Professional Documents
Culture Documents
contemptuous character, but also the lack of respect for the two highest
Courts of the land, a complete obliviousness to the fundamental principle of
separation of powers, and a wanton disregard of the cardinal doctrine of
independence of the Judiciary. Res ipsa loquitur. Nothing more needed to
have been said or proven. The necessity to conduct any further evidentially
hearing was obviated (See People vs. Hon. Valenzuela, G.R. Nos. 63950-60,
April 19, 1985, 135 SCRA 712). Atty. Laureta and Ilustre were given ample
opportunity to be heard, and were, in fact, heard.
(1) In his Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Laureta reiterates his allegations
in his Answer to the show-cause Resolution that his professional services
were terminated by Ilustre after the dismissal of the main petition by this
Court; that he had nothing to do with the contemptuous letters to the
individual Justices; and that he is not Ilustre's counsel before the
Tanodbayan.
Significantly enough, however, copy of the Tanodbayan Resolution
dismissing Ilustre's Complaint was furnished Atty. Laureta as "counsel for
the complainant" at his address of record. Of note, too, is the fact that it
was he who was following up the Complaint before the Tanodbayan and,
after its dismissal, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of dismissal.
Of import, as well, is the report of Lorenzo C. Bardel, a process server of
this Court, that after having failed to serve copy of the Per Curiam
Resolution of March 12, 1987 of this Court on Ilustre personally at her
address of record, "101 F. Manalo St., Cubao, Quezon City," having been
informed that she is 6 not a resident of the place," he proceeded to the
residence of Atty. Laureta where the latter's wife "voluntarily received the
two copies of decision for her husband and for Ms. Maravina-Ilustre" (p.
670, Rollo, Vol. 11).
That Ilustre subsequently received copy of this Court's Resolution delivered
to Mrs. Laureta is shown by the fact that she filed, as of March 27, 1987, a
"Petition for Extension of Time to file Motion for Reconsideration" and
subsequently the Motion for Reconsideration. In that Petition Ilustre
2 receipt of the Resolution on March 12, 1987, the very same
acknowledged
date Mrs. Laureta received copy thereof. If, indeed, the lawyer-client
relationship between her husband and Ilustre had been allegedly
completely severed, all Mrs. Laureta had to do was to return to the Sheriff
the copy intended for Ilustre. As it was, however, service on Atty. Laureta
proved to be service on Ilustre as well. The close tie- up between the
corespondents is heightened by the fact that three process servers of this
Court failed to serve copy of this Court's Per Curiam Resolution on Ilustre
personally.
Noteworthy, as well, is that by Atty. Laureta's own admission, he was the
one called by a "reporter" of DZRH to comment on the Ilustre charges
before the Tanodbayan. If, in fact, he had nothing to do with the complaint,
he would not have been pinpointed at all. And if his disclaimer were the
truth, the logical step for him to have taken was to refer the caller to the
lawyer/s allegedly assisting Ilustre, at the very least, out of elementary
courtesy and propriety. But he did nothing of the sort. " He gave his
comment with alacrity.
The impudence and lack of respect of Atty. Laureta for this Court again
surfaces when he asserts in his Motion for Reconsideration that he
"understands the cooperation" of the Bulletin Today as manifested in the
serialized publication of the Per Curiam Resolution of this Court and his
being subjected to a scathing editorial by the same newspaper "because
after all, the Court rendered a favorable judgment in the Bulletin union case
last year." The malice lurking in that statement is most unbecoming of an
officer of the Court and is an added reason for denying reconsideration.
Further, Atty. Laureta stubbornly contends that discussions on the merits in
the Court's Per Curiam Resolution are more properly addressed to the
Tanodbayan, forgetting, however, his own discourse on the merits in his
Answer to this Court's Resolution dated January 29, 1987. He thus
incorrigibly insists on subordinating the Judiciary to the executive
notwithstanding the categorical pronouncement in the Per Curiam
Resolution of March 12, 1987, that Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code
has no application to the members of a collegiate Court; that a charge of
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a
collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper; plus the clear and extended
dissertation in the same Per Curiam Resolution on the fundamental
principle of separation of powers and of checks and balances, pursuant to
which it is this Court "entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to
adjudicate with finality all justifiable disputes, public and private. No other
department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them
'unjust' upon controlling and irresistible reasons of public policy and of
sound practice."
Atty. Laureta's protestations that he has done his best to protect and
uphold the dignity of this Court are belied by environmental facts and
circumstances. His apologetic stance for the "adverse publicity" generated
by the filing of the charges against the Justices concerned before the
Tanodbayan rings with insincerity. The complaint was calculated precisely to
serve that very purpose. The threat to bring the case to "another forum of
justice" was implemented to the fun. Besides, he misses the heart of the
matter. Exposure to the glare of publicity is an occupational hazard. If he
has been visited with disciplinary sanctions it is because by his conduct,
acts and statements, he has, overall, deliberately sought to destroy the
"authenticity, integrity, and conclusiveness of collegiate acts," to
"undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all
justifiable disputes," and to subvert public confidence in the integrity of the
Courts and the Justices concerned, and in the orderly administration of
justice.
In fine, we discern nothing in Atty. Laureta's Motion for Reconsideration that
would call for a modification, much less a reversal, of our finding that he is
guilty of grave professional misconduct that renders him unfit to continue
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to an
attorney and officer of the Court.
(2) Neither do we find merit in Ilustre's Motion for Reconsideration. She has
turned deaf ears to any reason or clarification. She and her counsel have
refused to accept the untenability of their case and the inevitability of
losing in Court. They have allowed suspicion alone to blind their actions and
in so doing degraded the administration of justice. "Investigation" was
utterly uncalled for. All conclusions and judgments of the Court, be they en
banc or by Division, are arrived at only after deliberation. The fact that no
dissent was indicated in the Minutes of the proceedings held on May 14,
1986 showed that the members of the Division voted unanimously. Court
personnel are not in a position to know the voting in any case because all
deliberations are held behind closed doors without any one of them being
present. No malicious inferences should have been drawn from their
inability to furnish the information Ilustre and Atty. Laureta desired The
personality of the Solicitor General never came into the picture. It was
Justice Abad Santos, and not Justice Yap, who was Chairman of the First
Division when the Resolution of May 14, 1986 denying the Petition was
rendered. Thereafter Justice Yap inhibited himself from any participation.
The fact that the Court en banc upheld the challenged Resolutions of the
First Division emphasizes the irrespective of Ilustre's case irrespective of
the personalities involved.
Additionally, Ilustre has been trifling with this Court. She has given our
process servers the run-around. Three of them failed to serve on her
personally her copy of this Court's Per Curiam Resolution of March 12, 1987
at her address of record. Mrs. Laureta informed process server Lorenzo C.
Bardel that Ilustre was residing at 17-D, Quezon St., Tondo, Manila. Romeo
C. Regala, another process server, went to that address to serve copy of
the Resolution but he reported:
4. That inspite of diligent efforts to locate the address of ms.Eva MaravillaIlustre, said address could not be located;
5. That I even asked the occupants (Cerdan Family) of No. 17 Quezon
Street, Tondo, Manila, and they informed that there is no such Ms. Eva
Maravilla-Ilustre in the neighborhood and/or in the vicinity; ... (p. 672, Rollo,
Vol. 11).
The third process server, Nelson C. Cabesuela, was also unable to serve
copy of this 3
Court's Resolution on Ilustre. He reported:
2. On March 17, 1987, at about 9:30 A.M., I arrived at the house in the
address furnished at; the notice of judgment (101 Felix Manalo St., Cubao,
Quezon City), and was received by an elderly woman who admitted to be
the owner of the house but vehemently refused to be Identified, and told
me that she does not know the addressee Maravilla, and told me further
that she always meets different persons looking for Miss Maravilla because
the latter always gives the address of her house;
3. That, I was reminded of an incident that I also experienced in the same
place trying to serve a resolution to Miss Maravilla which was returned
unserved because she is not known in the place; ... (p. 674, Rollo, Vol. II).
And yet, in her Petition for Extension of Time and in her Motion for
Reconsideration she persists in giving that address at 101 Felix Manalo St.,
Cubao, Quezon City, where our process servers were told that she was not
a resident of and that she was unknown thereat. If for her contumacious
On March 3, 1998, the Court resolved, without giving due course to the
petition, to require the respondents to COMMENT thereon within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from notice, and directed the parties "to
MAINTAIN the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of this petition."
On March 10, 1998, the Court granted the Motion for Leave of Court to
Amend and Supplement Petition, and required respondents to COMMENT
thereon within ten (10) days from notice.
On March 16, 1998, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Motion (1) To clarify
Status Quo Order, and (2) For the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order expressly enjoining public respondents from taking any action to
carry out petitioner's execution until the petition is resolved.
On March 16, 1998, the Office of the Solicitor General[11] filed a Comment
(On the Petition and the Amended Supplemental Petition)[12] stating that
(1) this Court has already upheld the constitutionality of the Death Penalty
Law, and has repeatedly declared that the death penalty is not cruel,
unjust, excessive or unusual punishment; (2) execution by lethal injection,
as authorized under R.A. No. 8177 and the questioned rules, is
constitutional, lethal injection being the most modern, more humane, more
economical, safer and easier to apply (than electrocution or the gas
chamber); (3) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does
not expressly or impliedly prohibit the imposition of the death penalty; (4)
R.A. No. 8177 properly delegated legislative power to respondent Director;
and that (5) R.A. No. 8177 confers the power to promulgate the
implementing rules to the Secretary of Justice, Secretary of Health and the
Bureau of Corrections.
On March 17, 1998, the Court required the petitioner to file a REPLY thereto
within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice.
On March 25, 1998, the Commission on Human Rights[13] filed a Motion for
Leave of Court to Intervene and/or Appear as Amicus Curiae[14] with the
attached Petition to Intervene and/or Appear as Amicus Curiae[15] alleging
that the death penalty imposed under R.A. No. 7659 which is to be
implemented by R.A. No. 8177 is cruel, degrading and outside the limits of
civil society standards, and further invoking (a) Article II, Section 11 of the
Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights."; (b) Article III of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person," and Article V thereof, which
states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."; (c) The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, in particular, Article 6 thereof, and the Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Aiming At The Abolition of the Death Penalty; (d) Amnesty International
statistics showing that as of October 1996, 58 countries have abolished the
death penalty for all crimes, 15 countries have abolished the death penalty
for ordinary crimes, and 26 countries are abolitionists de facto, which
means that they have retained the death penalty for ordinary crimes but
are considered abolitionists in practice that they have not executed anyone
during the past ten (10) years or more, or in that they have made an
II.
III.
IV.
V.
"1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
"(while) it follows from Article 6 (2) to (6) that State parties are not obliged
to abolish the death penalty totally, they are obliged to limit its use and, in
particular, to abolish it for other than the 'most serious crimes.'
Accordingly, they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this
light and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the death
penalty to the most serious crimes.' The article strongly suggests (pars. 2
(2) and (6) that abolition is desirable. xxx The Committee is of the opinion
that the expression 'most serious crimes' must be read restrictively to
mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure."
Further, the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of Those Facing the Death
Penalty[42] adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations declare that the ambit of the term 'most serious crimes' should not
go beyond intentional crimes, with lethal or other extremely grave
consequences.
Petitioner assiduously argues that the reimposition of the death penalty law
violates our international obligations, in particular, the International
Covenant on Civil And Political Rights, which was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1996, signed and ratified
by the Philippines on December 19, 1966 and October 23, 1986,[41]
respectively.
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, canalized within banks that keep it from
overflowing.
Thus, the Court finds that the existence of an area for exercise of discretion
by the Secretary of Justice and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
under delegated legislative power is proper where standards are formulated
for the guidance and the exercise of limited discretion, which though
general, are capable of reasonable application.[58]
It is also noteworthy that Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code which
originally provided for the death penalty by electrocution was not subjected
to attack on the ground that it failed to provide for details such as the kind
of chair to be used, the amount of voltage, volume of amperage or place of
attachment of electrodes on the death convict. Hence, petitioner's
analogous argument with respect to lethal injection must fail.
A careful reading of R.A. No. 8177 would show that there is no undue
delegation of legislative power from the Secretary of Justice to the Director
of the Bureau of Corrections for the simple reason that under the
Administrative Code of 1987, the Bureau of Corrections is a mere
constituent unit of the Department of Justice.[59] Further, the Department
of Justice is tasked, among others, to take charge of the "administration of
the correctional system."[60] Hence, the import of the phraseology of the
law is that the Secretary of Justice should supervise the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections in promulgating the Lethal Injection Manual, in
consultation with the Department of Health.[61]
However, the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177
suffer serious flaws that could not be overlooked. To begin with, something
basic appears missing in Section 19 of the implementing rules which
provides:
"SEC. 19. EXECUTION PROCEDURE. - Details of the procedure prior to,
during and after administering the lethal injection shall be set forth in a
manual to be prepared by the Director. The manual shall contain details of,
among others, the sequence of events before and after execution;
procedures in setting up the intravenous line; the administration of the
lethal drugs; the pronouncement of death; and the removal of the
intravenous system.
Said manual shall be confidential and its distribution shall be limited to
authorized prison personnel."
Thus, the Courts finds in the first paragraph of Section 19 of the
implementing rules a veritable vacuum. The Secretary of Justice has
practically abdicated the power to promulgate the manual on the execution
procedure to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, by not providing for
a mode of review and approval thereof. Being a mere constituent unit of the
Department of Justice, the Bureau of Corrections could not promulgate a
manual that would not bear the imprimatur of the administrative superior,
the Secretary of Justice as the rule-making authority under R.A. No. 8177.
Such apparent abdication of departmental responsibility renders the said
paragraph invalid.
As to the second paragraph of section 19, the Court finds the requirement
of confidentiality of the contents of the manual even with respect to the
convict unduly suppressive. It sees no legal impediment for the convict,
should he so desire, to obtain a copy of the manual. The contents of the
manual are matters of public concern "which the public may want to know,
either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen."[62] Section 7
of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"SEC. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and
papers pertaining to official acts, transaction, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as a basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitation as may be provided by law."
The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to
information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality of the free
flow of ideas and information in a democracy.[63] In the same way that free
discussion enables members of society to cope with the exigencies of their
time,[64] access to information of general interest aids the people in
democratic decision-making[65] by giving them a better perspective of the
vital issues confronting the nation.[66]
D. SECTION 17 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT R.A. NO.
8177 IS INVALID FOR BEING DISCRIMINATORY AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
Even more seriously flawed than Section 19 is Section of the implementing
rules which provides:
"SEC. 17. SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE.
Execution by lethal injection shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the
three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is
pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy (70) years of age. In this latter
case, the death penalty shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion
9 the accessory penalties provided in Article 40 of the Revised
perpetua with
Penal Code."
Petitioner contends that Section 17 is unconstitutional for being
discriminatory as well as for being an invalid exercise of the power to
legislate by respondent Secretary. Petitioner insists that Section 17 amends
the instances when lethal injection may be suspended, without an express
amendment of Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section
25 of R.A. No. 7659.
Article 83 f the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 25 of R.A. No.
7659 now reads as follows:
"ART. 83, Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.- The death
sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or
within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years
of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the
enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the aforesaid
Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act
No. 8177 are appropriately amended, revised and/or corrected in
accordance with this Decision.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
1
0
Now, strictly speaking and observing the usual procedural rules, what has
just been said should suffice to dispose of this case. In other words, in the
light of Our view that respondent court committed a grave error in
declaring itself jurisdictionally impotent in the premises, ordinarily, what
remains for Us to do is only to direct that petitioner's case be tried and
decided by respondent judge on the merits. But this is the Supreme Court
whose power and duty to do substantial justice in every case before it are
inherent, plenary and imperative, hence extensive to all instances where it
appears that final resolution of the controversy before it is feasible without
denying any of the parties involved full opportunity to be heard. Stated
differently, if in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any
supposed procedural error of any lower court, it should be found that
indeed there has been a mistake, and it further appears that all the facts
needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are already
before the Court undisputed or uncontroverted by the parties, the Supreme
Court may at its option, whenever it feels the best interests of justice would
be thereby subserved, dispense with the usual procedure of remanding the
case to the court of origin for its own judgment, and instead, the Supreme
Court may already resolve the pertinent determinative issues and render
the final judgment on the merits. The obvious reason for such an extension
in the exercise of the Court's pervasive power is that any other procedure
would amount to an unnecessary rigmarole which can only augment the
expenses, efforts and anxieties of the parties and uselessly delay the
administration of justice, no other result for all concerned being anyway
perceptible.
Such is the situation in the case at bar. Although no trial was held in the
court below, the pleadings before Us portray all the vital issues between
the parties. The facts alleged by both of them are mutually uncontroverted
and, on the other hand, the legal issues are properly joined. Respondents
have from all appearances unquestioningly submitted all matters
controversy for resolution of this Court. In fact, in their "Manifestation and
Comment" dated November 12, 1975 respondents state their position in
this respect unequivocally thus:
That they join with the petitioner in her Motion With Leave for Early
Resolution dated September 20, 1976, consistent with herein respondents
submittal that the instant case be resolved by this Honorable Tribunal'
without further remanding the case to the court of origin' as manifested in
their Reply dated July 14, 1975.
Accordingly, We shall now proceed to determined petitioner's prayer for
mandamus on its merits.
In this connection, it may be stated that on May 22, 1975, subsequent to
the hearing of this case, respondents filed a manifestation to the effect that
on May 12, 1975, the following Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1975,
had been issued:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 6
SERIES OF 1975
now comes before this Honorable Tribunal to submit these comments and
manifestations and respectfully avers that
1. Petitioner concurs with the manifestation of respondents to the effect
that she be restored to the position she was excluded from 'effective upon
assumption of office without prejudice to the result of the proceedings
pending before the Honorable Supreme Court'; the payment of her back
salaries and other emoluments she is entitled to and the reimbursement of
her expenses actually incurred in connection with the case at bar-, provided
that her claim for damages, actual moral and exemplary shag stand
unaffected by her concurrence to respondents' manifestation and shall
remain subject to the resolution of this most Honorable Tribunal
2. The above entitled case arose out of the dismissal by the lower court of
the petition for mandamus with damages filed by your petitioner, docketed
as Special Civil Action No. 94986 upon the only ground that the relief
prayed for in the said petition is 'beyond the power of the court to extend.'
3. The petition in the Lower Court sought two specific purposes. These
purposes are: (1) the restoration of petitioner to the position she was
excluded from including the payment of her back salaries, actual expenses
incurred in connection with the case and other emoluments due her by
virtue of the office, and (2) the payment of damages, actual moral and
exemplary as a result of her dismissal.
4. The manifestation of respondents speaks only of the restoration of
petitioner to the position she was excluded from and the payment of her
back salaries, other emoluments due her and the actual expenses incurred
in connection with the case at bar, but leaving out, or perhaps purposely
omitting the question of damages prayed for in the petition of origin out of
the manifestation and excluding also the award of attorney's fees to
petitioner.
5. The concurrence therefore, of your petitioner to the manifestation of
respondents is only limited to the matters therein mentioned but without
prejudice to her claim of actual moral and exemplary damages. (Pp, 111112, Record,)
with prayer that:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed to this Most Honorable Tribunal
that an order be issued to respondents to a. restore your petitioner to her former position;
b. pay your petitioner's back salaries, and other emoluments due her by
virtue of the office,
c. reimburse your petitioner the expenses she actually incurred in
connection with the case;
d. pay attorney's fees as prayed for in the petition of origin which includes
actual moral and exemplary or in the alternative, to remand the question of
damages to the court of origin.
FURTHER, petitioner prays for such other relief deemed just, proper and
equitable under the premises. (Pp. 112-113, Record.)
which prayer she reiterated in her subsequent motions of September 24,
1976, November 8, 1976 and September 13, 1977.
With this denouement in the circumstances of this case after the same was
submitted for Our decision it has become unnecessary for Us to pass on the
claims of petitioner to (1) reinstatement, (2) back salaries and other
emoluments due her by virtue of her office and (3) reimbursement of all
expenses actually incurred by her in connection with this case.
Respondents have already committed themselves to accede to her prayer
in these respects, thus:
Your respondents hereby respectfully submit that it is no longer necessary
for the petitioner to pray to this Honorable Tribunal that judgment be
rendered ordering respondents to:
l. Restore your petitioner movant to her former position;
2. Pay your petitioner movant her back salaries and other emoluments due
her by virtue of the position,
3. Reimburse your petitioner movant the expenses actually incurred in
connection with the case, including attorney's fees;
because the respondents, though without admitting the validity of the
cause of action of the petitioner, have already voluntarily and freely
expressed their absolute and unqualified willingness and ability to comply
with those demands of petitioner, as respondents have expressed in the
Administrative Order No. 6 dated May 12, 1975 and in their Manifestation
dated May 122, 1975 wherein they further unconditionally committed
themselves 4
that petitioner can return to work any time without waiting for
any resolution of this Honorable Tribunal. That which is already being
voluntarily complied with need not be ordered anymore. (Manifestation and
Comment of respondents dated November 12, 1976.)
In the same Manifestation and Comment just partially quoted, however,
respondents pleaded as follows:
However, because of the unexplained failure of petitioner to report back to
work pursuant to Administrative Order No. 6, the herein respondent bank's
commitment to pay back salaries and allowances, we beg leave, should be
confined and limited to the period from October 16, 1972 (date of her
dismissal) up to only some reasonable time from May 12, 1975 when
Administrative Order No. 6 was issued.
Thus, the only issue left for determination and resolution of this Honorable
Tribunal is whether or not the respondent is still liable for moral or
than to hold that she has deprived herself of legal and equitable basis for
the additional relief of moral and exemplary damages.
The unbending rule of jurisprudence in this jurisdiction ' regarding the right
of an employee or worker to reinstatement after an unlawful dismissal does
not permit him or her to stand Idly by for a long time while awaiting the
settlement of the issue. Concomitant with the right to be taken back is the
obligation of the dismissed employee or worker to endeavor to secure
gainful employment elsewhere. The foundation of such a rule is the
principle of no work, no pay. In this particular case, petitioner's failure to
report for duty as directed might have impaired the public service being
performed by her employer, considering that her expected return must
have derailed any plans for her replacement.
Besides, the law on damages imposes upon the claimant, regardless of the
unquestionability of his or her entitlement thereto, to minimize the same as
much as possible. Such indeed is the demand of equity, for the juridical
concept of damages is nothing more than to repair what has been lost
materially and morally. It may not be taken advantage of to allow unjust
enrichment. Any relevant act of unfairness on the part of the claimant
correspondingly writes off the moral wrong involved in the juridical injury
inflicted upon him or her.
WHEREFORE, the respondent court's order of September 3, 1974 is hereby
declared null and void and set aside, and Civil Case No. 94986 is deemed
terminated in accordance with the terms of this decision. The Court further
rules that petitioner should report for work within thirty (30) days from
service of this decision upon her counsel of record, on pain of her losing her
job, if she fails to do so. Respondents' tender of her back salaries and
expenses in accordance with their manifestations before the Court of May
22, 1975 and November 12, 1976 is declared well taken, and whether or
not petitioner returns for work as herein indicated, she should be paid what
she has been promised which, for clarity, We hold includes (a) payment of
petitioner's back salaries from October 16, 1972, the date of her dismissal
up to one month or thirty (30) days after her counsel's receipt of the
1 Manifestation and Comment of November 12, 1976 above
respondents'
referred to 5
and (b) reimbursement of her expenses actually incurred in
connection with this case, including attorney's fees equivalent to ten (10)
per centum of the amount of total recovery as herein allowed. (2)
No costs.
In those cases 2 in which citizens were authorized to sue, this Court upheld
their standing in view of the "transcendental importance" of the
constitutional question raised which justified the granting of relief. In
contrast, in the case at bar, as will presently be shown, petitioner's
substantive claim is without merit. To the extent, therefore, that a party's
standing is determined by the substantive merit of his case or preliminary
estimate thereof, petitioner TELEBAP must be held to be without standing.
Indeed, a citizen will be allowed to raise a constitutional question only when
he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened
injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the
injury fairly is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is
likely to be redressed by a favorable action. 3 Members of petitioner have
not shown that they have suffered harm as a result of the operation of 92
of B.P. Blg. 881.
stations provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for the COMELEC
Time. 8
Petitioners' argument is without merit, All broadcasting, whether by radio or
by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies
have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast
than there are frequencies to assign. 9 A franchise is thus a privilege
subject, among other things, to amended by Congress in accordance with
the constitutional provision that "any such franchise or right granted . . .
shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when
the common good so requires." 10
The idea that broadcast stations may be required to provide COMELEC Time
free of charge is not new. It goes back to the Election Code of 1971 (R.A.
No. 6388), which provided:
Sec. 49. Regulation of election propaganda through mass media. (a) The
franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby
amended so as to require each such station to furnish free of charge, upon
request of the Commission [on Elections], during the period of sixty days
before the election not more than fifteen minutes of prime time once a
week which shall be known as "Comelec Time" and which shall be used
exclusively by the Commission to disseminate vital election information.
Said "Comelec Time" shall be considered as part of the public service time
said stations are required to furnish the Government for the dissemination
of public information and education under their respective franchises or
permits.
The provision was carried over with slight modification by the 1978 Election
Code (P.D. No. 1296), which provided:
Sec. 46. COMELEC Time. The Commission [on Elections] shall procure
radio and television time to be known as "COMELEC Time" which shall be
allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of
coverage of said radio and television stations. For this purpose, the
franchises of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby
amended so as to require such stations to furnish the Commission radio or
television time, free of charge, during the period of the campaign, at least
once but not oftener than every other day.
Substantially the same provision is now embodied in 92 of B.P. Blg. 881.
Petitioners contend that 92 of BP Blg. 881 violates the due process clause
6 and the eminent domain provision 7 of the Constitution by taking air time
from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of just
compensation. Petitioners claim that the primary source of revenue of the
radio and television stations is the sale of air time to advertisers and that to
require these stations to provide free air time is to authorize a taking which
is not "a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of
private property." According to petitioners, in 1992, the GMA Network, Inc.
lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time of one (1) hour every morning
from Mondays to Fridays and one (1) hour on Tuesdays and Thursday from
7:00 to 8:00 p.m. (prime time) and, in this year's elections, it stands to lose
P58,980,850.00 in view of COMELEC'S requirement that radio and television
Sec. 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations,
shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to
intervene when the common good so demands (Article XII).
The interconnection which has been required of PLDT is a form of
"intervention" with property rights dictated by "the objective of government
to promote the rapid expansion of telecommunications services in all areas
of the Philippines, . . . to maximize the use of telecommunications facilities
available, . . . in recognition of the vital role of communications in nation
building . . . and to ensure that all users of the public telecommunications
service have access to all other users of the service wherever they may be
within the Philippines at an acceptable standard of service and at
reasonable cost" (DOTC Circular No. 90-248). Undoubtedly, the
encompassing objective is the common good. The NTC, as the regulatory
agency of the State, merely exercised its delegated authority to regulate
the use of telecommunications networks when it decreed interconnection.
In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereafter
supervising radio and television stations, the state spends considerable
public funds in licensing and supervising such stations. 18 It would be
strange if it cannot even require the licensees to render public service by
giving free air time.
Considerable effort is made in the dissent of Mr. Justice Panganiban to show
that the production of television programs involves large expenditure and
requires the use of equipment for which huge investments have to be
made. The dissent cites the claim of GMA Network that the grant of free air
time to the COMELEC for the duration of the 1998 campaign period would
cost the company P52,380,000, representing revenue it would otherwise
earn if the air time were sold to advertisers, and the amount of P6,600,850,
representing the cost of producing a program for the COMELEC Time, or the
total amount of P58,980,850.
The claim that petitioner would be losing P52,380,000 in unrealized
revenue from advertising is based on the assumption that air time is
"finished product" which, it is said, become the property of the company,
like oil produced from refining or similar natural resources after undergoing
a process for their production. But air time is not owned by broadcast
companies. As held in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 19 which upheld
the right of a party personally attacked to reply, "licenses to broadcast do
not confer ownership of designated frequencies, but only the temporary
privilege of using them." Consequently, "a license permits broadcasting,
but the license has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the
license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow
citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the
Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others
and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present
those views and voices which are representative of his community and
which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves." 20 As
radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the
COMELEC.
Justice Panganiban's dissent quotes from Tolentino on the Civil Code which
says that "the air lanes themselves 'are not property because they cannot
be appropriated for the benefit of any individual.'" (p. 5) That means
neither the State nor the stations own the air lanes. Yet the dissent also
says that "The franchise holders can recover their huge investments only
by selling air time to advertisers." (p. 13) If air lanes cannot be
appropriated, how can they be used to produce air time which the franchise
holders can sell to recover their investment? There is a contradiction here.
As to the additional amount of P6,600,850, it is claimed that this is the cost
of producing a program and it is for such items as "sets and props," "video
tapes," "miscellaneous (other rental, supplies, transportation, etc.)," and
"technical facilities (technical crew such as director and cameraman as well
as 'on air plugs')." There is no basis for this claim. Expenses for these items
will be for the account of the candidates. COMELEC Resolution No. 2983,
6(d) specifically provides in this connection:
(d) Additional services such as tape-recording or video-taping of programs,
the preparation of visual aids, terms and condition thereof, and
consideration to be paid therefor may be arranged by the candidates with
the radio/television station concerned. However, no radio/television station
shall make any discrimination among candidates relative to charges, terms,
practices or facilities for in connection with the services rendered.
It is unfortunate that in the effort to show that there is taking of private
property worth millions of pesos, the unsubstantiated charge is made that
by its decision the Court permits the "grand larceny of precious time," and
allows itself to become "the people's unwitting oppressor." The charge is
really unfortunate. In Jackson v. Rosenbaun, 21 Justice Holmes was so
incensed by the resistance of property owners to the erection of party walls
that he was led to say in his original draft, "a statute, which embodies the
2 understanding of the reciprocal rights and duties of
community's
neighboring0landowners, does not need to invoke the penalty larceny of the
police power in its justification." Holmes's brethren corrected his taste, and
Holmes had to amend the passage so that in the end it spoke only of
invoking "the police power." 22 Justice Holmes spoke of the "petty larceny"
of the police power. Now we are being told of the "grand larceny [by means
of the police power] of precious air time."
It is noteworthy that 40 of R.A. No. 6388, from which 92 of B.P. Blg. 881
was taken, expressly provided that the COMELEC Time should "be
considered as part of the public service time said stations are required to
furnish the Government for the dissemination of public information and
education under their respective franchises or permits." There is no reason
to suppose that 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 considers the COMELEC Time therein
provided to be otherwise than as a public service which petitioner is
required to render under 4 of its charter (R.A. No. 7252). In sum, B.P. Blg.
881, 92 is not an invalid amendment of petitioner's franchise but the
well as the COMELEC Space provided for in 90, is in lieu of paid ads which
candidates are prohibited to have under 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646.
Accordingly, this objective must be kept in mind in determining the details
of the COMELEC Time as well as those of the COMELEC Space.
There would indeed be objection to the grant of power to the COMELEC if
92 were so detailed as to leave no room for accommodation of the
demands of radio and television programming. For were that the case,
there could be an intrusion into the editorial prerogatives of radio and
television stations.
Differential Treatment of
Broadcast Media Justified
Petitioners complain that B.P. Blg. 881, 92 singles out radio and television
stations to provide free air time. They contend that newspapers and
magazines are not similarly required as, in fact, in Philippine Press Institute
v. COMELEC, 27 we upheld their right to the payment of just compensation
for the print space they may provide under 90.
The argument will not bear analysis. It rests on the fallacy that broadcast
media are entitled to the same treatment under the free speech guarantee
of the Constitution as the print media. There are important differences in
the characteristics of the two media, however, which justify their
differential treatment for free speech purposes. Because of the physical
limitations of the broadcast spectrum, the government must, of necessity,
allocate broadcast frequencies to those wishing to use them. There is no
similar justification for government allocation and regulation of the print
media. 28
In the allocation of limited resources, relevant conditions may validly be
imposed on the grantees or licensees. The reason for this is that, as already
noted, the government spends public funds for the allocation and
regulation of the broadcast industry, which it does not do in the case of the
print media. To require the radio and television broadcast industry to
provide free air time for the COMELEC Time is a fair exchange for what the
industry gets.
From another point of view, this Court has also held that because of the
unique and pervasive influence of the broadcast media, "[n]ecessarily . . .
the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in
scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media." 29
The broadcast media have also established a uniquely pervasive presence
in the lives of all Filipinos. Newspapers and current books are found only in
metropolitan areas and in the poblaciones of municipalities accessible to
fast and regular transportation. Even here, there are low income masses
who find the cost of books, newspapers, and magazines beyond their
humble means. Basic needs like food and shelter perforce enjoy high
priorities.
On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television
set is also becoming universal. Their message may be simultaneously
received by a national or regional audience of listeners including the
indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or
television set. The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every
person of every age, persons of varying susceptibilities to persuasion,
persons of different I.Q.s and mental capabilities, persons whose reactions
to inflammatory or offensive speech would he difficult to monitor or predict.
The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers
of the printed work, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate,
analyze, and reject the utterance. 30
Petitioners' assertion therefore that 92 of B.P. Blg. 881 denies them the
equal protection of the law has no basis. In addition, their plea that 92
(free air time) and 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 (ban on paid political ads) should
be invalidated would pave the way for a return to the old regime where
moneyed candidates could monopolize media advertising to the
disadvantage of candidates with less resources. That is what Congress tried
to reform in 1987 with the enactment of R.A. No. 6646. We are not free to
set aside the judgment of Congress, especially in light of the recent failure
of interested parties to have the law repealed or at least modified.
ruling was erroneous. The eighth Justice (Padilla, J.) on the other hand
agrees with the seven Justices that the ELA is in a real sense a lease
agreement and therefore does not violate R.A. No. 1169.
The decision in the first case was a split decision: 7-6. With the retirement
of one of the original majority (Cruz, J.) and one of the dissenters (Bidin, J.)
it was not surprising that the first decision in the first case was later
reversed.
It is argued that, in any case, a reexamination of the two questions is
barred because the PCSO and the Philippine Gaming Management
Corporation made a " formal commitment not to ask for a reconsideration
of the Decision in the first lotto case and instead submit a new agreement
that would be in conformity with the PCSO Charter (R.A. No. 1169, as
amended) and with the Decision of the Supreme Court in the first
Kilosbayan case against on-line, hi-tech lotto."
To be sure, a new contract was entered into which the majority of the Court
finds has been purged of the features which made the first contract
objectionable. Moreover, what the PCSO said in its manifestation in the first
case was the following:
1. They are no longer filing a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of
this Honorable Court dated May 5, 1994, a copy of which was received on
May 6, 1994.
2. Respondents PCSO and PGMC are presently negotiating a new lease
agreement consistent with the authority of PCSO under its charter (R.A. No.
1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42) and conformable with the
pronouncements of this Honorable Court in its Decision of May 5, 1995.
The PGMC made substantially the same manifestation as the PCSO.
There was thus no "formal commitment" but only a manifestation that
the parties were not filing a motion for reconsideration. Even if the parties
made a "formal commitment," the six (6) dissenting Justices certainly could
not be bound thereby not to insist on their contrary view on the question of
standing. Much less were the two new members bound by any "formal
commitment" made by the parties. They believed that the ruling in the first
case was erroneous. Since in their view reexamination was not barred by
the doctrine of stare decisis, res judicata or conclusiveness of judgment or
law of the case, they voted the way they did with the remaining five (5)
dissenters in the first case to form a new majority of eight.
Petitioners ask, "Why should this be so?" Because, as explained in the
decision, the first decision was erroneous and no legal doctrine stood in the
way of its reexamination. It can, therefore, be asked "with equal candor":
"Why should this not be so?"
Nor is this the first time a split decision was tested, if not reversed, in a
subsequent case because of change in the membership of a court. In 1957,
this Court, voting 6-5, held in Feliciano v. Aquinas, G.R. No. L-10201, Sept.
23, 1957 that the phrase "at the time of the election" in 2174 of the
understood the question on which he voted," with the result that what was
originally a 4-4 vote was converted into a majority (5-3) for holding the acts
invalid.
On the day the decision was announced, President Grant nominated to the
Court William Strong and Joseph P. Bradley to fill the vacancy caused by the
resignation of Justice Grier and to restore the membership of the Court to
nine. In 1871, Hepburn v. Griswold was overruled in the Legal Tender Cases,
as Knox v. Lee came to be known, in an opinion by Justice Strong, with a
dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Chase and the three other surviving
members of the former majority. There were allegations that the new
Justices were appointed for their known views on the validity of the Legal
Tender Acts, just as there were others who defended the character and
independence of the new Justices. History has vindicated the overruling of
the Hepburn case by the new majority. The Legal Tender Cases proved to be
the Court's means of salvation from what Chief Justice Hughes later
described as one of the Court's "self-inflicted wounds." 1
We now consider
reconsideration.
for
case was dismissed by the trial court. The dismissal was affirmed by this
Court on the grounds of res judicata and pendency of a prejudicial question,
thus avoiding the question of petitioner's standing.
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
(Emphasis)
On the other hand, in Gonzales v. Raquiza, 180 SCRA 254 (1989), petitioner
sought the annulment of a contract made by the government with a foreign
corporation for the purchase of road construction equipment. The question
of standing was not discussed, but even if it was, petitioner's standing
could be sustained because he was a minority stockholder of the Philippine
National Bank, which was one of the defendants in the case.
the law of this case because the parties are the same and the case involves
the same issue, i.e., the meaning of this statutory provision.
business of others. The following excerpt from the Record of the Batasan
Pambansa shows this to be the subject of the discussion:
The "law of the case" doctrine is inapplicable, because this case is not a
continuation of the first one. Petitioners also say that inquiry into the same
question as to the meaning of the statutory provision is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. The general rule on the "conclusiveness of
judgment," however, is subject to the exception that a question may be
reopened if it is a legal question and the two actions involve substantially
different claims. This is generally accepted in American law from which our
Rules of Court was adopted. (Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 59 L.Ed.2d
147, 210 (1979); RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW 2d, ON JUDGMENTS, 28; P.
BATOR, D. MELTZER, P. MISHKIN AND D. SHAPIRO, THE FEDERAL COURTS
AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1058, n.2 [3rd Ed., 1988]) There is nothing in
the record of this case to suggest that this exception is inapplicable in this
jurisdiction.
Indeed, the questions raised in this case are legal questions and the claims
involved are substantially different from those involved in the prior case
between the parties. As already stated, the ELA is substantially different
from the Contract of Lease declared void in the first case.
Mr. ZAMORA.
amendment.
Mr.
Speaker,
the
committee
accepts
the
proposed
Thus what the PCSO is prohibited from doing is from investing in a business
engaged in sweepstakes races, lotteries and other similar activities. It is
prohibited from doing so whether "in collaboration, association or joint
venture" with others or "by itself." This seems to be the only possible
interpretation of 1 (A) and (B) in light of its text and its legislative history.
That there is today no other entity engaged in sweepstakes races, lotteries
and the like does not detract from the validity of this interpretation.
III. The Court noted in its decision that the provisions of the first contract,
which were considered to be features of a joint venture agreement, had
been removed in the new contract. For instance, 5 of the ELA provides that
in the operation of the on-line lottery, the PCSO must employ "its own
competent and qualified personnel." Petitioners claim, however, that the
"contemporaneous interpretation" of PGMC officials of this provision is
otherwise. They cite the testimony of Glen Barroga of the PGMC before a
Senate committee to the effect that under the ELA the PGMC would be
operating the lottery system "side by side" with PCSO personnel as part of
the transfer of technology.
Whether the transfer of technology would result in a violation of PCSO's
franchise should be determined by facts and not by what some officials of
the PGMC state by way of opinion. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it
must be presumed that 5 reflects the true intention of the parties. Thus,
Art. 1370 of the Civil Code says that "If the terms of a contract are clear
and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal
meaning of its stipulations shall control." The intention of the parties must
be ascertained from their "contemporaneous and subsequent acts." (Art.
1371; Atlantic Gulf Co. v. Insular Government, 10 Phil. 166 [1908]) It cannot
simply be judged from what one of them says. On the other hand, the claim
of third parties, like petitioners, that the clause on upgrading of equipment
would enable the parties after a while to change the contract and enter into
something else in violation of the law is mere speculation and cannot be a
basis for judging the validity of the contract.
IV. It is contended that 1 of E.O. No. 301 covers all types of "contract[s] for
public services or for furnishing of supplies, materials and equipment to the
government or to any of its branches, agencies or instrumentalities" and
not only contracts of purchase and sale. Consequently, a lease of
equipment, like the ELA, must be submitted to public bidding in order to be
valid. This contention is based on two premises: (1) that 1 of E.O. No. 301
applies to any contract whereby the government acquires title to or the use
of the equipment and (2) that the words "supplies," "materials," and
"equipment" are distinct from each other so that when an exception in 1
speaks of "supplies," it cannot be construed to mean "equipment."
Petitioners' contention will not bear analysis. For example, the term
"supplies" is used in paragraph (a), which provides that a contract for the
furnishing of "supplies" in order to meet an emergency is exempt from
public bidding. Unless "supplies" is construed to include "equipment,"
however, the lease of heavy equipment needed for rescue operations in
case of a calamity will have to be submitted to public bidding before it can
be entered into by the government.
In dissent Justice Feliciano says that in such a situation the government can
simply resort to expropriation, paying compensation afterward. This is just
like purchasing the equipment through negotiation when the question is
whether the purchase should be by public bidding, not to mention the fact
that the power to expropriate may not be exercised when the government
can very well negotiate with private owners.
Indeed, there are fundamental difficulties in simultaneously contending (1)
that E.O. No. 301, 1 covers both contracts of sale and lease agreements
and (2) that the words "supplies," "materials" and "equipment" can not be
interchanged. Thus, under paragraph (b) of 1, public bidding is not
required "whenever the supplies are to be used in connection with a project
or activity which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public
service." Following petitioners' theory, there should be a public bidding
before the government can enter into a contract for the lease of bulldozers
2 equipment even if these are urgently needed in areas
and dredging
ravaged by 8
lahar because, first, lease contracts are covered by the general
rule and, second, the exception to public bidding in paragraph (b) covers
only "supplies" but not equipment.
To take still another example. Paragraph (d), which does away with the
requirement of public bidding "whenever the supplies under procurement
have been unsuccessfully placed on bid for at least two consecutive times,
either due to lack of bidders or the offers received in each instance were
exorbitant or nonconforming to specifications." Again, following the theory
of the petitioners, a contract for the lease of equipment cannot be entered
into even if there are no bids because, first, lease contracts are governed
by the general rule on public bidding and, second, the exception to public
bidding in paragraph (d) applies only to contracts for the furnishing of
"supplies."
Other examples can be given to show the absurdity of interpreting 1 as
applicable to any contract for the furnishing of supplies, materials and
12. Procurement
without public bidding. Procurement of supplies may
9
be made without the benefit of public bidding in the following modes:
(1) Personal canvass of responsible merchants;
(2) Emergency purchases;
(3) Direct purchases from manufacturers or exclusive distributors;
(4) Thru the Bureau of Supply Coordination; and
(5) Purchase from other government entities or foreign governments.
Sec. 3 broadly defines the term "supplies" as including
everything except real estate, which may be needed in the transaction of
public business, or in the pursuit of any undertaking, project, or activity,
AND
UNIVERSITIES
V.
SEC.
OF
The petitioning colleges and universities request that Act No. 2706 as
amended by Act No. 3075 and Commonwealth Act No. 180 be declared
unconstitutional, because: A. They deprive owners of schools and colleges
as well as teachers and parents of liberty and property without due process
of law; B. They deprive parents of their natural rights and duty to rear their
children for civic efficiency; and C. Their provisions conferring on the
Secretary of Education unlimited power and discretion to prescribe rules
and standards constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power.
A printed memorandum explaining their position in extenso is attached to
the record.
The Government's legal representative submitted a mimeographed
memorandum contending that, (1) the matter constitutes no justiciable
controversy exhibiting unavoidable necessity of deciding the constitutional
questions; (2) petitioners are in estoppel to challenge the validity of the
said acts; and (3) the Acts are constitutionally valid.
Petitioners submitted a lengthy reply to the above arguments.
Act No. 2706 approved in 1917 is entitled, "An Act making the inspection
and recognition of private schools and colleges obligatory for the Secretary
of Public Instruction." Under its provisions, the Department of Education
has, for the past 37 years, supervised and regulated all private schools in
this country apparently without audible protest, nay, with the general
acquiescence of the general public and the parties concerned.
It should be understandable, then, that this Court should be doubly
reluctant to consider petitioner's demand for avoidance of the law
aforesaid, specially where, as respondents assert, petitioners suffered no
wrongnor allege anyfrom the enforcement of the criticized statute.
It must be 3evident to any one that the power to declare a legislative
enactment void
2 is one which the judge, conscious of the fallability of the
human judgment, will shrink from exercising in any case where he can
conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the
responsibility. (Cooley Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., Vol. I, p. 332.)
When a law has been long treated as constitutional and important rights
have become dependent thereon, the Court may refuse to consider an
attack on its validity. (C. J. S. 16, p. 204.)
As a general rule, the constitutionality of a statute will be passed on only if,
and to the extent that, it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable
controversy and is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties
concerned. (16 C. J. S., p. 207.)
In support of their first proposition petitioners contend that the right of a
citizen to own and operate a school is guaranteed by the Constitution, and
any law requiring previous governmental approval or permit before such
xxx
xxx
Constitution, Vol. II, p. 615; Benitez, Philippine Social Life and Progress, p.
335.)
The Constitution (it) "provides for state control of all educational
institutions" even as it enumerates certain fundamental objectives of all
education to wit, the development of moral character, personal discipline,
civic conscience and vocational efficiency, and instruction in the duties of
citizenship. (Malcolm & Laurel, Philippine Constitutional Law, 1936.)
the exaction may be upheld; but such point involves investigation and
examination of relevant data, which should best be carried out in the lower
courts. If on the other hand it is a tax, petitioners' issue would still be within
the original jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance.
The last grievance of petitioners relates to the validity of Republic Act No.
139 which in its section 1 provides:
The Solicitor General cities many authorities to show that the power to
regulate means power to control, and quotes from the proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention to prove that State control of private education
was intended by the organic law. It is significant to note that the
Constitution grants power to supervise and to regulate. Which may mean
greater power than mere regulation.
SEC. 11-A. The total annual expense of the Office of Private Education shall
be met by the regular amount appropriated in the annual Appropriation Act:
Provided, however, That for additional expenses in the supervision and
regulation of private schools, colleges and universities and in the purchase
of textbook to be sold to student of said schools, colleges and universities
and President of the Philippines may authorize the Secretary of Instruction
to levy an equitable assessment from each private educational institution
equivalent to one percent of the total amount accruing from tuition and
other fees: . . . and non-payment of the assessment herein provided by any
private school, college or university shall be sufficient cause for the
cancellation by the Secretary of Instruction of the permit for recognition
granted to it.
Herein lies another important issue submitted in the cause. The question is
really whether the law may be enacted in the exercise of the State's
constitutional power (Art. XIV, sec. 5) to supervise and regulate private
schools. If that power amounts to control of private schools, as some think
it is, maybe the law is valid. In this connection we do not share the belief
that section 5 has added new power to what the State inherently possesses
by virtue of the police power. An express power is necessarily more
extensive than a mere implied power. For instance, if there is conflict
between an express individual right and the express power to control
private education it cannot off-hand be said that the latter must yield to the
formerconflict of two express powers. But if the power to control
education is merely implied from the police power, it is feasible to uphold
the express individual right, as was probably the situation in the two
decisions brought to our attention, of Mississippi and Minnesota, states
where constitutional control of private schools is not expressly produced.
3
Petitioners maintain
that this is a tax on the exercise of a constitutional
rightthe right
5 to open a school, the liberty to teach etc. They claim this is
unconstitutional, in the same way that taxes on the privilege of selling
religious literature or of publishing a newspaperboth constitutional
privilegeshave been held, in the United States, to be invalid as taxes on
the exercise of a constitutional right.
The Solicitor General on the other hand argues that insofar as petitioners'
action attempts to restrain the further collection of the assessment, courts
have no jurisdiction to restrain the collection of taxes by injunction, and in
so far as they seek to recover fees already paid the suit, it is one against
the State without its consent. Anyway he concludes, the action involving
"the legality of any tax impost or assessment" falls within the original
jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance.
There are good grounds in support of Government's position. If this levy of
1 per cent is truly a mere feeand not a taxto finance the cost of the
Department's duty and power to regulate and supervise private schools,
3
6
The moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide
cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of
the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.
3
7
The Court holds that President Arroyos issuance of PP 1021 did not render
the present petitions moot and academic. During the eight (8) days that PP
1017 was operative, the police officers, according to petitioners, committed
illegal acts in implementing it. Are PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitutional or
valid? Do they justify these alleged illegal acts? These are the vital issues
that must be resolved in the present petitions. It must be stressed that an
unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it
affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative.
All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify the Supreme
Courts assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions. Petitioners
alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the
Constitution. There is no question that the issues being raised affect the
publics interest, involving as they do the peoples basic rights to freedom
of expression, of assembly and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the
duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines
or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar,
and in the present petitions, the military and the police, on the extent of
the protection given by constitutional guarantees. And lastly, respondents
contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the petitions are
subject to judicial review.
Issue:
Whether petitioners have legal standing
Held:
Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question. In private suits, standing is governed by the
real-parties-in interest rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that every action must
Issue:
whether
or not the Supreme Court may review the factual bases
8
of the Presidents exercise of his Commander-in-Chief power
Held:
Yes. In IBP v. Zamora, while the Court considered the Presidents
calling-out power as a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it
stressed that this does not prevent an examination of whether such power
was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was
exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. This ruling is
mainly a result of the Courts reliance on Section 1, Article VIII of 1987
Constitution which fortifies the authority of the courts to determine in an
appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.
Under the new definition of judicial power, the courts are authorized not
only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
Held:
Thus, claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases
involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken
words and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been
curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be
applied to protected conduct. Here, the incontrovertible fact remains that
PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is
manifestly subject to state regulation.
Second, facial invalidation of laws is considered as manifestly strong
medicine, to be used sparingly and only as a last resort, and is
generally disfavored; The reason for this is obvious. Embedded in the
traditional rules governing constitutional adjudication is the principle that a
person to whom a law may be applied will not be heard to challenge a law
on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to
others, i.e., in other situations not before the Court.
First provision:
by virtue of the power vested upon me by Section 18, Article VII do
hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and
order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless
violence as well any act of insurrection or rebellion
Second provision:
and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and
regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction;
Third provision:
as provided in Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution do hereby declare
a State of National Emergency.
First Provision: Calling-out Power
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested
or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall
be released.
grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a sequence of graduated
powers. From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling-out power,
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the
power to declare Martial Law. Citing Integrated Bar of the Philippines v.
Zamora, the Court ruled that the only criterion for the exercise of the
calling-out power is that whenever it becomes necessary, the President
may call the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. Are these conditions present in the instant cases? As
stated earlier, considering the circumstances then prevailing, President
Arroyo found it necessary to issue PP 1017. Owing to her Offices vast
intelligence network, she is in the best position to determine the actual
condition of the country.
Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces
to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion. This
involves ordinary police action. But every act that goes beyond the
Presidents calling-out power is considered illegal or ultra vires. For this
reason, a President must be careful in the exercise of his powers. He cannot
invoke a greater power when he wishes to act under a lesser power. There
lies the wisdom of our Constitution, the greater the power, the greater are
the limitations.
It is pertinent to state, however, that there is a distinction between the
Presidents authority to declare a state of rebellion (in Sanlakas) and the
authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. While President
Arroyos authority to declare a state of rebellion emanates from her
4
powers as Chief
Executive, the statutory authority cited in Sanlakas was
Section 4, Chapter
2, Book II of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987,
0
which provides:
XII, a provision on the States extraordinary power to take over privatelyowned public utility and business affected with public interest. Indeed, PP
1017 calls for the exercise of an awesome power. Obviously, such
Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless, without legal significance, or not
written, as in the case of Sanlakas.
Some of the petitioners vehemently maintain that PP 1017 is actually a
declaration of Martial Law. It is no so.
The declaration of Martial Law is a warn[ing] to citizens that the military
power has been called upon by the executive to assist in the maintenance
of law and order, and that, while the emergency lasts, they must, upon pain
of arrest and punishment, not commit any acts which will in any way render
more difficult the restoration of order and the enforcement of law.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
PP 1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is no more than a call by the
President to the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. As
such, it cannot be used to justify acts that only under a valid declaration of
Martial Law can be done. Its use for any other purpose is a perversion of its
nature and scope, and any act done contrary to its command is ultra vires.
(a) Arrests and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on public
assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and agencies and press
censorship; and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees, are powers which can
be exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief only where there is a
valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Based on the above disquisition, it is clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration
of Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of President Arroyos calling-out
power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing or suppressing
lawless violence.
Second Provision: Take Care Power
The second provision pertains to the power of the President to ensure that
the laws be faithfully executed. This is based on Section 17, Article VII
which reads:
SEC. 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
As the Executive in whom the executive power is vested, the primary
function of the President is to enforce the laws as well as to formulate
policies to be embodied in existing laws. He sees to it that all laws are
enforced by the officials and employees of his department. Before
assuming office, he is required to take an oath or affirmation to the effect
that as President of the Philippines, he will, among others, execute its
x x x and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders,
and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as
provided in Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution do hereby declare a
state of national emergency.
The import of this provision is that President Arroyo, during the state of
national emergency under PP 1017, can call the military not only to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees x x x but also to act pursuant
to the provision of Section 17, Article XII which reads:
Sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so
requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms
prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
What could be the reason of President Arroyo in invoking the above
provision when she issued PP 1017?
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions
as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
It may be pointed out that the second paragraph of the above provision
refers not only to war but also to other national emergency. President
Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a state of national emergency
even in the absence of a Congressional enactment.
But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately
owned public utility or business affected with public interest, is a different
matter. This requires a delegation from Congress.
Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evident
in the tenor of Section 23 (2), Article VI authorizing it to delegate such
powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not
reposed upon it. However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may
not be possible or practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers,
the Framers of our Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant
emergency powers to the President, subject to certain conditions, thus:
(1) There must be a war or other emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.
(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress
may prescribe.
(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy
declared by Congress.
Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of the emergency
powers clause. The taking over of private business affected with public
interest is just another facet of the emergency powers generally reposed
upon Congress. Thus, when Section 17 states that the the State may,
during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public
4
utility or business
affected with public interest, it refers to Congress, not
the President. Now, whether or not the President may exercise such power
is dependent on whether Congress may delegate it to him pursuant to a
law prescribing the reasonable terms thereof.
Emergency, as a generic term, connotes the existence of conditions
suddenly intensifying the degree of existing danger to life or well-being
beyond that which is accepted as normal. Implicit in this definitions are the
elements of intensity, variety, and perception. Emergencies have been
occasioned by a wide range of situations, classifiable under three (3)
principal heads: a) economic, b) natural disaster, and c) national security.
Emergency, as contemplated in our Constitution, is of the same breadth.
It may include rebellion, economic crisis, pestilence or epidemic, typhoon,
flood, or other similar catastrophe of nationwide proportions or effect.
In Araneta v. Dinglasan, the Supreme Court emphasized that legislative
power, through which extraordinary measures are exercised, remains in
Congress even in times of crisis.
Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII, invoked by President
Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, the Supreme Court rules that such Proclamation
does not authorize her during the emergency to temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without authority from Congress.
Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state of
national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take
over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist
warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest. Nor can he determine when such exceptional
circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without legislation, the President has
no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest
that should be taken over. In short, the President has no absolute authority
to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17, Article VII in the
absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress.