Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994

BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND GENEROSO

OCAMPO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN
DOES, respondents.

The City Attorney for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.

VITUG, J.:

The extent of the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is again placed
into focus in this petition for prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The petitioners ask us to prohibit public respondent CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR
Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al."

The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one
of the petitioners) in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers
Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the private
respondents (being the officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association,
Incorporated). In said notice, the respondents were given a grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12
July 1990) within which to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA.1 Prior to their receipt of
the demolition notice, the private respondents were informed by petitioner Quimpo that their stalls
should be removed to give way to the "People's Park".2 On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their
President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the
CHR against the petitioners, asking the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to
be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, andcarinderia along North EDSA. The complaint was docketed
as CHR Case No. 90-1580.3 On 23 July 1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing the petitioners "to
desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the
vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before
the CHR.4

On the basis of the sworn statements submitted by the private respondents on 31 July 1990, as well
as CHR's own ocular inspection, and convinced that on 28 July 1990 the petitioners carried out the
demolition of private respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia,5 the CHR, in its resolution of
1 August 1990, ordered the disbursement of financial assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in
favor of the private respondents to purchase light housing materials and food under the
Commission's supervision and again directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with
the warning that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest."6

A motion to dismiss,7 dated 10 September 1990, questioned CHR's jurisdiction. The motion also
averred, among other things, that:

1. this case came about due to the alleged violation by the (petitioners) of the Inter-
Agency Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro-Manila Mayors agreed on a
moratorium in the demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro-Manila;

xxx xxx xxx

3. . . . , a perusal of the said Agreement (revealed) that the moratorium referred to

therein refers to moratorium in the demolition of the structures of poor dwellers;

4. that the complainants in this case (were) not poor dwellers but independent
business entrepreneurs even this Honorable Office admitted in its resolution of 1
August 1990 that the complainants are indeed, vendors;

5. that the complainants (were) occupying government land, particularly the sidewalk
of EDSA corner North Avenue, Quezon City; . . . and

6. that the City Mayor of Quezon City (had) the sole and exclusive discretion and
authority whether or not a certain business establishment (should) be allowed to
operate within the jurisdiction of Quezon City, to revoke or cancel a permit, if already
issued, upon grounds clearly specified by law and ordinance.8

During the 12 September 1990 hearing, the petitioners moved for postponement, arguing that the
motion to dismiss set for 21 September 1990 had yet to be resolved. The petitioners likewise
manifested that they would bring the case to the courts.

On 18 September 1990 a supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by the petitioners, stating that
the Commission's authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of
violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights allegedly violated in this case (were) not civil
and political rights, (but) their privilege to engage in business."9

On 21 September 1990, the motion to dismiss was heard and submitted for resolution, along with
the contempt charge that had meantime been filed by the private respondents, albeit vigorously
objected to by petitioners (on the ground that the motion to dismiss was still then unresolved).10

In an Order,11 dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying out
the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it
imposed a fine of P500.00 on each of them.

On 1 March 1991,12 the CHR issued an Order, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and
supplemental motion to dismiss, in this wise:

Clearly, the Commission on Human Rights under its constitutional mandate had
jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the squatters-vendors who complained of the
gross violations of their human and constitutional rights. The motion to dismiss
should be and is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.13
The CHR opined that "it was not the intention of the (Constitutional) Commission to create only a
paper tiger limited only to investigating civil and political rights, but it (should) be (considered) a
quasi-judicial body with the power to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
rights of all persons within the Philippines . . . ." It added:

The right to earn a living is a right essential to one's right to development, to life and
to dignity. All these brazenly and violently ignored and trampled upon by respondents
with little regard at the same time for the basic rights of women and children, and
their health, safety and welfare. Their actions have psychologically scarred and
traumatized the children, who were witness and exposed to such a violent
demonstration of Man's inhumanity to man.

In an Order,14 dated 25 April 1991, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence, this recourse.

The petition was initially dismissed in our resolution15 of 25 June 1991; it was subsequently
reinstated, however, in our resolution16 of 18 June 1991, in which we also issued a temporary
restraining order, directing the CHR to "CEASE and DESIST from further hearing CHR No. 90-
1580."17

The petitioners pose the following:

Whether or not the public respondent has jurisdiction:

a) to investigate the alleged violations of the "business rights" of the private respondents whose
stalls were demolished by the petitioners at the instance and authority given by the Mayor of Quezon
City;

b) to impose the fine of P500.00 each on the petitioners; and

c) to disburse the amount of P200,000.00 as financial aid to the vendors affected by the demolition.

In the Court's resolution of 10 October 1991, the Solicitor-General was excused from filing his
comment for public respondent CHR. The latter thus filed its own comment,18 through Hon. Samuel
Soriano, one of its Commissioners. The Court also resolved to dispense with the comment of private
respondent Roque Fermo, who had since failed to comply with the resolution, dated 18 July 1991,
requiring such comment.

The petition has merit.

The Commission on Human Rights was created by the 1987

Constitution.19 It was formally constituted by then President Corazon Aquino via Executive Order No.
163,20 issued on 5 May 1987, in the exercise of her legislative power at the time. It succeeded, but so
superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights.21

The powers and functions22 of the Commission are defined by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to —

(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;
 (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all
persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection;

(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to

enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;

(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to
provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty

obligations on human rights;

(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;

(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the
performance of its functions;

(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

In its Order of 1 March 1991, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss, the CHR theorizes that the
intention of the members of the Constitutional Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial
body.23 This view, however, has not heretofore been shared by this Court. In Cariño v. Commission
on Human Rights,24 the Court, through then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Andres Narvasa,
has observed that it is "only the first of the enumerated powers and functions that bears any
resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment," but that resemblance can in no way be synonymous to
the adjudicatory power itself. The Court explained:

. . . (T)he Commission on Human Rights . . . was not meant by the fundamental law
to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less
take over the functions of the latter.

The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power
is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is
not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or
even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properly
speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making
factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of
applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
 decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals
or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the
Commission does not have.

After thus laying down at the outset the above rule, we now proceed to the other kernel of this
controversy and, its is, to determine the extent of CHR's investigative power.

It can hardly be disputed that the phrase "human rights" is so generic a term that any attempt to
define it, albeit not a few have tried, could at best be described as inconclusive. Let us observe. In a
symposium on human rights in the Philippines, sponsored by the University of the Philippines in
1977, one of the questions that has been propounded is "(w)hat do you understand by "human
rights?" The participants, representing different sectors of the society, have given the following
varied answers:

Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity. They
are the same in all parts of the world, whether the Philippines or England, Kenya or
the Soviet Union, the United States or Japan, Kenya or Indonesia . . . .

Human rights include civil rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property;
freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom, and the rights of the
accused to due process of law; political rights, such as the right to elect public
officials, to be elected to public office, and to form political associations and engage
in politics; and social rights, such as the right to an education, employment, and
social services.25

Human rights are the entitlement that inhere in the individual person from the sheer
fact of his humanity. . . . Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by
the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.26

(Human rights include all) the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights
defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.27

Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are
part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.28

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as, or more specifically, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be understood to include those that relate to an
individual's social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus seems to closely identify the
term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally
considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life.

Have these broad concepts been equally contemplated by the framers of our 1986 Constitutional
Commission in adopting the specific provisions on human rights and in creating an independent
commission to safeguard these rights? It may of value to look back at the country's experience under
the martial law regime which may have, in fact, impelled the inclusions of those provisions in our
fundamental law. Many voices have been heard. Among those voices, aptly represented perhaps of
the sentiments expressed by others, comes from Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, a respected jurist and an
advocate of civil liberties, who, in his paper, entitled "Present State of Human Rights in the
Philippines,"29 observes:
 But while the Constitution of 1935 and that of 1973 enshrined in their Bill of Rights
most of the human rights expressed in the International Covenant, these rights
became unavailable upon the proclamation of Martial Law on 21 September 1972.
Arbitrary action then became the rule. Individuals by the thousands became subject
to arrest upon suspicion, and were detained and held for indefinite periods,
sometimes for years, without charges, until ordered released by the Commander-in-
Chief or this representative. The right to petition for the redress of grievances
became useless, since group actions were forbidden. So were strikes. Press and
other mass media were subjected to censorship and short term licensing. Martial law
brought with it the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and judges lost
independence and security of tenure, except members of the Supreme Court. They
were required to submit letters of resignation and were dismissed upon the
acceptance thereof. Torture to extort confessions were practiced as declared by
international bodies like Amnesty International and the International Commission of
Jurists.

Converging our attention to the records of the Constitutional Commission, we can see the following
discussions during its 26 August 1986 deliberations:

MR. GARCIA . . . , the primacy of its (CHR) task must be made clear in view of the
importance of human rights and also because civil and political rights have been
determined by many international covenants and human rights legislations in the
Philippines, as well as the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and subsequent
legislation. Otherwise, if we cover such a wide territory in area, we might diffuse its
impact and the precise nature of its task, hence, its effectivity would also be curtailed.

So, it is important to delienate the parameters of its tasks so that the commission can
be most effective.

MR. BENGZON. That is precisely my difficulty because civil and political rights are
very broad. The Article on the Bill of Rights covers civil and political rights. Every
single right of an individual involves his civil right or his political right. So, where do
we draw the line?

MR. GARCIA. Actually, these civil and political rights have been made clear in the
language of human rights advocates, as well as in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which addresses a number of articles on the right to life, the right
against torture, the right to fair and public hearing, and so on. These are very specific
rights that are considered enshrined in many international documents and legal
instruments as constituting civil and political rights, and these are precisely what we
want to defend here.

MR. BENGZON. So, would the commissioner say civil and political rights as defined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

MR. GARCIA. Yes, and as I have mentioned, the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights distinguished this right against torture.

MR. BENGZON. So as to distinguish this from the other rights that we have?
MR. GARCIA. Yes, because the other rights will encompass social and economic
rights, and there are other violations of rights of citizens which can be addressed to
the proper courts and authorities.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. BENGZON. So, we will authorize the commission to define its functions, and,
therefore, in doing that the commission will be authorized to take under its wings
cases which perhaps heretofore or at this moment are under the jurisdiction of the
ordinary investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government. Am I correct?

MR. GARCIA. No. We have already mentioned earlier that we would like to define
the specific parameters which cover civil and political rights as covered by the
international standards governing the behavior of governments regarding the
particular political and civil rights of citizens, especially of political detainees or
prisoners. This particular aspect we have experienced during martial law which we
would now like to safeguard.

MR. BENGZON. Then, I go back to that question that I had. Therefore, what we are
really trying to say is, perhaps, at the proper time we could specify all those rights
stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and defined as human rights.
Those are the rights that we envision here?

MR. GARCIA. Yes. In fact, they are also enshrined in the Bill of Rights of our
Constitution. They are integral parts of that.

MR. BENGZON. Therefore, is the Gentleman saying that all the rights under the Bill
of Rights covered by human rights?

MR. GARCIA. No, only those that pertain to civil and political rights.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. RAMA. In connection with the discussion on the scope of human rights, I would
like to state that in the past regime, everytime we invoke the violation of human
rights, the Marcos regime came out with the defense that, as a matter of fact, they
had defended the rights of people to decent living, food, decent housing and a life
consistent with human dignity.

So, I think we should really limit the definition of human rights to political rights. Is
that the sense of the committee, so as not to confuse the issue?

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President.

MR. GARCIA. I would like to continue and respond also to repeated points raised by
the previous speaker.

There are actually six areas where this Commission on Human Rights could act
effectively: 1) protection of rights of political detainees; 2) treatment of prisoners and
the prevention of tortures; 3) fair and public trials; 4) cases of disappearances; 5)
salvagings and hamletting; and 6) other crimes committed against the religious.
 xxx xxx xxx

The PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA. Thank You Madam President.

I would like to start by saying that I agree with Commissioner Garcia that we
should, in order to make the proposed Commission more effective, delimit as much
as possible, without prejudice to future expansion. The coverage of the concept and
jurisdictional area of the term "human rights". I was actually disturbed this morning
when the reference was made without qualification to the rights embodied in the
universal Declaration of Human Rights, although later on, this was qualified to refer
to civil and political rights contained therein.

If I remember correctly, Madam President, Commissioner Garcia, after mentioning

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, mentioned or linked the concept
of human right with other human rights specified in other convention which I do not
remember. Am I correct?

MR. GARCIA. Is Commissioner Guingona referring to the Declaration of Torture of

1985?

MR. GUINGONA. I do not know, but the commissioner mentioned another.

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, the other one is the International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights of which we are signatory.

MR. GUINGONA. I see. The only problem is that, although I have a copy of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights here, I do not have a copy of the other
covenant mentioned. It is quite possible that there are rights specified in that other
convention which may not be specified here. I was wondering whether it would be
wise to link our concept of human rights to general terms like "convention," rather
than specify the rights contained in the convention.

As far as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is concerned, the Committee,

before the period of amendments, could specify to us which of these articles in the
Declaration will fall within the concept of civil and political rights, not for the purpose
of including these in the proposed constitutional article, but to give the sense of the
Commission as to what human rights would be included, without prejudice to
expansion later on, if the need arises. For example, there was no definite reply to the
question of Commissioner Regalado as to whether the right to marry would be
considered a civil or a social right. It is not a civil right?

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, I have to repeat the various specific civil and
political rights that we felt must be envisioned initially by this provision — freedom
from political detention and arrest prevention of torture, right to fair and public trials,
as well as crimes involving disappearance, salvagings, hamlettings and collective
violations. So, it is limited to politically related crimes precisely to protect the civil and
political rights of a specific group of individuals, and therefore, we are not opening it
up to all of the definite areas.
 MR. GUINGONA. Correct. Therefore, just for the record, the Gentlemen is no longer
linking his concept or the concept of the Committee on Human Rights with the so-
called civil or political rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

MR. GARCIA. When I mentioned earlier the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I
was referring to an international instrument.

MR. GUINGONA. I know.

MR. GARCIA. But it does not mean that we will refer to each and every specific
article therein, but only to those that pertain to the civil and politically related, as we
understand it in this Commission on Human Rights.

MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, I am not even clear as to the distinction

between civil and social rights.

MR. GARCIA. There are two international covenants: the International Covenant and
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. The second covenant contains all the different rights-the rights of
labor to organize, the right to education, housing, shelter, et cetera.

MR. GUINGONA. So we are just limiting at the moment the sense of the committee
to those that the Gentlemen has specified.

MR. GARCIA. Yes, to civil and political rights.

MR. GUINGONA. Thank you.

xxx xxx xxx

SR. TAN. Madam President, from the standpoint of the victims of human rights, I
cannot stress more on how much we need a Commission on Human Rights. . . .

. . . human rights victims are usually penniless. They cannot pay and very few
lawyers will accept clients who do not pay. And so, they are the ones more abused
and oppressed. Another reason is, the cases involved are very delicate — torture,
salvaging, picking up without any warrant of arrest, massacre — and the persons
who are allegedly guilty are people in power like politicians, men in the military and
big shots. Therefore, this Human Rights Commission must be independent.

I would like very much to emphasize how much we need this commission, especially
for the little Filipino, the little individual who needs this kind of help and cannot get
it. And I think we should concentrate only on civil and political violations because if
we open this to land, housing and health, we will have no place to go again and we
will not receive any response. . . .30 (emphasis supplied)

The final outcome, now written as Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision
empowering the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any
party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights" (Sec. 1).
The term "civil rights,"31 has been defined as referring —

(t)o those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider
sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or
administration of the government. They include the rights of property, marriage,
equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil
rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being
enforced or redressed in a civil action.

Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious persecution,
unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt.32

Political rights,33 on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in
the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public
office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the
management of government.34

Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, aforequoted, it is readily apparent that
the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that would focus its attention to the more
severe cases of human rights violations. Delegate Garcia, for instance, mentioned such areas as the
"(1) protection of rights of political detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of
tortures, (3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of disappearances, (5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6)
other crimes committed against the religious." While the enumeration has not likely been meant to
have any preclusive effect, more than just expressing a statement of priority, it is, nonetheless,
significant for the tone it has set. In any event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort in
peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHR's scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. They
have thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that "Congress may provide for other cases of violations of
human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its
recommendation."35

In the particular case at hand, there is no cavil that what are sought to be demolished are the
stalls, sari-saristores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties, erected by private respondents
on a land which is planned to be developed into a "People's Park". More than that, the land adjoins
the North EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can take judicial notice of, is a busy national
highway. The consequent danger to life and limb is not thus to be likewise simply ignored. It is
indeed paradoxical that a right which is claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the first
place, even be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant. Be that as it may, looking at the standards hereinabove
discoursed vis-a-vis the circumstances obtaining in this instance, we are not prepared to conclude
that the order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private
respondents can fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political
rights" intended by the Constitution.

On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines
and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of
Court." Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power "to
cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in
accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court." That power to cite
for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational
guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the
power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said
body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in
pursuing its investigative work. The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in
the instance before us, however, is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative
power that it does not possess. In Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human
Rights,36 the Court, speaking through Madame Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, explained:

The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated
or need protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to
issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, it that were the intention, the
Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the
Constitution or by law". It is never derived by implication.

Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the
Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary
injunction) which the CHR may seek from proper courts on behalf of the victims of
human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction
to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge
of any court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the
Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. . . . A writ of preliminary injunction is an
ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation
or protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose."
(footnotes omitted).

The Commission does have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its findings and
recommendations to any appropriate agency of government.37

The challenge on the CHR's disbursement of the amount of P200,000.00 by way of financial aid to
the vendors affected by the demolition is not an appropriate issue in the instant petition. Not only is
there lack of locus standion the part of the petitioners to question the disbursement but, more
importantly, the matter lies with the appropriate administrative agencies concerned to initially
consider.

The public respondent explains that this petition for prohibition filed by the petitioners has become
moot and academic since the case before it (CHR Case No. 90-1580) has already been fully heard,
and that the matter is merely awaiting final resolution. It is true that prohibition is a preventive
remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done, and not intended to provide a remedy for an
act already accomplished. 38 Here, however, said Commission admittedly has yet to promulgate its
resolution in CHR Case No. 90-1580. The instant petition has been intended, among other things, to
also prevent CHR from precisely doing that.39

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is GRANTED. The Commission on Human Rights
is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the
P500.00 fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by this Court is made
permanent. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo,
Quiason and Puno, JJ., concur.
 Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I reiterate my separate opinion in "Carino, et al. vs. The Commission on Human rights, et al.," G.R.
No. 96681, 2 December 1991, 204 SCRA 483 in relation to the resolution of 29 January 1991 and
my dissenting opinion in "Export Processing Zone Authority vs. The Commission on Human Rights,
et al.," G.R. No. 101476, 14 April 1992, 208 SCRA 125. I am of the considered view that the CHR
can issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status quo pending its investigation of a case
involving an alleged human rights violation; that such cease and desist order maybe necessary in
situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which the CHR intents to investigate.

In the case at bench, I would consider the threatened demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores
and carinderias as well as the temporary shanties owned by the private respondents as
posing prima facie a case of human rights violation because it involves an impairment of the civil
rights of said private respondents, under the definition of civil rights cited by the majority opinion (pp.
20-21) and which the CHR has unquestioned authority to investigate (Section 18, Art. XIII, 1987
Constitution).

Human rights demand more than lip service and extend beyond impressive displays of placards at
street corners. Positive action and results are what count. Certainly, the cause of human rights is not
enhanced when the very constitutional agency tasked to protect and vindicate human rights is
transformed by us, from the start, into a tiger without dentures but with maimed legs to boot. I submit
the CHR should be given a wide latitude to look into and investigate situations which may (or may
not ultimately) involve human rights violations.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further
proceedings.

# Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

I reiterate my separate opinion in "Carino, et al. vs. The Commission on Human rights, et al.," G.R.
No. 96681, 2 December 1991, 204 SCRA 483 in relation to the resolution of 29 January 1991 and
my dissenting opinion in "Export Processing Zone Authority vs. The Commission on Human Rights,
et al.," G.R. No. 101476, 14 April 1992, 208 SCRA 125. I am of the considered view that the CHR
can issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status quo pending its investigation of a case
involving an alleged human rights violation; that such cease and desist order maybe necessary in
situations involving a threatened violation of human rights, which the CHR intents to investigate.
In the case at bench, I would consider the threatened demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores
and carinderias as well as the temporary shanties owned by the private respondents as
posing prima facie a case of human rights violation because it involves an impairment of the civil
rights of said private respondents, under the definition of civil rights cited by the majority opinion (pp.
20-21) and which the CHR has unquestioned authority to investigate (Section 18, Art. XIII, 1987
Constitution).

Human rights demand more than lip service and extend beyond impressive displays of placards at
street corners. Positive action and results are what count. Certainly, the cause of human rights is not
enhanced when the very constitutional agency tasked to protect and vindicate human rights is
transformed by us, from the start, into a tiger without dentures but with maimed legs to boot. I submit
the CHR should be given a wide latitude to look into and investigate situations which may (or may
not ultimately) involve human rights violations.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further
proceedings.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and
represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA,
minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD
and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and
NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGRID and
DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and
represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN,
minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA
CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO,
JOHANNA DESAMPARADO,
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T.
NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY
NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all
surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ,
KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors,
represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE
VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and
TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented
by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all
surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA,
CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and
represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN
JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSE
MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all
surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS
BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U.
ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology
which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational
responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the
said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine
rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and
continued rape of Mother Earth."

The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati,
Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal
plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their
respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc.
(PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia,
engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources.
The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the
new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the
petitioners.1 The complaint2was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit3 and alleges that the plaintiffs
"are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was
filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource
but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further
asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn."4Consequently, it
is prayed for that judgment be rendered:

. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his
behalf to —

(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;

(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving
new timber license agreements.

and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."5

The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands
has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant
rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the
habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time
immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology,
the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest
cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses;
the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a
host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water
table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of
the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which
may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and
the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded
estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum — approximately the size of the
entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and
varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the
disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and
consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine
resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire
country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i)
the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent
mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams
constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the
generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide
gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of
global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect."

Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and
deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a
matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert
witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.

As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:

CAUSE OF ACTION

7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.

8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares
of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million
hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.

10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth
rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago
and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth
forests.

11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber
license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89
million hectares for commercial logging purposes.

A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached
as Annex "A".

12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25
hectares per hour — nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the
Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if
not earlier.

13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable
damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and
to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the
environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt,
experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the
remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs —
especially plaintiff minors and their successors — who may never see, use, benefit
from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure.

This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural

resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding
generations.

15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae.

16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office.
On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all
logging permits in the country.

A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex "B".

17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the
continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.

18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act
violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a
country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna
and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to

the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent
part, states that it is the policy of the State —

(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature
can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other;

(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future
generations of Filipinos and;

(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life of

dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977)

20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's

is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to —

a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and
"make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the
Constitution);

b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid);

c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section
14, Article XIV,id.);
 d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.)

21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind — the natural
law — and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation.

22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the
instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. 6

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him
and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the
petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the
motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's
abuse of discretion.

On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to
dismiss.7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim — that the complaint states no cause
of action against him and that it raises a political question — sustained, the respondent Judge further
ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the
respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the
plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.8

On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf
of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto.

Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it
contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20
and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating
the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy),
Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's
inalienable right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners
likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard
the people's right to a healthful environment.

It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in
granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available
involves a judicial question.

Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause,
petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They
likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled
that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a
specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They
see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right"
which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens
patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then
reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a
political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of
Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but
to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.

As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be done
by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains effective for a certain period of
time — usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor
cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms
of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due
process.

Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil
Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take
issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all
citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that
the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all
concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule
3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the
latter being but an incident to the former.

This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent
their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety.9 Such rhythm
and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10 Needless to say, every
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their
right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to
ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits
of the petition.

After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of
the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the
petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order
reads as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help
but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but the
noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a
specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong
they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the
Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague
conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action
in its Complaint against the herein defendant.

Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with
political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of
by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers"
of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government.

The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to
do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
fundamental law. 11

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient
definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the
complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of
the complaint itself belies these conclusions.

The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly
incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:

Sec. 16. 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.

This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section
of the same article:

Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any
of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of
rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and
fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the
Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that
unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by
the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too
far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come —
generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the
1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido
Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:

MR. VILLACORTA:

Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all
forms of pollution — air, water and noise pollution?

MR. AZCUNA:

Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment

necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the
same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of
environmental balance. 12

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the
country's forests.

Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby disrupted.

Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as
well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development
and utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated
on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural
resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation
and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all
natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits
derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3
thereof makes the following statement of policy:

Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure
the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the
country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including
the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable
access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of
the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future
generations as well. It is also the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true
value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their
utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources.

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987,15specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
 Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the
Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance
and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of
making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources
equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future
generations.

(2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into
account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization,
development and conservation of our natural resources.

The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other
hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the
fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides:

Sec. 2. Mandate. — (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall
be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy.

(2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the
State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development,
utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.

Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as
the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR.

It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific
statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future
generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152
(Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a)
to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in
productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an
environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of
the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding
generations." 17The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is
as clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under
E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance the said right.

A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or
protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs,
which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and
healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed
or granted.

A cause of action is defined as:

 . . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other;
and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the
defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 18

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails
to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency
of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the
truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically
admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true,
may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante
vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care
and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof
[cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and
deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that
happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute."

After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the introductory
affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the sub-heading CAUSE OF
ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the
basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing,
however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as
party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.

The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question. Policy
formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely
put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already
formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political
question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The
second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a
distinguished member of this Court, says:

The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power,
involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of
the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice
to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political
departments of the government.

As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme
Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and
the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction
because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning
of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or
contract according to the disposition of the judiciary.
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:

In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable
and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented
before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it
under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases,
even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides:
...

The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non-impairment of
contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:

The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our
jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing
timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to
do otherwise would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
fundamental law. 24

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping
pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even
invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted
with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and
advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to
strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in
policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by
the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D.
No. 705) which provides:

. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend,
modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other
form of privilege granted herein . . .

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not
a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the
Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:

. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber
license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public
interest or public welfare as in this case.

A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and

is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and
the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it
create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the
granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property
rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).

We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
 . . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by
which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely
evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the
latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the
forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or
rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are
not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause
[See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v.
Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:

Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed. 27

cannot be invoked.

In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does
not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing
timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting
further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same
cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very
nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of
the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology,
promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
Corp. 28 this Court stated:

The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be

absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation
aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words,
the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by
the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
moral and general welfare.

The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American
Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General,30 to wit:

Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are
normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both
shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract
rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his
property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work
them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate
it in the common interest.

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply with
respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as
of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it
as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the
challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby
set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders
or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.

Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions

FELICIANO, J., concurring

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case
which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years.
The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and
course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the
utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.

The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing
and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal
interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness
of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The
Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and
the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such
beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure
to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for
future determination in an appropriate case.

The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific
fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is
no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest,
with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive
violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and
generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil,
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil
rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open
land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit
mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea
resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed
out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book
IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be
formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in
Article II, Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health").

P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the
other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and
"environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide
range of topics:

(a) air quality management;

(b) water quality management;

(c) land use management;

(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:

(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;

(ii) wild life;

(iii) forestry and soil conservation;

(iv) flood control and natural calamities;

(v) energy development;

(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water

(vii) mineral resources

Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine
Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and
sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear
to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that
Code.

As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in
the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section
16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present
form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are
too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.

My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right
— a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the
Constitution — that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the
relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more
specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that
the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.

It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be
a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2)
reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently
and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.

The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded
conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution
which reads:

Section 1. . . .

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
(Emphasis supplied)

When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and
"the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic
policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and
management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to
exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and executive departments —
must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.

My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession
agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms
and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus
between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public
respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or
remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.

I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the
forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the
Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.

# Separate Opinions

FELICIANO, J., concurring

I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case
which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years.
The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and
course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the
utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to
clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying.

The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing
and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim
that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal
interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness
of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to
embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action
petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The
Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of
environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and
the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such
beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure
to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for
future determination in an appropriate case.

The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific
fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is
no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest,
with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive
violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and
generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and
control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil,
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil
rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open
land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit
mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea
resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed
out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book
IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be
formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in
Article II, Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health").

P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the
other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and
"environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide
range of topics:

(a) air quality management;

(b) water quality management;

(c) land use management;

(d) natural resources management and conservation embracing:

(i) fisheries and aquatic resources;

(ii) wild life;

(iii) forestry and soil conservation;

(iv) flood control and natural calamities;

(v) energy development;

(vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water

(vii) mineral resources

Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has
identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give
rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine
Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and
sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear
to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that
Code.

As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in
the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section
16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present
form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are
too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.

My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right
— a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the
Constitution — that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public
respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the
relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more
specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy
principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that
the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of
aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.

It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be
a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2)
reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given
specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently
and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.

The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law or applicable

regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded
conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution
which reads:

Section 1. . . .

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
(Emphasis supplied)

When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and
"the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is
respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic
policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and
management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and
professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to
exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative and executive departments —
must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and
standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene.

My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession
agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in
the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded
is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms
and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will
those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence
of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus
between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public
respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or
remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist.

I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the
forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the
Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1120-MJ May 5, 1976

DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant,

vs.
HON. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, respondent.

RESOLUTION

ANTONIO, J.:

In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas,
charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same municipality, with abuse of authority in
refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the
Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and order
conditions of the said municipality. Respondent, in answer to the complaint, stated that there has
never been an intention to refuse access to official court records; that although court records are
among public documents open to inspection not only by the parties directly involved but also by
other persons who have legitimate interest to such inspection, yet the same is always subject to
reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected. He further asserted
that a court has unquestionably the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records
and the furnishing of copies therefrom may be refused where the person requesting is not motivated
by a serious and legitimate interest but acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify
private spite or to promote public scandal.

In his answer, the respondent significantly observed:

Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the exercise of the right.
For fear that the dirty hands of partisan politics might again be at play, Some of the
cases filed and decided by the Court after the declaration of Martial Law and years
after the election still bore the stigma of partisan politics as shown in the affidavits
and testimonies of witnesses.

Without casting aspersion on any particular individual, it is worth mentioning, that the
padlocks of the door of the Court has recently been tampered by inserting papers
and matchsticks.

Under the circumstances, to allow an indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of the

right to free access, might do more harm than good to the citizenry of Taal. Disorder
and chaos might result defeating the very essence of their request. The undersigned
is just as interested as Mr. Baldoza in the welfare of the community and the
preservation of our democratic principles.

Be that as it may, a request of this magnitude cannot be immediately granted without

adequate deliberation and upon advisement, especially so in this case where the
undersigned doubts the propriety of such request. Hence, it is believed that authority
 should first be secured from the Supreme Court, through the Executive Judge, for the
formulation of guidelines and policies on this matter.

The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and report. At
the preliminary hearing on October 16, 1975, Taal Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and (cooperation among officers in the same
municipality. This motion was denied by the Investigating Judge, but after formal investigation, he
recommended the exoneration of respondent. Pertinent portion of his report reads as follows:

* * * When this case was heard, complainant Dominador Baldoza informed the Court
that he is aware of the motion to dismiss filed by Mayor Corazon A. Caniza and that
he is in conformity with the dismissal of the administrative charge against Judge
Rodolfo Dimaano. The Court asked him if he could prove his case and he said he
can. So, the Court denied his oral motion to dismiss and required him to present his
evidence. Complainant only manifested to the Court that he has no oral evidence.
The only evidence he has are the exchanged communication which were all in
writing and attached to the record between him and the respondent. The Court asked
the respondent what he has to say on the documentary evidence of the complainant.
He manifested that all his answers to the complaint are all embodied in his answers
filed with the Court.

A careful perusal, scrutiny, and study of the communications between the

complainant and the respondent, together with the answers filed by the latter, reveal
that there is no showing of abuse of authority on the part of the respondent. The
respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of the
respondent under certain conditions and under his control and supervision.
Complainant admitted that he was aware of the rules and conditions imposed by the
respondent when he went to his office to view his docket books for the purpose
mentioned in his communication. He also agreed that he is amenable to such rules
and conditions which the respondent may impose. Under these conditions, therefore,
the Court finds that the respondent has not committed any abuse of authority.

The complainant was warned to be more cautious in filing any administrative charge
against any public official especially, members of the judiciary, considering that an
administrative charge against a member of the judiciary may expose the latter to
public ridicule and scandal thereby minimizing if not eradicating public trust and

After a careful evaluation of the recommendation, We find that the respondent did not act arbitrarily
in the premises. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the complainant to
open and view the docket books of respondent certain conditions and under his control and
supervision. it has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were
unreasonable. The access to public records predicated on the right of the people to acquire
information on matters of public concern. Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a legitimate
interest in matters of social and political significance. In an earlier case, 1 this Court held that
mandamus would lie to compel the Secretary of Justice and the Register of Deeds to examine the
records of the latter office. Predicating the right to examine the records on statutory provisions, and
to a certain degree by general principles of democratic institutions, this Court stated that while the
Register of Deeds has discretion to exercise as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect,
examine or copy the records in his office may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it
authority to prohibit. Citing with approval People ex rel. TitleGuarantee & T. Co. vs. Railly, 2 this
Court said:
 The subject is necessarily committed, to a great degree, 'to his (register of deeds')
discretion as to how much of the conveniences of the office are required to be
preserved for the accomodation of these persons. It is not his duty to permit the
office to be thronged needlessly with persons examining its books of papers, but it is
his duty to regulate, govern, and control his office in such a manner as to permit the
statutory advantages to be enjoyed by other persons not employed by him as largely
and extensibly as that consistently can be done * * *. What the law expects and
requires from him is the exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment, by which all
persons resorting to the office, under legal authority, and conducting themselves in
an orderly manner, shall be secured their lawful rights and privileges, and that a
corporation formed in the manner in which the relator has been, shall be permitted to
obtain all the information either by searches, abstracts, or copies, that the law has
entitled it to obtain.

Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or
sheer, Idle curiosity, we do not believe it is the duty under the law of registration
officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons, and objects of the person
seeking access to the records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information
which the records contain is not flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not
made of it. If it be wrong to publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature
and not the officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy.
As to the moral or material injury which the publication might inflict on other parties,
that is the publisher's responsibility and lookout. The publication is made subject to
the consequences of the law.

The concurring opinion of Justice Briones predicated such right not on statutory grounds merely but
on the constitutional right of the press to have access to information as the essence of press
freedom. 3

The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on
matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records, as well as
documents of official acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by
law. 4 The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free
exchange of information in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the
nation's problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they are denied access to
information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with
the exigencies of the times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information
depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is
interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases. " 5 However, restrictions on access to certain records may be
imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted
upon a showing of immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of control
inadequate to maintain order. 6

WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is hereby dismissed.

Fernando, Actg. C.J., Barredo, Actg.(Chairman), Aquino and Martin JJ., concur.

Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.

 EN BANC

PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, G.R. No. 171396

LORENZO TA� ADA III, RONALD
Present:
LLAMAS, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR.,
JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, ROGER R.
PANGANIBAN,C.J.,
RAYEL, GARY S. *
PUNO,
MALLARI, ROMEL
QUISUMBING,
REGALADO BAGARES,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
Petitioners,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus -
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
AZCUNA,
ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT
TINGA,
AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO
GARCIA, and
ERMITA, HON. AVELINO CRUZ II,
VELASCO, JJ.
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE, GENERAL GENEROSO
Promulgated:
SENGA, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
May 3, 2006
DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO
LOMIBAO, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE,
G.R. No. 171409
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
NI� EZ CACHO-OLIVARES AND
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO., INC.,
Petitioners,

- versus -
HONORABLE SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA AND
HONORABLE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, G.R. No. 171485
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO,
JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, TEODORO A.
CASINO, AGAPITO A. AQUINO,
MARIO J. AGUJA, SATUR C.
OCAMPO, MUJIV S. HATAMAN, JUAN
EDGARDO ANGARA, TEOFISTO DL.
GUINGONA III, EMMANUEL JOSEL J.
VILLANUEVA, LIZA L. MAZA, IMEE
R. MARCOS, RENATO B. MAGTUBO,
JUSTIN MARC SB. CHIPECO, ROILO
GOLEZ, DARLENE ANTONINO-
CUSTODIO, LORETTA ANN P.
ROSALES, JOSEL G. VIRADOR,
RAFAEL V. MARIANO, GILBERT C.
REMULLA, FLORENCIO G. NOEL,
ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-
BARAQUEL, IMELDA C. NICOLAS,
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, NERI
JAVIER COLMENARES, MOVEMENT
OF CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR
CIVIL LIBERTIES REPRESENTED BY
AMADO GAT INCIONG,
Petitioners,

- versus -

EDUARDO R. ERMITA, EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY, AVELINO J. CRUZ, JR.,
SECRETARY, DND RONALDO V.
PUNO, SECRETARY, DILG,
GENEROSO SENGA, AFP CHIEF OF
STAFF, ARTURO LOMIBAO, CHIEF
PNP, G.R. No. 171483
 Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
KILUSANG MAYO UNO,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRPERSON ELMER C. LABOG
AND SECRETARY GENERAL JOEL
MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS �
KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-
KMU), REPRESENTED BY ITS
NATIONAL PRESIDENT, JOSELITO V.
USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL,
SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, EMILIA
P. DAPULANG, MARTIN CUSTODIO,
JR., AND ROQUE M. TAN,
Petitioners,

- versus -

HER EXCELLENCY, PRESIDENT

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, EDUARDO ERMITA,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
GENEROSO SENGA, AND THE PNP
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARTURO
G.R. No. 171400
LOMIBAO,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.
(ALG),
Petitioner,
- versus -

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO

R. ERMITA, LT. GEN. GENEROSO
SENGA, AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
G.R. No. 171489
ARTURO LOMIBAO,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, FELICIANO
M. BAUTISTA, ROMULO R. RIVERA,
JOSE AMOR M. AMORADO, ALICIA
A. RISOS-VIDAL, FELIMON C.
ABELITA III, MANUEL P. LEGASPI,
J.B. JOVY C. BERNABE, BERNARD L.
DAGCUTA, ROGELIO V. GARCIA
AND INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES (IBP),
Petitioners,

- versus -

HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

EDUARDO ERMITA, GENERAL
GENEROSO SENGA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS AFP CHIEF OF STAFF,
AND DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO
LOMIBAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PNP
G.R. No. 171424
CHIEF,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
LOREN B. LEGARDA,
Petitioner,

- versus -

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, IN
HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF; ARTURO
LOMIBAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
(PNP); GENEROSO SENGA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES (AFP); AND EDUARDO
ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
Respondents.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

All powers need some restraint; practical adjustments rather than rigid
formula are necessary.[1] Superior strength � the use of force � cannot make
wrongs into rights. In this regard, the courts should be vigilant in safeguarding the
constitutional rights of the citizens, specifically their liberty.
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban� s philosophy of liberty is thus most
relevant. He said: � In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should
weigh heavily against government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the
marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak.� Laws and actions that restrict
fundamental rights come to the courts � with a heavy presumption against their
constitutional validity.� [2]

These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorariand prohibition allege

that in issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order
No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the Government, in
their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the
Constitution. Hence, such issuances are void for being unconstitutional.

Once again, the Court is faced with an age-old but persistently modern
problem. How does the Constitution of a free people combine the degree
of liberty, without which, law becomes tyranny, with the degree of law, without
which, liberty becomes license?[3]

On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20 th Anniversary of

the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of
national emergency, thus:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of

the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by
Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that:
� The President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out
(the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,� and in my
capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, 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 as any act of insurrection or rebellion 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 12 of the Constitution do hereby
declare a State of National Emergency.

She cited the following facts as bases:

WHEREAS, over these past months, elements in the political

opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left
represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right,
represented by military adventurists � the historical enemies of the
democratic Philippine State� who are now in a tactical alliance and
engaged in a concerted and systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to
bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004;
 WHEREAS, these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring
down the President;

WHEREAS, the claims of these elements have been recklessly

magnified by certain segments of the national media;

WHEREAS, this series of actions is hurting the Philippine State

� by obstructing governance includinghindering the growth of the
economy and sabotaging the people� s confidence in government
and their faith in the future of this country;

WHEREAS, these actions are adversely affecting the

economy;

WHEREAS, these activities give totalitarian forces of both the

extreme Left and extreme Right the opening to intensify their
avowed aims to bring down the democratic Philippine State;

WHEREAS, Article 2, Section 4 of the our Constitution makes

the defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State
the primary duty of Government;

WHEREAS, the activities above-described, their consequences,

ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present
danger to the safety and the integrity of the Philippine State and of the
Filipino people;

On the same day, the President issued G. O. No. 5 implementing PP 1017,

thus:

WHEREAS, over these past months, elements in the political

opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left,
represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right, represented
by military adventurists - the historical enemies of the democratic
Philippine State � and who are now in a tactical alliance and engaged
in a concerted and systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to bring
down the duly-constituted Government elected in May 2004;
 WHEREAS, these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring
down our republican government;

WHEREAS, the claims of these elements have been recklessly

magnified by certain segments of the national media;

WHEREAS, these series of actions is hurting the Philippine State

by obstructing governance, including hindering the growth of the
economy and sabotaging the people� s confidence in the government
and their faith in the future of this country;

WHEREAS, these actions are adversely affecting the economy;

WHEREAS, these activities give totalitarian forces; of both the

extreme Left and extreme Right the opening to intensify their avowed
aims to bring down the democratic Philippine State;

WHEREAS, Article 2, Section 4 of our Constitution makes the

defense and preservation of the democratic institutions and the State the
primary duty of Government;

WHEREAS, the activities above-described, their consequences,

ramifications and collateral effects constitute a clear and present danger
to the safety and the integrity of the Philippine State and of the Filipino
people;

WHEREAS, Proclamation 1017 date February 24, 2006 has been

issued declaring a State of National Emergency;

NOW, THEREFORE, I GLORIA MACAPAGAL-

ARROYO, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the Constitution
as President of the Republic of the Philippines, and Commander-in-Chief
of the Republic of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No.
1017 dated February 24, 2006, do hereby call upon the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), to
prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the
country;

I hereby direct the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Chief of the
PNP, as well as the officers and men of the AFP and PNP, to
immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate actions and
 measures to suppress and prevent acts of terrorism and lawless
violence.

On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a state of

national emergency and after all these petitions had been filed, the President lifted
PP 1017. She issued Proclamation No. 1021 which reads:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18, Article VII and Section 17,

Article XII of the Constitution, Proclamation No. 1017 dated February
24, 2006, was issued declaring a state of national emergency;

WHEREAS, by virtue of General Order No.5 and No.6 dated

February 24, 2006, which were issued on the basis of Proclamation No.
1017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP), were directed to maintain law and order
throughout the Philippines, prevent and suppress all form of lawless
violence as well as any act of rebellion and to undertake such action as
may be necessary;

WHEREAS, the AFP and PNP have effectively prevented,

suppressed and quelled the acts lawless violence and rebellion;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-

ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of
the powers vested in me by law, hereby declare that the state of
national emergency has ceased to exist.

In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5,

respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the
conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People� s
Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or
assassinate President Arroyo.[4] They considered the aim to oust or assassinate the
President and take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger.
 During the oral arguments held on March 7, 2006, the Solicitor General
specified the facts leading to the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No.
5. Significantly, there was no refutation from petitioners� counsels.

The Solicitor General argued that the intent of the Constitution is to give
full discretionary powers to the President in determining the necessity of calling
out the armed forces. He emphasized that none of the petitioners has shown that
PP 1017 was without factual bases. While he explained that it is not
respondents� task to state the facts behind the questioned Proclamation, however,
they are presenting the same, narrated hereunder, for the elucidation of the issues.
On January 17, 2006, Captain Nathaniel Rabonza and First
Lieutenants Sonny Sarmiento, Lawrence San Juan and Patricio Bumidang,
members of the Magdalo Group indicted in the Oakwood mutiny, escaped their
detention cell in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. In a public statement, they vowed to
remain defiant and to elude arrest at all costs. They called upon the people to
� show and proclaim our displeasure at the sham regime. Let us demonstrate our
disgust, not only by going to the streets in protest, but also by wearing red bands
on our left arms.� [5]

On February 17, 2006, the authorities got hold of a document entitled

� Oplan Hackle I � which detailed plans for bombings and attacks during the
Philippine Military Academy Alumni Homecoming in Baguio City. The plot was
to assassinate selected targets including some cabinet members and President
Arroyo herself.[6] Upon the advice of her security, President Arroyo decided not
to attend the Alumni Homecoming. The next day, at the height of the celebration,
a bomb was found and detonated at the PMA parade ground.

On February 21, 2006, Lt. San Juan was recaptured in a communist

safehouse in Batangas province. Found in his possession were two (2) flash disks
containing minutes of the meetings between members of the Magdalo Group and
the National People� s Army (NPA), a tape recorder, audio cassette cartridges,
diskettes, and copies of subversive documents.[7] Prior to his arrest, Lt. San Juan
announced through DZRH that the � Magdalo� s D-Day would be on February
24, 2006, the 20th Anniversary of Edsa I.�

On February 23, 2006, PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao intercepted information

that members of the PNP- Special Action Force were planning to defect. Thus, he
immediately ordered SAF Commanding General Marcelino Franco, Jr.
to � disavow� any defection. The latter promptly obeyed and issued a public
statement: � All SAF units are under the effective control of responsible and
trustworthy officers with proven integrity and unquestionable loyalty.�

On the same day, at the house of former Congressman Peping Cojuangco,

President Cory Aquino� s brother, businessmen and mid-level government
officials plotted moves to bring down the Arroyo administration. Nelly Sindayen
of TIME Magazine reported that Pastor Saycon, longtime Arroyo critic, called a
U.S. government official about his group� s plans if President Arroyo is
ousted. Saycon also phoned a man code-named Delta. Saycon identified him as
B/Gen. Danilo Lim, Commander of the Army� s elite Scout Ranger. Lim said
� it was all systems go for the planned movement against Arroyo.� [8]

B/Gen. Danilo Lim and Brigade Commander Col. Ariel Querubin confided
to Gen. Generoso Senga, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), that a huge number of soldiers would join the rallies to provide a critical
mass and armed component to the Anti-Arroyo protests to be held on February 24,
2005. According to these two (2) officers, there was no way they could possibly
stop the soldiers because they too, were breaking the chain of command to join the
forces foist to unseat the President. However, Gen. Senga has remained faithful to
his Commander-in-Chief and to the chain of command. He immediately took
custody of B/Gen. Lim and directed Col. Querubin to return to the Philippine
Marines Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio.

Earlier, the CPP-NPA called for intensification of political and revolutionary

work within the military and the police establishments in order to forge alliances
with its members and key officials. NPA spokesman Gregorio � Ka Roger�
Rosal declared: � The Communist Party and revolutionary movement and the
entire people look forward to the possibility in the coming year of accomplishing
its immediate task of bringing down the Arroyo regime; of rendering it to weaken
and unable to rule that it will not take much longer to end it.� [9]

On the other hand, Cesar Renerio, spokesman for the National Democratic
Front (NDF) at North Central Mindanao, publicly announced: � Anti-Arroyo
groups within the military and police are growing rapidly, hastened by the
economic difficulties suffered by the families of AFP officers and enlisted
personnel who undertake counter-insurgency operations in the field.� He claimed
that with the forces of the national democratic movement, the anti-Arroyo
conservative political parties, coalitions, plus the groups that have been reinforcing
since June 2005, it is probable that the President� s ouster is nearing its
concluding stage in the first half of 2006.

Respondents further claimed that the bombing of telecommunication towers

and cell sites in Bulacan and Bataan was also considered as additional factual basis
for the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. So is the raid of an army outpost in
Benguet resulting in the death of three (3) soldiers. And also the directive of the
Communist Party of the Philippines ordering its front organizations to join 5,000
Metro Manila radicals and 25,000 more from the provinces in mass protests.[10]

By midnight of February 23, 2006, the President convened her security

advisers and several cabinet members to assess the gravity of the fermenting peace
and order situation. She directed both the AFP and the PNP to account for all
their men and ensure that the chain of command remains solid and undivided. To
protect the young students from any possible trouble that might break loose on the
streets, the President suspended classes in all levels in the entire National Capital
Region.

For their part, petitioners cited the events that followed after the
issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
 Immediately, the Office of the President announced the cancellation of all
programs and activities related to the 20th anniversary celebration of Edsa People
Power I; and revoked the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local
governments. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales stated that political rallies, which to
the President� s mind were organized for purposes of destabilization, are
cancelled.Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor announced that
� warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can already be
implemented.� [11]

Undeterred by the announcements that rallies and public assemblies would

not be allowed, groups of protesters (members of Kilusang Mayo Uno [KMU] and
National Federation of Labor Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno[NAFLU-KMU]),
marched from various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at
the EDSA shrine. Those who were already near the EDSA site were violently
dispersed by huge clusters of anti-riot police. The well-trained policemen used
truncheons, big fiber glass shields, water cannons, and tear gas to stop and break
up the marching groups, and scatter the massed participants. The same police
action was used against the protesters marching forward to Cubao, Quezon City
and to the corner of Santolan Street and EDSA. That same evening, hundreds of
riot policemen broke up an EDSA celebration rally held along Ayala Avenue and
Paseo de Roxas Street in Makati City.[12]

According to petitioner Kilusang Mayo Uno, the police cited PP 1017 as the
ground for the dispersal of their assemblies.

During the dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA, police arrested (without
warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the University of the
Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald
Llamas, president of party-list Akbayan.

At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP
1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila. The raiding team
confiscated news stories by reporters, documents, pictures, and mock-ups of the
Saturday issue. Policemen from Camp Crame in Quezon City were stationed
inside the editorial and business offices of the newspaper; while policemen from
the Manila Police District were stationed outside the building.[13]

A few minutes after the search and seizure at theDaily Tribune offices, the
police surrounded the premises of another pro-opposition paper, Malaya, and its
sister publication, the tabloid Abante.

The raid, according to Presidential Chief of Staff Michael

Defensor, is � meant to show a � strong presence,� to tell media outlets not to
connive or do anything that would help the rebels in bringing down this
government.� The PNP warned that it would take over any media organization
that would not follow � standards set by the government during the state of
national emergency.� Director General Lomibao stated that � if they do not
follow the standards � and the standards are - if they would contribute to
instability in the government, or if they do not subscribe to what is in General
Order No. 5 and Proc. No. 1017 � we will recommend a
� takeover.� � National Telecommunications� Commissioner Ronald Solis
urged television and radio networks to � cooperate� with the government for the
duration of the state of national emergency. He asked for� balanced
reporting� from broadcasters when covering the events surrounding the coup
attempt foiled by the government. He warned that his agency will not hesitate to
recommend the closure of any broadcast outfit that violates rules set out for media
coverage when the national security is threatened.[14]

Also, on February 25, 2006, the police arrested Congressman Crispin

Beltran, representing the AnakpawisParty and Chairman of Kilusang Mayo
Uno (KMU), while leaving his farmhouse in Bulacan. The police showed a
warrant for his arrest dated 1985. Beltran� s lawyer explained that the warrant,
which stemmed from a case of inciting to rebellion filed during the Marcos regime,
had long been quashed. Beltran, however, is not a party in any of these petitions.
 When members of petitioner KMU went to Camp Crame to visit Beltran,
they were told they could not be admitted because of PP 1017 and G.O. No.
5. Two members were arrested and detained, while the rest were dispersed by the
police.

Bayan Muna Representative Satur Ocampo eluded arrest when the police
went after him during a public forum at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City. But his
two drivers, identified as Roel and Art, were taken into custody.

Retired Major General Ramon Monta� o, former head of the Philippine

Constabulary, was arrested while with his wife and golfmates at the Orchard Golf
and Country Club in Dasmari� as, Cavite.

Attempts were made to arrest AnakpawisRepresentative Satur Ocampo,

Representative Rafael Mariano, Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro Casi� o and
Gabriela Representative Liza Maza. Bayan MunaRepresentative Josel Virador
was arrested at the PAL Ticket Office in Davao City. Later, he was turned over to
the custody of the House of Representatives where the � Batasan 5� decided to
stay indefinitely.

Let it be stressed at this point that the alleged violations of the rights of
Representatives Beltran, Satur Ocampo, et al., are not being raised in these
petitions.

On March 3, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring that the state
of national emergency has ceased to exist.

In the interim, these seven (7) petitions challenging the constitutionality of

PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 were filed with this Court against the above-named
respondents. Three (3) of these petitions impleaded President Arroyo as
respondent.

In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners Randolf S. David,et al. assailed PP 1017 on

the grounds that (1) it encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress; (2) it is a
subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial
law; and (3) it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of
speech and of assembly.

In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners Ninez Cacho-Olivares

and Tribune Publishing Co., Inc. challenged the CIDG� s act of raiding the Daily
Tribune offices as a clear case of � censorship� or � prior restraint.� They
also claimed that the term � emergency� refers only to tsunami, typhoon,
hurricane and similar occurrences, hence, there is � absolutely no emergency�
that warrants the issuance of PP 1017.

In G.R. No. 171485, petitioners herein are Representative Francis Joseph G.

Escudero, and twenty one (21) other members of the House of Representatives,
including Representatives Satur Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Teodoro Casi� o, Liza
Maza, and Josel Virador. They asserted that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 constitute
� usurpation of legislative powers� ; � violation of freedom of expression� and
� a declaration of martial law.� They alleged that President Arroyo � gravely
abused her discretion in calling out the armed forces without clear and verifiable
factual basis of the possibility of lawless violence and a showing that there is
necessity to do so.�

In G.R. No. 171483, petitioners KMU, NAFLU-KMU, and their members

averred that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional because (1) they arrogate
unto President Arroyo the power to enact laws and decrees; (2)their issuance was
without factual basis; and (3) they violate freedom of expression and the right of
the people to peaceably assemble to redress their grievances.

In G.R. No. 171400, petitioner Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALGI) alleged
that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional because they violate (a) Section
4[15]of Article II, (b) Sections 1,[16] 2,[17] and 4[18] of Article III, (c) Section 23[19] of
Article VI, and (d) Section 17[20] of Article XII of the Constitution.
 In G.R. No. 171489, petitioners Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz et al., alleged that PP
1017 is an � arbitrary and unlawful exercise by the President of her Martial Law
powers.� And assuming that PP 1017 is not really a declaration of Martial Law,
petitioners argued that � it amounts to an exercise by the President of emergency
powers without congressional approval.� In addition, petitioners asserted that PP
1017 � goes beyond the nature and function of a proclamation as defined under
the Revised Administrative Code.�

And lastly, in G.R. No. 171424, petitioner Loren B. Legarda maintained that
PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are � unconstitutional for being violative of the freedom
of expression, including its cognate rights such as freedom of the press and the
right to access to information on matters of public concern, all guaranteed under
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.� In this regard, she stated that
these issuances prevented her from fully prosecuting her election protest pending
before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

In respondents� Consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General countered

that: first, the petitions should be dismissed for
being moot; second, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 171400 (ALGI), 171424
(Legarda), 171483 (KMU et al.), 171485 (Escudero et al.) and 171489 (Cadizet
al.) have no legal standing; third, it is not necessary for petitioners to implead
President Arroyo as respondent; fourth, PP 1017 has constitutional and legal basis;
andfifth, PP 1017 does not violate the people� s right to free expression and
redress of grievances.

On March 7, 2006, the Court conducted oral arguments and heard the parties
on the above interlocking issues which may be summarized as follows:

A. PROCEDURAL:
1) Whether the issuance of PP 1021 renders the petitions
moot and academic.
 2) Whether petitioners in 171485(Escudero et al.), G.R. Nos.
171400 (ALGI),171483 (KMU et al.), 171489 (Cadiz et al.),
and 171424 (Legarda) have legal standing.
B. SUBSTANTIVE:
1) Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual bases of
PP 1017.
2) Whether PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are unconstitutional.
a. Facial Challenge
b. Constitutional Basis
c. As Applied Challenge

A. PROCEDURAL

First, we must resolve the procedural roadblocks.

I- Moot and Academic Principle

One of the greatest contributions of the American system to this country is

the concept of judicial review enunciated in Marbury v. Madison.[21] This concept
rests on the extraordinary simple foundation --

The Constitution is the supreme law. It was ordained by the

people, the ultimate source of all political authority. It confers limited
powers on the national government. x x x If the government
consciously or unconsciously oversteps these limitations there must
be some authority competent to hold it in control, to thwart its
unconstitutional attempt, and thus to vindicate and preserve
inviolate the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution. This
power the courts exercise. This is the beginning and the end of the
theory of judicial review.[22]

But the power of judicial review does not repose upon the courts a � self-
starting capacity.� [23] Courts may exercise such power only when the following
requisites are present: first, there must be an actual case or
controversy; second, petitioners have to raise a question of
constitutionality; third, the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and fourth, the decision of the constitutional question must be
necessary to the determination of the case itself.[24]

Respondents maintain that the first and second requisites are absent, hence,
we shall limit our discussion thereon.

An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite

legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is � definite and concrete,
touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest;� a real and
substantial controversy admitting of specific relief.[25] The Solicitor General refutes
the existence of such actual case or controversy, contending that the present
petitions were rendered � moot and academic� by President Arroyo� s issuance
of PP 1021.

Such contention lacks merit.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable

controversy by virtue of supervening events,[26] so that a declaration thereon would
be of no practical use or value.[27] Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such
case[28] or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[29]

The Court holds that President Arroyo� s 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.� [30]

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;[31] second, the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;[32] third, when constitutional issue raised
requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public;[33] and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[34]

All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this Court� s
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 public� s interest, involving as they do the
people� s 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.[35] And
lastly, respondents� contested actions are capable of repetition. Certainly, the
petitions are subject to judicial review.

In their attempt to prove the alleged mootness of this case, respondents cited
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban� s Separate Opinion in Sanlakas v.
Executive Secretary.[36] However, they failed to take into account the Chief
Justice� s very statement that an otherwise � moot� case may still be decided
� provided the party raising it in a proper case has been and/or continues to be
prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance.� The present case falls
right within this exception to the mootness rule pointed out by the Chief Justice.

II- Legal Standing

In view of the number of petitioners suing in various personalities, the Court

deems it imperative to have a more than passing discussion on legal standing
or locus standi.
 Locus standi is defined as � a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
given question.� [37] 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 be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest.� Accordingly, the � real-
party-in interest� is � the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit.� [38] Succinctly put, the plaintiff� s standing is based on his own right to the
relief sought.

The difficulty of determining locus standi arises inpublic suits. Here,

the plaintiff who asserts a � public right� in assailing an allegedly illegal official
action, does so as a representative of the general public. He may be a person who
is affected no differently from any other person. He could be suing as a
� stranger,� or in the category of a � citizen,� or � taxpayer.� In either
case, he has to adequately show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In
other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public
order and the securing of relief as a � citizen� or � taxpayer.

Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both � citizen� and

� taxpayer� standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down
in Beauchamp v. Silk,[39] where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer� s suit
is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen� s suit. In the former, the
plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is
but the mere instrument of the public concern. As held by the New York
Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins:[40] � In matter of mere public
right, however� the people are the real parties� It is at least the right, if not
the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly
pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied.� With
respect to taxpayer� s suits, Terr v. Jordan[41] held that � the right of a citizen
and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of
public funds to his injury cannot be denied.�

However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference
in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the
activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service, the United State
Supreme Court laid down the more stringent � direct injury� test in Ex Parte
Levitt,[42] later reaffirmed inTileston v. Ullman.[43] The same Court ruled that for a
private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an
executive or legislative action, he must show that he has sustained a direct
injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general
interest common to all members of the public.

This Court adopted the � direct injury� test in our

jurisdiction. In People v. Vera,[44] it held that the person who impugns the
validity of a statute must have � a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a
result.� The Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases, such as, Custodio v.
President of the Senate,[45]Manila Race Horse Trainers� Association v. De la
Fuente,[46] Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works[47] andAnti-Chinese League of the
Philippines v. Felix.[48]

However, being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus

standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. This was done
in the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases, Araneta v. Dinglasan,[49]where the
� transcendental importance� of the cases prompted the Court to act
liberally. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v.
Comelec,[50] this Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the � far-
reaching implications� of the petition notwithstanding its categorical statement
that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. Indeed, there is a chain of
cases where this liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens,
members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the
constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings.[51]

Thus, the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed
to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of
� transcendental importance.� Pertinent are the following cases:
(1) Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,[52] where the Court ruled
that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and
the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of
transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus
standi;

(2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[53] wherein the

Court held that� given the transcendental importance of the issues
involved, the Court may relax the standing requirements and
allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the
parties seeking judicial review� of the Visiting Forces Agreement;

(3) Lim v. Executive Secretary,[54] while the Court noted that the
petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a
showing that � Balikatan 02-01� involves the exercise of
Congress� taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling
in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[55] that in cases of
transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly
and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed.

By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases
decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may
be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:

(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;

(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of

public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
 (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the
validity of the election law in question;

(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues
raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and

(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.

Significantly, recent decisions show a certain toughening in the Court� s

attitude toward legal standing.

In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato,[56] the Court ruled that the status

of Kilosbayan as a people� s organization does not give it the requisite personality
to question the validity of the on-line lottery contract, more so where it does not
raise any issue of constitutionality. Moreover, it cannot sue as a taxpayer absent
any allegation that public funds are being misused. Nor can it sue as a concerned
citizen as it does not allege any specific injury it has suffered.

In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v.

Comelec,[57] the Court reiterated the � direct injury� test with respect to
concerned citizens� cases involving constitutional issues. It held that � there
must be a showing that the citizen personally suffered some actual or threatened
injury arising from the alleged illegal official act.�

In Lacson v. Perez,[58] the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), is not a real party-in-interest as it had not
demonstrated any injury to itself or to its leaders, members or supporters.

In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,[59] the Court ruled that only the

petitioners who are members of Congress have standing to sue, as they claim that
the President� s declaration of a state of rebellion is a usurpation of the
emergency powers of Congress, thus impairing their legislative powers. As to
petitionersSanlakas, Partido Manggagawa, and Social Justice Society, the Court
declared them to be devoid of standing, equating them with the LDP in Lacson.

Now, the application of the above principles to the present petitions.

The locus standi of petitioners in G.R. No. 171396, particularly David and
Llamas, is beyond doubt. The same holds true with petitioners in G.R. No.
171409, Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publishing Co. Inc. They alleged � direct
injury� resulting from � illegal arrest� and � unlawful search� committed by
police operatives pursuant to PP 1017. Rightly so, the Solicitor General does not
question their legal standing.

In G.R. No. 171485, the opposition Congressmen alleged there was

usurpation of legislative powers. They also raised the issue of whether or not the
concurrence of Congress is necessary whenever the alarming powers incident to
Martial Law are used. Moreover, it is in the interest of justice that those affected
by PP 1017 can be represented by their Congressmen in bringing to the attention of
the Court the alleged violations of their basic rights.

In G.R. No. 171400, (ALGI), this Court applied the liberality rule
in Philconsa v. Enriquez,[60] Kapatiran Ng Mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng
Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan,[61] Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[62]Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation,[63] and Ta� ada v. Tuvera,[64] that when the issue concerns a public
right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an interest in the
execution of the laws.

In G.R. No. 171483, KMU� s assertion that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5
violated its right to peaceful assembly may be deemed sufficient to give it legal
standing. Organizations may be granted standing to assert the rights of their
members.[65] We take judicial notice of the announcement by the Office of the
President banning all rallies and canceling all permits for public assemblies
following the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.
 In G.R. No. 171489, petitioners, Cadiz et al., who are national officers of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) have no legal standing, having failed to
allege any direct or potential injury which the IBP as an institution or its members
may suffer as a consequence of the issuance of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No.
5. In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,[66] the Court held that the mere
invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more,
while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this
case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole
citizenry. However, in view of the transcendental importance of the issue, this
Court declares that petitioner have locus standi.

In G.R. No. 171424, Loren Legarda has no personality as a taxpayer to file

the instant petition as there are no allegations of illegal disbursement of public
funds. The fact that she is a former Senator is of no consequence. She can no
longer sue as a legislator on the allegation that her prerogatives as a lawmaker have
been impaired by PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. Her claim that she is a media
personality will not likewise aid her because there was no showing that the
enforcement of these issuances prevented her from pursuing her occupation. Her
submission that she has pending electoral protest before the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal is likewise of no relevance. She has not sufficiently shown that PP 1017
will affect the proceedings or result of her case. But considering once more the
transcendental importance of the issue involved, this Court may relax the standing
rules.

It must always be borne in mind that the question oflocus standi is but
corollary to the bigger question of proper exercise of judicial power. This is the
underlying legal tenet of the � liberality doctrine� on legal standing. It cannot
be doubted that the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a judicial question
which is of paramount importance to the Filipino people. To paraphrase Justice
Laurel, the whole of Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling of
this Court on this very critical matter. The petitions thus call for the application of
the � transcendental importance� doctrine, a relaxation of the standing
requirements for the petitioners in the � PP 1017 cases.�
 This Court holds that all the petitioners herein havelocus standi.

Incidentally, it is not proper to implead President Arroyo as

respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or
actual incumbency,[67] may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no
need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the
high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court
litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed
from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend
to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and
judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which
impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties
imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the
Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to
anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people[68]but he may
be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by
impeachment.[69]

B. SUBSTANTIVE

I. Review of Factual Bases

Petitioners maintain that PP 1017 has no factual basis. Hence, it was not
� necessary� for President Arroyo to issue such Proclamation.

The issue of whether the Court may review the factual bases of the
President� s exercise of his Commander-in-Chief power has reached its distilled
point - from the indulgent days of Barcelon v.
[70] [71]
Baker and Montenegro v. Castaneda to the volatile era
of Lansang v. Garcia,[72] Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile,[73] and Garcia-Padilla v.
Enrile.[74] The tug-of-war always cuts across the line defining � political
questions,� particularly those questions � in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.� [75] Barcelon and Montenegro were in unison in declaring that
the authority to decide whether an exigency has arisen belongs to the
President and his decision is final and conclusive on the courts. Lansangtook
the opposite view. There, the members of the Court were unanimous in the
conviction that the Court has the authority to inquire into the existence of factual
bases in order to determine their constitutional sufficiency. From the principle of
separation of powers, it shifted the focus to the system of checks and balances,
� under which the President is supreme, x x x only if and whenhe acts within
the sphere allotted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to
determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial
Department, which in this respect, is, in turn,
constitutionallysupreme.� [76] In 1973, the unanimous Court ofLansang was
divided in Aquino v. Enrile.[77] There, the Court was almost evenly
divided on the issue of whether the validity of the imposition of
Martial Law is a political or justiciable question.[78] Then came Garcia-Padilla v.
Enrile which greatly dilutedLansang. It declared that there is a need to re-examine
the latter case, ratiocinating that � in times of war or national emergency, the
President must be given absolute control for the very life of the nation and the
government is in great peril. The President, it intoned, is answerable only to
his conscience, the People, and God.� [79]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora[80] -- a recent case most

pertinent to these cases at bar -- echoed a principle similar to Lansang. While the
Court considered the President� s � 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 Court� s
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
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.� The latter part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial
power to enable the courts of justice to review what was before a forbidden
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the
government.[81] It speaks of judicial prerogative not only in terms of power but
also of duty.[82]

As to how the Court may inquire into the President� s exercise of

power, Lansang adopted the test that � judicial inquiry can go no further than to
satisfy the Court not that the President� s decision is correct,� but that � the
President did not act arbitrarily.� Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness,
but arbitrariness.[83] In Integrated Bar of the Philippines, this Court further ruled
that � it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the President� s
decision is totally bereft of factual basis� and that if he fails, by way of proof,
to support his assertion, then � this Court cannot undertake an independent
investigation beyond the pleadings.�

Petitioners failed to show that President Arroyo� s exercise of the calling-

out power, by issuing PP 1017, is totally bereft of factual basis. A reading of the
Solicitor General� s Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed
narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting reports
forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group, their
audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly
in the Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist
leaders. There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group
of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the
military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any
contrary allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in
issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid.

Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, President Arroyo was not
expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or suppress what she
believed was lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. However, the exercise of
such power or duty must not stifle liberty.

II. Constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5

Doctrines of Several Political Theorists

on the Power of the President
in Times of Emergency

This case brings to fore a contentious subject -- the power of the President in
times of emergency. A glimpse at the various political theories relating to this
subject provides an adequate backdrop for our ensuing discussion.

John Locke, describing the architecture of civil government, called upon the
English doctrine of prerogative to cope with the problem of emergency. In times
of danger to the nation, positive law enacted by the legislature might be inadequate
or even a fatal obstacle to the promptness of action necessary to avert
catastrophe. In these situations, the Crown retained a prerogative � power to act
according to discretion for the public good, without the proscription of the law
and sometimes even against it.� [84] But Locke recognized that this moral
restraint might not suffice to avoid abuse of prerogative powers. Who shall judge
the need for resorting to the prerogative and how may its abuse be
avoided? Here, Locke readily admitted defeat, suggesting that � the people have
no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on
earth, but to appeal to Heaven.� [85]
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau also assumed the need for temporary suspension of
democratic processes of government in time of emergency. According to him:

The inflexibility of the laws, which prevents them from adopting

themselves to circumstances, may, in certain cases, render them disastrous and
make them bring about, at a time of crisis, the ruin of the State�

It is wrong therefore to wish to make political institutions as strong as to

render it impossible to suspend their operation. Even Sparta allowed its law to
lapse...

If the peril is of such a kind that the paraphernalia of the laws are an
obstacle to their preservation, the method is to nominate a supreme lawyer, who
shall silence all the laws and suspend for a moment the sovereign authority. In
such a case, there is no doubt about the general will, and it clear that the
people� s first intention is that the State shall not perish.[86]

Rosseau did not fear the abuse of the emergency dictatorship or � supreme
magistracy� as he termed it. For him, it would more likely be cheapened by
� indiscreet use.� He was unwilling to rely upon an � appeal to
heaven.� Instead, he relied upon a tenure of office of prescribed duration to
avoid perpetuation of the dictatorship.[87]

John Stuart Mill concluded his ardent defense of representative government:

� I am far from condemning, in cases of extreme necessity, the assumption of
absolute power in the form of a temporary dictatorship.� [88]

Nicollo Machiavelli� s view of emergency powers, as one element in the

whole scheme of limited government, furnished an ironic contrast to the Lockean
theory of prerogative. He recognized and attempted to bridge this chasm in
democratic political theory, thus:
 Now, in a well-ordered society, it should never be necessary to
resort to extra � constitutional measures; for although they may for a
time be beneficial, yet the precedent is pernicious, for if the practice is
once established for good objects, they will in a little while be
disregarded under that pretext but for evil purposes. Thus, no republic
will ever be perfect if she has not by law provided for everything, having
a remedy for every emergency and fixed rules for applying it. [89]

Machiavelli � in contrast to Locke, Rosseau and Mill � sought to

incorporate into the constitution a regularized system of standby emergency
powers to be invoked with suitable checks and controls in time of national
danger. He attempted forthrightly to meet the problem of combining a capacious
reserve of power and speed and vigor in its application in time of emergency, with
effective constitutional restraints.[90]

Contemporary political theorists, addressing themselves to the problem of

response to emergency by constitutional democracies, have employed the doctrine
of constitutional dictatorship.[91] Frederick M. Watkins saw � no reason why
absolutism should not be used as a means for the defense of liberal
institutions,� provided it � serves to protect established institutions from the
danger of permanent injury in a period of temporary emergency and is
followed by a prompt return to the previous forms of political life.� [92] He
recognized the two (2) key elements of the problem of emergency governance, as
well as all constitutional governance:increasing administrative powers of the
executive, while at the same time � imposing limitation upon that
power.� [93] Watkins placed his real faith in a scheme of constitutional
dictatorship. These are the conditions of success of such a dictatorship: � The
period of dictatorship must be relatively short� Dictatorship should always
be strictly legitimate in character� Final authority to determine the need for
dictatorship in any given case must never rest with the dictator
himself� � [94] and the objective of such an emergency dictatorship should be
� strict political conservatism.�

Carl J. Friedrich cast his analysis in terms similar to those of

Watkins.[95] � It is a problem of concentrating power � in a government where
power has consciously been divided � to cope with� situations of unprecedented
magnitude and gravity. There must be a broad grant of powers, subject to equally
strong limitations as to who shall exercise such powers, when, for how long, and to
what end.� [96] Friedrich, too, offered criteria for judging the adequacy of any of
scheme of emergency powers, to wit: � The emergency executive must be
appointed by constitutional means � i.e., he must be legitimate; he should not
enjoy power to determine the existence of an emergency; emergency powers
should be exercised under a strict time limitation; and last, the objective of
emergency action must be the defense of the constitutional order.� [97]

Clinton L. Rossiter, after surveying the history of the employment of

emergency powers in Great Britain, France, Weimar, Germany and the United
States, reverted to a description of a scheme of � constitutional dictatorship� as
solution to the vexing problems presented by emergency. [98] Like Watkins and
Friedrich, he stated a priori the conditions of success of the � constitutional
dictatorship,� thus:

1) No general regime or particular institution of

constitutional dictatorship should be initiated unless it is necessary
or even indispensable to the preservation of the State and its
constitutional order�

2) � the decision to institute a constitutional dictatorship

should never be in the hands of the man or men who will
constitute the dictator�
 3) No government should initiate a constitutional
dictatorship without making specific provisions for its
termination�

4) � all uses of emergency powers and all readjustments

in the organization of the government should be effected in
pursuit of constitutional or legal requirements�

5) � no dictatorial institution should be adopted, no right

invaded, no regular procedure altered any more than is absolutely
necessary for the conquest of the particular crisis . . .

6) The measures adopted in the prosecution of the a

constitutional dictatorship should never be permanent in character
or effect�

7) The dictatorship should be carried on by persons

representative of every part of the citizenry interested in the
defense of the existing constitutional order. . .

8) Ultimate responsibility should be maintained for every

action taken under a constitutional dictatorship. . .

9) The decision to terminate a constitutional dictatorship,

like the decision to institute one should never be in the hands of
the man or men who constitute the dictator. . .

10) No constitutional dictatorship should extend beyond the

termination of the crisis for which it was instituted�

11) � the termination of the crisis must be followed by a

complete return as possible to the political and governmental
conditions existing prior to the initiation of the constitutional
dictatorship� [99]
Rossiter accorded to legislature a far greater role in the oversight exercise of
emergency powers than did Watkins. He would secure to Congress final
responsibility for declaring the existence or termination of an emergency, and he
places great faith in the effectiveness of congressional investigating
committees.[100]
Scott and Cotter, in analyzing the above contemporary theories in light of
recent experience, were one in saying that, � the suggestion that democracies
surrender the control of government to an authoritarian ruler in time of grave
danger to the nation is not based upon sound constitutional theory.� To
appraise emergency power in terms of constitutional dictatorship serves merely to
distort the problem and hinder realistic analysis. It matters not whether the term
� dictator� is used in its normal sense (as applied to authoritarian rulers) or is
employed to embrace all chief executives administering emergency powers.
However used, � constitutional dictatorship� cannot be divorced from the
implication of suspension of the processes of constitutionalism. Thus, they
favored instead the � concept of constitutionalism� articulated by Charles H.
McIlwain:

A concept of constitutionalism which is less misleading in the

analysis of problems of emergency powers, and which is consistent with
the findings of this study, is that formulated by Charles H. McIlwain.
While it does not by any means necessarily exclude some indeterminate
limitations upon the substantive powers of government, full emphasis is
placed upon procedural limitations, and political responsibility.
McIlwain clearly recognized the need to repose adequate power in
government. And in discussing the meaning of constitutionalism, he
insisted that the historical and proper test of constitutionalism was
the existence of adequate processes for keeping government
responsible. He refused to equate constitutionalism with the enfeebling
of government by an exaggerated emphasis upon separation of powers
and substantive limitations on governmental power. He found that the
really effective checks on despotism have consisted not in the weakening
of government but, but rather in the limiting of it; between which there
is a great and very significant difference. In associating
constitutionalism with � limited� as distinguished from � weak�
government, McIlwain meant government limited to the orderly
 procedure of law as opposed to the processes of force. The two
fundamental correlative elements of constitutionalism for which all
lovers of liberty must yet fight are the legal limits to arbitrary power
and a complete political responsibility of government to the
governed.[101]

In the final analysis, the various approaches to emergency of the above

political theorists � - from Lock� s � theory of prerogative,� to Watkins�
doctrine of � constitutional dictatorship� and, eventually, to McIlwain� s
� principle of constitutionalism� --- ultimately aim to solve one real problem in
emergency governance, i.e., that of allotting increasing areas of discretionary
power to the Chief Executive, while insuring that such powers will be
exercised with a sense of political responsibility and under effective limitations
and checks.

Our Constitution has fairly coped with this problem. Fresh from the fetters
of a repressive regime, the 1986 Constitutional Commission, in drafting the 1987
Constitution, endeavored to create a government in the concept of Justice
Jackson� s � balanced power structure.� [102] Executive, legislative, and judicial
powers are dispersed to the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court,
respectively. Each is supreme within its own sphere. But none has the monopoly
of power in times of emergency. Each branch is given a role to serve as
limitation or check upon the other. This system does not weaken the
President, it just limits his power, using the language of McIlwain. In other
words, in times of emergency, our Constitution reasonably demands that we repose
a certain amount of faith in the basic integrity and wisdom of the Chief Executive
but, at the same time, it obliges him to operate within carefully prescribed
procedural limitations.

a. � Facial Challenge�
 Petitioners contend that PP 1017 is void on its face because of its
� overbreadth.� They claim that its enforcement encroached on both unprotected
and protected rights under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution and sent a
� chilling effect� to the citizens.

A facial review of PP 1017, using the overbreadth doctrine, is uncalled for.

First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed

for testing � on their faces� statutes in free speech cases, also known under the
American Law as First Amendment cases.[103]

A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to speech

or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or
suppress all forms of lawless violence. In United States v. Salerno,[104] the US
Supreme Court held that � we have not recognized an � overbreadth�
doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment� (freedom of
speech).

Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of
a law that � reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control
over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct.� Undoubtedly, lawless
violence, insurrection and rebellion are considered � harmful� and
� constitutionally unprotected conduct.� In Broadrick v. Oklahoma,[105] it was
held:

It remains a � matter of no little difficulty� to determine when a

law may properly be held void on its face and when � such summary
action� is inappropriate.But the plain import of our cases is, at the
very least, that facial overbreadth adjudication is an exception to
our traditional rules of practice and that its function, a limited one
 at the outset, attenuates as the otherwise unprotected behavior that
it forbids the State to sanction moves from � pure speech� toward
conduct and that conduct � even if expressive � falls within the
scope of otherwise valid criminal laws that reflect legitimate state
interests in maintaining comprehensive controls over harmful,
constitutionally unprotected conduct.

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.� [106] 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;� [107] 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.[108] A writer and scholar in Constitutional Law
explains further:

The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is

that it marks an exception to some of the usual rules of
constitutional litigation. Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that
a statute is unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant
prevails, the courts carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the
law by invalidating its improper applications on a case to case
basis. Moreover, challengers to a law are not permitted to raise the
rights of third parties and can only assert their own interests. In
overbreadth analysis, those rules give way; challenges are permitted
 to raise the rights of third parties; and the court invalidates the entire
statute � on its face,� not merely � as applied for� so that the
overbroad law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized court
construes it more narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to depart
from the normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with the � chilling;�
deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not courageous
enough to bring suit. The Court assumes that an overbroad law� s
� very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression.� An overbreadth ruling
is designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of those third
parties.

In other words, a facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine will require
the Court to examine PP 1017 and pinpoint its flaws and defects, not on the basis
of its actual operation to petitioners, but on the assumption or prediction that its
very existence may cause others not before the Court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression. In Younger v. Harris,[109] it was
held that:

[T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its

deficiencies, and requiring correction of these deficiencies before the
statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an appropriate task for the
judiciary. The combination of the relative remoteness of the
controversy, the impact on the legislative process of the relief sought,
and above all the speculative and amorphous nature of the required
line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes,...ordinarily results in a kind
of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional
questions, whichever way they might be decided.

And third, a facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is the most

difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish
that there can be no instance when the assailed law may be valid. Here,
petitioners did not even attempt to show whether this situation exists.
 Petitioners likewise seek a facial review of PP 1017 on the ground of
vagueness. This, too, is unwarranted.

Related to the � overbreadth� doctrine is the � void for vagueness

doctrine� which holds that � a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application.� [110] It is subject to the same principles governing overbreadth
doctrine. For one, it is also an analytical tool for testing � on their
faces� statutes in free speech cases. And like overbreadth, it is said that a
litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible
applications. Again, petitioners did not even attempt to show that PP 1017 is
vague in all its application. They also failed to establish that men of common
intelligence cannot understand the meaning and application of PP 1017.

b. Constitutional Basis of PP 1017

Now on the constitutional foundation of PP 1017.

The operative portion of PP 1017 may be divided into three important

provisions, thus:

First provision:

� by virtue of the power vested upon me by Section 18,

Artilce 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 first provision pertains to the President� s calling-out power. In

Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,[111] this Court, through Mr. Justice Dante O.
Tinga, held that Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution reproduced as follows:

Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all

armed forces of the Philippines andwhenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when
the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report
in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by
a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-four hours

following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with
its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any

citizen, the sufficiency of the factual bases of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

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.

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,[112] 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 Office� s 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 suppressinglawless violence, invasion and rebellion. This involves
ordinary police action. But every act that goes beyond the President� s 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

President� s authority to declare a � state of rebellion� (in Sanlakas) and the
authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. While President Arroyo� s
authority to declare a � state of rebellion� emanates from her powers as Chief
Executive, the statutory authority cited in Sanlakas was Section 4, Chapter 2, Book
II of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which provides:
 SEC. 4. � Proclamations. � Acts of the President fixing a
date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific
law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in
proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order.

President Arroyo� s declaration of a � state of rebellion� was merely an

act declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, a declaration
allowed under Section 4 cited above. Such declaration, in the words of Sanlakas,
is harmless, without legal significance, and deemed not written. In these cases, PP
1017 is more than that. In declaring a state of national emergency, President
Arroyo did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, a provision
calling on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. She also relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision on the State� s
extraordinary power to take over privately-owned 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. What defines the character of PP 1017 are
its wordings. It is plain therein that what the President invoked was her calling-out
power.

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.� [113]

In his � Statement before the Senate Committee on Justice� on March 13,

2006, Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,[114] an authority in constitutional law, said
that of the three powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief, the power to
declare Martial Law poses the most severe threat to civil liberties. It is a strong
medicine which should not be resorted to lightly. It cannot be used to stifle or
persecute critics of the government. It is placed in the keeping of the President for
the purpose of enabling him to secure the people from harm and to restore order so
that they can enjoy their individual freedoms. In fact, Section 18, Art. VII,
provides:

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.

Justice Mendoza also stated that 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.

Justice Mendoza further stated that specifically, (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 Arroyo� s 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,[115] 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 laws.� [116] In the exercise of such function, the
President, if needed, may employ the powers attached to his office as the
Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the country,[117] including the
Philippine National Police[118] under the Department of Interior and Local
Government.[119]

Petitioners, especially Representatives Francis Joseph G. Escudero, Satur

Ocampo, Rafael Mariano, Teodoro Casi� o, Liza Maza, and Josel Virador argue
that PP 1017 is unconstitutional as it arrogated upon President Arroyo the power to
enact laws and decrees in violation of Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution,
which vests the power to enact laws in Congress. They assail the clause � to
enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations
promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.�

Petitioners� contention is understandable. A reading of PP 1017 operative

clause shows that it was lifted[120] from Former President Marcos� Proclamation
No. 1081, which partly reads:
 NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me by
Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby
place the entire Philippines as defined in Article 1, Section 1 of the
Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their Commander-
in-Chief, 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 as any act of
insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and
decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or
upon my direction.

We all know that it was PP 1081 which granted President Marcos legislative
power. Its enabling clause states: � to enforce obedience to all the laws and
decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my
direction.� Upon the other hand, the enabling clause of PP 1017 issued by
President Arroyo is: to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees,
orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my
direction.�

Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to promulgate � decrees� ?

PP 1017 states in
part: � to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees x x x promulgated
by me personally or upon my direction.�

The President is granted an Ordinance Power under Chapter 2, Book III of

Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). She may issue any of the
following:
 Sec. 2. Executive Orders. � Acts of the President providing for
rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution
of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in executive
orders.
Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. � Acts of the President which
relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his
duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative
orders.
Sec. 4. Proclamations. � Acts of the President fixing a date or
declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the
existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made
to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the
force of an executive order.
Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. � Acts of the President on matters
of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which
only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be
embodied in memorandum orders.
Sec. 6. Memorandum Circulars. � Acts of the President on
matters relating to internal administration, which the President desires to
bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies,
bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance,
shall be embodied in memorandum circulars.
Sec. 7. General or Special Orders. � Acts and commands of the
President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines shall be issued as general or special orders.

President Arroyo� s ordinance power is limited to the foregoing issuances.

She cannot issue decrees similar to those issued by Former President Marcos
under PP 1081. Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the same category and
binding force as statutes because they were issued by the President in the exercise
of his legislative power during the period of Martial Law under the 1973
Constitution.[121]
 This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as
it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate
� decrees.� Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the
Legislature. Section 1, Article VI categorically states that � [t]he legislative
power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of
a Senate and a House of Representatives.� To be sure, neither Martial Law nor
a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo� s
exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.

Can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and laws through the
military?

As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no authority to enact

decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be
enforced. With respect to � laws,� she cannot call the military to enforce or
implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family and property
relations, laws on obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order the
military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless
violence.

Third Provision: Power to Take Over

The pertinent provision of PP 1017 states:

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?

The answer is simple. During the existence of the state of national

emergency, PP 1017 purports to grant the President, without any authority or
delegation from Congress, to take over or direct the operation of any privately-
owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

This provision was first introduced in the 1973 Constitution, as a product of

the � martial law� thinking of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.[122] In effect
at the time of its approval was President Marcos� Letter of Instruction No. 2
dated September 22, 1972 instructing the Secretary of National Defense to take
over � the management, control and operation of the Manila Electric Company,
the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, the National Waterworks
and Sewerage Authority, the Philippine National Railways, the Philippine Air
Lines, Air Manila (and) Filipinas Orient Airways . . . for the successful prosecution
by the Government of its effort to contain, solve and end the present national
emergency.�
 Petitioners, particularly the members of the House of Representatives, claim
that President Arroyo� s inclusion of Section 17, Article XII in PP 1017 is an
encroachment on the legislature� s emergency powers.

This is an area that needs delineation.

A distinction must be drawn between the President� s authority

to declare � a state of national emergency� and to exercise emergency
powers. To the first, as elucidated by the Court, Section 18, Article VII grants the
President such power, hence, no legitimate constitutional objection can be
raised. But to the second, manifold constitutional issues arise.

Section 23, Article VI of the Constitution reads:

SEC. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both

Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole
power to declare the existence of a state of war.

(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.� If the intention of the
Framers of our Constitution was to withhold from the President the authority to
declare a � state of national emergency� pursuant to Section 18, Article VII
(calling-out power) and grant it to Congress (like the declaration of the existence of
a state of war), then the Framers could have provided so. Clearly, they did not
intend that Congress should first authorize the President before he can declare a
� state of national emergency.� The logical conclusion then is that 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.

Courts have often said that constitutional provisions in pari materia are to be
construed together. Otherwise stated, different clauses, sections, and provisions of
a constitution which relate to the same subject matter will be construed together
and considered in the light of each other.[123] Considering that Section 17 of
Article XII and Section 23 of Article VI, previously quoted, relate to national
emergencies, they must be read together to determine the limitation of the exercise
of emergency powers.

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 tocarry out a
national policy declared by Congress.[124]

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 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. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. Sawyer,[125] held:

It is clear that if the President had authority to issue the order he

did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution. And it is not
claimed that express constitutional language grants this power to the
President. The contention is that presidential power should be implied
from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. Particular
reliance is placed on provisions in Article II which say that � The
executive Power shall be vested in a President . . . .;� that � he shall
take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed;� and that he � shall be
Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.

The order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the

President� s military power as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases
upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day
fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even
though � theater of war� be an expanding concept, we cannot with
faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander-
in-Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take
possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from
stopping production. This is a job for the nation� s lawmakers, not
for its military authorities.

Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several

constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the
President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President� s
power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea
that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in
the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise
and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is
neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the
President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that
 � All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States. . .� [126]

Petitioner Cacho-Olivares, et al. contends that the term � emergency�

under Section 17, Article XII refers to � tsunami,�
� typhoon,� � hurricane� and� similar occurrences.� This is a limited
view of � emergency.�

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.[127] Emergencies, as perceived by legislature or executive
in the United Sates since 1933, have been occasioned by a wide range of situations,
classifiable under three (3) principal heads: a)economic,[128] b) natural
disaster,[129] and c) national security.[130]

� 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.[131] This is evident in the Records of the Constitutional Commission, thus:

MR. GASCON. Yes. What is the Committee� s definition of

� national emergency� which appears in Section 13, page 5? It reads:

When the common good so requires, the State may temporarily take
over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or
business affected with public interest.

MR. VILLEGAS. What I mean is threat fromexternal aggression,

for example, calamities ornatural disasters.
 MR. GASCON. There is a question by Commissioner de los
Reyes. What about strikes and riots?

MR. VILLEGAS. Strikes, no; those would not be covered by the

term � national emergency.�

MR. BENGZON. Unless they are of such proportions such that they
would paralyze government service.[132]

x x x x x x

MR. TINGSON. May I ask the committee if � national

emergency� refers to military national emergency or could this
be economic emergency?�

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, it could refer to both military or economic

dislocations.
MR. TINGSON. Thank you very much.[133]

It may be argued that when there is national emergency, Congress may not be
able to convene and, therefore, unable to delegate to the President the power to
take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

In Araneta v. Dinglasan,[134] this Court emphasized that legislative power,

through which extraordinary measures are exercised, remains in Congress even in
times of crisis.

�x x x

After all the criticisms that have been made against the
efficiency of the system of the separation of powers, the fact
remains that the Constitution has set up this form of government,
with all its defects and shortcomings, in preference to the
commingling of powers in one man or group of men. The
Filipino people by adopting parliamentary government have given
notice that they share the faith of other democracy-loving peoples
in this system, with all its faults, as the ideal. The point is, under
 this framework of government, legislation is preserved for
Congress all the time, not excepting periods of crisis no matter
how serious. Never in the history of the United States, the basic
features of whose Constitution have been copied in ours, have
specific functions of the legislative branch of enacting laws been
surrendered to another department � unless we regard as
legislating the carrying out of a legislative policy according to
prescribed standards; no, not even when that Republic was
fighting a total war, or when it was engaged in a life-and-death
struggle to preserve the Union. The truth is that under our
concept of constitutional government, in times of extreme perils
more than in normal circumstances � the various branches,
executive, legislative, and judicial,� given the ability to act, are
called upon � to perform the duties and discharge the
responsibilities committed to them respectively.�

Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII, invoked by President

Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this 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.
 c. � AS APPLIED CHALLENGE�

One of the misfortunes of an emergency, particularly, that which pertains to

security, is that military necessity and the guaranteed rights of the individual are
often not compatible. Our history reveals that in the crucible of conflict, many
rights are curtailed and trampled upon. Here, the right against unreasonable
search and seizure; the right against warrantless arrest; and the freedom of
speech, of expression, of the press, and of assembly under the Bill of Rights
suffered the greatest blow.

Of the seven (7) petitions, three (3) indicate � direct injury.�

In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners David and Llamas alleged that, on February
24, 2006, they were arrested without warrants on their way to EDSA to celebrate
the 20thAnniversary of People Power I. The arresting officers cited PP 1017 as
basis of the arrest.

In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publishing

Co., Inc. claimed that on February 25, 2006, the CIDG operatives � raided and
ransacked without warrant� their office. Three policemen were assigned to guard
their office as a possible � source of destabilization.� Again, the basis was PP
1017.

And in G.R. No. 171483, petitioners KMU and NAFLU-KMU et al. alleged
that their members were � turned away and dispersed� when they went to EDSA
and later, to Ayala Avenue, to celebrate the 20thAnniversary of People Power I.

A perusal of the � direct injuries� allegedly suffered by the said petitioners

shows that they resulted from the implementation, pursuant to G.O. No. 5, of PP
1017.
 Can this Court adjudge as unconstitutional PP 1017 and G.O. No 5 on the
basis of these illegal acts? In general, does the illegal implementation of a law
render it unconstitutional?

Settled is the rule that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes
invalid although they may be abused and misabused[135] and may afford an
opportunity for abuse in the manner of application.[136] The validity of a statute
or ordinance is to be determined from its general purpose and its efficiency to
accomplish the end desired,not from its effects in a particular case.[137] PP 1017
is merely an invocation of the President� s calling-out power. Its general purpose
is to command the AFP to suppress all forms of lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. It had accomplished the end desired which prompted President Arroyo
to issue PP 1021. But there is nothing in PP 1017 allowing the police, expressly or
impliedly, to conduct illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens� constitutional
rights.

Now, may this Court adjudge a law or ordinance unconstitutional on the

ground that its implementor committed illegal acts? The answer is no. The
criterion by which the validity of the statute or ordinance is to be measured is the
essential basis for the exercise of power,and not a mere incidental result arising
from its exertion.[138] This is logical. Just imagine the absurdity of situations
when laws maybe declared unconstitutional just because the officers implementing
them have acted arbitrarily. If this were so, judging from the blunders committed
by policemen in the cases passed upon by the Court, majority of the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code would have been declared unconstitutional a long time
ago.

President Arroyo issued G.O. No. 5 to carry into effect the provisions of PP
1017. General orders are � acts and commands of the President in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.� They are internal
rules issued by the executive officer to his subordinates precisely for
theproper and efficient administration of law. Such rules and regulations create
no relation except between the official who issues them and the official who
receives them.[139] They are based on and are the product of, a relationship in
which power is their source, and obedience, their object.[140] For these reasons, one
requirement for these rules to be valid is that they must be reasonable, not
arbitrary or capricious.

G.O. No. 5 mandates the AFP and the PNP to immediately carry out the
� necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent
acts of terrorism and lawless violence.�

Unlike the term � lawless violence� which is unarguably extant in our

statutes and the Constitution, and which is invariably associated with � invasion,
insurrection or rebellion,� the phrase � acts of terrorism� is still an amorphous
and vague concept. Congress has yet to enact a law defining and punishing acts of
terrorism.

In fact, this � definitional predicament� or the � absence of an agreed

definition of terrorism� confronts not only our country, but the international
community as well. The following observations are quite apropos:

In the actual unipolar context of international relations, the

� fight against terrorism� has become one of the basic slogans when it
comes to the justification of the use of force against certain states and
against groups operating internationally. Lists of states � sponsoring
terrorism� and of terrorist organizations are set up and constantly being
updated according to criteria that are not always known to the public, but
are clearly determined by strategic interests.

The basic problem underlying all these military actions � or

threats of the use of force as the most recent by the United States against
Iraq � consists in the absence of an agreed definition of terrorism.

Remarkable confusion persists in regard to the legal

categorization of acts of violence either by states, by armed groups such
as liberation movements, or by individuals.

The dilemma can by summarized in the saying � One country� s

terrorist is another country� s freedom fighter.� The apparent
contradiction or lack of consistency in the use of the term � terrorism�
may further be demonstrated by the historical fact that leaders of
national liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela in South Africa,
Habib Bourgouiba in Tunisia, or Ahmed Ben Bella in Algeria, to
mention only a few, were originally labeled as terrorists by those who
controlled the territory at the time, but later became internationally
respected statesmen.

What, then, is the defining criterion for terrorist acts �

the differentia specifica distinguishing those acts from eventually
legitimate acts of national resistance or self-defense?

Since the times of the Cold War the United Nations Organization
has been trying in vain to reach a consensus on the basic issue of
definition. The organization has intensified its efforts recently, but has
been unable to bridge the gap between those who associate
� terrorism� with any violent act by non-state groups against civilians,
state functionaries or infrastructure or military installations, and those
who believe in the concept of the legitimate use of force when resistance
against foreign occupation or against systematic oppression of ethnic
and/or religious groups within a state is concerned.

The dilemma facing the international community can best be

illustrated by reference to the contradicting categorization of
organizations and movements such as Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) � which is a terrorist group for Israel and a liberation movement
for Arabs and Muslims � the Kashmiri resistance groups � who are
terrorists in the perception of India, liberation fighters in that of Pakistan
� the earlier Contras in Nicaragua � freedom fighters for the United
States, terrorists for the Socialist camp � or, most drastically, the
Afghani Mujahedeen (later to become the Taliban movement): during
the Cold War period they were a group of freedom fighters for the West,
nurtured by the United States, and a terrorist gang for the Soviet
Union. One could go on and on in enumerating examples of conflicting
categorizations that cannot be reconciled in any way � because of
opposing political interests that are at the roots of those perceptions.

How, then, can those contradicting definitions and conflicting

perceptions and evaluations of one and the same group and its actions be
explained? In our analysis, the basic reason for these striking
inconsistencies lies in the divergent interest of states. Depending on
whether a state is in the position of an occupying power or in that of a
rival, or adversary, of an occupying power in a given territory, the
definition of terrorism will � fluctuate� accordingly. A state may
eventually see itself as protector of the rights of a certain ethnic group
outside its territory and will therefore speak of a � liberation struggle,�
not of � terrorism� when acts of violence by this group are concerned,
and vice-versa.

The United Nations Organization has been unable to reach a

decision on the definition of terrorism exactly because of these
conflicting interests of sovereign states that determine in each and every
instance how a particular armed movement (i.e. a non-state actor) is
 labeled in regard to the terrorists-freedom fighter dichotomy. A
� policy of double standards� on this vital issue of international affairs
has been the unavoidable consequence.

This � definitional predicament� of an organization consisting

of sovereign states � and not of peoples, in spite of the emphasis in the
Preamble to the United Nations Charter! � has become even more
serious in the present global power constellation: one superpower
exercises the decisive role in the Security Council, former great powers
of the Cold War era as well as medium powers are increasingly being
marginalized; and the problem has become even more acute since the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 I the United States.[141]

The absence of a law defining � acts of terrorism� may result in abuse and
oppression on the part of the police or military. An illustration is when a group of
persons are merely engaged in a drinking spree. Yet the military or the police may
consider the act as an act of terrorism and immediately arrest them pursuant to
G.O. No. 5. Obviously, this is abuse and oppression on their part. It must be
remembered that an act can only be considered a crime if there is a law defining
the same as such and imposing the corresponding penalty thereon.

So far, the word � terrorism� appears only once in our criminal laws, i.e.,
in P.D. No. 1835 dated January 16, 1981 enacted by President Marcos during the
Martial Law regime. This decree is entitled � Codifying The Various Laws on
Anti-Subversion and Increasing The Penalties for Membership in Subversive
Organizations.� The word � terrorism� is mentioned in the following
provision: � That one who conspires with any other person for the purpose of
overthrowing the Government of the Philippines x x x by force,
violence, terrorism, x x x shall be punished by reclusion temporal x x x.�
 P.D. No. 1835 was repealed by E.O. No. 167 (which outlaws the Communist
Party of the Philippines) enacted by President Corazon Aquino on May 5,
1985. These two (2) laws, however, do not define � acts of terrorism.� Since
there is no law defining � acts of terrorism,� it is President Arroyo alone, under
G.O. No. 5, who has the discretion to determine what acts constitute
terrorism. Her judgment on this aspect is absolute, without
restrictions. Consequently, there can be indiscriminate arrest without warrants,
breaking into offices and residences, taking over the media enterprises, prohibition
and dispersal of all assemblies and gatherings unfriendly to the administration. All
these can be effected in the name of G.O. No. 5. These acts go far beyond the
calling-out power of the President. Certainly, they violate the due process clause of
the Constitution. Thus, this Court declares that the � acts of terrorism� portion
of G.O. No. 5 is unconstitutional.

Significantly, there is nothing in G.O. No. 5 authorizing the military or

police to commit acts beyond what are necessary and appropriate to suppress
and prevent lawless violence, the limitation of their authority in pursuing the
Order. Otherwise, such acts are considered illegal.

We first examine G.R. No. 171396 (David et al.)

The Constitution provides that � the right of the people to be secured in

their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.� [142] The plain
import of the language of the Constitution is that searches, seizures and arrests
are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or
warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection given by this provision is that
between person and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate
clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of
arrest.[143]

In the Brief Account[144] submitted by petitioner David, certain facts are

established: first, he was arrested without warrant; second, the PNP operatives
arrested him on the basis of PP 1017; third, he was brought at Camp Karingal,
Quezon City where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a
criminal suspect; fourth,he was treated brusquely by policemen who � held his
head and tried to push him� inside an unmarked car; fifth,he was charged with
Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 880[145] and Inciting to
Sedition;sixth, he was detained for seven (7) hours; and seventh,he
was eventually released for insufficiency of evidence.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace

officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has

probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

x x x.

Neither of the two (2) exceptions mentioned above justifies petitioner

David� s warrantless arrest. During the inquest for the charges of inciting to
sedition andviolation of BP 880, all that the arresting officers could invoke
was their observation that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the
invective � Oust Gloria Now� and their erroneous assumption that petitioner
David was the leader of the rally.[146] Consequently, the Inquest Prosecutor
ordered his immediate release on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. He
noted that petitioner David was not wearing the subject t-shirt and even if he was
wearing it, such fact is insufficient to charge him with inciting to
sedition. Further, he also stated that there is insufficient evidence for the charge
of violation of BP 880 as it was not even known whether petitioner David was the
leader of the rally.[147]

But what made it doubly worse for petitioners Davidet al. is that not only
was their right against warrantless arrest violated, but also their right to peaceably
assemble.

Section 4 of Article III guarantees:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of

expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

� Assembly� means a right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably

for consultation in respect to public affairs. It is a necessary consequence of our
republican institution and complements the right of speech. As in the case of
freedom of expression, this right is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a
showing of aclear and present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a
right to prevent. In other words, like other rights embraced in the freedom of
expression, the right to assemble is not subject to previous restraint or
censorship. It may not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or
authorization from the government authorities except, of course, if the assembly is
intended to be held in a public place, a permit for the use of such place, and not for
the assembly itself, may be validly required.

The ringing truth here is that petitioner David, et al. were arrested while they
were exercising their right to peaceful assembly. They were not committing any
crime, neither was there a showing of a clear and present danger that warranted the
limitation of that right. As can be gleaned from circumstances, the charges
of inciting to sedition and violation of BP 880 were mere afterthought. Even the
Solicitor General, during the oral argument, failed to justify the arresting
officers� conduct. In De Jonge v. Oregon,[148] it was held that peaceable
assembly cannot be made a crime, thus:

Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.

The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be
proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be
branded as criminals on that score. The question, if the rights of free
speech and peaceful assembly are not to be preserved, is not as to the
auspices under which the meeting was held but as to its purpose; not as
to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend
the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects. If
the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have
formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and
order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violations of
valid laws. But it is a different matter when the State, instead of
prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation
in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis
for a criminal charge.

On the basis of the above principles, the Court likewise considers the
dispersal and arrest of the members of KMU et al. (G.R. No. 171483) unwarranted.
Apparently, their dispersal was done merely on the basis of Malaca� ang� s
directive canceling all permits previously issued by local government units. This is
arbitrary. The wholesale cancellation of all permits to rally is a blatant disregard of
the principle that � freedom of assembly is not to be limited, much less denied,
except on a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the
State has a right to prevent.� [149] Tolerance is the rule and limitation is the
exception. Only upon a showing that an assembly presents a clear and present
danger that the State may deny the citizens� right to exercise it. Indeed,
respondents failed to show or convince the Court that the rallyists committed acts
amounting to lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. With the blanket revocation
of permits, the distinction between protected and unprotected assemblies was
eliminated.

Moreover, under BP 880, the authority to regulate assemblies and rallies is

lodged with the local government units. They have the power to issue permits and
to revoke such permits after due notice and hearing on the determination of the
presence of clear and present danger. Here, petitioners were not even notified and
heard on the revocation of their permits.[150] The first time they learned of it was at
the time of the dispersal. Such absence of notice is a fatal defect. When a
person� s right is restricted by government action, it behooves a democratic
government to see to it that the restriction is fair, reasonable, and according to
procedure.

G.R. No. 171409, (Cacho-Olivares, et al.) presents another facet of freedom

of speech i.e., the freedom of the press. Petitioners� narration of facts, which the
Solicitor General failed to refute, established the following: first, theDaily
Tribune� s offices were searched without warrant;second, the police operatives
seized several materials for publication; third, the search was conducted at about
1:00 o� clock in the morning of February 25, 2006; fourth, the search was
conducted in the absence of any official of theDaily Tribune except the security
guard of the building; and fifth, policemen stationed themselves at the vicinity of
the Daily Tribune offices.

Thereafter, a wave of warning came from government officials. Presidential

Chief of Staff Michael Defensor was quoted as saying that such raid was � meant
to show a � strong presence,� to tell media outlets not to connive or do
anything that would help the rebels in bringing down this
government.� Director General Lomibao further stated that � if they do not
follow the standards � and the standards are if they would contribute to
instability in the government, or if they do not subscribe to what is in General
Order No. 5 and Proc. No. 1017 � we will recommend
a� takeover.� � National Telecommunications Commissioner Ronald Solis
urged television and radio networks to � cooperate� with the government for the
duration of the state of national emergency. He warned that his agency will not
hesitate to recommend the closure of any broadcast outfit that violates rules
set out for media coverage during times when the national security is
threatened.[151]

The search is illegal. Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure. Section 4 requires that
a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offence to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section
8 mandates that the search of a house, room, or any other premise be made in the
presence of the lawful occupantthereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality. And Section 9 states that the warrant
must direct that it be served in thedaytime, unless the property is on the person or
in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that
it be served at any time of the day or night. All these rules were violated by the
CIDG operatives.
 Not only that, the search violated petitioners� freedom of the press. The
best gauge of a free and democratic society rests in the degree of freedom enjoyed
by its media. In the Burgos v. Chief of Staff[152] this Court held that --

As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and

printing offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum�
newspapers. As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises
were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing
and publication of said newspapers were discontinued.

Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or

censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under
the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners'
freedom to express themselves in print. This state of being is
patently anathematic to a democratic framework where a free, alert
and even militant press is essential for the political enlightenment
and growth of the citizenry.

While admittedly, the Daily Tribune was not padlocked and sealed like the
� Metropolitan Mail� and � We Forum� newspapers in the above case, yet it
cannot be denied that the CIDG operatives exceeded their enforcement duties. The
search and seizure of materials for publication, the stationing of policemen in the
vicinity of theThe Daily Tribune offices, and the arrogant warning of government
officials to media, are plain censorship. It is that officious functionary of the
repressive government who tells the citizen that he may speak only if allowed to do
so, and no more and no less than what he is permitted to say on pain of punishment
should he be so rash as to disobey.[153] Undoubtedly, the The Daily Tribune was
subjected to these arbitrary intrusions because of its anti-government
sentiments. This Court cannot tolerate the blatant disregard of a constitutional
right even if it involves the most defiant of our citizens. Freedom to comment on
public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. It is the
duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and
against any stealthy encroachments thereon. The motto should always be obsta
principiis.[154]
 Incidentally, during the oral arguments, the Solicitor General admitted that
the search of the Tribune� s offices and the seizure of its materials for publication
and other papers are illegal; and that the same are inadmissible � for any
purpose,� thus:

JUSTICE CALLEJO:

You made quite a mouthful of admission when you

said that the policemen, when inspected the Tribune
for the purpose of gathering evidence and you
admitted that the policemen were able to get the
clippings. Is that not in admission of the
admissibility of these clippings that were taken from
the Tribune?

SOLICITOR GENERAL BENIPAYO:

Under the law they would seem to be, if they were

illegally seized, I think and I know, Your Honor, and
these are inadmissible for any purpose.[155]

xxx xxx xxx

SR. ASSO. JUSTICE PUNO:

These have been published in the past issues of the

Daily Tribune; all you have to do is to get those past
issues. So why do you have to go there at 1
o� clock in the morning and without any search
warrant? Did they become suddenly part of the
evidence of rebellion or inciting to sedition or what?

SOLGEN BENIPAYO:

Well, it was the police that did that, Your

Honor. Not upon my instructions.

SR. ASSO. JUSTICE PUNO:

 Are you saying that the act of the policeman is
illegal, it is not based on any law, and it is not based
on Proclamation 1017.

SOLGEN BENIPAYO:

It is not based on Proclamation 1017, Your Honor,

because there is nothing in 1017 which says that the
police could go and inspect and gather clippings
from Daily Tribune or any other newspaper.

SR. ASSO. JUSTICE PUNO:

Is it based on any law?

SOLGEN BENIPAYO:

As far as I know, no, Your Honor, from the

facts, no.

SR. ASSO. JUSTICE PUNO:

So, it has no basis, no legal basis whatsoever?

SOLGEN BENIPAYO:

Maybe so, Your Honor. Maybe so, that is why I

said, I don� t know if it is premature to say this,we
do not condone this. If the people who have been
injured by this would want to sue them, they can
sue and there are remedies for this.[156]

Likewise, the warrantless arrests and seizures executed by the police were,
according to the Solicitor General, illegal and cannot be condoned, thus:
 CHIEF JUSTICE PANGANIBAN:

There seems to be some confusions if not

contradiction in your theory.

SOLICITOR GENERAL BENIPAYO:

I don� t know whether this will clarify. The acts,

the supposed illegal or unlawful acts committed on the
occasion of 1017, as I said, it cannot be condoned. You
cannot blame the President for, as you said, a
misapplication of the law. These are acts of the police
officers, that is their responsibility.[157]

The Dissenting Opinion states that PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 are
constitutional in every aspect and � should result in no constitutional or statutory
breaches if applied according to their letter.�

The Court has passed upon the constitutionality of these issuances. Its
ratiocination has been exhaustively presented. At this point, suffice it to reiterate
that PP 1017 is limited to the calling out by the President of the military to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. When in implementing its
provisions, pursuant to G.O. No. 5, the military and the police committed acts
which violate the citizens� rights under the Constitution, this Court has to declare
such acts unconstitutional and illegal.

In this connection, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban� s concurring

opinion, attached hereto, is considered an integral part of this ponencia.

SUMMATION
 In sum, the lifting of PP 1017 through the issuance of PP 1021 � a
supervening event � would have normally rendered this case moot and
academic. However, while PP 1017 was still operative, illegal acts were
committed allegedly in pursuance thereof. Besides, there is no guarantee that PP
1017, or one similar to it, may not again be issued. Already, there have been
media reports on April 30, 2006 that allegedly PP 1017 would be reimposed � if
the May 1 rallies� become � unruly and violent.� Consequently, the
transcendental issues raised by the parties should not be � evaded;� they must
now be resolved to prevent future constitutional aberration.

The Court finds and so holds that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it

constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless
violence. The proclamation is sustained by Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution and the relevant jurisprudence discussed earlier. However, PP
1017� s extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1)
to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those
not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President;
and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press,
areultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Section 17,
Article XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot
take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public
interest.

In the same vein, the Court finds G.O. No. 5 valid. It is an Order issued by
the President � acting as Commander-in-Chief � addressed to subalterns in the
AFP to carry out the provisions of PP 1017. Significantly, it also provides a valid
standard � that the military and the police should take only the � necessary and
appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence.� But the words � acts of terrorism� found in G.O. No. 5 have not
been legally defined and made punishable by Congress and should thus be deemed
deleted from the said G.O. While � terrorism� has been denounced generally in
media, no law has been enacted to guide the military, and eventually the courts, to
determine the limits of the AFP� s authority in carrying out this portion of G.O.
No. 5.

On the basis of the relevant and uncontested facts narrated earlier, it is also
pristine clear that (1) the warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. David and
Ronald Llamas; (2) the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU
and NAFLU-KMU members; (3) the imposition of standards on media or any prior
restraint on the press; and (4) the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the
whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials, are not
authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. Not even by the valid
provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5.

Other than this declaration of invalidity, this Court cannot impose any civil,
criminal or administrative sanctions on the individual police officers
concerned. They have not been individually identified and given their day in
court. The civil complaints or causes of action and/or relevant criminal
Informations have not been presented before this Court. Elementary due process
bars this Court from making any specific pronouncement of civil, criminal or
administrative liabilities.

It is well to remember that military power is a means to an end and

substantive civil rights are ends in themselves. How to give the military the
power it needs to protect the Republic without unnecessarily trampling
individual rights is one of the eternal balancing tasks of a democratic
state. During emergency, governmental action may vary in breadth and intensity
from normal times, yet they should not be arbitrary as to unduly restrain our
people� s liberty.
 Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learn from the theorists who studied
the various competing political philosophies is that, it is possible to grant
government the authority to cope with crises without surrendering the two vital
principles of constitutionalism: the maintenance of legal limits to arbitrary
power, and political responsibility of the government to the governed.[158]

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court rules that PP
1017 is CONSTITUTIONALinsofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless
violence. However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce
laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by the
President, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in
PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution isCONSTITUTIONAL, but such declaration does not authorize the
President to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with
public interest without prior legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a standard by which

the AFP and the PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is � necessary
and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence.� Considering that � acts of terrorism� have not yet been defined and
made punishable by the Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal
and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their
rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts
constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the
imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as
well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its
articles for publication and other materials, are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice

(On leave)
REYNATO S. PUNO LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice
 ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4254 September 26, 1951

BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner,

vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

Ambrosio T. Dollete for petitioner.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianson and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for
respondents.

TUASON, J.:

This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in a
decision of this Court of July 30, 1949. The history of the petitioner's detention was thus briefly set
forth in that decision, written by Mr. Justice Bengzon:

The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country
from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in
these Islands. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy, by U.S. Army Counter
Intelligence Corps. Later he was handed to theCommonwealth Government for disposition in
accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 682. Thereafter, the People's Court ordered his
release. But the deportation Board taking his case up, found that having no travel documents
Mejoff was illegally in this country, and consequently referred the matter to the immigration
authorities. After the corresponding investigation, the Board of commissioners of Immigration
on April 5, 1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944, without
inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designation port of entry and,
therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The
petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on March 18, 1948. In May 1948
he was transferred to the Cebu Provincial Jail together with three other Russians to await the
arrival of some Russian vessels. In July and August of that year two boats of Russian
nationality called at the Cebu Port. But their masters refused to take petitioner and his
companions alleging lack of authority to do so. In October 1948 after repeated failures to
ship this deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa
where he has been confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the Commissioner of
Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention
while arrangements for his departure are being made.

The Court held the petitioner's detention temporary and said that "temporary detention is a
necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that pending
arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien under
confinement for a reasonable lenght of time." It took note of the fact, manifested by the Solicitor
General's representative in the course of the of the oral argumment, that "this Government desires to
expel the alien, and does not relish keeping him at the people's expense . . . making efforts to carry
out the decree of exclusion by the highest officer of the land." No period was fixed within which the
immigration authorities should carry out the contemplated deportation beyond the statement that
"The meaning of 'reasonable time' depends upon the circumstances, specially the difficulties of
obtaining a passport, the availability of transportation, the diplomatic arrangements with the
governments concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away;" but the Court warned
that "under established precedents, too long a detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus."
Mr. Justice Paras, now Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Feria, Mr. Justice Perfecto, and the writer of this
decision dissented. Mr. Justice Feria and Mr. Justice Perfecto voted for outright discharge of the
prisoner from custody. Mr. Justice Paras qualified his dissent by stating that he might agree "to
further detention of the herein petitioner, provided that he be released if after six months, the
Government is still unable to deport him." This writer joined in the latter dissent but thought that two
months constituted reasonable time.

Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has
not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and none are in sight,
although it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it was through no fault of theirs
that no ship or country would take the petitioner.

Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein (Sowapadji vs. Wixon, Sept.
18, 1946, 157 F. ed., 289, 290), even if they are "stateless," which the petitioner claims to be. It is no
less true however, as impliedly stated in this Court's decision, supra, that foreign nationals, not
enemy against whom no charge has been made other than that their permission to stay has expired,
may not indefinitely be kept in detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due
process of law and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to
Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.
Whether an alien who entered the country in violation of its immigration laws may be detained for as
long as the Government is unable to deport him, is a point we need not decide. The petitioner's entry
into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de
facto government whose decrees were law furing the occupation.

Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution entitled "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of which
the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty
and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there
resolved that "All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social
origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Every one has the right to an effective remedy by
the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"
(Art. 9); etc.

In U. S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Supp., 201, it was said that the court "has the power to release from
custody an alien who has been detained an unreasonably long period of time by the Department of
Justice after it has become apparent that although a warrant for his deportation has been issued, the
warrant can not be effectuated;" that "the theory on which the court is given the power to act is that
the warrant of deportation, not having been able to be executed, is functus officio and the alien is
being held without any authority of law." The decision cited several cases which, it said, settled the
matter definitely in that jurisdiction, adding that the same result had reached in innumerable cases
elsewhere. The cases referred to were United States ex rel. Ross vs. Wallis, 2 Cir. 279 F. 401, 404;
Caranica vs. Nagle, 9 Cir., 28 F. 2d 955; Saksagansky vs. Weedin, 9 Cir., 53 F. 2d 13, 16 last
paragraph; Ex parte Matthews, D.C.W.D. Wash., 277 F. 857; Moraitis vs. Delany, D.C. Md. Aug. 28,
1942, 46 F. Supp. 425.

The most recent case, as far as we have been able to find, was that of Staniszewski vs. Watkins
(1948), 90 Fed. Supp., 132, which is nearly foursquare with the case at hand. In that case a
stateless person, formerly a Polish national, resident in the United States since 1911 and many
times serving as a seaman on American vessels both in peace and in war, was ordered excluded
from the United States and detained at Ellis Island at the expense of the steamship company, when
he returned from a voyage on which he had shipped from New York for one or more European ports
and return to the United States. The grounds for his exclusion were that he had no passport or
immigration visa, and that in 1937 had been convicted of perjury because in certain documents he
presented himself to be an American citizen. Upon his application for release on habeas corpus, the
Court released him upon his own recognizance. Judge Leibell, of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, said in part:

When the return to the writ of habeas corpus came before this court, I suggested that all
interested parties . . . make an effort to arrange to have the petitioner ship out of some
country that he would receive him as a resident. He is, a native-born Pole but the Polish
Consul has advised him in writing that he is no longer a Polish subject. This Government
does not claim that he is a Polish citizen. His attorney says he is a stateless. The
Government is willing that he go back to the ship, but if he were sent back aboard a ship and
sailed to the Port (Cherbourg, France) from which he last sailed to the United States, he
would probably be denied permission to land. There is no other country that would take him,
without proper documents.

It seems to me that this is a genuine hardship case and that the petitioner should be
released from custody on proper terms. . . .

What is to be done with the petitioner? The government has had him in custody almost
seven months and practically admits it has no place to send him out of this country. The
steamship company, which employed him as one of a group sent to the ship by the Union,
with proper seaman's papers issued by the United States Coast Guard, is paying $3 a day
for petitioner's board at Ellis Island. It is no fault of the steamship company that petitioner is
an inadmissible alien as the immigration officials describe him. . . .

I intend to sustain the writ of habeas corpus and order the release of the petitioner on his
own recognizance. He will be required to inform the immigration officials at Ellis Island by
mail on the 15th of each month, stating where he is employed and where he can be reached
by mail. If the government does succeed in arranging for petitioner's deportation to a country
that will be ready to receive him as a resident, it may then advise the petitioner to that effect
and arrange for his deportation in the manner provided by law.

Although not binding upon this Court as a precedent, the case aforecited affords a happy solution to
the quandry in which the parties here finds themselves, solution which we think is sensible, sound
and compatible with law and the Constitution. For this reason, and since the Philippine law on
immigration was patterned after or copied from the American law and practice, we choose to follow
and adopt the reasoning and conclusions in the Staniszewski decision with some modifications
which, it is believed, are in consonance with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the
Philippines.

It was said or insinuated at the hearing ofthe petition at bar, but not alleged in the return, that the
petitioner was engaged in subversive activities, and fear was expressed that he might join or aid the
disloyal elements if allowed to be at large. Bearing in mind the Government's allegation in its answer
that "the herein petitioner was brought to the Philippines by the Japanese forces," and the fact that
Japan is no longer at war with the United States or the Philippines nor identified with the countries
allied against these nations, the possibility of the petitioner's entertaining or committing hostile acts
prejudicial to the interest and security of this country seems remote.
If we grant, for the sake of argument, that such a possibility exists, still the petitioner's unduly
prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if the only purpose of the
detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present, or uncontrolable. After all, the
Government is not impotent to deal with or prevent any threat by such measure as that just outlined.
The thought eloquently expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court in
connection with the appliccation for bail of ten Communists convicted by a lower court of advocacy
of violent overthrow of the United States Government is, in principle, pertinent and may be availed of
at this juncture. Said the learned Jurist:

The Governmet's alternative contention is that defendants, by misbehavior after conviction,

have forfeited their claim to bail. Grave public danger is said to result from what they may be
expected to do, in addition to what they have done since their conviction. If I assume that
defendants are disposed to commit every opportune disloyal to act helpful to Communist
countries, it is still difficult to reconcile with traditional American law the jailing of persons by
the courts because of anticipated but as yet uncommitted crimes. lmprisonment to protect
society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so unprecedented in this country and
so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I am loath to resort it, even as a
discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of such offenses as those of which
defendants stand convicted.

But the right of every American to equal treatment before the law is wrapped up in the same
constitutional bundle with those of these Communists. If an anger or disgust with these
defendants we throw out the bundle, we alsocast aside protection for the liberties of more
worthy critics who may be in opposition to the government of some future day.

xxx xxx xxx 1âw phïl.nêt

If, however, I were to be wrong on all of these abstract or theoretical matters of principle,
there is a very practical aspect of this application which must not be overlooked or
underestimated — that is the disastrous effect on the reputation of American justice if I
should now send these men to jail and the full Court later decide that their conviction is
invalid. All experience with litigation teaches that existence of a substantial question about a
conviction implies a more than negligible risk of reversal. Indeed this experience lies back of
our rule permitting and practice of allowing bail where such questions exist, to avoid the
hazard of unjustifiably imprisoning persons with consequent reproach to our system of
justice. If that is prudent judicial practice in the ordinary case, how much more important to
avoid every chance of handing to the Communist world such an ideological weapon as it
would have if this country should imprison this handful of Communist leaders on a conviction
that our highest Court would confess to be illegal. Risks, of course, are involved in either
granting or refusing bail. I am naive enough to underestimate the troublemaking propensities
of the defendants. But, with the Department of Justice alert to the the dangers, the worst they
can accomplish in the short time it will take to end the litigation is preferable to the possibility
of national embarrassment from a celebrated case of unjustified imprisonment of Communist
leaders. Under no circumstances must we permit their symbolization of an evil force in the
world to be hallowed and glorified by any semblance of martyrdom. The way to avoid that
risk is not to jail these men until it is finally decided that they should stay jailed.

If that case is not comparable with ours on the issues presented, its underlying principle is of
universal application. In fact, its ratio decidendi applies with greater force to the present petition,
since the right of accused to bail pending apppeal of his case, as in the case of the ten Communists,
depends upon the discretion of the court, whereas the right to be enlarged before formal charges are
instituted is absolute. As already noted, not only are there no charges pending against the petitioner,
but the prospects of bringing any against him are slim and remote.

Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from
custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration
authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he
keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be
reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of
First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above
purpose in the amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of
Immigration is authorized to exact by section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.

No costs will be charged.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PABLO, M., disidente:

Disiento

En decision disada por este Tribunal en la primera causa de habeas corpus incoada por el
solicitante Boris Mejoff (G.R. No. L-2855, Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons)*, se declaro que el habia
venido a Filipinas procedente de Shanghai como espia japones; en la liberacion, el ejercito
americano le arresto por se espia, habiendo sido mas tarde entregado al Gobierno del
Commonwealth para ser tratado de acuerdo con la ley No.682; pero como bajo el Codgo Penal
Revisado, antes de su enmienda por la Orden Ejecutiva No. 44, (mayo 31, 1945) no se castiga al
extranjero que comete traicion, Mejoff fue puesto en libertad. Despues de una debida investigacion,
la Junta de Departacion encontra que el solicitante no tenia permiso para entrar en Filipinas; fue
entregado a la Junta de Inmigacion, la cual ordeno su deportacion a Rusia por el primer transporte
disponible por haber vendo aqui ilegalmente; fue enviado a Cebu para que alli se embarcase, pero
los dos barcos de nacionalidad rusa que llegaron a dicho puerto en julio y agosto de 1948 rehusaron
admitirle. Por no encontrar transportacion para su departacion, Mejoff fue enviado a la Prison de
Muntinglupa, donde esta actualmente de tenido mientras el Gobierno no encuenra medio de
transportarle a Rusia.

La mayoria contiende que "The Petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was
brought by the armed and belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law
during the occupation." Es tan ilegal la entrada del solicitante como la del ejercito al que sirvio como
espia. Ninguno tiene derecho a permanecer aqui. Puesto que fue vencido el ejercito invasor que le
trajo, el solicitante no tiene derecho a pemanecer aqui ni un minuto mas. Si desea proteccion, debe
acudir al Gobierno Japones a cuyo ejercito el sirvio; el hecho de que ya esta aqui no le da titulo para
permanecer libre aqui. El que ha venido como espia de enemigo del Pueblo de Filipinas no tiene
derecho a pedir igual trato que aquel ha entrado de buena fe. ¿Es que Filipinos tiene la obligacion
de acoger a un ciudadano indeseable de Rusia? ¿Desde cuando tiene que allanarse una nacion a
ser residencia de una extranjero que entro como enemigo o, peor aun, como espia? Un Estado
tiene indiscutible derecho a deportar y expulsar de su territorio a todo extranjero indeseable.
El solicitante sostiene que no tiene estado. Eso no es razon para que tenga derecho a permanecer
aqui. Puede ser departado a Rusio o a Shanghai de donde vino. Si todos los rusos que, por alguno
que otro motivo, o por odio al comunisomo, dejasen su pais y emigrasen aqui reclamando igual
derecho, no habria territorio suficiente para ellos. Se puede decir otro tanto de los chinos que, so
pretexto de no querer someterse al regimen comunista, optasen por resider para siempre aqui. Y si
los mismos communistas chinos viniesen clandestinamente y despues reclamasen igual proteccion
como la concedida a Mejoff, ¿tendreos que darles por el gusto?

Se invoca la resolucion aprobada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, titulada
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights", en la que se establece, entre otras cosas, que "no one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Yo soy de los que creen firmemente en lo
sagrado de esta resolucion; no puedo permitir que se detenga y se arreste a alguien sin motivo
justificado, de una manera arbitraria; pero el solicitante no esta detenido de esta manera, lo esta de
una manera provisional. Tan pronto como haya barco disponible para su deportacion o tan pronto
como pueda embarcarse en algun barco para el extenjero o para cualquier otro punto a donde
quiera ir, dejara de ser detenido. Conste que no esta preso como un criminal condenado por un
delito; esta tratado como cualquier otro extranjero sujeto a deportacion. Si el solicitante no hubiera
sido espia, si no hubiera venido aqui para ayudar a las hordas japonesas en la subyugacion del
pueblo filipino, si hubiera venido como visitante, por ejemplo, y, por azares de la fortuna, no pudo
salir, yo seria el primero en abogar por su liberacion inmediata.

Se cita el caso de Staniszewski vs. Watkins, (1948 A.M.C. 931, 42 American Journal of International
Law, 732) en el cual el recurrente estuvo detenido ya casi siete meses cuando se decreto su
libertad en un recurso de habeas corpus. En nuestra opinion, dicho caso no tiene simulitud con la
causa presente. Staniszewski era residente de los Estados desde 1911; estuvo sirviendo como
marino en barcos mercantes americanos en tiempo de guerra y se ordeno su detencion en Ellis
Island cuando volvio a America procedente de un viaje a Europa por no tener papeles de
inmigracion. Staniszewski no habia entrado en los Estados Unidos como espia, estuvo residiendo
en dicho pais por varios años, era ya habitante de los Estados unidos. La ocupacion de marino es
honrosa, la del espia mercenario, detestable. El espia es peor que el enemigo. Este lucha cara a
cara, y el espia, con disimulo y arte engañosa, escucha lo que a Staniszewski se le haya puesto en
libertad. Poner en libertad a un espia es poner en peligro la seguridad del Estado.

En cuanto a la duracion de la detencion provisional del recurrente, no hay regla fija, depende de la
cincunstancia de cada caso particular. Es evidente que los medios de comunicacion entre Filipinas y
Rusia o Shanghai, debico a fala de relciones diplomaticas, son completamente anormales. No es
culpa del gobierno el que no encuentre medios de transportacion para el.

La Comision de Inmigracion ha dado pasos para que la International Refugee Organziation of the
United Nations (IRO0 se hiciera cargo del recurrente para que pueda ser repartriado o enviado a
otro pais extranjero, pero el Jefe de dicha organizacion contesto que no estaba en condicines para
aceptar dicha recomendacion.

William Martin Jurgans fue arrestado en 9 de enero de 1920, en 20 de mayo se decreto su

deportacion por el Sub Secretario del Tarabajo por violacion de la Ley de Inmigracion; solicto su
libertad bajo el recurso de Habeas Corpus, y en 16 de febrero de 1927 se denego su peticion; no se
le pudo deportar porque "the necessary arrangements for his deportation could obviously not be
made." (District Court of Minnesota, 17 F. 2nd series, 507). Como se vera, la detencion provisional
de William Martin Jurgans duro mas de seis años; la de Mejoff no ha sido mas que de 31 meses, y
no porque el gobierno no quiere deportarle, sino porque no hay medio disponible para realizarlo.

En Moraitis vs. Delany, 46 F. Supp., 425, se dijo:

 What constitutes a reasonable time for the detention of the petitioner in custody for
deportation depends upon the facts and circumstances of particular cases. This court cannot
shut its eyes to the vitally important interests of this country at this time with respect to the
bottleneck of shipping, when every available ship, domestic and foreign, must be utilized to
the utmost without delay consequent upon the lack of avilable seamen. Under these present
conditions the court should be liberal indeed in aiding the executive branch of the govenment
in the strict enforcement of laws so vitally necessary in the common defns. There is sound
authority for this view in United States ex. rel. Schlimm vs. Howe, D C.N. U Y. 222 F. 96, 97,
where Circuit Judge Lacombe refused to release an alien who had come here from Germany
and was ordered deported in 1915 when, by reason of the then existing war between
Germany and England, his deportation to Germany was not possible. It was said:

At the present time there is no regular passenger ocean service to German ports, so the
authorities are unable to forward him, and are holding him until some opportunity of returning
him to Germany may present itself. His continual detention is unfortunate, but certainly is not
illegal. His present condition can be alleviated only by the action of the executive branch of
the government. A federal court would not be justified in discharging him. . . .

If he is not really fit for sea service, it is not probable that he would be forced into it, although
he may be able to serve his government in some other capacity. But however that may be,
while this country has no power under existing legislation to impress him into sea service
against his will, he has no just cause to be relieved from the strict enforcement of our
deportation laws, and to remain at liberty in this country as a sanctuary contrary to our laws.

No es arbitraria la detencion de Mejoff. Esta jutificada por las circunstancias anormales.

La proposicion de vigilar al recurrente hasta que el gobierno encuentre transporte para su

deportacion, supon un gasto innecesario.

Footnotes

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,

vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel
MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major
FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.

Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner.

Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. Arcilla and S. Melville Hussey for
respondents.

MORAN, C.J.:

Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433 and
19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the
Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties
as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against
noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and
customs of war" — comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No.
68 of the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and
Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission
and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.

In support of his case petitioner tenders the following principal arguments.

First. — "That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provision of
our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is not a
signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land
Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international."
Hence petitioner argues — "That in view off the fact that this commission has been empanelled by
virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein
petitioner."

Second. — That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the
Commission in behalf of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port
who are not attorneys authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is a
diminution of our personality as an independent state and their appointment as prosecutor are a
violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in the
Philippines.

Third. — That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution the United State not
being a party in interest in the case.

Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation
governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the Philippines on the
29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our
Constitution provides in its section 3, that —

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day including
the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international
jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or civilian who have been
guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and
offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of
humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in the promulgation and
enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with
the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.

The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as
Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of
Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664) 1 when we said —

War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities
incident of war may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war. An
importance incident to a conduct of war is the adoption of measure by the military command
not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary measure
those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the
law of war. (Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) Indeed the power to create a military
commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals is an aspect of waging war. And in
the language of a writer a military commission has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of
war continues. This includes the period of an armistice or military occupation up to the
effective of a treaty of peace and may extend beyond by treaty agreement. (Cowles Trial of
War Criminals by Military Tribunals, America Bar Association Journal June, 1944.)

Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this

unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and
enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts
committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines
is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules
and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the
generally accepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted
by the two belligerent nation the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two
Convention, Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been
deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and
principle of international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or
shall be a signatory.

Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines
was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United
States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent
countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all
our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our own of trying and punishing
those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. In this connection it is well to
remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372):

. . . The change of our form government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during then
Commonwealth because it is an offense against the same sovereign people. . . .
By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our government while we were a
Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic.

Petitioner challenges the participation of two American attorneys namely Melville S. Hussey and
Robert Port in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorney's are not qualified to
practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the appointment of said
attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.

In the first place respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special
law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. It has already been shown that
Executive Order No. 68 which provides for the organization of such military commission is a valid
and constitutional law. There is nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel
appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in
accordance with the Rules of Court. In facts it is common in military tribunals that counsel for the
parties are usually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training.

Secondly the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It
is only fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her
government and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of
those very crimes. If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by our
government but by the United State Government which has yielded to us the trial and punishment of
her enemies. The least that we could do in the spirit of comity is to allow them representation in said
trials.

Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitioner challenges the
personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is of common knowledge that the United
State and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which
petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission. It can be considered a privilege for our
Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its citizens and its
government to a military tribunal of our country.

The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the
crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and having said petitioner
in its custody, this Court will not interfere with the due process of such Military commission.

For all the foregoing the petition is denied with costs de oficio.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

A military commission was empanelled on December 1, 1948 to try Lt. Gen. Shigenori Kuroda for
Violation of the laws and customs of land warfare.

Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port, American citizens and not authorized by the Supreme Court to
practice law were appointed prosecutor representing the American CIC in the trial of the case.
The commission was empanelled under the authority of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of
the Philippines the validity of which is challenged by petitioner on constitutional grounds. Petitioner
has also challenged the personality of Attorneys Hussey and Port to appear as prosecutors before
the commission.

The charges against petitioner has been filed since June 26, 1948 in the name of the people of the
Philippines as accusers.

We will consideration briefly the challenge against the appearance of Attorneys Hussey and Port. It
appearing that they are aliens and have not been authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law
there could not be any question that said person cannot appear as prosecutors in petitioner case as
with such appearance they would be practicing law against the law.

Said violation vanishes however into insignificance at the side of the momentous question involved
in the challenge against the validity of Executive Order No. 68. Said order is challenged on several
constitutional ground. To get a clear idea of the question raised it is necessary to read the whole
context of said order which is reproduced as follows:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 68.

ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL WAR CRIMES OFFICE AND PRESCRIBING RULES

AND REGULATION GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.

I, Manuel Roxas president of the Philippines by virtue of the power vested in me by the
Constitution and laws of the Philippines do hereby establish a National War Crimes Office
charged with the responsibility of accomplishing the speedy trial of all Japanese accused of
war crimes committed in the Philippines and prescribe the rules and regulation such trial.

The National War crimes office is established within the office of the Judge Advocate
General of the Army of the Philippines and shall function under the direction supervision and
control of the Judge Advocate General. It shall proceed to collect from all available sources
evidence of war crimes committed in the Philippines from the commencement of hostilities by
Japan in December 1941, maintain a record thereof and bring about the prompt trial maintain
a record thereof and bring about the prompt trial of the accused.

The National War Crimes Office shall maintain direct liaison with the Legal Section General
Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied power and shall exchange with the said
Office information and evidence of war crimes.

The following rules and regulation shall govern the trial off person accused as war criminals:

ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS

(a) General. — person accused as war criminal shall be tried by military commission to be
convened by or under the authority of the Philippines.

II. JURISDICTION

(a) Over Person. — Thee military commission appointed hereunder shall have jurisdiction
over all persons charged with war crimes who are in the custody of the convening authority
at the time of the trial.
(b) Over Offenses. — The military commission established hereunder shall have jurisdiction
over all offenses including but not limited to the following:

(1) The planning preparation initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties agreement or assurance or participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.

(2) Violation of the laws or customs of war. Such violation shall include but not be limited to
murder ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for other purpose of civilian population of
or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or internees or person on
the seas or elsewhere; improper treatment of hostage; plunder of public or private property
wanton destruction of cities towns or village; or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(3) Murder extermination enslavement deportation and other inhuman acts committed
against civilian population before or during the war or persecution on political racial or
religion ground in executive of or in connection with any crime defined herein whether or not
in violation of the local laws.

III. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSIONS

(a) Appointment. — The members of each military commission shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines or under authority delegated by him. Alternates may be
appointed by the convening authority. Such shall attend all session of the commission, and in
case of illness or other incapacity of any principal member, an alternate shall take the place
of that member. Any vacancy among the members or alternates, occurring after a trial has
begun, may be filled by the convening authority but the substance of all proceeding had
evidence taken in that case shall be made known to the said new member or alternate. This
facts shall be announced by the president of the commission in open court.

(b) Number of Members. — Each commission shall consist of not less than three (3)
members.

(c) Qualifications. — The convening authority shall appoint to the commission persons whom
he determines to be competent to perform the duties involved and not disqualified by
personal interest or prejudice, provided that no person shall be appointed to hear a case in
which he personally investigated or wherein his presence as a witness is required. One
specially qualified member whose ruling is final in so far as concerns the commission on an
objection to the admissibility of evidence offered during the trial.

(d) Voting. — Except as to the admissibility of evidence all rulings and finding of the
Commission shall be by majority vote except that conviction and sentence shall be by the
affirmative vote of not less than conviction and sentence shall be by the affirmative vote of
not less than two-thirds (2\3) of the member present.

(e) Presiding Member. — In the event that the convening authority does not name one of the
member as the presiding member, the senior officer among the member of the Commission
present shall preside.

IV. PROSECUTORS
(a) Appointment. — The convening authority shall designate one or more person to conduct
the prosecution before each commission.

(b) Duties. — The duties of the prosecutor are:

(1) To prepare and present charges and specifications for reference to a commission.

(2) To prepare cases for trial and to conduct the prosecution before the commission of all
cases referred for trial.

V. POWER AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSION

(a) Conduct of the Trial. — A Commission shall:

(1) Confine each trial strictly to fair and expeditious hearing on the issues raised by the
charges, excluding irrelevant issues or evidence and preventing any unnecessary delay or
interference.

(2) Deal summarily with any contumacy or contempt, imposing any appropriate punishment
therefor.

(3) Hold public session when otherwise decided by the commission.

(4) Hold each session at such time and place as it shall determine, or as may be directed by
the convening authority.

(b) Rights of the Accused. — The accused shall be entitled:

(1) To have in advance of the trial a copy of the charges and specifications clearly worded so
as to apprise the accused of each offense charged.

(2) To be represented, prior to and during trial, by counsel appointed by the convening
authority or counsel of his own choice, or to conduct his own defense.

(3) To testify in his own behalf and have his counsel present relevant evidence at the trial in
support of his defense, and cross-examine each adverse witness who personally appears
before the commission.

(4) To have the substance of the charges and specifications, the proceedings and any
documentary evidence translated, when he is unable otherwise to understand them.

(c) Witnesses. — The Commission shall have power:

(1) To summon witnesses and require their attendance and testimony; to administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses and other persons and to question witnesses.

(2) To require the production of documents and other evidentiary material.

(3) To delegate the Prosecutors appointed by the convening authority the powers and duties
set forth in (1) and (2) above.
(4) To have evidence taken by a special commissioner appointed by the commission.

(d) Evidence.

(1) The commission shall admit such evidence as in its opinion shall be of assistance in
proving or disproving the charge, or such as in the commission's opinion would have
probative value in the mind of a reasonable man. The commission shall apply the rules of
evidence and pleading set forth herein with the greatest liberality to achieve expeditious
procedure. In particular, and without limiting in any way the scope of the foregoing general
rules, the following evidence may be admitted:

(a) Any document, irrespective of its classification, which appears to the commission to have
been signed or issued by any officer, department, agency or member of the armed forces of
any Government without proof of the signature or of the issuance of the document.

(b) Any report which appears to the commission to have been signed or issued by the
International Red Cross or a member of any medical service personnel, or by any
investigator or intelligence officer, or by any other person whom commission considers as
possessing knowledge of the matters contained in the report.

(c) Affidavits, depositions or other signed statements.

(d) Any diary, letter to other document, including sworn statements, appearing to the
commission to contain information relating to the charge.

(e) A copy of any document or other secondary evidence of the contents, if the original is not
immediately available.

(2) The commission shall take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge, official
government documents of any nation, and the proceedings, records and findings of military
or other agencies of any of the United Nation.

(3) A commission may require the prosecution and the defense to make a preliminary offer of
proof whereupon the commission may rule in advance on the admissibility of such evidence.

(4) The official position of the accused shall not absolve him from responsibility nor be
considered in mitigation of punishment. Further action pursuant to an order of the accused's
superior, or of his Government, shall not constitute a defense, but may be considered in
mitigation of punishment if the commission determines that justice so requires.

(5) All purposed confessions or statements of the accused shall bee admissible in evidence
without any showing that they were voluntarily made. If it is shown that such confession or
statement was procured by mean which the commission believe to have been of such a
character that may have caused the accused to make a false statement the commission may
strike out or disregard any such portion thereof as was so procured.

(e) Trial Procedure. — The proceedings of each trial shall be conducted substantially as
follows unless modified by the commission to suit the particular circumstances:

(1) Each charge and specification shall be read or its substance stated in open court.
(2) The presiding member shall ask each accused whether he pleads "Guilty" or "Not guilty."

(3) The prosecution shall make its opening statement."(4) The presiding member may at this
or any other time require the prosecutor to state what evidence he proposes to submit to the
commission and the commission thereupon may rule upon the admissibility of such
evidence.

(4) The witnesses and other evidence for the prosecution shall be heard or presented. At the
close of the case for the prosecution, the commission may, on motion of the defense for a
finding of not guilty, consider and rule whether he evidence before the commission may defer
action on any such motion and permit or require the prosecution to reopen its case and
produce any further available evidence.

(5) The defense may make an opening statement prior to presenting its case. The presiding
member may, at this any other time require the defense to state what evidence it proposes to
submit to the commission where upon the commission may rule upon the admissibility of
such evidence.

(6) The witnesses and other evidence for the defense shall be heard or presented.
Thereafter, the prosecution and defense may introduce such evidence in rebuttal as the
commission may rule as being admissible.

(7) The defense and thereafter the prosecution shall address the commission.

(8) The commission thereafter shall consider the case in closed session and unless
otherwise directed by the convening authority, announce in open court its judgment and
sentence if any. The commission may state the reason on which judgment is based.

( f ) Record of Proceedings. — Each commission shall make a separate record of its

proceeding in the trial of each case brought before it. The record shall be prepared by the
prosecutor under the direction of the commission and submitted to the defense counsel. The
commission shall be responsible for its accuracy. Such record, certified by the presiding
member of the commission or his successor, shall be delivered to the convening authority as
soon as possible after the trial.

(g) Sentence. — The commission may sentence an accused, upon conviction to death by
hanging or shooting, imprisonment for life or for any less term, fine or such other punishment
as the commission shall determine to be proper.

(h) Approval of Sentence. — No. sentence of a military commission shall be carried into
effect until approved by the chief off Staff: Provided, That no sentence of death or life
imprisonment shall be carried into execution until confirmed by the President of the
Philippines. For the purpose of his review the Chief of Staff shall create a Board of Review to
be composed of not more than three officers none of whom shall be on duty with or assigned
to the Judge Advocate General's Office. The Chief of Staff shall have authority to approve,
mitigate remit in whole or in part, commute, suspend, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence
imposed, or (without prejudice to the accused) remand the case for rehearing before a new
military commission; but he shall not have authority to increase the severity of the sentence.
Except as herein otherwise provided the judgment and sentence of a commission shall final
and not subject to review by any other tribunal.

VI. RULE-MAKING POWER

 Supplementary Rule and Forms. — Each commission shall adopt rules and forms to govern
its procedure, not inconsistent with the provision of this Order, or such rules and forms as
may be prescribed by the convening authority]or by the President of the Philippines.

VII. The amount of amount of seven hundred thousand pesos is hereby set aside out of the
appropriations for the Army of the Philippines for use by the National War Crimes Office in
the accomplishment of its mission as hereinabove set forth, and shall be expended in
accordance with the recommendation of the Judge Advocate General as approved by the
President. The buildings, fixtures, installations, messing, and billeting equipment and other
property herefore used by then Legal Section, Manila Branch, of the General Headquarters,
Supreme Commander for the Allied Power, which will be turned over by the United States
Army to the Philippines Government through the Foreign Liquidation Commission and the
Surplus Property Commission are hereby specification reserved for use off the National War
Crimes Office.

Executive Order No. 64, dated August 16, 1945, is hereby repealed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred
and forty-seven, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the second.

MANUEL ROXAS
President of the Philippines

By the President:

EMILIO ABELLO
Chief of the Executive Office

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATION

Executive Order No. 68 is a veritable piece of Legislative measure, without the benefit of
congressional enactment.

The first question that is trust at our face spearheading a group of other no less important question,
is whether or not the President of the Philippines may exercise the legislative power expressly
vested in Congress by the Constitution. .

The Constitution provides:

The Legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives. (Section 1, Article VI.)

While there is no express provision in the fundamental law prohibiting the exercise of legislative
power by agencies other than Congress, a reading of the whole context of the Constitution would
dispel any doubt as to the constitutional intent that the legislative power is to be exercised
exclusively by Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President of the President of the
Philippines, to the specific provision which allow the president of the Philippines to suspend the
privileges of the writ of habeas corpus and to place any part of the Philippines under martial law, and
to the rule-making power expressly vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court.
There cannot be any question that the member of the Constitutional Convention were believers in
the tripartite system of government as originally enunciated by Aristotle, further elaborated by
Montequieu and accepted and practiced by modern democracies, especially the United State of
America, whose Constitution, after which ours has been patterned, has allocated the three power of
government — legislative, executive, judicial — to distinct and separate department of government.

Because the power vested by our Constitution to the several department of the government are in
the nature of grants, not recognition of pre-existing power, no department of government may
exercise any power or authority not expressly granted by the Constitution or by law by virtue express
authority of the Constitution.

Executive Order No. 68 establishes a National War Crimes Office and the power to establish
government office is essentially legislative.

The order provides that person accused as war criminals shall be tried by military commissions.
Whether such a provision is substantive or adjective, it is clearly legislative in nature. It confers upon
military commissions jurisdiction to try all persons charge with war crimes. The power to define and
allocate jurisdiction for the prosecution of person accused of any crime is exclusively vested by the
Constitution in Congress. .

It provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial of trial. This provision on procedural subject
constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power vested by Constitution in the Supreme Court.

It authorized military commission to adopt additional rule of procedure. If the President of the
Philippines cannot exercise the rule -making power vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court,
he cannot, with more reason, delegate that power to military commission.

It appropriates the sum of P7000,000 for the expenses of the National War Crimes office established
by the said Executive Order No. 68. This constitutes another usurpation of legislative power as the
power to vote appropriations belongs to Congress.

Executive Order No. 68., is, therefore, null and void, because, though it the President of the
Philippines usurped power expressly vested by the Constitution in Congress and in the Supreme
Court.

Challenged to show the constitutional or legal authority under which the President issued Executive
Order No. 68, respondent could not give any definite answer. They attempted, however, to suggest
that the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 68 under the emergency power
granted to him by Commonwealth Act No. 600, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 620, and
Commonwealth Act No. 671, both of which are transcribed below:

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 600.

AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE

PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATION TO SAFEGUARD
THE INTEGRITY OF THE PHILIPPINES AND TO INSURE THE TRANQUILITY OF
ITS INHABITANTS.

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

SECTION 1. The existence of war in many parts of the world has created a national
emergency which makes it necessary to invest the President of the Philippines with
extraordinary power in order to safeguard the integrity of the Philippines and to insure the
tranquility of its inhabitants, by suppressing espionage, lawlessness, and all subversive to
the people adequate shelter and clothing and sufficient food supply, and by providing means
for the speedy evacuation of the civilian population the establishment of an air protective
service and the organization of volunteer guard units, and to adopt such other measures as
he may deem necessary for the interest of the public. To carry out this policy the President is
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations which shall have the force and effect off law
until the date of adjournment of the next regulation which shall have the force and effect of
law until the date of adjournment of the next regular session of the First Congress of the
Philippines, unless sooner amended or repealed by the Congress of Philippines. Such rules
and regulation may embrace the following objects: (1) to suppress espionage and other
subversive activities; (2) to require all able-bodied citizens (a) when not engaged in any
lawful occupation, to engage in farming or other productive activities or (b) to perform such
services as may bee necessary in the public interest; (3) to take over farm lands in order to
prevent or shortage of crops and hunger and destitution; (4) to take over industrial
establishment in order to insure adequate production, controlling wages and profits therein;
(5) to prohibit lockouts and strikes whenever necessary to prevent the unwarranted
suspension of work in productive enterprises or in the interest of national security; (6) to
regulate the normal hours of work for wage-earning and salaried employees in industrial or
business undertakings of all kinds; (7) to insure an even distribution of labor among the
productive enterprises; (8) to commandership and other means of transportation in order to
maintain, as much as possible, adequate and continued transportation facilities; (9) to
requisition and take over any public service or enterprise for use or operation by the
Government;(10) to regulate rents and the prices of articles or commodities of prime
necessity, both imported and locally produced or manufactured; and (11) to prevent, locally
or generally, scarcity, monopolization, hoarding injurious speculations, and private control
affecting the supply, distribution and movement of foods, clothing, fuel, fertilizer, chemical,
building, material, implements, machinery, and equipment required in agriculture and
industry, with power to requisition these commodities subject to the payment of just
compensation. (As amended by Com. Act No. 620.)

SEC. 2. For the purpose of administering this Act and carrying out its objective, the President
may designate any officer, without additional compensation, or any department, bureau,
office, or instrumentality of the National Government.

SEC. 3. Any person, firm, or corporation found guilty of the violation of any provision of this
Act or of this Act or any of the rules or regulations promulgated by the President under the
authority of section one of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than ten
years or by a fine of not more than ten thousand pesos, or by both. If such violation is
committed by a firm or corporation, the manager, managing director, or person charge with
the management of the business of such firm, or corporation shall be criminally responsible
therefor.

SEC. 4. The President shall report to the national Assembly within the first ten days from the
date of the opening of its next regular session whatever action has been taken by him under
the authority herein granted.

SEC. 5. To carry out the purposed of this Act, the President is authorized to spend such
amounts as may be necessary from the sum appropriated under section five Commonwealth
Act Numbered four hundred and ninety-eight.
 SEC. 6. If any province of this Act shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to
be unconstitutional and void, such declaration shall not invalidate the remainder of this Act.

SEC. 7. This Act shall take upon its approval.

Approved, August 19, 1940.

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 671

AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF TOTAL EMERGENCY AS A RESULT OF WAR

INVOLVING THE PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO
PROMULGATE RULE AND REGULATIONS TO MEET SUCH EMERGENCY.

Be it enacted the National Assembly of the Philippines;

SECTION 1. The existed of war between the United State and other countries of Europe and
Asia, which involves the Philippines, makes it necessary to invest the President with
extraordinary powers in order to meet the resulting emergency.

SEC. 2. Pursuant to the provision of Article VI, section 16, of the Constitution, the President
is hereby authorized, during the existence of the emergency, to promulgate such rules and
regulation as he may deem necessary to carry out the national policy declared in section 1
hereof. Accordingly, he is, among other things, empowered (a) to transfer the seat of the
Government or any of its subdivisions, branches, department, offices, agencies or
instrumentalities; (b) to reorganize the Government of the Commonwealth including the
determination of the order of precedence of the heads of the Executive Department; (c) to
create new subdivision, branches, departments, offices, agency or instrumentalities of
government and to abolish any of those already existing; (d) to continue in force laws and
appropriation which would lapse or otherwise became inoperative, and to modify or suspend
the operation or application of those of an administrative character; (e) to imposed new taxes
or to increase, reduce, suspend, or abolish those in existence; (f) to raise funds through the
issuance of bonds or otherwise, and to authorize the expensive of the proceeds thereof; (g)
to authorize the National, provincial, city or municipal governments to incur in overdrafts for
purposes that he may approve; (h) to declare the suspension of the collection of credits or
the payment of debts; and (i) to exercise such other power as he may deem necessary to
enable the Government to fulfill its responsibilities and to maintain and enforce its authority.

SEC. 3. The President of the Philippines report thereto all the rules and regulation
promulgated by him under the power herein granted.

SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval and the rules and regulations.
promulgated hereunder shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall
otherwise provide.

Approved December 16, 1941.

The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, Executive Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947.
Said Acts had elapsed upon the liberation of the Philippines form the Japanese forces or, at the
latest, when the surrender of Japan was signed in Tokyo on September 2, 1945.
When both Acts were enacted by the Second National Assembly, we happened to have taken direct
part in their consideration and passage, not only as one of the members of said legislative body as
chairman of the Committee on Third Reading population Known as the "Little Senate." We are,
therefore in a position to state that said measures were enacted by the second national Assembly for
the purpose of facing the emergency of impending war and of the Pacific War that finally broke out
with the attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. We approved said extraordinary measures, by
which under the exceptional circumstances then prevailing legislative power were delegated to the
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the following provisions of the Constitution:

In time 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
promulgate rules and regulations to carry out declared national policy. (Article VI, section
26.)

It has never been the purpose of the National Assembly to extend the delegation beyond the
emergency created by the war as to extend it farther would be violative of the express provision of
the Constitution. We are of the opinion that there is no doubt on this question.; but if there could still
be any the same should be resolved in favor of the presumption that the National Assembly did not
intend to violate the fundamental law.

The absurdity of the contention that the emergency Acts continued in effect even after the surrender
of Japan can not be gainsaid. Only a few months after liberation and even before the surrender of
Japan, or since the middle of 1945, the Congress started to function normally. In the hypothesis that
the contention can prevail, then, since 1945, that is, four years ago, even after the Commonwealth
was already replaced by the Republic of the Philippines with the proclamation of our Independence,
two district, separate and independence legislative organs, — Congress and the President of the
Philippines — would have been and would continue enacting laws, the former to enact laws of every
nature including those of emergency character, and the latter to enact laws, in the form of executive
orders, under the so-called emergency powers. The situation would be pregnant with dangers to
peace and order to the rights and liberties of the people and to Philippines democracy.

Should there be any disagreement between Congress and the President of the Philippines, a
possibility that no one can dispute the President of the Philippines may take advantage of he long
recess of Congress (two-thirds of every year ) to repeal and overrule legislative enactments of
Congress, and may set up a veritable system of dictatorship, absolutely repugnant to the letter and
spirit of the Constitution.

Executive Order No. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution because it violates the fundamental
guarantees of the due process and equal protection of the law. It is especially so, because it permit
the admission of many kinds evidence by which no innocent person can afford to get acquittal and
by which it is impossible to determine whether an accused is guilty or not beyond all reasonable
doubt.

The rules of evidence adopted in Executive Order No. 68 are a reproduction of the regulation
governing the trial of twelve criminal, issued by General Douglas Mac Arthur, Commander in Chief of
the United State Armed Forces in Western Pacific, for the purpose of trying among other, General
Yamashita and Homma. What we said in our concurring and dissenting opinion to the decision
promulgated on December 19, 1945, in the Yamashita case, L-129, and in our concurring and
dissenting opinion to the resolution of January 23, 1946 in disposing the Homma case, L-244, are
perfectly applicable to the offensive rules of evidence in Executive Order No. 68. Said rules of
evidence are repugnant to conscience as under them no justice can expected.
For all the foregoing, conformably with our position in the Yamashita and Homma cases, we vote to
declare Executive Order No. 68 null and void and to grant petition.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 141463. August 6, 2002]

VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA,petitioners, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, THE
SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and HIS/HER DEPUTIES and PURA
KALAW LEDESMA, substituted by TANDANG SORA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
 DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of
[1]

Appeals dated January 28, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, which dismissed
the petition to prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 77, from issuing a writ of demolition against petitioners,
and the sheriff and deputy sheriff of the same court from implementing an
alias writ of execution. Also assailed is the resolution of the Court of Appeals
[2]

dated December 29, 1999 which denied petitioners motion for

reconsideration.
The facts are as follows:
Pura Kalaw Ledesma was the registered owner of Lot 689, covered by
TCT Nos. 111267 and 111266, in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. This parcel of
land was adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of the Piedad Estates,
namely, Lot 707-A and 707-B, registered in the name of Herminigilda Pedro
under TCT Nos. 16951 and 16952, respectively. On October 29, 1964,
Herminigilda sold Lot 707-A and 707-B to Mariano Lising who then registered
both lots and Lot 707-C in the name of M.B. Lising Realty and subdivided
them into smaller lots.
Certain portions of the subdivided lots were sold to third persons including
herein petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, who purchased a
portion of Lot 707-A-2, Lot 5, Block 1 of the subdivision plan (LRC), Psd-
42965. The parcel is now #33 Doa Regina St., Regina Village, Tandang Sora,
Quezon City. The other portions were registered in the name of the heirs of
Pedro, heirs of Lising, and other third persons.
Sometime in 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed a complaint, docketed as
Civil Case No. Q-12918, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against
Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly encroaching upon Lot
689. During the pendency of the action, Tandang Sora Development
Corporation replaced Pura Kalaw Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of an
assignment of Lot 689 made by Ledesma in favor of said corporation. Trial
continued for three decades.
On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged defendants Pedro and
Lising jointly and severally liable for encroaching on plaintiffs land and ordered
them:

(a) to solidarily pay the plaintiff Tandang Sora Dev. Corp. actual damages in the
amount of P20,000 with interest from date of filing of the complaint;
(b) to remove all construction, including barbed wires and fences, illegally
constructed by defendants on plaintiffs property at defendants expense;

(c) to replace the removed concrete monuments removed by defendants, at their own
expense;

(d) to pay attorneys fees in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00)
with interest computed from the date of filing of the complaint;

(e) to relocate the boundaries to conform with the Commissioners Report, particularly,
Annexes A and B thereof, at the expense of the defendants. [3]

As a result, in February 1998, the Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City directed

petitioners, through an alias writ of execution, to remove the house they
constructed on the land they were occupying.
On April 2, 1998, petitioners received a Special Order dated March 30,
1998, from the trial court stating as follows:

Before the Court for resolution is the Ex-Parte Motion For The Issuance of A Writ of
Demolition, filed by plaintiff, through counsel, praying for the issuance of an Order
directing the Deputy Sheriff to cause the removal and/or demolition of the structures
on the plaintiffs property constructed by defendants and/or the present occupants. The
defendants-heirs of Herminigilda Pedro filed their comment on the said Motion.

Considering that the decision rendered in the instant case had become final and
executory, the Court, in its Order of November 14, 1997, directed the issuance of an
alias writ of execution for the enforcement of the said decision. However, despite the
service of the said writ to all the defendants and the present occupants of the subject
property, they failed to comply therewith, as per the Partial Sheriffs Return, dated
February 9, 1998, issued by the Deputy Sheriff of this branch of the Court. Thus, there
is now a need to demolish the structures in order to implement the said decision.

WHEREFORE, the defendants are hereby directed to remove, at their expense, all
constructions, including barbed wires and fences, which defendants constructed on
plaintiffs property, within fifteen (15) days from notice of this Order; otherwise, this
Court will issue a writ of demolition against them.

SO ORDERED. [4]

To prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon

City from issuing a writ of demolition and the Quezon City sheriff from
implementing the alias writ of execution, petitioners filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for prohibition with prayer for a restraining order and
preliminary injunction on April 17, 1998. Petitioners alleged that they bought
[5]

the subject parcel of land in good faith and for value, hence, they were parties
in interest. Since they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-12918, the writ
of demolition issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced against them
because to do so would amount to deprivation of property without due process
of law.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 28, 1999. It held
that as buyers and successors-in-interest of Mariano Lising, petitioners were
considered privies who derived their rights from Lising by virtue of the sale
and could be reached by the execution order in Civil Case No. Q-12918.
Thus, for lack of merit, the petition was ordered dismissed.
[6]

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition,

where petitioners aver that:
I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-12918 CAN ALSO BE ENFORCED AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTIES
THERETO.
II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING

PETITIONERS TITLE DESPITE THEIR BEING BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH
AND INNOCENT PURCHASER AND FOR VALUE.
III.

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CONSIDERING

THAT THEY STAND TO SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY IF
ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION AND THE SPECIAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE
COURT A QUO IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-12918 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ALL
THE STRUCTURES ON THE DISPUTED PROPERTY WERE ENFORCED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO WERE NOT EVEN GIVEN THEIR DAY IN
COURT. [7]

For our resolution are the following issues: (1) whether thealias writ of
execution may be enforced against petitioners; and (2) whether petitioners
were innocent purchasers for value and builders in good faith.
 On the first issue, petitioners claim that the alias writ of execution cannot
be enforced against them. They argue that the appellate court erred when it
relied heavily on our ruling in Vda. de Medina vs. Cruz in holding that
[8]

petitioners are successors-in-interest of Mariano Lising, and as such, they can

be reached by the order of execution in Civil Case No. Q-12918 even though
they were not impleaded as parties thereto. Petitioners submit that Medina is
not applicable in this case because the circumstances therein are different
from the circumstances in the present case.
In Medina, the property in dispute was registered under Land Registration
Act No. 496 in 1916 and Original Certificate of Title No. 868 was issued in the
name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). In 1949, Benedicta Mangahas
and Francisco Ramos occupied and built houses on the lot without the PRCs
consent. In 1959, PRC sold the lot to Remedios Magbanua. Mangahas and
Ramos opposed and instituted Civil Case No. C-120 to annul the sale and to
compel PRC to execute a contract of sale in their favor. The trial court
dismissed the complaint and ordered Mangahas and Ramos to vacate the lot
and surrender possession thereof to Magbanua. The judgment became final
and executory. When Magbanua had paid for the land in full, PRC executed a
deed of absolute sale in her favor and a new title was consequently issued in
her name. Magbanua then sought the execution of the judgment in Civil Case
No. C-120. This was opposed by petitioner Medina who alleged that she
owned the houses and lot subject of the dispute. She said that she bought the
houses from spouses Ricardo and Eufrocinia de Guzman, while she
purchased the lot from the heirs of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y
Esteban. The latter held the land by virtue of a Titulo de Composicion Con El
Estado Num. 4136, dated April 29, 1894. In opposing the execution, Medina
argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over her, claiming that
she was not a party in Civil Case No. C-120, thus, she could not be
considered as a person claiming under Ramos and Mangahas.
When Medina reached this Court, we held that the decision in Civil Case
No. C-120, which had long become final and executory, could be enforced
against petitioner even though she was not a party thereto. We found that the
houses on the subject lot were formerly owned by Mangahas and Ramos who
sold them to spouses de Guzman, who in turn sold them to Medina.Under the
circumstances, petitioner was privy to the two judgment debtors Mangahas
and Ramos, and thus Medina could be reached by the order of execution and
writ of demolition issued against the two. As to the lot under dispute, we
sustained Magbanuas ownership over it, she being the holder of a Torrens
title. We declared that a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of
ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that
a Torrens title was regularly issued and valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible
against anyinformacion possessoria, or other title existing prior to the
issuance thereof not annotated on the Torrens title. Moreover, persons
dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required
to go beyond what appears on its face.
Medina markedly differs from the present case on major points. First, the
petitioner in Medina acquired the right over the houses and lot subject of the
dispute after the original action was commenced and became final and
executory. In the present case, petitioners acquired the lot before the
commencement of Civil Case No. Q-12918. Second, the right over the
disputed land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner in Medinawas
based on a title of doubtful authenticity, allegedly a Titulo de Composicion
Con El Estado issued by the Spanish Government in favor of one Don
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, while the right over the land of the
predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners is based on a fully recognized
Torrens title.Third, petitioners in this case acquired the registered title in their
own names, while the petitioner in Medina merely relied on the title of her
predecessor-in-interest and tax declarations to prove her alleged ownership of
the land.
We must stress that where a case like the present one involves a sale of a
parcel of land under the Torrens system, the applicable rule is that a person
dealing with the registered property need not go beyond the certificate of title;
he can rely solely on the title and he is charged with notice only of such
burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. It is our view here that the
[9]

petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, are fully entitled to the
legal protection of their lot by the Torrens system, unlike the petitioner in
the Medina case who merely relied on a mere Titulo de Composicion.
Coming now to the second issue, were petitioners purchasers in good faith
and for value? A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another
without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such
property. He is a buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of
the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
person in the property. The determination of whether one is a buyer in good
[10]

faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this Court to
determine in a petition for review. An exception is when the Court of Appeals
failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion. The instant case is covered by this
[11]

exception to the general rule. As found by the Court of Appeals and not
refuted by private respondent, petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964
from Mariano Lising. Civil Case No. Q-12918 was commenced sometime in
[12]
1969. The Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that the purchase of the land
took place prior to the institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918. In other words,
the sale to petitioners was made before Pura Kalaw Ledesma claimed the
lot. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lisings Certificate of Title
which at the time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence,
considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners
acquired the land subject of this dispute in good faith and for value.
The final question now is: could we consider petitioners builders in good
faith? We note that this is the first time that petitioners have raised this
issue. As a general rule, this could not be done. Fair play, justice, and due
process dictate that parties should not raise for the first time on appeal issues
that they could have raised but never did during trial and even during
proceedings before the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, we deem it proper
[13]

that this issue be resolved now, to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay
in the disposition of this case. On this score, we find that petitioners are
indeed builders in good faith.
A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is
building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. As earlier
[14]

discussed, petitioner spouses acquired the land in question without

knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. Shortly afterwards, they
built their conjugal home on said land. It was only in 1998, when the sheriff of
Quezon City tried to execute the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-12918, that
they had notice of private respondents adverse claim. The institution of Civil
Case No. Q-12918 cannot serve as notice of such adverse claim to petitioners
since they were not impleaded therein as parties.
As builders in good faith and innocent purchasers for value, petitioners
have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in
interest in any case thereon. Consequently, private respondents should have
[15]

impleaded them in Civil Case No. Q-12918. Since they failed to do so,
petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man shall be
affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case
are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court. In the same manner, a
writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who
did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an action are
bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition
issued pursuant thereto. In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata
[16]

Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition of their
house on their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 28, 1999, and its resolution dated December 29, 1999,
in CA-G.R. SP No. 47422, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents
are hereby enjoined from enforcing the decision in Civil Case No. Q-12918
through a writ of execution and order of demolition issued against petitioners.
Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL BECK, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his
capacity as Acting Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL
MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN
CANSINO, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First
Instance of Rizal-Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of
Quezon City, respondents.

Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro,
Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero, Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason and Solicitor C. Padua for
respondents.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin1 — hereinafter referred to
as Respondents-Prosecutors — several judges2 — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges
— issued, on different dates,3 a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein4 and/or the
corporations of which they were officers,5 directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons
above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and
take possession of the following personal property to wit:

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals,

portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all
business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers).

as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or
intended to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is described in the applications
adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and the Revised Penal Code."

Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution
and the Rules of Court — because, inter alia: (1) they do not describe with particularity the
documents, books and things to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were
actually seized; (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners
in deportation cases filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal
manner; and (5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that
issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law — on March 20, 1962, said petitioners
filed with the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction,
and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a writ of preliminary injunction be
issued restraining Respondents-Prosecutors, their agents and /or representatives from using the
effects seized as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already adverted
to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered quashing the contested search warrants
and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or
representatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 67, of the Rules of
Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys seized or confiscated under the search
warrants in question.

In their answer, respondents-prosecutors alleged, 6 (1) that the contested search warrants are valid
and have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were
cured by petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in
evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned
searches and seizures.

On March 22, 1962, this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the petition.
However, by resolution dated June 29, 1962, the writ was partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the
papers, documents and things seized from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are
concerned; but, the injunction was maintained as regards the papers, documents and things found
and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.7

Thus, the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in
question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of
the aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners
herein.

As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the
legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple
reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the
personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of
each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.8 Indeed, it is
well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby,9 and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties. 10 Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the
use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and
premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said
papers in evidence belongsexclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and
may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual
capacity. 11 Indeed, it has been held:

. . . that the Government's action in gaining possession of papers belonging to

the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. If these papers
were unlawfully seized and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one were invaded, they
were the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the other defendants. Next, it is clear
that a question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised only by one whose rights have
been invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful, could not affect the constitutional rights
of defendants whose property had not been seized or the privacy of whose homes had not
been disturbed; nor could they claim for themselves the benefits of the Fourth Amendment,
when its violation, if any, was with reference to the rights of another. Remus vs. United
States (C.C.A.)291 F. 501, 511. It follows, therefore, that the question of the admissibility of
the evidence based on an alleged unlawful search and seizure does not extend to the
personal defendants but embraces only the corporation whose property was taken. . . . (A
Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. vs. United States, [1925] 3 F. 2d. 786, 789, Emphasis supplied.)

With respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the residences of petitioners herein, the
aforementioned resolution of June 29, 1962, lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued
by this Court,12 thereby, in effect, restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using them in
evidence against petitioners herein.

In connection with said documents, papers and things, two (2) important questions need be settled,
namely: (1) whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the
authority thereof, are valid or not, and (2) if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative,
whether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein. 1äw phï1.ñët

Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search warrants are in the nature of general warrants
and that accordingly, the seizures effected upon the authority there of are null and void. In this
connection, the Constitution13 provides:
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.

None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. Indeed, the same
were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had
committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and
Revised Penal Code." In other words, nospecific offense had been alleged in said applications. The
averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it
was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable
cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it
is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision
of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any
specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to
convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code," — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without
reference to any determinate provision of said laws or

To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most
fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion of
peace officers. This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above
quoted — to outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen,
in times of keen political strife, when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to wrest it,
even though by legal means.

Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search
warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of
Court 14 by providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of Court 15 that "a search warrant
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense." Not satisfied with
this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no search warrant shall issue
for more than one specific offense."

The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was
compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit:

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,

portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all
business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and
loss statements.

Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business
transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned
corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of
Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its
major objective: the elimination of general warrants.

Relying upon Moncado vs. People's Court (80 Phil. 1), Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that, even
if the searches and seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, the documents, papers and
things thus seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Upon mature deliberation,
however, we are unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the Moncado case must be
abandoned. Said position was in line with the American common law rule, that the criminal should
not be allowed to go free merely "because the constable has blundered," 16 upon the theory that the
constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by means other
than the exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained, 17 such as the common-law action for damages
against the searching officer, against the party who procured the issuance of the search warrant and
against those assisting in the execution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, resistance,
without liability to an unlawful seizure, and such other legal remedies as may be provided by other
laws.

However, most common law jurisdictions have already given up this approach and eventually
adopted the exclusionary rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the language of Judge
Learned Hand:

As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence competent as such, which has
been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the
constitutional privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official
may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in case the prosecution
which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will that
wrong be repressed.18

In fact, over thirty (30) years before, the Federal Supreme Court had already declared:

If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a
citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his rights to be
secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed
are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and
their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided
by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering
which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.19

This view was, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subsequent decisions on the same
Federal Court. 20After reviewing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in Mapp vs.
Ohio (supra.):

. . . Today we once again examine the Wolf's constitutional documentation of the right of
privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its dozen years on our books, are
led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official
lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific
guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by
searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible
in a State.

Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the
States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by
 the same sanction of exclusion as it used against the Federal Government. Were it
otherwise, then just as without the Weeks rule the assurance against unreasonable federal
searches and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and underserving of mention in
a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the freedom from
state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual
nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to permit this
Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." At the time that
the Court held in Wolf that the amendment was applicable to the States through the Due
Process Clause, the cases of this Court as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as to
federal officers the Fourth Amendment included the exclusion of the evidence seized in
violation of its provisions. Even Wolf "stoutly adhered" to that proposition. The right to when
conceded operatively enforceable against the States, was not susceptible of destruction by
avulsion of the sanction upon which its protection and enjoyment had always been deemed
dependent under the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne Cases. Therefore, in extending the
substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches — state
or federal — it was logically and constitutionally necessarily that the exclusion doctrine — an
essential part of the right to privacy — be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the
right newly recognized by the Wolf Case. In short, the admission of the new constitutional
Right by Wolf could not tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privilege, namely,
the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the
unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege
and enjoyment. Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the
exclusionary rule to "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the
only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it" . . . .

The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of
constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest. Having once recognized that
the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States,
and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore
constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise.
Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured
by its Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any
police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment.
Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which
the Constitution guarantees him to the police officer no less than that to which honest law
enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true
administration of justice. (emphasis ours.)

Indeed, the non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. To be sure, if the applicant for
a search warrant has competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given
crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the applicant
should not comply with the requirements of the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no
such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the Judge to find that there is probable cause,
and, hence, no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only possible explanation (not
justification) for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But,
then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause.

Moreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those who secure an illegal search warrant
and/or make unreasonable searches or seizures would suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee
under consideration, overlooks the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By agents
of the party in power, for, certainly, those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a power
they do not have. Regardless of the handicap under which the minority usually — but,
understandably — finds itself in prosecuting agents of the majority, one must not lose sight of the
fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility 21 of securing their conviction, is watered
down by the pardoning power of the party for whose benefit the illegality had been committed.

In their Motion for Reconsideration and Amendment of the Resolution of this Court dated June 29,
1962, petitioners allege that Rooms Nos. 81 and 91 of Carmen Apartments, House No. 2008, Dewey
Boulevard, House No. 1436, Colorado Street, and Room No. 304 of the Army-Navy Club, should be
included among the premises considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners,
Harry S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brook, John J. Brooks and Karl Beck, respectively, and that,
furthermore, the records, papers and other effects seized in the offices of the corporations above
referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and other effects under their exclusive
possession and control, for the exclusion of which they have a standing under the latest rulings of
the federal courts of federal courts of the United States. 22

We note, however, that petitioners' theory, regarding their alleged possession of and control over the
aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged "personal" nature thereof, has Been
Advanced, notin their petition or amended petition herein, but in the Motion for Reconsideration and
Amendment of the Resolution of June 29, 1962. In other words, said theory would appear to be
readjustment of that followed in said petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution
sought to be reconsidered and amended. Then, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged
affidavits attached to said motion for reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either
inconsistent allegations, or allegations inconsistent with the theory now advanced by petitioners
herein.

Upon the other hand, we are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for
reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in
support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the
cases relied upon by the petitioners; to warrant application of the views therein expressed, should
we agree thereto. At any rate, we do not deem it necessary to express our opinion thereon, it being
best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.

We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby,
abandoned; that the warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, as
specified in the Resolution of June 29, 1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures
therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection with
the documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences of herein petitioners is
hereby made permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers
and other effects so seized in the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the
aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and
that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for denied, as regards the documents,
papers and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other premises
enumerated in the same Resolution, without special pronouncement as to costs.

It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

CASTRO, J., concurring and dissenting:

From my analysis of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and from the import of
the deliberations of the Court on this case, I gather the following distinct conclusions:
 1. All the search warrants served by the National Bureau of Investigation in this case are
general warrants and are therefore proscribed by, and in violation of, paragraph 3 of section
1 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution;

2. All the searches and seizures conducted under the authority of the said search warrants
were consequently illegal;

3. The non-exclusionary rule enunciated in Moncado vs. People, 80 Phil. 1, should be, and is
declared, abandoned;

4. The search warrants served at the three residences of the petitioners

are expressly declared null and void the searches and seizures therein made
are expressly declared illegal; and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued against
the use of the documents, papers and effect seized in the said residences is made
permanent; and

5. Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactorily demonstrated that
they have legal standing to move for the suppression of the documents, papers and effects
seized in the places other than the three residences adverted to above, the opinion written
by the Chief Justice refrains from expresslydeclaring as null and void the such warrants
served at such other places and as illegal the searches and seizures made therein, and
leaves "the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future."

It is precisely the position taken by the Chief Justice summarized in the immediately preceding
paragraph (numbered 5) with which I am not in accord.

I do not share his reluctance or unwillingness to expressly declare, at this time, the nullity of the
search warrants served at places other than the three residences, and the illegibility of the searches
and seizures conducted under the authority thereof. In my view even the exacerbating passions and
prejudices inordinately generated by the environmental political and moral developments of this case
should not deter this Court from forthrightly laying down the law not only for this case but as well for
future cases and future generations. All the search warrants, without exception, in this case are
admittedly general, blanket and roving warrants and are therefore admittedly and indisputably
outlawed by the Constitution; and the searches and seizures made were therefore unlawful. That the
petitioners, let us assume in gratia argumente, have no legal standing to ask for the suppression of
the papers, things and effects seized from places other than their residences, to my mind, cannot in
any manner affect, alter or otherwise modify the intrinsic nullity of the search warrants and the
intrinsic illegality of the searches and seizures made thereunder. Whether or not the petitioners
possess legal standing the said warrants are void and remain void, and the searches and seizures
were illegal and remain illegal. No inference can be drawn from the words of the Constitution that
"legal standing" or the lack of it is a determinant of the nullity or validity of a search warrant or of the
lawfulness or illegality of a search or seizure.

On the question of legal standing, I am of the conviction that, upon the pleadings submitted to this
Court the petitioners have the requisite legal standing to move for the suppression and return of the
documents, papers and effects that were seized from places other than their family residences.

Our constitutional provision on searches and seizures was derived almost verbatim from the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the many years of judicial construction and
interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts have invariably regarded as doctrinal the
pronouncement made on the Fourth Amendment by federal courts, especially the Federal Supreme
Court and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.
The U.S. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of
documents, papers and effects which are the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure, may be
summarized as follows; (a) ownership of documents, papers and effects gives "standing;" (b)
ownership and/or control or possession — actual or constructive — of premises searched gives
"standing"; and (c) the "aggrieved person" doctrine where the search warrant and the sworn
application for search warrant are "primarily" directed solely and exclusively against the "aggrieved
person," gives "standing."

An examination of the search warrants in this case will readily show that, excepting three, all were
directed against the petitioners personally. In some of them, the petitioners were named personally,
followed by the designation, "the President and/or General Manager" of the particular corporation.
The three warrants excepted named three corporate defendants. But the
"office/house/warehouse/premises" mentioned in the said three warrants were also the same
"office/house/warehouse/premises" declared to be owned by or under the control of the petitioners in
all the other search warrants directed against the petitioners and/or "the President and/or General
Manager" of the particular corporation. (see pages 5-24 of Petitioners' Reply of April 2, 1962). The
searches and seizures were to be made, and were actually made, in the
"office/house/warehouse/premises" owned by or under the control of the petitioners.

Ownership of matters seized gives "standing."

Ownership of the properties seized alone entitles the petitioners to bring a motion to return and
suppress, and gives them standing as persons aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure
regardless of their location at the time of seizure. Jones vs. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261 (1960)
(narcotics stored in the apartment of a friend of the defendant); Henzel vs. United States, 296 F. 2d.
650, 652-53 (5th Cir. 1961), (personal and corporate papers of corporation of which the defendant
was president), United States vs. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 (1951) (narcotics seized in an apartment not
belonging to the defendant); Pielow vs. United States, 8 F. 2d 492, 493 (9th Cir. 1925) (books seized
from the defendant's sister but belonging to the defendant); Cf. Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d
680, 683 (10th Cir. 1962) (papers seized in desk neither owned by nor in exclusive possession of the
defendant).

In a very recent case (decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 12, 1966), it was held that
under the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures, a person places himself
or his property within a constitutionally protected area, be it his home or his office, his hotel room or
his automobile:

Where the argument falls is in its misapprehension of the fundamental nature and scope of
Fourth Amendment protection. What the Fourth Amendment protects is the security a man
relies upon when heplaces himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area, be
it his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile. There he is protected from
unwarranted governmental intrusion. And when he puts some thing in his filing cabinet, in his
desk drawer, or in his pocket, he has the right to know it will be secure from an unreasonable
search or an unreasonable seizure. So it was that the Fourth Amendment could not tolerate
the warrantless search of the hotel room in Jeffers, the purloining of the petitioner's private
papers in Gouled, or the surreptitious electronic surveilance in Silverman. Countless other
cases which have come to this Court over the years have involved a myriad of differing
factual contexts in which the protections of the Fourth Amendment have been appropriately
invoked. No doubt, the future will bring countless others. By nothing we say here do we
either foresee or foreclose factual situations to which the Fourth Amendment may be
applicable. (Hoffa vs. U.S., 87 S. Ct. 408 (December 12, 1966). See also U.S. vs. Jeffers,
342 U.S. 48, 72 S. Ct. 93 (November 13, 1951). (Emphasis supplied).
Control of premises searched gives "standing."

Independent of ownership or other personal interest in the records and documents seized, the
petitioners have standing to move for return and suppression by virtue of their proprietary or
leasehold interest in many of the premises searched. These proprietary and leasehold interests have
been sufficiently set forth in their motion for reconsideration and need not be recounted here, except
to emphasize that the petitioners paid rent, directly or indirectly, for practically all the premises
searched (Room 91, 84 Carmen Apts; Room 304, Army & Navy Club; Premises 2008, Dewey
Boulevard; 1436 Colorado Street); maintained personal offices within the corporate offices (IBMC,
USTC); had made improvements or furnished such offices; or had paid for the filing cabinets in
which the papers were stored (Room 204, Army & Navy Club); and individually, or through their
respective spouses, owned the controlling stock of the corporations involved. The petitioners'
proprietary interest in most, if not all, of the premises searched therefore independently gives them
standing to move for the return and suppression of the books, papers and affects seized therefrom.

In Jones vs. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court delineated the nature and extent of the
interest in the searched premises necessary to maintain a motion to suppress. After reviewing what
it considered to be the unduly technical standard of the then prevailing circuit court decisions, the
Supreme Court said (362 U.S. 266):

We do not lightly depart from this course of decisions by the lower courts. We are
persuaded, however, that it is unnecessarily and ill-advised to import into the law
surrounding the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
subtle distinctions, developed and refined by the common law in evolving the body of private
property law which, more than almost any other branch of law, has been shaped by
distinctions whose validity is largely historical. Even in the area from which they derive, due
consideration has led to the discarding of those distinctions in the homeland of the common
law. See Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957, 5 and 6 Eliz. 2, c. 31, carrying out Law Reform
Committee, Third Report, Cmd. 9305. Distinctions such as those between "lessee",
"licensee," "invitee," "guest," often only of gossamer strength, ought not be determinative in
fashioning procedures ultimately referable to constitutional safeguards. See also Chapman
vs. United States, 354 U.S. 610, 616-17 (1961).

It has never been held that a person with requisite interest in the premises searched must own the
property seized in order to have standing in a motion to return and suppress. In Alioto vs. United
States, 216 F. Supp. 48 (1963), a Bookkeeper for several corporations from whose apartment the
corporate records were seized successfully moved for their return. In United States vs. Antonelli,
Fireworks Co., 53 F. Supp. 870, 873 (W D. N. Y. 1943), the corporation's president successfully
moved for the return and suppression is to him of both personal and corporate documents seized
from his home during the course of an illegal search:

The lawful possession by Antonelli of documents and property, "either his own or the
corporation's was entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Under the
circumstances in the case at bar, the search and seizure were unreasonable and unlawful.
The motion for the return of seized article and the suppression of the evidence so obtained
should be granted. (Emphasis supplied).

Time was when only a person who had property in interest in either the place searched or the
articles seize had the necessary standing to invoke the protection of the exclusionary rule. But
in MacDonald vs. Unite States, 335 U.S. 461 (1948), Justice Robert Jackson joined by Justice Felix
Frankfurter, advanced the view that "even a guest may expect the shelter of the rooftree he is under
against criminal intrusion." This view finally became the official view of the U.S. Supreme Court and
was articulated in United States vs. Jeffers, 432 U.S 48 (1951). Nine years later, in 1960, in Jones
vs. Unite States, 362 U.S. 257, 267, the U.S. Supreme Court went a step further. Jones was a mere
guest in the apartment unlawfully searched but the Court nonetheless declared that the exclusionary
rule protected him as well. The concept of "person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure"
was enlarged to include "anyone legitimately on premise where the search occurs."

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's Jones decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
held that the defendant organizer, sole stockholder and president of a corporation had standing in a
mail fraud prosecution against him to demand the return and suppression of corporate
property. Henzel vs. United States, 296 F 2d 650, 652 (5th Cir. 1961), supra. The court conclude
that the defendant had standing on two independent grounds: First — he had a sufficient interest in
the property seized, and second — he had an adequate interest in the premises searched (just like
in the case at bar). A postal inspector had unlawfully searched the corporation' premises and had
seized most of the corporation's book and records. Looking to Jones, the court observed:

Jones clearly tells us, therefore, what is not required qualify one as a "person aggrieved by
an unlawful search and seizure." It tells us that appellant should not have been precluded
from objecting to the Postal Inspector's search and seizure of the corporation's books and
records merely because the appellant did not show ownership or possession of the books
and records or a substantial possessory interest in the invade premises . . . (Henzel vs.
United States, 296 F. 2d at 651). .

Henzel was soon followed by Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d 680, 683, (10th Cir. 1962).
In Villano, police officers seized two notebooks from a desk in the defendant's place of employment;
the defendant did not claim ownership of either; he asserted that several employees (including
himself) used the notebooks. The Court held that the employee had a protected interest and that
there also was an invasion of privacy. Both Henzel and Villanoconsidered also the fact that the
search and seizure were "directed at" the moving defendant. Henzel vs. United States, 296 F. 2d at
682; Villano vs. United States, 310 F. 2d at 683.

In a case in which an attorney closed his law office, placed his files in storage and went to Puerto
Rico, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized his standing to move to quash as
unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution a grand jury
subpoena duces tecum directed to the custodian of his files. The Government contended that the
petitioner had no standing because the books and papers were physically in the possession of the
custodian, and because the subpoena was directed against the custodian. The court rejected the
contention, holding that

Schwimmer legally had such possession, control and unrelinquished personal rights in the
books and papers as not to enable the question of unreasonable search and seizure to be
escaped through the mere procedural device of compelling a third-party naked possessor to
produce and deliver them. Schwimmer vs. United States, 232 F. 2d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 1956).

Aggrieved person doctrine where the search warrant s primarily directed against said person
gives "standing."

The latest United States decision squarely in point is United States vs. Birrell, 242 F. Supp. 191
(1965, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.). The defendant had stored with an attorney certain files and papers,
which attorney, by the name of Dunn, was not, at the time of the seizing of the records, Birrell's
attorney. * Dunn, in turn, had stored most of the records at his home in the country and on a farm
which, according to Dunn's affidavit, was under his (Dunn's) "control and management." The papers
turned out to be private, personal and business papers together with corporate books and records of
certain unnamed corporations in which Birrell did not even claim ownership. (All of these type
records were seized in the case at bar). Nevertheless, the search in Birrell was held invalid by the
court which held that even though Birrell did not own the premises where the records were stored,
he had "standing" to move for the return of all the papers and properties seized. The court, relying
on Jones vs. U.S., supra; U.S. vs. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 53 F. Supp. 870, Aff'd 155 F. 2d
631: Henzel vs. U.S., supra; and Schwimmer vs. U.S., supra, pointed out that

It is overwhelmingly established that the searches here in question were directed solely and
exclusively against Birrell. The only person suggested in the papers as having violated the
law was Birrell. The first search warrant described the records as having been used "in
committing a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, by the use of the mails
by one Lowell M. Birrell, . . ." The second search warrant was captioned: "United States of
America vs. Lowell M. Birrell. (p. 198)

Possession (actual or constructive), no less than ownership, gives standing to move to

suppress. Such was the rule even before Jones. (p. 199)

If, as thus indicated Birrell had at least constructive possession of the records stored with
Dunn, it matters not whether he had any interest in the premises searched. See also Jeffers
v. United States, 88 U.S. Appl. D.C. 58, 187 F. 2d 498 (1950), affirmed 432 U.S. 48, 72 S.
Ct. 93, 96 L. Ed. 459 (1951).

The ruling in the Birrell case was reaffirmed on motion for reargument; the United States did not
appeal from this decision. The factual situation in Birrell is strikingly similar to the case of the present
petitioners; as in Birrell, many personal and corporate papers were seized from premises not
petitioners' family residences; as in Birrell, the searches were "PRIMARILY DIRECTED SOLETY
AND EXCLUSIVELY" against the petitioners. Still both types of documents were suppressed
in Birrell because of the illegal search. In the case at bar, the petitioners connection with the
premises raided is much closer than in Birrell.

Thus, the petitioners have full standing to move for the quashing of all the warrants regardless
whether these were directed against residences in the narrow sense of the word, as long as the
documents were personal papers of the petitioners or (to the extent that they were corporate papers)
were held by them in a personal capacity or under their personal control.

Prescinding a from the foregoing, this Court, at all events, should order the return to the petitioners
all personaland private papers and effects seized, no matter where these were seized, whether from
their residences or corporate offices or any other place or places. The uncontradicted sworn
statements of the petitioners in their, various pleadings submitted to this Court indisputably show
that amongst the things seized from the corporate offices and other places
were personal and private papers and effects belonging to the petitioners.

If there should be any categorization of the documents, papers and things which where the objects
of the unlawful searches and seizures, I submit that the grouping should be:
(a) personal or private papers of the petitioners were they were unlawfully seized, be it their family
residences offices, warehouses and/or premises owned and/or possessed (actually or
constructively) by them as shown in all the search and in the sworn applications filed in securing the
void search warrants and (b) purely corporate papers belonging to corporations. Under such
categorization or grouping, the determination of which unlawfully seized papers, documents and
things arepersonal/private of the petitioners or purely corporate papers will have to be left to the
lower courts which issued the void search warrants in ultimately effecting the suppression and/or
return of the said documents.
And as unequivocally indicated by the authorities above cited, the petitioners likewise have clear
legal standing to move for the suppression of purely corporate papers as "President and/or General
Manager" of the corporations involved as specifically mentioned in the void search warrants.

Finally, I must articulate my persuasion that although the cases cited in my disquisition were criminal
prosecutions, the great clauses of the constitutional proscription on illegal searches and seizures do
not withhold the mantle of their protection from cases not criminal in origin or nature.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120095. August 5, 1996]

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. MA. NIEVES CONFESSOR, then Secretary of
the Department of the Labor and Employment, HON. JOSE
BRILLANTES, in his capacity as acting Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment and HON. FELICISIMO
JOSON, in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, respondents.
 DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:

The limits of government regulation under the State's Police Power are
once again at the vortex of the instant controversy.Assailed is the
government's power to control deployment of female entertainers to Japan by
requiring an Artist Record Book (ARB) as a precondition to the processing by
the POEA of any contract for overseas employment. By contending that the
right to overseas employment, is a property right within the meaning of the
Constitution, petitioners vigorously aver that deprivation thereof allegedly
through the onerous requirement of an ARB violates the due process clause
and constitutes an invalid exercise of the police power.
The factual antecedents are undisputed.
Following the much-publicized death of Maricris Sioson in 1991, former
President Corazon C. Aquino ordered a total ban against the deployment of
performing artists to Japan and other foreign destinations. The ban was,
however, rescinded after leaders of the overseas employment industry
promised to extend full support for a program aimed at removing kinks in the
system of deployment. In its place, the government, through the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, subsequently issued Department Order No. 28,
creating the Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC), which was
tasked with issuing guidelines on the training, testing certification and
deployment of performing artists abroad.
Pursuant to the EIAC's recommendations, the Secretary of Labor, on
[1]

January 6, 1994, issued Department Order No. 3 establishing various

procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new
system of training, testing, certification and deployment of the
former. Performing artists successfully hurdling the test, training and
certification requirement were to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), a
necessary prerequisite to processing of any contract of employment by the
POEA. Upon request of the industry, implementation of the process, originally
scheduled for April 1, 1994, was moved to October 1, 1994.
Thereafter, the Department of Labor, following the EIAC's
recommendation, issued a series of orders fine-tuning and implementing the
new system. Prominent among these orders were the following issuances:

1. Department Order No. 3-A, providing for additional guidelines on the training,
testing, certification and deployment of performing artists.
2. Department Order No. 3-B, pertaining to the Artist Record Book (ARB)
requirement, which could be processed only after the artist could show proof of
academic and skills training and has passed the required tests.

3. Department Order No. 3-E, providing the minimum salary a performing artist ought
to receive (not less than US$600.00 for those bound for Japan) and the authorized
deductions therefrom.

4. Department Order No. 3-F, providing for the guidelines on the issuance and use of
the ARB by returning performing artists who, unlike new artists, shall only undergo a
Special Orientation Program (shorter than the basic program) although they must pass
the academic test.

In Civil Case No. 95-72750, the Federation of Entertainment Talent

Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP), on January 27, 1995 filed a class suit
assailing these department orders, principally contending that said orders 1)
violated the constitutional right to travel; 2) abridged existing contracts for
employment; and 3) deprived individual artists of their licenses without due
process of law. FETMOP, likewise, averred that the issuance of the Artist
Record Book (ARB) was discriminatory and illegal and "in gross violation of
the constitutional right... to life liberty and property." Said Federation
consequently prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against
the aforestated orders.
On February 2, 1992, JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. and Kary
International, Inc., herein petitioners, filed a Motion for Intervention in said civil
case, which was granted by the trial court in an Order dated 15 February,
1995.
However, on February 21, 1995, the trial court issued an Order denying
petitioners' prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the
complaint.
On appeal from the trial court's Order, respondent court, in CA G.R. SP
No. 36713 dismissed the same. Tracing the circumstances which led to the
issuance of the ARB requirement and the assailed Department Order,
respondent court concluded that the issuances constituted a valid exercise by
the state of the police power.
We agree.
The latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex embodies the character of
the entire spectrum of public laws aimed at promoting the general welfare of
the people under the State's police power. As an inherent attribute of
sovereignty which virtually "extends to all public needs," this "least [2]

limitable" of governmental powers grants a wide panoply of instruments

[3]

through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect to a host of its
regulatory powers.
Describing the nature and scope of the police power, Justice Malcolm, in
the early case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro wrote:[4]

"The police power of the State," one court has said...'is a power coextensive with self-
protection, and is not inaptly termed 'the law of overruling necessity.' It may be said to
be that inherent and plenary power in the state which enables it to prohibit all things
hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.' Carried onward by the current of
legislature, the judiciary rarely attempts to dam the onrushing power of legislative
discretion, provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that
mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the
individual." [5]

Thus, police power concerns government enactments which precisely

interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare or the common good. As the assailed Department Order enjoys a
presumed validity, it follows that the burden rests upon petitioners to
demonstrate that the said order, particularly, its ARB requirement, does not
enhance the public welfare or was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
A thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading to the issuance
of the assailed orders compels us to rule that the Artist Record Book
requirement and the questioned Department Order related to its issuance
were issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of the
police power.
In 1984, the Philippines emerged as the largest labor sending country in
Asia dwarfing the labor export of countries with mammoth populations such as
India and China. According to the National Statistics Office, this diaspora was
augmented annually by over 450,000 documented and clandestine or illegal
(undocumented) workers who left the country for various destinations abroad,
lured by higher salaries, better work opportunities and sometimes better living
conditions.
Of the hundreds of thousands of workers who left the country for greener
pastures in the last few years, women composed slightly close to half of those
deployed, constituting 47% between 1987-1991, exceeding this proportion
(58%) by the end of 1991, the year former President Aquino instituted the
[6]

ban on deployment of performing artists to Japan and other countries as a

result of the gruesome death of Filipino entertainer Maricris Sioson.
 It was during the same period that this Court took judicial notice not only of
the trend, but also of the fact that most of our women, a large number
employed as domestic helpers and entertainers, worked under exploitative
conditions "marked by physical and personal abuse." Even then, we noted
[7]

that "[t]he sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers,

even rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning
workers" compelled "urgent government action." [8]

Pursuant to the alarming number of reports that a significant number of

Filipina performing artists ended up as prostitutes abroad (many of whom
were beaten, drugged and forced into prostitution), and following the deaths of
a number of these women, the government began instituting measures aimed
at deploying only those individuals who met set standards which would qualify
them as legitimate performing artists. In spite of these measures, however, a
number of our countrymen have nonetheless fallen victim to unscrupulous
recruiters, ending up as virtual slaves controlled by foreign crime syndicates
and forced into jobs other than those indicated in their employment
contracts. Worse, some of our women have been forced into prostitution.
Thus, after a number of inadequate and failed accreditation schemes, the
Secretary of Labor issued on August 16, 1993, D.O. No. 28, establishing the
Entertainment Industry Advisory Council (EIAC), the policy advisory body of
DOLE on entertainment industry matters. Acting on the recommendations of
[9]

the said body, the Secretary of Labor, on January 6, 1994, issued the assailed
orders. These orders embodied EIAC's Resolution No. 1, which called for
guidelines on screening, testing and accrediting performing overseas Filipino
artists. Significantly, as the respondent court noted, petitioners were duly
represented in the EIAC, which gave the recommendations on which the
[10]

ARB and other requirements were based.

Clearly, the welfare of Filipino performing artists, particularly the women
was paramount in the issuance of Department Order No. 3. Short of a total
and absolute ban against the deployment of performing artists to "high risk"
destinations, a measure which would only drive recruitment further
underground, the new scheme at the very least rationalizes the method of
screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational and artistic
skills from them and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately
prepared for the unpredictable demands of employment as artists abroad. It
cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least lessens the room for exploitation
by unscrupulous individuals and agencies.
Moreover, here or abroad, selection of performing artists is usually
accomplished by auditions, where those deemed unfit are usually weeded out
through a process which is inherently subjective and vulnerable to bias and
differences in taste. The ARB requirement goes one step further, however,
attempting to minimize the subjectivity of the process by defining the minimum
skills required from entertainers and performing artists. As the Solicitor
General observed, this should be easily met by experienced artists
possessing merely basic skills. The tests are aimed at segregating real artists
or performers from those passing themselves off as such, eager to accept any
available job and therefore exposing themselves to possible exploitation.
As to the other provisions of Department Order No. 3 questioned by
petitioners, we see nothing wrong with the requirement for document and
booking confirmation (D.O. 3-C), a minimum salary scale (D.O. 3-E), or the
requirement for registration of returning performers. The requirement for a
venue certificate or other documents evidencing the place and nature of work
allows the government closer monitoring of foreign employers and helps keep
our entertainers away from prostitution fronts and other worksites associated
with unsavory, immoral, illegal or exploitative practices. Parenthetically, none
of these issuances appear to us, by any stretch of the imagination, even
remotely unreasonable or arbitrary. They address a felt need of according
greater protection for an oft-exploited segment of our OCW's. They respond to
the industry's demand for clearer and more practicable rules and
guidelines. Many of these provisions were fleshed out following
recommendations by, and after consultations with, the affected sectors and
non-government organizations. On the whole, they are aimed at enhancing
the safety and security of entertainers and artists bound for Japan and other
destinations, without stifling the industry's concerns for expansion and growth.
In any event, apart from the State's police power, the Constitution itself
mandates government to extend the fullest protection to our overseas
workers. The basic constitutional statement on labor, embodied in Section 18
of Article II of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
rights of workers and promote their welfare.

More emphatically, the social justice provision on labor of the 1987

Constitution in its first paragraph states:
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
Obviously, protection to labor does not indicate promotion of employment
alone. Under the welfare and social justice provisions of the Constitution, the
promotion of full employment, while desirable, cannot take a backseat to the
government's constitutional duty to provide mechanisms for the protection of
our workforce, local or overseas. As this Court explained inPhilippine
Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) v. Drilon, in reference to the
[11]

recurring problems faced by our overseas workers:

What concerns the Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be

above all, decent, just, and humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send its
sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs
at home. Under these circumstances, the Government is duty-bound to insure that our
toiling expatriates have adequate protection, personally and economically, while away
from home.

We now go to petitioners' assertion that the police power cannot,

nevertheless, abridge the right of our performing workers to return to work
abroad after having earlier qualified under the old process, because, having
previously been accredited, their accreditation became a property right,"
protected by the due process clause. We find this contention untenable.
A profession, trade or calling is a property right within the meaning of our
constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and the
right to make a living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary
and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable
wrong. [12]

Nevertheless, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a

profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate
subject of a valid exercise of the police power by the state particularly when
their conduct affects either the execution of legitimate governmental functions,
the preservation of the State, the public health and welfare and public
morals. According to the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, it must
of course be within the legitimate range of legislative action to define the
mode and manner in which every one may so use his own property so as not
to pose injury to himself or others. [13]

In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of
property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much
wider. To pretend that licensing or accreditation requirements violates the
[14]

due process clause is to ignore the settled practice, under the mantle of the
police power, of regulating entry to the practice of various trades or
professions. Professionals leaving for abroad are required to pass rigid written
and practical exams before they are deemed fit to practice their
trade. Seamen are required to take tests determining their
seamanship. Locally, the Professional Regulation Commission has began to
require previously licensed doctors and other professionals to furnish
documentary proof that they had either re-trained or had undertaken
continuing education courses as a requirement for renewal of their licenses.It
is not claimed that these requirements pose an unwarranted deprivation of a
property right under the due process clause. So long as Professionals and
other workers meet reasonable regulatory standards no such deprivation
exists.
Finally, it is a futile gesture on the part of petitioners to invoke the non-
impairment clause of the Constitution to support their argument that the
government cannot enact the assailed regulatory measures because they
abridge the freedom to contract. In Philippine Association of Service
Exporters, Inc. vs. Drilon, we held that "[t]he non-impairment clause of the
Constitution... must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the
government." Equally important, into every contract is read provisions of
[15]

existing law, and always, a reservation of the police power for so long as the
agreement deals with a subject impressed with the public welfare.
A last point. Petitioners suggest that the singling out of entertainers and
performing artists under the assailed department orders constitutes class
legislation which violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. We
do not agree.
The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and
individual or class privilege. It is not intended to prohibit legislation which is
limited to the object to which it is directed or by the territory in which it is to
operate. It does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be
treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
imposed. We have held, time and again, that the equal protection clause of
[16]

the Constitution does not forbid classification for so long as such classification
is based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to
the subject of the particular legislation. If classification is germane to the
[17]

purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to
present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal
protection guarantee.
In the case at bar, the challenged Department Order clearly applies to all
performing artists and entertainers destined for jobs abroad. These orders, we
stressed hereinbefore, further the Constitutional mandate requiring
Government to protect our workforce, particularly those who may be prone to
abuse and exploitation as they are beyond the physical reach of government
regulatory agencies. The tragic incidents must somehow stop, but short of
absolutely curtailing the right of these performers and entertainers to work
abroad, the assailed measures enable our government to assume a measure
of control.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision sought to be
reviewed, petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE HERCULANO TECH, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 70,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BINANGONAN RIZAL; FLEET DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
CARLITO ARROYO; THE MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B.
PACIS, respondents.
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE AURELIO C. TRAMPE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 163,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG; MANILA MARINE LIFE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.
represented by, MR. TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO; MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG, METRO
MANILA and/or MAYOR RICARDO D. PAPA, JR., respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ALEJANDRO A. MARQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE,
BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; GREENFIELD VENTURES
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and R. J. ORION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE LA
VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
162, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; IRMA FISHING & TRADING
CORP.; ARTM FISHING CORP.; BDR CORPORATION, MIRT CORPORATION and TRIM
CORPORATION; MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B.
PACIS, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; BLUE LAGOON FISHING CORP. and ALCRIS
CHICKEN GROWERS, INC.; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR WALFREDO M. DE
LA VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE ARTURO A. MARAVE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MORONG, RIZAL; AGP FISH VENTURES, INC., represented by
its PRESIDENT ALFONSO PUYAT; MUNICIPALITY OF JALA-JALA and/or MAYOR
WALFREDO M. DE LA VEGA, respondents.

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS; HON. JUDGE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
161, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA; SEA MAR TRADING CO. INC.;
EASTERN LAGOON FISHING CORP.; MINAMAR FISHING CORP.; MUNICIPALITY OF
BINANGONAN and/or MAYOR ISIDRO B. PACIS,respondents.

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

It is difficult for a man, scavenging on the garbage dump created by affluence and profligate
consumption and extravagance of the rich or fishing in the murky waters of the Pasig River and the
Laguna Lake or making a clearing in the forest so that he can produce food for his family, to
understand why protecting birds, fish, and trees is more important than protecting him and keeping
his family alive.

How do we strike a balance between environmental protection, on the one hand, and the individual
personal interests of people, on the other?

Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable development,
Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority." This Government Agency
is supposed to carry out and effectuate the aforesaid declared policy, so as to accelerate the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces, cities
and towns, in the act clearly named, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies
for social and economic development.

Presidential Decree No. 813 of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos amended certain sections of
Republic Act No. 4850 because of the concern for the rapid expansion of Metropolitan Manila, the
suburbs and the lakeshore towns of Laguna de Bay, combined with current and prospective uses of
the lake for municipal-industrial water supply, irrigation, fisheries, and the like. Concern on the part of
the Government and the general public over: — the environment impact of development on the
water quality and ecology of the lake and its related river systems; the inflow of polluted water from
the Pasig River, industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes from developed areas around the lake;
the increasing urbanization which induced the deterioration of the lake, since water quality studies
have shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same; and the
floods in Metropolitan Manila area and the lakeshore towns which will influence the hydraulic system
of Laguna de Bay, since any scheme of controlling the floods will necessarily involve the lake and its
river systems, — likewise gave impetus to the creation of the Authority.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4850 was amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the national policy to

promote, and accelerate the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake
area and the surrounding provinces, cities and towns hereinafter referred to as the
region, within the context of the national and regional plans and policies for social
and economic development and to carry out the development of the Laguna Lake
region with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and
control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the
prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution.1

Special powers of the Authority, pertinent to the issues in this case, include:

Sec. 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby further amended by adding thereto seven
new paragraphs to be known as paragraphs (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), and (p) which
shall read as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(j) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to

engage in fish production and other aqua-culture projects in Laguna
de Bay and other bodies of water within its jurisdiction and in
pursuance thereof to conduct studies and make experiments,
whenever necessary, with the collaboration and assistance of the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, with the end in view of
improving present techniques and practices. Provided, that until
 modified, altered or amended by the procedure provided in the
following sub-paragraph, the present laws, rules and permits or
authorizations remain in force;

(k) For the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities

in Laguna de Bay,the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue new permit for the use of the lake waters for any projects or
activities in or affecting the said lake including navigation,
construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals
and the like, and to impose necessary safeguards for lake quality
control and management and to collect necessary fees for said
activities and projects: Provided, That the fees collected for fisheries
may be shared between the Authority and other government
agencies and political sub-divisions in such proportion as may be
determined by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation
of the Authority's Board: Provided, further, That the Authority's Board
may determine new areas of fishery development or activities which it
may place under the supervision of the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources taking into account the overall development plans
and programs for Laguna de Bay and related bodies of
water: Provided, finally, That the Authority shall subject to the
approval of the President of the Philippines promulgate such rules
and regulations which shall govern fisheries development activities in
Laguna de Bay which shall take into consideration among others the
following: socio-economic amelioration of bonafide resident fishermen
whether individually or collectively in the form of cooperatives,
lakeshore town development, a master plan for fishpen construction
and operation, communal fishing ground for lake shore town
residents, and preference to lake shore town residents in hiring
laborer for fishery projects;

(l) To require the cities and municipalities embraced within the region
to pass appropriate zoning ordinances and other regulatory measures
necessary to carry out the objectives of the Authority and enforce the
same with the assistance of the Authority;

(m) The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, to

exercise water rights over public waters within the Laguna de Bay
region whenever necessary to carry out the Authority's projects;

(n) To act in coordination with existing governmental agencies in

establishing water quality standards for industrial, agricultural and
municipal waste discharges into the lake and to cooperate with said
existing agencies of the government of the Philippines in enforcing
such standards, or to separately pursue enforcement and penalty
actions as provided for in Section 4 (d) and Section 39-A of this
Act: Provided, That in case of conflict on the appropriate water quality
standard to be enforced such conflict shall be resolved thru the NEDA
Board.2

To more effectively perform the role of the Authority under Republic Act No. 4850, as though
Presidential Decree No. 813 were not thought to be completely effective, the Chief Executive, feeling
that the land and waters of the Laguna Lake Region are limited natural resources requiring judicious
management to their optimal utilization to insure renewability and to preserve the ecological balance,
the competing options for the use of such resources and conflicting jurisdictions over such uses
having created undue constraints on the institutional capabilities of the Authority in the light of the
limited powers vested in it by its charter, Executive Order No. 927 further defined and enlarged the
functions and powers of the Authority and named and enumerated the towns, cities and provinces
encompassed by the term "Laguna de Bay Region".

Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are the following provisions of Executive Order No. 927
which include in particular the sharing of fees:

Sec 2. Water Rights Over Laguna de Bay and Other Bodies of Water within the Lake
Region: To effectively regulate and monitor activities in the Laguna de Bay region,
the Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permit for the use of all surface
water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said region including navigation,
construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and the like.

For the purpose of this Executive Order, the term "Laguna de Bay Region" shall refer
to the Provinces of Rizal and Laguna; the Cities of San Pablo, Pasay, Caloocan,
Quezon, Manila and Tagaytay; the towns of Tanauan, Sto. Tomas and Malvar in
Batangas Province; the towns of Silang and Carmona in Cavite Province; the town of
Lucban in Quezon Province; and the towns of Marikina, Pasig, Taguig, Muntinlupa,
and Pateros in Metro Manila.

Sec 3. Collection of Fees. The Authority is hereby empowered to collect fees for the
use of the lake water and its tributaries for all beneficial purposes including but not
limited to fisheries, recreation, municipal, industrial, agricultural, navigation, irrigation,
and waste disposal purpose; Provided, that the rates of the fees to be collected, and
the sharing with other government agencies and political subdivisions, if necessary,
shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines upon
recommendation of the Authority's Board, except fishpen fee, which will be shared in
the following manner; 20 percent of the fee shall go to the lakeshore local
governments, 5 percent shall go to the Project Development Fund which shall be
administered by a Council and the remaining 75 percent shall constitute the share of
LLDA. However, after the implementation within the three-year period of the Laguna
Lake Fishery Zoning and Management Plan, the sharing will be modified as
follows: 35 percent of the fishpen fee goes to the lakeshore local governments, 5
percent goes to the Project Development Fund and the remaining 60 percent shall be
retained by LLDA; Provided, however, that the share of LLDA shall form part of its
corporate funds and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury as an exception to
the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1234. (Emphasis supplied)

It is important to note that Section 29 of Presidential Decree No. 813 defined the term "Laguna Lake"
in this manner:

Sec 41. Definition of Terms.

(11) Laguna Lake or Lake. Whenever Laguna Lake or lake is used in this Act, the
same shall refer to Laguna de Bay which is that area covered by the lake water when
it is at the average annual maximum lake level of elevation 12.50 meters, as referred
to a datum 10.00 meters below mean lower low water (M.L.L.W). Lands located at
and below such elevation are public lands which form part of the bed of said lake.
Then came Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipalities in the
Laguna Lake Region interpreted the provisions of this law to mean that the newly passed law gave
municipal governments the exclusive jurisdiction to issue fishing privileges within their municipal
waters because R.A. 7160 provides:

Sec. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges.

(a) Municipalities shall have the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in the
municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefor in accordance with the
provisions of this Section.

(b) The Sangguniang Bayan may:

(1) Grant fishing privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussel or

other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone of the
municipal waters, as determined by it; . . . .

(2) Grant privilege to gather, take or catch bangus fry, prawn fry
or kawag-kawag or fry of other species and fish from the municipal
waters by nets, traps or other fishing gears to marginal fishermen free
from any rental fee, charges or any other imposition whatsoever.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 447. Power, Duties, Functions and Compensation. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(XI) Subject to the provisions of Book II of this Code, grant exclusive

privileges of constructing fish corrals or fishpens, or the taking or
catching of bangus fry, prawn fry orkawag-kawag or fry of any
species or fish within the municipal waters.

xxx xxx xxx

Municipal governments thereupon assumed the authority to issue fishing privileges and fishpen
permits. Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens and fishcages to
the consternation of the Authority. Unregulated fishpens and fishcages, as of July, 1995, occupied
almost one-third of the entire lake water surface area, increasing the occupation drastically from
7,000 hectares in 1990 to almost 21,000 hectares in 1995. The Mayor's permit to construct fishpens
and fishcages were all undertaken in violation of the policies adopted by the Authority on fishpen
zoning and the Laguna Lake carrying capacity.

To be sure, the implementation by the lakeshore municipalities of separate independent policies in

the operation of fishpens and fishcages within their claimed territorial municipal waters in the lake
and their indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits have already saturated the lake area with fishpens,
thereby aggravating the current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Authority served notice to the general public that:
 In compliance with the instructions of His Excellency PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS
given on June 23, 1993 at Pila, Laguna pursuant to Republic Act 4850 as amended
by Presidential Decree 813 and Executive Order 927 series of 1983 and in line with
the policies and programs of the Presidential Task Force on Illegal Fishpens and
Illegal Fishing, the general public is hereby notified that:

1. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in the Laguna de Bay
Region, which were not registered or to which no application for registration and/or
permit has been filed with Laguna Lake Development Authority as of March 31, 1993
are hereby declared outrightly as illegal.

2. All fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures so declared as illegal

shall be subject to demolition which shall be undertaken by the Presidential Task
Force for Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing.

3. Owners of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as

illegal shall, without prejudice to demolition of their structures be criminally charged in
accordance with Section 39-A of Republic Act 4850 as amended by P.D. 813 for
violation of the same laws. Violations of these laws carries a penalty of imprisonment
of not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos or both at the
discretion of the court.

All operators of fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures declared as

illegal in accordance with the foregoing Notice shall have one (1) month on or before
27 October 1993 to show cause before the LLDA why their said fishpens, fishcages
and other aqua-culture structures should not be demolished/dismantled.

One month, thereafter, the Authority sent notices to the concerned owners of the illegally
constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to dismantle their
respective structures within 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise, demolition shall be effected.

Reacting thereto, the affected fishpen owners filed injunction cases against the Authority before
various regional trial courts, to wit: (a) Civil Case No. 759-B, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal, filed by Fleet Development, Inc. and Carlito
Arroyo; (b) Civil Case No. 64049, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig, filed by
IRMA Fishing and Trading Corp., ARTM Fishing Corp., BDR Corp., MIRT Corp. and TRIM Corp.; (c)
Civil Case No. 566, for Declaratory Relief and Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, Pasig,
filed by Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc. and Tobias Reynaldo M. Tianco; (d) Civil Case
No. 556-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal,
filed by AGP Fishing Ventures, Inc.; (e) Civil Case No. 522-M, for Prohibition, Injunction and
Damages, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, filed by Blue Lagoon and Alcris Chicken
Growers, Inc.; (f) Civil Case No. 554-, for Certiorari and Prohibition, Regional Trial Court, Branch 79,
Morong, Rizal, filed by Greenfields Ventures Industrial Corp. and R.J. Orion Development Corp.; and
(g) Civil Case No. 64124, for Injunction, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Pasig, filed by SEA-MAR
Trading Co., Inc. and Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corp. and Minamar Fishing Corporation.

The Authority filed motions to dismiss the cases against it on jurisdictional grounds. The motions to
dismiss were invariably denied. Meanwhile, temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary
mandatory injunction were issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64124, 759 and 566 enjoining the Authority
from demolishing the fishpens and similar structures in question.
Hence, the herein petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, were filed
by the Authority with this court. Impleaded as parties-respondents are concerned regional trial courts
and respective private parties, and the municipalities and/or respective Mayors of Binangonan,
Taguig and Jala-jala, who issued permits for the construction and operation of fishpens in Laguna de
Bay. The Authority sought the following reliefs,viz.:

(A) Nullification of the temporary restraining order/writs of preliminary injunction

issued in Civil Cases Nos. 64125, 759 and 566;

(B) Permanent prohibition against the regional trial courts from exercising jurisdiction
over cases involving the Authority which is a co-equal body;

(C) Judicial pronouncement that R.A. 7610 (Local Government Code of 1991) did not
repeal, alter or modify the provisions of R.A. 4850, as amended, empowering the
Authority to issue permits for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures in
Laguna de Bay and that, the Authority the government agency vested with exclusive
authority to issue said permits.

By this Court's resolution of May 2, 1994, the Authority's consolidated petitions were referred to the
Court of Appeals.

In a Decision, dated June 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Authority's consolidated
petitions, the Court of Appeals holding that: (A) LLDA is not among those quasi-judicial agencies of
government whose decision or order are appealable only to the Court of Appeals; (B) the LLDA
charter does vest LLDA with quasi-judicial functions insofar as fishpens are concerned; (C) the
provisions of the LLDA charter insofar as fishing privileges in Laguna de Bay are concerned had
been repealed by the Local Government Code of 1991; (D) in view of the aforesaid repeal, the
power to grant permits devolved to and is now vested with their respective local government units
concerned.

Not satisfied with the Court of Appeals decision, the Authority has returned to this Court charging the
following errors:

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PROBABLY COMMITTED AN ERROR

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS
NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY.

2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR

WHEN IT RULED THAT R.A. 4850 AS AMENDED BY P.D. 813 AND E.O. 927
SERIES OF 1983 HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7160. THE SAID
RULING IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES AND JURISPRUDENCE
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE FISHPEN PERMITS IN LAGUNA
DE BAY HAS BEEN DEVOLVED TO CONCERNED (LAKESHORE) LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS.

We take a simplistic view of the controversy. Actually, the main and only issue posed is: Which
agency of the Government — the Laguna Lake Development Authority or the towns and
municipalities comprising the region — should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and its
environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?
Section 4 (k) of the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 813, and Section 2 of Executive Order No. 927, cited above,
specifically provide that the Laguna Lake Development Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or activities in or affecting the said
region, including navigation, construction, and operation of fishpens, fish enclosures, fish corrals and
the like. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, has
granted to the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters.
The Sangguniang Bayan may grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels or other
aquatic beds or bangus fry area within a definite zone of the municipal waters.

We hold that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 do not necessarily repeal the aforementioned
laws creating the Laguna Lake Development Authority and granting the latter water rights authority
over Laguna de Bay and the lake region.

The Local Government Code of 1991 does not contain any express provision which categorically
expressly repeal the charter of the Authority. It has to be conceded that there was no intent on the
part of the legislature to repeal Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendments. The repeal of laws
should be made clear and expressed.

It has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority constitutes a
special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, is a general law. It is basic
in statutory construction that the enactment of a later legislation which is a general law cannot be
construed to have repealed a special law. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special
statute, provided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute,
general in its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest,
although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the
special law."3

Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The special law is
to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special circumstances forcing a
contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not favored and as much as possible, effect
must be given to all enactments of the legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or
altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication.4

Thus, it has to be concluded that the charter of the Authority should prevail over the Local
Government Code of 1991.

Considering the reasons behind the establishment of the Authority, which are environmental
protection, navigational safety, and sustainable development, there is every indication that the
legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with its mission.

We are on all fours with the manifestation of petitioner Laguna Lake Development Authority that
"Laguna de Bay, like any other single body of water has its own unique natural ecosystem. The 900
km² lake surface water, the eight (8) major river tributaries and several other smaller rivers that drain
into the lake, the 2,920 km² basin or watershed transcending the boundaries of Laguna and Rizal
provinces, greater portion of Metro Manila, parts of Cavite, Batangas, and Quezon provinces,
constitute one integrated delicate natural ecosystem that needs to be protected with uniform set of
policies; if we are to be serious in our aims of attaining sustainable development. This is an
exhaustible natural resource — a very limited one — which requires judicious management and
optimal utilization to ensure renewability and preserve its ecological integrity and balance."
"Managing the lake resources would mean the implementation of a national policy geared towards
the protection, conservation, balanced growth and sustainable development of the region with due
regard to the inter-generational use of its resources by the inhabitants in this part of the earth. The
authors of Republic Act 4850 have foreseen this need when they passed this LLDA law — the
special law designed to govern the management of our Laguna de Bay lake resources."

"Laguna de Bay therefore cannot be subjected to fragmented concepts of management policies

where lakeshore local government units exercise exclusive dominion over specific portions of the
lake water. The garbage thrown or sewage discharged into the lake, abstraction of water therefrom
or construction of fishpens by enclosing its certain area, affect not only that specific portion but the
entire 900 km² of lake water. The implementation of a cohesive and integrated lake water resource
management policy, therefore, is necessary to conserve, protect and sustainably develop Laguna de
Bay."5

The power of the local government units to issue fishing privileges was clearly granted for revenue
purposes. This is evident from the fact that Section 149 of the New Local Government Code
empowering local governments to issue fishing permits is embodied in Chapter 2, Book II, of
Republic Act No. 7160 under the heading, "Specific Provisions On The Taxing And Other Revenue
Raising Power Of Local Government Units."

On the other hand, the power of the Authority to grant permits for fishpens, fishcages and other
aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating and monitoring activities in the
Laguna de Bay region (Section 2, Executive Order No. 927) and for lake quality control and
management.6 It does partake of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive, the least
limitable and the most demanding of all State powers including the power of taxation. Accordingly,
the charter of the Authority which embodies a valid exercise of police power should prevail over the
Local Government Code of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de Bay.

There should be no quarrel over permit fees for fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture
structures in the Laguna de Bay area. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 927 provides for the proper
sharing of fees collected.

In respect to the question as to whether the Authority is a quasi-judicial agency or not, it is our
holding that, considering the provisions of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 4850 and Section 4 of
Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, and the ruling of this Court in Laguna Lake Development
Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 304, 306, which we quote:

xxx xxx xxx

As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the

Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special law provides
for another forum. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a
specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No.
4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national
policy of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the
Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities
of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan with due regard and adequate
provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of
human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological
disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant of power and
authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to
protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of
 pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. In
carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among
others, to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects
proposed by local government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations,
and private persons or enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects are
related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . . While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such

powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an
administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the
exercise of its express powers. In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers
under its charter, as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution
cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and
desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless"
paper agency.

there is no question that the Authority has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial
body in respect to pollution cases with authority to issue a "cease and desist order" and on
matters affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture
structures in Laguna de Bay. The Authority's pretense, however, that it is co-equal to the
Regional Trial Courts such that all actions against it may only be instituted before the Court
of Appeals cannot be sustained. On actions necessitating the resolution of legal questions
affecting the powers of the Authority as provided for in its charter, the Regional Trial Courts
have jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Section 149 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended. Thus, the Authority has
the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to
the exclusion of municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by
its charter vested on it.

Removal from the Authority of the aforesaid licensing authority will render nugatory its avowed
purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake Region. Otherwise stated, the abrogation of
this power would render useless its reason for being and will in effect denigrate, if not abolish, the
Laguna Lake Development Authority. This, the Local Government Code of 1991 had never intended
to do.

WHEREFORE, the petitions for prohibition, certiorari and injunction are hereby granted, insofar as
they relate to the authority of the Laguna Lake Development Authority to grant fishing privileges
within the Laguna Lake Region.

The restraining orders and/or writs of injunction issued by Judge Arturo Marave, RTC, Branch 78,
Morong, Rizal; Judge Herculano Tech, RTC, Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal; and Judge Aurelio
Trampe, RTC, Branch 163, Pasig, Metro Manila, are hereby declared null and void and ordered set
aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The Municipal Mayors of the Laguna Lake Region are hereby prohibited from issuing permits to
construct and operate fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures within the Laguna Lake
Region, their previous issuances being declared null and void. Thus, the fishing permits issued by
Mayors Isidro B. Pacis, Municipality of Binangonan; Ricardo D. Papa, Municipality of Taguig; and
Walfredo M. de la Vega, Municipality of Jala-jala, specifically, are likewise declared null and void and
ordered cancelled.

The fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures put up by operators by virtue of permits
issued by Municipal Mayors within the Laguna Lake Region, specifically, permits issued to Fleet
Development, Inc. and Carlito Arroyo; Manila Marine Life Business Resources, Inc., represented by,
Mr. Tobias Reynald M. Tiangco; Greenfield Ventures Industrial Development Corporation and R.J.
Orion Development Corporation; IRMA Fishing And Trading Corporation, ARTM Fishing
Corporation, BDR Corporation, Mirt Corporation and Trim Corporation; Blue Lagoon Fishing
Corporation and ALCRIS Chicken Growers, Inc.; AGP Fish Ventures, Inc., represented by its
President Alfonso Puyat; SEA MAR Trading Co., Inc., Eastern Lagoon Fishing Corporation, and
MINAMAR Fishing Corporation, are hereby declared illegal structures subject to demolition by the
Laguna Lake Development Authority.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring:

I fully concur with the decision written by Mr. Justice R. Hermosisima, Jr.. I would only like to stress
what the decision already states, i.e., that the local government units in the Laguna Lake area are
not precluded from imposing permits on fishery operations for revenue raising purposes of such local
government units. In other words, while the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not
projects or activities in the lake area should be allowed, as well as their regulation, is with the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, once the Authority grants a permit, the permittee may still be
subjected to an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes of the local government units
concerned. This approach would clearly harmonize the special law, Rep. Act No. 4850, as amended,
with Rep. Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code. It will also enable small towns and
municipalities in the lake area, like Jala-Jala, to rise to some level of economic viability.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., concurring:

I fully concur with the decision written by Mr. Justice R. Hermosisima, Jr.. I would only like to stress
what the decision already states, i.e., that the local government units in the Laguna Lake area are
not precluded from imposing permits on fishery operations for revenue raising purposes of such local
government units. In other words, while the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not
projects or activities in the lake area should be allowed, as well as their regulation, is with the
Laguna Lake Development Authority, once the Authority grants a permit, the permittee may still be
subjected to an additional local permit or license for revenue purposes of the local government units
concerned. This approach would clearly harmonize the special law, Rep. Act No. 4850, as amended,
with Rep. Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code. It will also enable small towns and
municipalities in the lake area, like Jala-Jala, to rise to some level of economic viability.