte(&l%te"neither 4e!ono(i!"e!l$"ion5nor4(endi!%n!y in the intern%tion%l !o(($nity.F Aside from envisioning atr%de &oli!y .%"ed on 4e)$%lity %ndre!i&ro!ity,5 the #$nd%(ent%l l%' en!o$r%ge" ind$"trie" th%t %re4!o(&etitive in .oth do(e"ti! %nd #oreign (%r9et",5 there.yde(on"tr%ting % !le%r &oli!y %g%in"t % "heltered do(e"ti! tr%deenviron(ent, .$t one in #%vor o# the gr%d$%l develo&(ent o# ro.$"tind$"trie" th%t !%n !o(&ete 'ith the .e"t in the #oreign (%r9et".#&ana$a v. !ngara, /7/ !C'A ), ?)667@4THE RIAHTS O< INDIAENOUS CULTURAL CO==UNITIESDINDIAENOUSPEOPLES15*). 8numeratethe&onstitutional provisionsrecogni>ingandprotectingtherightsand interests of the indigenous peoples.Held:The framers of the )6,7 Constitution, "oo8ing ac8 to the "ongdestitutionof our "essfortunaterothers, ftting"ysawthehistoricopportunitytoactua"iMetheidea"sof peop"eempowerment andsocia" Austice, andtoreachoutparticu"ar"y to the margina"iMed sectors of society, inc"uding the indigenous peop"es.They incorporated in the fundamenta" "awsevera" provisions recogniMing andprotecting the rights and interests of the indigenous peop"es, to witKSection ++. The !tate recogniMes and promotes the rights ofindigenous peop"es within the framewor8 of nationa" unity and deve"opment.=!rticle II of the &onstitution entitled State (rinciples and (olicies@Section 5. The !tate, suAect to the provisions of the Constitution andnationa" deve"opment po"icies and programs, sha"" protect the rights ofindigenous cu"tura" communities to their ancestra" "ands to ensure theireconomic, socia", and cu"tura" we"":eing.TheCongress may provide for theapp"icai"ity of customary "awsgoverningpropertyrights andre"ations indeterminingtheownershipande=tent of ancestra" domains. =!rticle %II of the &onstitution entitled ;ational8conomy and (atrimony@Section 7. The Congress sha"" give the highest priority to theenactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of a"" the peop"e tohuman dignity, reduce socia", economic and po"itica" ine9ua"ities, and removecu"tura" ine9ua"ities y e9uita"y diLusing wea"th and po"itica" power for thecommon good.To this end, the !tate sha"" regu"ate the ac9uisition, ownership, use anddisposition of property and its increments.=!rticle %IIIof the &onstitutionentitled Social Nustice and 7uman 9ights@Section ;. The !tate sha"" app"y the princip"es of agrarian reform orstewardship,whenever app"ica"e in accordance with "aw, in the dispositionand uti"iMation of other natura" resources, inc"uding "ands of the pu"ic domainunder "ease or concession, suAect to prior rights, homestead rights of sma""sett"ers, andtherightsof indigenouscommunitiestotheirancestra" "ands.=I#i$.@Section 7,. The !tate sha"" recogniMe, respect, and protect the rightsof cu"tura" communities to preserve and deve"op their cu"tures, traditions, andinstitutions.It sha"" consider these rights in the formu"ation of nationa" p"ansandpo"icies. =!rticle %I2 ofthe &onstitution entitled8ducation Science7+,6, %une /., /00), 1n 2anc ?Panganian@4+$. !re political parties P even the major ones P prohibited from participating in theparty,list elections?Held:7+,6, %une /., /00), 1n 2anc ?Panganian@4+#. Who are the marginali>ed and underrepresented sectors to be represented underthe party,list system?Held:Themargina"iMedandunderrepresentedsectorstoerepresentedunder the party:"ist system are enumerated in Section 5 of R! ,:47 = = =.Whi"e the enumeration of margina"iMed and underrepresented sectors is note!l$"ive, it demonstrates the !le%r intent o# the l%' th%t not %ll "e!tor" !%n.e re&re"ented $nder the &%rty-li"t "y"te(.5 = =?W@e stress that the party:"ist system see8s to ena"e certain 3i"ipino citiMens Cspecifca""ythosee"ongingto(%rgin%li;ed%nd$nderre&re"ented"e!tor",org%ni;%tion" %nd &%rtie"C to e e"ected to the ;ouse of 'epresentatives. Theassertion = = = that the party:"ist system is not e=c"usive to the margina"iMed andunderrepresented disregards the c"ear statutory po"icy.Its c"aim that even the super:rich and overrepresented can participate desecrates the spirit of the party:"istsystem.Indeed, thel%'!r%#tedto%ddre"" the&e!$li%r di"%dv%nt%geo#P%y%t%" hovel d'eller" !%nnot .e %&&ro&ri%ted .y the (%n"ion o'ner" o#), thenomineesmuste3i"ipinocitiMensEwhoe"ongtomargina"iMedandunderrepresentedsectors, organiMationsandparties.FS$rely, the intere"t" o# the yo$th !%nnot .e #$lly re&re"ented .y % retiree6neither !%n tho"e o# the $r.%n &oor or the 'or9ing !l%"", .y %nind$"tri%li"t+ To%llo'other'i"ei" to.etr%y theSt%te&oli!ytogivegen$ine re&re"ent%tion to the (%rgin%li;ed %nd $nderre&re"ented.251I&;T;, = = = whi"e "ac8ing a we"":defned po"itica" constituency,theno(inee ($"t li9e'i"e .e %.le to !ontri.$te to the #or($l%tion %nden%!t(ent o# %&&ro&ri%te legi"l%tion th%t 'ill .ene8t the n%tion %" % 'hole.= = = #!ng 6agong 6ayani G 3=B 'a#or Party v. C3ME'EC, &.'. (o. )>7+,6,%une /., /00), 1n 2anc ?Panganian@4.*. !ccused,appellant &ongressman9omeo6. Nalosjos5ledamotionbeforethe&ourt asEingthat hebeallowedtofullydischargethedutiesof a&ongressmanincludingattendanceat legislativesessions andcommitteemeetings despitehishaving been convicted in the 5rst instance of a non,bailable o?ense.7e contendedthat his reelection being an e-pression of popular will cannot be rendered inutile byany ruling giving priority to any right or interest P not even the police power of theState.9esolve.Held: The i(($nity #ro(%rre"t or detention o# Sen%tor" %nd(e(.er" o# the Ho$"e o# Re&re"ent%tive"%ri"e" #ro( % &rovi"ion o#the Con"tit$tion.The history of the provision shows that the privi"ege has a"wayseen granted in a restrictive sense.The provision granting an e=emption as a specia"privi"ege cannot e e=tended eyond the ordinary meaning of its terms.It may note e=tended y intendment, imp"ication or e9uita"e considerations.The )6*+ Constitution provided in its Artic"e II on the Legis"ative -epartmentK!ec. )+. The !enators and Demers of the ;ouse of 'epresentativessha"" in a"" cases e=cept treason, fe"ony, and reach of the peace, eprivi"egedfromarrestduringtheirattendanceatthesessionsof Congress,and in going to and returning from the sameG = = =.2ecause of the road coverage of fe"ony and reach of thepeace, thee=emption app"ied on"y to civi" arrests. A congressman "i8e the accused:appe""ant,convicted under Tit"e 1"even of the 'evised Pena" Code cou"d not c"aim par"iamentaryimmunityfromarrest. ;ewas suAect tothesamegenera" "aws governinga""persons sti"" to e tried or whose convictions were pending appea".The )67* Constitution roadened the privi"ege of immunity as fo""owsKArtic"e IIII, !ec. 6. A Demer of the 2atasang Pamansa sha"", in a""oLenses punisha"e y not more than si= years imprisonment, e privi"egedfrom arrest during his attendance at its sessions and in going to and returningfrom the same.3or oLenses punisha"e y more than si= years imprisonment, there was noimmunity from arrest. The restrictive interpretation of immunity and the intent toconfne it within carefu""y defned parameters is i""ustrated y the conc"uding portionof the provision, to witK5 = = ut the 2atasang Pamansa sha"" surrender the memer invo"vedto the custody of the "aw within twenty four hours after its adAournment for arecessor forits ne=t session,otherwisesuch privi"egesha""ceaseupon itsfai"ure to do so.Thepresent Constitution adheres to thesame restrictiveru"eminus theo"igation of Congress to surrender the suAect Congressman to the custody of the"aw. The re9uirement that he shou"d e attending sessions or committee meetingshas a"so een removed.3or re"ative"y minor oLenses, it is enough that Congress is insession.The accused:appe""ant argues that a memer of CongressP function to attendsessions is underscored y !ection ).#/4, Artic"e II of the Constitution which statesthat C#/4 A maAority of each ;ouse sha"" constitute a 9uorum to do usiness,ut asma""er numer mayadAournfromdaytodayandmaycompe" theattendance of asent Demers in such manner, and under such pena"ties, assuch ;ouse may provide.26;owever, the accused:appe""ant has not given any reason why he shou"d ee=emptedfromtheoperationof !ection)), Artic"eII of theConstitution.The(e(.er" o# Congre"" !%nnot !o(&el %."ent (e(.er" to %ttend "e""ion" i#there%"on#or the%."en!ei"%legiti(%teone+ The!on8ne(ent o# %Congre""(%n!h%rged'ith%!ri(e&$ni"h%.le.yi(&ri"on(ento#(oreth%n "i ye%r" i" not (erely %$thori;ed .y l%', it h%" !on"tit$tion%l#o$nd%tion".Accused:appe""antPs re"iance on the ru"ing in !guinal$o v. Santos #/)/ !C'A7.,, at 77* ?)66/@4, which states, inter alia that CThe Court shou"d never remove a pu"ic oNcer for acts done prior tohis present term of oNce.To do otherwise wou"d e to deprive the peop"e oftheirrighttoe"ecttheir oNcers. Whenthepeop"ehavee"ectedaman tooNce, it must e assumed that they did this with the 8now"edge of his "ife andcharacter, and that they disregarded or forgave his fau"t or misconduct, if hehadeengui"tyof any. ItisnotfortheCourt, yreasonof suchfau"tormisconduct, to practica""y overru"e the wi"" of the peop"e.wi"" not e=tricate him from his predicament.It !%n .e re%dily "eenth%t theAg$in%ldo !%"e involve" the %d(ini"tr%tive re(ov%l o# % &$.li! o/!er #or%!t" donePRIOR tohi" &re"ent ter(o# o/!e+ It doe" not %&&ly toi(&ri"on(ent %ri"ing #ro( the en#or!e(ent o# !ri(in%l l%'+ =oreover, inthe"%(e'%y th%t &reventive"$"&en"ioni" not re(ov%l, !on8ne(ent&ending %&&e%l i" not re(ov%l+He re(%in" % Congre""(%n $nle"" e&elled.y Congre"" or, other'i"e, di")$%li8ed.One r%tion%le .ehind !on8ne(ent, 'hether &ending %&&e%l or %#ter8n%l !onvi!tion, i" &$.li! "el#-de#en"e+So!iety ($"t &rote!t it"el#+It %l"o"erve" %" %n e%(&le %nd '%rning to other" .A &er"on !h%rged 'ith !ri(e i" t%9en into !$"tody #or &$r&o"e" o# the%d(ini"tr%tion o# 0$"ti!e. As stated in /nite$ States v. Gustilo #)6 Phi". /0,,/)/4, it i" the in0$ry to the &$.li! 'hi!h St%te %!tion in !ri(in%l l%' "ee9" toredre""+ Iti" notthe in0$ryto the!o(&l%in%nt+A#ter !onvi!tion in theRegion%l Tri%l Co$rt, the %!!$"ed (%y .e denied .%il %nd th$" "$.0e!ted toin!%r!er%tion i# there i" ri"9 o# hi" %."!onding.The accused:appe""ant states that the p"ea of the e"ectorate which voted himinto oNce cannot e supp"anted y unfounded fears that he might escape eventua"punishment if permitted to perform congressiona" duties outside his regu"ar p"ace ofconfnement.It wi"" ereca""edthat whenawarrant for accused:appe""antPsarrest wasissued, he Hed and evaded capture despite a ca"" from his co""eagues in the ;ouse of'epresentatives for himto attendthe sessionsand tosurrender vo"untari"y totheauthorities.Ironica""y, it is now the same ody whose ca"" he initia""y spurned whichaccused:appe""ant is invo8ing to Austify his present motion. This can not ecountenanced ecause, = = = aside fromits eing contrary to we"":defnedConstitutiona" restrainsG it wou"deamoc8eryof theaimsof the!tatePspena"system.Accused:appe""ant argues that on severa" occasions, the 'egiona" Tria" Courtof Da8ati granted severa" motions to temporari"y "eave his ce"" at the Da8ati City %ai",for oNcia" or medica" reasons = = =.;ea"soca""sattentiontovariousinstances, after histransfer at the(ew2i"iid Prison in Duntin"upa City, when he was "i8ewise a""owedOpermitted to "eave theprison premises = = =.There i" no "ho'ing th%t the %.ove &rivilege" %re &e!$li%r to hi( orto % (e(.er o# Congre""+E(ergen!y or !o(&elling te(&or%ry le%ve" #ro(i(&ri"on(ent %re %llo'ed to %ll &ri"oner", %t the di"!retion o# the%$thoritie" or $&on !o$rt order".27Wh%tthe%!!$"ed-%&&ell%nt"ee9"i"noto# %ne(ergen!yn%t$re+Allo'ing %!!$"ed-%&&ell%nt to %ttend !ongre""ion%l "e""ion" %nd!o((ittee (eeting" #or 8ve 1J3 d%y" or (ore in % 'ee9 'ill virt$%lly (%9ehi( % #ree (%n 'ith %ll the &rivilege" %&&$rten%nt to hi" &o"ition+S$!h %n%.err%nt "it$%tion not only elev%te" %!!$"ed-%&&ell%ntG" "t%t$" to th%t o# %"&e!i%l !l%"", it %l"o 'o$ld .e % (o!9ery o# the &$r&o"e" o# the !orre!tion"y"te(.5 = =The accused:appe""ant avers that his constituents inthe 3irst -istrict ofRamoanga de" (orte want their voices to e heard and that since he is treated asbona5dememer of the;ouseof 'epresentatives, the"atter urgesaco:e9ua"ranch of government to respect his mandate. ;e a"so c"aims that the concept oftemporary detention does not necessari"y curtai" his duty to discharge his mandateand that he has a"ways comp"ied with the conditionsOrestrictions when he is a""owedto "eave Aai".We remain unpersuaded.5 = =Whenthevoter" o# hi" di"tri!t ele!tedthe%!!$"ed-%&&ell%nt toCongre"", they did "o 'ith #$ll %'%rene"" o# the li(it%tion" on hi" #reedo(o# %!tion+They did "o 'ith the 9no'ledge th%t he !o$ld %!hieve only "$!hlegi"l%tive re"$lt" 'hi!h he !o$ld %!!o(&li"h 'ithin the !on8ne" o# &ri"on+To give % (ore dr%"ti! ill$"tr%tion, i# voter" ele!t % &er"on 'ith #$ll9no'ledge th%t he i" "$*ering #ro( % ter(in%l illne"", they do "o 9no'ingth%t %t %ny ti(e, he (%y no longer "erve hi" #$ll ter(in o/!e.#People v. 1alos0os, */> !C'A .,6, 3e. *, /000, 1n 2anc ?Bnares:!antiago@4.+. Discuss the objectives of Section 2)=1@ !rticle II of the 1#$% &onstitution thatL3e4very bill passed by the &ongress shall embrace only one subject which shall bee-pressed in the title thereof.LHeld:The oAectives ofSection +;879,!rticle 2Iof the7:.,Constitution areK)4 To &revent hodge-&odge or log-rolling legi"l%tionG/4 To&revent "$r&ri"eor #r%$d$&onthelegi"l%t$rey means ofprovisions in i""s of which the tit"es gave no information, and which mighttherefore e over"oo8ed and care"ess"y and unintentiona""y adoptedG and*4 To #%irly %&&ri"e the &eo&le, thro$gh "$!h &$.li!%tion o# legi"l%tive&ro!eeding" %" i" $"$%lly (%de, of the suAects of "egis"ation that areeing considered, in order that they may have opportunity of eing heardthereon y petition or otherwise if they sha"" so desire. !ection /.#)4 of Artic"e II of the )6,7 Constitution is suNcient"y comp"ied withwhere===thetitlei" CO=PREHENSIKE eno$ghtoe(.r%!ethegener%lo.0e!tive it "ee9" to %!hieve, %nd i# %ll the &%rt" o# the "t%t$te %reRELATED%nd AER=ANEto the "$.0e!t (%tter e(.odied in the title or "o long %" the"%(e%reNOTINCONSISTENT 'ithor#oreigntothegener%l "$.0e!t%ndtitle. #!gripino !. De Guzman 1r. et al. v. C3ME'EC, &.'. (o. )/6)),, %u"y )6,/000, en 2anc ?Purisima@4... Section ++ of 9.!. ;o. $1$# =, )667 ?DendoMa@4.#. When should the Begislative Nournal be regarded as conclusive upon the courts and why?Held: The Po$rn%l i" reg%rded %" !on!l$"ive 'ith re"&e!t to (%tter"th%t %re re)$ired .y the Con"tit$tion to .e re!orded therein+With re"&e!tto other (%tter", in the %."en!e o# eviden!e to the !ontr%ry, the Po$rn%l"h%ve %l"o .een %!!orded !on!l$"ive e*e!t". Thus, in /nite$ States v. Pons#*> Phi". 7/6, 7*+ ?)6).@@, 'uoting e- rel. 7erron v. Smith, >> Ohio *>, ?),,.@4, thisCourt spo8e of the i(&er%tive" o# &$.li! &oli!y #or reg%rding the Po$rn%l" %"4&$.li! (e(ori%l" o# the (o"t &er(%nent !h%r%!ter,5 th$": 4They "ho$ld .e&$.li!, .e!%$"e %ll %re re)$ired to !on#or(to the(6 they "ho$ld .e&er(%nent, th%tright"%!)$iredtod%y$&onthe#%itho# 'h%t h%".eende!l%redto.el%'"h%ll not.ede"troyedto(orro', or%t"o(ere(ote&eriod o# ti(e, .y #%!t" re"ting only in the (e(ory o# individ$%l".F5 = =. #!rroyo v. De 2enecia, /77 !C'A /.,, Aug. )>, )667 ?DendoMa@430)2. What matters are re'uired to be entered on the Nournal?Held:)4 The ye%" %nd n%y" on the third %nd 8n%l re%dingof a i"" #Art+ KI,Se!+ 7L?7@4G/4 The ye%" %nd n%y" on %ny )$e"tion, %t the re)$e"t o# one-8#th o#the (e(.er" &re"ent #Id., Se!+ 2L?H@4G*4 The ye%" %nd n%y" $&on re&%""ing % .ill over the Pre"identG" veto#Id., Se!+ 7I?2@4G and>4 The Pre"identG" o.0e!tion to % .ill he h%d vetoed #Id.4.#!rroyo v. De 2enecia, /77 !C'A /.,, Aug. )>, )667 ?DendoMa@4)1. ! dis'uali5cation case was 5led against a candidate for &ongressman before theelectionwiththe&:A8B8&. . a""ows the app"ication of the provisions of !ection . to31cases invo"ving dis9ua"ifcation ased on ine"igii"ity under !ection 7, of 2P. 2"g. ,,).5 = =. #!Huino v. C3ME'EC, />, !C'A >00, !ept. ),, )66+, 1n 2anc ?$apunan, %.@4/. As to the ;ouse of 'epresentatives 1"ectora" Triuna"Ps supposedassumption of Aurisdiction over the issue of petitionerPs 9ua"ifcations after the Day ,,)66+ e"ections, suNce it to say that HRETG" 0$ri"di!tion %" the "ole 0$dge o# %ll!onte"t" rel%ting to the ele!tion", ret$rn" %nd )$%li8!%tion" o# (e(.er" o#Congre"" .egin" only %#ter % !%ndid%te h%" .e!o(e % (e(.er o# the Ho$"eo# Re&re"ent%tive" #!rt. II Sec. 1% 1#$% &onstitution4. Petitioner not .eing %(e(.er o# the Ho$"e o# Re&re"ent%tive", it i" o.vio$" th%t the HRET %t thi"&oint h%" no 0$ri"di!tion over the )$e"tion. #Romual$ezFMarcos v.C3ME'EC, />, !C'A *00, !ept. ),, )66+, 1n 2anc ?$apunan, %.@4)2. Will the rule be the same if that candidate wins and was proclaimed winner andalready assumed oCce as &ongressman?Held:Whi"e the COD1L1C is vested with the power to dec"are va"id or inva"ida certifcate of candidacy, its refusa" to e=ercise that power fo""owing theproc"amationandassumptionof thepositiony3arinas is arecognitionof theAurisdictiona"oundaries separating the COD1L1C and the 1"ectora"Triuna"of the;ouse of 'epresentatives #;'1T4. R E= = =.A!tion $&on i(&ort%nt (%tter" o# "t%tedel%yed6 the ti(e %nd "$."t%n!e o# the !hie# ee!$tive "&ent in 'r%nglinglitig%tion6 di"re"&e!t engendered#or the&er"ono# oneo# thehighe"to/!i%l" o# the St%te %nd #or the o/!e he o!!$&ie"6 % tenden!y to $nre"t%nd di"order6 re"$lting in% '%y, in % di"tr$"t %" to the integrity o#govern(ent it"el#.FOur 1#*. &onstitution too8 eLect ut it did not contain any speci5c provisionon e-ecutive immunity.Then came the tumu"t of the martia" "aw years under the"ate President 3erdinand 1. Darcos and the )67* Constitution was orn. In )6,), itwas amended and one of the amendments involved e-ecutive immunity.!ection )7,Artic"e III statedK34EThe President sha"" e immune from suit during his tenure.Thereafter, nosuitwhatsoeversha"" "ieforoNcia" actsdoneyhimoryothers pursuant to his specifc orders during his tenure.The immunities herein provided sha"" app"y to the incument Presidentreferred to in Artic"e 5III of this Constitution.FIn his second Iicente &. !inco Professoria" Chair Lecture entit"ed, EPresidentia"Immunity And A"" The $ingPs DenK The Law Of Privi"ege As A -efense To Actions 3or-amages,F #./ Phi". L.%. ))* ?)6,7@4 petitionerPs "earned counse", former -ean of theOND +Con"idering the &e!$li%r !ir!$("t%n!e th%t the i(&e%!h(ent&ro!e"" %g%in"t the &etitioner h%" .een %.orted %nd there%#ter he lo"t the&re"iden!y, &etitioner E"tr%d% !%nnot de(%nd %" % !ondition "ine )$% nonto hi" !ri(in%l &ro"e!$tion .e#ore the O(.$d"(%n th%t he .e !onvi!ted inthe i(&e%!h(ent &ro!eeding".#Estra$a v. Desierto, &.'. (os. )>.7)0:)+, Dar. /, /00), en 2anc ?Puno@435 )%. State the reason why not all appointments made by the (resident under the 1#$%&onstitution will no longer re'uire con5rmation by the &ommission on !ppointments.Held:The aforecited provision =Section 1) !rticle III@ of the Constitution haseenthesuAect of severa" casesontheissueof therestrictivefunctionof theCommission on Appointments with respect to the appointing power of the President.This Court touched upon the historica" antecedent of the said provision in the case ofSarmiento III v. Aison #)+. !C'A +>64 in which it was ratiocinated upon that Section7;of!rticle 2IIof the7:., Constitutionre9uiring confrmation y theCommission on Appointments of certain appointments issued y the President!onte(&l%te" % "y"te( o# !he!9" %nd .%l%n!e" .et'een the ee!$tive %ndlegi"l%tive .r%n!he" o# govern(ent . E&erien!e "ho'ed th%t 'hen %l(o"t%ll&re"identi%l %&&oint(ent" re)$ired the !on"ent o# the Co((i""ion onA&&oint(ent", %" '%" the !%"e $nder the 2F:J Con"tit$tion, the!o((i""ion.e!%(e%ven$eo#Rhor"e tr%dingR%nd"i(il%r(%l&r%!ti!e"+Onthe other h%nd, &l%!ing%."ol$te &o'erto (%9e %&&oint(ent" in thePre"ident 'ithh%rdly%ny!he!9.ythelegi"l%t$re, %" 'h%t h%&&ened$nder the2FI:Con"tit$tion, le%d" to%.$"eo# "$!h&o'er. Thus wasperceivedtheneedtoesta"ishaQmidd"egroundQ etweenthe)6*+and)67*Constitutions.The framers of the )6,7 Constitution deemed it imperative to suAectcertain high positions in the government to the power of confrmation of theCommission onAppointments and to a""owother positions withinthee=c"usiveappointingpowerof thePresident.#Manalov. Sistoza, *)/!C'A/*6, Aug. )),)666, 1n 2anc ?Purisima@4)$. 8numerate the groups of oCcers who are to be appointed by the (resident underSection1) !rticleIII of the1#$%&onstitution andidentifythoseoCcerswhoseappointments shall re'uire con5rmation by the &ommission on !ppointments.Held:Conforma"y, as consistent"y interpreted and ru"ed in the "eading caseof !armientoIII v. Aison =Ibid.@and in the suse9uent cases ofHautista v. Salonga#)7/!C'A).04,Duintos,Delesv. &onstitutional &ommission#)77!C'A/+64, and&alderon v. &arale #/0, !C'A /+>4, under !ection )., Artic"e III, of the Constitution,there are four groups of oNcers of the government to e appointed y the PresidentK3I'!T, thehe%d"o#theee!$tive de&%rt(ent",%(.%""%dor",other &$.li! (ini"ter" %nd !on"$l", o/!er" o# the %r(ed #or!e" #ro(the r%n9 o# !olonel or n%v%l !%&t%in, %nd other o/!er" 'ho"e%&&oint(ent" %re ve"ted in hi( in thi" Con"tit$tionG!1CO(-,%ll other o/!er" o# the Aovern(ent 'ho"e%&&oint(ent" %re not other'i"e &rovided #or .y l%'GT;I'-, tho"e 'ho( the Pre"ident (%y .eAUTHORICED B> LAWto %&&ointG3Oa was appointed Director6eneral of the (;( but he refused to submit his appointment papers to the&ommission on !ppointments for con5rmation contending that his appointment shallnolongerre'uirecon5rmationdespitethee-pressprovisionof thelawre'uiringsuch con5rmation.Should his contention be upheld?36Held:It i" 'ell-"ettled th%t only &re"identi%l %&&ointee" .elonging tothe 8r"t gro$& 1en$(er%ted $nder the 8r"t "enten!e o# Se!tion 2L, Arti!leKII o# the 2FEI Con"tit$tion3 re)$ire the !on8r(%tion .y the Co((i""ion onA&&oint(ent".The appointmentsof respondentoNcers, whoare notwithin thefrst category, need not e confrmed y the Commission on Appointments.As he"din the case of , Aug. )+, /000, 1n 2anc?$apunan@4%$. What is an Lactual case or controversyL?Held: An Q!&ation of the (hilippineAarines to assist the (hilippine ;ational (olice =(;(@ in law enforcement by joiningthe latter in visibility patrols around the metropolis.)/,>, Aug. )+, /000, 1n 2anc?$apunan@4$2. &onsidering the lacE of re'uisite standing of the IH( to 5le the petition'uestioningthevalidityof theorder of the(resident todeployandutili>ethe(hilippine Aarines to assist the (;( in law enforcement may the &ourt still properlytaEe cogni>ance of the case?Held: H%ving "t%ted the #oregoing, it ($"t .e e(&h%"i;ed th%t thi"Co$rt h%" the di"!retion to t%9e !ogni;%n!e o# % "$it 'hi!h doe" not "%ti"#ythe re)$ire(ent o# leg%l "t%nding 'hen &%r%(o$nt intere"t i" involved+Innot % #e' !%"e", the Co$rt h%" %do&ted % li.er%l %ttit$de on the lo!$" "t%ndio# % &etitioner 'here the &etitioner i" %.le to !r%#t %n i""$e o#tr%n"!endent%l "igni8!%n!e to the &eo&le+Th$", 'hen the i""$e" r%i"ed %reo# &%r%(o$nt i(&ort%n!e to the &$.li!, the Co$rt (%y .r$"h %"idete!hni!%litie" o# &ro!ed$re.In this case, a reading of the petition shows that theI2P has advanced constitutiona" issues which deserve the attention of this Court inviewof theirseriousness, nove"tyandweight asprecedents. Doreover, ecausepeace and order are under constant threat and "aw"ess vio"ence occurs in increasingtempo, undouted"yaggravatedytheDindanaoinsurgencypro"em, the"ega"controversy raised in the petition a"most certain"y wi"" not go away.It wi"" stare us inthe face again.It, therefore, ehooves the Court to re"a= the ru"es on standing and toreso"ve the issue now, rather than "ater. #Integrate$6aroft)eP)ilippinesv.Hon. Ronal$o 6. @amora, &.'. (o. )>)/,>, Aug. )+, /0004,*. When is an action considered /moot1? Aay the court still resolve the caseonce it has become moot and academic?Held:). It is a""eged y respondent that, with respect to the PCC'?Preparatory Commission on Constitutiona" 'eform@, this case has ecome moot andacademic.We agree.An action is considered EA:: ?(ocon@4$+. In connection with the Aay 11 1##$ elections the &:A8B8&issued aresolution prohibiting the conduct of e-it polls on the ground among others that itmight cause disorder and confusion considering the randomness of selectinginterviewees which further maEes the e-it polls unreliable. ,., %an. /,, /000, 1n 2anc ?Panganian@4 $.. Discuss the nature of a ta-payerTs suit.When may it be allowed?Held:).Petitioner and respondents agree that to !on"tit$te % t%&%yerN""$it, t'o re)$i"ite" ($"t .e (et, n%(ely, th%t &$.li! #$nd" %re di".$r"ed.y%&oliti!%l "$.divi"ionor in"tr$(ent%lity %ndindoing"o, %l%'i"viol%ted or "o(e irreg$l%rity i" !o((itted, %ndth%t the &etitioner i"dire!tly %*e!ted .y the %lleged $ltr% vire" %!t.The same pronouncement wasmade in "ilos#ayan Inc. v. Guingona 1r., #/*/ !C'A ))0 ?)66>@, where the Courta"so reiterated its "iera" stance in entertaining so:ca""ed ta=payerJs suits, especia""ywhen important issues are invo"ved. A c"oser e=amination of the facts of this casewou"dreadi"ydemonstratethatpetitionerJsstandingshou"dnot evene made anissue here, Qsince standing is a concept in constitutiona" "aw and here noconstitutiona" 9uestion is actua""y invo"ved.QIn the case at ar, disursement of pu"ic funds was on"y made in )67+ whenthe Province ought the "ands from Ortigas at P))0.00 per s9uare meter in "ine withthe oAectives of P.-. .7>. Petitioner never referred to such purchase as an i""ega"disursement of pu"ic funds ut focused on the a""eged fraudu"ent reconveyance ofsaid property to Ortigas ecause the price paid was "ower than the prevai"ing mar8etva"ue of neighoring "ots. The frst re9uirement, therefore, which wou"d ma8e thispetition a ta=payerJs suit is asent.The on"y remaining Austifcation for petitioner toe a""owed to pursue this action is whether it is, or wou"d e, direct"y aLected y theact comp"ained of.As we stated in "ilos#ayan Inc. v. Morato =supra.@Q!tandingisaspecia" concerninconstitutiona" "awecauseinsomecasessuits are rought not y parties who have een persona""y inAured y the operation of a"aworyoNcia" actionta8en, ut yconcernedcitiMens, ta=payersorvoterswhoactua""y sue in the pu"ic interest. Hen!e the )$e"tion in "t%nding i" 'hether"$!h&%rtie"h%veN%lleged"$!h%&er"on%l "t%9eintheo$t!o(eo# the!ontrover"y%" to%""$reth%t !on!rete%dver"ene"" 'hi!h"h%r&en" the&re"ent%tion o# i""$e" $&on 'hi!h the !o$rt "o l%rgely de&end" #orill$(in%tion o# di/!$lt !on"tit$tion%l )$e"tion".J #Citing 6aAer v. Carr *.6 THEPEOPLEINTHEIRSOKEREIANCAPACIT> , orinreg%rdto'hi!h AUTHORIT>HASBEENDELEAATED tothelegi"l%tiveoree!$tive .r%n!h o# govern(ent.Q Thus, if an issue is c"ear"y identifed y thete=t of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action y a particu"ar ranch ofgovernment or to the peop"e themse"ves then it is he"d to e a po"itica" 9uestion.Inthe c"assic formu"ation of %ustice 2rennan in 6aAer v. Carr#*.6 !C'A >.+, >7):>7/, %une /,, /000, 1n 2anc ?Purisima@4#1. What is 5scal autonomy? What is the 5scal autonomy clause?Held: As envisioned in the Constitution, the fsca" autonomy enAoyed y the%udiciary, the Civi" !ervice Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on1"ections, andtheONceof theOmudsmancontemp"atesag$%r%nteeo# #$llSei.ility to %llo!%te %nd$tili;e their re"o$r!e" 'ith the 'i"do(%nddi"&%t!h th%t their need" re)$ire. It recogniMes the &o'er %nd %$thority tolevy, %""e"" %nd !olle!t #ee", 8 r%te" o# !o(&en"%tion not e!eeding thehighe"tr%te"%$thori;ed.yl%'#or!o(&en"%tion%nd&%y&l%n"o# thegovern(ent and %llo!%te %nd di".$r"e "$!h "$(" %" (%y .e &rovided .y l%'or prescried y them in the course of the discharge of their functions.0IS&!B !F,***4. Thisisparticu"ar"ytruewhenthedecisionsought toeincorporatedisa"engthy and thorough discussion of the facts and conc"usions arrived at = = =. #3ilan$ Natural Gas Commission v. Court of !ppeals, /6* !C'A /., %u"y /*, )66,?DartineM@42. We have sustained decisions of "ower courts as having sustantia""y orsuNcient"ycomp"iedwiththeconstitutiona" inAunctionnotwithstandingthe"aconicand terse manner inwhich they were written and even if Ethere ?was "eft@ much toe desiredin terms of ?their@ c"arity, coherence and comprehensii"ityF provided thatthey eventua""y set out the facts and the "aw on which they were ased,as whenthey stated the "ega" 9ua"ifcations of the oLense constituted y the facts proved, themodifying circumstances, the participation of the accused, the pena"ty imposed andthe civi" "iai"ityGor discussed the facts comprising the e"ements of the oLense thatwas charged in the information, and according"y rendered a verdict and imposed thecorresponding pena"tyGor 9uoted the facts narrated in the prosecutionPsmemorandumut madetheir ownfndings andassessment of evidence, eforefna""y agreeing with the prosecutionPs eva"uation of the case.50We have a"so sanctioned the use of memorandum decisions #In =rancisco v.PermsAul )7* !C'A */>, *** ?)6,6@, the Court descried E?t@he distinctive featuresof amemorandumdecisionare,3I'!T, it isrendered.y%n%&&ell%te!o$rt,!1CO(-, it in!or&or%te" .y re#eren!e the 8nding" o# #%!t or the !on!l$"ion"o# l%' !ont%ined in the de!i"ion, order, or r$ling $nder revie'. Dost "i8e"y,the purpose is to aNrm the decision, a"though it is not impossi"e that the approva" ofthe fndings of facts y the "ower court may "ead to a diLerent conc"usion of "aw ythehighercourt. Atanyrate,there%"on#or%llo'ingthein!or&or%tion.yre#eren!e i" evidently to %void the !$(.er"o(e re&rod$!tion o# thede!i"iono# thelo'er !o$rt, or &ortion"thereo#, inthede!i"iono# thehigher !o$rt+The ide% i" to %void h%ving to re&e%t in the .ody o# the l%tterde!i"ion the 8nding" or !on!l$"ion" o# the lo'er !o$rt "in!e they %re .eing%&&rovedor %do&ted%ny'%y.4, a specie of succinct"y written decisions yappe""ate courts in accordance with the provisions of !ection >0, 2.P. 2"g. )/6 on thegrounds of e=pediency, practica"ity, convenience and doc8et status of our courts.Wehave a"so dec"ared that memorandumdecisions comp"y with the constitutiona"mandate.In =rancisco v. PermsAul however, we "aid the conditions for the va"idity ofmemorandum decisions, thusKEThe memorandum decision, to e va"id,!%nnot in!or&or%te the 8nding"o# #%!t %nd the !on!l$"ion" o# l%'o# the lo'er !o$rt only .y re(otere#eren!e, which is to say that the cha""enged decision is not easi"y and immediate"yavai"a"e to the person reading the memorandum decision. as no amount ofincorporation or adoption wi"" rectify its vio"ation.EThe Co$rt 8nd" ne!e""%ry to e(&h%"i;e th%t the (e(or%nd$(de!i"ion"ho$ld.e"&%ringly$"edle"t it .e!o(e%n%dditivee!$"e#or0$di!i%l "loth+ Iti"%n%ddition%l !ondition#orthev%lidityo#thi"9indo#de!i"ion (%y .e re"orted to only in !%"e" 'here the #%!t" %re in the (%in%!!e&ted .y .oth &%rtie" %nd e%"ily deter(in%.le .y the 0$dge %nd there %reno do!trin%l !o(&li!%tion" involved th%t 'ill re)$ire %n etended di"!$""iono# the l%'" involved+The (e(or%nd$( de!i"ion (%y .e e(&loyed in "i(&lelitig%tion" only, "$!h %" ordin%ry !olle!tion!%"e", 'here the %&&e%l i"o.vio$"ly gro$ndle"" %nd de"erve" no (ore th%n the ti(e needed to di"(i""it.5 = =EHen!e#orth, %ll (e(or%nd$( de!i"ion" "h%ll !o(&ly 'ith there)$ire(ent" herein "et #orth %" to the #or( &re"!ri.ed %nd the o!!%"ion"'hen they (%y .e rendered+ Any devi%tion 'ill "$((on the "tri!ten#or!e(ent o# Arti!le KIII, Se!tion 2H o# the Con"tit$tion %nd "tri9e do'nthe S%'ed 0$dg(ent %" % l%'le"" di"o.edien!e.Tested against these standards, we fnd that the 'TC decision at ar misera"yfai"ed to meet them and, therefore, fe"" short of the constitutiona" inAunction.The 'TCdecisionis rief indeed, ut it isstar8"yha""ow, otiose"ywritten, vacuous initscontent and trite in its form.It achieved nothing and attempted at nothing, not evenat a simp"e summation of facts which cou"d easi"y e done.Its inade9uacy spea8s foritse"f.Wecannot evenconsider or aNrmsaid'TCdecisionas amemorandumdecisionecauseit fai"edtocomp"ywiththemeasures of va"idity"aiddownin0rancisco v. (ermsEul. It mere"y aNrmed in toto the DeTC decision without sayingmore. A de!i"ion or re"ol$tion, e"&e!i%lly one re"olving %n %&&e%l, "ho$lddire!tly(eet thei""$e"#orre"ol$tion6 other'i"e, the%&&e%l 'o$ld.e51&ointle""#!ee !6D 3verseas Manpo(er Corporation v. N'RC, /,. !C'A >+>,>.> ?)66,@4.Wetherefore reiterate ouradmonition inNicos In$ustrialCorporation v.Courtof!ppeals#/0.!C'A)/7, )*>?)66/@4, inthat whi"eweconcededthatrevity in the writing of decisions is an admira"e trait, it shou"d not and cannot esustituted for sustanceG and again in 0rancisco v. (ermsEulwhere we cautionedthat e=pediencya"one, nomatterhowcompe""ing, cannot e=cusenon:comp"iancewith the constitutiona" re9uirements.This is not to discourage the "ower courts to write areviated and concisedecisions, ut never at the e=pense of scho"ar"y ana"ysis, and more signifcant"y, ofAusticeandfair p"ay, "est thefearse=pressedy%ustice3eriaastheponenteinRomerov. Courtof!ppealscometrue,i.e.i#%n%&&ell%te!o$rt#%iledto&rovide the %&&e%l the %ttention it right#$lly de"erved, "%id !o$rt de&rivedthe %&&ell%nt o# d$e &ro!e"" "in!e he '%" %!!orded % #%ir o&&ort$nity to .ehe%rd .y % #%ir %nd re"&on"i.le (%gi"tr%te+ Thi" "it$%tion .e!o(e" (oreo(ino$" in !ri(in%l !%"e", %" in thi" !%"e, 'here not only &ro&erty right"%re %t "t%9e .$t %l"o the li.erty i# not the li#e o# % h$(%n .eing.3aithfu" adherencetothere9uirementsofSection74,!rticle2IIIof theConstitution is indisputa"y a paramount component of due process and fair p"ay. Itis "i8ewise demanded y the due process c"ause of the Constitution.The &%rtie" to% litig%tion "ho$ld .e in#or(ed o# ho' it '%" de!ided, 'ith %n e&l%n%tiono# the #%!t$%l %nd leg%l re%"on" th%t led to the !on!l$"ion" o# the !o$rt+The !o$rt !%nnot "i(&ly "%y th%t 0$dg(ent i" rendered in #%vor o# B %nd%g%in"t > %nd 0$"t le%ve it %t th%t 'itho$t %ny 0$"ti8!%tion 'h%t"oever #orit"%!tion+ Thelo"ing&%rtyi"entitledto9no''hyhelo"t, "ohe(%y%&&e%l to the higher !o$rt, i# &er(itted, "ho$ld he .elieve th%t the de!i"ion"ho$ld .e rever"ed+ A de!i"ion th%t doe" not !le%rly %nd di"tin!tly "t%tethe #%!t" %nd the l%' on 'hi!h it i" .%"ed le%ve" the &%rtie" in the d%r9 %"to ho' it '%" re%!hed %nd i" &re!i"ely &re0$di!i%l to the lo"ing &%rty, 'ho i"$n%.le to &in&oint the &o""i.le error" o# the !o$rt #or revie' .y % highertri.$n%l+ =ore th%n th%t, the re)$ire(ent i" %n %""$r%n!e to the &%rtie"th%t, in re%!hing 0$dg(ent, the 0$dge did "o thro$gh the &ro!e""e" o# leg%lre%"oning.It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the Audge, preventinghimfromdecidingipse di-it.Iouchsafed neithertheswordnorthe purseytheConstitution ut nonethe"ess vested with the sovereign prerogative of passingAudgment on the "ife, "ierty or property of his fe""owmen, the Audge must u"timate"ydepend on the power of reason for sustained pu"ic confdence in the Austness of hisdecision.Thus the Court has struc8 down as void, decisions of "ower courts and even ofthe Court of Appea"s whose care"ess disregard of the constitutiona" ehest e=posedtheirsometimescava"ierattitudenot on"ytotheirmagisteria" responsii"itiesut"i8ewise to their avowed fea"ty to the Constitution.Thus, we nu""ifed or deemed to have fai"ed to comp"y with !ection )>, Artic"eIIII of the Constitution, a decision, reso"ution or order whichK contained no ana"ysis ofthe evidence of the parties nor reference to any "ega" asis in reaching itsconc"usionsG containednothingmorethanasummaryof thetestimonies of thewitnesses of oth partiesG convicted the accused of "ie" ut fai"ed to cite any "ega"authority or princip"e to support conc"usions that the "etter in 9uestion was "ie"ousGconsistedmere"yof one#)4 paragraphwithmost"ysweepinggenera"iMationsandfai"edtosupportitsconc"usionof parricideG consistedof fve#+4pages, three#*4pages of whichwere9uotations fromthe"aor ariterPs decisioninc"uding thedispositive portion and are"y a page #two ?/@ short paragraphs of two ?/@ sentenceseach4 of itsowndiscussionor reasoningsG wasmere"yasedonthefndings ofanother courtsans transcript of stenographic notes, or fai"ed to e=p"ain the factua"and "ega" ases for the award of mora" damages.In the same vein do we stri8e down as a nu""ity the 'TC decision in 9uestion.#?ao v. Court of !ppeals, *>> !C'A /0/, Oct. />, /000, )st -iv. ?-avide@4 #+. Does theperiodfor decisionmaEingunder Section1. !rticleIIII 1#$%&onstitution apply to the Sandiganbayan?8-plain.52Held:The%.ove&rovi"iondoe"not%&&lytotheS%ndig%n.%y%n+The &rovi"ion re#er" toREAULARCOURTSo# lo'er !ollegi%te level that in thepresent hierarchy app"ies on"y to the Court of Appea"s.TheS%ndig%n.%y%ni"%SPECIAL COURT o# the"%(elevel %"theCo$rt o# A&&e%l"%nd&o""e""ing%ll theinherent &o'er"o# %!o$rt o#0$"ti!e, 'ith #$n!tion" o# % tri%l !o$rt.Th$", the S%ndig%n.%y%n i" not % reg$l%r !o$rt .$t % "&e!i%l one.The!andiganayan was origina""y empowered to promu"gate its own ru"es of procedure.;owever, onDarch*0, )66+, Congress repea"edthe!andiganayanPs power topromu"gate its own ru"es of procedure and instead prescried that the 'u"es of Courtpromu"gated y the !upreme Court sha"" app"y to a"" cases and proceedings f"ed withthe !andiganayan.E!pecia" courts are Audicia" triuna"s e=ercising "imited Aurisdiction overparticu"ar or specia"iMedcategoriesof actions. TheyaretheCourt of Ta=Appea"s, the !andiganayan, and the !hariPa Courts.F =Supra ;ote 2* at p.$@, the !andiganayan promu"gated its own ru"es, thusKESe!.:.Aa-imum(eriodtoDecide&asesPTheAudgment or fna"order of adivisionof the!andiganayansha"" erendered(it)int)reeD*Emont)sfromt)e$atet)ecase(assu#mitte$for$ecision.1Aiven the !l%rity o# the r$le th%t doe" not di"ting$i"h, 'e hold th%tthe three?:@(onth &eriod, not thet'elve?27@ (onth &eriod, to de!ide!%"e" %&&lie" totheS%ndig%n.%y%n.=UST BE STRICTL> CONSTRUED + No "&e!ie" o# &ro&erty i" held .yindivid$%l" 'ith gre%ter ten%!ity, %nd none i" g$%rded .y theCon"tit$tion%ndthel%'"(ore"ed$lo$"ly, th%ntheright tothe#reeholdo#inh%.it%nt"+ Whenthelegi"l%t$reinter#ere"'ithth%tright, %nd, #or gre%ter &$.li! &$r&o"e", %&&ro&ri%te" the l%nd o# %nindivid$%l 'itho$t hi" !on"ent, the &l%in (e%ning o# the l%' "ho$ldnot .e enl%rged .y do$.t?#$l@ inter&ret%tion.=6ensley v.MountainlaAe Bater Co. 1* &al. *2) and cases cited 3%* !m. Dec. .%)4@The statutory power of ta8ing property from the owner without his consent isone of the most de"icate e=ercises of governmenta" authority.It is to e watched withAea"ous scrutiny. Important as the power may e to the government, the invio"a"esanctitywhich a""freeconstitutions attach to theright of propertyof thecitiMens,constrains the strict oservance ofthe sustantia"provisions of the "aw which areprescribed as modes of the e=ercise of the power, and to protect it from ause = = =.The &o'er o# e(inent do(%in i" e""enti%llyLEAISLATIKEin n%t$re.Itis frm"y sett"ed, however, that"$!h &o'er (%y .e v%lidly deleg%ted to lo!%lgovern(ent$nit",other&$.li!entitie"%nd&$.li!$tilitie",%ltho$ghthe"!o&e o# thi" deleg%ted legi"l%tive &o'er i" ne!e""%rily n%rro'er th%n th%to# the deleg%ting %$thority %nd (%y only .e eer!i"ed in "tri!t !o(&li%n!e'ith the ter(" o# the deleg%ting l%'. #Heirs of !l#erto Suguitan v. City ofMan$aluyong, */, !C'A )*7, )>>:)>., Darch )>, /000, *rd -iv. ?&onMaga:'eyes@4/.8AI;8;< D:A!I; is a fundamenta" !tate power that is in"e&%r%.le #ro("overeignty+ Iti"govern(entG"rightto%&&ro&ri%te, inthen%t$reo#%!o(&$l"ory "%le to the St%te, &riv%te &ro&erty #or &$.li! $"e or &$r&o"e.Inherent"y possessed y the nationa" "egis"ature, the power of eminent domain maye va"id"y de"egated to "oca" governments, other pu"ic entities and pu"ic uti"ities. PRIKILEAE o# $"ing the(.!ince a franchise is a mere privi"ege, theeer!i"e o# the &rivilege (%y re%"on%.ly .e .$rdened 'ith the &er#or(%n!e.y the gr%ntee o# "o(e #or( o# &$.li! "ervi!e.Inthegr%ntingo#the&rivilegetoo&er%te.ro%d!%"t"t%tion"%ndthere%#ter "$&ervi"ing r%dio %nd televi"ion "t%tion", the St%te "&end"!on"ider%.le&$.li!#$nd"inli!en"ing%nd"$&ervi"ing"$!h"t%tion"+ It57'o$ld .e "tr%nge i# it !%nnot even re)$ire the li!en"ee" to render &$.li!"ervi!e .y giving #ree %irti(e.The !l%i( th%t &etitioner 'o$ld .e lo"ing PJ7,:EM,MMM+MM in$nre%li;ed reven$e #ro(%dverti"ing i" .%"ed on the %""$(&tion th%t%irti(e i" 48ni"hed &rod$!t5 'hi!h, it i" "%id, .e!o(e the &ro&erty o# the!o(&%ny, li9e oil &rod$!ed #ro( re8ning or "i(il%r n%t$r%l re"o$r!e" %#ter$ndergoing % &ro!e"" #or their &rod$!tion.As he"d in 9ed Bion Hroadcasting &o.v. 0.&.&.#*6+ , /* L. 1d. /d at *6), 9uoting >7 r%ther th%n%(%tter o# .%rg%in. ;ence, a ta= doe" not de&end $&on the !on"ent o# thet%&%yer. If any ta=payer can defer the payment of ta=es y raising the defensethat it sti"" has a pending c"aim for refund or credit, this wou"d adverse"y aLect thegovernment revenue system. A t%&%yer !%nnot re#$"e to &%y hi" t%e" 'henthey #%ll d$e "i(&ly .e!%$"e he h%" % !l%i( %g%in"t the govern(ent or th%tthe!olle!tiono#%t%i"!ontingentonthere"$lto#thel%'"$itit8led%g%in"t the govern(ent. #P)ileJMiningCorporationv. CommissionerofInternal Revenue, /6> !C'A .,7, Aug. /,, )66, ?'omero@412%. Fnder !rticle II Section 2$ paragraph * of the 1#$% &onstitutionL3&4haritable institutions churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant theretomos'ues non,pro5t cemeteries and all lands buildings and improvements actuallydirectly and e-clusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes shall bee-empt from ta-ation.LKA&! claims that the income earned by its building leasedto private entities and that of its parEing space is liEewise covered by saide-emption.9esolve.Held:The deates, interpe""ations and e=pressions of opinion of the framersof the Constitution revea" their intent that which, in turn, may have guided the peop"ein ratifying the Charter.!uch intent must e eLectuated.According"y, %ustice ;i"ario &. -avide, %r., a former constitutiona"commissioner, whoisnowamemer of thisCourt, stressedduringtheConcomdeates that Q= = = 'h%t i" ee(&ted i" not the in"tit$tion it"el# = = =Gtho"eee(&ted#ro(re%l e"t%tet%e"%rel%nd", .$ilding"%ndi(&rove(ent"%!t$%lly, dire!tly %nd e!l$"ively $"ed #or religio$", !h%rit%.le ored$!%tion%l &$r&o"e". 3ather %oa9uin&. 2ernas, aneminent authorityontheConstitution and a"so a memer of the Concom, adhered to the same view that theee(&tion !re%ted .y "%id &rovi"ion &ert%ined only toPROPERT> TABES.In his treatise on ta=ation, Dr. %ustice %ose C. Iitug concurs, stating that Q?t@heta= e=emption covers property ta=es on"y.Q#Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. C!, /6, !C'A ,*, Oct. )>, )66, ?Panganian@412$. Fnder !rticle"II Section+ paragraph*of the1#$%&onstitution L3!4llrevenues and assets of non,stocE non,pro5t educationalinstitutions used actually60directly and e-clusively for educational purposes shall be e-empt fromta-es andduties.L KA&! alleged that it Lis a non,pro5t educational institution whose revenuesand assets are used actually directly and e-clusively for educational purposes so it ise-empt from ta-es on its properties and income.LHeld:Wereiter%teth%t &riv%tere"&ondent i" ee(&t #ro(the&%y(ent o# &ro&erty t%,BUT NOT INCO=E TAB ON THE RENTALS + The.%re%lleg%tion%loneth%t it i"%non-"to!9, non-&ro8ted$!%tion%l in"tit$tioni" in"$/!ient to0$"ti#y it" ee(&tion#ro(the&%y(ent o# in!o(e t%.D L@%'" %llo'ingt%ee(&tion%re!on"tr$ed STRICTISSI=I PURIS.;ence,forthe BDCAtoegrantedthee=emption itc"aimsundertheaovecitedprovision, it must prove withsustantia" evidencethat123it #%ll"$nder the!l%""i8!%tionnonFstocA nonFproIt e$ucational institutionSand173thein!o(e it "ee9" to .e ee(&ted #ro( t%%tion i"use$ actually $irectly an$eJclusivelyfor e$ucational purposes.;owever, theCourt notes that not ascinti""a of evidence was sumitted y private respondent to prove that it met thesaid re9uisites. #Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. C!, /6, !C'A ,*, Oct. )>,)66, ?Panganian@412#. Is theKA&!aneducational institution withinthepurviewof !rticle"IISection + par. * of the &onstitution?Held: We r$le th%t it i"NOT. The term Q8DF&!or =A> NOT BE ASSISTED B>COUNSEL , irre"&e!tive o# the n%t$re o# the !h%rge" %nd o# the re"&ondentN"!%&%!ity to re&re"ent hi("el#, %nd no d$ty re"t" on "$!h % .ody to #$rni"hthe &er"on .eing inve"tig%ted 'ith !o$n"el.In an administrative proceeding == = a respondent = = = has the :(.+, Oct. )7, /000, 1n 2anc ?Puno@4THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE11#. 8-plain and discuss the e'ual protection of the law clause.Held: ).The e9ua" protection of the "aw is emraced in the concept of dueprocess,asevery $n#%ir di"!ri(in%tion o*end" the re)$ire(ent" o# 0$"ti!e%nd #%ir &l%y.It has nonethe"ess een emodied in a separate c"ause in Arti!le III,Se!+ 2, of theConstitution to &rovide #or % (ore "&e!i8! g$%r%nty %g%in"t%ny #or( o# $nd$e #%voriti"( or ho"tility #ro( the govern(ent.ARBITRARINESSin gener%lmay e cha""enged on the asis of the d$e &ro!e""!l%$"e. 2ut if the particu"ar act assai"ed parta8es of anUNWARRANTEDPARTIALIT>orPREPUDICE, thesharper weaponto cut it downis thee)$%l&rote!tion !l%$"e.According to a "ong "ine of decisions,8DF!B (9:00, %une /., )66, ?(arvasa@412$. What is /search incidental to a lawful arrest1?Discuss.Held: While % !onte(&or%neo$" "e%r!h o# % &er"on %rre"ted (%y .ee*e!ted to di"!over d%ngero$" 'e%&on" or &roo#" or i(&le(ent" $"ed inthe!o((i""iono# the!ri(e%nd'hi!h"e%r!h(%yetendtothe%re%'ithin hi" i((edi%te !ontrol 'here he (ight g%in &o""e""ion o# % 'e%&onor eviden!e he !%n de"troy, A KALID ARREST =UST PRECEDE THE SEARCH +The &ro!e"" !%nnot .e rever"ed.In%"e%r!hin!ident%l to%l%'#$l %rre"t, %"the&re!edent %rre"tdeter(ine" the v%lidity o# the in!ident%l "e%r!h, the leg%lity o# the %rre"t i")$e"tioned in % l%rge (%0ority o# the"e !%"e", e+g+, 'hether %n %rre"t '%"(erely $"ed %" % &retet #or !ond$!ting % "e%r!h+In thi" in"t%n!e, the l%'re)$ire" th%t there .e 8r"t % l%'#$l %rre"t .e#ore % "e%r!h !%n .e (%de Qthe &ro!e"" !%nnot .e rever"ed. #Aalacat v. &ourt of !ppeals /,* !C'A )+6, )7+?)667@4#People v. C)ua Ho San, *0, !C'A >*/, %une )7, )666, 1n 2anc ?-avide, %r., C.%.@412#. What is the /plain view1 doctrine?What are its re'uisites?Discuss.Held:).O.0e!t" #%lling in &l%in vie' o# %n o/!er 'ho h%" % right to.e in the &o"ition to h%ve th%t vie' %re "$.0e!t to "ei;$re even 'itho$t %"e%r!h '%rr%nt %nd (%y .e introd$!ed in eviden!e.The Ep"ain viewF doctrineapp"ies when the fo""owing re)$i"ite" !on!$rK #a4 the l%' en#or!e(ent o/!er in"e%r!h o# the eviden!e h%" %PRIOR PUSTI0>, >)>:>)+, Darch *), /000, /nd-iv.?Tuisuming@4731*2. What is a /stop,and,frisE1 search?Held: ). In the "andmar8 case of&erry v. 3)io #/0 L 1d /d ,,6G ,, ! Ct),.,, *6/ LI=ITED SEARCH O< THE OUTER CLOTHINA O< SUCH PERSONSin %n%tte(&ttodi"!over'e%&on"'hi!h(ight.e$"edto%""%$lthi(.!uch a search is a reasona"e search under the 3ourth Amendment, and anyweaponseiMedmayproper"yeintroducedinevidenceagainstthepersonfrom whom they were ta8en.F =7errera ! 7andbooE on !rrest Search andSei>ure and &ustodial Investigation 1##. ed. p. 1$.S and ed drugs which are pharmaceutically correct but not properlydocumented subject of an illegal search because the applicant /failed to allege in theapplication for search warrant that the subject drugs for which she was applying forsearchwarrant wereeither faEe misbranded adulterated or unregistered1 bereturned to the owner?Held: With the !tateJs o"igation to protect and promote the right to hea"thof thepeop"eandinsti"" hea"thconsciousnessamongthem =!rticleII Section1.1#$%&onstitution@inorder todeve"opahea"thyanda"ert citiMenry=!rticle"IISection 1#314@ it ecame mandatory for the government to supervise and contro" thepro"iferation of drugs in the mar8et.The constitutiona" mandate that Qthe !tate sha""adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to hea"th deve"opment which sha""endeavor to ma8e essentia" goods, hea"th and other socia" services avai"a"e to a""peop"e at aLorda"e costQ =!rticle "III Section 11@ cannot e neg"ected.This is whyQthe !tate sha"" esta"ish and maintain an eLective food and drug regu"atorysystem.Q =!rticle "III Section 12@The 23A- is the government agency vested y "awto ma8e a mandatory and authoritative determination of the true therapeutic eLectof drugs ecause it invo"ves technica"s8i""which is within its specia"competence.The hea"th of the citiMenry shou"d never e compromised.To the "ayman, medicine isa cure that may "ead to etter hea"th.I# the "ei;ed J7 .oe" o# dr$g" %re &h%r(%!e$ti!%lly !orre!t .$t not&ro&erly do!$(ented, they "ho$ld .e &ro(&tly di"&o"ed o# in the (%nner&rovided .y l%' in order to en"$re th%t the "%(e do not #%ll into the 'rongh%nd" 'ho (ight $"e the dr$g" $ndergro$nd. Private respondent cannot re"y76on the statement of the tria" court that the app"icant Qfai"ed to a""ege intheapp"ication for search warrant that the suAect drugs for which she was app"ying forsearch warrant were either fa8e, misranded, adu"terated, or unregisteredQ in orderto otain the return of the drugs.The po"icy of the "aw enunciated in '.A. (o. ,/0* istoprotecttheconsumersaswe"" asthe"icensedusinessmen. 3oremostamongthese consumers is the government itse"f which procures medicines and distriutesthem to the "oca" communities through direct assistance to the "oca" hea"th centers orthrough outreach and charity programs.On"y with the proper government sanctionscan medicines and drugs circu"ate the mar8et.We cannot aLord to ta8e any ris8, forthe"ifeandhea"thof thecitiMenryareaspreciousasthee=istenceofthe!tate.#Peoplev. 1u$geEstrella&. Estra$a, &.'(o. )/>>.), %une/.,/000, !pc". /nd -iv. ?Bnares:!antiago@41*.. Do 9egional ure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Hureau of &ustomsand to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings?Held: In 1ao v. Court of !ppeals #/>6 !C'A *+, >/:>* ?)66+@4, this Court,reiterating its ru"ings = = = saidKThere i" no )$e"tion th%t Region%l Tri%l Co$rt" %re devoid o#%ny !o(&eten!e to &%"" $&on the v%lidity or reg$l%rity o# "ei;$re %nd#or#eit$re &ro!eeding" !ond$!ted .y the B$re%$ o# C$"to(" %nd toen0oin or other'i"e inter#ere 'ith the"e &ro!eeding"+ The Colle!toro# C$"to(" "itting in "ei;$re %nd #or#eit$re &ro!eeding" h%"EBCLUSIKE PURISDICTIONto he%r %nd deter(ine %ll )$e"tion"to$!hing on the "ei;$re %nd #or#eit$re o# d$ti%.le good"+ TheRegion%l Tri%l Co$rt" %re &re!l$ded #ro( %""$(ing !ogni;%n!e over"$!h(%tter" eventhro$gh&etition" o# !ertior%ri, &rohi.itionor(%nd%($".It is "i8ewise we"":sett"ed that the provisions of the T%ri* %nd C$"to("Code and that of Re&$.li! A!t No+ 227J, as amended, otherwise 8nown asEAn A!t Cre%ting the Co$rt o# T% A&&e%l",F specify the proper fora andprocedure for the venti"ation of any "ega" oAections or issues raisedconcerning these proceedings.Thus, %!tion" o# the Colle!tor o# C$"to("%re %&&e%l%.le to the Co((i""ioner o# C$"to(", 'ho"e de!i"ion, int$rn, i" "$.0e!t to the e!l$"ive %&&ell%te 0$ri"di!tion o# the Co$rt o#T% A&&e%l" %nd #ro( there to the Co$rt o# A&&e%l".The r$le th%t Region%l Tri%l Co$rt" h%ve no revie' &o'er" over"$!h &ro!eeding" i" %n!hored $&on the &oli!y o# &l%!ing no$nne!e""%ry hindr%n!e on the govern(entG" drive, not only to&revent "($ggling %nd other #r%$d" $&on C$"to(", .$t (orei(&ort%ntly, to render e*e!tive %nd e/!ient the !olle!tion o# i(&ort%nd e&ort d$tie" d$e the St%te, 'hi!h en%.le" the govern(ent to!%rry o$t the #$n!tion" it h%" .een in"tit$ted to &er#or(.Even i# the "ei;$re .y the Colle!tor o# C$"to(" 'ere illeg%l, 'e h%ve "%id th%t "$!h %!t doe" not de&rive the B$re%$ o# C$"to("o# 0$ri"di!tion thereon.'espondents cite the statement of the Court of Appea"s that regu"ar courtssti"" retain AurisdictionEwhere, as inthiscase,for"ac8ofproa"ecause,thereisserious dout as to the propriety of p"acing the artic"es under Customs Aurisdictionthrough seiMureOforfeiture proceedings.FThey over"oo8 the fact, however, that underthe "aw, the 9uestion of whether proa"e cause e=ists for the seiMure of the suAectsac8s of rice is not for the 'egiona" Tria" Court to determine.The!$"to("%$thoritie" do not h%ve to &rove to the "%ti"#%!tion o# the !o$rt th%t the%rti!le" on .o%rd % ve""el 'ere i(&orted #ro( %.ro%d or %re intended to .e"hi&&ed%.ro%d.e#orethey(%yeer!i"ethe&o'er toe*e!t !$"to("G"e%r!he", "ei;$re", or %rre"t" &rovided .y l%'%nd !ontin$e 'ith the%d(ini"tr%tive he%ring".As the Court he"d in Ponce Enrile v. 2inuya #*7 !C'A*,), *,,:*,6 ?)67)@, reiterated in 1ao v. Court of !ppeals supraand Mison v.Nativi$a$, /)* !C'A 7*> ?)66/@4K77The governmenta" agency concerned, the 2ureau of Customs, is vested withe=c"usiveauthority. 1venif it eassumedthat inthee=erciseof suche=c"usive competence a taint of i""ega"ity may e correct"y imputed, the mostthat canesaidisthat under certaincircumstances thegraveauseofdiscretion conferredmay oust it of suchAurisdiction. It does not meanhowever that corresponding"y a court of frst instance is vested withcompetence when c"ear"y in the "ight of the aove decisions the "aw has notseen ft to do so.The proceeding efore the Co""ector of Customs is not fna".An appea" "ies to the Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court ofTa= Appea"s.It may even reach this Court through the appropriate petition forreview., )66> ?Padi""a@4THE RIAHT TO PRIKAC>1*%. Is there a constitutional right to privacy?Held: The 1!!1(C1 of privacy is the Eright to .e let %lone.FIn the )6.+case of Gris(ol$ v. Connecticut #*,) 76, )> ". ed. /- +)0 ?)6.+@4, the ed and protected in our laws.Held: TheCivilCo$eprovidesthatE?e@very &er"on"h%ll re"&e!t thedignity, &er"on%lity, &riv%!y %nd &e%!e o# (ind o# hi" neigh.or" %nd other&er"on"F and punishes as actiona"e torts severa" acts y a person of medd"ing andprying into the privacy of another. It a"so ho"ds a pu"ic oNcer or emp"oyee or anyprivate individua""ia"e for damages for any vio"ation of the rights and "ierties ofanother person, and recogniMes the privacy of "etters and other privatecommunications. TheRevise$Penal Co$ema8es a crime theviol%tiono#"e!ret".y%no/!er, therevel%tiono#tr%de%ndind$"tri%l "e!ret", %ndtre"&%"" to d'elling. Inv%"ion o# &riv%!y i" %n o*en"e in "&e!i%l l%'" li9ethe !ntiFBiretapping 'a(1R+A+ H7MM3, theSecrecy of 6anA Deposits1R+A+2HMJ3and the Intellectual Property Co$e1R+A+ E7F:3.The Rules of Court onprivi"egedcommunication"i8ewise recogniMe the&riv%!y o# !ert%in in#or(%tion=Section2+ 9ule1*23c4 9evised9uleson8vidence@.#3plev. &orres, &.'. (o.)/7.,+, %u"y /*, )66, ?Puno@41*#. Discuss why !dministrative :rder ;o. *2$ =issued by the (residentprescribing for a ;ational ID system for all citi>ens to facilitate business transactionswithgovernment agencies engagedinthedeliveryof basic services andsocialsecurity provisions@ should be declared unconstitutional.Held:We prescind fromthe premise that the right to privacy is afundamenta" right guaranteed y the Constitution, hence, it is the urden ofgovernment to show that A.O. (o. *0, is Austifed y some compe""ing state interestand that it is narrow"y drawn.A.O.(o. *0, is predicated on two considerationsK 123the need to &rovide o$r !iti;en" %nd #oreigner" 'ith the #%!ility to!onveniently tr%n"%!t .$"ine"" 'ith .%"i! "ervi!e %nd "o!i%l "e!$rity&rovider" %ndother govern(ent in"tr$(ent%litie"and173the needtored$!e, i# not tot%lly er%di!%te, #r%$d$lent tr%n"%!tion" %nd(i"re&re"ent%tion" .y &er"on" "ee9ing .%"i! "ervi!e".It is deata"e whetherthese interests are compe""ing enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. (o. *0,. B$t'h%t i" not %rg$%.le i" the BROADNESS , the KAAUENESS , theOKERBREADTH o# A+O+ No+ :ME 'hi!h i# i(&le(ented 'ill &$t o$r &eo&leG"right to &riv%!y in !le%r %nd &re"ent d%nger.The heart of !.:. ;o. *2$ "ies in its !ection > which provides for a Popu"ation'eference(umer #P'(4 asaEcommonreferencenumer toesta"isha"in8ageamong concerned agenciesF through the use of E2iometrics Techno"ogyF andEcomputer app"ication designs.FIt i" note'orthy th%t A+O+ No+ :MEdoe" not "t%te'h%t "&e!i8!.iologi!%l !h%r%!teri"ti!"%nd'h%t&%rti!$l%r.io(etri!"te!hnology"h%ll.e$"edtoidenti#y&eo&le'ho'ill "ee9it"!over%ge+ Con"ideringthe.%n)$et o# o&tion" %v%il%.le to the i(&le(entor" o# A+O+ No+ :ME, the #e%rth%t it thre%ten" the right to &riv%!y o# o$r &eo&le i" not gro$ndle"".A+O+ No+ :ME "ho$ld %l"o r%i"e o$r %ntenn%" #or % #$rther loo9 'ill"ho' th%t it doe" not "t%te 'hether en!oding o# d%t% i" li(ited to .iologi!%lin#or(%tion %lone #or identi8!%tion &$r&o"e"+ B+ Cle%rly, theinde8nitene"" o# A+O+ No+ :ME !%n give the govern(ent the roving %$thorityto "tore %nd retrieve in#or(%tion #or % &$r&o"e other th%n the identi8!%tiono# the individ$%l thro$gh hi" PRN., TI=E, SPACE , %nd the RIAHT TO REPL> 5 %" 'ell %" UNI "ays on protectedspeech.In Near v. Minnesota #/,* from '.A. (o. ..>., !ec. ))#4, whichthis Court found to e va"id in ;ational (ress &lub v. &omelec =supra.@ and :smena v.&omelec=supra.@. 3ortheanimposedy'.A. (o. ..>., !ec. ))#4 isnoton"yauthoriMed y a specifc constitutiona" provision =!rt. I",& Sec. +@ ut it a"so providedan a"ternative so that, as this Court pointed out in :smena there was actua""y no anut on"y a sustitution of media advertisements y the Come"ec space, and Come"echour.S8&:;D. Even i# the govern(ent%l intere"t "o$ght to .e &ro(oted i"$nrel%ted to the "$&&re""ion o# "&ee!h %nd the re"$lting re"tri!tion o# #reee&re""ion i" only in!ident%l, Se!+ J+H nonethele"" #%il" to (eet !riterion 1H3o#theOG Briente"t, n%(ely, th%tthere"tri!tion.enotgre%terth%ni"ne!e""%ry to #$rther the govern(ent%l intere"t+A" %lre%dy "t%ted, Se!+ J+H%i(" %t the &revention o# l%"t-(in$te &re""$re on voter", the !re%tion o#.%nd'%gon e*e!t, 40$n9ing5 o# 'e%9 or 4lo"ing5 !%ndid%te", %nd re"ort tothe#or(o# ele!tion!he%ting!%lled4d%gd%g-.%'%"+5Pr%i"e'orthy%"the"e%i("o# thereg$l%tion(ight .e, they!%nnot .e%tt%ined%t the"%!ri8!eo# the#$nd%(ent%l righto# e&re""ion, 'hen"$!h%i(!%n.e(oren%rro'ly &$r"$ed.y PUNISHINAUNLAWed by top government oCcials andprominent businessmen.0or this reason it attracted media mileage and drew publicattention not only to the conference itself but to the personalities behind as well.!sits 8-ecutive Director and spoEesman private respondent conse'uently assumed thestatus of a public 5gure.B$t even%""$(inge-gr%ti% %rg$(enti th%t &riv%te re"&ondent,de"&ite the &o"ition he o!!$&ied in the , Artic"eIII of the)6,7ConstitutionthatQno"awsha"" epassed aridgingQ them.It is true that the safeguarding of the peop"eJs freedom of e=pression to theendthat individua"smayspea8astheythin8onmattersvita" tothemandthatfa"sehoodsmayee=posedthroughtheprocessesof educationanddiscussionisessentia" to free government. B$t #reedo( o# "&ee!h %nd e&re""ion de"&iteit" indi"&en"%.ility h%" it" li(it%tion"+It h%" never .een $nder"tood %" the%."ol$te right to "&e%9 'henever, ho'ever, %nd 'herever one &le%"e", #orthe(%nner, &l%!e, %ndti(eo# &$.li!di"!$""ion!%n.e!on"tit$tion%lly!ontrolled+?T@he .etter &oli!y i" not li.erty $nt%(ed .$t li.erty reg$l%ted.y l%' 'here every #reedo( i" eer!i"ed in %!!ord%n!e 'ith l%' %nd 'ithd$e reg%rd #or the right" o# other".Conventiona" wisdomte""susthattherea"itiesof "ifeinacomp"e=society&re!l$de%n%."ol$ti"t inter&ret%tiono# #reedo(o# e&re""ion'hereitdoe" not involve &$re "&ee!h .$t "&ee!h &l$" &hy"i!%l %!tion" li9e&i!9eting+ There %re other "igni8!%nt "o!iet%l v%l$e" th%t ($"t .e%!!o((od%ted%nd'henthey!l%"h, they($"t%ll .e'eighed'iththe&ro(otion o# the gener%l 'el#%re o# the &eo&le %" the $lti(%te o.0e!tive+In .%l%n!ing the"e v%l$e", thi" Co$rt h%" %!!orded #reedo( o# e&re""ion %&re#erred &o"ition in light o# it" (ore !o(&%r%tive i(&ort%n!e. ;ence, ourru"ingsnowmustyinyearsho"dthaton"ythenarrowesttime, p"aceandmannerregu"ations that are specifca""y tai"ored to serve an important governmenta" interestmayAustifytheapp"icationof thea"ancingof intereststestinderogationof thepeop"eJs right of free speech and e=pression.Where "%id reg$l%tion" do not %i(&%rti!$l%rly %t the evil" 'ithin the %llo'%.le %re%" o# "t%te !ontrol .$t, onthe !ontr%ry, "'ee& 'ithin their %(.it other %!tivitie" %" to o&er%te %" %noverh%nging thre%t to #ree di"!$""ion, or 'here $&on their #%!e they %re "ov%g$e, inde8nite, or ine%!t %" to &er(it &$ni"h(ent o# the #%ir $"e o# theright o# #ree "&ee!h, "$!h reg$l%tion" %re void.Pre"!inding #ro(thi" &re(i"e, the Co$rt reiter%te" th%t 0$di!i%linde&enden!e %nd the #%ir %nd orderly %d(ini"tr%tion o# 0$"ti!e !on"tit$te&%r%(o$ntgovern(ent%l intere"t"th%t!%n0$"ti#ythereg$l%tiono# the&$.li!N" right o# #ree"&ee!h%nd&e%!e#$l %""e(.ly inthevi!inity o#!o$rtho$"e". In the case ofIn Re< Emil P. 1ura$o, the Court pronounced in nouncertain terms thatKQ= = = #reedo( o# e&re""ion need" on o!!%"ion to .e %d0$"tedto%nd%!!o((od%ted'iththere)$ire(ent"o# e)$%llyi(&ort%nt&$.li!intere"t"+ Oneo#the"e#$nd%(ent%l &$.li!intere"t"i"the(%inten%n!e o# the integrity %nd orderly #$n!tioning o# the%d(ini"tr%tion o# 0$"ti!e+ There i" no %ntino(y .et'een #reee&re""ion %nd the integrity o# the "y"te( o# %d(ini"tering 0$"ti!e+*!C'A /66, */*:*/> ?)66+@487It i" "%dly o."erved th%t 0$di!i%l inde&enden!e %nd the orderly%d(ini"tr%tion o# 0$"ti!e h%ve .een thre%tened not only .y !onte(&t$o$"%!t" in"ide, .$t %l"o .y ir%"!i.le de(on"tr%tion" o$t"ide, the !o$rtho$"e"+They 'ittingly or $n'ittingly, "&oil the ide%l o# "o.er, non-&%rti"%n&ro!eeding".e#ore%!old%ndne$tr%l 0$dge. 1veninthe./), !ept. /6, )66,41+$. Did the Supreme &ourt commit an act of judicial legislation in promulgating8nHanc9esolution!.A. #$,%,22,S& entitled L9eR 6uidelinesonthe&onduct ofDemonstrations (icEets 9allies and :ther Similar 6atherings in the Iicinity of theSupreme &ourt and !ll :ther &ourts?LHeld:Petitionersa"soc"aimthat thisCourt committedanact of Audicia""egis"ationinpromu"gatingtheassai"edreso"ution. Theychargethat this Courtamendedprovisionsof 2atasPamansa#2.P.4 2"g. ,,0, otherwise8nownasQthePu"ic Assem"y Act,Q y converting the sidewa"8s and streets within a radius of twohundred #/004 meters from every courthouse from a pu"ic forum p"ace into a Qnora""yQ Mone.Thus, they accuse this Court of = = = vio"ating the princip"e of separationof powers.WereAectthese"owwattsarguments. Pu"icp"aceshistoricallyassociatedwith the free e=ercise of e=pressive activities, such as streets, sidewa"8s, and par8s,are considered, without more, to e pu"ic fora.In other 'ord", it i" not %ny l%'th%t !%n i(.$e "$!h &l%!e" 'ith the &$.li! n%t$re inherent in the(+ B$teven in "$!h &$.li! #or%, it i""ettled 0$ri"&r$den!e th%t the govern(ent(%y re"tri!t "&ee!h &l$" %!tivitie" %nd en#or!e re%"on%.le ti(e, &l%!e, %nd(%nner reg$l%tion" %" long %" the re"tri!tion" %re123 !ontent-ne$tr%l, 173%re n%rro'ly t%ilored to "erve % "igni8!%nt govern(ent%l intere"t, %nd1:3le%ve o&en %(&le %ltern%tive !h%nnel" o# !o(($ni!%tion.Contr%ry there#oreto&etitioner"G i(&re""ion,B+P+ Blg+ EEMdid note"t%.li"h"treet"%nd"ide'%l9", %(ongother&l%!e", %"&$.li!#or%+ A!lo"e loo9 %t the l%' 'ill reve%l th%t it in #%!t &re"!ri.e" re%"on%.le ti(e,&l%!e, %nd (%nner reg$l%tion".Thus, it re9uires a written permit for the ho"dingof pu"icassem"iesinpu"icp"acessuAect, even, totheright of themayor tomodifythep"aceandtimeof thepu"icassem"y, toimposeareroutingof theparade or street march, to "imit the vo"ume of "oud spea8ers or sound system and toprescrie other appropriate restrictions on the conduct of the pu"ic assem"y.The ei"ten!e o# B+P+ Blg+ EEM, ho'ever, doe" not &re!l$de thi" Co$rt#ro(&ro($lg%ting r$le" reg$l%ting !ond$!t o# de(on"tr%tion" in thevi!inity o# !o$rt" to %""$re o$r &eo&le o# %n i(&%rti%l %nd orderly%d(ini"tr%tion o# 0$"ti!e %" (%nd%ted .y the Con"tit$tion+To in"$l%te the0$di!i%ry#ro((o.&re""$re, #riendlyor other'i"e, %ndi"ol%teit #ro(&$.li!hy"teri%, thi"Co$rt (erely(oved%'%y the"it$"o#(%""%!tion"'ithin%7MM-(eterr%di$"#ro(every!o$rtho$"e+ In8ne, B+P+ Blg+ EEMi(&o"e" gener%l re"tri!tion" to the ti(e, &l%!e %nd (%nner o# !ond$!ting!on!erted %!tion"+ On the other h%nd, the re"ol$tion o# thi" Co$rt88reg$l%ting de(on"tr%tion" %dd" "&e!i8! re"tri!tion" %" they involve 0$di!i%linde&enden!e%ndtheorderly%d(ini"tr%tiono# 0$"ti!e. Thereisthusnodiscrepancy etween the two sets of regu"atory measures.!imp"y put, B+P+ Blg+ EEM%nd the %""%iled re"ol$tion !o(&le(ent e%!h other. We so ho"d fo""owing theru"ein"ega" hermeneuticsthat anapparent conHict etweenacourt ru"eandastatutory provision shou"d e harmoniMed and oth shou"d e given eLect if possi"e.#In Re< Petition to !nnul En 6anc Resolution !.M. :.F,F-+FSC FRicar$o C. 2almonte an$ /nion of 'a(yers an$ !$vocates for &ransparencyin Government D/'!&E, &.'. (o. )*>./), !ept. /6, )66,41+#. Should live media coverage of court proceedings be allowed?Held:Theproprietyof grantingor denyingpermissiontothemediatoroadcast, record, or photograph court proceedings invo"ves weighing theconstitutiona" guarantees of freedomof the press, the right of the pu"ic toinformation and the right to pu"ic tria", on the one hand, and on the other hand, thedue process rights of the defendant and the inherent and constitutiona" power of thecourts to contro" their proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartia"administration of Austice.Co""atera""y, it a"so raises issues on the nature of the media,particu"ar"y te"evision and its ro"e in society, and of the impact of new techno"ogieson "aw.The records of the Constitutiona" Commission are ereft of discussionregarding the suAect of cameras in the courtroom.!imi"ar"y, Phi"ippine courts havenot had the opportunity to ru"e on the 9uestion s9uare"y.Whi"eweta8enoticeof the!eptemer )660report of the,+)74i" the ei"ten!e o# % gr%ve %nd &re"ent d%nger o# % !h%r%!ter.othgr%ve%ndi((inent,o#%"erio$"evil to&$.li! "%#ety,&$.li!(or%l", &$.li! he%lth or %ny other legiti(%te &$.li! intere"t, th%t theSt%te h%" % right 1%nd d$ty3 to &revent+5 A."ent "$!h % thre%t to&$.li! "%#ety, the e&$l"ion o# the &etitioner" #ro( the "!hool" i" not0$"ti8ed.The situation that the Court direct"y predicted in 6erona thatKE?T@heHagceremony wi"" ecomeathingof thepast or perhapsconducted with very few participants, and the time wi"" come when we wou"dhave citiMens untaught and unincu"cated in and not imued with reverence forthe Hag and "ove of country, admiration for nationa" heroes, and patriotism C apathetic, even tragic situation, and a"" ecause a sma"" portion of the schoo"popu"ation imposed its wi"", demanded and was granted an e=emption.F has not come to pass.We %re not &er"$%ded th%t .y ee(&ting the Pehov%hG"Witne""e" #ro( "%l$ting the S%g, "inging the n%tion%l %nthe( %nd re!itingthe&%trioti!&ledge, thi"religio$"gro$&'hi!h%d(ittedly!o(&ri"e"%4"(%ll &ortion o# the "!hool &o&$l%tion5 'ill "h%9e $& o$r &%rt o# the glo.e%nd "$ddenly &rod$!e % n%tion 4$nt%$ght %nd $nin!$l!%ted in %nd$ni(.$ed'ithreveren!e#or theS%g, &%trioti"(, loveo# !o$ntry %nd%d(ir%tion #or n%tion%l heroe"+A#ter %ll, 'h%t the &etitioner" "ee9 only i"ee(&tion #ro( the S%g !ere(ony, not e!l$"ion #ro( the &$.li! "!hool"'here they (%y "t$dy the Con"tit$tion, the de(o!r%ti! '%y o# li#e %nd #or(o# govern(ent, %nd le%rn not only the %rt", "!ien!e", Phili&&ine hi"tory %nd!$lt$re .$t %l"o re!eive tr%ining #or % vo!%tion or &ro#e""ion %nd .e t%$ghtthe virt$e" o# 4&%trioti"(, re"&e!t #or h$(%n right", %&&re!i%tion #or92n%tion%l heroe", the right" %nd d$tie" o# !iti;en"hi&, %nd (or%l %nd"&irit$%l v%l$e"=Sec. *324 !rt. "II 1#$%&onstitution.@aspartof thecurricu"a.1=pe""ing or anning the petitioners from Phi"ippine schoo"s wi"" ring aout the verysituationthat thisCourt hadfearedin6erona.3orcingasma"" re"igiousgroup,throughtheironhandof the"aw, toparticipateinaceremonythatvio"atestheirre"igious e"iefs, wi"" hard"yeconduciveto"oveof countryor respect for du"yconstituted authorities.As Dr. %ustice %ac8son remar8ed in Best 2irginia v. 6arnette, *)6 #)6>*4KE===To.elieveth%t&%trioti"('ill notSo$ri"hi# &%trioti!!ere(onie" %re vol$nt%ry %nd "&ont%neo$" in"te%d o# % !o(&$l"oryro$tinei"to(%9e%n$nS%ttering"t%te(ento#the%&&e%l o#o$rin"tit$tion" to #ree (ind"+Whenthey 1diver"ity3 %re "oh%r(le"" to other" or to the St%te %" tho"e 'e de%l 'ith here, the&ri!e i" not too gre%t+B$t #reedo( to di*er i" not li(ited to thing"th%t do not (%tter ($!h+Th%t 'o$ld .e % (ere "h%do' o# #reedo(+The te"t o# it" "$."t%n!e i" the right to di*er %" to thing" th%t to$!hthe he%rt o# the ei"ting order.FE.4Doreover, the e=pu"sion of memers of %ehovahPs Witnesses from the schoo"swhere they are enro""ed wi"" viol%te their right %" Phili&&ine !iti;en", $nder the2FEI Con"tit$tion, to re!eive #ree ed$!%tion, for it is the duty of the !tate toEprotect and promote the right of a"" citiMens to 9ua"ity education = = = and to ma8esuch education accessi"e to a""F =Sec. 1 !rt. "II@.In 2ictoriano v. Elizal$e Rope BorAers> /nion, +6 !C'A +>, we uphe"d thee=emption of memers of the Ig"esia (i Cristo, from the coverage of a c"osed shopagreement etween their emp"oyer and a union ecause it wou"d vio"ate the teachingof their church not to Aoin any "aor groupKE= = =It i" !ert%in th%t not every !on"!ien!e !%n .e%!!o((od%ted.y%ll thel%'"o#the l%nd6.$t'hengener%l l%'"!onSi!t 'ith "!r$&le" o# !on"!ien!e, ee(&tion" o$ght to .e gr%nted$nle"" "o(e U!o(&elling"t%te intere"t"G intervene". #S)er#ert v.6erner *7> 4 Other!on8denti%l in#or(%tion.TheEt)ical Stan$ar$s!ct#R.!.No. ;,7*, enacted on 3eruary /0, )6,64 further&rohi.it" &$.li!o/!i%l"%nde(&loyee"#ro($"ingordiv$lging4!on8denti%l or!l%""i8ed in#or(%tion o/!i%lly 9no'n to the( .y re%"on o# theiro/!e %nd not (%de %v%il%.le to the &$.li!.F #!ec. 7?c@, iid.4Otherac8now"edged "imitations to information access inc"udedi&lo(%ti!!orre"&onden!e, !lo"ed door C%.inet (eeting" %nd ee!$tive"e""ion" o# either ho$"eo# Congre"", %" 'ell %" theintern%ldeli.er%tion" o# the S$&re(e Co$rt.#C)avez v. PCGG, /66 !C'A 7>>, -ec. 6, )66, ?Panganian@41.#. Istheallegedill,gottenwealthoftheAarcosesamatterofpublic concernsubject to this right?Held:With such pronouncements of our government, whose authorityemanatesfromthepeop"e, thereisnodout that therecoveryof theDarcosesJa""egedi"":gottenwea"this amatter of pu"ic concernandimuedwithpu"icinterest.We may a"so add that Ei"":gotten wea"thF refers to %""et" %nd &ro&ertie"&$r&ortedly %!)$ired, dire!tly or indire!tly, .y #or(er Pre"ident =%r!o", hi"i((edi%te #%(ily, rel%tive" %nd !lo"e %""o!i%te" thro$gh or %" % re"$lt o#theiri(&ro&eror illeg%l $"eo#govern(ent#$nd" or&ro&ertie"6ortheirh%ving t%9en $nd$e %dv%nt%ge o# their &$.li! o/!e6 or their $"e o# &o'er",inS$en!e" or rel%tion"hi&", 4re"$lting in their $n0$"t enri!h(ent %nd!%$"ing gr%ve d%(%ge %nd &re0$di!e to the on &. !'uino on Nune 1 1#$%@which provides guide"ines forthe e=ercise of the right of government wor8ers to organiMe, for instance, i(&li!itlyendor"ed %n e%rlier CSC !ir!$l%r 'hi!h Ren0oin" $nder &%in o#%d(ini"tr%tive "%n!tion", %ll govern(ent o/!er" %nd e(&loyee" #ro("t%ging "tri9e", de(on"tr%tion", (%"" le%ve", '%l9o$t" %nd other #or(" o#(%"" %!tion 'hi!h 'ill re"$lt in te(&or%ry "to&&%ge or di"r$&tion o# &$.li!"ervi!eQ #CSC Memoran$um Circular No. ; s. 7:.,, dated Apri" /), )6,74.y"t%ting th%t the Civil Servi!e l%' %nd r$le" governing !on!erted %!tivitie"%nd "tri9e" in the govern(ent "ervi!e "h%ll .e o."erved.It is a"so sett"ed in Aurisprudence that,in gener%l, 'or9er" in the &$.li!"e!tor do not en0oy the right to "tri9e. !lliance of Concerne$ GovernmentBorAers v. Minister of 'a#or an$ Employment#)/> !C'A ), August *,)6,*,a"so per &utierreM, %r., %.4 rationa"iMed the proscription thusKQThe gener%l r$le in the &%"t %nd $& to the &re"ent i" th%t theNter(" %nd !ondition" o#e(&loy(entin theAovern(ent, in!l$ding%ny &oliti!%l "$.divi"ion or in"tr$(ent%lity thereo# %re governed .yl%'+N B+ Sin!e the ter(" %nd !ondition" o# govern(ente(&loy(entareIJe$#y la( ,govern(ent'or9er"!%nnot$"ethe"%(e'e%&on"e(&loyed.ythe'or9er"inthe&riv%te"e!tor to"e!$re !on!e""ion" #ro( their e(&loyer"+The &rin!i&le .ehind l%.or$nioni"(in &riv%te ind$"try i" th%t ind$"tri%l &e%!e !%nnot .e"e!$red thro$gh !o(&$l"ion .y l%'+ Rel%tion" .et'een &riv%tee(&loyer" %nd thei