Preface The year 1998 marks a transition in our political history.

On June 30, 1998, Fidel Valdez amos !inished his term as chie! e"ecuti#e o! the country, and Joseph $%ercito $strada succeeded him. &on'ress, too, elected ne( leaders, namely, )arcelo *. Fernan +a !ormer &hie! Justice, as -enate .resident and )anuel V. Villar Jr. as -peaker o! the /ouse o! epresentati#es. 0ater in the year, the %udiciary, too, (ill e"perience a chan'e o! headship (hen 1ndres . 2ar#asa reaches the compulsory retirement a'e o! 30 on 2o#em4er 30, 1998. *y e"press constitutional mandate, the .resident (ill ha#e to appoint his successor (ithin ninety days !rom 2o#em4er 30, 1998, !rom a list o! nominees to 4e su4mitted 4y the Judicial and *ar &ouncil. On Octo4er 10, 1998, 5 too (ill mark a milestone 66 my third year as a mem4er o! the hi'hest court o! the land.1718 To commemorate the occasion, 5 decided to (rite this little 4ook to report on my (ork as a %urist, (ith emphasis on the 94attles: in the -upreme &ourt, in (hich 5 had acti#ely participated durin' the !irst three years o! my incum4ency. 1nd 4ecause a ne( &hie! Justice (ill 4e appointed soon, 5 thou'ht that it (ould 4e timely to (rite on my impressions o! the present &ourt. 5t is my hope that this 4ook (ould pro#ide a (indo( to the internal (orkin's o! the 2ar#asa &ourt !rom my o(n o4ser#ations and e"periences. 5n this sense, 5 dedicate to &hie! Justice 2ar#asa this little memento o! my recollections o! the little6kno(n processes and 4attles durin' his last 66 my !irst 66 three years in the hi'h tri4unal. .erhaps unkno(n to him, &hie! Justice 2ar#asa had pro#ided me (ith an early inspiration to study la(. 5n the early 19;0s, my !amily rented a small apartment in the corner o! J. *arlin and &atalu<a -treets in -ampaloc, )anila, %ust a 4lock a(ay !rom the 2ar#asa home. 1s 5 ha(ked ne(spapers on the streets o! -ampaloc, 5 (ould (atch this tall, cre(6cut6sportin', lanky la( scholar and athlete +a #arsity 4asket4all star, pass 4y, and 5 (ould (onder ho( he could com4ine and e"cel in 4oth the 4rains and the 4ra(ns departments. 1nd (hen the 4ar e"am results sho(ed him at the top +he (as 2o. =,, 5 thou'ht 5 (ould heed my o(n !ather>s ad#ice to take up la(, instead o! chemical en'ineerin' (hich 5 had cherished earlier. /o( true indeed that the e"cellent (ork and e"ample o! a person can inspire and i'nite am4ition in others (hom he may not e#en kno( at the time. That (as (hy, many years later, 5 (as #ery 'lad that my dau'hter &eline 4ecame a #ery close !riend o! his dau'hter ina, a !riendship 5 had no opportunity to en%oy (ith him ? until 5 %oined the &ourt. @ith this 4ack'round, 5 started my (ork as a ma'istrate (ith a rather re#erential re'ard !or the &hie!. 1lthou'h 5 sat durin' most o! the last three years at the !oot o! the ta4le in our session room, he (ould ho(e#er al(ays reach out to me (ith a !urti#e 'lance to !ind out (hether 5 (anted to speak. 1nd speak 5 (ould, (ith his nod and at times e"press prod, 90et us no( listen to 1rt.:
1 718

1lthou'h my appointment is dated Octo4er ;, 199;, 5 actually took my oath and assumed o!!ice on Octo4er 10, 1998.

5n Justice and Faith (hich came out in Aecem4er 1993, 5 included an article 5 had (ritten to commemorate my second anni#ersary in the &ourt on Octo4er 10 o! the same year. 5n that article, 5 outlined the main !eatures o! my decision6(ritin' style. *y (ay o! update, let me report that as o! my third year, 5 ha#e (ritten o#er 3;0 ponencias and =B -eparate +includin' Aissentin' and &oncurrin', Opinions.=7=8 These ponencias and Opinions ha#e 4een 4ound into 19 #olumes consistin' o! a4out ;00 pa'es each. 3738 -o, too, 5 am pleased to say that 5 ha#e maintained my 100 percent attendance in all re'ular &ourt sessions. 5 realize that 5 must ha#e disappointed many o! my !riends and relati#es 4y my re!usal to recei#e them in my cham4ers or to speak (ith them e#en 4y phone, particularly a4out %udicial matters pendin' 4e!ore the &ourt. 5 hope, ho(e#er, that one day they (ill understand and appreciate the reasons !or this %udicial isolation.B7B8 *y (ay o! !urther update, may 5 say that since last year, 5 ha#e re#ised a !e( items in my decision (ritin' style, (hich are set !orth in the !ootnote 4elo(.;7;8
= 7=8

3 B

&ompared (ith =30 ponencias and 11 -eparate Opinions as o! Octo4er 10, 1993, i.e . !or my !irst t(o years. +See .an'ani4an, Justice and Faith, 1993 ed., p. B., 5 ha#e thus kept pace (ith my yearly output o! decisions and opinions. 738 &ompared (ith 11 #olumes as o! Octo4er 10, 1998. +Ibid., 7B8 5 tried to e"plain this little understood norm in a speech 5 deli#ered 4e!ore the otary &lu4 o! )anila in this (iseC

The -upreme &ourt is the last 4ul(ark o! democracy. @hen ri'hts are #iolated and the people ha#e no more recourse in the political departments o! 'o#ernment, they look up to the -upreme &ourt !or a !inal redress o! their 'rie#ances. 5t is thus indispensa4le to the #ery sur#i#al o! democracy that the -upreme &ourt should merit the trust and con!idence o! our people. For this reason, 4ein' in the %udiciary, particularly the -upreme &ourt, calls !or 4eha#ior di!!erent !rom that in the t(o other 4ranches o! 'o#ernment. @hen a ne(ly elected le'islator or a ne(ly appointed ca4inet mem4er speaks 4e!ore his constituents and !riends, he (ould normally ask them to #isit him or call him so he could 4e o! ser#ice to them. 5n the %udiciary, ho(e#er, particularly in the -upreme &ourt, the situation is di!!erent. *ecause liti'ations are decided on the 4asis o! the e#idence and the ar'uments presented 4y the parties, ma'istrates are 4arred !rom discussin' cases pendin' 4e!ore them, e"cept durin' o!!icial proceedin's and in the presence o! all parties or their la(yers. -o, in all my speeches, 5 usually ask my audience to please re!rain !rom #isitin' me or callin' me up !or the purpose o! discussin' (ith me any matter pendin' 4e!ore the &ourt. 5 assure them that 5 care!ully read and pass upon e#ery pleadin' 4rou'ht 4e!ore me. 1nd thus, it is not necessary !or them to do so. 5! !or any reason, like close !riendship or kinship, 5 !eel 5 cannot 4e completely o4%ecti#e in passin' upon a liti'ation, then 5 e"cuse or inhi4it mysel! !rom the case. 5 must 4e completely !air and %ust to e#eryone. Thus, the 4ottom line is that, to my 4osom !riends and close relati#es, 5 am, in this re'ard, useless. That is the irony o! my position.
; 7;8

These updates areC

-2-

5 thank the mem4ers o! the &ourt, present D7D8 and past,3738 (hom 5 ha#e encountered durin' the last three years. They ha#e all 4een instrumental in moldin' my ponencias and opinions set !orth in this #olume. 5 trust that, in discussin' the 4attles in the &ourt, 5 ha#e accurately and satis!actorily summarized their o(n stands and positions on the issues. 5! 5 ha#e not, 5 (ish to ask !or their understandin' and !or'i#eness. 5n any e#ent, 5 ur'e the reader to re!er to the ori'inal !ull6len'th Aecisions and Opinions, the citations o! (hich are all included in the !ootnotes. 5 also e"press my appreciation to my %udicial and le'al sta!!8788 !or a4ly assistin' me in my (ork durin' my third year o! incum4ency +199361998,.

1. 5n !ootnotes, 5 indicate the e"act date (hen the case (as deemed su4mitted !or resolution, to sho( compliance (ith the constitutional reEuirement that cases must 4e decided 4y the -upreme &ourt (ithin t(o years !rom the date the parties !iled their last pleadin's or complied (ith any additional reEuirement o! the &ourt + 1; 71 and =8, 1rt. V555 o! the &onstitution,. =. 5 capitalize the titles o! specifically identified or actually !iled le'al documents. 3. 5n spellin' and in decidin' (hether to hyphenate a compound (ord or (hether to (rite it as one (ord or as t(o (ords, 5 !ollo( the )eriam6@e4ster international dictionary. B. $"cept in o!!icial headin's, 5 no( omit the periods !rom GR, RA, BP, CA, NLRC and other a44re#iations consistin' o! t(o or more capital letters. ;. 5 use Euotation marks 4e!ore each para'raph and at the end o! the last one in an indented, sin'le6spaced Euotation. D. 5 a44re#iate e!sus in case titles as .

3. 5n !ootnotes, 5 use F as the a44re#iation o! section, e"cept in a direct Euotation that a44re#iates it di!!erently. 7D8 5ncum4ent mem4ers as o! Octo4er 10, 1998 are &hie! Justice 1ndres . 2ar#asa, Justices Florenz A. e'alado, /ilario G. Aa#ide, Jr., Flerida uth .. omero, Josue 2. *ellosillo, Jose 1. . )elo, eynato -. .uno, Jose &. Vitu', -antia'o ). Hapunan, Vicente V. )endoza, 1rtemio V. .an'ani4an, 1ntonio ). )artinez, 0eonardo 1. Iuisum4in', Fidel .. .urisima and *ernardo .. .ardo. 738 JJ. Florentino .. Feliciano, Teodoro . .adilla, e'ino &. /ermosisima Jr., Justo .. Torres Jr., and icardo J. Francisco. 788 )y %udicial and le'al sta!! !or the period Octo4er 11, 1993 to Octo4er 10, 1998 consisted o! 1tty. Francisco o4erto A. Iuilala +my chie! %udicial sta!! o!!icer,J and the !ollo(in' la(yers 66 Jonnel A. $spaldon +until Fe4ruary =8, 1998,, amil 1. Japa, Jerome 0. de la Ve'a, $mma &. )atammu, -uzanne A. &o4arru4ias, 0eah Veronica . Olores +!rom Fe4ruary B, 1998,, )a. 0icel &. 0opez +!rom )ay 19, 1998,, and a!ael 0. 0ira' +!rom June 1, 1998,J as (ell as )s 2. . $#an'elista, our ea'le6eyed editor and style sentinel.

-3-

Finally, 5 reiterate my thanks to .resident Fidel V. amos, !or appointin' me to the &ourt, and to the Judicial and *ar &ouncil 9798 !or includin' me in its list o! nominees. On July =0, 1998, 5 recei#ed a letter !rom .resident amos dated June 30, 1998, (hich 5 Euote in partC On behalf of the Philippine government and the Filipino people, I wish to convey to you my deepest appreciation and gratitude for the exemplary service, professionalism and deep commitment to our peoples well being and national interest which you have shown in your capacity as !ssociate "ustice of the #upreme $ourt during the %amos !dministration&' 5n reply, 5 (rote the !ormer .resident on July =1, 1998 that 95 ha#e tried my 4est to dischar'e my duties consistent (ith the e"cellence and hi'h6mindedness that 5 4elie#e you e"pected !rom me. 5 thou'ht that the 4est (ay !or me to respond to your trust (as to !ul!ill my duties in the -upreme &ourt (ith moral coura'e, inte'rity and dedication.: 5n an earlier 4ook, Lo e God Se! e "an,107108 5 recalled meetin' .resident amos in 1983 (hen (e 4oth entered the otary &lu4 o! )anila as ne( mem4ers. )any years later, on June 13, 199= (hen his electoral #ictory as .resident (as already assured, he in#ited me to a one6hour early mornin' one6on6one meetin' in his pri#ate o!!ice in m. =0=, 8B; .asay oad, )akati. @e e"chan'ed #ie(s on many topics ? !rom my philosophy o! la( to the people>s e"pectations o! their ne( .resident. Finally, he re#ealed the main reason !or our one6on6oneC 95 (ould like to in#ite you to %oin my &a4inet.: Taken a4ack and pleasantly surprised, 5 initially re!used, sayin', 9Thank you, )r. .resident. *ut 5 do not think 5 deser#e to 4e in your &a4inet 4ecause 5 did not campai'n !or you. *esides, as you kno(, 5 (as acti#e durin' the last election period as national #ice chairman o! the .arish .astoral &ouncil !or esponsi4le Votin' +..& V,, a nonpartisan electoral (atchdo'. 5! 5 %oin your &a4inet, people may say that ..& V (as not nonpartisan a!ter all, 4ut (as, 4ehind the scene, !or Fidel V. amos.: *ut the .resident (as insistent. /e told me, 9.recisely, 5 (ant a nonpartisan &a4inet in (hich all sectors are represented ? e#en those (ho (ere not in my political camp. *esides, this is one (ay o! thankin' ..& V and all citizens (ho helped make this election !ree, honest and credi4le.: 1s (e parted, 5 asked the .resident to 'i#e me time to think the matter o#er and consult my !amily and close !riends. -e#eral days later, in the a!ternoon o! June =D, he called me up and said, 9@hen 5 in#ited you to %oin my &a4inet earlier, 5 had in mind the position o! %ustice secretary !or you. 5n #ie( o! your reser#ations a4out political o!!ice, 5 thou'ht 5 (ould 'et you to the -upreme &ourt instead.: 5 e"citedly replied, 9 Sala#at po, )r. .resident. $indi po political an% posisyon na yan, at &un% #a#a!apatin ninyo, tatan%%apin &o po. Iyan po an% pana%inip n% ba'at abo%ado. *ut, )r. .resident, you cannot %ust appoint me on
9 798

10

Then composed o! &hie! Justice 1ndres . 2ar#asa, chairmanJ -ecretary o! Justice Teo!isto Guin'ona Jr.J -enator aul -. ocoJ ep. 5sidro &. Karra'aJ Justice Jose &. &ampos Jr.J Jud'e &ezar &. .erale%oJ 1tty. Teresita &. -ison and 1tty. Francisco *. -antia'o +deceased,. 7108 1 collection o! my selected speeches and papers !or the period 198B6199B, pu4lished 4y the Philippine (aily In)ui!e! in 199B.

-4-

your o(n. 5 need to 4e in the list o! recommendees o! the Judicial and *ar &ouncil.: @ith a t(inkle in his eyes, he concluded, 90et me handle that.: 5t took another three years 4e!ore the J*& included me in its list. *ut that is another story.117118 @hen !inally the &ouncil sent my name to .resident amos, he called me up to in!orm me that he (as redeemin' his unsolicited promise to name me to the &ourt. Thou'h 5 o(e my appointment to .resident amos, let me Euickly add, #ery openly and candidly, that since then he ne#er spoke to me a4out any case or matter pendin' in the &ourt. Thou'h 5 #oted a'ainst some administration cases and e#en authored one Aecision1=71=8 contrary to the pu4licly percei#ed (ishes o! )alaca<an', 137138 he ne#er e#en so much as hinted to me his displeasure, much less ur'ed me to #ote one (ay or the other. -uch is the 'entleman that he is. The terms o! .resident amos and &hie! Justice 2ar#asa may ha#e ended in 1998, 4ut the le'acy they lea#e 4ehind (ill lon' 4e remem4ered 4y the nation. 1s the !ormer .resident Euipped in a speech 4e!ore the .u4lic elations -ociety o! the .hilippines on 1u'ust 31, 1998,1B71B8 95 may 4e o!! to see the sunset, 4ut don>t 4e too surprised to see me there, (ith you, at the ne"t sunrise.: *ouche+ ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Octo4er 10, 1998

11

7118

1= 13 1B

See 9Faith *rou'ht )e to the -upreme &ourt: in .an'ani4an, Justice and Faith, 1993 ed., pp. 1B961;;. 71=8 (a id . Co#elec and Li%a n% #%a Ba!an%ay . Co#elec, =31 -& 1 90, 1pril 8, 1993. 7138 -ee, amon' others, Philippine (aily In)ui!e! and "anila *i#es, 1pril 9, 1993. 71B8 /e deli#ered this speech in acceptance o! the !irst Ga'ad Panday 1(ard, (hich the .u4lic elations -ociety o! the .hilippines +. -., 'a#e %ointly to .resident amos and to my late !ather6in6la(, Jose 1. &arpio -r., (ho is considered the !ounder and !irst president o! . -..

-5-

Chapter I A WINDOW TO THE COURT15[15] On )arch =D, 1998, &hie! Justice 1ndres . 2ar#asa 4ade !are(ell to the )anila O#erseas .ress &lu4.1D71D8 Aurin' the open !orum that !ollo(ed his (ell6applauded speech, he (as asked 4y a media man, 9@hat do you consider the most important !eature o! your term as &hie! JusticeL: .ausin' momentarily, he therea!ter e"plained that the Euestion needed study and re!lection. *ut o!!hand, he added that he (as most proud o! the independence sho(n 4y the -upreme &ourt in decidin' cases 4e!ore it, especially contro#ersial Euestions a!!ectin' the .resident o! the .hilippines. .rior to my appointment to the &ourt, there had 4een some alle'ations that some mem4ers o! the &ourt 66 particularly appointees o! .resident Fidel V. amos 66 had displayed undue 4ias in linin' up their #otes to uphold his decisions. 137138 1s !ar as 5 can recall, ho(e#er, since 5 assumed my duties as a mem4er o! the &ourt on Octo4er 10, 199;, no %ustice or 'roup o! %ustices has !aced any serious indictment !or #otin' on the 4asis merely o! 'ratitude to the appointin' po(er.187188
1; 71;8

.ortions o! this chapter (ere included 4y Justice .an'ani4an in a speech entitled 91n 5ntroduction to the -upreme &ourt,: (hich he deli#ered 4e!ore the otary &lu4 o! )anila.
71D8

1D

Aurin' the !irst Euarter o! each year o! his term as head o! the %udiciary, &hie! Justice 2ar#asa annually deli#ered lectures 9on the le'al system, and the courts and court proceedin's in this country.: 1s he (ill 4e retirin' on 2o#em4er 30, 1998, he made his last appearance 4e!ore the )O.& at the .hilippine .laza /otel on )arch =D, 1998.
7138

13

5n ,ilosbayan . "o!ato +=BD -& 1 ;B0, ;;8, July 13, 199;,, the &ourt, perhaps in ans(er to the char'e that its pre#ious rulin' on the locus standi o! petitioners (as 4ein' re#ie(ed at the insti'ation o! the e"ecuti#e department, 'a#e this e"planationC

(he voting on petitioners standing in the previous case )Kilosbayan v. Guingona Jr., *+* #$%! ,,-, .ay /, ,0012 was a narrow one, with seven 345 members sustaining petitioners standing and six 365 denying petitioners right to bring the suit& (he ma7ority was thus a tenuous one that is not li8ely to be maintained in any subse9uent litigation& In addition, there have been changes in the membership of the $ourt, with the retirement of "ustices $ru: and ;idin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and "ustice Francisco& <iven this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners standing&'
18 7188

The only possi4le e"ception is the &ha6cha case Santia%o . Co#elec +G 2o. 1=33=;, )arch 19, 1993 and June 10, 1993,, in (hich the amos appointees (ere reported 4y some media practitioners to ha#e 4een alle'edly in!luenced to #ote a'ainst the petition. This media attack (as Euieted do(n 4y the 'rant o! the petition and the de!eat o! the proposal to amend the &onstitution throu'h a people>s initiati#e, that (ould ha#e ena4led the incum4ent .resident to run !or reelection. 5t should 4e noted that at the time this case (as decided, the amos6appointed ma'istrates clearly outnum4ered those (ho (ere not. 5! indeed the amos6appointed ma'istrates #oted as a 4loc, the petition to stop the people>s initiati#e (ould ha#e 4een de!eated. *esides, as

-6-

0et me cate'orically say that in my three years in the &ourt, 5 ha#e not percei#ed any improper political, ideolo'ical or partisan ali'nment in the &ourt. There are no po(er 4locs, cliEues, coteries, !actions or 'roupin's in the sense that these terms are used and understood in &on'ress or other political or partisan entities. )em4ers #ote on each case independently o! one another. 5 ha#e ne#er 4een asked or in!luenced 4y any mem4er to #ote in any particular manner on any 4asis (hatsoe#er, e"cept on the merits o! each case as demonstrated 4y ar'uments, #er4al or (ritten, durin' our deli4erations. $#en the &hie! Justice, our p!i#us inte! pa!es, has ne#er asked me to #ote one (ay or another on the 4asis merely o! his moral ascendancy. 5 ha#e tan'led and disa'reed (ith each mem4er o! the &ourt, includin' the &hie! Justice, as 5 (ill demonstrate in 'reater detail later. *e that as it may, the %ustices> disa'reements and internal de4ates ha#e 4een limited to the !our (alls o! the session halls. 1nd personal pride or hurt has not marred the %ustices> pleasant and cordial relationships outside these halls.197198 @ith this 4ackdrop, 5 thou'ht o! commemoratin' my third anni#ersary in the -upreme &ourt +on Octo4er 10, 1998, 4y (ritin' my impressions o! the %udicial 4attles in (hich 5 had participated.=07=08 5 do not re!er to the e"chan'e o! 4rie!s and memoranda o! parties6liti'ants, nor e#en to the li#ely #er4al %ousts o! la(yers durin' oral ar'uments. 5 re!er to the closed6door deli4erations o! the &ourt itsel! in (hich only %ustices are in attendance, and not e#en the clerk o! court, much less other employees, are present. /o( does the -upreme &ourt decide casesL /o( do the %ustices ar'ue, deli4erate and #ote in liti'ations 4e!ore themL 5n particular, ho( are contro#ersial cases resol#edL The ans(ers to these Euestions (ill indu4ita4ly demonstrate the %udicial independence, (hich &hie! Justice 2ar#asa is so proud o!. *ut !irst a 4ack'round on ho(, in 'eneral, the &ourt (orksJ ho( it normally conducts its 4usiness 66 in short, a (indo( to the &ourt.

19

=0

(ill 4e sho(n later, e#en those (ho, like me, #oted a'ainst the petition (ere not necessarily in !a#or o! an outri'ht denial o! the petition. They (ere merely a'ainst the ponencia>s holdin' that the &ha6cha la( (as 9insu!!icient.: 7198 @ith one possi4le e"ception, Co##issione! of Inte!nal Re enue . Cou!t of Appeals +=;3 -& 1 =00, June B, 199D,. This case (as initially assi'ned to the First Ai#ision then composed o! Justice Teodoro . .adilla, chairmanJ and Justices Josue 2. *ellosillo, Jose &. Vitu', -antia'o ). Hapunan and e'ino &. /ermosisima, Jr., mem4ers. 5n this case, the disa'reement amon' the %ustices someho( reached media and 4ecame hot copy in the !ront pa'es o! some ne(spapers. The contro#ersy (as ele#ated to the &ourt en banc, (hich unanimously promul'ated a esolution +=D3 -& 1 ;99, Fe4ruary D, 1993, disposin' o! the case and presuma4ly resol#in' the erst(hile di!!erences (ithin the Ai#ision. 7=08 5 cele4rated my second anni#ersary on Octo4er 10, 1993 4y (ritin' 9On Ae#elopin' )y Aecision @ritin' -tyle: (hich 4ecame the lead article in my 4ook Justice and Faith pu4lished 4y the -upreme &ourt .rintin' -er#ice and released in Aecem4er 1993.

-7-

The Supreme Court Basically a Review Court The -upreme &ourt +-&, is 4asically a re#ie( court. =17=18 This means that its (ork consists mainly o! a!!irmin', modi!yin' or re#ersin' decisions and decrees o! lo(er courtsJ or o! determinin' (hether a lo(er court or a 4ranch or an instrumentality o! the 'o#ernment, includin' the O!!ice o! the .resident and &on'ress, has acted (ithout or in e"cess o! its %urisdiction or committed 'ra#e a4use o! discretion in its !unctions and actions.==7==8 1s a rule, the &ourt does not take initial co'nizance o! contro#ersies. 5t merely re#ie(s decisions o! other tri4unals (hich ha#e acted on these contro#ersies. 5n !act, it does not initiate such re#ie(. 5ts re#ie( authority must 4e tri''ered 4y the !ilin' o! a petition 4y a proper party. 5n this sense, the %udiciary is a passi#e 4ranch o! the 'o#ernment. 5t cannot act on a contro#ersy unless asked to do so.=37=38 5n trial courts,=B7=B8 the proceedin's are open to the pu4lic. *ut in colle'iate appellate courts, particularly the -upreme &ourt, the internal deli4erations o! %urists are con!identialJ only their net results, as (ritten in the !orm o! decisions, resolutions, orders and opinions +concurrin', dissentin' and separate,, are released to the pu4lic. 1s Justice Florenz A. e'alado +(ho is retirin' on Octo4er 13, 1998, shortly a!ter my third anni#ersary, aptly said, 95n trial courts, the rule is transparencyJ 4ut in the -upreme &ourt, it is con!identiality.: *y (ritin' this article, 5 do not intend to #iolate the con!idential and delicate nature o! the &ourt>s internal processes and deli4erations. /o(e#er, 5 do intend to open a little (indo( to let the interested reader peek at some o! our un(ritten practices and processes and there4y 'et a 'eneral understandin' o! decision6makin' in the hi'hest court o! the land. 5 (ill also attempt to summarize the pros and cons o! contro#ersial decisions in 'hich I acti ely pa!ticipated, not %ust 4y castin' my #ote thereon, 4ut 4y (ritin' the decisions themsel#es or opinions thereon +separate, concurrin', or dissentin',.

=1

7=18

== =3

=B

See &hie! Justice 1ndres . 2ar#asa, 9The -upreme &ourtC 5ts .resent .o(ers and Auties,: pu4lished 4y the -upreme &ourt .rintin' -er#ice as an e"panded and edited #ersion o! a lecture he deli#ered on Fe4ruary =0, 1998 at the )alcolm Theater, Mni#ersity o! the .hilippines. 7==8 See 1, 1rticle V555, 1983 &onstitution. 7=38 The only possi4le e"ception is a lo(er court decision imposin' the death penalty, (hich is automatically re#ie(ed 4y the -upreme &ourt e#en i! the accused does not !ile a notice o! appeal. 7=B8 These include the -andi'an4ayan +(hich is 4oth a trial and a re#ie( court,, the re'ional trial courts and the metropolitan and municipal trial courts.

-8-

The Collegial Nature of Court Decisions and Actions The mem4ers o! the &ourt must act and #ote independently o! each otherJ yet they must at the same time e"ercise colle'ial rule, (hether en banc or in di#ision. Thus, all court actions and decisions are determined durin' sessions. $"cept in !e( #ery ur'ent instances, no %ustice, not e#en the &hie! Justice, can act indi#idually to 4ind the &ourt. $#en simple motions !or e"tension o! time to !ile pleadin's are calendared and acted upon 4y the &ourt as a colle'ial 4ody. The a'enda o! the &ourt +(hether en banc or in di#ision, usually consists o! a4out 1;0 to =;0 items per session. The &ourt partially disposes o! each o! these items, 4ut the 4ack4reakin' %o4 is done in cham4ers and e#en at home, (hen %ustices study, read, re!lect, pray and (rite on the matters assi'ned to them. O! course, prior to the session, they need also to read and study the (ritten reports o! their !ello( %ustices, =;7=;8 so
=; 7=;8

5n his article 9The &ourt and 5ts @ays: + Cou!t Syste#s Jou!nal, June 1998 ed., pp. =06 3D,, Justice Jose &. Vitu' says that !rom June 1;, 1901 to June 1;, 1998, 1B1 indi#iduals ha#e 4ecome %ustices o! the -upreme &ourt. To update the list as o! Octo4er 10, 1998, the name o! *ernardo .. .ardo, (ho (as appointed to the &ourt recently, should 4e added. They areC

1. &ayetano 1rellano;1. )anuel &. *riones 101. Venicio $scolin=. Florentino Torres;=. &esar *en'zon 10=. &onrado ). VasEuez3. Joseph F. &ooper;3. -a4ino *. .adilla 103. 0orenzo elo#aB. James Francis -mith;B. .edro Tuason 10B. /u'o $. Gutierrez, Jr.;. &harles 1. @illard;;. Jose /onti#eros 10;. *uena#entura -.D. Victorino )apa;D. 1le" eyes de la Fuente3. Fletcher 0add;3. )arcelino )ontemayor 10D. -era!in . &ue#as8. John T. )cAonou'h;8. 0uis .. Torres 103. 2estor *. 1lampay9. Finley Johnson;9. Feli" *autista 1n'elo 108. 0ino ). .ata%o10. 1dam &. &arsonD0. Fernando Ju'o 109. Jose N. Feria11. James F. TracyD1. 1le%o 0a4rador 110. .edro 0. Nap1=. -herman )orelandD=. o4erto &oncepcion 111. )arcelo *. Fernan13. &harles *. $lliotD3. amon Aiokno 11=. 1ndres . 2ar#asa1B. Grant T. TrentDB. Jose *.0. eyes 113. 5sa'ani 1. &ruz1;. )anuel 1raulloD;. .astor ). $ndencia 11B. $d'ardo 0. .aras1D. Thomas 1. -treetDD. 1l!onso Feli" 11;. Florentino .. Feliciano13. Geor'e 1. )alcolmD3. Jesus G. *arrera 11D. $milio 1. Gancayco18. amon 1#ance<aD8. Jose Gutierrez6Aa#id 113. Teodoro . .adilla19. F.&. FisherD9. 1rsenio .. Aizon 118. 14dul(ahid 1. *idin=0. .ercy ). )oir30. Jose )a. .aredes 119. 14raham F. -armiento=1. 5'nacio Villamor31. Aionisio de 0eon 1=0. 5rene . &ortes==. James 1. Ostrand3=. Felipe 2ati#idad 1=1. &arolina &. Gri<o61Euino=3. &harles 1. Johns33. o4erto e'ala 1==. 0eo A. )edialdea=B. 2or4erto omualdez3B. Iueru4e )akalintal 1=3. Florenz A. e'alado=;. 1ntonio Villa6 eal3;. &ali"to Kaldi#ar 1=B. /ilario G. Aa#ide, Jr.=D. John 1. /ull3D. Jose .. *en'zon 1=;. Flerida uth .. omero=3. James &. Vickers33. &onrado V. -anchez 1=D. odol!o 1. 2ocon=8. Jose 14ad -antos38. Fred uiz &astro 1=3. Josue 2. *ellosillo=9. &arlos 1. 5mperial39. $u'enio 1n'eles 1=8. Jose 1. . )elo30. Geor'e &. *utte80. $nriEue ). Fernando 1=9. Jose &. &ampos, Jr.31. 1nacleto Aiaz81. Francisco &apistrano 130. &amilo A. Iuiason3=. 0eonard -. Goddard8=. &laudio Teehankee 131. eynato -. .uno33. &laro ). ecto83. 1ntonio .. *arredo 13=. Jose &. Vitu'3B. Jose .. 0aurel8B. Julio Villamor 133. -antia'o ). Hapunan3;. .edro &oncepcion8;. Feli" V. )akasiar 13B. Vicente V.
-9-

that they can e"press concurrence or dissent, or at least intelli'ently discuss the items in the a'enda. 2othin' is more em4arrassin' than to 4e cau'ht unprepared durin' a session or to 4e una4le to ans(er Euestions on matters 4ein' reported on. Ver4al discussions are #ery limited. &ontrary to popular misimpressions, %ustices do not talk e"tensi#ely. ather, they (rite a lot. 1r'uments, re!lections and position papers are e"chan'ed e#ery day. @hen the discussion o! a case e"ceeds !i#e minutes, the &hie! Justice normally postpones !urther discussion !or at least a (eek, (ith the su''estion that mem4ers (rite their opinions, pro and contra, to 4e distri4uted a !e( days prior to the ne"t calendar. Oral ar'uments are usually held in the ca#ernous and rather intimidatin' hearin' hall o! the &ourt located on the second !loor o! the -upreme &ourt main 4uildin' on .adre Faura -treet. Oral ar'uments, (hich are rare, are usually held only in cases in#ol#in' di!!icult and complicated Euestions. The &ourt delineates the issuesJ and the la(yers !or each side, (ho are e"pected to come e"tensi#ely prepared, d(ell on these issues (ithin the allotted time, normally t(enty minutes each. /o(e#er, mem4ers o! the &ourt may, and usually do, ask Euestions on any topic, issue or matter. /ence, the allotted time is usually e"tended.
)endoza3D. )anuel V. )oran8D. Feli" I. 1ntonio 13;. icardo J. Francisco33. oman Ozaeta83. -al#ador V. $s'uerra 13D. e'ino & . /ermosisima, Jr.38. icardo .aras88. $stanislao 1. Fernandez 133. 1rtemio V. .an'ani4an39. 1ntonio /orrileno89. &ecilia )u<oz6.alma 138. Justo .. Torres, Jr.B0. Jose Nulo90. amon &. 1Euino 139. 1ntonio ). )artinezB1. Jor'e &. *oco4o91. /ermo'enes &oncepcion Jr. 1B0. 0eonardo 1. Iuisum4in'B=. Jose Generoso9=. uperto G. )artin 1B1. Fidel .. .urisimaB3. Jose 0opez Vito93. Guillermo -. -antos71B=. *ernardo .. .ardo8BB. Ael!in Jaranilla9B. amon &. Fernandez B;. Felicisimo . Feria9;. Ju#enal H. Guerrero BD. )ariano /. de Joya9D. Vicente 14ad -antos B3. Guillermo F. .a4lo93. .aci!ico .. de &astro B8. Gre'orio .er!ecto98. 1meur!ina ). /errera B9. $milio N. /ilado99. Vicente $ricta ;0. Jose 1. $spiritu100. $!ren 5. .alma The !ore'oin'

list (ill 4e lon'er i! the Filipinos appointed to the Audiencia *e!!ito!ial de "anila in )ay 1899 are added, as proposed 4y &hie! Justice 2ar#asa in a )emorandum to the &ourt dated June 19, 1998. @ith &ayetano 1rellano as .resident o! the Audiencia, the other Filipinos appointed 4y )a%. Gen. Otis +military 'o#ernor, (ereC !or the &i#il *ranch 66 )anuel 1raullo as president and Gre'orio 1raneta as ma'istrateJ !or the &riminal *ranch 66 Julio 0lorente as president +he replaced 1m4rosio ianzares *autista (ho did not assume o!!ice, and Aionisio &hanco as ma'istrate. +*ased on 9The -upreme &ourt in the &ourse o! the &enturies,: La'ye!s- Jou!nal, Aec. 31, 193D, as cited 4y Ael!in F. *atacan in *he Sup!e#e Cou!t in Philippine $isto!y, 193= ed., The list (ill 4e e#en lon'er i! the name o! 1polinario )a4ini is included as the !irst &hie! Justice elected 4y the 2ational 1ssem4ly in 1u'ust 1899J his election, ho(e#er, (as later annulled 4y $milio 1'uinaldo. +*ased on $ncarnacion 1lzona>s 9The $lection o! )a4ini as &hie! Justice o! the -upreme &ourt o! the .hilippine epu4lic,: Philippine Social Science Re ie', 2o#em4er 1938.,
- 10 -

5n oral ar'uments on #ery important cases, the &ourt usually appoints a#ici cu!iae +!riends o! the court, to assist the %ustices in resol#in' di!!icult Euestions o! la(. 1n in#itation to act as a#icus cu!iae is a rare pri#ile'e and honor, 'ranted only to la(yers=D7=D8 o! unEuestioned stature, competence and lucidity. 1!ter the oral ar'uments, the la(yers are usually reEuired to !ollo( up and close their cases (ith the !ilin' o! (ritten memoranda. Routine and Ceremonial Aspects of Court Sessions

The &ourt re'ularly sits en banc +all mem4ers o! the &ourt, and in di#ision +!i#e mem4ers each,. =37=38 To 'rant a motion or petition and to appro#e a decision or resolution, the concurrence o! a ma%ority o! those takin' part is su!!icient. =87=88 The distri4ution o! the %ustices to the three Ai#isions is determined 4y the &hie! Justice, (ho usually spreads the senior and the %unior %ustices more or less e#enly amon' the three 'roups. -eniority 4ased on the date o! appointment is strictly o4ser#ed in seatin' arran'ements. .n banc, the &hie! Justice sits at the head o! the ta4le, (ith the most senior %ustice on his ri'ht and the ne"t most senior on his le!t. The third most senior sits ne"t to the !irst, the !ourth most senior sits ne"t to the second, and so on do(n to the !i!teenth (ho sits at the !oot o! the ta4le on the &hie! Justice> le!t. The en banc seatin' protocol, as o! Octo4er 10, 1998, is as !ollo(sC=97=98 CJ 2ar#asa +2o#. 30, 1998, J. e'alado +Oct. 13, 1998,
=D 7=D8

J. Aa#ide Jr. +Aec. =0, =00;,

=3

=8 =9

Once in a (hile, e#en non6la(yers are in#ited. One such a#icus (as 1rch4ishop Oscar V. &ruz, (ho at my instance (as in#ited 4y the &ourt to the oral ar'ument on Fe4ruary 13, 1993 in Republic . "olina, =D8 -& 1 198, Fe4ruary 13, 1993. 7=38 The &onstitution + B +1,, 1rt. V555, allo(s the &ourt to meet en banc or in di#isions o! se#en, !i#e or three mem4ers each. 1t present, it meets in three di#isions composed o! !i#e mem4ers each. 7=88 1rt. V555, B += O 3,, the &onstitution. 7=98 @ith the %ustices> dates o! retirement indicated. @ith the retirement o! CJ 2ar#asa and J. e'alado, the seatin' arran'ements (ill chan'e. *ut, e"pectedly, the same seniority protocol (ill 4e o4ser#ed.

- 11 -

J. omero +1u'. 1, 1999, J. )elo +)ay 30, =00=, &on!erence J. Vitu' +July 1;, =00B, Ta4le J. )endoza +1pr. ;, =003, J. )artinez +Fe4. =, 1999, J. .urisima +Oct. =8, =000,

J. *ellosillo +2o#. 13, =003, J. .uno +)ay 13, =010, J. Hapunan +1u'. 1=, =00=, J. .an'ani4an +Aec. 3, =00D, J. Iuisum4in' +2o#. D, =009, J. .ardo307308 +Fe4. 11, =00=,

The !ore'oin' seatin' arran'ement is !ollo(ed also durin' oral ar'uments, e"cept that instead o! sittin' around a ta4le, the %ustices sit on an ele#ated crescent6shaped rostrum !acin' the audience. The seniority rule is o4ser#ed also in the Ai#isions, (ith the chairman sittin' at the head o! the ta4le. $ach Ai#ision is usually chaired 4y the most senior mem4er. 1lthou'h theoretically the &hie! Justice is also a Ai#ision chairman, his !unctions as chair are actually per!ormed 4y the 9(orkin' chairman,: (ho is the ne"t most senior in the Ai#ision. 1s o! Octo4er 10, 1998, the compositions and seatin' protocols o! the Ai#isions are as !ollo(sC F5 -T A5V5-5O2 J. Aa#ide, Jr. J. *ellosillo J. .an'ani4an &on!erence Ta4le J. Vitu' J. Iuisum4in'

30

7308

J. *ernardo .. .ardo took his oath o! o!!ice 4e!ore .resident Joseph $%ercito $strada on Octo4er 3, 1998.

- 12 -

-$&O2A A5V5-5O2 J. e'alado J. )elo J. )endoza &on!erence Ta4le J. .uno

T/5 A A5V5-5O2 CJ 2ar#asa J. omero &on!erence Ta4le J. Hapunan J. .ardo

J. )artinez J. .urisima

For internal sessions 66 those held amon' themsel#es only 66 the %ustices (ear either 4usiness suits or ba!on% Filipino. *ut they don their (orkin' ro4es +all64lack, durin' oral ar'uments, (hether en banc or in di#ision, and their ceremonial ro4es +(ith purple #el#et 4orders !rom the neckline do(n to the !ront, durin' o!!icial !unctions other than oral ar'uments. The &ourt re'ularly sits en banc e#ery Tuesday and in di#ision e#ery )onday and @ednesday, startin' promptly at 10C00 a.m. The %ustices take turns in leadin' the openin' prayer, a'ain in the order o! seniority. 5n some Ai#isions, dependin' on the (ishes o! the chairman, the prayer is led 4y the %ustice (ho is scheduled to report on the !irst item in the a'enda. 5ncidentally, the mem4ers o! the &ourt are !ormally addressed as 9Nour /onor: or 9)r. Justice: or 9)adam Justice: or simply 9Justice.: Various !ormal esolutions o! the &ourt, the latest o! (hich is dated July 9, 199D, ha#e restricted the use o! the title 9Justice: to current and retired mem4ers o! the -upreme &ourt, the &ourt o! 1ppeals and the -andi'an4ayan.317318 1ll lo(er court ma'istrates, includin' those o! the &ourt o! Ta"
31 7318

The said en banc esolution o! July 9, 199D is here(ith reproducedC

JBC No. 001: Re JBC Emoluments. = (he $ourt noted that despite the admonition in the %esolutions of the $ourt >n ;anc dated February ,1, ,0?0 and "uly *-, ,0?0 to all concerned that the title @"ustice is reserved by the applicable laws only to incumbent 3and retired5 members of the #upreme $ourt, the $ourt of !ppeals and the #andiganbayan, and may not be used by any other officials of the %epublic, including those given the ran8 of 7ustice, there are still officials utili:ing said title without authority of law& In view thereof, the $ourt hereby REITERATES the aforementioned %esolutions in toto, and directs the $ler8 of $ourt to furnish copies thereof to all officials concerned, including members of the "udicial and ;ar $ouncil, the $ourt !dministrator
- 13 -

1ppeals, are called %ud'es. Only o!!icials 4elon'in' to the %udiciary are allo(ed to use the title 9%ustice: or 9%ud'e.: /ence, e#en those to (hom the la( 'rants the ranks and the pri#ile'es o! %udicial o!!icers, like the solicitor 'eneral and his assistants, as (ell as the 'o#ernment corporate counsel, are prohi4ited !rom usin' these appellations.

The Three Rounds in the Court 5t is said that, as in an amateur 4o"in' match, there are three rounds in the -upreme &ourt. The !irst round usually 4e'ins upon the !ilin' o! a petition 3=73=8 +or a motion !or e"tension o! time to !ile a petition, or a notice o! appeal. 5n 'eneral, the acceptance o! any appeal or petition, as (ell as the 'rant o! due course thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion o! the -upreme &ourt. 337338 @ith !e( e"ceptions like appeals o! decisions imposin' death or !eclusion pe!petua, the &ourt may dismiss #otu p!op!io any petition or appeal 4e!ore it. 5n such cases, the decision or order Euestioned in the petition is deemed upheld.3B73B8 The First Round 1lthou'h the &ourt has a4solute discretion to re%ect and dismiss a petition durin' the 9!irst round,: in 'eneral it does so only !or +1, procedural errors, like #iolations o! the ules o! &ourt or -upreme &ourt circularsJ and +=, !ailure o! the petition to demonstrate p!i#a facie a 9re#ersi4le: error o! the lo(er court or a 'ra#e a4use o! discretion 4y any court, a'ency or 4ranch o! the 'o#ernment. -ome o! these procedural +2os. 1 to 10, and su4stanti#e +2os. 11 to =1, errors areC 1. 0ate !ilin', as the petition (as !iled 4eyond the

and his deputies, the #olicitor <eneral and his deputies, the <overnment $orporate $ounsel, the $hairman and members of the Aational Babor %elations $ommission, and all others using said titles, who are not incumbent or retired members of the #upreme $ourt, $ourt of !ppeals )or2 the #andiganbayan, for their observance and guidance& #aid officials are hereby ENJOINED to refrain from unauthori:ed use of the title @"ustice&'
3= 33 3B 73=8 7338

Msually under ule B; or D; o! the ules o! &ourt. D, ule B; and 8, ule D;. 73B8 -ee "acapa%al . Cou!t of Appeals, =31 -& 1 B91, ;03, 1pril. 18, 1993, citin' Philippine Inte!island Shippin% Association . Cou!t of Appeals , =DD -& 1 B89, January ==, 1993.

- 14 -

re'lementary period3;73;8 =. Failure to ser#e a copy o! the petition on the ad#erse party or on the lo(er court, a'ency, or entity3D73D8 3. 2onsu4mission o! the proo! o! ser#ice mentioned in item = a4o#e, like the (ritten ackno(led'ment o! the party ser#ed, the a!!ida#it o! the party ser#in', or the re'istry receipts337338 B. Failure to 'i#e an e"planation (hy a pleadin' (as mailed rather than personally deli#ered387388 ;. 0ack o!, or insu!!icient, #eri!ication o! the petition397398 D. Failure to pay the docket and other !ees and the deposit !or costsB07B08 3. Failure to state the material dates sho(in' that the petition (as !iled on time, includin' the dates (hen the assailed decision or resolution (as recei#edJ (hen a motion !or reconsideration, i! any, (as !iledJ and (hen the order denyin' such motion (as recei#ed 4y the petitionerB17B18 8. Failure to su4mit (ith the petition a clear duplicate ori'inal or a certi!ied true copy o! the %ud'ment and orders 4ein' contestedB=7B=8 9. petitionB37B38 Failure to !ile the reEuired num4er o! copies o! the

10. Failure to !ile a certi!ication o! no !orum shoppin' or the !ilin' o! a de!ecti#e or insu!!icient certi!ication thereo!BB7BB8
3; 3D 73;8 73D8

33

38

39

B0

B1

B=

B3 BB

=, ule B; in relation to ; +a,, ule ;D. For certiorari, see B, ule D;. 3, ule B; in relation to ; +d,, ule ;D. For certiorari, see = +c,, ule ;D and 3, par. =, ule BD in relation to =, par. 1, ule ;D. 7338 3 and ;, ule B; in relation to ; +d,, ule ;D and 13, ule 13. For certiorari, see = +c,, ule ;DJ 3, par. =, ule BD in relation to =, par. 1, ule ;D and 13, ule 13. 7388 11, ule 13 in relation to 3, ule B; and ;, ule ;D. For certiorari, see 11, ule 13 in relation to = +c,, ule ;D. 7398 1, ule B; in relation to B, ule 3. For certiorari, see 1, ule D; in relation to B, ule 3. 7B08 3, ule B; in relation to ; +c,, ule ;D. For certiorari, see 3, ule BD in relation to =, ule ;D. 7B18 B +4, and ;, ule B; in relation to ; +d,, ule ;D. For certiorari, see B, ule D; in relation to -upreme &ourt &ircular 2o. 1688. 7B=8 B +d, and ;, ule B; in relation to ; +d,, ule ;D. For certiorari, see 1, par. =, ule D; and 3, ule BD in relation to =, ule ;D. 7B38 B, ule B;. For certiorari, see D, ule D; in relation to = +c,, ule ;D. 7BB8 B +e,, ule B; in relation to ;, ule 3J B and ; +d,, ule ;DJ and =, par. =, ule B;J ;, ule 3. For certiorari, see 1, par. =, ule D;J 3, ule BD in relation to =, ule ;DJ and ;, ule 3.

- 15 -

11. Failure to sho( the 9re#ersi4le error: or 9'ra#e a4use o! discretion: alle'edly committed 4y the lo(er tri4unal, a'ency or o!!iceB;7B;8 1=. Failure to set !orth a concise statement o! the matters in#ol#ed, as (ell as the reasons and ar'uments (hy the petition should 4e allo(edBD7BD 13. $rror in the choice or mode o! appealJ B37B38 !or e"ample, the !ilin' o! only a notice o! appeal, (hen the ules reEuire a !ull64lo(n petition 1B. 1;. 1D. 13. 18. 2on6appeala4ility o! the case to the -upreme &ourtB87B8 .atent lack o! meritB97B98 Filin' o! the petition mani!estly !or delay;07;08 Too insu4stantial Euestions raised ;17;18 Failure to e"haust administrati#e remedies or to 4rin' the

petition (ithin any o! the e"ceptions to the rule on e"haustion o! administrati#e remedies, due to the insu!!iciency o! alle'ations;=7;=8 19. Violation o! the hierarchy o! courts !or no special reason or compellin' circumstance;37;38 =0. .rematurity o! the petition, there 4ein' no motion !or reconsideration !iled at the tri4unal 4elo( +especially in petitions !or certiorari, prohi4ition or mandamus,, and there 4ein' no esta4lished e"ception %usti!yin' such prematurity;B7;B8 =1.
B; BD B3 B8 B9 ;0 ;1 ;= 7B;8 7BD8

$#ident use o! certiorari as a su4stitute !or the lost remedy

;3

;B

D, ule B;. For certiorari, see 1, ule D;. B +e, and ;, ule B; in relation to ; +d,, ule ;D. 7B38 ; +!,, ule ;D. 7B88 ; +',, ibid. 7B98 ;, ule B; and ; +4,, ibid. 7;08 ;, ule B;. 7;18 Ibid. 7;=8 This is !or certiorari. -ee *eotico . A%da S!., 193 -& 1 D3;, )ay =9, 1991J "e/a!es . Reyes, =;B -& 1 B=;, )arch 3, 199DJ Pa%a!a . Cou!t of Appeals, =;B -& 1 D0D, )arch 1=, 199D. 7;38 This is !or certiorari. -ee People . Cua!es#a, 13= -& 1 B1;, 1pril 18, 1989J (efenso!0Santia%o . 1as)ue2, =13 -& 1 D33, January =3, 1993J "analo . Glo!ia, =30 -& 1 130, -eptem4er 1, 199B. 7;B8 This is also !or certiorari. -ee 1illa!a#a . NLRC, =3D -& 1 =80, -eptem4er =, 199BJ Inte!o!ient "a!iti#e .nte!p!ises, Inc. . NLRC, =D1 -& 1 3;3, -eptem4er 1D, 199DJ Buildin% Ca!e Co!p. . NLRC, =D8 -& 1 DDD, Fe4ruary =D, 1993J Phil. National Const!uction Co!p. . NLRC, G 2o. 103303, 1u'ust 11, 1993J *ano . Soc!ates, G 2o. 110=B9, 1u'ust =1, 1993.

- 16 -

o! appeal;;7;;8 Orders dismissin' petitions 4ased on the !ore'oin' 'rounds are kno(n as minute resolutions and are normally couched in standard !orms authorized 4y the &ourt. Once a petition passes these procedural and su4stanti#e tests, the !irst round ends.

;;

7;;8

People . Cou!t of Appeals, 199 -& 1 ;39, July =3, 1991J Sy . Ro#e!o, =1B -& 1 183, -eptem4er =3, 199=J Fa/a!do . Bautista, =3= -& 1 =91, )ay 10, 199BJ Sanche2 . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1089B3, -eptem4er =9, 1993.

- 17 -

The Second Round 5n case the &ourt is satis!ied that the petition is p!i#a facie meritorious and not procedurally or su4stantially de!ecti#e, the 9second round: 4e'ins. The &ourt (ill reEuire the respondents to !ile their comment+s,. 1!ter receipt o! the comment+s,, the &ourt may resol#e to 'i#e due course to the petition, in (hich case it (ill normally reEuire the parties to !ile their respecti#e memoranda. Or the &ourt may direct the petitioners to su4mit a reply to the comment+s,J and the respondent+s,, a re%oinder and e#en a sur6re%oinder therea!ter. 1!ter this e"chan'e o! (ritten ar'uments, the &ourt may 'rant due course to the petition and ask the parties to !ile memoranda. 1lternati#ely, it may issue an e"tended resolution denyin' or dismissin';D7;D8 the petition, usually unsi'ned 4y the %ustices 4ut certi!ied 4y the clerk o! court or 4y his or her deputy, (ho Euotes the minute resolution !rom the minutes o! the session. 1s stated earlier, only the %ustices are present durin' the sessions. ;37;38 The minutes o! the session are prepared 4y the Ai#ision chairman or, in case o! en banc sessions, 4y the &hie! Justice. -ome la(yers and liti'ants (ron'ly 4elie#e that unsi'ned e"tended resolutions are composed 4y the clerk o! court or 4y his or her assistants. They cannot do so, 4ecause they are prohi4ited !rom attendin' deli4erations and sessions o! the &ourt +e"cept (hen oral ar'uments are held, (hich the parties and e#en the 'eneral pu4lic are allo(ed to attend,. These e"tended resolutions are deli4erated upon and composed 4y the %ustices themsel#es. They are then included in the minutes, !rom (hich they are e"cerpted 4y the court personnel and then sent to the parties. On rare occasions, oral ar'uments are held, normally a!ter the second round (hen the &ourt 'rants due course to the petition. 1!ter these oral presentations, the &ourt usually reEuires the parties to su4mit (ritten memoranda to summarize their ar'uments or to ans(er Euestions raised durin' the hearin'. Continue

;D

7;D8

;3

.etitions !or re#ie( under ule B; are denied, (hile petitions !or certiorari under ule D; are dismissed. 7;38 This is true (hether the &ourt meets in di#ision or en banc.

- 18 -

Chapter !! Pr ! "#e t THE COURT BATT$E%

5n the course o! the last three years +Octo4er 10, 199; to Octo4er 10, 1998,, 5 ha#e discussed and de4ated #arious Euestions (ith almost e#ery mem4er o! the &ourtJ and said mem4ers ha#e also (ritten dissentin', concurrin' or separate opinions on my ponencias. Aurin' my !irst !e( months in the &ourt, 5 (as rather a(ed 4y the consumin' presence o! many o! my collea'ues, a(are as 5 (as o! their lucidity, le'al (isdom and analytical skills as they undertook in6depth analyses o! cases. 1s much as possi4le, 5 tended to adhere to precedents and con#entional doctrines. 0ater, ho(e#er, 5 realized that 4ein' (ith the ma%ority or, !or that matter, (ritin' !or the ma%ority (as not as !ul!illin' as e"pressin' my thou'hts openly and !reely accordin' to my 4est li'ht, re'ardless o! (ho (as or (ere on the other side.

Jurists Not Diminished by Their Dissents

5n his column on 1pril B, 1998,;87338 Justice 5sa'ani 1. &ruz, notin' my Aissent in People . "ontilla,;973B8 hoped that 5 (ould realize, as he did, that 9dissentin' !rom the ma%ority (ill not diminish the #alidity o! the dissenter>s lonely cause or impair his inte'rity as a true and thou'ht!ul %ud'e.: @ritin' to ackno(led'e his concern, 5 assured Justice &ruz that in my #ie(, 9%urists are ne#er diminished 4y their dissents 66 only 4y their reckless or thou'htless concurrences.: 1s the discernin' reader (ill undou4tedly note !rom my .re!ace to this 4ook, 5 ha#e maintained the pace o! my output at 11; to 1=0 ponencias per year durin' the last three years. /o(e#er, 5 ha#e dou4led the num4er o! my separate Opinions, mostly Aissentin', !rom a total o! 11 !or my !irst t(o years +or ; to D per year, to 13 durin' my third year alone. 5 hope this 4it o! tri#ia (ill assure Justice &ruz and other &ourt (atchers that 5 (ill not 4e a !ence6sitter or 4ench (armer in any ma%or 4attle in this &ourt. &oncur 5 (ill most o! the time, 4ut dissent 5 stead!astly must, e#en i! alone, (hen the need arises.

;87338 ;9

*he Philippine (aily In)ui!e!. 73B8 G 2o. 1=383=, January 30, 1998.

- 19 -

5ndeed, durin' the past three years, 5 ha#e disa'reed (ith &hie! Justice 2ar#asa on the constitutionality o! the Aeath .enalty 0a( + 1 3D;9,JD073;8 (ith -enior Justice e'alado on the ri'ht o! the accused a'ainst ille'al arrests and searchesJ D173D8 (ith Justice Aa#ide Jr. on the charter chan'e casesJD=7338 (ith Justice omero on the ri'hts o! ille'itimate childrenJD37388 (ith Justice *ellosillo on the interpretation o! the Filipino First policy o! the &onstitutionJDB7398 (ith Justice .uno on the ri'ht to pri#acyJ D;7808 (ith Justice Vitu' on the en!orcea4ility o! the ri'ht o! !irst re!usalJ DD7818 (ith Justice Hapunan on residence as a Euali!ication !or con'ressmenJ D378=8 (ith Justice )endoza on the 4an a'ainst political ad#ertisin'JD87838 (ith Justice Francisco on o4edience to a superior>s order as a de!ense in criminal o!!ensesJ D978B8 and most recently (ith Justice .urisima in !ormer First 0ady 5melda . )arcos> acEuittal o! 'ra!t.3078;8 On the other hand, the !ollo(in' ma'istrates ha#e (ritten dissentin' opinions on my ponenciasC Justice Aa#ide in F!i aldo . Co#elec3178D8 and NPC . Lanao del Su!33=7838 Justice .uno in "GG "a!ine . NLRC,337888 and Justice Vitu' in Cabae!o . Cantos456789 and Republic . Sandi%anbayan and P!i#e $oldin%s.3;7908 On the other hand, my ponencias in the !ollo(in' cases merited concurrin' opinionsC Republic . "olina3D7918 on psycholo'ical incapacity as a 'round !or in#alidatin' marria'es +!rom Justices omero and Vitu',, F!i aldo . Co#elec3379=8 +!rom Justice .uno,, Republic . Sandi%anbayan and P!i#e $oldin%s387938 +!rom Justice *ellosillo,.

D0

73;8

D1 D=

D3 DB D;
DD

7818 D3

D8

D9 30 31 3= 33 3B 3; 3D 33 38

*ecause death cases are decided pe! cu!ia#, 5 cannot speci!y, (ithout #iolatin' con!identiality, the speci!ic points on (hich (e disa'reed or, !or that matter, (hich side 66 pro or con 66 each o! us took. *ut there (as one point (hen 5 4ecame so passionate and so in#ol#ed in the deli4erations that 5 raised my #oice a !e( deci4els hi'her and must ha#e pointed a rather impolite !ore!in'er at the &hie! Justice, so that 5 had to apolo'ize to him later. To his credit, he accepted my apolo'ies instantly, (ithout rancor or reser#ation. 73D8 People . "ontilla, supra. 7338 Santia%o . Co#elec, G 2o. 1=33=;, )arch 19, 1993 and June 10, 1993J PIR"A . Co#elec, G 2o. 1=93;B, -eptem4er =3, 1993. 7388 (e Santos . CA, =;1 -& 1 =0D, Aecem4er 1=, 199;. 7398 "anila P!ince $otel . GSIS, =D3 -& 1 B08, Fe4ruary 3, 1993. 7808 :ple . *o!!es, G 2o. 1=3D8;, July =3, 1998. .)uato!ial Realty (e elop#ent Co!p. . Cou!t of Appeals, =DB -& 1 B83, 2o#em4er =1, 199D. 78=8 "a!cos . Co#elec + esolution on the )otion !or econsideration,, =;; -& 1 "i, Octo4er =;, 199;. 7838 :s#e;a . Co#elec, G 2o. 13==31, )arch 31, 1998J and *elebap < G"A . Co#elec , G 2o. 13=9==, 1pril =1, 1998. 78B8 *abuena . Sandi%anbayan, =D8 -& 1 33=, Fe4ruary 13, 1993. 78;8 "a!cos . Sandi%anbayan, G 2o. 1=D99;, Octo4er D, 1998. 78D8 =;3 -& 1 3=3, June =8, 199D. 7838 =DB -& 1 =31, 2o#em4er 19, 199D. 7888 =;9 -& 1 DD8, July =9, 199D. 7898 Sup!a. 7908 G 2o. 119=9=, July 31, 1998. 7918 =D8 -& 1 198, Fe4ruary 13, 1993. 79=8 Sup!a. 7938 Sup!a.

- 20 -

5 (rote !ull concurrin' opinions in *atad . Sec!eta!y of .ne!%y3979B8 +(ritten 4y Justice .uno, and in People . "alacat8079;8 +(ritten 4y Justice Aa#ide,. 5 ha#e penned -eparate Opinions that a'reed (ith su4stantial parts o! the conclusions o! the decision (riters 66 Justice .uno in People . .spa!as8179D8 and I%lesia ni C!isto . Cou!t of Appeals,8=7938 Justice /ermosisima in .)uato!ial Realty . Cou!t of Appeals837988 and Salih . Co#elec.8B7998 1dditionally, 5 should stress that 5 ha#e had se#eral ponencias on (hich initially there (ere dissentin' opinions or EuestionsJ 4ut in the end, a!ter discussions and care!ul deli4erations, these (ere replaced 4y unanimous concurrence. )ost nota4le o! these cases (ereC *a;ada . An%a!a8;71008 on the constitutionality o! the rati!ication 4y the -enate o! the treaty esta4lishin' the @orld Trade Or'anization, No!th (a ao "inin% Co!p. . NLRC8D71018 on the employee>s ri'ht to separation pay in distressed companies, $o . Sandi%anbayan83710=8 on the %udicial reEuisites !or the issuance o! a (arrant o! arrest as a conseEuence o! the !ilin' o! an in!ormation, Republic . "olina8871038 on 1rticle 3D o! the Family &ode +psycholo'ical incapacity as a 'round !or nulli!yin' a marria'e, and People . "olina89710B8 on the speci!ic criminal responsi4ility arisin' !rom killin' a person (ith an ille'ally possessed !irearm. 1t some appropriate opportunity in the !uture, 5 shall (rite a4out my 9!a#orite: cases, and certainly these decisions (ill 4e amon' them. @ithout a dou4t, the cases (hich ha#e sparked much discussion and the (ritin' o! opposin' opinions (ere those that in#ol#ed interpretations o! the &onstitution, particularly those im4ued (ith pu4lic interest. 5 shall no( attempt to summarize the details o! the &ourt 4attles in#ol#in' these cele4rated constitutional contro#ersies, as (ell as some others encompassin' election, criminal, ci#il and la4or Euestions. *e!ore (ritin' my recollections and summaries o! these contro#ersial cases, 5 should emphasize that these ha#e 4een (ritten !rom my #ie(point, and the reader (ho desires a more len'thy discussion is ad#ised to look up the ori'inal decisions and opinions, the citations o! (hich are 'i#en in the !ootnotes.

39 80 81 8= 83 8B 8; 8D 83 88 89

79B8 79;8 79D8 7938 7988 7998 71008 71018 710=8 71038 710B8

G 2o. 1=B3D0, 2o#em4er ;, 1993. G 2o. 1=3;9;, Aecem4er 1=, 1993. =D0 -& 1 ;39, 1u'ust =0, 199D. =;9 -& 1 ;=9, July =D, 199D. Sup!a. G 2o. 1==83=, -eptem4er 10, 1993. =3= -& 1 18, )ay =, 1993. =;B -& 1 3=1, )arch 13, 199D. G 2o. 10DD33, Octo4er 9, 1993. Sup!a. G 2o. 11;83;63D, July ==, 1998.

- 21 -

Chapter III THE &CHA'CHA( BATT$E% Aurin' my three years in the &ourt, 5 think that the most contro#ersial cases that 'enerated much pu4lic and media attention (ere the so6called &harter chan'e +or 9&ha6 cha:, suits, namely, Santia%o . Co##ission on .lections 90710;8 and People-s Initiati e fo! Refo!#, "ode!ni2ation and Action +herea!ter, .5 )1= . Co##ission on .lections.91710D8 Santiago v" Comelec 5n the !irst case, -enator )iriam Ae!ensor -antia'o, 1tty. 1le"ander .adilla and )rs. )aria 5sa4el On'pin sou'ht to prohi4it the &ommission on $lections and Jesus Ael!in !rom conductin' a people>s initiati#e to amend the &onstitution, an amendment that (ould ha#e ena4led an incum4ent .resident to run !or reelection. 5n a )arch 19, 1993 Aecision (ritten 4y Justice Aa#ide +and !ully concurred in 4y a total o! ei'ht %ustices 66 &hie! Justice 2ar#asa and Justices e'alado, omero, *ellosillo, Hapunan, /ermosisima and Torres,, the &ourt ruled that 1 D33;, the la( re'ulatin' the people>s ri'ht o! initiati#e, (as 9inadeEuate to co#er the system o! initiati#e on amendments to the &onstitution and to ha#e !ailed to pro#ide su!!icient standard !or su4ordinate le'islation.: Justices .uno, Francisco and 5 (rote Aissentin' Opinions in (hich (e (ere %oined 4y Justices )elo and )endoza 66 a total o! !i#e mem4ers. Justice .adilla did not take part 4ecause he (as related to .etitioner 1le"ander .adilla. Justice Vitu' rendered a -eparate Opinion, in (hich he #oted 9!or 'rantin' the instant petition,: 4ut pointed out that 9the earlier Temporary estrainin' Order issued 4y the &ourt did not proscri4e the e"ercise 4y the .edrosas o! their ri'ht to campai'n !or constitutional amendments.: The dissenters a'reed (ith the rulin' o! the ma%ority that the &omelec could not entertain a petition to initiate amendments to the &onstitution throu'h a people>s initiati#e, until and unless such petition could sho' that it ca!!ied the nu#be! of si%natu!es !e)ui!ed by the funda#ental la'3 that is, at least 1= percent o! all re'istered #oters in the .hilippines, (ith at least 3 percent in e#ery le'islati#e district. But they ehe#ently disa%!eed 'ith the thesis of the #a/o!ity that RA >4?@ 'as Ainade)uateB o! Ainsufficient.B Justice .uno said 9that 7since8 the intent o! 1 2o. D33; is to implement the people>s initiati#e to amend the &onstitution, it is our 4ounden duty to interpret the la( as it (as intended 4y the le'islature.: /e ar'ued that the .edrosas could not 4e stopped 4y the &ourt !rom e"ercisin' their constitutional ri'ht to initiate amendments, stressin' that the tri4unal 9cannot seal the lips o! people (ho are pro6chan'e 4ut not
90 91 710;8 710D8

=30 -& 1 10D, )arch 19, 1993, and esolution in G 2o. 1=33=; dated June 10, 1993. G 2o. 1=93;B, -eptem4er =3, 1993.

- 22 -

those (ho are anti6chan'e (ithout con#ertin' the de4ate on &harter chan'e into a sterile talkathon.: 5n my Aissent, 5 said that the rulin' o! the ma%ority unduly restricted the people>s ri'ht to amend the &onstitution throu'h their o(n initiati#e, i2C Cith all due respect, I find the ma7oritys position all too sweeping and all too extremist& It is e9uivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats and to 8illing the patient to relieve him of pain& Chat $iti:en Delfin wants the $omelec to do we should re7ect& ;ut we should not thereby preempt any future effort to exercise the right of initiative correctly and judiciously. T e !act t at t e Del!in "etition #ro#oses a $isuse o! initiative does not justi!y a ban against its #ro#er use. Indeed% t ere is a rig t &ay to do t e rig t t ing at t e rig t ti$e and !or t e rig t reason &' Totally distrau'ht 4y the concept o! 9insu!!icient: la( propounded 4y the ma%ority, 5 asked my research sta!! to look into treatises and precedents to shed li'ht on this rather no#el concept, 4ut they !ound no credi4le authorities. 5 thou'ht that such a ne( theory o! constitutional la( should not diminish the people>s ri'ht to an initiati#e, (hich (as a!ter all an institutionalization o! 9people po(er,: the political process that made the .hilippines the talk o! the (orld. *y (ay o! epilo'ue, 5 concludedC Initiative, li8e referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system& !ll three are institutionali:ed legacies of the world admired >D#! people power& Bi8e elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of popular sovereignty& (hey are sacred democratic rights of our people to be used as their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction, oppression and misgovernanceE as well as their reserved instruments to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders& ' ile% on t e one and% t eir $isuse and abuse $ust be resolutely struc( do&n% on t e ot er% t eir legiti$ate e)ercise s ould be care!ully nurtured and *ealously #rotected&' 2ot satis!ied (ith the &ourt>s rulin', the respondents !iled separate )otions !or econsideration +) ,. -i" mem4ers o! the &ourt + CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide, omero, *ellosillo and Hapunan, #oted to deny the motion. 1nother si" + JJ. )elo, .uno, )endoza, Francisco, /ermosisima and 5, #oted to 'rant it. Justice .adilla (as on sick lea#e, Justice Torres inhi4ited himsel! !rom participation, (hile Justice Vitu' 9maintained his opinion that the matter is not ripe !or %udicial ad%udication.: -ince the motions !ailed to 'et a ma%ority #ote !rom the thirteen %ustices participatin' in the deli4eration, they (ere 9denied (ith !inality.:

- 23 -

Justices Aa#ide, .uno, Francisco and /ermosisima (rote -eparate Opinions on the ) s. Justice Aa#ide clari!ied that in declarin' 1 D33; to 4e inadeEuate, the &ourt really meant that it (as unconstitutional !or !ailin' to comply (ith the completeness and 9su!!icient standard: tests in purportin' to dele'ate a dele'a4le le'islati#e po(er. Justice .uno, on the other hand, stressed that the clear intent o! the &on'ress in enactin' 1 D33; (as to implement the pro#isions o! the &onstitution 'rantin' the people a ne( ri'ht, that o! initiatin' and appro#in' amendments to the &onstitution. -uch intent, he said, the &ourt had a duty to e!!ectuate. #!R$A v" Comelec *ut the razor6thin #ote denyin' the ) s did not daunt .5 )1, led 4y -pouses 1l4erto and &armen .edrosa, !rom pursuin' the people>s constitutional ri'ht to propose amendments to the &onstitution. On June =3, 1993, .5 )1 !iled a ne( petition 4e!ore the &omelec, this time accompanied 4y nearly si" million si'natures, to sho( compliance (ith the constitutional reEuirement +o! at least 1= percent o! all the re'istered #oters nation(ide (ith at least 3 percent in each le'islati#e district,. /o(e#er, on July 8, 1993, the &omelec dismissed the petition 9in accordance (ith the permanent restrainin' order o! the /onora4le -upreme &ourt: earlier issued in Santia%o. On July =;, 1993, .5 )1 ele#ated the matter to the -upreme &ourt, accusin' the &omelec o! 'ra#e a4use o! discretion +1, in dismissin' its petition and +=, in declarin' 1 D33; 9inadeEuate to co#er its system o! initiati#e on amendments to the &onstitution.: 5n a minute esolution dated -eptem4er =3, 1993, 9the &ourt ruled, !irst, 4y unanimous #ote, that no 'ra#e a4use o! discretion could 4e attri4uted to the pu4lic respondent &omelec in dismissin' the petition.: e'ardin' the &ourt>s rulin' that 1 D33; (as insu!!icient, se#en mem4ers o! the &ourt + CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide, omero, *ellosillo, Hapunan and Torres, #oted that 9there (as no need !or re6 e"amination o! the second issue.: Justice Vitu' a'reed (ith them !or the reason that 9the case at 4ar is not the proper #ehicle !or the purpose.: The !i#e (ho disa'reed (ith the ma%ority +JJ. )elo, .uno, Francisco, /ermosisima and 5, opined that there (as a need !or such ree"amination. Justice )endoza (as on lea#e. -eparate Opinions (ere (ritten 4y Justices Aa#ide, *ellosillo, Vitu', Hapunan, Francisco and mysel!. Justice Aa#ide opined that the elements o! !es /udicata had set in. /e said that Santia%o . Co#elec actually included, as respondents, 1tty. Jesus Ael!in and -pouses 1l4erto and &armen .edrosa, all in their capacities as !oundin' mem4ers o! .5 )1. 5n PIR"A, 1tty. Ael!in (as e"cluded, (hile the .edrosa spouses (ere %oined 4y se#eral others as petitioners. Justice *ellosillo iterated the doctrine that a 9party may not e#ade the application o! the rule on !es /udicata 4y simply includin' additional parties in the su4seEuent case and 4y not includin' as parties in the later case persons (ho (ere parties in the pre#ious suit.: Other than the su4stantial identity o! parties, the .5 )1 and Ael!in petitions had only one cause o! action and relie! sou'ht 66 to set in motion the process o! amendin' the &onstitution throu'h the people>s initiati#e.

- 24 -

)y points, summarized herein4elo(, re#ol#ed around one particular statement in my Aissent in Santia%oC 9there is a ri'ht (ay to do the ri'ht thin' at the ri'ht time !or the ri'ht reason.:9=71038 The people>s initiati#e as a means o! proposin' amendments to our &onstitution (as the !i%ht thin% that citizens could a#ail themsel#es o! in order to articulate their (ill. epu4lic 1ct D33; and &omelec esolution =300 pro#ided the su!!icient authority, or the !i%ht 'ay, to implement this no#el pro#ision in our !undamental la(. *oth adeEuately laid do(n the reEuisites o! a petition !or initiati#e and the procedure that the &omelec should undertake relati#e thereto. 1t the same time, 5 stressed that the adeEuacy o! the la( (ould not ipso facto #alidate the .5 )1 petition and automatically lead to a ple4iscite. There (as a need to address at least !our other EuestionsC 3,5 Does the proposed change constitute an amendment, not a revision, of the $onstitutionF 3*5 Chich registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the petitionF 0+),-?2 3+5 !re the signatories to the petition the true source of the clamor for the proposed $harter changeF and 315 !re the six million signatures01),-02 attached to the PI%.! petition genuine and verifiableF 5nitiati#e and re!erendum, 5 (rote, (ere the 9ultimate (eapon7s8 o! the people to ne'ate 'o#ernment mal!easance and mis!easance.:9;71108 5 stressed that the ri'ht o! initiati#e 4elon'ed to the people, not to the 'o#ernment and its minions, !or (hom the a#enue !or proposin' &harter chan'es (as either a constitutional con#ention or &on'ress turned into a constituent assem4ly. Thus, the proposed chan'e 66 the !i%ht !eason 66 must ori'inate !rom the (ill o! the people themsel#es. Furthermore, the e"ercise o! initiati#e must 4e at the appropriate or !i%ht ti#e. Mnder the &onstitution, amendments thereto may not 4e introduced 9(ithin !i#e years !ollo(in' 7its8 rati!ication " " " nor o!tener that once e#ery !i#e years therea!ter.: The !i#e6year prohi4ition (as already inoperati#e. /o(e#er, 'i#en the circumstance then pre#ailin' 66 less than ei'ht months to 'o 4e!ore the )ay 1998 national elections 66 5 pointed out that there (as no more time to 'i#e due course to .5 )1>s petition proposin' to li!t the term limits o! electi#e o!!icials in order to allo( incum4ents to seek reelection in the said polls. 5n any e#ent, this lack o! time should not ha#e
9= 71038

93

9B

9;

Aaniel Goleman, in his 4est6sellin' 4ook .#otional Intelli%ence +pp. i" and "iii,, 199D ed., credited a similar Euote to 1ristotle (ho in *he Nico#achean .thics descri4ed the rare skill 9to 4e an'ry (ith the ri'ht person, to the ri'ht de'ree, at the ri'ht time, !or the ri'ht purpose, and in the ri'ht (ay.: 71088 This (as rele#ant, considerin' that 1 8189 #oided the old re'istry o! #oters used in the 199; national elections, (hile the ne( list may only 4e used startin' in the )ay 1998 elections. 71098 Mnder =, 1rt. PV55 o! the &onstitution, the proposed constitutional amendment must 4e initiated 4y at least 1= percent o! the total num4er o! re'istered #oters, o! (hich e#ery le'islati#e district must 4e represented 4y at least 3 percent o! the re'istered #oters therein. 71108 Ga!cia . Co#elec, =33 -& 1 =39, =89, -eptem4er 30, 199B.

- 25 -

pre#ented the &ourt !rom declarin' that people>s ri'ht o! initiati#e.

1 D33; (as su!!icient to implement the

1s 5 said earlier, no case in the -upreme &ourt durin' my last three years o! incum4ency has elicited more contro#ersy and more critical out4ursts !rom the media and the pu4lic than these &ha6cha cases. The #otin's (ere Euite close, 4ut in the end the rulin's (ere Euite de!initi#e and the #ote, decisi#e. @hile the )otion !or econsideration in Santia%o (as denied throu'h a 4alanced D6D #ote, the denial o! the petition in the later case o! PIR"A (as !irm at 8 +includin' J. Vitu', to ; +or e#en D i! J. )endoza, (ho had pre#iously #oted (ith the dissenters, (ere included,. 5n the end, the rule o! la( pre#ailed. 1nd e#en i! 5 #oted (ith the minority, 5 am still satis!ied that all #oices (ere heard and that the decision (as carried throu'h in accordance (ith the hi'hest tradition o! the rule o! la(. No #artisan Alignment 5n the midst o! the contro#ersy, some critics accused henchmen o! then .resident Fidel V. amos o! pressurin' or e#en intimidatin' some %ustices to !a#or .5 )1. 5ndeed, i! all the amos appointees lined up their #otes solidly, .5 )1 (ould ha#e (on a ree"amination o! the no#el Santia%o doctrine o! statutory insu!!iciency. *ut Justice Hapunan, a amos appointee, consistently #oted a'ainst .5 )1 and Ael!inJ and, in the !inal #ote on -eptem4er =3, 1993, three amos appointees 66 Justices Vitu', Hapunan and Torres 66 sided (ith the ma%ority, there4y decisi#ely endin' the contro#ersy and the #icious 4ut erroneous char'e o! partisan ali'nments in the &ourt. Furthermore, e#en the dissenters did not 'i#e unEuali!ied support to .5 )1. 5n my case 5 e"plained, in 4oth o! my -eparate Opinions dated )arch 19, 1993 and -eptem4er =3, 1993, that (hile 5 disa'reed most certainly (ith the theory o! statutory insu!!iciency espoused 4y the ma%ority, 5 did not say that, as a necessary conseEuence, 5 !a#ored an outri'ht 'rant o! the .5 )1 petition. 5 care!ully elucidatedC ).2y position upholding the ade9uacy of %! 64+/ x x x will not i#so !acto validate the PI%.! petition and automatically lead to a plebiscite to amend the $onstitution& Far from it& !mong others, PI%.! must still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issuesG ,& Does the proposed change the lifting of the term limits of elective officials constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the $onstitutionF *& Chich registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the petitionF (his 9uestion is relevant considering that under %! ?,?0, the old registry of voters used in the ,00/ national elections was voided after the barangay elections on .ay ,*, ,004, while the new list may be used starting only in the elections of .ay ,00?&

- 26 -

+&

Does the clamor for the proposed change in the $onstitution really emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiativeF Or is it the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such move to advance their own political self interestsF !re the six million signatures genuine and verifiableF Do they really belong to 9ualified warm bodies comprising at least ,*H of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is represented by at least +H of the registered voters thereinF'

1&

That (as (hy in the epilo'ue to my -eparate Opinion dated -eptem4er =3, 1993, 5 stressed my !aith in initiati#e as a democratic method 4y (hich our people may e"press their (ill. )y position on the entire &ha6cha contro#ersy (as 4est e"pressed 4y my closin' statement, (hich 5 Euote in !ullC I believe in democracy determine our own destiny& in our peoples natural right to

I believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of enabling our people to express their will and chart their history& Initiative is an alternative to bloody revolution, internal chaos and civil strife& It is an inherent right of the people as basic as the right to elect, the right to self determination and the right to individual liberties& I believe that Filipinos have the ability and the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity& #uch beliefs, however, should not be e9uated with a desire to perpetuate a particular official or group of officials in power& Far from it& #uch perpetuation is anathema to democracy& .y firm conviction that there is an ade9uate law implementing the constitutional right of initiative does not i#so !acto result in the victory of the PI%.! petition or of any proposed constitutional change& (here are, after all, sufficient safeguards to guarantee the #ro#er use of such constitutional right and to forestall its misuse and abuse& +irst, initiative cannot be used to revise the $onstitution, only to amend it& Second, the petitioners signatures must be validated against an existing list of voters andIor voters identification cards& T ird, initiative is a reserve power of and by the people, not of incumbent officials and their machinators& +ourt and most important of all, the signatures must be verified as real
- 27 -

and genuineE not concocted, fictitious or fabricated& (he only legal way to do this is to enable the $ommission on >lections to conduct a nationwide verification process as mandated by the $onstitution and the law& #uch verification, it bears stressing, is sub7ect to review by this $ourt& (here were, by the most generous estimate, only a million people who gathered at >D#! in ,0?6, and yet they changed the history of our country& PI%.! claims six times that number, not 7ust from the Aational $apital %egion but from all over the country& Is this claim trueF Or is it 7ust an empty boastF ;y preventing the verification of this claim through the invention of its novel theory of statutory insufficiency, the $ourts ma7ority has stifled the only legal method of determining whether PI%.! is real or not, whether there is indeed a popular clamor to lift term limits of elected officials, and whether six million voters want to initiate amendments to their most basic law& In suppressing a 7udicial answer to such 9uestions, the $ourt may have unwittingly yielded to PI%.! the benefit of the legal presumption of legality and regularity& In its misplaced :eal to exterminate the rats, it burned down the whole house& It unceremoniously divested the people of a basic constitutional right& 95n the ultimate, the mission o! the %udiciary is to disco#er truth and to make it pre#ail. This mission is undertaken not only to resol#e the #a'aries o! present e#ents 4ut also to 4uild the path(ays o! tomorro(. The sum total o! the entire process o! ad#ersarial liti'ation is the #erity o! !acts and the application o! la( thereto. *y the ma%ority cop6out in this mission o! disco#ery, our country and our people ha#e 4een depri#ed not only o! a 4asic constitutional ri'ht, as earlier noted, 4ut also o! the %udicial opportunity to #eri!y the truth.:

- 28 -

Chapter IV BATT$E% OVER $I)E AND DEATH The &ha6cha cases may ha#e 'enerated political 4edlam, 4ut they are no( a thin' o! the past. @hile it is possi4le that contro#ersy may attend !uture attempts to tinker (ith the 4asic la(, the cases that occupy the continuin' attention o! the &ourt and the 'eneral pu4lic in the meantime are those that impose the death penalty. 9D71118 The decisions and the opinions +dissentin', concurrin' or separate, in cases imposin' death on the appellant are, 4y &ourt tradition, pe! cu!ia#3 that is, the authors are not identi!ied. 1lthou'h 5 personally disa'ree (ith this &ourt practice, 5 am 4ound to !ollo( it. Thus, in my discussion o! these cases, 5 shall not name the ponentes or the dissenters. The Constitutionality of the Death #enalty %aw -ection 19,93711=8 1rticle 555 o! the 1983 &onstitution, prohi4its the imposition o! the death penalty, 9unless !or compellin' reasons in#ol#in' heinous crimes, the &on'ress herea!ter pro#ides !or it.: The le'islature 9pro#ided !or it: 4y enactin' epu4lic 1ct 2o. 3D;9 (hich 4ecame e!!ecti#e on Aecem4er 31, 1993. From then up to this (ritin' +Octo4er 10, 1998,, it is estimated that the trial courts ha#e imposed at least 3B8 death penalties9871138 +'ro(in' at an a#era'e o! around 13 monthly,, most o! them a(aitin' automatic re#ie( 4y the -upreme &ourt. O! the capital sentences a!!irmed 4y the &ourt, the !irst (as that o! 0eo $che'aray.99711B8 5n a pe! cu!ia# esolution dated Fe4ruary 3, 1993,100711;8 the &ourt, 4y a #ote o! 1= to 3, upheld the constitutionality o! 1 3D;9 inso!ar as it prescri4ed the death penalty. 5t should 4e noted that it passed upon the constitutionality o! 1 3D;9 only in
9D 71118

93

98

99 100

True, the acEuittal o! )rs. 5melda . )arcos in "a!cos . Sandi%anbayan, G 2o. 1=099;, Octo4er D, 1998, has cau'ht pu4lic attention. *ut my deadline !or this 4ook, Octo4er 10, 1998, pre#ents me !rom discussin' these pu4lic reactions at len'th. .erhaps, in another article later, 5 (ill ha#e occasion to (rite on them. 711=8 9-ec. 19. +1, $"cessi#e !ines shall not 4e imposed, nor cruel, de'radin' or inhuman punishment in!licted. 2either shall death penalty 4e imposed, unless, !or compellin' reasons in#ol#in' heinous crimes, the &on'ress herea!ter pro#ides !or it. 1ny death penalty already imposed shall 4e reduced to !eclusion pe!petua. 9+=, The employment o! physical, psycholo'ical, or de'radin' punishment a'ainst any prisoner or detainee or the use o! su4standard or inadeEuate penal !acilities under su4human conditions shall 4e dealt (ith 4y la(.: 71138 1s o! -eptem4er 1998, 4ased on a study conducted 4y the &itizens> Aru' @atch Foundation, 5nc., as cited 4y -en. 0oren 0e'arda in a ne(s item, 91;3 o! B== rapists picked their o(n dau'hters,: "anila Standa!d, Oct. ;, 1998, p. 1. 711B8 =;3 -& 1 ;D1, June =D, 199D. 711;8 =D3 -& 1 D8=, Fe4ruary 3, 1993.

- 29 -

$che'aray>s -upplemental )otion !or econsideration, not in the &ourt>s main decision,101711D8 4ecause this issue (as 4rou'ht up only at that sta'e 4y his ne( counsel, the Free 0e'al 1ssistance Group +F01G,.10=71138 5n upholdin' the #alidity o! 1 3D;9, the ma%ority o! the &ourt ruledC 1. The death penalty is not a 9cruel, un%ust, e"cessi#e or unusual punishment.: 5t is an e"pression o! the prero'ati#e o! the state to 9secure society a'ainst threatened and actual e#il.: =. The o!!enses !or (hich 1 3D;9 prescri4es death satis!y 9the element o! heinousness.: -aid la( speci!ies the 9circumstances that 'enerally Euali!y a crime " " " to 4e punished " " " 74y8 death.: 3. 1 3D;9 9is replete (ith 4oth procedural and su4stantial sa!e'uards that ensure 7its8 correct application.: B. The &onstitution does not reEuire that 9a positi#e mani!estation in the !orm o! a hi'her incidence o! crime should !irst 4e percei#ed and statistically pro#en: 4e!ore the death penalty can 4e prescri4ed. The &onstitution 'a#e &on'ress the discretion to determine the presence o! the elements o! heinousness and compellin' reasons, and the &ourt (ould e"ceed its authority i! it Euestions the e"ercise o! such discretion. 1s stated earlier, three %ustices dissented. O! the three, t(o (rote Aissentin' Opinions. The !irst, a three6pa'e Aissent, stressed the need !or a 9marked chan'e in the milieu !rom that (hich has pre#ailed at the time o! the adoption o! the 1983 &onstitution, on the one hand, to that (hich e"ists at the enactment o! the statute prescri4in' the death penalty, upon the other hand, that (ould make it distinctly ine"ora4le to mandate the death penalty. That milieu must ha#e turned !rom 4ad to (orse.: )ore important, it ar'ued that the 9heinous: nature o! the crimes had not 4een demonstrated to 4e 9e"ceptionally o!!ensi#e as to (arrant the death penalty " " ".: The second Aissent, a 3=6pa'e -eparate Opinion, pointedly condemned the !ailure o! &on'ress to e"ercise its constitutional duty o! determinin' the e"istence o! 9compellin' reasons: and o! de!inin' (hat crimes could 4e deemed 9heinous.: 5nstead, &on'ress e"ercised its !undamental mandate merely 9+1, 4y amendin' certain pro#isions
101 10= 711D8 71138

=;3 -& 1 ;D1, June =;, 199D. 1mon' the mem4ers o! the F01G 1nti6Aeath .enalty Task Force are 0a(yers .a4lito V. -anidad, Jose )anuel 5. Aiokno, 1rno V. -anidad, $!ren )oncupa, $duardo . 14aya and )a. Victoria 5. Aiokno. 5 commend these la(yers !or their 'rit and perse#erance in !i'htin' !or death6 ro( con#icts not only in .che%a!ay 4ut in many other cases, particularly in attackin' the constitutionality o! the Aeath .enalty 0a( and the 0ethal 5n%ection 0a(.

- 30 -

o! the e#ised .enal &ode,10371188 +=, 4y incorporatin' a ne( article therein10B71198 and +3, 4y amendin' certain special la(s.:10;71=08 epu4lic 1ct 2o. 3D;9 9did not chan'e the nature or the elements o! the crimes stated in the .enal &ode and in special la(s. 5t merely made the penalty more se#ere.: &ertainly, these crimes did not satis!y the constitutional reEuirements o! 9heinousness: and 9compellin' reasons.: The dissenter e"plainedC ;y merely reimposing capital punishment on the very same crimes which were already penali:ed with death prior to the $harters effectivity, $ongress I submit, has not fulfilled its specific and positive constitutional duty& If the $onstitutional $ommission intended merely to allow $ongress to prescribe death for these very same crimes, it would not have written #ec& ,0 of !rticle III into the fundamental law& ;ut the stubborn fact is it did& Jerily, the intention to 3,5 delete the death penalty from our criminal laws and 3*5 ma8e its restoration possible only under and sub7ect to stringent conditions is evident not only from the language of the $onstitution but also from the $harter debates on this matter& (he critical phrase @unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes was an amendment introduced by $omm& $hristian .onsod& In explaining what possible crimes could 9ualify as heinous, he and $omm& "ose #uare: agreed on @organi:ed murder or @brutal murder of a rape victim& Aote that the honorable commissioners did not 7ust say @murder but organized murderE not 7ust rape but brutal ra e of a rape victim& Chile the debates were admittedly rather scanty, I believe that the available information shows that, when deliberating on @heinousness, the $onstitutional $ommission did not have in mind the offenses already existing and already penali:ed with death& I also believe that the heinousness clause re9uires thatG ,5 the crimes should be entirely new offenses, the elements of which have an inherent 9uality, degree or level of perversity, depravity or viciousness unheard of until thenE or *5 even existing crimes, provided some new element or essential ingredient li8e @organi:ed or @brutal is added to show their utter perversity,
103 71188

10B 10;

1rt. 11B 66 TreasonJ 1rt. 1=3 66 Iuali!ied .iracyJ 1rt. =BD 66 .arricideJ 1rt. =B8 66 )urderJ 1rt. =;; 66 5n!anticideJ 1rt. =D3 66 Hidnappin' and -erious 5lle'al AetentionJ 1rt. =9B 66 o44ery (ith Violence 1'ainst or 5ntimidation o! .ersonsJ 1rt. 3=0 66 Aestructi#e 1rsonJ 1rt. 33; 66 ape. 71198 1rt. =1161 on Iuali!ied *ri4ery. 71=08 -ection =, 1 3080 66 .lunderJ -ecs. 3,B,;,3,8 and 9 1rticle 55 o! 1 DB=; 66 .rohi4ited Aru'sJ -ecs. 1B, 1B61 and 1; o! 1rticle 555 o! said 1 DB=; 66 &arnappin'.

- 31 -

odiousness or malevolenceE or +5 the means or method by which the crime, whether new or old, is carried out evinces a degree or magnitude of extreme violence, evil, cruelty, atrocity, viciousness as to demonstrate its heinousness& For this purpose, $ongress could enact an entirely new set of circumstances to 9ualify the crime as @heinous, in the same manner that the presence of treachery in a homicide aggravates the crime to murder for which a heavier penalty is prescribed&'

1dditionally, 5 4elie#e that there are too many crimes to (hich death has 4een prescri4ed 4y &on'ress. 5n !act, there are more capital crimes no( than there (ere 4e!ore the e!!ecti#ity o! the 1983 &onstitution. This partly accounts !or the unusually lar'e num4er o! death sentences imposed 4y trial courts. Furthermore, the dissenter noted the !ollo(in' in the deli4erations in &on'ressC x x x )A2o statistical data, no sufficient proof, empirical or otherwise, have been submitted to show with any conclusiveness the relationship between the prescription of the death penalty for certain offenses and the commission or non commission thereof& (his is a theory that can be debated on and on, in the same manner that another proposition that the real deterrent to crime is the certainty of immediate arrest, prosecution and conviction of the culprit without unnecessary ris8, expense and inconvenience to the victim, his heirs or his witnesses can be argued indefinitely& (his debate can last till the academics grow weary of the spo8en word, but it would not lessen the constitutionally imposed burden of $ongress to act within the @heinousness and @compelling reasons limits of its death prescribing power&' )!2ll our previous $onstitutions, including the first one ordained at .alolos, guarantee that @3n5o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law& (his primary right of the people to en7oy life life at its fullest, life in dignity and honor is not only reiterated by the ,0?4 $harter but is in fact fortified by its other pro life and pro human rights provisions& Kence, the $onstitution values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights, expressly prohibits any form of torture which is arguably a lesser penalty than death,

- 32 -

emphasi:es the individual right to life by giving protection to the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception, and establishes the peoples rights to health, a balanced ecology and education& (his $onstitutional explosion of concern for man more than property, for people more than the state, and for life more than mere existence augurs well for the strict application of the constitutional limits against the revival of death penalty as the final and irreversible exaction of society against its perceived enemies&'

/e !urther pointed out that the death penalty militated a'ainst the poor and po(erless in society, as sho(n 4y the undenia4le !act that almost all, i! not all, o! those to (hom the trial courts meted out death (ere underpri#ile'ed. 9To the poor and unlettered, it is 4ad enou'h that the la( is comple" and (ritten in a stran'e, incomprehensi4le lan'ua'e. @orse still, %udicial proceedin's are themsel#es complicated, intimidatin' and damnin'. The net e!!ect o! ha#in' a death penalty that is imposed more o!ten than not upon the impecunious is to en'ender in the minds o! the latter a sense 66 un!ounded, to 4e sure, 4ut unhealthy ne#ertheless 66 o! the uneEual 4alance o! the scales o! %ustice.: The ar'uments a'ainst the constitutionality o! the death penalty, as prescri4ed 4y 1 3D;9, (ere summarized in the $pilo'ue o! the a!orementioned Aissentin' OpinionC In sum, I respecfully submit thatG 3,5 (he ,0?4 $onstitution abolished the death penalty from our statute boo8s& It did not merely suspend or prohibit its imposition& 3*5 (he $harter effectively granted a new rightG the constitutional right against the death penalty, which is really a species of the right to life& 3+5 !ny law reviving the capital penalty must be strictly construed against the #tate and liberally in favor of the accused, because such a statute denigrates the $onstitution, impinges on a basic right and tends to deny e9ual 7ustice to the underprivileged& 315 >very word or phrase in the $onstitution is sacred and should never be ignored, cavalierly treated or brushed aside& 3/5 $ongressional power to prescribe death is severely limited by two concurrent re9uirementsG

- 33 -

3a5

First, $ongress provide a set of attendant circumstances which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, apart from the elements of the crime itself& $ongress must explain why and how these circumstances define or characteri:e the crime as @heinous& #econd, $ongress has also the duty of laying out clear and specific reasons which arose after the effectivity of the $onstitution compelling the enactment of the law& It bears repeating that these re9uirements are inseparable& (hey must both be present in view of the specific constitutional mandate @for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes& (he compelling reasons must flow from the heinous nature of the offense&

3b5

365 In every law reviving the capital penalty, the heinousness and compelling reasons must be set out for each and every crime, and not 7ust for all crimes generally and collectively& @(hou shall not 8ill is a fundamental commandment to all $hristians, as well as to the rest of the @sovereign Filipino people who believe in !lmighty <od& Chile the $atholic $hurch, to which the vast ma7ority of our people belong, ac8nowledges the power of public authorities to prescribe the death penalty, it advisedly limits such prerogative only to @cases of extreme gravity& (o 9uote Pope "ohn Paul II in his encyclical Evangeliu$ ,itae 3! Kymn to Bife5, @punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessityG in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society x x x 3which is5 very rare, if not practically nonexistent& !lthough not absolutely banning it, both the $onstitution and the $hurch indubitably abhor the death penalty& ;oth are pro people and pro life& ;oth clearly recogni:e the primacy of human life over and above even the state which man created precisely to protect, cherish and defend him& (he $onstitution reluctantly allows capital punishment only for @compelling reasons involving heinous crimes 7ust as the $hurch grudgingly permits it only for reasons of @absolute necessity involving crimes of @extreme gravity, which are very rare and practically nonexistent& In the face of these evident truisms, I as8G Kas $ongress,

- 34 -

in enacting %! 46/0, amply discharged its constitutional burden of proving the existence of @compelling reasons to prescribe death against well defined @heinous crimesF I respectfully submit it has not&'

Should the Supreme Court Review a Death Sentence if Appellant &scapes'

*ut the 4attle !or li!e and a'ainst death did not end in .che%a!ay. 5n People . .spa!as,10D71=18 promul'ated on 1u'ust =0, 199D, the &ourt (as con!ronted (ith the issue o! (hether the -upreme &ourt should proceed automatically to re#ie( a death sentence i! the appellant had escaped !rom con!inement. .ursuant to -ection 8, par. =,10371==8 ule 1=B o! the ules o! &ourt, the &ourt as a matter o! practice dismisses an appeal i! the appellant escapes !rom con!inement. This is in consonance (ith the principle that i! the appellant escapes, he or she 4rin's himsel! or hersel! outside the %urisdiction and authority o! the &ourt. Thus, appeals o! cases not in#ol#in' the death penalty are matter6o!6!actly dismissed 4y the &ourt, there4y allo(in' the sentence o! !eclusion pe!petua +or li!e imprisonment, in case o! #iolation o! special la(s, , meted out 4y a lo(er court, to 4ecome !inal. @hen the death penalty is in#ol#ed, ho(e#er, the matter could not 4e treated routinely. The 1u'ust =0, 199D Aecision in .spa!as (as not promul'ated pe! cu!ia#, since the issue therein did not re!er to the imposition o! the death penalty. -i" +D, %ustices, namely, Justices omero, Aa#ide, *ellosillo, .uno +ponente,, Hapunan and /ermosisima opined that e"istin' %urisprudence mandated a re#ie( o! all death penalty cases re'ardless o! the escape o! the accused !rom con!inement. T(o others, Justice Vitu' and 5, %oined only in the result, e"plainin' that (hile the &ourt should not, as a conseEuence o! the escape o! the accused, dismiss an appeal !rom a decision imposin' the death penalty, it could not at the same time render %ud'ment until a!ter he or she (as rearrested and thus 4ecame su4%ect to the %urisdiction o! the &ourt. -e#en others (ho dissented 66 &hie! Justice 2ar#asa and Justices .adilla, e'alado, )elo, )endoza, Francisco and Torres 66 stressed that (hen the accused escaped pendin' appeal, he or she there4y #oluntarily relinEuished the protection o! the %udiciary. The second .spa!as Aecision,10871=38 (hich (as issued pe! cu!ia# this time,
10D 103 71=18 71==8

108

=D0 -& 1 ;39, 1u'ust =0, 199D. 9-ec. 8. (is#issal of appeal fo! abandon#ent o! failu!e to p!osecute. 6 " " " 9The court may also, upon motion o! the appellee or on its o(n motion, dismiss the appeal i! the appellant escapes !rom prison or con!inement or %umps 4ail or !lees to a !orei'n country durin' the pendency o! the appeal.: 71=38 People . .spa!as, G 2o. 1=003B, July 10, 1998.

- 35 -

a!!irmed the con#iction o! the appellant and imposed the death penalty on her. The issue o! (hether the &ourt should a(ait the arrest o! the accused 4e!ore renderin' %ud'ment 4ecame academic, 4ecause 1ppellant Jose!ina $sparas (as e#entually rearrested and con!ined in the 2ational *ili4id .risons. The &ourt ruledC !s earlier indicated in note 1, appellant >sparas was however rearrested and is now once more in the hands of the law and thus un9uestionably sub7ect to this $ourts 7urisdiction& Kence, the issue of whether a decision of conviction could be validly rendered while she was at large which was discussed when the $ourt deliberated on the present extended resolution has become moot in the case&' /o(e#er, the issue (as resurrected in People . P!ades,10971=B8 another pe! cu!ia# decision a!!irmin' the imposition o! the death penalty on the accused. 5n this case, 1ppellant .rades had a4sconded 4e!ore the prosecution !inished presentin' its e#idence in the trial court. *ut the close #ote in the !irst .spa!as case (as not replicated in this one. 1ll the %ustices, e"cept one (ho dissented, ruled that 9the &ourt can #alidly promul'ate %ud'ment: e#en in the !ace o! the appellant>s escape. &itin' Flo!endo . Cou!t of Appeals,11071=;8 the &ourt held that it could not allo( 9the %udicial process 7to8 4e su4#erted 4y the accused %umpin' 4ail to !rustrate the promul'ation o! the %ud'ment.: The lone dissenter, on the other hand, saidC Chile an escapee moc8s the law and puts himself outside the protection of the 7udiciary, and while his appeal should not be automatically dismissed merely for that reason, still I believe that the #upreme $ourt should not deliberate on the appeal of the accused, much less render 7udgment thereon, until after he or she is rearrested or voluntarily submits to the 7urisdiction of the $ourt&'

Repetitive Dissents in Death Cases -ince .che%a!ay, the &ourt has a!!irmed 11171=D8 the death sentences o! the !ollo(in'C Aante .iandion' et al.,11=71=38 .a4lito 1ndan,11371=88 )arlon .arazo,11B71=98 Jurry
109 110 111 11= 113 11B 71=B8 71=;8 71=D8 71=38 71=88 71=98

G 2o. 1=3;D9, July 30, 1998. =39 -& 1 3=;, Aecem4er =0, 199B. 1s o! Octo4er 10, 1998. =D8 -& 1 ;;;, Fe4ruary 19 , 1993. =D9 -& 1 9;, )arch 3, 1993. =3= -& 1 ;1=, )ay 1B, 1993.

- 36 -

1ndal et al.,11;71308 Teo!ilo Taneo,11D71318 $duardo 1'4ayani, 113713=8 omeo Gallo,11871338 &resencio Ta4u'oca,119713B8 o4erto Gun'on,1=0713;8 Joeral Galleno,1=1713D8 Oscar $scala,1== 71338 $ste4an Victor,1=371388 Gre'orio .a'upat,1=B71398 Jose!ina $sparas,1=;71B08 -enen .rades,1=D 71B18 Aante 1l!eche,1=371B=8 Felipe de los -antos,1=871B38 odri'o &alma,1=971BB8 1le" *artolome,13071B;8 and *enedicto amos.13171BD8 5n all these cases, the dissenters repeatedly re'istered their ne'ati#e #otes. 5n People . .scala, ho(e#er, such repetiti#e dissents dre( the ire o! the ma%ority, (hich claimed that inasmuch as the &ourt had already heard them so many times, it (as time !or the dissenters to accept the (ill o! the ma%ority. They e"plained that such repetiti#e dissents tended to undermine the %udicial process, especially in the eyes o! trial %ud'es, (ho (ere reEuired 4y the -upreme &ourt to impose the capital penalty +once 'uilt (as esta4lished 4eyond reasona4le dou4t, re'ardless o! their personal or pri#ate opinions. Mndaunted, the minority de!ended their ri'ht to e"press their dissent repetiti#ely, e#en as they su4mitted to the rulin' o! the ma%ority. The discussion on this point 4ecame #ery in#ol#ed and animated, e#en passionate. 5n the end, it (as a'reed that +1, a !inal Aissentin' Opinion (ould 4e included in the te"t o! the .scala AecisionJ and +=, hence!orth, the !ollo(in' clause, or (ords to the same e!!ect, (ould 4e reproduced in all !uture death case a!!irmationsC 9Four mem4ers o! this &ourt maintain their position that epu4lic 1ct. 2o. 3D;9, inso!ar as it prescri4es the death penalty, is unconstitutionalJ ne#ertheless, they su4mit to the rulin' o! the ma%ority that the la( is constitutional and that the death penalty should 4e imposed in this case.: 2ote that at this time +July 8, 1998,, the num4er o! dissenters 're( to !our. Ori'inally, there had 4een 3 +in .che%a!ay, out o! !i!teen, a num4er that (as later reduced to =J 4ut in .scala, the dissenters 're( to B out o! !ourteen incum4ents. 5! only to con#ey 9the sound and the !ury: en'endered 4y these 9li!e and death 4attles,: the Aissentin' Opinion in .scala is reproduced e!bati#C During the deliberation of this case, I have been as8ed by
11; 11D 113 118 119 1=0 1=1 1== 1=3 1=B 1=; 1=D 1=3 1=8 1=9 130 131 71308 71318

G 2o. 1=B933, -eptem4er =;, 1993. G 2o. 113D83, January 1D, 1998. 713=8 G 2o. 1==330, January 1D, 1998. 71338 G 2o. 1=B33D, January 1D, 1998. 713B8 G 2o. 1=;33B, January =8, 1998. 713;8 G 2o. 119;3B, )arch 19, 1998. 713D8 G 2o. 1=3;BD, July =, 1998. 71338 G 2o. 1=0=81, July 8, 1998. 71388 G 2o. 1=3903, July 9, 1998. 71398 G 2o. 1=;313, July 31, 1998. 71B08 Sup!a. 71B18 Sup!a. 71B=8 G 2o. 1=B=13, 1u'ust 13, 1998. 71B38 G 2o. 1=190D, -eptem4er 13, 1998. 71BB8 G 2o. 1=31=D, -eptem4er 13, 1998. 71B;8 G 2o. 1=90;B, -eptem4er =9, 1998. 71BD8 G 2o. 118;30, Octo4er 1=, 1998. +*ecause my deadline !or this 4ook, Octo4er 10, 1998, !ell on a -aturday, 5 included this last death penalty case, (hich (as promul'ated on the ne"t (orkin' Aay, Oct. 1=.,

- 37 -

my colleagues who constitute the overwhelming ma7ority of this $ourt to refrain from voting against the imposition of the death penalty&,+*),142 !fter all, they say, I have already expressed my +* page #eparate Opinion 3copy attached5 in "eo#le vs. Ec egaray%,++ ),1?2 and a reiteration of my views and the repetitive casting of my negative vote are now unnecessary, redundant, and even improper& (herefore, they chorus, I should now, in obeisance to the ma7oritys will, cast a vote in favor of imposing the death penalty and thereby open the way to a unanimous vote& Cith all due respect and after much soul searching, reflection and prayer, I regret that I still cannot accede& Chile I bow to the ma7oritys decision and will abide by it, I stand on my right, as a member of this $ourt, to cast my negative vote on every decision and action that see8s to impose the death penalty pursuant to a law which I firmly believe to be unconstitutional and therefore nonexistent& >very review of a criminal case by this $ourt, particularly one involving the capital penalty, is a review de novo% a meticulous review of the whole case of every fact, evidence, issue and argument possible whether raised by the parties or not& (his is basic and historically axiomatic& ,+1),102 In every such review, I plainly see the constitutionality of %! 46/0, insofar as it prescribes death, as a glaringly indispensable issue to which I cannot close my eyes& .y duty to this $ourt, to this country, to my conscience and to my <od re9uires me to spea8 out courageously and resolutely& (hat the overwhelming ma7ority of the present members of this $ourt believes otherwise does not distract me or discourage me from casting my vote as my conscience and my duty impel me& (o agree with this law is their privilege& I leave that to their individual consciences and perceptions of duty& ;ut as for me, I fervently believe that this law is totally abhorrent to our fundamental law and to my fundamental faith, and I will steadfastly vote in accordance with such belief every time a case involving the
13= 71B38

133 13B

5n some pre#ious death cases, the dissenter had already 4een asked to re!rain !rom castin' his ne'ati#e #ote. To'ether (ith another mem4er o! this &ourt, he has consistently #oted to impose only !eclusion pe!petua. 2o(, t(o other %ustices ha#e %oined 4oth o! them 4y adherin' to the latter t(o %ustices> -eparate Opinions in .che%a!ay. +The ori'inal !ootnote has 4een modi!ied., 71B88 =D3 -& 1 D8=, Fe4ruary 3, 1993. 71B98 People . :lfindo, B3 .hil 1 +19=B,J People . Bo!bano, 3D .hil 30= +19BD,J Suy Sui . People, 9= .hil D8B +19;3,J People . Ca!!eon, 11; .hil =B= +19D=,J People . Due#el, == -& 1 B;, January 1D, 19D8J People . *a%o!anao, 33 -& 1 B90, Fe4ruary 11, 1931J People . Pa/a!illo, 9B -& 1 8=8, Aecem4er =3, 1939J People . Lasanas, 1;= -& 1 =3, July 3, 1983J People . Godines, 19D -& 1 3D;, )ay 3, 1991J People . Li)uen, =1= -& 1 =88, 1u'ust D, 199=J People . Ale/and!o, ==; -& 1 3B3, 1u'ust 13, 1993J People . Ali iado, =B3 -& 1 300, 1u'ust 1B, 199;J People . 1illa!uel, =D1 -& 1 38D, -eptem4er B, 199DJ People . Sol, G 2o. 118;0B, )ay 3, 1993.

- 38 -

said law is brought before me& (oday, I may belong to the small minority which believes in the total nullity of the death penalty law& (hat does not fa:e me& Aeither does it necessarily prove me wrong& Aor the ma7ority, right& It has been reported,+/),/-2 that there are now about 6-- death cases 3and increasing at the rate of +- more monthly5 decided by trial courts and awaiting automatic review by the #upreme $ourt& !nd even if only fifty percent of these cases are affirmed by this $ourt, my negative vote notwithstanding, one convict may have to be put to death every wor8ing day in the near future& (hat would be a massacre more gruesome than the !ID# epidemic and the $ambodian 8illing fields, and more detestable than the very crimes which this execrable law purportedly see8s to prevent or vindicate& (he Philippines and this $ourt would have the dubious distinction of being the worst 7udicial 8illers in this world where, ironically, the death penalty is being phased out& ,+6),/,2 In life, there are certain basic principles and values I hold sacred and inviolable& !nd no power on earth, no law in this country or elsewhere, can deny me my faith in such principles and values, and in acting consistently with them& #ome may thin8 this is improvident or foolhardy& (hat is the ris8 I am willing to ta8e to uphold my conviction& Kence, with all due respect, I will continue to vote against every death penalty imposed against any man or woman and to uphold my belief in the transcendent value of life and in the absolute nullity of this law&'

13;

71;08

13D

9D00 2o( in Aeath o(,: "anila Bulletin, )arch =, 1998, p. 1J 9@oman is D00th Aeath o( &on#ict,: Philippine Sta!, )arch =, 1998, p. 1. 71;18 1rticle 1 o! the -econd Optional .rotocol to the &o#enant on &i#il and .olitical i'hts, si'ned on Aecem4er 1;, 1989, statesC

3,5 Ao one within the 7urisdiction of a #tate Party to the present Protocol shall be executed& 3*5 >ach #tate Party shall ta8e all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its 7urisdiction&'
The !ollo(in' countries ha#e su4mitted their rati!ication papers as o! Aecem4er 199DC 1ustralia 5taly omania 1ustria 0u"em4our' -eychelles &roatia )alta -lo#enia Aenmark )ozam4iEue -pain $cuador 2ami4ia -(eden Finland 2etherlands -(itzerland Germany 2e( Kealand epu4lic o! )acedonia /un'ary 2or(ay Mru'uay 5celand .anama Venezuela 5reland .ortu'al +-ourceC AF1 M25O O!!ice,

- 39 -

The (alidity of the %ethal !n)ection %aw .rior to the e!!ecti#ity o! 1 3D;9 on Aecem4er 31, 1993, the prescri4ed method !or carryin' out capital punishment (as electrocution as pro#ided in 1rticle 81 o! the e#ised .enal &ode. 5n -ection =B o! the a!orementioned 1 3D;9, this method (as chan'ed to 'as poisonin' upon the acEuisition 4y the *ureau o! &orrections o! the proper !acilities !or the purpose. /o(e#er, accordin' to -enator $rnesto F. /errera, the old electric chair (as destroyed 4y !ire, and the 4uildin' o! a 'as cham4er (as deemed too e"pensi#e. /ence, &on'ress enacted 1 8133, (hich chan'ed the mode o! e"ecution !or death penalty con#icts !rom electrocution to lethal in%ection.13371;=8 On )arch =, 1998, the 1nti6Aeath .enalty Task Force o! the Free 0e'al 1ssistance Group +F01G, led 4y 1tty. Theodore Te, in representation o! 0eo $che'aray, challen'ed the constitutionality o! 1 8133 !or 4ein' +a, cruel, de'radin' and inhumanJ +4, ar4itrary, unreasona4le and o!!ensi#e to due processJ +c, #iolati#e o! international co#enantsJ +d, an undue dele'ation o! le'islati#e po(erJ +e, an unla(!ul e"ercise, 4y the %ustice secretary, o! the po(er to le'islateJ and +!, an unla(!ul dele'ation 4y the %ustice secretary o! his dele'ated po(ers to the director o! the *ureau o! &orrections. Votin' 10 to B, the &ourt in Leo .che%a!ay . Sec!eta!y of Justice13871;38 dismissed the petition, inso!ar as it sou'ht to declare the 0ethal 5n%ection 0a( unconstitutional, 4ut partially 'ranted it 4y in#alidatin' -ections 13 and 19 o! the ules and e'ulations to 5mplement epu4lic 1ct 2o. 8133. Pe! cu!ia#, the &ourt descri4ed the process o! administerin' the death penalty 4y lethal in%ection in this (iseC In lethal in7ection, the condemned inmate is strapped on a hospital gurney and wheeled into the execution room& ! trained technician inserts a needle into a vein in the inmates arm and begins an intravenous flow of saline solution& !t the wardens signal, a lethal combination of drugs is in7ected into the intravenous line& (he deadly concoction typically includes three drugsG 3,5 a nonlethal dose of sodium thiopenthotal, a sleep inducing barbiturateE 3*5 lethal doses of pancuronium bromide, a drug that paraly:es the musclesE and 3+5 potassium chloride, which stops the heart within seconds& (he first two drugs are commonly used during surgery to put the patient to sleep and relax musclesE the third is used in heart bypass surgery&' &itin' $a!den . (i!ecto! of P!isons,13971;B8 the &ourt said that the !ore'oin'
133 138 71;=8 71;38

139

ecords o! the -enate, Octo4er ;, 199;, p. B8. G 2o. 13=D01, Octo4er 1=, 1998. 5 am includin' this Aecision in this 4ook, 4ecause Octo4er 10, 1998 +my third anni#ersary, !ell on a -aturdayJ thus, the ne"t (orkin' day (as )onday, Octo4er 1=, 1998. 71;B8 81 .hil 3B1, 3B3 719B88.

- 40 -

method (as not cruel, de'radin' or inhuman, 4ecause it did not 9in#ol#e torture or a lin'erin' death.: The &ourt !urther pointed out that -ection 1D o! 1 8133 1B071;;8 le!t no uncertainty on (hich court should !i" the time and the date o! e"ecution, as it should 4e the trial court that con#icted the accused. 2or should 4e there uncertainty on the date o! e"ecution or the date o! noti!ication, as the e"ecution should 4e carried out 9not earlier than one year nor later than ei'hteen months a!ter the %ud'ment has 4ecome !inal and e"ecutory.: The reimposition o! the death penalty, the &ourt ruled, did not #iolate the 5nternational &o#enant on &i#il and .olitical i'hts o! the Mnited 2ations, 4ecause such 1'reement 9e"plicitly reco'nizes that capital punishment is an allo(a4le limitation on the ri'ht to li!e " " ".: On the other hand, the -econd Optional .rotocol to the 5nternational &o#enant on &i#il and .olitical i'hts, (hich aimed to a4olish the death penalty, (as not si'ned or rati!ied 4y the .hilippines. The Aecision also #alidated the dele'ation, to the %ustice secretary and the director o! the *ureau o! &orrections, o! the rules and re'ulations 'o#ernin' the administrati#e details in the process o! e"ecution, 4ecause +1, 1 8133 had set !orth the policy to 4e !ollo(ed and (as thus complete in itsel!, and +=, said la( had !i"ed a standard to (hich the dele'ate must con!orm in the per!ormance o! his or her !unctions. 1dded the &ourtC ! careful reading of %&!& Ao& ?,44 would show that there is no undue delegation of legislative power from the #ecretary of "ustice to the Director of the ;ureau of $orrections for the simple reason that under the !dministrative $ode of ,0?4, the ;ureau of $orrections is a mere constituent unit of the Department of "ustice& Further, the Department of "ustice is tas8ed, among others, to ta8e charge of the @administration of the correctional system& Kence, the import of the phraseology of the law is that the #ecretary of "ustice should supervise the Director of the ;ureau of $orrections in promulgating the Bethal In7ection .anual, in consultation with the Department of Kealth&'

1B0

71;;8

-ec. 1D. N*T!F!CAT!*N AND &+&C,T!*N *F T-& S&NT&NC& AND ASS!STANC& T* T-& C*N(!CT. 66 The court shall desi'nate a (orkin' day !or the e"ecution o! the death penalty 4ut not the hour thereo!. -uch desi'nation shall only 4e communicated to the con#ict a!ter sunrise o! the day o! the e"ecution, and the e"ecution shall not take place until a!ter the e"piration o! at least ei'ht +8, hours !ollo(in' the noti!ication, 4ut 4e!ore sunset. Aurin' the inter#al 4et(een the noti!ication and e"ecution, the con#ict shall, as !ar as possi4le, 4e !urnished such assistance as he may reEuest in order to 4e attended in his last moments 4y a priest or minister o! the reli'ion he pro!esses and to consult his la(yers, as (ell as in order to make a (ill and con!er (ith mem4ers o! his !amily or persons in char'e o! the mana'ement o! his 4usiness, o! the administration o! his property, or o! the care o! his descendants.

- 41 -

1s a concession to the dissenters, -ections 13 and 19 o! the ules and e'ulations to 5mplement 1 8133 (ere, as already stated, nulli!ied !or these reasonsC 1. -ection 13 in#alidly 'i#es a three6year reprie#e to a married (oman (ho is sentenced to death, 4ut i'nores 1rticle 83 o! the e#ised .enal &ode (hich 4ars the e"ecution o! 9a (oman (hile she is pre'nant or (ithin one +1, year a!ter deli#ery " " ".: =. -ection 19 ille'ally pro#ides !or the con!identiality o! the contents o! the manual containin' 9the details o!, amon' others, the seEuence o! e#ents 4e!ore and a!ter e"ecutionJ procedures in settin' up the intra#enous lineJ the administration o! the lethal dru'sJ the pronouncement o! deathJ and the remo#al o! the intra#enous line.: The &ourt held that the contents o! the manual 9are matters o! pu4lic concern: to (hich the &onstitution1B171;D8 'uarantees access. 1s already stated, !our mem4ers o! the &ourt dissented. One mem4er simply (rote that the unconstitutionality o! 1 8133 necessarily !lo(ed !rom the in#alidity o! 1 3D;9. -urely, i! the la( imposin' the death penalty + 1 3D;9, (as #oid, then any method to carry it out 66 (hether electrocution, 'as cham4er or lethal in%ection 66 (as itsel! (ithout any 4asis. 9The sprin' cannot rise hi'her than its source.: 1nother dissent (aded into the pro#isions o! 1 8133 and ar'ued a'ainst its constitutionality on these 'roundsC ,& )I2t actually authori:es two persons to promulgate rules and regulations to implement its provisions one, the #ecretary of "ustice and the other, the Director of the ;ureau of $orrections& #uch dual delegation @can easily spawn legal absurdities and incongruities because contractory rules could be promulgated& *& (he Implementing %ules are void because the #ecretary of "ustice may no longer further delegate his delegated power consistent with the maxim Delegata #otestas non #otest delegari&' The Aissent discoursed on the international trend to a4olish the death penalty, tracin' its roots to the 19B8 Mni#ersal Aeclaration o! /uman i'hts, then the 1989 -econd Optional .rotocol to the 5nternational &o#enant on &i#il and .olitical i'hts, and !inally the 1pril 3, 1993 esolution +2o. 1993Q1=, o! the &ommission on /uman i'hts (hich noted a (orld(ide shi!t to(ards the a4olition o! the death penalty. &oncludin', the Aissent contended that 9the ri'ht to li!e 7is8 not su4%ect to popular #ote,: #iz.C It is to be sadly noted that when there is a public clamor to
1B1 71;D8

-ec. 3, 1rticle 555.

- 42 -

stop the rising tide of criminality, the death penalty is always suggested as a 9uic8 fix solution& (he issue of whether the #tate has the right to 8ill should not, however, be resolved on the basis of a popularity poll& %ight and righteousness are not based on what is the fashion of the day& Ce cannot give a blind eye to the enlightened argument that the way to deter crime is not to increase the severity of punishment but to increase the li8elihood of detection, arrest and conviction& Ce cannot be indifferent to the internationally accepted view that rehabilitation and reformation of criminals ought to be our main penal goal& Bet us hear8en to the wisdom of !rticle ,- of the International $ovenant on $ivil and Political %ights which provides that the @penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation&' The 4attle o#er the constitutionality o! the Aeath .enalty 0a( and its li!e6 Euenchin' companion, the 0ethal 5n%ection 0a(, (ill continue to haunt the &ourt. 5 4elie#e that the dissenters (ill remain e#er #i'ilant in their stand to uphold the &onstitution and the primacy o! li!e. 5 !urther 4elie#e that, e#entually, the dissenters (ill (in 66 either 4ecause the &ourt (ill chan'e its mind a4out the constitutionality o! 1 3D;9, or &on'ress (ill repeal or modi!y it. @ith due de!erence to the con!idential nature o! the death penalty Aecisions, 5 ha#e not identi!ied the %ustices #otin' !or or a'ainst 1 3D;9. *ut 5 a'ree (ith many critics that, indeed, death is too !inal and too irre#ersi4le a penalty to stay lon' in our statute 4ooks. 5n spite o! the meticulous scrutiny that the &ourt 'i#es to death cases, it is still possi4le that an innocent man (ould 4e held le'ally 'uilty and therea!ter %udicially e"ecuted. This is particularly true in rape cases1B=71;38 (here, most o!ten i! not al(ays, the %ud'e is called upon to choose 4et(een the testimonies o! only t(o persons ? the suspected o!!ender and the alle'ed #ictim. -eldom, i! e#er, are there eye(itnesses to a rape. /ence, a con#iction must o!ten rest on the say6so o! the o!!ended party. 1nd appellate courts, not ha#in' participated in the trial and not ha#in' directly e#aluated the demeanor o! (itnesses on the stand, depend to a lar'e de'ree on the !actual assessments o! trial %ud'es. True the death penalty is not per se o4%ectiona4le. *ut it should 4e prescri4ed only in a #ery limited num4er o! truly heinous crimes and only under e"ceptional circumstances. )en are still imper!ect. Jud'es can make (ron'!ul e#aluations, and %ustices can err in their reliance on trial %ud'es. There are incompetent la(yers (ho do not kno( ho( to de!end their clients, and there are o#erzealous prosecutors (ho (ant to (in at all cost. The point isC 1 per!ectly innocent man could die due to plain human error, not to
1B= 71;38

)ost death cases in#ol#e rapeR

- 43 -

mention the 'uile and the deceit that could accompany trials. Once carried out, the death penalty can no lon'er 4e re#ersed. The lethal in%ection o! one innocent man cannot 4e o!!set 4y the e"ecution o! a hundred others (ho may 4e le'ally deser#in' o! death.

Chapter V BATT$E% OVER THE PEOP$E*% %OVEREIGNT+ Mnder -ection 11+4, o! 1 DDBD, other(ise kno(n as the $lectoral e!orms 0a( o! 1983, mass media is prohi4ited !rom sellin' or 'i#in', !ree o! char'e, print space or air time !or campai'n or other political purposes, e"cept to the &ommission on $lections. This la( compliments, -ection 9= o! *atas .am4ansa 881, (hich reEuires all 4roadcast stations to 'i#e !ree tele#ision and radio time to the &omelec, (hich shall allocate such 9!ree4ies: eEually and impartially amon' candidates !or pu4lic o!!ice (ithin the area o! co#era'e o! the radio and tele#ision stations concerned. Constitutionality of the #rint $edia Ad Ban

Aurin' the election campai'n prior to the 1998 presidential elections, the constitutionality o! the !ore'oin' le'al pro#isions (ere put in issue. 5n :s#e;a . Co#elec,1B371;88 .etitioners $milio ). . Osme<a +a presidential candidate, and .a4lo .. Garcia +a candidate !or 'o#ernor o!

1B3

71;88

G 2o. 13==31, )arch 31, 1998.

- 44 -

&e4u, challen'ed the ad 4an imposed 4y -ection 11 +4, 1BB71;98 o! 1 DDBD. -peakin' throu'h Justice )endoza, the &ourt 4y a #ote o! 10 1B;71D08 to B1BD71D18 dismissed the petition and reiterated National P!ess Club . Co#elec.1B371D=8 Justices .uno and Vitu' (rote -eparate Opinions, (hile Justice omero and 5 (rote Aissentin' Opinions. The ma%ority held that there (as no reason to modi!y NPC . Co#elec, 4ecause 9no empirical data had 4een presented 4y petitioners to 4ack up their claim: that the 4an on political ad#ertisin' 9has not only !ailed to le#el the playin' !ield, 4ut actually (orked to the 'ra#e disad#anta'e o! the poor candidates.: Justice )endoza e"plained that the purpose o! -ection 11+4, (as re'ulatory, and 9any restriction on speech is only incidental, and it is no more than is necessary to achie#e its purpose o! promotin' eEuality o!

1BB

71;98

&P!ohibited Fo!#s of .lection P!opa%anda. 66 5n addition to the !orms o! election propa'anda prohi4ited in -ection 8; o! *atas .am4ansa *l'. 881, it shall 4e unla(!ulC """ """ """

3b5 for any newspapers, radio broadcasting or television station, or other mass media, or any person ma8ing use of the mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the $ommission as provided under #ection 0- and 0* of ;atas Pambansa ;lg& ??,& !ny mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality who is a candidate for any elective public office shall ta8e a leave of absence from his wor8 as such during the campaign period&'
1B; 71D08 1BD 1B3

CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide, *ellosillo, )elo, .uno, Vitu', Hapunan, )endoza and )artinez. +There (as one #acancy in the &ourt., 71D18 JJ. omero, .an'ani4an, Iuisum4in' and .urisima. 71D=8 =03 -& 1 1, )arch ;, 199=.

- 45 -

opportunity in the use o! mass media !or political ad#ertisin'. The restriction on speech, as pointed out in NPC, is limited 4oth as to time and as to scope.: &oncurrin', Justice .uno emphasized !urther that the important thrust o! the limitation (as to eEualize political opportunities, and the !reedom o! speech 'uarantee should not 4e used a'ainst this no4le intent. 5n my Aissentin' Opinion, 5 cited the ad#ertisin' rates o! a ma%or 4roadsheet and sho(ed that 9e#en (ith such price ta's, media ads are not necessarily e"pensi#e, considerin' their nation(ide reach, audience penetration, e!!ecti#eness and persuasi#e #alue.: 5n !act, 5 demonstrated 4y actual computation that it (as much cheaper and more e!!ecti#e to place a one6!ourth pa'e ad at !ea,t -. t/0e, in #arious ma%or dailies than to print and distri4ute nation(ide 1!2 1ce a same6size lea!let or poster. This (as 4ecause, in a ma%or daily ha#in' a circulation o! =;0,000 copies, the ads (ere automatically distri4uted to an eEual num4er o! households on the same day o! printin'. On the contrary, to distri4ute +throu'h the post o!!ice, =;0,000 copies o! an eEui#alent poster (ould cost one million pesos at the rate o! .B per piece o! mail +=;0,000 " .B.00 S .1,000,000,. On the other hand, ad#ertisin' a one6!ourth pa'e ad thirty times in #arious ma%or dailies (ould cost only .3;0,000. 1s to the claim o! the ma%ority that the ad 4an (as constitutional 4ecause it (as imposed only durin' a #ery limited time 66 only durin' the election period 66 5 replied that candidates needed to ad#ertise their Euali!ications only durin' such election period. 9.roperly understood, there!ore, the prohi4ition is not limited in duration 4ut is, in !act and in truth, total, complete and e"hausti#e.: The summary o! my Aissentin' Opinion, contained in the $pilo'ue thereo!, is copied in toto 4elo(C (he ad ban is a blatant violation of constitutional right to free speech,1?),6+2 and the information&,10),612 ;eing the last refuge of the guardian of the $onstitution, this $ourt should the candidates peoples right to people and the then, with

1B8

71D38

1rticle 555 o! the &onstitution pro#idesC

#ec& 1& Ao 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&'
1B9 71DB8

1rticle 555 o! the &onstitution also pro#idesC #ec& 4& (he right of the people to information on matters

of public concern shall be recogni:ed& !ccess to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citi:en, sub7ect to such limitations as may be provided by law&'
- 46 -

alacrity, view the ban with suspicion, if not with outright re7ection&,/-),6/2 (o repeat, the alleged limitations are in reality nonexistentE and the pro poor' 7ustification, without logic& (o say that the prohibition levels the playing field for the rich and the poor is to indulge in a theoretical assumption totally devoid of factual basis& On the contrary, media advertising may be depending on a contenders propaganda strategy the cheapest, most practical and most effective campaign medium, especially for national candidates& By !om letely denying this medium to both the ri!h and the oor" this Court has not le#eled the laying $ield. %t has e$$e!ti#ely abolished it& 'ar $rom e(ualizing !am aign o ortunities" the ban on media ad#ertising a!tually $a#ors the ri!h )and the o ular* +ho !an a$$ord the more e, ensi#e and burdensome $orms o$ ro aganda" against the oor )and the un-no+n* +ho !annot. (he allegation that the prohibition is reasonable because it is limited in duration and scope is itself most unreasonable, bereft as it is of logic and basis& >ven more shallow is the argument that the $omelec given media time and space compensate for such abridgment& In fact, the $omelec is not even procuring any newspaper space& In any event, the fact that not even the poorest candidates have applied for available opportunities is the best testament to its dubiousness& (hat petitioners who are seasoned political leaders prefer to pay for their own media ads rather than to avail themselves of the $omelec freebies refutes the ma7oritys thesis of compensation& Indeed% t e !ree t ings in li!e are not al&ays t e best.,/,),662 T ey $ay just be a bureaucratic &aste o! resources. ;efore I close, a word about stare decisis. In the present case, the $ourt is maintaining the ad ban )in order2 to be consistent with its previous holding in N"- vs. -o$elec. (hus, respondent urges reverence for the stability of 7udicial doctrines& I submit, however, that more important than consistency and stability are the verity, integrity and correctness of 7urisprudence& !s Dean %oscoe Pound explains, Baw must be stable but it cannot stand still&'
1;0 71D;8

1;1

The time6honored doctrine a'ainst prior restraint is stated in Ne' Eo!& *i#es . Fnited States, B03 M- 313 +1931,, (hich has 4een in#aria4ly applied in our %urisdiction in this (iseC 9T1ny system o! prior restraints o! e"pression comes to this &ourt 4earin' a hea#y presumption a'ainst its constitutional #alidity.> The Go#ernment Tthus carries a hea#y 4urden o! sho(in' %usti!ication !or the en!orcement o! such a restraint.>: +*ernas, *he Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1983 ed., Vol. 5, p. 1B=., 71DD8 @ith apolo'ies to 0e( *ro(n and *uddy +Geor'e Gard, Ae -yl#a, 9The *est Thin's in 0i!e 1re Free,: Good 2e(s, 19=3, as Euoted 4y John *artlett in *artlett>s Familiar Iuotations, 1980 ed., p. 8=;.

- 47 -

Jerily, it must correct itself and move in cadence with the march of the electronic age& >rror and illogic should not be perpetuated& !fter all, the #upreme $ourt, in many cases,,/*),642 has deviated from stare decisis and reversed previous doctrines and decisions& It should do no less in the present case& >lections can be free, honest and credible not only because of the absence of the three execrable <s' or guns, goons and gold&' ;eyond this, the integrity and effectivity of electoral democracy depend upon the availability of information and education touching on three good Ps' principles, platforms and programs of the candidates& %ndeed" an intelligent #ote resu oses a +ell.in$ormed #oter. %$ ele!tions must be rid o$ atronage" ersonalities and o ularity as the main !riteria o$ the eo le/s !hoi!e" +e must allo+ !andidates e#ery o ortunity to edu!ate the #oters. 0nd !orollarily" the eo le must be a!!orded e#ery a!!ess to su!h in$ormation +ithout mu!h e$$ort and e, ense on their art. 1ith all due res e!t" % submit that the ad ban is regressi#e" re ressi#e and de!e ti#e. %t has no la!e in our !onstitutional demo!ra!y.2

1;=

71D38

For instance, .b!alina% . (i ision Supe!intendent of Schools of Cebu, =19 -& 1 =;D, )arch 1, 1993, re#ersed the &ourt>s 3B6year6old doctrine laid do(n in Ge!ona . Sec!eta!y of .ducation, 10D .hil =, 1u'ust 1=, 19;9, and upheld the ri'ht o! Jeho#ah>s @itnesses 9to re!use to salute the .hilippine !la' on account o! their reli'ious 4elie!s.: -imilarly, :la%ue! . "ilita!y Co##ission, 1;0 -& 1 1BB, )ay ==, 1983, a4andoned the 1=6year6old rulin' in A)uino J!. . "ilita!y Co##ission, D3 -& 1 ;BD, )ay 9, 193;, (hich reco'nized the %urisdiction o! military tri4unals to try ci#ilians !or o!!enses alle'edly committed durin' martial la(. The &ourt like(ise re#ersed itsel! in .PGA . (ulay, 1B9 -& 1 30;, 1pril =9, 1983, (hen it #acated its earlier rulin' in National $ousin% Autho!ity . Reyes, 1=3 -& 1 =B;, June =9, 1983, on the #alidity o! certain presidential decrees re'ardin' the determination o! %ust compensation. 5n the much earlier case Philippine *!ust Co. . "itchell, ;9 .hil. 30, Aecem4er 8, 1933, the &ourt re#oked its holdin' in In olunta!y Insol ency of "a!iano 1elasco < Co., ;; .hil 3;3, 2o#em4er =9, 1930, re'ardin' the relation o! the insol#ency la( (ith the then &ode o! &i#il .rocedure and (ith the &i#il &ode. Just recently, the &ourt, in ,ilosbayan . "o!ato, =BD -& 1 ;B0, July 13, 199;, also a4andoned the earlier 'rant o! standin' to petitioner6or'anization in ,ilosbayan . Guin%ona, =3= -& 1 110, )ay ;, 199B.

- 48 -

!s the .rant of Free Air Time an ,n)ust Deprivation of #roperty' 5n a companion case, *eleco##unications and B!oadcast Atto!neys of the Philippines H*.L.BAP= . Co#elec,1;371D88 the &ourt, also throu'h Justice )endoza, ruled that the 'i#in' o! !ree 4roadcast time to &omelec (as a reasona4le condition !or the use 4y 4roadcast media o! !ranchises 'i#en 4y the -tate, .#iz.C !ll broadcasting, whether by radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government& !irwave fre9uencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there are fre9uencies to assign& ! franchise is thus a privilege sub7ect, among other things, to amendment by $ongress in accordance with the constitutional provision that @any such franchise or right granted &&& shall be sub7ect to amendment, alteration or repeal by the $ongress when the common good so re9uires&' The ma%ority held that radio and tele#ision stations 9do not o(n the air(a#es and !reEuencies throu'h (hich they transmit 4roadcast si'nals and ima'es. They are merely 'i#en the temporary pri#ile'e o! usin' them. -ince a !ranchise is a mere pri#ile'e, it may reasona4ly 4e 4urdened (ith the per!ormance 4y the 'rantee o! some !orm o! pu4lic ser#ice.: Justice )endoza>s ponencia (as carried 4y a #ote o! 111;B71D98 to 3.1;;71308

1;3 1;B

71D88 71D98

1;;

G 2o. 13=9==, 1pril =1, 1998. CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide, Jr., *ellosillo, )elo, .uno, Vitu', Hapunan, )endoza, )artinez and Iuisum4in'. 71308 JJ. omero, .an'ani4an and .urisima.

- 49 -

)y dissent !rom the ma%ority stemmed !rom my 4elie! that -ection 9= 1;D71318 o! the Omni4us $lection &ode +*. *l'. 881,, co#pellin% all 4roadcast stations to 'i#e !ree radio and tele#ision time to the &omelec, (as unconstitutional 4ecause 9it con!iscates pri#ate property (ithout due process o! la( and (ithout payment o! %ust compensation, and denies 4roadcast media eEual protection o! the la(.: 5 e"plained that 97i8n Philippine P!ess Institute, Inc. HPPI= s. Co##ission on .lections,1;3713=8 this &ourt ruled that pr/1t 0e3/a c 0pa1/e, cannot 4e reEuired to donate ad#ertisin' space, free f char"e, to the &omelec !or eEual allocation amon' candidates, on the 'round that such compulsory seizure o! print space is eEui#alent to a proscri4ed takin' o! pri#ate property !or pu4lic use 'ithout pay#ent of /ust co#pensation.:1;871338 /o(e#er, the ma%ority held that the !ore'oin' PPI doctrine applied only to print media 4ut not to 9radio and TV net(orks,: 4ecause 4roadcast media, unlike print media, did not o(n the air(a#es and !reEuencies throu'h (hich they transmitted 4roadcast si'nals. 5 opined that 9the ma%ority is relyin' on a theoretical distinction that does not make any real di!!erence,: an action that 5 disa'reed (ith !or the !ollo(in' reasonsC ,& (he #tate does not own the airwaves and broadcast fre9uencies& It merely allocates, supervises and regulates their proper use& (hus, other than collecting supervision or regulatory fees which it already does, it cannot exact any onerous and unreasonable #ost !acto burdens from the franchise holders, without due process and 7ust compensation& .oreover, the invocation of the common good' does not excuse the unbridled and clearly excessive ta8ing of a franchisees property& *& !ssuming arguendo that the #tate owns the air lanes, the broadcasting companies already pay rental fees to the government for their use& Kence, the sei:ure of air time cannot be 7ustified by the theory of compensation& +& !irwaves and fre9uencies alone, without the radio and television owners humongous investments amounting to billions of pesos, cannot be utili:ed for broadcasting purposes& Kence, a forced donation of broadcast time is in a!tual $a!t a ta8ing of such investments without due process and without
1;D 71318

1;3 1;8

9-ec. 9=. Co#elec ti#e. 66 The &ommission shall procure radio and tele#ision time to 4e kno(n as T&omelec Time> (hich shall 4e allocated eEually and impartially amon' the candidates (ithin the area o! co#era'e o! all radio and tele#ision stations. For this purpose, the !ranchises o! all radio 4roadcastin' and tele#ision stations are here4y amended so as to pro#ide radio or tele#ision time, !ree o! char'e, durin' the period o! the campai'n.: 713=8 =BB -& 1 =3=, )ay ==, 199;, per Feliciano, J. 71338 9, 1rt. 555 o! the &onstitution, pro#idesC

#ec& 0& Private property shall not be ta8en for public use without 7ust compensation&'
- 50 -

payment of 7ust compensation&'

5 pointed out that e#en espondent &omelec e"pressly reco'nized the need to pay radio and tele#ision stations !or its use o! their !acilities. 1nd yet, despite such a %udicious le'al position taken 4y the #ery a'ency tasked 4y the &onstitution to administer elections, the ma%ority still insisted on an ar4itrary seizure o! precious property produced and o(ned 4y pri#ate enterprises. Thus, 5 (roteC

- 51 -

(hat Petitioner <.! is a viable, even profitable, enterprise,/0),412 is no argument for sei:ing its profits& (he #tate cannot rob the rich to feed the poor in the guise of promoting the @common good& (ruly, the end never 7ustifies the means& It cannot be denied that the amount and the extent of the air time demanded from <.! is huge and exorbitant, amounting, I repeat, to over P/? million for the ,00? election season alone& If the air time re9uired from @every radio and television station in the country in the magnitude stated in the aforesaid $omelec %esolution *0?+ ! is added up and costed, the total would indeed be staggering in several hundred million pesos& #mac8ing of undisguised discrimination is the fact that in ""I vs. -o$elec, this $ourt has re9uired payment of print media ads but, in this case, compels broadcast stations to donate their end product on a massive scale& (he simplistic distinction given that radio and (J stations are mere grantees of government franchises while newspaper companies are not does not 7ustify the grand larceny of precious air time& (his is a violation not only of private property, but also of the constitutional right to e9ual protection itself& (he proffered distinction between print and broadcast media is too insignificant and too flimsy to be a valid 7ustification for the discrimination& (he print and broadcast media are e9ual in the sense that both derive their revenues principally from paid ads& (hey should thus be treated e9ually by the law in respect of such ads& To sum u , the ;ill of %ights of our $onstitution expressly guarantees the following rightsG ,& Ao person, whether rich or poor, shall be deprived of property without due process&,6-),4/2 *& #uch property shall not be ta8en by the government, even for the use of the general public, without first paying 7ust compensation to the owner&,6,),462 +& Ao one, regardless of social or financial status, shall be denied e9ual protection of the law& ,6*),442 The ma3ority" ho+e#er" erem torily brushes aside all
1;9 713B8

1D0 1D1 1D=

This is not to say that all 4roadcast net(orks are pro!ita4le. 1 comparati#e study o! their !inancial statements on !ile at the -$& sho(s that a ma%ority o! them are not really pro!ita4le. 713;8 1, 1rt. 555 o! the &onstitution. 713D8 9, ibid. 71338 1, 1rt. 555 o! the &onstitution.

- 52 -

these sa!red guarantees and re$ers to rely on the nebulous legal theory that broad!ast stations are mere re!i ients o$ state.granted $ran!hises +hi!h !an be altered or +ithdra+n anytime or other+ise burdened +ith post facto ele hantine yo-es. By this short.!ir!uited rationalization" the ma3ority blithely ignores the ri#ate entre reneurs/ billion. eso in#estments and the broad!ast ro$essionals/ grit and toil in trans$orming these in#isible $ran!hises into mer!handisable ro erty4 and !on#eniently $orgets the grim reality that the ta-ing o$ honestly earned media assets is unbridled" e,orbitant and arbitrary. 1orse" the go#ernment" ,6+),4?2 against +hi!h these !onstitutional rights to ro erty +ere in the $irst la!e +ritten" rudently agrees to res e!t them and to ay ade(uate !om ensation $or their ta-ing. But ironi!ally" the ma3ority re3e!ts the e,em lary obser#an!e by the go#ernment o$ the eo le/s rights and insists on the !on$is!ation o$ their ri#ate ro erty. % ha#e al+ays belie#ed that the 5u reme Court is the e#er #igilant guardian o$ the !onstitutional rights o$ the !itizens and their ultimate rote!tor against the tyrannies o$ their o+n go#ernment. % am a$raid that by this un$ortunate De!ision" the ma3ority" in this instan!e" has instead !on#erted this honorable and ma3esti! Court into the eo le/s un+itting o ressor.2

5n her o(n Aissentin' Opinion, Justice omero like(ise opined that -ection 9= o! *. 881 (as 9a !la'rant #iolation o! the constitutional mandate that pri#ate property shall not 4e taken !or pu4lic use (ithout %ust compensation.: Justice omero pointed out that police po(er could not 4e #alidly in#oked to %usti!y the re'ulation, considerin' that in the case at 4ar (here there (as a compensa4le takin', there (as a su4stantial loss o! earnin's !rom the donated airtime. 5n the e"ercise o! police po(er,

1D3

71388

1s personi!ied in this case 4y the &omelec.

- 53 -

there is simply a restriction on the use o! one>s property to promote the pu4lic (el!are, and no compensa4le takin' is in#ol#ed. *ut, in the case under consideration there (as clearly an e"ercise o! the po(er o! eminent domain, since property (as appropriated and used !or some pu4lic purpose. Justice omero maintained that 97t8raditional distinctions 4et(een police po(er and the po(er o! eminent domain preclude 7the8 application o! 4oth po(ers at the same time on the same su4%ect.: Repatriation as a $ode of Reac/uiring Citi0enship The 0ocal Go#ernment &ode o! 1991 + 1 31D0, reEuires, amon' others, .hilippine citizenship as a Euali!ication !or local electi#e positions, includin' that o! pro#incial 'o#ernors. Juan G. Fri#aldo (as o#er(helmin'ly #oted 'o#ernor o! -orso'on 4y a mar'in o! =3,000 #otes in the 1988 electionsJ and 4y ;3,000 #otes in 199= o#er the same opponent, aul . 0ee. .rior to such elections, ho(e#er, he had lost his Filipino citizenship on January =0, 1983, (hen he (as naturalized as an 1merican. Aue to his adoption o! 1merican citizenship, he (as t(ice declared a non6Filipino and thus t(ice

- 54 -

disEuali!ied !rom holdin' and dischar'in' his popular mandate 1DB71398 in 1988 and 199=. Mndaunted, he ran a'ain !or the same position in 199; and (on o#er the same opponent 4y a mar'in o! =0,000 #otes. This time, ho(e#er, he claimed to ha#e reacEuired .hilippine citizenship throu'h repatriation as pro#ided under .A 3=;. Fri#aldo took his oath o! alle'iance as a Filipino at =C00 p.m. on June 30, 199;. /o(e#er, 0ee, his opponent, contested his assumption o! o!!ice on such date, claimin' inte! alia that the citizenship Euali!ication should 4e possessed 4y the candidate 9on the date o! his election,: (hich in this case (as )ay 8, 199;J not on the date he assumed o!!ice (hich, in this case, (as June 30, 199;. 2otin' that 1 31D0 did not speci!y any particular date or time (hen a candidate or local o!!icial must possess citizenship, the -upreme &ourt, in the t(in cases F!i aldo . Co#elecI>@6I7J9 and Lee . Co#elec,I>>6I7I9 ruled that candidates had to 4e citizens (hen they 4e'an to dischar'e their terms o! o!!ice. -peakin' !or the &ourt, 5 (roteC Philippine citi:enship is an indispensable re9uirement for holding an elective public office, and the purpose of the citi:enship 9ualification is none other than to ensure that no alien, i&e&, no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof& Aow, an official begins to govern or to discharge his functions only upon his proclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin& #ince Frivaldo reassumed his citi:enship on "une +-, ,00/ the very day the term of office of governor 3and other elective officials5 began he was therefore already 9ualified to be proclaimed, to hold such office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof as of said date& In short, at that time, he was already 9ualified to govern his native #orsogon& (his is the liberal interpretation that should give spirit, life and meaning to our law on 9ualifications consistent with the purpose for which such law was enacted& #o too, even from a literal 3as distinguished from liberal5 construction, it should be noted that #ection +0 of the Bocal <overnment $ode spea8s of .uali!ications/ of >B>$(IJ> OFFI$I!B#,' not o! candidates. Chy then should such 9ualification)s2 be re9uired at the time of election or at the time of the filing of the certificates of candidacies, as Bee insistsF Biterally, such 9ualifications unless otherwise expressly conditioned, as in the case of age and residence should thus be possessed when the elective )or elected2 official' begins to govern, i&e&, at the time he is proclaimed and at the start of his term in this case, on "une +-, ,00/& Paraphrasing this $ourts ruling in ,as.ue* vs. Gia# and 0i Seng Gia# 1 Sons, if the purpose of the citi:enship re9uirement is to
1DB 71398

1D; 1DD

-ee F!i aldo . Co#elec, 13B -& 1 =B;, June =3, 1989, and Republic . (e la Rosa, =3= -& 1 38;, June D, 199B. 71808 =;3 -& 1 3=3, June =8, 199D. 71818 Ibid.

- 55 -

ensure that our people and country do not end up being governed by aliens, i&e&, persons owing allegiance to another nation, that aim or purpose would not be t &arted but instead ac ieved by construing the citi:enship 9ualification as applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term&' Aissentin', Justice Aa#ide contendedC 9718ssumin' ar'uendo that Fri#aldo>s repatriation is #alid, it did not Tcure his lack o! citizenship> 4ecause -ection 39 o! the 0ocal Go#ernment &ode Tactually prescri4es the Euali!ications o! electi e local o!!icials and not those o! elected o!!icials. " " "> 5t is thus o4#ious that -ection 39 re!ers to no other than the )ualifications of candidates fo! electi e local offices and their election. /ence, in no (ay may the section 4e construed to mean that possession o! Euali!ications should 4e reckoned !rom the commencement o! the term o! o!!ice o! the elected candidate.: @hile a'reein' that the &ourt should reco'nize the (ill o! the people in an election case, he said that such 9 so e!ei%nty is an attri4ute o! the Filipino people as one people, one body. @rote Justice Aa#ideC (hat sovereign power of the Filipino people cannot be fragmenti:ed by loo8ing at it as the supreme authority of the people of any of the political subdivisions to determine their own destinyE neither can we convert and treat every fragment as the whole& In such a case, this $ourt would provide the formula for the division and destruction of the #tate and render the <overnment ineffective and inutile& (o illustrate the evil, we may consider the enforcement of laws or the pursuit of a national policy by the executive branch of the government, or the execution of a 7udgment by the courts& If these are opposed by the overwhelming ma7ority of the people of a certain province, or even a municipality, it would necessarily follow that the law, national policy, or 7udgment must not be enforced, implemented, or executed in the said province or municipality& .ore concretely, if, for instance, the vast ma7ority of the people of ;atanes rise publicly and ta8e up arms against the <overnment for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the said <overnment or its laws, the territory of the %epublic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces, or depriving the $hief >xecutive or the Begislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives, then those who did so and which are composed of the vast ma7ority of the people of ;atanes a political subdivision cannot be prosecuted for or be held guilty of rebellion in violation of !rticle ,+1 of the %evised Penal $ode because of the doctrine of peoples sovereignty& Indeed, the expansion of the doctrine of sovereignty by )vesting in2 the people of a mere political subdivision that which

- 56 -

the $onstitution places in the entire Filipino people may be disastrous to the Aation&'

- 57 -

1ns(erin' Justice Aa#ide, 5 underscored the philosophical and rational 4ases o! interpretin' and applyin' la(s relatin' to electionsC !t balance, the 9uestion really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply laws relating to electionsG literal or liberalE the letter or the spirit, the na8ed provision or its ultimate purpose, legal syllogism or substantial 7ustice, in isolation or in the context of social conditions, harshly against or gently in favor of the voters obvious choice& In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms& Indeed, to inflict a thrice re7ected candidate upon the electorate of #orsogon would constitute unmitigated 7udicial tyranny and an unacceptable assault upon this $ourts conscience&' 5n my $pilo'ue, 5 d(elt at len'th on the need to 'i#e !ull reco'nition to the popular (ill as the ultimate 4asis !or a li4eral and eEuita4le interpretation o! election la(s, #iz.C (he law and the courts must accord Frivaldo every possible protection, defense and refuge, in deference to the popular will& Indeed, this $ourt has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy& In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this $ourt must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the ma7ority& For it to successfully challenge a winning candidates 9ualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people, would ultimately create greater pre7udice to the very democratic institutions and 7uristic traditions that our $onstitution and laws so :ealously protect and promote& In this underta8ing, Bee has miserably failed& In Frivaldos case, it would have been technically easy to find fault with his cause& (he $ourt could have refused to grant retroactivity to the effects of his repatriation and hold him still ineligible due to his failure to show his citi:enship at the time he registered as a voter before the ,00/ elections& Or, it could have disputed the factual findings of the $omelec that he was stateless at the time of repatriation and thus hold his conse9uent dual citi:enship as a dis9ualification from running for any elective local position&' ;ut the real essence of 7ustice does not emanate from 9uibblings over patchwor8 legal technicality& It proceeds from the

- 58 -

spirits gut consciousness of the dynamic role of law as a bric8 in the ultimate development of the social edifice& (hus, the $ourt struggled against and eschewed the easy, legalistic, technical and sometimes harsh anachronisms of the law in order to evo8e substantial 7ustice in the larger social context consistent with Frivaldos uni9ue situation approximating venerability in Philippine political life& $oncededly, he sought !merican citi:enship only to escape the clutches of the dictatorship& !t this stage, we cannot seriously entertain any doubt about his loyalty and dedication to this country& !t the first opportunity, he returned to this land and sought to serve his people once more& (he people of #orsogon overwhelmingly voted for him three times& Ke too8 an oath of allegiance to this %epublic every time he filed his certificate of candidacy and during his failed naturali:ation bid& !nd let it not be overloo8ed, )that2 his demonstrated tenacity and sheer determination to reassume his nationality of birth despite several legal setbac8s spea8 more loudly, in spirit, in fact and in truth than any legal technicality, of his consuming intention and burning desire to reembrace his native Philippines even now at the ripe old age of ?, years& #uch loyalty to and love of country as well as nobility of purpose cannot be lost on this $ourt of 7ustice and e9uity& .ortals of lesser mettle would have given up& !fter all, Frivaldo was assured of a life of ease and plenty as a citi:en of the most powerful country in the world& ;ut he opted, nay, single mindedly insisted on returning to and serving once more his struggling but beloved land of birth& Ke therefore deserves every liberal interpretation of the law which can be applied in his favor& !nd in the final analysis, over and above Frivaldo himself, the indomitable people of #orsogon most certainly deserve to be governed by a leader of their overwhelming choice&' )y tri4ute to popular democracy elicited a po(er!ul concurrence !rom Justice .uno, (ho (rote in partC I concur with the path brea8ing ponencia of .r& "ustice Panganiban which is pro people and pierces the myopia of legalism& Lpholding the sovereign will of the people which is the be all and the end all of republicanism, it rests on a foundation that will endure time and its tempest& xxx xxx xxx

I appreciate the vigorous dissent of .r& "ustice Davide& I agree that sovereignty is indivisible but it need not always be exercised by the people together, all the time& for this reason, the

- 59 -

$onstitution and our laws provide when the entire electorate or only some of them can elect those who ma8e our laws and those who execute our laws& (hus, the entire electorate votes for our senators but only our district electorates vote for our congressmen, only our provincial electorates vote for the members of our provincial boards, only our city electorates vote for our city councilors, and only our municipal electorates vote for our councilors& !lso, the entire electorate votes for our President and Jice President but only our provincial electorates vote for our governors, only our city electorates vote for our )city2 mayors, and only our municipal electorates vote for our )municipal2 mayors& ;y defining and delimiting the classes of voters who can exercise the sovereignty of the people in a given election, it cannot be claimed that said sovereignty has been fragmented& It is my respectful submission that the issue in the case at bar is not whether the people of #orsogon should be given the rig t to de!y t e la& by allowing Frivaldo to sit as their governor& %ather, the issue isG whether the &ill o! t e voters of #orsogon in clearly choosing Frivaldo as governor ought to be given a decisive value considering the uncertainty o! t e la& on when a candidate ought to satisfy the 9ualification of citi:enship& (he uncertainty of law and 7urisprudence, both here and abroad, on this legal issue cannot be denied& In the Lnited #tates, there are two 3*5 principal schools of thought on the matter& One espouses the view that a candidate must possess the 9ualifications for office at the time of his election& (he other ventures the view that the candidate should satisfy the 9ualifications at the time he assumes the powers of the office& I am unaware of any Philippine decision that has s9uarely resolved this difficult 9uestion of law& (he #onencia of .r& "ustice Panganiban adhered to the second school of thought while .r& "ustice Davide dissents& I emphasi:e the honest to goodness difference in interpreting our law on the matter for this is vital to dispel the fear of .r& "ustice Davide that my opinion can bring about ill effects on the #tate& .r& "ustice Davides fear is based on the assu$#tion that Frivaldo continues to be dis9ualified and we cannot allow him to sit as governor without transgressing the law& I do not concede this assumption for as stressed above, courts have been sharply divided by this mind boggling issue& <iven this schism, I do not see how we can derogate )from2 the sovereignty of the people by according more weight to the votes of the people of #orsogon& .r& "ustice Davide warns that should the people of ;atanes stage a rebellion, we cannot prosecute them because of the

- 60 -

doctrine of peoples sovereignty&' Cith due respect, the analogy is not appropriate& In his hypothetical case, rebellion is concededly a crime, a violation of !rticle ,+1 of the %evised Penal $ode, an offense against the sovereignty of our people& In t e case at bar% it cannot be eld &it certitude t at t e #eo#le o! Sorsogon violated t e la& by voting !or +rivaldo as governor. Frivaldos name was in the list of candidates allowed by $O.>B>$ to run for governor& !t that time, too, Frivaldo was ta8ing all steps to establish his Filipino citi:enship& !nd even our 7urisprudence has not settled the issue when a candidate should possess the 9ualification of citi:enship& #ince the meaning of the law is arguable then and now, I cannot imagine how it will be disastrous for the #tate if we tilt the balance in the case at bar in favor of the people of #orsogon& In sum, I respectfully submit that the sovereign will of our people should be resolutory of the case at bar which is one of its 8ind, unprecedented in our political history& For three 3+5 times, Frivaldo ran as governor of the province of #orsogon& For two 3*5 times, he was dis9ualified on the ground of citi:enship& (he people of #orsogon voted for him as their governor despite his dis9ualification& (he people never waffled in their support of Frivaldo& In ,0??, they gave him a winning margin of *4,---E in ,00*, they gave him a winning spread of /4,---E in ,00/, he posted a margin of *-,---& $learly then, Frivaldo is the overwhelming choice of the people of #orsogon& In election cases, we should strive to align the will of the legislature as expressed in its law with the will of the sovereign people as expressed in their ballots& For law to reign, it must respect the will of the people& For in the elo9uent prose of .r& "ustice Baurel, x x x an enfranchised citi:en is a particle of popular sovereignty and is the ultimate source of established authority&' (he choice of the governed on who shall be their governor merits the highest consideration by all agencies of government& In cases where the sovereignty of the people is at sta8e, we must not only be legally right but also politically correct& Ce cannot fail by ma8ing the people succeed&'

- 61 -

Chapter VI BATT$E% ON THE ECONOMIC )RONT The C 1,t/t#t/ 1a!/t2 f the O/! Dere"#!at/ 1 $a4 Aurin' my three years in the &ourt, no decision (as more criticized 4y 4i' 4usiness than that issued in *atad . Sec!eta!y of .ne!%y1D3718=8 and its companion case, La%#an . *o!!es,1D871838 in (hich the &ourt throu'h Justice .uno in#alidated 1 8180, the Oil Aere'ulation 0a(, 4y a #ote o! 9 1D9718B8 to =.130718;8 The 91yala 1#enue critics: accused the &ourt o! undue inter!erence in economic matters, a su4%ect alle'edly 4eyond the competence and the authority o! the &ourt to decide. The &ourt o4ser#ed that 1 8180 allo(ed the three 4i' oil companies 66 .etron, -hell and &alte" 66 to act as a monopoly or, more precisely, an oli'opoly, 4ecause they acted in concert in their o#ert dealin's (ith the pu4lic, particularly in price6!i"in'. *y allo(in' the 9*i' Three: oil companies to com4ine their operations and marketin', 1 8180 o!!ended the constitutional prohi4ition a'ainst monopolies and com4inations in restraint o! trade. 5n the (ords o! Justice .uno, 9The &onstitution mandates this &ourt to 4e the 'uardian not only o! the people>s political ri'hts 4ut their economic ri'hts as (ell.: 5n my &oncurrin' Opinion 5 stressed the !ollo(in'C

1. The %ssue %s 1hether 6il Com anies 7ay 8nilaterally 'i, 9ri!es" Not 1hether This Court 7ay %nter$ere in E!onomi! :uestions Cith the issuance of the status 9uo order on October 4, ,004 re9uiring the three respondent oil companies Petron, #hell and $altex to cease and desist from increasing the prices of gasoline and other petroleum fuel products for a period of thirty 3+-5 days,' the $ourt has been accused of interfering in purely economic policy
1D3 1D8 1D9 718=8 71838

130

G 2o. 1=B3D0, 2o#em4er ;, 1993. G 2o. 1=38D3, 2o#em4er ;, 1993. 718B8 JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide Jr., omero, *ellosillo, .uno, Vitu', Hapunan + see -eparate Opinion,, )endoza +concurred in the result, and .an'ani4an. 718;8 JJ. )elo and Francisco. +2oteC CJ 2ar#asa (as on lea#e and there (ere three #acancies in the &ourt.,

- 62 -

matters,4,),?62 or, worse, of arrogating unto itself price regulatory powers&,4*),?42 Bet it be emphasi:ed that we have no desire nay, we have no power to intervene in, to change or to repeal the laws of economics, in the same manner that we cannot and will not nullify or invalidate the laws of physics or chemistry& The issue here is not +hether the 5u reme Court may $i, the retail ri!es o$ etroleum rodu!ts. Rather" the issue is +hether R0 ;1;0" the la+ allo+ing the oil !om anies to unilaterally set" in!rease or de!rease their ri!es" is #alid or !onstitutional. Lnder the $onstitution,,4+),??2 this $ourt has in appropriate cases the DL(M, not 7ust the power, to determine whether a law or a part thereof offends the $onstitution and, if so, to annul and set it aside&,41),?02 ;ecause a serious challenge has been hurled against the validity of one such law, namely %! ?,?- its criticality having been preliminarily determined from the petition, comments, reply and, most tellingly, the oral argument on #eptember +-, ,004 = this $ourt, in the exercise of its mandated 7udicial discretion, issued the status 9uo order to prevent the continued enforcement and implementation of a law that was #ri$a !acie found to be constitutionally infirm& Indeed, after careful final deliberation, said
131 13= 718D8 71838

133

&onsolidated )emorandum o! .u4lic espondents, dated Octo4er 1B, 1993. )otion to 0i!t Temporary estrainin' Order !iled 4y .etron &orporation on Octo4er 9, 1993, p. 1DJ )emorandum !iled 4y .ilipinas -hell &orporation on Octo4er 1;, 1993, pp. 3D633. 71888 -ections 1 O ;, 1rticle V555 o! the &onstitution, pro#idesC

#ec& ,& x x x "udicial power includes the duty of the courts of 7ustice 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 lac8 of or excess of 7urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the <overnment&' #ec& /& (he #upreme $ourt shall have the following powersG 3,5 >xercise original 7urisdiction over x x x petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, 9uo warranto, and habeas corpus& 3*5 %eview, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or %ules of $ourt may provide, final 7udgments and orders of lower courts inG @3a5 !ll cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in 9uestion& xxx xxx x x x'
13B 71898

:s#e;a . Co#elec, 199 -& 1 3;0, July 30, 1991J An%a!a . .lecto!al Co##ission, D3 .hil. 139, July 1;, 193D.

- 63 -

law is now ruled to be constitutionally defective thereby disabling respondent oil companies from exercising their erstwhile power, granted by such defective statute, to determine prices by themselves& $oncededly, this $ourt has no power to pass upon the wisdom, merits and propriety of the acts of its co e9ual branches in government& Kowever, it does have the prerogative to uphold the $onstitution and to stri8e down and annul a law that contravenes the $harter&,4/),0-2 From such duty and prerogative, it shall never shir8 or shy away& By annulling R0 ;1;0" this Court is not ma-ing a oli!y statement against deregulation. :uite the !ontrary" it is sim ly in#alidating a seudo deregulation la+ +hi!h in reality restrains $ree trade and er etuates a !artel" an oligo oly. The Court is merely u holding !onstitutional adheren!e to a truly !om etiti#e e!onomy that releases the !reati#e energy o$ $ree enter rise. %t lea#es to Congress" as the oli!y.setting agen!y o$ the go#ernment" the s eedy !ra$ting o$ a genuine" !onstitutionally 3usti$ied oil deregulation la+. 2. Everyone, Rich or Poor, Must Share in the Burdens of Economic Dislocation .uch has been said and will be said about the alleged negative effect of this $ourts holding on the oil giants profit and loss statements& Ce are not unaware of the disruptive impact of the depreciating peso on the retail prices of refined petroleum products& ;ut such price escalating conse9uence adversely affects not merely these oil companies which occupy hallowed places among the most profitable corporate behemoths in our country& In these critical times of widespread economic dislocations, abetted by currency fluctuations not entirely of domestic origin, all sectors of society agoni:e and suffer& (hus, everyone, rich or poor, must share in the burdens of such economic aberrations& I can understand foreign investors who see these price ad7ustments as necessary conse9uences of the countrys adherence to the free mar8et, for that, in the first place, is the
13; 71908

*a;ada . An%a!a, G 2o. 118=9;, )ay =, 1993, p. =D.

- 64 -

magnet for their presence here& Lnderstandably, their concern is limited to bottom lines and mar8et share& ;ut in all these mega companies, there are also Filipino entrepreneurs and managers& I am sure there are patriots among them who reali:e that, in times of economic turmoil, the poor and the underprivileged proportionately suffer more than any other sector of society& (here is a certain threshold of pain beyond which the disadvantaged cannot endure& Indeed, it has been wisely said that if the rich who are few will not help the poor who are many, there will come a time when the few who are filled cannot escape the wrath of the many who are hungry&' Kaya2t sa $ga (ababayan nating (a#italista at $ay (a#angyari an% narara#at la$ang na $a(iisa tayo sa $ga (a#os #alad at $a i ira# sa $ga ara& ng #angangailangan. 3u&ag na nating i#agdiinan ang (a&alan ng tubo% o $aging ang #anandaliang #ag(alugi. At sa m a man an ala!al na anid at "alan puso# hirap na hirap na po an atin m a !a$a$ayan. Mahiya naman !ayo%&

-till many 4usiness leaders misunderstood the Aecision and !lun' critical darts at the &ourt, in spite o! the herculean e!!ort o! Justice .uno to e"plain the said rulin' in simple $n'lish. .rior to my appointment to the &ourt, 5 had 4een e"posed to the 4usiness community, e#en immersed in it, ha#in' ser#ed as #ice president o! the .hilippine &ham4er o! &ommerce and 5ndustry and 'o#ernor o! the )ana'ement 1ssociation o! the .hilippines. 5 there!ore took it upon mysel! to e"plain the &ourt>s rulin' in a speech 13D71918 5 deli#ered on January D, 1998 4e!ore the otary &lu4 o! )akati, (hich had as mem4ers the 4i' 'uns o! !inance and 4usiness. 5 e"plained that 9policies o! the le'islati#e and e"ecuti#e departments o! the 'o#ernment 66 call them dere'ulation or li4eralization or 'lo4alization 66 must con!orm to the &onstitution. @hen such policies and their speci!ic implementin' la(s or re'ulations ran contrary to the &harter, the -upreme &ourt, in appropriate proceedin's, 7(as duty64ound to8 strike them do(n.: Goin' to 'reat len'ths to discourse on the doctrine o! separation o! po(ers and its corollary principle o! checks and 4alances, 5 saidC 9That %ustices are not economists or 4usinessmen cannot lessen the co'ency or 4indin' e!!ect o! their decisions. *y the same token, %ustices are not physicians or theolo'ians, 4ut they render conclusi#e %ud'ments in#ol#in' medicine or theolo'y. " " " 5t is up to the parties concerned to enli'hten the &ourt, ar'ue their sides and con#ince the %ustices o! the merits o! their causes. That is the nature o! %udicial process and that is ho( decisions are and (ill 4e made.: 5 (ent to the e"treme to e"plain that 9the &ourt (ill not declare an economic matter #oid simply 4ecause it is un(ise or improper or incon#enient, 4ut only 4ecause it contra#enes the &onstitution, or it (as e"ecuted (ith 'ra#e a4use o! discretion
13D 71918

See the ne"t article, 9.ostcriptC )ay the -upreme &ourt Aecide $conomic 5ssuesL:

- 65 -

amountin' to lack or e"cess o! %urisdiction. These are the t(o 'rounds 66 unconstitutionality and 'ra#e a4use o! discretion 66 (hich may impel the &ourt to #oid the policies and acts o! any department, o!!ice or entity touchin' on any matter includin' economics.: Aurin' the open !orum that !ollo(ed, 5 (as pleased (ith the num4er and Euality o! searchin' Euestions hurled at me e#en past the usual time. 5 (as e#en more pleased that a!ter the pro'ram (as o#er, 5 (as approached 4y a num4er o! otarians thankin' me !or the e"planation. 2one satis!ied me more, thou'h, than the smile and the (ords o! a 4i' 4usiness e"ecuti#eC133719=8 9Thank you !or the e"planation. 5n the past, 5 se#erely criticized that Aecision. *ut no(, you ha#e 'i#en me re!reshin' parameters and ne( paradi'ms in lookin' at the -upreme &ourt. 5 shall de!initely pass on your e"cellent e"planation to the mem4ers o! the )akati *usiness &lu4.: 1lthou'h the audience may ha#e 4een satis!ied (ith my discourse, the issue o! the &ourt>s alle'ed un(elcome 9intrusion: on economic matters may resur!ace. *ut 5 !eel that (hen and i! that situation comes up a'ain, the &ourt (ould 4e in a 4etter position to 4e understood. 5n this spirit, 5 (ould like to include as a 9postcript: the !ull te"t o! my speech 4e!ore the otary &lu4 o! )akati. $ay The Supreme Court Decide &conomic !ssues'156[17-] 5 am 'rate!ul !or, 4ut at the same time hum4led 4y, the 'enerous introduction o! my 'ood !riend, otarian *u4i Hrohn. /o(e#er, he could ha#e shortened it 4y simply introducin' me as a !ello( otarian. That (ould ha#e said it all. True, indeed, 5 am #ery proud to 4e identi!ied (ith otary. 5t (as durin' my incum4ency as president o! the otary &lu4 o! )anila + &), (hen 5 'athered the coura'e to proclaim pu4licly my personal creed 90o#e God -er#e )an,: (hich later 4ecame the title and theme o! my !irst 4ook. On July 1=, 1990, durin' my inau'ural as &) president, 5 announcedC 9Mpon this credo, 0OV$ GOA -$ V$ )12, 5 shall 4e %ud'ed, not only in the otary &lu4 o! )anila 4ut, 5 daresay, in my (hole un(orthy li!e here on earth.: That (as (hy upon my appointment as a ma'istrate, 5 asked my collea'ues in the &ourt to permit me to retain my otary mem4ership 66 one o! three 5 (as allo(ed to maintain, the other t(o 4ein' my a!!iliations in the .onti!ical &ouncil !or the 0aity and the *antayo' n' m'a *ayani Foundation. &onsistent (ith lon'6standin' tradition, mem4ers o! the -upreme &ourt, 4y policy and practice, di#est themsel#es o! non%udicial acti#ities upon their assumption o! o!!ice. 1lthou'h no lon'er 4usy (ith otary acti#ities, 5 mana'e to attend enou'h !unctions to retain my senior acti#e status.

133

719=8

138

)r. icardo .ascua, president and chie! e"ecuti#e o!!icer o! the Fort *oni!acio Ae#elopment &orporation. 71938 1ddress deli#ered 4e!ore the otary &lu4 o! )akati on January D, 1998 at the )anila .eninsula /otel.

- 66 -

5n my stint in the &ourt, 5 echoed my credo 90o#e God -er#e )an: and re(orded it as 9Justice and Faith,: (ords that encapsulate my #ision and mission in the %udiciary. Justice and Faith, incidentally, is the title o! my ne( 4ook (hich (as released 4y the -upreme &ourt .rintin' -er#ice .rintin' -er#ice %ust three (eeks a'o, a copy o! (hich 5 no( present to .resident -id Garcia. 5 thank *u4i Hrohn, your pro'ram chairman, !or his persistence in his in#itation. Ori'inally, 5 (as supposed to speak on 1u'ust 19, 1993, 4ut a massi#e !lood all o#er )etro )anila cancelled that meetin' and, !or that matter, all (ork and other acti#ities in the (hole metropolis. *u4i (ould not 4e dauntedJ he called and (rote me to reset my talk to 2o#em4er 1=, 1993, 4ut 5 had to 4e' o!! 4ecause the -upreme &ourt (as also scheduled to #ote on the Oil Aere'ulation 0a( around that date, and 5 did not (ant to 4e a4sent. *ut *u4i persisted and (e !inally a'reed on January D, 1998 66 a day (hen the -upreme &ourt is still on its &hristmas 4reak. @ith that 4ack'round, 5 thou'ht 5 should thus speak to you a4out the &ourt>s rather contro#ersial Aecision nulli!yin' 1 8180, the Oil Aere'ulation 0a(, a Aecision (hich is no( !inal and no lon'er sub /udice, and a4out the Tri4unal>s alle'ed 9intrusion: on economic policy. 5 realize that your clu4, the otary &lu4 o! )akati, is the 4astion o! the !inancial elite o! the country. 1nd 5 kno(, too, that many o! the criticisms a'ainst that rulin' came !rom 4i' 4usiness. *ut 5 speak in the spirit o! otary, (ith the !our6(ay test in mind and (ith a #ie( to e"plainin' the Aecision in layman>s terms (ith as little le'alese as possi4le. 0et me, ho(e#er, emphasize that the opinions 5 (ill e"press are mine and not directly those o! the &ourt, e"cept (hen 5 directly Euote portions o! Aecisions o! the Tri4unal. 0et me also say that the &ourt>s %ud'ment +on the Oil Aere'ulation 0a(,, (ritten 4y the 'utsy and erudite )r. Justice eynato -. .uno, (as carried 4y a #ote o! 9 in !a#or and = a'ainst + JJ. Jose 1. . )elo and icardo J. Francisco dissented,. 5 should add that one o! the nine 66 )r. Justice -antia'o ). Hapunan 66 su4mitted a -eparate Opinion in#alidatin' not the entire la( 4ut only three pro#isions thereo!, (hich 5 (ill discuss later. This address should also e"plain (hy 5, a !ormer counsel o! some o! the country>s top 1000, (rote a separate &oncurrin' Opinion. #roceedings Before the Supreme Court 0et me no( summarize the proceedin's 4e!ore the &ourt. :ne. The petitioners led 4y eps. $nriEue Garcia, Joker 1rroyo, $dcel 0a'man, and @i'4erto Ta<adaJ -en. Francisco Tatad and others demonstrated to the &ourt, #er4ally durin' the oral ar'ument and in (ritin' in their pleadin's, that the *i' Three oil companies 66 .$T O2, -/$00 and &10T$P 66 (ere producin' and processin' almost identical products (hich they (ere sellin' to the 'eneral pu4lic at identical prices. @hen one company ad%usted its prices up(ards or do(n(ards, the other t(o !ollo(ed suit at practically the same time and 4y the same amount. The *i' Three (ere a4le, amon' other thin's, to determine 'as prices 4y themsel#es 4ecause 1 8180, the Oil

- 67 -

Aere'ulation 0a(, li!ted 'o#ernment controls o#er the do(nstream oil industry and adopted a laisse20fai!e policy, (hich 'a#e the players complete !reedom in their operations and marketin', particularly in pricin' their !inished products. *'o. 1sked 4y the &ourt to re!ute the !ore'oin' %arrin' alle'ations (ere the respondent oil companies (hich, most si'ni!icantly, (ere supported 4y the 'o#ernment throu'h the solicitor 'eneral. 5n our #ie(, ho(e#er, they !ailed to do so. *h!ee. The &onstitution o! the .hilippines, speci!ically 1rticle P55, -ec. 19, mandates that 97t8he -tate shall re'ulate or prohi4it monopolies (hen the pu4lic interest so reEuires. 2o com4inations in restraint o! trade or un!air competition shall 4e allo(ed.: Fou!. .rescindin' !rom the a4o#e premises, the &ourt concluded that 1 8180 allo(ed a com4ination in restraint o! trade 139719B8J it ena4led the *i' Three to act as a monopoly or, more precisely, an oli'opolyJ that is, the three companies, (hile le'ally separate, (ere actin' as one in restrainin' trade 4y carryin' out in unison their o#ert dealin's (ith the 'eneral pu4lic, particularly price6!i"in'. *ein' o!!ensi#e to or inconsistent (ith the &onstitution, 1 8180 had to 4e #oided. Fi e. The &ourt !ound that three speci!ic pro#isions o! 1 8180 tended to protect and perpetuate the monopoly o! the *i' Three 4y o4structin' the entry and the competiti#eness o! ne( players in the market. These (ereC fi!st, the pro#ision on tari!! di!!erential (hich imposed only a 3 percent 4urden on the crude oil importations o! the *i' Three and a 3 percent tari!! on imported re!ined petroleum products o! ne( entrants to the market, there4y 'i#in' the *i' Three a B percent di!!erential a'ainst ne( players, an ad#anta'e that translates to a4out t(enty centa#os !or e#ery liter o! retail 'asolineJ second, the minimum in#entory clause, (hich reEuired ne( players to maintain in stora'e in the country at least 10 percent o! their annual sales #olume, or a !orty6day supply, (hiche#er (as lo(erJ and thi!d, the predatory pricin' scheme, (hich prohi4ited the sellin' o! any product at a price unreasona4ly 4elo(
139 719B8

The Aecision de!ined 9monopoly: and 9com4ination in restraint o! trade: as !ollo(sC

! monopoly is a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right or power to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale or the whole supply of a particular commodity& It is a form of mar8et structure in which one or only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service& On the other hand, a combination in restraint of trade is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons, in the form of a contract, trust, pool, holding company, or other form of association, for the purpose of unduly restricting competition, monopoli:ing trade and commerce in a certain commodity, controlling its production, distribution and price, or otherwise interfering with freedom of trade without statutory authority& $ombination in restraint of trade refers to the means while monopoly refers to the end&
- 68 -

the industry a#era'e cost, so as to attract customers to the detriment o! competitors.180719;8 5n sum, the &ourt !ound that 1 8180 ena4led the three oil companies to com4ine their operations and marketin' and there4y e!!ecti#ely sanctioned a monopoly or a cartel. 1dditionally, the three speci!ic pro#isions tended to o4struct the entry or competiti#eness o! ne( players. &learly then, 1 8180 o!!ended the constitutional prohi4ition a'ainst monopolies and com4inations in restraint o! trade. Criticisms of the Court1s Decision On the other hand, our critics ad#ance the !ollo(in' contentionsC :ne. 5n strikin' do(n 1 8180, the &ourt improperly inter#ened in an economic and 4usiness policy and i'nored esta4lished le'al doctrines like the principle o! separation o! po(ers. *'o. The &ourt should ha#e listened to 9o4%ecti#e: e"pert ad#ice on the alle'ed ad#erse economic implications o! its Aecision, particularly on !orei'n in#estors (ho rely on the 'o#ernment>s economic pro'rams as their in#estment 'uide. *h!ee. *y in#alidatin' the tari!! di!!erential o! B percent pro#ided under 1 8180, the &ourt e!!ecti#ely re#i#ed the 10 percent di!!erential imposed under the old la(, there4y increasin', instead o! decreasin', the retail prices o! oil products and !urther discoura'in' ne( players !rom enterin' the market. Fou!. 1ssumin' that the three o!!endin' pro#isions o! 1 8180 66 tari!! di!!erential, oil in#entory and predatory pricin' 66 are unconstitutional, they should ha#e 4een the only portions in#alidated and not the entire la(. Fi e. The &ourt should ha#e merely e"tended the transition period pro#ided under 1 8180, instead o! shi!tin' to &on'ress the responsi4ility o! cra!tin' a ne( Oil Aere'ulation 0a(. 0et me no( ans(er these o4%ections 4rie!ly and reser#e !or the open !orum a more detailed discussion. Did the Court !mproperly !ntervene in &conomic $atters' Fi!st, let me take up the most 4asic o4%ectionJ that is, that the &ourt impro#idently inter!ered in an economic policy laid do(n 4y &on'ress and the .resident. 5n ans(er, 5 immediately point to the e"press statement o! our Aecision 66 that 9the &ourt did not condemn the economic policy o! dere'ulation as unconstitutional. 5t merely held that, as cra!ted, the la( 7ran8 counter to the constitutional pro#ision !or !air competition.: 5n my
180 719;8

Justice Hapunan, in his -eparate Opinion, #oted to nulli!y only these three pro#isions and to let the rest o! 1 8180 remain.

- 69 -

o(n &oncurrin' Opinion, 5 stressedC 9*y annullin' 1 8180, this &ourt is not makin' a policy statement a'ainst dere'ulation. Iuite the contrary, it is simply in#alidatin' a pseudo6dere'ulation la(, (hich in reality restrains !ree trade and perpetrates a cartel, an oli'opoly. The &ourt is merely upholdin' constitutional adherence to a truly competiti#e economy that releases the creati#e ener'y o! !ree enterprise.: Verily, policies o! the le'islati#e and e"ecuti#e departments o! 'o#ernment 66 call them dere'ulation or li4eralization or 'lo4alization 66 must con!orm to the &onstitution. @hen such policies and their speci!ic implementin' la(s or re'ulations o!!end the &harter, the -upreme &ourt, in appropriate proceedin's, shall strike them do(n. 1ccordin'ly, the &ourt, in its 2o#em4er ;, 1993 Aecision, intonedC 9&om4inations in restraint o! trade and un!air competition are a4solutely proscri4ed +4y the &onstitution, and the proscription is directed 4oth a'ainst the -tate as (ell as the pri#ate sector. " " " )onopolistic or oli'opolistic markets deser#e our care!ul scrutiny, and la(s (hich 4arricade the entry points o! ne( players should 4e #ie(ed (ith suspicion.: /ea#ily attacked is the rather stron' emphasis o! the Aecision 66 that 9" " " the &onstitution is a co#enant that 'rants and 'uarantees 4oth the political and 7the8 economic ri'hts o! the people. The &onstitution mandates this &ourt to 4e the 'uardian not only o! the people>s political ri'hts 4ut o! their economic ri'hts as (ell.: 5! our critics (ill peruse our &onstitution, they (ill !ind it uniEue in many (ays. One unusual !eature is its 'enerous in#ocation o! the economic ri'hts o! our people, alon' (ith their political, ci#il and human ri'hts. 1 !ull article (ith == sections 181719D8 underlines these principles (hich the -upreme &ourt has the duty to uphold. Mnlike our pre#ious three &onstitutions18=71938 66 the 193;, the 1933, and the so6called 198D Freedom &onstitution ordained 4y .resident &orazon &. 1Euino 66 the present &harter e"pressly and unmistaka4ly !ocuses on economic issues, and it underscores in unmistakea4le strokes the economic directions o! the nation as (ell as the economic ri'hts o! the masses. The ,S Supreme Court Critici0ed Also for !ts &conomic Decisions True, the 1merican &onstitution,18371988 unlike our present &harter, is a model o! conciseness that hardly contains any compara4le pro#isions on economic policies and ri'hts. /o(e#er, this lack did not pre#ent the M- -upreme &ourt !rom 9intrudin': on the
181 18= 719D8 71938

183

1rticle P55 entitled 92ational $conomy and .atrimony.: $#en the 193; and the 1933 &onstitutions contained a plethora o! economic policy 'uidelines that impelled the state to a!!ord protection to la4or, especially (orkin' (omen and minorsJ and to re'ulate the relations 4et(een lando(ners and tenant, and 4et(een la4or and capital industry and a'riculture. 661rt. V5, -ec. =D, 193; &onstitution. 71988 $arly on, e#en (ithout any e"press &onstitutional authority, /amilton (rote in Fede!alist, 2o. 38, that it is the duty o! the 1merican -upreme &ourt 9to declare all acts contrary to the mani!est tenor o! the &onstitution #oid.: The 'reat &hie! Justice )arshall upheld this /amiltorian thesis (hen he declared, in the landmark case "a!bu!y . "adison, that 9it is the duty o! the %udicial department to say (hat the la( is.: See )ason and *eaney, the Sup!e#e Cou!t in a F!ee Society, 19D8 ed., p. 3.

- 70 -

realm o! economics and !rom strikin' do(n la(s passed 4y the M- &on'ress !or 4ein' 9oppressi#e,: 9#iolati#e o! due process: or 9o!!ensi#e to the #oluntariness o! contracts.: To !i'ht 4ack, the M- .resident tried his 9court6packin': strate'y 66 namin' sympathetic %urists to the &ourt and threatenin' radicals (ith impeachment and pu4lic pressure. 18B71998 Mndaunted, the M- -upreme &ourt !ou'ht 4ack to preser#e its independence and to protect the people>s ri'hts. The strate'y !ailed and, to this day, the M- %udiciary continues to rule on all constitutional issues, includin' those (ith an economic dimension. @hile scrutiny o! %udicial decisions del#in' on economic matters is to 4e e"pected in a democratic en#ironment,18;7=008 it can hardly deter the -upreme &ourt o! the .hilippines !rom e"ercisin' its constitutional duty and po(er to thum4 do(n unconstitutional statutes, armed as it is, not only (ith 1merican and .hilippine precedents as to the e"tent o! its inhe!ent authority, 4ut also (ith ne( eKp!ess mandates in the 1983 &harter. The principle o! separation o! po(ers, it is true, limits the prero'ati#es o! each department o! 'o#ernment to those 'ranted to it 4y the &onstitution. /o(e#er, the #ery &onstitution (hich prescri4es such limitation impels the -upreme &ourt to uphold the supremacy o! the &harter and to strike do(n any act o! any 4ranch o! 'o#ernment that o!!ends constitutional principles, includin' those o! economic, social and political ri'hts. 1s aptly pointed out 4y )r. Justice .uno, the &onstitution did not e"empt la(s (ith an economic dimension !rom the %urisdiction o! the -upreme &ourt. 5ndeed, the principle o! separation o! po(ers is %usti!ied 4y the corollary doctrine o! checks and 4alances. The people>s (el!are, li4erties and interests are 4est ser#ed 4y a care!ul scrutiny o! any act that #iolates the most 4asic la( o! the land. The po(er o! &on'ress to enact and that o! the .resident to implement any 4usiness policy are restricted 4y the &onstitution, and the duty and the po(er to determine 'hen and ho' such policy so o!!ends the &harter ha#e 4een lod'ed in the -upreme &ourt. From this responsi4ility, the &ourt (ill ne#er shirk or shy a(ay. 95t is the unyieldin' duty o! the -upreme &ourt to uphold the supremacy o! the &onstitution, not (ith a mere (ish4one 4ut (ith a 4ack4one that should neither 4end nor 4reak.:18D7=018 To the critics> lament that such economic 9intrusion: (ill dri#e a(ay !orei'n in#estors, 5 can only point out that the .hilippine system o! 'o#ernment is not dictatorial or authoritarian. 5t is not dependent on the (ishes or the commands o! one man or one department. 5t 4reathes and li#es (ithin democratic space (here the rule o! la(, not the decree o! man, pre#ails. -uch system is not anathema to !ree enterprise. 5n !act, it !inds its roots in the 1merican system, (ith (hich most !orei'n in#estors should 4e !amiliar.
18B 18; 71998 7=008

18D

&!. Fisher, Judicial Po'e! and the Constitution, 1990 ed., p. 33. 9The present mem4ership ! the M- -upreme &ourt, composed o! &hie! Justice ehnEuist and Justices O>&onnor, Gins4ur', -te#ens, -calia, Hennedy, -outer, Thomas and *reyer, is said to 4e, man !or man, the 4est in the &ourt>s history. Net the M- &ourt today has not 4een e"cused !rom undue repro4ation !rom the press.: +&ited 4y Justice Jose &. Vitu' in 9Aialo'ue @ith 1ppelate Justices,: La'ye!s- Re ie', Aecem4er 31, 1993, p. 38., 7=018 esolution in G 2os. 1=B3D0 and 1=38D3, Aecem4er 3, 1993, p. =B.

- 71 -

1nd in#estors, (hether local or !orei'n, should !ind com!ort in a system o! 'o#ernment that allo(s indi#idual ri'hts and li4erties to pre#ail a'ainst e#en the a(esome mi'ht o! a ma%oritarian 'o#ernment, or o! mo4 rule and temporary popular sentiments or, !or that matter, o! despots and dictators. !gnorance of Adversarial System of %itigation @e no( come to the second o4%ectionJ namely, that the &ourt should ha#e listened to e"ternal e"pert economic ad#ice, 4e!ore rulin' on a nationally sensiti#e issue. This critiEue o4#iously emanates !rom i'norance either o! our ad#ersarial system o! liti'ation or o! the procedure actually employed 4y the &ourt 4e!ore it reached the oil dere'ulation Aecision. Our system o! ad#ersarial liti'ation is not like that used durin' con'ressional in#esti'ations, in (hich the 'eneral pu4lic may come !orth and speak up durin' hearin's. 5n liti'ations, only the parties and 'enerally those (ith locus standi or le'al standin' may participate. Hi4itzers, ho(e#er (ell6meanin', cannot 4e heard. $ditorials, popularity sur#eys and 4roadcast commentaries cannot 4e the 4asis o! decisions. 1s Justice /iller *. Ko4el o! the )assachussetts -uperior &ourt e"plained1837=0=8C >lected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls& "udges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, pic8eters, threats, petitions, panelists and tal8 shows& In this country, we do not administer 7ustice by plebiscite&' 0et us remem4er that, as a rule, a case is decided only on the 4asis o! !acts, issues and ar'uments raised 4y the parties 4e!ore the courts. 5n !act, issues and ar'uments not 4rou'ht 4e!ore a lo(er court cannot 4e raised !or the !irst time on appeal 4e!ore a hi'her tri4unal. Aue process reEuires that a %ud'ment should 4e rendered only on the 4asis o! matters actually heard and discussed. 1s 5 o!ten say, 9$ach case has its o(n !lesh and 4lood and cannot 4e decided simply on the 4asis o! isolated clinical classroom principles.:1887=038 T(o 'roups o! liti'ants (ho, on the sur!ace, appear to 4e similarly situated could 4e recipients o! di!!erent decisions dependin' on the !acts, issues and ar'uments raised. 0et me 'i#e you a #ery recent e"ample in#ol#in' the strike o! pu4lic schoolteachers. 5n Jacinto . Cou!t of Appeals,1897=0B8 the mentors insisted that their strike 66 meanin', their a4sence, (ithout authority, !rom their classrooms in order to pu4licly a'itate !or 4etter (orkin' conditions 66 (as %usti!ied 4y their !reedom o! speech and o! assem4ly. 5n a Aecision 5 (rote, the &ourt en banc unanimously ruled that the &onstitution did not 'rant 'o#ernment employees, includin' pu4lic schoolteachers, the
183 7=0=8

188 189

Iuoted 4y Justice 5sa'ani 1. &ruz in his column in the Philippine (aily In)ui!e! on Aecem4er D, 1993. See also the column o! !ormer -enator ene 1.V. -a'uisa' in the January =, 1998 issue o! *oday. 7=038 *he Philippines *oday . NLRC, G 2o. 11=9D;, January 30, 1993. 7=0B8 G 2o. 1=B;B0, 2o#em4er 1B, 1993.

- 72 -

ri'ht to strike. /ence, the disciplinary penalty imposed upon them 4y the &i#il -er#ice &ommission (as upheld. Au Cont!ai!e, in Fabella . Cou!t of Appeals,1907=0;8 another 'roup o! teachers assailed the 9'uilty: #erdict o! the in#esti'atin' committee, not 4ecause o! any #iolation o! their !reedom o! speech or o! their alle'ed ri'ht to strike, 4ut 4ecause the in#esti'atin' committee (as not properly constituted. They ar'ued that the Aepartment o! $ducation +and the &-&, had not included, as a mem4er therein, a representati#e o! the schoolteachers> association, as prescri4ed 4y the )a'na &arta !or .u4lic -choolteachers. 1 unanimous -upreme &ourt, in a %ud'ment 5 also penned, upheld the mentors +and re#ersed the &i#il -er#ice &ommission,, 4ecause the ille'al composition o! the in#esti'atin' committee depri#ed the respondents o! due process. -trikin' teachers lost the !irst case on the issue o! their alle'ed ri'ht to strike, (hile they (on the second case on the issue o! due process 66 t(o separate cases promul'ated in the same month +2o#em4er 1993, 4y unanimous #ote and (ritten 4y the same ponente. 5n the oil dere'ulation case, the parties (ere 'i#en more than su!!icient time and opportunity to ar'ue their causes orally and in (ritin'. To underline the si'ni!icance o! the case, the &ourt e#en called !or oral ar'uments +(hich happens only in less than one percent o! cases it decides,, in addition to the usual #oluminous (ritten pleadin's the parties had !iled. *ut the *i' Three !ailed to re4ut the constitutional issues raised 4y petitioners, especially the damnin' ar'ument that 1 8180 #irtually 'ranted them a monopoly, and that they in !act acted as a cartel. Supreme Court Decisions on #olitical2 &conomic2 Social and *ther $atters That %ustices are not economists or 4usinessmen cannot lessen the co'ency or 4indin' e!!ect o! their decision. *y the same token, %ustices are not physicians or theolo'ians, 4ut they render conclusi#e %ud'ments in#ol#in' medicine or theolo'y. For e"ample, in the July =;, 1993 case People . :!te%a,I8I6LJ>9 the -upreme &ourt used medical science to esta4lish the culpa4ility o! an accused (ho had not taken part in sta44in' the #ictim. The accused arri#ed at the crime scene a!ter the sta44in' had taken place. /e merely (anted to conceal the crime 4y thro(in' the #ictim>s 4ody in a (ell and therea!ter co#erin' it (ith stone and dirt. 5n the !ace o! medical e#idence that the #ictim>s lun's and stomach im4i4ed muddy particles identical to the residue at the 4ottom o! the (ell, the &ourt ruled that dro(nin', not sta44in', (as the immediate cause o! death, 4ecause the 9(ater and !luid contents in the stomach corresponded to the medium (here the 4ody (as !ound.:

190 191

7=0;8 7=0D8

G 2o. 110339, 2o#em4er =8, 1993. G 2o. 11D33D, July =;, 1993.

- 73 -

-o, too, in Republic . "olina,I8L6LJ49 the &ourt interpreted (ith !inality the meanin' o! &anon 0a(, speci!ically &anon 109; (hich laid do(n a pro#ision, later 4orro(ed 4y our Family &ode, !or declarin' a marria'e #oid. /ence, e#en i! the %ustices (ere not canonists or theolo'ians, they had to render a decision on (hether the marria'e o! -pouses oridel Ola#iano and eynaldo )olina could 4e #oided on the 'round o! 9psycholo'ical incapacity.: 1s a third e"ample, in I%lesia ni C!isto . Cou!t of Appeals, the -upreme &ourt ma'istrates 66 althou'h not e"perts in 4roadcastin', reli'ion or social sciences 66 ruled on the issue o! (hether the *oard o! &ensors acted properly in 9P6ratin': certain tele#ision pro'rams. The point isC The mem4ers o! the &ourt need not 4e e"perts in medicine, reli'ion or economics in order to decide cases in#ol#in' those disciplines. 5t is up to the parties concerned to enli'hten the &ourt, ar'ue their sides and con#ince the %ustices o! the merits o! their causes. That is the nature o! the %udicial process and that is ho( decisions are and (ill 4e made. The Tariff Differential Our critics alle'e, as a third point, that the &ourt (as i'norant o! the !act that 4y rulin' out the B percent tari!! di!!erential in 1 8180, it shamelessly decreed the more 4urdensome 10 percent di!!erential under the old la(. 5 ha#e ne(s !or our critics. Iuite the contrary, the &ourt (as only too (ell a(are o! this. 5t ackno(led'ed that the natural conseEuence o! the in#alidity o! a ne( la( (as the re#i#al o! the old. Mn!ortunately, the &ourt has no po(er to repeal or alter the old la(. @hile it has the po(er to declare a la( unconstitutional, it has no authority to modi!y a la( (hich in its opinion is un(ise or incon#enient. Mnder the principle o! separation o! po(ers in#oked 4y the critics, only &on'ress has the po(er to make, amend or repeal la(s that are un(ise or detrimental to the 'eneral (el!are. -o, too, the .resident is empo(ered to !i" or modi!y tari!! rates. That (as (hy the &ourt in its Aecision repeatedly pointed to &on'ress and to the O!!ice o! the .resident as the #enues !or a4ro'atin' or annullin' the 10 percent di!!erential. 5n this connection, the media reported a !e( days a'o that the .resident had in !act reset the tari!! di!!erential to a uni!orm 3 percent only. 5n any e#ent, the old la( merely re'ulated 66 not dere'ulated 66 the oil industry. 1nd part o! the re'ulation (as the 10 percent tari!! di!!erential. @hether that (as (ise or un(ise is a matter (ithin le'islati#e and e"ecuti#e prero'ati#es, and not o! the %udiciary. 5t is up to these policymakin' departments to determine (hether (e should ha#e a re'ulated or a dere'ulated oil industry, the ca#eat 4ein' that in any choice they make, they should not o!!end the &onstitution.

19=

7=038

G 2o. 1083D3, Fe4ruary 13, 1993.

- 74 -

#artial or Total ,nconstitutionality' The !ourth criticism isC @hy did the &ourt declare the entire la( unconstitutionalL @hy did it not limit the nulli!ication to the three o!!endin' pro#isionsL The 4rie! ans(er to that Euestion isC /ad the &ourt #oided only the pro#isions on tari!! di!!erentials, oil in#entory and predatory pricin', and allo(ed the rest o! the la( to remain, it (ould ha#e ena4led the oil companies to continue actin' as an oli'opoly and to determine pump prices 4y their cartelized sel#es. They (ould ha#e 4een a4le to raise their retail prices 4y any amount, (ithout any real competition or 'o#ernment re'ulation. The oli'opoly (ould still ha#e 4een a4le to in!lict itsel! on the hapless and helpless pu4lic. 0et us recall that 1 8180 (as #oided !or t(o main reasonsC +1, it allo(ed a com4ination in restraint o! trade or a cartel, and +=, it o4structed the entry or competiti#eness o! ne( players. 5n#alidatin' the three pro#isions (ould ha#e satis!ied the second reason 4ut not the !irst. &on!orma4ly, the &ourt pre!erred to 'i#e &on'ress and the .resident the lee(ay and discretion to cra!t a ne( la( andQor e"ecuti#e order !ree o! these t(o constitutional !la(s. #artial or Total Deregulation' The !i!th o4%ection, ironically enou'h, (as !oisted 4y the main petitioner and pre#ailin' party in this case, ep. $nriEue Garcia. /e contends that the &ourt should not ha#e declared the entire la( unconstitutional, 4ut +in addition to the three a!orecited pro#isions, should ha#e condemned -ec. 1; (hich mandated !ull dere'ulation. 5n his t(o )otions !or econsideration, epresentati#e Garcia passionately ar'ued !or a return only to 9partial dere'ulation,: in (hich the main !eatures o! dere'ulation (ould 4e allo(ed !ree rein, 4ut the retail prices o! oil products (ould still 4e re'ulated throu'h the $ner'y e'ulatory *oard. 5n this scheme, there (ould ha#e 4een no necessity to pass a ne( dere'ulation 4ill. /e (as apprehensi#e that &on'ress (ould not 4e a4le to pass a constitutionally %usti!ied dere'ulation la(. The &ourt care!ully deli4erated on this point, and some o! the %ustices, includin' me, !ound Garcia>s plea to 4e (ise and prudent. /o(e#er, it (as 4ere!t o! le'al underpinnin's. 5n other (ords, the &ourt did not !ind any le'al 4asis !or such alternati#e, simply 4ecause it appeared to 4e (ise, con#enient and 4ene!icial. To do (hat epresentati#e Garcia (anted, the &ourt (ould ha#e had to le'islate, a po(er 'ranted only to &on'ress and not to the -upreme &ourt. To the relie! o! its main critics, the &ourt realized only too (ell the limits o! its authority. 5n the relati#ely recent case *anada . An%a!a, in (hich the &ourt upheld the constitutionality o! the -enate rati!ication o! the .hilippine adherence to the @orld Trade Or'anization, (e speci!ically delineated the limits o! our po(erI8?6LJ79 thusC Ce should stress that, in deciding to ta8e 7urisdiction over this petition, this $ourt will not review the &isdo$ of the decision of the President and the #enate in enlisting the country into the C(O, or pass upon the $erits of trade liberali:ation as a policy espoused
193 7=088

G 2o. 118=9;, )ay =, 1993, p. =D.

- 75 -

by said international body& Aeither will it rule on the #ro#riety of the governments economic policy of reducingIremoving tariffs, taxes, subsidies, 9uantitative restrictions, and other importItrade barriers&' .rounds for 3udicial !ntervention in &conomic $atters 1s ponente or (riter o! the a!orecited Aecision, 5 (ould like to stress that *a;ada . An%a!a, (hich (as concurred in unanimously 4y the !i!teen mem4ers o! the &ourt, clearly spelled out the &ourt>s doctrine in re'ard to economic matters, and that is 66 at the risk o! 4ein' repetiti#e 66 the &ourt (ill not declare an economic matter #oid simply 4ecause it is un(ise or improper or incon#enient, 4ut only 4ecause it contra#enes the &onstitution, or it (as e"ecuted (ith 'ra#e a4use o! discretion amountin' to lack or e"cess o! %urisdiction. These are the t(o 'rounds 66 unconstitutionality and 'ra#e a4use o! discretion 66 that may impel the &ourt to #oid the policies and acts o! any department, o!!ice or entity touchin' on any matter includin' economics. Fello( otarians, 5 ha#e tried to e"plain in plain lan'ua'e the &ourt>s rulin' in the oil dere'ulation case and, !or that matter, my o(n perspecti#e on the responsi4ility o! the -upreme &ourt to decide on economic issues. To those (ho are con#inced 4y this little talk and (ho no( understand our role, 5 'i#e my thanks. To those (ho are still uncon#inced or are dou4t!ul, 5 can only cite a Euotation !rom a 19D3 Aecision o! the &ourtC19B7=098 Ce concede that a 3critic5 may thin8 highly of his intellectual endowment& (hat is his privilege& !nd he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others lac8 of it& (hat is his misfortune& #uch frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attac8 a courts decision in words calculated to 7ettison the time honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right&'

$ay the Supreme Court #redetermine the Constitutionality of Statutes' Thank you. 5 am no( ready !or the open !orumJ and to prime the pump, 5 (ill ans(er immediately a Euestion (hich (as earlier sent to me. 5t readsC 9&on'ress is no( in the process o! cra!tin' a ne( la( on oil dere'ulation. One #ersion simply restates the #er4atim te"t o! 1 8180 minus the three o!!endin' pro#isions on the B percent tari!! di!!erential, predatory pricin' and minimum in#entory. @ould such 4ill satis!y the &onstitutionL: This is an interestin' Euestion 4ut it (as not raised 4y the parties and (as
19B 7=098

Rhee# . Fe!!e!, =0 -& 1 BB1, BBB, June =D, 19D3, per J. &onrado V. -anchez.

- 76 -

thus not ans(ered 4y the &ourt. )ay 5 %ust point out, ho(e#er, that under the said 4ill, the *i' Three may still 4e a4le to act as a monopoly and en'a'e in com4inations in restraint o! trade. Thus, &on'ress may ha#e to place su!!icient sa!e'uards in the ne( dere'ulation la( to !orestall the oil 'iants !rom takin' ad#anta'e o! dere'ulation as a shield !or cartelizin' their operations and marketin'. @hat these sa!e'uards are or should 4e 5 lea#e to the creati#e ima'ination o! &on'ress and the .resident. The %o4 o! &on'ress is to cra!t the la(J the president, to implement it. The -upreme &ourt>s duty is to determine, in appropriate cases, (hether the la(, as cra!ted or as implemented, (ill pass the constitutional test. That is separation o! po(ers at (orkR 1 corollary Euestion pops upC To assure constitutionality, (hy can>t the -upreme &ourt pass upon the 4ill prior to its passa'e 4y &on'ressL 1'ain, under our system o! 'o#ernment, that is not allo(ed. The &ourt is not an ad%unct o! &on'ress or o! the .resident. 5t is a coeEual 4ranch, (ith a distinct constitutional duty in the scheme o! checks and 4alances. 5! the &ourt pre%ud'es the constitutionality o! a la(, then (hat chance (ould liti'ants ha#e (hen they challen'e actions o! our le'islatorsL 5ndeed, elementary rules o! !airness demand that the %ud'e or re!eree should not play or take sides in the 'ame. /e cannot pre%ud'e the matter prior to hearin' the parties. 1!ter all, &on'ress may hire its o(n le'al ea'lesJ and the .resident has the secretary o! %ustice, the solicitor 'eneral and the presidential le'al counsel to 'i#e him adeEuate le'al 4ackin'. That is (hy, in case o! dou4t, the &ourt al(ays rules in !a#or o! constitutionality. 5n the present case, ho(e#er, on the 4asis o! the !acts, issues and ar'uments raised 4y the parties, the Tri4unal o4ser#ed that it had not encountered a la( more constitutionally in!irm than 1 8180. /ence, the -upreme &ourt had to strike it do(n. Thank you. 2o( 5 am ready !or your other Euestions.

- 77 -

Chapter VII OTHER CON%TITUTIONA$ $AW BATT$E%

1side !rom the !ore'oin' cases, there are a num4er o! other contro#ersial cases in#ol#in' the interpretation o! the &onstitution. The Filipino First #olicy "anila P!ince $otel . GSIS,19;7=108 (ritten 4y Justice *ellosillo, set the mechanism !or the en!orcement o! the 9Filipino First: policy enshrined in 1rticle P55, -ection 10, par. = o! the 1983 &onstitution, (hich statesC In the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the #tate shall give preference to 9ualified Filipinos&' There (as no dispute in the &ourt that the a4o#e clause 9is a mandatory, positi#e command (hich is complete in itsel! and (hich needs no !urther 'uidelines or implementin' la(s or rules !or its en!orcement.: @e (ere also one in interpretin' national pat!i#ony as re!errin' not only to the rich natural resources o! the country, 4ut also to the cultural herita'e o! Filipinos. 1nd (e said that )anila /otel (as 9a li#in' testimonial o! .hilippine herita'e: and 9a historic relic that has hosted many o! the most important e#ents in the short history o! the .hilippines as a nation:J thus, it (as a part o! our cultural herita'e. This 4ein' so, the sale o! ;1 percent o! the shares o! the hotel company, shares that 4elon'ed to the 'o#ernment, (as a state action 19D7=118 su4%ect to the constitutional command. The 4one o! contention (as the de%!ee of p!efe!ence that should 4e accorded to the 9Euali!ied Filipino.: The ma%ority 4elie#ed that, e#en a!ter ha#in' lost to a !orei'ner in a pu4lic 4iddin', the Euali!ied Filipino still had the ri'ht to match the !orei'ner>s o!!er and there4y (in the auction. 5t operationally de!ined the policy in this (iseC In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the highest
19;7=108

=D3 -& 1 B08, Fe4ruary 3, 1993, per *ellosillo, J.J concurred in 4y JJ. .adilla, e'alado, Aa#ide Jr., omero, Vitu', Hapunan, )endoza, Francisco, /ermosisima and Torres. 19D 7=118 The ponencia e"plainedC

x x x In constitutional 7urisprudence, the acts of persons distinct from the government are considered @state action covered by the $onstitution 3,5 when the activity it engages in is a @#ublic !unction24 3*5 when the govenrment is so significantly involved with the private actor as to ma8e the government responsible for his actionE and 3+5 when the government has approved or authori:ed the action&'
- 78 -

bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no 9uestion that the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity& !nd if the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm, the award should go to the Filipino&' Justice .adilla, in his &oncurrin' Opinion, e"pressed the same #ie( in this mannerC In the field of public bidding in the ac9uisition of things that pertain to the national patrimony, preference to 9ualified Filipinos must allow a 9ualified Filipino to match or e9ual the higher bid of a non FilipinoE the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the 9ualified Filipino and the non Filipino are e9ual, in which case, the award should undisputedly be made to the 9ualified Filipino& (he $onstitutional preference should give the 9ualified Filipino an opportunity to match or e9ual the higher bid of the non Filipino bidder if the preference of the 9ualified Filipino bidder is to be significant at all&' 5n contrast, Justice .uno,1937=1=8 in his (ell6articulated Aissent, e"plained that 1rticle P55, -ection 10 o! the &onstitution, (as 9pro6Filipino and not anti6alien.: The ri'ht o! pre!erence o! the Filipino 4idder (ould arise only i! his 4id tied that o! the !orei'n 4idder. 5 %oined Justice .uno in his Aissent, e#en as 5 e"pressed my o(n in this (iseC ,& (he ma7ority contends the $onstitution should be interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process is concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the right to e9ual the highest foreign bid, and thus to win& Kowever, the $onstitution )#ec& ,3*5, !rt& NII2 simply states that @in the grant of rights x x x covering the national economy and patrimony, the #tate shall give preference to 9ualified Filipinos& (he ma7ority concedes that there is no law de!ining t e e)tent or degree of such preference& S#eci!ically% no statute e$#o&ers a losing +ili#ino bidder to increase is bid and e.ual t at o! t e &inning !oreigner. In the absence of such empowering law, the ma7oritys strained interpretation, I respectfully submit, constitutes unadulterated judicial legislation% & ic $a(es bidding a ridiculous s a$ & ere no +ili#ino can lose and & ere no !oreigner can &in. Only in the PhilippinesO
193 7=1=8

Joined 4y CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. .an'ani4an and )elo.

- 79 -

*& !side from being prohibited by the $onstitution, such 7udicial legislation is short sighted and, viewed properly, gravely pre7udicial to long term Filipino interests& It encourages other countries in the guise of reverse comity or worse, unabashed retaliation to discriminate against us in their own 7urisdictions by authori:ing their own nationals to similarly e9ual and defeat the higher bids of Filipino enterprises solely, while on the other hand, allowing similar bids of other foreigners to remain unchallenged by their nationals& T e $ajority2s t esis &ill t us $arginali*e +ili#inos as #aria s in t e global $ar(et#lace &it absolutely no c ance o! &inning any bidding outside our country. >ven authoritarian regimes and hermit 8ingdoms have long ago found out that unfairness, greed and isolation are self defeating and in the long term, self destructing& (he moral lesson here is simple& Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you& +& In the absence of a law specifying the degree or extent of the @Filipino First policy of the $onstitution, the constitutional preference for the @9ualified Filipinos may be allowed only where all the bids are e9ual& In this manner, we put the Filipino ahead without self destructing him and without being unfair to the foreigner& In short, the $onstitution mandates a victory for the 9ualified Filipino only when the scores are tied& ;ut not when the ballgame is over and the foreigner clearly posted the highest score&'

Censorship of Religious Television #rograms I%lesia ni C!isto . Cou!t of Appeals1987=138 is a sho(case o! 4alancin' the e"ercise o! police po(er 4y the -tate is0a0 is that o! the !reedom o! !aith and o! e"pression 4y a reli'ious denomination. 5n this case, the &ourt (as !aced (ith the issue o! (hether the *oard o! e#ie( !or )o#in' .ictures and Tele#ision +no( )o#ie O Tele#ision e#ie( O &lassi!ication *oard or )T &*, had the po(er to re#ie( the reli'ious tele#ision pro'ram o! the I%lesia ni C!isto and, conseEuently, to prohi4it the airin' o! certain sho(s on the 'rounds that 9they constitute an attack a'ainst other reli'ions and that they are indecent, contrary to la( and 'ood customs.:

198

7=138

=;9 -& 1 ;=9, July =D, 199D, per .uno, J.

- 80 -

$"aminin' the po(ers o! the *oard as de!ined under .A 198D, speci!ically -ection 3 thereo!, the &ourt ma%ority, 1997=1B8 led 4y Justice .uno, arri#ed at the conclusion that the *oard clearly had the po(er 9to screen, re#ie( and e"amine all Mtele ision p!o%!a#s,-: includin' reli'ious sho(s. 5n ans(er to the ar'ument that such po(er contra#ened the constitutional 'uarantee o! !ree e"ercise and en%oyment o! reli'ious pro!ession and (orship,=007=1;8 the &ourt rea!!irmed the lon'6standin' rule that 9the e"ercise o! reli'ious !reedom can 4e re'ulated 4y the -tate (hen it (ill 4rin' a4out the clear and present dan'er o! some su4stanti#e e#il (hich the -tate is duty64ound to pre#ent.: 5t held that (hile reli'ious !reedom (as 'i#en a pre!erred status, like all other ri'hts 'uaranteed 4y the &onstitution, it could 4e en%oyed only (ith a proper re'ard !or the ri'hts o! others.=017=1D8 *ut in allo(in' the 4roadcast o! the su4%ect An% I%lesia ni C!isto pro'ram series, (hich (as 4anned 4y the *oard and su4seEuently 4y the trial and the appellate courts, this &ourt declared that, to %usti!y the prohi4ition o! a 4roadcast, it (as not enou'h that a certain esta4lishment attacked or criticized another reli'ion. Furthermore, this reason (as not amon' the 'rounds speci!ied in -ection 3 o! .A 198D. The dissenters=0=7=138 !ocused on p!io! !est!aint. They opined that there could 4e no prior restraints on the e"ercise o! !ree speech, e"pression or reli'ion. 1ccordin' to Justice )elo, any restriction 4y the -tate on these ri'hts could not 4e %usti!ied, until the e"ercise thereo! tra#ersed that point that (ould endan'er order in ci#il society. The remedy o! redress, su4mitted Justice .adilla, lay in the courts o! la(, %ustice and eEuity. Justice Hapunan !urther opined that censorship (as a means o! re'ulation, and as a !orm o! prior restraint, it (as anathema to a democratic society, (here the !reedom o! reli'ion and that o! e"pression (ere constitutionally 'uaranteed. -tate inter!erence should 4e allo(ed only in e"treme circumstances. The late &hie! Justice Teehankee, in A#e!ican Bible Society . City of "anila, =03 enunciated the standardC 9The sole %usti!ication !or a prior restraint or limitation on the e"ercise o! reli'ious !reedom is the e"istence o! a 'ra#e and present dan'er o! a character 4oth 'ra#e and imminent o! a serious e#il to pu4lic sa!ety, pu4lic morals, pu4lic health or any other le'itimate pu4lic interest that the -tate has a ri'ht +and duty, to pre#ent.:
7=188

199

7=1B8

=00

J. .uno>s ponencia merited the unEuali!ied concurrence o! JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide Jr., omero, Francisco and Torres. CJ 2ar#asa concurred in the resultJ (hile JJ. )elo, Vitu', )endoza and 5 rendered -eparate Opinions. JJ. .adilla and Hapunan, the latter %oined 4y J. /ermosisima, (rote dissentin' #ie(s. 7=1;8 ;, 1rt. 555 o! the &onstitution, pro#idesC

Ao law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof& (he free exercise and en7oyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed&'
=01 =0= =03 7=1D8 7=138 7=188

The &ourt citin' &ruz, Constitutional La', 1991 ed., pp. 13D6138. JJ. .adilla, )elo and Hapunan. 101 .hil 38D.

- 81 -

1ccordin'ly, Justice Hapunan opined that the 'o#ernment, under the 'uise o! its re'ulatory po(ers prescri4ed under .A 198D, could not inter!ere (ith the e"ercise o! reli'ious e"pression 4y reEuirin' the su4mission !or re#ie( o! #ideo tapes o! reli'ious pro'rams 4e!ore their pu4lic #ie(in', a4sent any sho(in' o! a compellin' state interest o#erridin' the constitutional protection o! the !reedom o! reli'ion and o! e"pression. eco'nizin', ho(e#er, the non6a4solute character o! reli'ious !reedom and, at the same time, the need to minimize restriction, Justice Hapunan proposed that subse)uent sanctions 4e imposed only in clearly pro#en #iolations o! la( or e"cesses o! protected speech. *ut he also pointed out that the determination o! any #iolation or e"cess (as a %udicial !unction, not an administrati#e one e"ercised 4y an e"ecuti#e a'ency. Justice Hapunan !urther criticized the reliance o! the ma%ority on Sotto . Rui2=0B7=198 in their %usti!ication o! the po(er o! the )T &* to re#ie( reli'ious pro'rams on the 4asis o! its possession o! the appropriate e"pertise, #iz.C !s has been said, the performance of the duty of determining whether a publication contains printed matter of a libelous character rests with the Director of Posts and involves the exercise of his 7udgment and discretion& >very intendment of the law is in favor of the correctness of his action& (he rule is 3and we go only to those cases coming from the Lnited #tates #upreme $ourt and pertaining to the Lnited #tates Postmaster <eneral5 that the courts will not interfere with the decision of the Director of Posts unless clearly of the opinion that it was wrong&'

5n e!!ect, Sotto places upon the producer or e"hi4itor the 4urden o! 'oin' to court and o! sho(in' that his !ilm or pro'ram is constitutionally protected. -uch pronouncement runs counter to the !undamental principle that any act restrainin' speech is presumed in#alidJ thus, the 4urden o! o#erthro(in' this presumption rests on the censors. Justice )endoza shared the same #ie( that administrati#e censorship (as directly contrary to the !undamental le'al tenet that until and unless speech (as !ound 4y the courts to 4e unprotected, its e"pression must 4e allo(ed. /e speci!ied (hat mi'ht 4e su4%ect to censorshipC 9a narro( class o! cases in#ol#in' porno'raphy, e"cessi#e #iolence, and dan'er to national security.: For this purpose, he conceded that the reEuirement to su4mit !ilms and TV pro'rams !or re#ie(, prior to pu4lic e"hi4ition or 4roadcastin', did not constitute prior restraint. ather, it (as a #alid means o! e!!ecti#ely ena4lin' the -tate to 4ar the sho(in' o! unprotected !ilms and pro'rams in order to sa!e'uard le'itimate pu4lic interests. /e insisted, thou'h, that the po(er o! the )T &* (as limited to decidin' (hether to seek !rom the court a prohi4ition o! the pu4lic sho(in' or 4roadcastin' o! a certain material in the interest o! protectin' morality, 'ood order and pu4lic sa!ety.
=0B 7=198

B1 .hil BD8 +19=1,.

- 82 -

5n my o(n -eparate Opinion, (hich concurred (ith the ma%ority in 'rantin' the petition, 5 pointed out that the statute +.A 198D, actually pro#ided the )T &*, in its e"ercise o! its re#ie( po(er, an appropriate standard 66 conte#po!a!y Philippine cultu!al alues.=0;7==08 This standard may 4e used in determinin' (hether a !ilm or a #ideo pro'ram could 4e classi!ied as immoral, indecent, contrary to la( or 'ood customs, or in%urious to the presti'e o! the country or its people. )ean(hile, the 9clear and present dan'er: test may 4e used in determinin' (hether the material 4ein' re#ie(ed (ould encoura'e #iolence or the commission o! a crime or (ron'. 5 (rote in partC x x x In exercising its prerogatives, the .(%$; cannot act absolutely or whimsically& It must act #rudently. !nd it can do so OABM if it exercises its powers of review and prohibition according to a standard and5or a li$it. I believe that the phrase @with a dangerous tendency in #ec& + c of P&D& ,0?6 should be struc8 down as an unconstitutional standard& (his is martial law vintage and should be replaced with the more libertarian @clear and present danger rule which is ele9uently explained by JJ. Papunan, Puno and .endo:a 3and which explanation I shall not repeat here5& Kaving said that, may I respectfully point out however that there is an even more appropriate standard in the " ili##ine conte)t proffered by the law itself, and that is @contemporary Philippine cultural values& (his standard under the law, should be used in determining whether a film or video program is @3a5 immoral, 3b5 indecent, 3c5 contrary to law andIor good customs, and 3d5 in7urious to the prestige of the %epublic of the Philippines or its people& On the other hand, when the 9uestion is whether the material being reviewed @encourages the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime per the enumeration contained in #ec& + c, the Eclear and present danger principle should be applied as the standard in place of the @dangerous tendency rule& "ust a word edgewise about cultural values& Our cultural ideals and core values of galang% #agbaba ala% #ananagutan% bali(atan% $alasa(it% asal% alaga% di&a% da$da$in% dangal% (a#&a% #a(i(itungo% iya% deli(adesa% a&a% ti&ala% $a(a6Diyos% $a(a6tao% $a(a6bu ay and so forth, define us as a people, as Filipinos& Ce are who and what we are because of these values and ideals& (hey delimit the areas of individual and social behavior and conduct deemed acceptable or tolerable, and ultimately they determine the way we as individuals uni9uely conduct our relationships and express ourselves& !ccording to .r& "ustice
=0; 7==08

3 +c,, .A 198D.

- 83 -

Papunan, applying contemporary Filipino values to religious thought and expression will permit an @overarching into a constitutionally protected area, and provides the .(%$; with a veiled excuse for clamping down against unorthodox religious thought and expression& ;ut such fear is highly speculative and totally unsupported by empirical evidence& I would li8e to add that where a mode of religious expression runs counter to such core values, serious 9uestions have to be raised about the ultimate redeeming worth of such expression& !n example is in order& Aot too long ago, the so called @$hildren of <od blew into town, and, under the guise of proselyti:ing, practised @flirty fishing 3free sex5& I wonder how many of us will simply sit on our hands if these @$hildren were to telecast their religious programs for OL% children to watch, or conduct seminars over the airwaves on the hows of free sex & & & & !nother exampleG satanic cults involve blood sacrifices & & & & In brief, I am in agreement with the #onencia that the practice of religion cannot be totally abandoned in the mar8etplace and governed by the policy of laisse* !aire./

Justice Vitu' aptly summed up the !ocal point o! the ma%ority in upholdin' the prero'ati#e o! the )T &* to pre#ie( a !ilm or a pro'ramC x x x I certainly do not thin8 that prior censorship should altogether be re7ected 7ust because sanctions can later be imposed& %egulating the exercise of a right is not necessarily anathema to itE in fact, it can safeguard and secure that right& x x x I find it more prudent to have a deferment of an exhibition that may be perceived to be contrary to decency, morality, good customs or the law until, at least, the courts are given an opportunity to pass upon the matter than rely merely on the availability of retribution for actual in7ury sustained& ! delay is not too high a price to pay for a possible damage to society that may well turn out to be incalculable and lasting&' The Right to #rivacy 5n its Octo4er 13, 1993 issue, *i#e ma'azine tolled 9the death o! pri#acy: on its !ront co#er. *ylined 4y Joshua Iuittner, the accompanyin' story lamented that 97o8ur ri'ht to 4e le!t alone has disappeared.: The people>s ri'ht to pri#acy is in#aded daily, (hether throu'h credit cards, e6mail, telephones, 1T) machines, sur#eillance cameras in 4uildin's and parkin' lots, supermarket scanners, hospital and hotel records, police 4lotters and e#en commercial satellites.

- 84 -

This in#asion must ha#e 4een in the mind o! Justice .uno (hen, in :ple . *o!!es,=0D7==18 he in#alidated 1dministrati#e Order 2o. 308 +1O 308,, (hich had 4een issued 4y .resident Fidel V. amos on Aecem4er 1=, 199D to esta4lish a 92ational &omputerized 5denti!ication e!erence -ystem.: Justice .uno ar'ued that 9the ri'ht to pri#acy is reco'nized and enshrined in se#eral pro#isions o! our &onstitution: and statutes, like the &i#il &ode, 1nti6@ire Tappin' 0a( + 1 B=00,, -ecrecy o! *ank Aeposits 1ct + 1 1B0;, and 5ntellectual .roperty &ode + 1 8=93,. Justice .uno !urther opined that the 'o#ernment !ailed 9to sho( that 1O 2o. 308 is %usti!ied 4y some compellin' state interest.: &ontendin' that the national 5A system 9(ill put our people>s ri'ht to pri#acy in clear and present dan'er,: he 4e(ailed that the lack o! control o#er the use o! the 9#ast reser#oir o! personal in!ormation constitutes a co#ert in#itation to misuse, a temptation that may 4e %ust too 'reat !or some o! our authorities to resist.: e%ectin' the notion that 1O 308 merely implemented the 1dministrati#e &ode o! 1983, Justice .uno (rote that said Order in#ol#ed a su4%ect 9that is not appropriate to 4e co#ered 4y an administrati#e order.: Aissentin', Justices )endoza and Hapunan ar'ued that there (as nothin' in 1O 308 that encroached on the ri'ht to pri#acy, 4ecause said issuance merely pro#ided !or the use o! data already 'i#en 4y citizens to #arious 'o#ernment o!!ices 4y reason o! e"istin' la(s. The a!orementioned dissenters cited the #arious kinds o! Euanti!ia4le in!ormation 'athered 4y the 2ational -tatistics O!!ice +under &1 ;91,, as (ell as the data reEuired 4y the 0and Transportation O!!ice +under 1 B13D, !or the issuance o! dri#ers> licenses and 4y the Aepartment o! Forei'n 1!!airs +under 1 8=39, !or the processin' o! passports. Justice )endoza !urther ar'ued that 1O 308 did not #iolate the !reedom o! thou'ht and o! conscience either. 2othin' in it a!!orded any 4asis !or 4elie#in' that the data 'athered (ould 4e used, 4eyond identi!ication purposes, as 9instruments o! thou'ht control.: 5 made it clear in my -eparate Opinion that 5 (as #otin' to 'rant the petition, only on the 'round that the 9su4%ect matter contained in 1O 308 is 4eyond the po(ers o! the .resident to re'ulate (ithout a le'islati#e enactment,: and that the issue 66 9(hether a national 5A system is an in!rin'ement o! the constitutional ri'ht to pri#acy or o! the !reedom o! thou'ht: 66 (ould 4ecome %usticia4le only 9a!ter &on'ress passes, i! e#er, a la( to this e!!ect.: 5n the end, 8 %ustices =037===8 #oted to 'rant the petition and D =087==38 #oted a'ainst. O! the 8, only B 'a#e their unEuali!ied a'reement to the ponencia o! Justice .uno. &oncurrin' 9in the result,: Justice Aa#ide %oined me in my -eparate Opinion that the petition should 4e 'ranted only on the 'round that there (as need !or a le'islati#e
=0D =03 =08 7==18 7===8 7==38

G 2o. 1=3D8;, July =3, 1998. JJ. e'alado, Aa#ide Jr., omero, *ellosillo, .uno, Vitu', .an'ani4an and )artinez. CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. )elo, Hapunan, )endoza, Iuisum4in' and .urisima.

- 85 -

enactment. Justice e'alado simply concurred 9in the result,: (hile Justice Vitu' (rote a -eparate Opinion statin' that it (as 9indispensi4le and appropriate to ha#e the matter speci!ically addressed 4y &on'ress " " ".: 0e!t undecided in the end (as the issue o! (hether the esta4lishment o! a national 5A system (ould #iolate the ri'ht to pri#acy and the !reedom o! thou'ht and conscience. This issue may 4e raised a'ain in a proper suit (hen and i! the appropriate le'islation is appro#ed 4y &on'ress.

- 86 -

Chapter VIII BATT$E% OVER THE RIGHT% O) $ABOR To %usti!y the dismissal o! an employee, the employer must pro#e that +1, the termination (as due to a %ust or authorized cause, as pro#ided 4y 1rticles =8=, =83 and =8B o! the 0a4or &odeJ and +=, the dismissed employee (as accorded due process, that is, the t(in reEuirements o! notice and hearin'.=097==B8 @here a %ust or authorized cause is not pro#en, and e#en i! due process (as o4ser#ed, the dismissal is al(ays deemed ille'al and the employer is reEuired to reinstate the (orker (ith 4ack (a'es, sometimes (ith dama'es as (ell. /o(e#er, (here a %ust or authorized cause is sho(n, 4ut due process (as not o4ser#ed, the dismissal is deemed le'alJ hence, the employee is not reinstated or a(arded separation pay or 4ack (a'es. 5nstead, !or the #iolation o! his ri'ht to due process, he is 'ranted merely an 9indemnity: or nominal dama'es ran'in' !rom .1,000=107==;8 to .10,000,=117==D8 dependin' on the circumstances o! the case and the 'ra#ity o! the employee>s omission. The practice o! 'rantin' 9indemnity only: to employees (ho are dismissed !or %ust cause 4ut (ithout due process 4e'an in 1989 (ith the leadin' case Nenphil . NLRC.=1=7==38 5 ha#e Euite #ehemently and continuously dissented !rom (hat 5 consider the lo( re'ard o! the &ourt !or due process. 5 started re'isterin' my reser#ations in "GG "a!ine Se! ices . NLRC.=137==88 /o(e#er, e#en i! 5 (as the ponente in that case, 5 could not (rite len'thily a4out my o4%ections to the 9indemnity only: doctrine 4ecause it (as not at issue. 5 had to 4e satis!ied (ith a !ootnote +no. 18, to re'ister my reser#ation. *ut Bette! Buildin%s . NLRC=1B7==98 pro#ided me (ith the opportunity to espouse in !ull my deep6seated mis'i#in's a4out (hat 5 4elie#ed (as the ca#alier treatment o! the ri'ht to due process. 5 proposed to the &ourt that a dismissal that #iolated due process should 4e deemed ille'al in the same manner as one (ithout a %ust cause. /ence, the employee should 4e a(arded separation pay plus indemnity. 5 maintained that a denial o! due process (as a denial o! %ustice itsel!. For a !ull e"position o! my #ie(s, 5 Euote a su4stantial portion o! my AissentC

=09 =10

7==B8 7==;8

=11

=1= =13 =1B

Pa%uio . NLRC, G 2o. 119;00, 1u'ust =8, 1998. 5n Nenphil Co!p. . NLRC, in!raJ Sa#pa%uita Ga!#ents Co!p. . NLRC, =33 -& 1 =D0, June 13, 199BJ 1illa!a#a . NLRC, =3D -& 1 =80, -eptem4er =, 199BJ Rubbe!'o!ld HPhils.=, Inc. . NLRC, 183 -& 1 B=1, )arch =1, 1990J ,'i&'ay .n%inee!in% No!&s . NLRC, 19; -& 1 ;=D, )arch ==, 1991, and se#eral other cases. 7==D8 5n Reta . NLRC, =3= -& 1 D13, )ay =3, 199BJ and Alha#b!a Indust!ies, Inc. . NLRC, =38 -& 1 =3=, 2o#em4er 18, 199B. 7==38 130 -& 1 D9, Fe4urary 8, 1989, per Gancayco, J. 7==88 =;9 -& 1 DD;, July =9, 199D +see note 18 on p. D39,. 7==98 G 2o. 10931B, Aecem4er 1;, 1993, per omero, J.

- 87 -

1en hil's (actual Milieu )ot *dentical to Present +ase I am fully aware that in a long line of cases starting with 'en# il -or#oration vs. N0R-%*,/)*+-2 the $ourt has held that where there is 7ust cause for an employees dismissal but the employer fails to follow the re9uirements of procedural due process, the employee is not entitled to bac8wages and reinstatement 3or separation pay in case reinstatement is no longer feasible5 or other benefits& Instead, he is granted an indemnity 3or penalty or damages5 ranging from P,,---*,6)*+,2 to as much as P,-,---,*,4)*+*2 depending on the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the employers omission& #ince then, 'en# il was perfunctorily applied in most subse9uent cases*,?)*++2 whenever due process was violated 3although 7ust cause was duly proved5 without regard to the peculiar factual milieu of such cases& Kence, indemnity became an easy substitute for due process& ;e it remembered, however, that in 'en# il% the facts were such as to show the i$#racticality, if not aw8wardness, of observing the procedure laid down by law for terminating employment& (here, the employee involved, who appeared to have a violent temper, caused trouble during office hours& In an altercation with a co employee, he @slapped )the latters2 cap, stepped on his foot and pic8ed up the ice scooper and brandished it against the latter& Chen summoned by the assistant manager, the employee @shouted and uttered profane words instead of giving an explanation& Lnder the circumstances obtaining, swift action was necessary to preserve order and discipline as well as to safeguard the customers confidence in the employers business a fast food chain catering to the general public where courtesy is a pri:ed virtue&
=1; =1D 7=308 7=318

=13

=18

130 -& 1 D9, Fe4ruary 8, 1989, per Gancayco, J. 5n Nenphil Co!p. . NLRC, i4id.J Sa#pa%uita Ga!#ents Co!p. . NLRC, =33 -& 1 =D0, June 13, 199BJ 1illa!a#a . NLRC, =3D -& 1 =80, -eptem4er =, 199BJ Rubbe!'o!ld HPhils.=, Inc. . NLRC, 183 -& 1 B=1, )arch =1, 1990J ,'i&'ay .n%inee!in% No!&s . NLRC, 19; -& 1 ;=D, )arch ==, 1991, and se#eral other cases. 7=3=8 5n Reta . NLRC, =3= -& 1 D13, )ay =3, 199BJ and Alha#b!a Indust!ies, Inc. . NLRC, =38 -& 1 =3=, 2o#em4er 18, 199B. 7=338 Seaho!se "a!iti#e Co!p. . NLRC, 133 -& 1 390, )ay 1;, 1989J Rubbe!'o!ld HPhils.=, Inc. . NLRC, supraJ Ca!i;o . NLRC, 18; -& 1 133, )ay 8, 1990J G!eat Pacific Life Assu!ance Co!p. . NLRC, 183 -& 1 D9B, July =3, 1990J Cathed!al School of *echnolo%y . NLRC, =1B -& 1 ;;1, Octo4er 13, 199=J Au!elio . NLRC, ==1 -& 1 B3=, 1pril 1=, 1993J Sa#pa%uita Ga!#ents Co!p. . NLRC, =33 -& 1 =D0, June 13, 199BJ 1illa!a#a . NLRC, supra.

- 88 -

In most of the succeeding cases, however, there was ample opportunity for the employer to observe the re9uisites of due process& (here were no exigencies that called for immediate response& !nd yet, there was instant invocation of 'en# il and the brushing aside of due process& Due Process Blatantly Disre arded ,ere In the present case, petitioner could have given prior notice and hearing to private respondent& ;ut the former flagrantly disregarded the employees right& Private respondent was not even furnished the basic notice of discharge& Corse, he was not given any chance at all to present his defense& Ao due consideration was given the wrenching fact that Feliciano had already been in petitioners employ for more than twenty 3*-5 years& !ll that he was simply shown was a memorandum = not even addressed to him but to the guard on duty which advised that private respondent should thenceforth not be allowed entry to the companys premises due to his termination& ! more blatant disregard of due process is simply inconceivable& Chile in K&i(&ay Engineering 'or(s vs. N0R-*,0)*+12 and "e#si6-ola 7ottling -o. vs. N0R-% **-)*+/2 the $ourt in elegant language declared the failure to observe due process to be a violation of the $onstitution itself and, in no uncertain terms, condemned the 7udgment of dismissal reached by management in its absence as void and non existent,' we have continued to impose upon the erring employer the simplistic penalty of paying indemnity to the illegally dismissed employee& (rue, in some cases, the amount of indemnity has been increased to P/,---**,)*+62 and to as much as P,-,---, as in Reta vs. N0R-***)*+42 where the employee was given his wal8ing papers and forced to leave his ship in a foreign port& #till, I believe that the infringement of the right to due process deserves a stiffer penalty& (he price that the $ourt has set is too insignificant, too niggardly, and sometimes even too late a sanction for the violation of a sacred right& (o this prevailing rule of granting only indemnity and nothing else, I have already expressed my reservations in the earlier case of 8GG 8arine Services% Inc. vs. N0R-**+)*+?2 which, unfortunately, was not the proper vehicle for a radical modification of the doctrine& Cith all
=19 ==0 ==1 7=3B8 7=3;8 7=3D8

,'i&'ay, supra, per )edialdea, J. =10 -& 1 =33, June =3, 199=, per Gutierrez Jr., J. 5n Ca!i;o . NLRC, supraJ "GG "a!ine Se! ices, Inc. . NLRC, =;9 -& 1 DDB, July =9, Sup!a. Sup!a.

199D.
=== ==3 7=338 7=388

- 89 -

due respect, I now submit that the application of this indemnity only doctrine, which has effectively watered down respect for due process to meaningless lip service, must be modified& Employer -ia$le for Separation Pay and *ndemnity Kence, I propose that as a rule where due process is violated, the dismissal should still be condemned as illegal even if the cause for the termination is legally 7ustified& !nd the employer should be made to pay not only indemnity but li8ewise separation pay& I would concede that reinstatement will no longer be proper, because there is a 7ust and valid cause for dismissalE and thus, it would be unconscionable to force an employer to retain the erring employee in his service& (his would be derogatory to the discipline and management prerogatives of the employer& I would also concede against payment of bac8wages, because a wor8er who commits a malfeasance or any act giving rise to loss of trust and confidence necessarily forfeits his right to continue wor8ing in the same company& $onse9uently, he is not entitled to wages for the period in which he did not render any service& In fact, the $ourt veered towards this rule when in 'orld&ide "a#er$ills% Inc. vs. N0R-% **1)*+02 it deemed the grant of separation pay @e9uitable, even if the employees termination of employment was 7ustified& (he employee therein was, within a span of almost six years, repeatedly admonished, warned and suspended for incurring excessive unauthori:ed absences& #uch conduct, we said, undoubtedly constituted gross and habitual neglect of duties, a ground for termination of employment under !rt& *?* of the Babor $ode& Prior to his dismissal, the employee was still re9uired to explain why no disciplinary action should be imposed upon him for his excessive absences without official leave& ;ut in terminating his services, the company did not afford him any hearing& For this infraction of the due process re9uirements, the employer was ordered to indemnify the dismissed employee in the amount of P/,---& In addition, it granted separation pay of one half month salary for every year of service& !fter this award of separation pay plus indemnity in 'orld&ide, the $ourt in subse9uent cases, reverted to the indiscriminate application of the indemnity only ruling in 'en# il&

==B

7=398

=BB -& 1 1=;, )ay 1=, 199;, per .adilla, J.

- 90 -

Separation Pay )ot a Re"ard to Employee, $ut a Penalty for Employer's Disre ard of Due Process I must stress, though, that the grant of separation pay to the dismissed employee is not so much to reward him despite the valid cause of his separation, but to impose an additional penalty to the employer for palpable disregard of a basic constitutional right& (his is the only way to emphasi:e to employers the extreme importance of due process in our democratic system& It is so sacred a right that it cannot be ta8en for granted or glossed over in a cavalier fashion& (o hold otherwise, as by simply imposing an indemnity of some minimal amount, would be to allow a virtual purchase of a fundamental right by the rich and powerful, thereby enabling them to stifle a constitutional right granted in favor of the poor and the marginali:ed& In other cases, where due process is violated, the transgressor is inflicted with much graver conse9uences, and strict compliance with the re9uirements of the law is en7oined& (his much we enunciated again in a very recent case +abella vs. -ourt o! A##eals**/)*1-2 where the $ourt nullified a decision ordering the dismissal of public schoolteachers for having been rendered without due process of law& In that case, the D>$# investigating committee which meted the penalty of dismissal did not have a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers organi:ation' as mandated in %! 164- or the .agna $arta for Public #chool (eachers& (hus, we concludedG **6
)*1,2

@x x x !ccordingly, these committees were deemed to have no competent 7urisdiction& (hus, all proceedings underta8en by them were necessarily void& (hey could not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of private respondents& (he inclusion of a representative of a teachers organi:ation in these committees was indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal& It was this re9uirement that would have given substance and meaning to the right to be heard& Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic re9uirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard& It may be as8edG If the employee is guilty anyway, what
==; ==D 7=B08 7=B18

G 2o. 113039, 2o#em4er =8, 1993, per .an'ani4an, J. 1t p. 13.

- 91 -

difference would it ma8e if he is fired with or without due processF ;y the same to8en, it may be as8ed if in the end, after due hearing, a criminal offender is found guilty anyway, why not 7ust penali:e him immediately and dispense with the trouble and expense of trialF (he absurdity of such argument is too apparent to deserve further discourse& Denial of Due Process a Denial of .ustice In the final analysis, what is involved here is not simply amounts of monetary award, whether insignificant or substantial, whether termed indemnity, penalty or separation pay& Aeither is it merely a matter of respect for wor8ers rights or ade9uate protection of labor& (he bottom line is really the constitutionally granted right to due process& !nd due process is the very essence of 7ustice itself& Chere the rule of law is the bedroc8 of our free society, 7ustice is its very lifeblood& Denial of due process is thus no less than a denial of 7ustice itself& $ontrary to popular misimpression, 7ustice is dispensed not 7ust by the courts and 9uasi 7udicial bodies li8e public respondent here& (he administration of 7ustice begins with each of us, in our everyday dealings with one another and, as in this case, in the employers affording their employees the right to be heard& If we, as a people and as individuals, cannot or will not deign to act with 7ustice and render unto everyone his or her due in little, everyday things, can we honestly hope and seriously expect to do so when it involves monumental, life or death issuesF Lnless each one is committed to a faithful observance of day to day fundamental rights, our ideal of a 7ust society can never be approximated, not to say attained& Summary In sum, I believe that where there is a valid cause for termination but due process is absent, the dismissal should still be branded as illegal& Kowever, the employer cannot be forced to reinstate the employee as the latter has proven himself to be unfit for the 7ob& In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay should be granted& Bi8ewise, no bac8wages are due, because the employee did not deserve to continue wor8ing& Instead, indemnity should be paid& Indemnity and separation pay in this instance are not rewards for the employeeE rather, they are sanctions for the deprivation of due process& I should add that the employer will have the burden of proving why procedural due process could not be afforded the

- 92 -

employee& On the other hand, where the employer can prove that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there was no opportunity to comply with due process re9uirements, or to do so would be impractical or gravely adverse to the employer, then the dismissal would not be illegal and no award can properly be granted& Aevertheless, as a measure of compassion, the employee could be given a nominal sum depending on the circumstances&' 5 reiterated my !ore'oin' Aissent in (el 1al . NLRC,==37=B=8 another Ai#ision case. 5 4elie#e that #ery soon this le'al point +the sanction !or the #iolation o! due process, (ill 4e ele#ated to the banc !or a !ull and !inal ad%udication.

==3

7=B=8

G 2o. 1=180D, per Iuisum4in', J.

- 93 -

Chapter I8 BATT$E% O) THE DAMNED Arrests and Sei0ures 4ithout 4arrants

One o! the most contro#ersial Euestions in criminal procedure, as (ell as in constitutional la(, is the delicate line that distin'uishes a #alid arrest (ith a (arrant, !rom an unla(!ul one (ithout any. This !ine distinction (as discussed 4y the &ourt en banc in t(o cases, "alacat . Cou!t of Appeals==87=B38 and People . Ruben "ontilla.==97=BB8 5n the !irst case, the e'ional Trial &ourt o! )anila con#icted )alacat o! ille'al possession o! a hand 'renade. The -upreme &ourt, ho(e#er, acEuitted him, 4ecause 97e8#en 'rantin' eK %!atia that petitioner (as in possession o! a 'renade, the arrest and search o! petitioner (ere in#alid " " ".: Throu'h Justice Aa#ide, the &ourt e"plainedC In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is 9uestioned in a large ma7ority of these cases, e.g.% whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search& In this instance, the law re9uires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed& !t bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and sei:e any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence&' 5n this case, a police sur#eillance team, dispatched on reports o! a possi4le 4om4in' in Iuiapo, )anila, arrested )alacat a!ter he had attempted to !lee. /e (as priorly o4ser#ed standin' (ith a 'roup o! men at the corner o! .laza )iranda and Iuezon *oule#ard, (ith shi!ty eyes lookin' at e#ery approachin' person. /e (as searched and a 4om4 (as alle'edly reco#ered !rom his person. The trial court %usti!ied the arrest and search o! )alacat on the 'round that he (as 9attemptin' to commit a crime.:

==8 ==9

7=B38 7=BB8

G 2o. 1=3;9;, Aecem4er 1=, 1993. G 2o. 1=383=, January 30, 1998.

- 94 -

*ut a unanimous -upreme &ourt ruled en banc that there could not ha#e 4een any #alid in fla%!ante delicto or hot pursuit arrest precedin' the search, in li'ht o! the lack o! personal kno(led'e on the part o! the arrestin' o!!icers or an o#ert physical act on the part o! )alacat indicatin' that a crime had %ust 4een committed, (as 4ein' committed, or (as 'oin' to 4e committed. *ecause the arrest (ithout a (arrant (as in#alid, the search conducted upon the petitioner6accused could not ha#e 4een a #alid incident to a la(!ul arrest. "alacat merely reiterated People . "en%ote,=307=B;8 in (hich the &ourt !ound a search and arrest under the in fla%!ante delicto rule in#alid, e#en thou'h the police had accosted the appellant on the 4asis o! his alle'edly suspicious appearance. 5n "en%ote, the la(men (ere at the time conductin' a sur#eillance in response to a telephone call !rom an in!ormer, (ho reported that there (ere suspicious6lookin' persons in a particular place. @hate#er o!!ense )en'ote (as suspected o! doin' could not 4e ascertained 4y the police. The &ourt ruled that 9there (as nothin' to support the arrestin' o!!icers> suspicion other than )en'ote>s dartin' eyes and his hand on his a4domen. *y no stretch o! the ima'ination could it ha#e 4een in!erred !rom these acts that an o!!ense had %ust 4een committed, or (as actually 4ein' committed, or at least (as 4ein' attempted in their presence.: The &ourt !urther e"hortedC It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily arrested and searched 7ust because he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly because of a stomach ache, or if a peace officer could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty loo8, on suspicion that he may have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or attempting it& (his simply cannot be done in a free society& (his is not a police state where order is exalted over liberty or, worse, personal malice on the part of the arresting officer may be 7ustified in the name of security&' *+,)*162 5 (as so pleased (ith Justice Aa#ide>s ponencia that 5 (rote a !ull &oncurrin' Opinion, in (hich 5 compared "alacat (ith decisions 5 had authored !or the &ourt in !our cases 66 "analili . Cou!t of Appeals,=3=7=B38 People . .ncinada,=337=B88 People . Lace!na=3B7=B98 and People . Cuison=3;7=;08 66 all o! (hich in#ol#ed the same issue o! arrests and seizures (ithout (arrants. 5 concluded my piece in this mannerC 9To con#ict a person on the 4asis only o! his Eueer 4eha#ior and to sentence him to practically a li!etime in prison (ould simply 4e un!athoma4le. 2othin' can 4e more (ron', un%ust and inhuman.:
=30 =31 =3= =33 =3B =3; 7=B;8 7=BD8 7=B38 7=B88 7=B98 7=;08

=10 -& 1 13B, June ==, 199=, per &ruz, J. Ibid., pp. 181618=. G 2o. 113BB3, Octo4er 9, 1993. G 2o. 11D3=0, Octo4er =, 1993. G 2o. 109=;0, -eptem4er ;, 1993. =;D -& 1 3=;, 1pril 18, 199D.

- 95 -

*arely a month and a hal! a!ter "alacat had 4een promul'ated came another en banc case, People . "ontilla.=3D7=;18 /ere, 1ppellant u4en )ontilla (as apprehended at da(n (hile ali'htin' !rom a %eepney in *aran'ay -alitran, Aasmari<as, &a#ite, on the 4asis o! an in!ormation 'i#en 4y an unnamed police in!ormer that he (as carryin' prohi4ited dru's. 1ccordin' to t(o police o!!icers, appellant (as cau'ht transportin' =8 mari%uana 4ricks in a tra#ellin' 4a' and a carton 4o", the com4ined (ei'ht o! (hich (as =8 kilos. -ustainin' the !indin' o! the trial court that )ontilla 9(as le'ally cau'ht in fla%!ante transportin' prohi4ited dru's,: the &ourt, speakin' throu'h Justice e'alado, ruled that 97i8! courts o! %ustice are to 4e o! understandin' assistance to our la( en!orcement a'encies, it is necessary to adopt a realistic appreciation o! the physical and tactical pro4lems o! the latter, instead o! critically #ie(in' them !rom the placid and clinical en#ironment o! %udicial cham4ers.: 1lthou'h 5 held +and continue to hold, Justice e'alado in 'reat esteem, 5 simply could not a'ree that the arrest and the su4seEuent search on )ontilla (ere le'al. 2either could 5 assent to his appeal !or a realistic appreciation o! the pro4lems o! the police. ather, 5 thou'ht that my duty as a %urist (as to uphold the la(, de!end the ri'hts and li4erties o! the people and 4e consistent in my rulin's. -o, 5 su4mitted a Aissentin' Opinion=337=;=8 outlinin' (hy )ontilla>s arrest #iolated -ection ; o! ule 113, and (hy his constitutional ri'hts (ere (ron'ly sacri!iced 4y the &ourt in the name o! la( en!orcement. Joined 4y Justices )elo and .uno, 5 (roteC Personal /no"led e Re0uired in in 'lagrante Deli!to Arrests "urisprudence is settled that under the in !lagrante delicto rule, @the officer arresting a person who has 7ust committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have #ersonal 8nowledge of that fact& (he offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view&*+?)*/+2 (he circumstances of the case at bar is patently wanting in fulfillment of the above standard& For one, the arresting officers had no personal 8nowledge that .ontilla either had 7ust committed or was committing or attempting to commit an offense& #econdly, even if we e9uate the possession of an intelligence report with personal 8nowledge of the commission of a crime, still, the alleged felonious act was not performed in the presence or within the view of the arresting officers& (he lawmen did not see appellant exhibit any overt act or strange conduct that would reasonably arouse in
=3D =33 =38 7=;18 7=;=8

Sup!a. 5 (as %oined 4y JJ. )elo and .uno. 7=;38 People . Bu!%os, 1BB -& 1 1, 1B, -eptem4er B, 198D, per Gutierrez Jr., J., citin' Sayo . Chief of Police, 80 .hil. 8;9 +19B8,. -ee also People . Pablo, =39 -& 1 ;00, ;0;, Aecem4er =8, 199B.

- 96 -

their minds suspicion that he was embar8ing on some felonious enterprise& Aeither was there any mention at all by the police of any outward indication, such as bul8iness on his body that could have suggested that he was carrying a firearm, or any peculiar smell emanating from his baggage that could have hinted that he was carrying mari7uana& In short, there was no valid ground for the warrantless arrest& ,ot Pursuit& Doctrine )ot Applica$le Parenthetically, neither could !ppellant .ontillas arrest be 7ustified under the hot pursuit' rule& In "eo#le vs. 7urgos,*+0)*/12 we saidG @In arrests without a warrant under #ection 63b5 )of %ule ,,+, %ules of $ourt2, however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime& ! crime must in fact or actually have been committed first& (hat a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition& It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed& (he fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed& (he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator& (he instant case is very similar to "eo#le vs. A$innudin.*1(herein, the police arrested !minnudin and sei:ed the bag he was carrying on account of a @tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer that the accused appellant was @arriving in Iloilo by boat with mari7uana& (his information was received at least two days earlier, thus )e2ven expediency could not be invo8ed to dispense with the obtention of the warrant x x x& In invalidating his arrest, this $ourt reasonedG
)*//2

@x x x the accused appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had 7ust done so& Chat he was doing was descending the gangplan8 of the .IJ Cilcon 0 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest& (o all appearances, he was li8e any of the other passengers innocently disembar8ing from the vessel& It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the mari7uana that he suddenly became suspect and so sub7ect
=39 =B0 7=;B8 7=;;8

Ibid., p. 1;. 1D3 -& 1 B0=, July D, 1988, per &ruz, J.

- 97 -

to apprehension& It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest& (he identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers 3not a 7udge5 that authori:ed them to pounce upon !minnudin and immediately arrest him&*1,)*/62 !minnudins arrest being illegal, so was the warrantless search subse9uent thereto, the $ourt ruled& Kence, the mari7uana allegedly sei:ed from him was not admitted as evidence, for being a fruit of the poisonous tree& !nother parallel case is "eo#le vs. Encinada%*1*)*/42 where the appellant was searched without a warrant while also disembar8ing from a ship, on the strength of a tip from an informant received by the police the previous afternoon that the appellant would be transporting prohibited drugs& (he search yielded a plastic pac8age containing mari7uana. >ncinadas arrest and search were validated by the trial court under the in !lagrante delicto rule& In reversing the trial court, this $ourt stressed that when he disembar8ed from the ship or while he rode the $otorela% >ncinada did not manifest any suspicious behavior that would reasonably invite the attention of the police& Lnder such bare circumstances, no act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise could be ascribed to the accused& In short, he was not committing a crime in the presence of the policeE neither did the latter have personal 8nowledge of facts indicating that he had 7ust committed an offense& Chere the search was illegal, there could be no valid incidental arrestG @x x x (hat the search disclosed a prohibited substance in appellants possession and thus confirmed the police officers initial information and suspicion did not cure its patent illegality& !n illegal search cannot be underta8en and then an arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by the search&*1+)*/?2 Ra" *ntelli ence *nformation +annot .ustify 1arrantless Arrest (he $ourt further said that raw intelligence information was not a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest& *11)*/02 Kaving 8nown the identity of their suspect the previous day, the law enforcers could have secured a 7udicial warrant even within such limited period&
=B1 =B= =B3 =BB 7=;D8 7=;38 7=;88 7=;98

Ibid., pp. B096B10. G 2o. 11D3=0, Octo4er =, 1993, per .an'ani4an, J. Ibid., p. =B. Ibid., p. 13.

- 98 -

Lnder the circumstances of the instant case, there was sufficient time for the police to have applied for a search warrant& (he information that appellant would be arriving in the early morning of "une *-, ,001 at ;arangay #alitran, DasmariQas, $avite, was received by the police at *G-- p&m& of the preceding day& (he fact that it was a #unday did not prevent the police from securing a warrant& !dministrative $irculars ,+ and ,0, s& ,0?4, allow applications for search warrants even @after office hours, or during #aturdays, #undays and legal holidays where there is an urgency and prompt action is needed& #urely, with the attendant circumstances, the arresting officers could have easily 7ustified the urgency of the issuance of a search warrant& ;ut the ma7ority believes that the law enforcers had no sufficient information upon which the warrant could have been validly issued, simply because the name of the suspect and the exact time and place where he could be found were not 8nown& I cannot in clear conscience agree with the reasoning of the ma7ority that @)on2 such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a 7udge or court x x x, yet ruling that @there were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and sei:ure that, at the point prior to the search, were already constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves could properly create in the minds of the officers a well grounded and reasonable belief that appellant was in the act of violating the law& ;e it remembered that appellant was merely alighting from a 7eepney carrying a traveling bag and a carton when he was searched and arrested& Kow can that be @in the act of violating the lawF Baw and 7urisprudence in fact re9uire stricter grounds for valid arrests and searches without warrant than for the issuance of warrants therefor& In the former, the arresting person must have actually &itnessed the crime being committed or attempted by the person sought to be arrestedE or he must have #ersonal (no&ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested perpetrated the crime that had 7ust occurred& In the latter case, the 7udge simply determines personally from testimonies of witnesses that there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed by the accused& If, as the ma7ority believes, the police did not have on hand what the law re9uires for the issuance of a warrant, then much less did they have any 7ustification for a warrantless arrest& In other

- 99 -

words, what ground did the police have to arrest !ppellant .ontillaF I submit that if the police doubts the exact identity or name of the person to be arrested or the exact place to be searched, with more reason should they see8 a 7udges independent determination of the existence of probable cause& T e #olice% in suc instances% cannot ta(e t e la& into t eir o&n ands% or by t e$selves conclude t at #robable cause e)ists. I must reiterate that the actual discovery of prohibited drugs in the possession of the accused does not cure the illegality of his arrest or search& (o say that @reliable tips constitute probable cause for a warrantless arrest or search is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent and places in great 7eopardy the doctrines laid down in many decisions made by this $ourt, in its effort to :ealously guard and protect the sacred constitutional right against unreasonable arrests, searches and sei:ures& >veryone would be practically at the mercy of so called informants, reminiscent of the $a(a#ilis during the "apanese occupation& !nyone whom they point out to a police officer as a possible violator of the law could then be sub7ect to search and possible arrest& (his is placing limitless power upon informants who will no longer be re9uired to affirm under oath their accusations, for they can always delay their giving of tips in order to 7ustify warrantless arrests and searches& >ven law enforcers can use this as an oppressive tool to conduct searches without warrants, for they can always claim that they received raw intelligence information only on the day or afternoon before& (his would clearly be a circumvention of the legal re9uisites for validly effecting an arrest or conducting a search and sei:ure& Indeed, the ma7oritys ruling would open loopholes that would allow unreasonable arrests, searches and sei:ures& (he ma7oritys reasoning effectively abrogates, through an obiter, doctrinal rules on warrantless arrests and searches& I believe this should not be allowed& Ce have endlessly castigated law enforcers for their nonchalant violation of the peoples constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei:ures& Ce have also invariably admonished them that basic rights should not be lightly disregarded in the name of crime prevention or law enforcement& (he $ourt should never be less vigilant in protecting the rights guaranteed by the fundamental law to all persons, be they innocent or guilty&'

- 100 -

)erci!ully, the pronouncement o! the ma%ority in re'ard to ille'al arrests and seizures in "ontilla (as only an obite!, since it (as not the issue on (hich the accused (as con#icted. *oth the ma%ority and the dissenters a'reed that the discussion on the #alidity o! the search (ithout a (arrant (as mooted 4y appellant>s !ailure to raise the issue prior to his arrai'nment +throu'h an appropriate pleadin' like a motion to Euash,. 5t (as %urisprudentially settled that the ri'hts a'ainst ille'al arrest and search (ere deemed (ai#ed 4y the !ailure o! the accused to do so. *5edience to a Superior1s *rder 5n the en banc t(in cases *abuena . Sandi%anbayan=B;7=D08 and Pe!alta . Sandi%anbayan,=BD7=D18 the #alidity o! a su4ordinate>s o4edience to a superior>s order (as dissected 4y the &ourt. /ere, 4y a #ote o! 8 =B37=D=8 to D,=B87=D38 (ith one %ustice =B97=DB8 takin' no part, the &ourt acEuitted .etitioners 0uis Ta4uena and 1dol!o .eralta o! mal#ersation arisin' !rom the alle'ed misappropriation o! .;; million o(ned 4y the )anila 5nternational 1irport 1uthority. The &ourt ruled that .etitioner Ta4uena +(ith .etitioner .eralta assistin' him,, simply o4eyed !ormer .resident )arcos> memorandum, 9(hich ordered 7Ta4uena8 to !or(ard immediately to the O!!ice o! the .resident .;; million in cash as partial payment o! )511>s o4li'ations to .2&& " " ",: and (as thus 9entitled to the %usti!yin' circumstance o! TAny pe!son 'ho acts in obedience to an o!de! issued by a supe!io! fo! so#e la'ful pu!pose,>: as pro#ided in the e#ised .enal &ode.=;07=D;8 Justices Aa#ide, omero and .uno (rote e"tensi#e Aissentin' Opinions. Joinin' them, 5 (roteC 3,5 (he defense of @obedience to a superiors order is already obsolete& Fifty years ago, the Aa:i war criminals tried to 7ustify genocide against the "ews and their other crimes against humanity by alleging they were merely following the orders of !dolf Kitler, their adored !ue rer. 3o&ever% t e International 8ilitary Tribunal at Nure$berg in its Judg$ent dated October 9% 9:;<% */,)*662 !orce!ully debun(ed t is Na*i argu$ent and clearly ruled t at =>t? e true test ) ) ) is not t e e)istence o! t e order but & et er $oral c oice &as in !act #ossible.2

=B; =BD =B3

7=D08 7=D18

=B8 =B9 =;0 =;1

=D8 -& 1 33=, Fe4ruary 13, 1993. Ibid. 7=D=8 CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. e'alado +p!o hac ice,, *ellosillo +p!o hac ice,, Vitu', Hapunan, )endoza, Francisco and Torres +p!o hac ice,. 7=D38 JJ. .adilla, Aa#ide Jr., omero, )elo, .uno and .an'ani4an. 7=DB8 J. /ermosisima. +2o part. -i'natory to -* decision, 7=D;8 .ar. D, 1rticle 11. 7=DD8 B1 1J50 13=, ==1 +19B3,.

- 101 -

In ,014, the Lnited Aations <eneral !ssembly adopted a %esolution firmly entrenching the principle of moral choice, inter alia% as followsG*/*)*642 @(he fact that a person acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him& In the Auremberg trials, the defendants were $ilitary o!!icers of the (hird %eich who were duty6bound to obey direct orders on pain of court martial and death at a time when their country was at &ar. Aonetheless, they were meted out deat sentences by anging or long term imprisonments& In the present case, the accused are civilian o!!icials purportedly complying with a memorandum of the $hief >xecutive when $artial la& ad already been li!ted and the nation was in fact 7ust about to vote in the @snap presidential elections in ,0?6& (he #andiganbayan did not impose death but only imprisonment ranging from seventeen years and one day to twenty years& -ertainly% a $oral c oice &as not only #ossible. It &as in !act available to t e accused. T ey could ave o#ted to de!y t e illegal order% &it no ris( o! court $artial or deat . Or t ey could ave resigned. (hey 8new or should have 8nown that the P// million was to be paid for a debt that was dubious */+)*6?2 and in a manner that was irregular& (hat the money was to be remitted in cold cash and delivered to the private secretary of the President, and not by the normal crossed chec8 to the alleged creditor, gave them a moral choice to refuse& (hat they opted to cooperate compounded their guilt to a blatant conspiracy to defraud the public treasury& 3*5 Resurrecting t is internationally discredited Na*i de!ense &ill% I res#ect!ully sub$it% set a dangerous #recedent in t is country. Allo&ing t e #etitioners to &al( de#rives t is -ourt o! t e $oral aut ority to convict any subaltern o! t e $artial la& dictator & o &as $erely =!ollo&ing orders.2 (his ludicrous defense can be invo8ed in all criminal cases pending not only before this $ourt but more so before inferior courts, which will have no legal option but to follow this $ourts doctrine&*/1)*602
=;= 7=D38

=;3

=;B

For the !ull te"t o! the esolution, see -alon'a and Nap, Public Inte!national La', 3rd ed., pp. =3;6=3D. 7=D88 -u4mitted 4e!ore the -andi'an4ayan (as a )emorandum o! then )inister o! Trade o4erto On'pin dated January 3, 198;, statin' that the )511 had a total account o! .98.B million due .2&&. -u4tractin', ho(e#er, the 9outstandin' ad#ances totallin' .93.9 " " " (ill lea#e a net amount due .2&& o! only .B.; million,: e"plained )r. On'pin. $#en i! the .30 million ad#ances, (hich .resident )arcos is claimed to ha#e authorized .2&& to retain, is added to this 9net amount due: o! .B.; million, the total (ould run up to only .3B.; million 66 still .=0.; million shy o! the .;; million actually dis4ursed. 7=D98 5n *y . *!a#pe, =;0 -& 1 ;00, ;=1, Aecem4er 1, 199;, %ud'es (ere admonished to

- 102 -

3+5 8ercy and co$#assion are virtues & ic are c eris ed in every civili*ed society. 7ut be!ore t ey can be invo(ed% t ere $ust !irst be justice. (he #upreme $ourts duty is to render 7ustice& (he power to dispense pardon lies elsewhere& Jerily, the $onstitution ordains a final conviction by the courts before the President can exercise his power to wipe away penalty& *//)*4-2 #uch is the legal and natural precedence and order of thingsG 7ustice first before mercy& !nd only he who sincerely repents his sin, restitutes for it, and reforms his life deserves forgiveness and mercy&'

!melda R" $arcos1 Ac/uittal of .raft 1s 5 (as a4out ready to su4mit my complete manuscript o! this 4ook=;D7=318 to the -upreme &ourt .rintin' -er#ices came "a!cos . Sandi%anbayan,=;37=3=8 an acEuittal o! the !ormer First 0ady (hich sharply di#ided the &ourt, stunned the pu4lic, and pro#oked !renzied and pained cries !rom media. /ere is the 4ack'round. 5n 198B, 5melda . )arcos, then )inister o! /uman -ettlements and chairman o! the 0i'ht ail Transit 1uthority +0 T1, and Jose .. Aans Jr., then )inister o! Transportation and &ommunications and 0 T1 #ice chairman, entered into t(o contracts o! lease 4et(een the 0 T1, a pu4lic entity, and the .hilippine General /ospital Foundation, 5nc. +.G/F5,, a pri#ate enterprise, (hich (as also chaired 4y )rs. )arcos. 5n a 0ease &ontract dated June 8, 198B, 0 T1 leased a 3,3B0 sEuare meter lot located in .asay &ity to .G/F5 at a monthly rental o! .10=,3D0 !or =; years. -e#eral days later, .G/F5 su4leased the same property to Transnational &onstruction &orporation +T2&&, !or the same period o! =; years 4ut at the monthly rate o! .33B,000 or se#en times the ori'inal lease price. 5n another lease contract, this time dated June 18, 198B, 0 T1 leased a 1,1B1.= sEuare meter lot located in &arriedo -treet, -ta. &ruz, )anila, also to .G/F5 at a monthly rental o! .9=,B33.=0 and also !or =; years. Just as in the !irst lease, .G/F5 therea!ter turned around and su4leased the -ta. &ruz property to Joy )art &onsolidated &orporation +JON )1 T, at a monthly rate o! .199,310, or t(ice the ori'inal lease price.
!ollo( 9esta4lished la(s, doctrines and precedents.: /ence, 9once a case has 4een decided one (ay, then another case in#ol#in' e"actly the same point at issue should 4e decided in the same manner.: *ay Chun Suy . Cou!t of Appeals, ==9 -& 1 1;1, 1D3, January 3, 199B. 7=308 5n People . Salle J!., =;0 -& 1 ;81, Aecem4er B, 199;, this &ourt e"pressly held that -ection 19, 1rticle V55 o! the present &onstitution prohi4its the presidential 'rant o! pardon unless there is 9con#iction 4y !inal %ud'ment: o! the accused. 7=318 )y cuto!! date !or Aecisions included in this 4ook (as Octo4er 10, 1998, my third anni#ersary in the &ourt. *ut 4ecause Octo4er 10 !ell on a -aturday, 5 included Aecisions that (ere promul'ated on the ne"t (orkin' day, Octo4er 1=. 7=3=8 G 2o. 1=D99;, Octo4er D, 1998.

=;;

=;D

=;3

- 103 -

1s a conseEuence, !i#e 5n!ormations !or #iolation o! the 1nti6Gra!t 0a( + 1 3019, (ere !iled 4y the O!!ice o! the -pecial .rosecutor +Om4udsman, in the -andi'an4ayan a'ainst )arcos and Aans, as !ollo(sC F5 -T 52FO )1T5O2 6 &rim. &ase 2o. 13BB9 !or conspirin' and enterin', on 4ehal! o! the 0 T1, 9into an a'reement 7(ith .G/F58 !or the de#elopment o! the areas ad%acent to the 0 T1 stations and the mana'ement and operation o! the concession areas therein under terms and conditions mani!estly disad#anta'eous to the 'o#ernment.: -$&O2A 52FO )1T5O2 6 &rim. &ase 2o. 13B;0 !or conspirin' and enterin' 9into a 0ease 1'reement 7(ith .G/F58 co#erin' an 0 T1 property in .asay &ity under terms and conditions mani!estly and 'rossly disad#anta'eous to the 'o#ernment.: T/5 A 52FO )1T5O2 6 &rim. &ase 2o. 13B;1 +a'ainst )arcos only, !or acceptin' employment 7in8 andQor actin' as chairman o! the .G/F5, (hich 9had at that time pendin' 4usiness transactions (ith the accused, in her capacity as chairman o! 0 T1.: FOM T/ 52FO )1T5O2 6 &rim. &ase 2o. 13B;= +a'ainst Aans only, !or acceptin' employment andQor actin' as director o! the .G/F5, (hich 9had at the time, pendin' 4usiness transaction (ith the accused, in his capacity as Vice6&hairman o! 0 T1.: F5FT/ 52FO )1T5O2 6 &rim. &ase 2o. 13B;3 !or conspirin' and enterin' 9into a 0ease 1'reement 7(ith the .G/F58 co#erin' an 0 T1 property located in -ta. &ruz, )anila under terms and conditions mani!estly and 'rossly disad#anta'eous to the 'o#ernment.: On -eptem4er =B, 1993, the -andi'an4ayan rendered %ud'ment acEuittin' 4oth )arcos and Aans in the F5 -T, T/5 A and FOM T/ 5n!ormations 4ut con#ictin' them in the -$&O2A and F5FT/ 5n!ormations. *oth accused !iled )otions !or econsideration on Octo4er 8, 1993, (hich (ere denied in t(o esolutions, 4oth dated 2o#em4er 13, 199D. 1''rie#ed 4y the denial, )arcos and Aans !iled separate petitions !or re#ie( 4e!ore the -upreme &ourt. Votin' three=;87=338 to t(o,=;97=3B8 the &ourt, throu'h a 316pa'e ponencia (ritten 4y Justice omero, acEuitted the t(o accused in the F5FT/ 5n!ormation, 4ecause o! the !ailure o! the prosecution to su4mit 4e!ore the -andi'an4ayan an authentic copy o! the -u4lease 1'reement e"ecuted in !a#or o! JON )1 T. /o(e#er, it a!!irmed the con#iction o! )arcos, 4ut acEuitted Aans in the -$&O2A 5n!ormation, 4ecause o! lack o! e#idence o! his participation in the su4lease to T2&&. Only )arcos si'ned the said -u4lease.
=;8 =;9 7=338 7=3B8

CJ 2ar#asa, Justice omero +ponente, and Justice .an'ani4an. Justices )elo and Francisco (ho (rote the 3B6pa'e Aissent.

- 104 -

-u4seEuently, )arcos !iled her )otion !or econsideration, (hich (as ele#ated to the &ourt en banc under the circumstances (hich, in my Octo4er 3, 1998 Aissentin' Opinion, 5 narrated as !ollo(sC In view of the appointment of two new members to the $ourt, namely, "ustices Beonardo !& Ruisumbing and Fidel P& Purisima, the three Divisions of the $ourt were reorgani:ed on February ,, ,00?& (he $hief "ustice transferred "ustice .elo to the #econd DivisionE and "ustice Panganiban, to the First& "ustices Papunan and Purisima were, in turn, assigned to the (hird Division in addition to the three retained membersE namely, $hief "ustice Aarvasa and "ustices %omero and Francisco& Kowever, on February ,+, ,00?, "ustice Francisco retired from the $ourt upon reaching the age of 4-& Kence, when petitioner filed her .otion for %econsideration 3.%5 on February ,?, ,00?, the (hird Division had only four members 3$hief "ustice Aarvasa and "ustices %omero, Papunan and Purisima5& !fter several attempts to deliberate and resolve the .% and upon motion of petitioner, the Division finally decided to elevate the matter to the $ourt en banc, which in turn accepted it& !lthough as a member of the banc, I had initial reservations on the propriety of elevating the .% to the full court, as it is well settled that the banc is not an appellate body to which decisions of Divisions may be brought, I finally supported the referral in view of the unanimous re9uest of all the four incumbent members of the (hird Division& In fact, the banc2s acceptance was unanimous, too& !gain upon motion of petitioner, the banc heard oral argument on the .% on #eptember ,-, ,00?, and thereafter re9uired the parties to file their respective memoranda& >ven if all the arguments raised in the .% had already been considered and passed upon in our "anuary *0, ,00? Decision, I acceded 3as all the $ourt members did5 to the oral argument to forestall any further charge of denial of due process, which petitioner had repeatedly leveled at the #andiganbayan& I write these preliminary matters to show that this $ourt has bent bac8wards to accord the former First Bady of the land all the legal opportunities to defend herself a right that she vehemently claims was denied her by the lower court&' 5n a Aecision promul'ated on Octo4er D, 1998, penned 4y Justice .urisima and concurred in 4y Justices *ellosillo, )elo, .uno, Hapunan. )endoza, )artinez and Iuisum4in', the &ourt re#ersed its Third Ai#ision and acEuitted )rs. )arcos, mainly on account o! the !ollo(in'.

- 105 -

Fi!st, the prosecution !ailed to pro#e the elements o! the crime, i.e., #iolation o! -ec. 3 +', o! 1 3019 (hich statesC >ntering, on behalf of the government into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby&' 2otin' that the only e#idence su4mitted (ere the 0ease 1'reement sho(in' a .10=,380 monthly rental and the -u4lease &ontract pro#idin' a .33B,000 monthly rental, the ma%ority o4ser#ed that )rs. )arcos si'ned 4oth a'reements, not in her pu4lic capacity as 0 T1 head, 4ut in her pri#ate role as chairman o! the .G/F5. /ence, it could not 4e said that she entered into the a'reement on behalf of the %o e!n#ent. 2o proo! (as presented that )rs. )arcos e"pressly appro#ed the 0ease &ontract. 5t also held that a mere disparity 4et(een the lease and the su4lease monthly rentals, in (hich the latter (as se#en times the !ormer +33B,000 #s. 10=, 3D0,, (as not enou'h proo! to sho( mani!est and 'ross disad#anta'e. -tressed the &ourtC !t most, it creates only a doubt in the mind of the ob7ective readers as to which 3between the lease and sublease rental rates5 is the fair and reasonable one, considering the different circumstances as well as parties involved& It could happen that in both contracts, neither the B%(! nor the <overnment suffered any in7ury& (here is, therefore, insufficient evidence to prove petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt& Jerily, it is too obvious to re9uire an extended dis9uisition that the only basis of the respondent court for condemning the Bease !greement 3>xhibit ;'5 as manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government' was a comparison of the rental rate in the Bease !greement, with the very much higher rental price under the #ub lease !greement 3>xhibit D'5& $ertainly, such a comparison is purely speculative and violative of due process& (he mere fact that the #ub lease !greement provides a monthly rental of P4+1,---&-- does not necessarily mean that the rental price of P,-*,46-&-- per month under the Bease !greement 3>xhibit ;'5 is very low, unreasonable and manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government& (here are many factors to consider in the determination of what is a reasonable rate of rental& Chat is more, as stressed by "ose P& Dans "r&, when sub7ect Bease !greement was in8ed, the rental rate therein provided was based on a study conducted in accordance with generally accepted rules of rental computation& On this score, .r& %amon F& $uervo, "r&, the real estate appraiser who testified in the

- 106 -

case as an expert witness and whose impartiality and competence were never impugned, assured the court that the rental price stipulated in the Bease !greement under scrutiny was fair and ade9uate& !ccording to him, the reasonable rental for sub7ect property at the time of execution of >xhibit ;' was only P4+,---&-per month& (hat the #ub lease !greement 3>xhibit D'5 was for a very much higher rental rate of P4+1,---&-- a month is of no moment& (his circumstance did not necessarily render the monthly rental rate of P,-*,46-&-- manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the lessor& >vidently, the prosecution failed to prove that the rental rate of P,-*,46-&-- per month was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government& Aot even a single lease contract covering a property within the vicinity of the said leased premises was offered in evidence& (he disparity between the rental price of the Bease !greement and that of the #ublease !greement is no evidence at all to buttress the theory of the prosecution, that the Bease !greement in 9uestion is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government& <ross' is a comparative term& ;efore it can be considered gross' there must be a standard by which the same is weighed and measured&' Second, )arcos> ri'ht to due process (as #iolated 4y the -andi'an4ayan. Justice .urisima e"plainedC Chat ma8es petitioners stance even more meritorious and impregnable is the patent violation of her right to due process, substantive and procedural, by the respondent court& %ecords disclose thatG 3a5 the First Division of the #andiganbayan composed of Presiding "ustice <architorena and !ssociate "ustices ;ala7adia and !tien:a could not agree on whether to convict or ac9uit the petitioner in the five 3/5 criminal cases pending against her& "ustice !tien:a was in favor of exonerating petitioner in $riminal $ase Aos& ,4110, ,41/, and ,41/*& "ustices <architorena and ;ala7adia wanted to convict her in $riminal $ase Aos& ,41/-, ,41/,, ,41/* and ,41/+& !s there was no unanimity of votes in $riminal $ase Aos& ,41/, and ,41/*E 3b5 on #eptember ,/, ,00+, in accordance with #ec& / of P&D& Ao& ,6-6& Presiding "ustice <architorena issued !dm& Order Ao& *?? 0+ constituting a #pecial Division of five 3/5 7ustices, and naming thereto, "ustices !ugusto .& !mores and $ipriano !& del %osarioE 3c5 on #eptember *,, ,00+, "ustice !mores sent a written re9uest to Presiding "ustice <architorena as8ing that he be given fifteen 3,/5 days to submit his .anifestationE and 3d5 on the same day, #eptember *,, ,00+,

- 107 -

however, Presiding "ustice <architorena and "ustices ;ala7adia and del %osario, after attending a hearing of the $ommittee of "ustice of the Kouse of %epresentatives, lunched together in a Rue:on $ity restaurant where they discussed petitioners cases in the absence of "ustices !tien:a and !mores and in the presence of a non member of the #pecial Division& (hereat, Presiding "ustice <architorena, and "ustices ;ala7adia and del %osario agreed with the position of "ustice !tien:a to ac9uit petitioner in $riminal $ase Aos& ,4110, ,41/, and ,41/* and to convict her in the other casesE and 3e5 when the "ustices returned to the official wor8place of #andiganbayan, Presiding "ustice <architorena issued !dm& Order Ao& *0+ 0+ dissolving the #pecial Division&' The !ore'oin' 9procedural !la(s: in#alidated the con#iction o! )arcos 4ecause, accordin' to the ponencia, the -andi'an4ayan ules +a, pro#ided that sessions o! said &ourt should 4e held in its 9principal o!!ice,: +4, did not allo( unscheduled discussions o! cases, +c, did not allo( in!ormal discussions o! pendin' contro#ersies, +d, did not allo( the presence o! a non6mem4er in the deli4erations o! cases, and +e, did not allo( the e"clusion o! a mem4er o! a Ai#ision. 1ccordin' to the &ourt, the totality o! said 9procedural !la(s: pre#ented )arcos !rom 4ein' tried 4y a colle'ial court. 5t stressed that an accused has 9a #ested ri'ht: to 4e heard 4y the !i#e %ustices composin' the -pecial Ai#ision created 4y .residin' Justice Garchitorena>s -pecial Order 2o. =88693. The ponencia opined that normally, 9a #oid decision (ill not result in the acEuittal o! an accused,: 4ut that )rs. )arcos> case 9deser#e7d8 a di!!erent treatment considerin' the 'reat len'th o! time it ha7d8 4een pendin' (ith our courts,: (hich (as more than si" years. Justices Hapunan and *ellosillo su4mitted &oncurrin' Opinions, (hile Justices omero and .an'ani4an (rote -eparate Aissents. 5n the main, the &oncurrin' Opinions pounded on +1, the insu!!iciency o! e#idence sho(in' 9!air and reasona4le rentals: o! the 0 T1 property and +=, the denial o! )rs. )arcos> ri'ht to due process. -aid Justice HapunanC I feel 9uite uneasy with the method used by the prosecution in determining that the government was grossly disadvantaged in the Bease !greement, this is, by simply comparing the rental in the Bease !greement and that in the sublease contract& "ust by considering the disparity in the rentals, cannot it be argued as well that the lease rental is fair and reasonable and the sublease rental is too highF #upposing there was no sublease contract at all&, or the sublease rental was e9ual or lower than that in the Bease !greement, would the conclusion of the $ourt be the same, considering that there would then be nothing to compare the lease rental withF (he point I am trying to drive at is that proof should have been adduced to determine the fair mar8et value of the Pasay

- 108 -

lot based on the mar8et data approach which considers how much properties in that particular area were sold or offered to be sold& $uriously enough, when #andiganbayan $hief Prosecutor Beonardo P& (amayo was as8ed during the oral argument before the $ourt on #eptember ,-, ,00?, why no such independent evidence was presented by the prosecution, he answered that he was not then involved in the case, but added that if he were the prosecutor, he would have adduced such evidence& (his is an admission that the prosecutions evidence against .arcos is sorely lac8ing&' On the same issue, Justice *ellosillo contendedC x x x& I pause to warn that if we are to pursue the theory that a mere @chasmic disparity is sufficient to prove that a contract is @manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the <overnment, it may not be difficult for an ill motivated individual to incriminate a high ran8ing government official, or any person of conse9uence for that matter, by simply offering to pay and paying a much higher sublease rental& $onse9uently, it is serious error to rely mainly, if not solely, on >xh& @D stipulating a monthly rental of P4+1,---&-- which show the so called @chasmic disparity& Chile the sub7ect property was subse9uently subleased for a rental seven 345 times higher, which a well respected real estate bro8er and appraiser opined to be @extraordinary high, we can at best only speculate on the reason behind the @extraordinary high sublease rental& For sure, there is no showing that the B%(!, on its own, could have commanded the same sublease rental P<KFI commanded in its sublease agreement& $ould it be that the sublessee only wished to be ingratiated to the former First Bady or to the then powerful administrationF Or, could it be that the sublessee really wanted the property so much, perhaps for reasons only 8nown to him, or he saw a great potential in the property which other parties did not see nor wanted to ris8 onF ;ut, the $ourt does not engage in speculatory exercisesE it goes by the hard facts& Justice Vitu' #oted to remand the case to the -andi'an4ayan. /e e"plainedC (he decision of the ma7ority scores heavily on the @irregularities that attended the proceedings before the #andiganbayan& Chile it may be conceded that there have been unconventionality in the proceedings adopted by the #andiganbayan, i&e&, in creating a special division of five 3/5, when the original three 3+5 members of the regular division could not come up with a unanimous decision, and later on rendering !unctus

- 109 -

o!!icio the division of five 3/5 in an informal hearing by the vote of the three original members of the regular division, the assailed proceedings, however, can only be rendered void but not warrant the ac9uittal of petitioner& !n ac9uittal would result in a denial of due process on the part of the prosecution for it is not its undoing that has caused the irregularity& ! conviction by this $ourt, upon the other hand, would have similarly deprived petitioner of her own right to due process& Chat is significant in the wor8ings of a collegial court is not only the actual casting of votes, but also, and e9ually important, the deliberation and discussion that precedes it where each of the members can state his views and see8 the others to be convinced thereby before an opinion is crystalli:ed& (rue, such as in some cases, the $ourt by its inherent power and in the interest of expedition can loo8 into the merits of the caseE this situation, however, applies only in civil cases where all the parties are given e9ual opportunity to appeal but not in criminal cases where an ac9uittal in the court below can deprive, under the double 7eopardy rule, the appellate court from ta8ing further cogni:ance of the case& It is this opportunity of possible ac9uittal in criminal )cases2 at the first instance that can deprive petitioner of due process& .etitioner )arcos, throu'h &ounsel $stelito .. )endoza, raised !our main 'rounds or ar'uments in her )otion !or econsideration, namelyC a& It was not the petitioner, but accused "ose P& Dans, "r&, who entered into the @Bease !greement 3>xhibit @;5 on behalf of the Bight %ail (ransit !uthority 3B%(!5, sub7ect matter of $rim& $ase Ao& ,41/-& !nd, since accused "ose P& Dans, "r& has been ac9uitted of the offense charged in $rim& $ase Ao& ,41/-, petitioner Imelda %& .arcos may not be convicted of the offense as his co conspirator& b& (he evidence upon which the finding of the $ourt that the terms and conditions of the @Bease !greement are @manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the <overnment does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, to establish that the terms and conditions of the @Bease !greement 3>xhibit @;5 are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Bight %ail (ransit !uthority 3B%(!5& c& (he finding of the $ourt that rendition of the decision by the First Division of the #andiganbayan and not by the #pecial Division of Five constituted under !dministrative Order Ao& *?? 0+

- 110 -

was valid and regular, is based on incorrect facts and erroneous application of the law& d& Bi8ewise, the finding of the $ourt that there was no denial of the right of petitioner to counsel before the #andiganbayan is based on an erroneous perception of the relevant facts&' 5n my Aissentin' Opinion, 5 tra#ersed each o! the a!orementioned !our 'rounds. On the !irst ar'ument, sustained 4y the ma%ority, that .etitioner )arcos did not 9si'n: the su4%ect contracts 9on 4ehal! o! the 'o#ernment,: 5 (roteC It does not ta8e too much imagination to see the obvious flaw in this argument& Plainly, the law does not use the word signing&' It employs the word entering&' Definitely, signing is not the only way of entering into a transaction& (hose who authori:ed, approved or assented to such contract must be held e9ually, if not more, accountable for having entered into the agreement& The !am aign against gra$t and !orru tion +ould be seriously undermined" i$ only the obedient underlings are unished" +hile the big+igs +ho ordered" authorized" a ro#ed or assented to su!h anomalous !ontra!ts are $reed o$ a!!ountability. That is sim ly un!ons!ionable& Furthermore, the fact that Petitioner .arcos was chairman of the board of directors of the B%(!, in which was vested the power to carry out the functions of the agency, proves her actual participation as a public officer, albeit indirectly, in the execution of the lease contract on behalf of the B%(!& #he had actually entered into the anomalous contract in a double capacityG as chair of the lessor, acting through an agent 3in the person of "ose Dans "r&5E and as head of the lessee, signing the contract on behalf of the P<KFI&' """ """ """

;eing the chairman of the board at the time, Petitioner .arcos is assumed to have given her approval to the execution of the contract by the B%(!& #he could or should have 8nown that, indeed, the board she chaired gave such authority& #he, however, insists that this fact has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt& I strongly disagree& Chat could her representation of the P<KFI, the other party to the lease agreement, manifest other than her full 8nowledge of and un9ualified consent to the contractF In other words, Petitioner .arcos cannot deny her 8nowledge of and

- 111 -

consent to the contract which B%(! entered into& #he was the signing officer of the other party 3the lessee5 to the same contractO (here was no way she could not have 8nown with whom she was contracting 3that is, that she was contracting virtually with herself5, as well as the specific terms of the contract& #he could not have blindly bound P<KFI to the contract with B%(!, if she had disapproved of B%(! entering into the same contract& $onsidering that at the time, she was not only B%(! chair, but also human settlements minister, .etropolitan .anila governor and First Bady, it is simply inconceivable that the B%(! board would authori:e the contract without her approvalO For all legal intents and purposes, Petitioner .arcos verily authori:ed and effectively @entered into the lease agreement on be al! o! 0RTA. Kad she disapproved, even e) #ost !acto, of B%(!s participation, petitioner could have sought the rescission of the B%(! P<KFI agreement, when she became aware of the terms of the sublease contract and reali:ed the tremendous loss that B%(! stood to sustain& #he could then have sought to contract directly with the sublessee, the (ransnational $onstruction $orporation 3(A$$5& ;ut she made no such efforts& (here is no showing that petitioner ever denounced the original lease contract as grossly disadvantageous to the government, after she had learned of the great disparity in the rentals& Ruite understandably, her private foundation, the P<KFI, stood to gain by such government loss& #he belatedly claims before the media that she simply raised funds to build a hospital through creative financing&' ;ut such defense was never presented in court& Other than her out of court utterances to the media, petitioner has submitted no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the money gained by P<KFI from (A$$ 3and lost by B%(!5 was actually spent for a hospital or any charitable purpose, for that matter& >ven if she has, such submission would be beside the point& 8nder the !ir!umstan!es o$ the !ase" to !laim that she" as a ubli! o$$i!er" did not a ro#e o$ the lease by the <RT0 is ure so histry. 0nd $or her to add that" e#en i$ she -ne+ o$ the transa!tion" she did not dire!tly re resent and sign $or the go#ernment and is thus deser#ing o$ a!(uittal" is to render the 0nti.=ra$t <a+ toothless. 'urthermore" to insist that her a ro#al must be inde endently ro#en beyond reasonable doubt2 is a $utile and un+orthy argument in the $a!e o$ the #ery do!uments +here" un(uestionably" her signature a ears.2

- 112 -

5n re'ard to the claim that the prosecution !ailed to present proo! o! 9mani!est and 'ross disad#anta'es,: particularly e"pert e#idence on 9!air and reasona4le rentals: !or the su4%ect property, 5 demurredC (he lease and sublease agreements, construed together, spea8 for themselves& (here can be no stronger evidence of the blatant discrepancy in the rental amounts and the resulting gross and manifest disadvantage' sustained by the lessor the B%(!, which is a government agency& ! simple mathematical computation will illustrate the huge amount which the government lost thereby& B%(! leased the property at P,-*,46- per month to the P<KFI, which in turn subleased it to the (A$$ for seven times that amount, at P4+1,---, resulting in a net loss to the government in the amount of P6*,,*1- a month, or a grand total of P,?0,+4*,--- for the */ year term of the two agreements& In other words, the P<KFI, the middleman, poc8eted six times more than the B%(!, the property owner& Petitioner argues that the prosecution should have presented expert opinion to show which of the two rental amounts was the fair and reasonable' price& Kowever, the law 3%! +-,05 does not spea8 of fair or reasonable price& It spea8s of gross and manifest disadvantage&' !nd what better evidence is there of such pre7udice than the two contracts themselves, which show the great loss incurred by the people and the government& 6 inion !annot re#ail o#er hard $a!t& In view of these actual, concrete and operative contracts, which provided terms that were complete and facts that were indelible, expert o#inion% if not entirely worthless, certainly cannot prevail& (he expert witness testimony cannot rebut and overcome the contents of the executed documents, specifically the rental price that the property actually commanded& #uch utter uselessness of expert opinion is demonstrated by %amon F& $uervos testimony& Kis opinion of the fair and reasonable' rental value of the property was based on offers for sale, actual sales and appraisal 7obs x x x of comparable )bare2 lots in the same vicinity&' Ke did not consider the improvements and commerce that would be brought about by the operation of the ad7acent B%( stations& ;e it remembered that the sub7ect agreement and the rentals stipulated would become demandable only after the start of the B%( operations, or when the P<KFI would commence its

- 113 -

business& #uch being the case, mere expert' opinion based on the t en #revailing rentals would be totally immaterial and irrelevant& (hus, #andiganbayan Presiding "ustice <architorena had to elicit from the witness what would be the fair and reasonable rental value, if these factors were ta8en into account& In response, $uervo estimated that the amount would li8ely double&' 5 also opined, citin' se#eral cases, that the -andi'an4ayan committed no re#ersi4le errors that depri#ed it o! %urisdiction, #iz.C !n error or irregularity in the rendition of a 7udgment does not affect the courts 7urisdictionE neither does it affect the validity of the 7udgment& Chile error in 7urisdiction ma8es the 7udgment or order void or violable, an error in the e)ercise of 7urisdiction does not& (he decision rendered in the latter is correctable merely through an appeal& (his remedy of appeal has already been availed of by petitioners filing of the present recourse before this $ourt& $onsistent with the above principles, I respectfully submit that the assailed Decision of the #andiganbayan 3First Division5 cannot be rendered void 3or even voidable5 simply because of an irregularity, assuming arguendo that it existed, in its rendition& Corth noting is the fact that petitioner too8 the recourse of filing a petition for review under %ule 1/, not a special civil action for certiorari under %ule 6/, the proper remedy to annul 7udgments rendered without 7urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion& Mears ago, the $ourt taught the difference between @7urisdiction and the @practice and method of procedure of the court in these very explicit termsG @x x x the word 7urisdiction' refers to something which, if once possessed by a court, does not vanish in the vicissitudes of decision& !fter a cause over which a division has undoubted 7urisdiction has been debated and considered, the 7urisdiction of the body does not cease when it is discovered that only three out of four or five of the members of the division concur in the prevailing view& (his shows that t e $atter o! t e re.uire$ent o! a certain nu$ber !or t e decision o! a case is a $atter o! #ractice and #rocedure rat er t an o! !unda$ental jurisdiction & Chere a body consisting of more than two members is created, it must, by the very law of its being, be allowed to proceed upon a mere ma7ority, in the

- 114 -

absence of specific provision for a ma7ority consisting of a precise number& 3>mphasis ours&5 In +ay#on v. @uirino% a %esolution of the $ourt en banc% dated #eptember ,/, ,0/*, was invo8ed in order to set aside a 7udgment of the $ourt of !ppeals for alleged want of 7urisdiction& #aid %esolution re9uired that when there was no unanimous concurrence in a division of three, the presiding 7ustice was to designate two additional associate 7ustices @by rotation in the order of seniority& #uch manner of choice was not observed by the appellate court, but this $ourt said that the @alleged violation of the resolution does not affect the 7urisdiction of the $ourt of !ppeals to hear and decide the case before it on appeal& If the alleged irregular designation be a sufficient ground for setting aside the 7udgment rendered by the $ourt of !ppeals and remanding the case to it for further proceedings, it would unnecessarily delay the disposition of this case to the detriment of public interest& xxx xxx xxx

Furthermore, the law and the rules of the #andiganbayan do not expressly provide under what circumstances and in what manner a special division may be dissolved& #uch being the case, how can the $ourt attribute error, irregularity or abuse of discretion to Presiding "ustice <architorenas actionsF !s similarly provided in #ection / of PD ,6-6, as amended, the #andiganbayan rules simply stateG @#>$& ,& Jotes Aecessary to Decide& xxx xxx xxx

3b5 In Division. (he unanimous vote of three "ustices in a Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a 7udgment or order& In the event that the three "ustices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding "ustice shall designate by raffle two "ustices from among the other members of the Sandiganbayan to sit te$#orarily with them forming a special Division of five "ustices, and the vote of a ma7ority of such special Division shall be necessary for the rendition of a 7udgment or order& 3>mphasis supplied&5

- 115 -

$learly, the presiding 7ustice has the authority to designate two additional 7ustices if the need arises& #ince the said %ules do not provide who may dissolve a special division and under what circumstances it may be dissolved, it follows that the presiding 7ustice li8ewise possesses the power to revo8e such designation when the need therefor !eases& Aote that the %ules expressly state that the two additional 7ustices sit only tem orarily meaning as long as there is a need for them& In the instant case, the ensuing unanimity among the three original members of the Division rendered such designation !unctus o!icio& (hus, the revocation by Presiding "ustice <architorena of his earlier order forming the special Division was not irregular& (here being no violation of a law or rule, the #andiganbayan could not have been ousted of 7urisdiction, and neither could petitioner have been denied due process, under the circumstances&' 1!ter e"aminin' the records o! the case, (hich in my #ie( clearly sho(ed that )rs. )arcos (as not depri#ed o! her ri'ht to counsel, 5 ar'ued as !ollo(sC %ecords clearly show that Petitioner .arcos was represented by counsel during the entire trial proceedings& (he failure of her counsel to appear in a couple of scheduled hearings is not e9uivalent to a deprivation by the #andiganbayan of her right to counsel& In her own words, @)n2otices of hearing were being sent directly to her, and her counsel @was apparently notified& !side from the written notices, she was also informed by telephone& ;ut, apparently, she chose not to be presentE neither did she ensure the presence of her counsel in all the hearings& Cell settled is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the party litigant& It is also incumbent upon a party to ta8e an active role, thusG @Bitigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit bac8, relax and await the outcome of their case& (hey should give the necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at sta8e is their interest in the case& Aeither did the suspension of her initial counsel of record 3!tty& !ntonio $oronel5 from the practice of law amount to a deprivation of her right to counsel& #he was continually represented by various lawyers& (he fact that some *6-)*4/2 were contemned by the #andiganbayan for effectively continuing the practice of !tty& $oronel did not altogether forfeit her representation& It does not appear that the actual participation of any of these contemned lawyers during the proceedings or any of
=D0 7=3;8

1ttys. 0uis -illano and enato Aila'.

- 116 -

the pleadings they had filed was stric8en from the records or disregarded by the court a .uo. In any event, as I have mentioned earlier, petitioners defenses, even those belatedly raised before this $ourt only, have been thoroughly reviewed, evaluated and duly considered& 1hate#er short!omings" i$ any" she may ha#e er!ei#ed in the 5andiganbayan ro!eedings must ha#e been re!ti$ied by this Court" e#en t+i!e o#er .. by the Third Di#ision and by the $anc. >ere" she is re resented by one o$ the most adroit legal minds in this !ountry" 0tty. Estelito 9. 7endoza. No longer !an she +him er and +hine about !ounsel de ri#ation.2 To summarize my =36pa'e Aissentin' Opinion, 5 (rote an $pilo'ue, (hich 5 (ould like to Euote hereC To say that 9etitioner 7ar!os !ould not be held !riminally liable sim ly be!ause she did not sign the lease !ontra!t in her ubli! !a a!ity is either ure nai#et? or utter so histry designed to !reate an im ro#ident loo hole to !ir!um#ent +hat is glaring: that this lease2and2su$lease !harade +as a !le#er de#i!e to illegally si hon into ri#ate hands money that should ro erly go to the !o$$ers o$ the go#ernment. 5u!h !harade !annot and should not be allo+ed& This Court has the duty to unmas- and to !ondemn this raid against the ubli! treasury. No amount o$ #erbal 3uggling or legal nit. i!-ing !an alter the indelible $a!t that etitioner" by this ingenious but illegal method" has de ri#ed the go#ernment o$ badly needed re#enues. >9ually untenable is petitioners contention that she deserves ac9uittal, because the prosecution did not present expert opinion showing the fair and reasonable rental price for the disputed premises& Be it remembered that the 0nti.=ra$t <a+ re(uires roo$" not o$ $air and reasonable2 ri!e" but o$ @mani$est and gross disad#antage/ to the go#ernment. The glaring dis arity bet+een the t+o rental amounts" totaling 91;A million +hi!h the lease2su$lease charade di#erted to ri#ate hands" is more than enough monument to gra$t. Certainly" su!h !on!rete and a!tual fact !annot be o#erturned by mere opinion, ho+e#er e3pert it may be. %ndubitably" in the resen!e o$ the in!ontro#ertible fact o$ go#ernment loss" any opinion o$ +hat !onstitutes @$air ri!e/ is not only su er$luous but !ounter. rodu!ti#e.

- 117 -

Petitioners claim of irregularity or denial of due process in the #andiganbayan proceedings is plainly baseless& %n any e#ent" su!h allegation is not enough to +arrant an in#alidation o$ the 3udgment o$ !on#i!tion. Neither !an it 3usti$y a remand to the anti.gra$t !ourt. 5u!h sidetra!-" % re eat" is an ob#ious !o . out. If at all, the alleged defects do not impair the lower courts 7urisdiction or the binding effect of its Decision& (hey can, at best, only be grounds for possible administrative sanctions& Finally, the over indulgent attention given by this $ourt initially by the (hird Division and then the banc, with full oral argument and written memorandum = is more than sufficient proof that petitioner has been granted due process& In fact, I believe she has, in more ways than one, been the recipient of @over due process in this $ourt&' 5n her Aissentin' Opinion, Justice omero stressed that the 'rounds relied upon 4y )rs. )arcos in her )otion !or econsideration 9merely reprise7d8 the issues already raised in the petition and adeEuately tackled in the challen'ed decision.: -he reiterated that her Third Ai#ision ponencia did not !ind any e#idence o! conspiracyJ hence, )arcos> repeated ar'ument that she should 4e acEuitted 4ecause Aans (as acEuitted (as unaccepta4le. Justice omero insisted that thou'h Aans si'ned on 4ehal! o! 0 T1, 9it (as the entire 0 T1 throu'h its policy makin' 4ody (hich appro#ed the lease a'reement.: Turnin' to her !a#orite &i#il 0a( doctrines, she ar'uedC Furthermore, it must be remembered that a lease agreement is a bilateral contract which gives rise to reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the lessor and the lessee& It is an agreement which becomes a contract when the parties signify their consent or assent thereto, thereby reflecting the meeting of the minds between said parties& ;y himself, the lessor cannot enter into a contract of leaseE there must be another party, the lessee, who will ta8e possession of the property sub7ect of the lease during its effectivity& (hus, when Dans @entered into the lease agreement, he did so as representative of the lessor, as petitioner did so in representation of the lessee& It is erroneous to state, as petitioner maintains in her motion for reconsideration, that she did not enter into the lease contract simply because she did not sign it, for certainly she did, as one of two indispensable parties& (he immediate beneficiary of the lease was the government, represented by the B%(!& For all intents and purposes, brushing aside semantics, the lease agreement was entered into in behalf of the <overnment by both petitioner and Dans&'

- 118 -

5n #ie( o! my deadline !or this 4ook, Octo4er 10, 1998, =D17=3D8 5 (ill no lon'er 4e a4le to include here any additional motionsQordersQresolution (hich may 4e !iled or rendered. 2either (ill 5 comment on the #aried media reactions. 5n conclusion, a repetition o! this part o! my Aissent should su!!ice !or no(C I reali:e, and I am sure each member of this $ourt does too, that this case involves not merely a 7udgment on the acts of the former First Bady& ;y its Decision here, this $ourt will be evaluated by the nation and by the world& Kistory will 7udge this $ourt how it acted and how each member participated and voted& Chat we say and write here will still be remembered and discussed by our countrymen and by the world fifty years from now, when all of us are, in all li8elihood, already in the <reat ;eyond&'

=D1

7=3D8

See !ootnote =31.

- 119 -

Chapter 8 BATT$E% OVER CIVI$ RIGHT%

Successional Rights of !llegitimate Children The Family &ode reco'nizes only t(o kinds o! childrenC le'itimate and ille'itimate. .rior to the e!!ecti#ity o! the Family &ode on 1u'ust 3, 1988, ho(e#er, the &i#il &ode !urther classi!ied ille'itimate children as +1, natural, +=, natural children 4y le'al !iction or +3, spurious +or 4astards,. 1 child 4orn (ithin a #alid marria'e is le'itimate, (hile one 4orn outside o! it is ille'itimate. 5!, at the time o! the child>s conception, the parents (ere not le'ally 4arred !rom marryin' each other, such ille'itimate issue is re!erred to as a 9natural: child. 1nd i! the parents actually marry each other later, then the child is 9le'itimated: and (ill en%oy all the ri'hts and pri#ile'es o! a le'itimate child. 5! the parents do not actually marry, the natural child>s ri'hts depend on (hether the parents 9ackno(led'e: or 9reco'nize: him or herJ 4ut (hether ackno(led'ed or not, such child does not acEuire all the ri'hts o! one (ho is le'itimate or le'itimated. Mnder the &i#il &ode, a natural child 94y le'al !iction: is one concei#ed or 4orn o! a marria'e that is #oid or is declared a nullity. 1s such, he or she is accorded the ri'hts o! a reco'nized natural child. /ere, a marria'e is actually cele4rated or entered into 4y the parties, 4ut considered or declared #oid 4ecause o! some le'al impediments. 5n the case o! 9spurious: children, no marria'e o! the parents, (hether #alid or #oid, is cele4rated at all. /o(e#er, (hen the child is reco'nized 4y one or 4oth parents, the child acEuires 4y la( certain ri'hts, (hich 4y no means appro"imate those o! his or her le'itimate or e#en natural counterparts. There are three ri'hts that children en%oy in #aryin' de'rees, dependin' on their !iliationC +1, the use o! the surname o! their !ather, +=, support !rom him and +3, succession to his estate. The successional ri'hts o! natural children 4y le'al !iction (ere the su4%ect o! (e Santos . An%eles.=D=7=338 .etitioner )aria osario de -antos (as the le'itimate child o! Ar. 1ntonio de -antos and -o!ia *ona (ho (ere married on Fe4ruary 3, 19B1. -u4seEuently, the marria'e soured and 1ntonio !ell in lo#e (ith a !ello( physician, &onchita Tala'. 5n 19B9, 1ntonio o4tained !rom a 2e#ada +M-1, court a di#orce decree (hich, ho(e#er, (as not reco'nized 4y .hilippine la(s. 2onetheless, he married &onchita in Tokyo, JapanJ and, coha4itin' (ith her, sired ele#en children. On )arch 30,
=D= 7=338

=;1 -& 1 =0D, Aecem4er 1=, 199;.

- 120 -

19D3, -o!ia died in Guatemala. 0ess than a month later, on 1pril =3, 19D3, 1ntonio and &onchita contracted marria'e in Ta'aytay &ity in accordance (ith .hilippine la(s. On )arch 8, 1981, 1ntonio died. 5n a proceedin' to settle the estate o! 1ntonio, the trial court, presided 4y Jud'e 1doracion 1n'eles, ruled that &onchita>s children (ere le'itimated 4y the Ta'aytay marria'e and, thus, instituted them as coeEual heirs, alon' (ith -o!ia>s lone le'itimate child. Aisa'reein', petitioner asked the -upreme &ourt !or a (rit o! certiorari, contendin' that since only natural children could 4e le'itimated, her hal!64rothers and hal!6sisters (ho (ere only natural children 4y le'al !iction 66 4orn out o! a #oid +4ein' 4i'amous, marria'e in Tokyo ? could not 4e le'itimated, and thus could not inherit the same amount to (hich le'itimate children (ere entitled. *y a #ote o! 8=D37=388 to 3,=DB7=398 the &ourt a'reed (ith petitioner and, speakin' throu'h Justice omero, ruled that 9a natural child 4y le'al !iction cannot rise 4eyond that to (hich an ackno(led'ed natural child is entitled inso!ar his hereditary ri'hts are concerned.: The &ourt addedC It is thus incongruous to conclude, as private respondent maintains, that petitioners half siblings can rise to her level by the fact of being legitimi:ed, for two reasonsG first, they failed to meet the most important re9uisite of legitimation, that is, that they be natural children within the meaning of !rticle *60E second, natural children by legal fiction cannot demand that they be legitimi:ed simply because it is one of the rights en7oyed by ac8nowledged natural children&' The ma%ority held that 97l8e'itimation is not a Tri'ht> (hich is demanda4le 4y a child. 5t is a pri#ile'e a#aila4le only to natural children proper, as de!ined under 1rticle =D9 7o! the &i#il &ode8,: 4ut not to natural children 4y le'al !iction, 4ecause 97t8here (as !rom the outset an intent to e"clude children concei#ed or 4orn out o! illicit relations.: Grantin' them the ri'hts o! le'itimacy (ould pre%udice petitioner>s share in the estate o! her !ather 4ecause, instead o! 4ein' 'ranted one !ourth o! the total estate o! 1ntonio, she (ould 4e !orced to inherit only a proportion eEual to that (hich (ould 'o to each o! her ele#en hal!64rothers and hal!6sisters. Justice /ermosisima (rote a &oncurrin' Opinion (hile Justices Vitu', Hapunan and 5 (rote Aissents. The dissenters relied on 1rticle 89 =D;7=808 o! the &i#il &ode, (hich
=D3 =DB =D; 7=388 7=398

JJ. Feliciano, e'alado, Aa#ide, omero, )elo, .uno, )endoza and /ermosisima. CJ 2ar#asa and JJ. .adilla, *ellosillo, Vitu', Hapunan, Francisco and .an'ani4an. 7=808 91rt. 89. &hildren concei#ed or 4orn o! marria'es (hich are #oid !rom the 4e'innin' shall ha#e the same status, ri'hts and o4li'ations as ackno(led'ed natural children, and are called natural children 4y le'al !iction. 9&hildren concei#ed o! #oida4le marria'es 4e!ore the decree o! annulment shall 4e considered as le'itimateJ and children concei#ed therea!ter shall ha#e the same status, ri'hts and o4li'ations as ackno(led'ed natural children, and are also called natural children 4y le'al !iction.:

- 121 -

'ranted natural children 4y le'al !iction 9the same status, ri'hts and o4li'ations as ackno(led'ed natural children.: -ince 1rticle =D9,=DD7=818 in relation to 1rticle =30,=D37=8=8 'ranted ackno(led'ed natural children the ri'ht to 4e le'itimated 4y the su4seEuent marria'e o! their parents, then such le'itimation should also 4e accorded to natural children 4y le'al !iction. @rote Justice HapunanC #ince the decedents ,0/, marriage in (o8yo with the private respondent was invalid, being one of those marriages classified as void from the very beginning under the $ivil $ode, the status of her children clearly falls under !rticle ?0 which puts them on par, at least in terms of rights and obligations, with ac8nowledged natural children& #ince the rights of ac8nowledged natural children include the right of legitimation under !rticle *4of the $ivil $ode by the subse9uent valid marriage of their parents, it therefore plainly follows that by virtue of !rticle ?0, in relation to !rticle *4-, the private respondents children were deemed legitimated by the subse9uent valid marriage of their parents in the Philippines in ,064&'

/e(in' closely to 1rticles 89, =D9 and =30 o! the &i#il &ode, 5 e"plained in my o(n AissentC Lnder the provisions of the $ivil $ode, legitimation ta8es place when three re9uisites are metG 3a5 that the child be a natural childE 3b5 that he be recogni:ed by both parents either before or after a valid marriageE and 3c5 that there be a subse9uent valid marriage of the parents 3cf& Paras, -ivil -ode o! t e " ili##ines Annotated% ,0?1 ed&, Jol& I, p& 6/,5& ! natural child by legal fiction possesses the first two re9uisites from inception by virtue of !rt& ?0, which places him on the same plane as an ac8nowledged natural child& In that sense, he has an advantage over a natural child as defined by !rt& *60, for the latter would still need to be recogni:ed by both parents in order to have the status and rights of an ac(no&ledged natural child& (hus, for the purpose of legitimation, the natural child by legal fiction needs to fulfill only the third re9uisiteG a valid subse9uent marriage between his parents 3 c!. Paras, o#. cit.% p& 6/,E (olentino, -ivil -ode o! t e " ili##ines% ,0?4 reprint, Jol& I, p& /4-5& Chere the impediment is permanent or perpetual, such as incest or the fact that one or both of the parties
=DD 7=818

=D3

91rt. =D9. Only natural children can 4e le'itimated. &hildren 4orn outside o! (edlock o! parents (ho, at the time o! the conception o! the !ormer, (ere not disEuali!ied 4y any impediment to marry each other, are natural.: 7=8=8 91rt. =30. 0e'itimation shall take place 4y the su4seEuent marria'e 4et(een the parents.:

- 122 -

have been found guilty of 8illing the spouse of one of them, no legitimation can ever ta8e place as no valid marriage can ever be made between the parents 3(olentino, o# cit.% p& /4-5& ;ut the bigamous character of a marriage is terminable by, among other causes, the death of the first spouse, ma8ing a subse9uent marriage valid& !nd that simply was what happened in the case at bench&' Ae!endin' the ri'hts o! natural children 4y le'al !iction a'ainst social ostracism, 5 (roteC Indeed, it is hardly fair to stigmati:e and create social and successional pre7udices against children who had no fault in nor control over the marital impediments which bedeviled their parents& (hey are the victims, not the perpetrators, of these vagaries of life& Chy then should they suffer their conse9uencesF In the final analysis, there are really no illegitimate childrenE there are only illegitimate parents& !nd this dissent finds its philosophy in thisG that children, unarguably born and reared innocent in this world, should benefit by every intendment of the law, particularly where as in this case their parents, who originally suffered from a marital impediment, would now want to overcome the improvident social and successional conse9uences of such condition& (herefore, it is most unfair that these innocent children should be condemned to continue suffering the conse9uences of the impediment they did not cause, when the very impediment itself has disappeared&' 1s to the claim that le'itimation (ould pre%udice the ri'hts o! le'itimate children, 5 said that it (as precisely the ri'ht to share eEually in their !ather>s estate that the la( intended. (he mere fact that such legitimation would impact adversely upon the petitioners successional rights as the lone legitimate child of the first marriage is no reason to deny the children of the second marriage their own legal right to be deemed legitimated& Precisely, legitimation produces such an effect i&e&, diminution of successional rights of the legitimate children& !rticle *4* of the $ivil $ode provides in fact that @3c5hildren who are legitimated by subse9uent marriage shall en7oy the same rights as legitimate children& Chen the legislature decided to grant to children of void marriages the same status, rights, and obligations as those ac8nowledged natural children, it is presumed to have carefully weighed precisely these conse9uences upon the rights of the other

- 123 -

children in the family& (he policy then was to cast a mantle of protection upon the children of void marriages& (hat policy is evidently enforced by enabling them to get legitimated in the same manner as ac8nowledged natural children namely, by the subse9uent valid marriage of their parents& If the Family $ode, by repealing !rt& ?0 of the $ivil $ode, is to be viewed as having reversed or denigrated that policy 3although, by and large, it appears to have maintained the policy in many other areas of family law5, such reversal or denigration should not, and cannot, in any case, impair rights already ac9uired by and thus vested in the private respondents&' !s the Right of First Refusal &nforcea5le 5y an Action for Specific #erformance'

2ormally, a ri'ht o! !irst re!usal is not en!orcea4le 4y an action !or speci!ic per!ormance. /o(e#er, the &ourt ruled in .)uato!ial Realty (e elop#ent, Inc. and Ca!#elo < Baue!#ann, Inc. . "ayfai! *heate!, Inc.=D87=838 that, considerin' the peculiar circumstances present, such ri'ht had matured into a contract that could 4e en!orced 4y a court action. *ut !irst, the !acts. .etitioner &armelo leased to )ay!air !or a term o! t(enty years a portion o! a t(o6storey 4uildin' it o(ned, located in &laro ). ecto -treet, )anila. 5n this 4uildin', )ay!air constructed t(o mo#ie houses (hich it named )a"im Theater and )iramar Theater. The t(o contracts o! lease pro#ided that 9i! the 0$--O should desire to sell the leased premises, the 0$--$$ shall 4e 'i#en 306days e"clusi#e option to purchase the same.: -ometime in 193B, &armelo in!ormed )ay!air #ia telephone that it 9(as desirous o! sellin' the entire &laro ). ecto property,: and that a certain )r. 1raneta (as (illin' to 4uy it !or M- U1,=00,000. 5t !urther asked (hether )ay!air 9(as (illin' to 4uy the property !or si" to se#en million pesos.: 5n its reply on 1u'ust =3, 193B, )ay!air reminded &armelo o! its ri'ht under the lease contracts to 94e 'i#en 306days e"clusi#e option to purchase: the property. Four years later, on July 30, 1938, &armelo sold the entire ecto property, includin' the leased premises housin' )a"im and )iramar Theaters, to .etitioner $Euatorial !or .11,300,000. Aisposin' o! a suit to annul the sale and to en!orce the a!oreEuoted ri'ht, the re'ional trial court + T&, ruled that the 9option clause: could not 4e deemed 4indin' on &armelo, 4ecause o! 9lack o! distinct consideration there!or.: On appeal, the &ourt o!
=D8 7=838

=DB -& 1 B83, 2o#em4er =1, 199D.

- 124 -

1ppeals +&1, re#ersed the T&, rulin' that since para'raph 8 o! the lease contracts 9did not state a !i"ed price !or the purchase o! the leased premises,: then it did not 'rant a mere option 4ut 9a ri'ht o! !irst re!usal: (hich (as #iolated 4y &armelo>s sale o! the property to $Euatorial. 1'reein' (ith the &1, the -upreme &ourt, throu'h Justice /ermosisima, ruled that 9the reEuirement o! a separate consideration !or the option has no applica4ility in the instant case,: #iz.C !n option is a contract granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price& It is a separate and distinct contract from that which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option& It must be supported by a consideration& In the instant case, the right of first refusal is an integral part of the contracts of lease& (he consideration is built into the reciprocal obligations of the parties&' The &ourt ordered the rescindin' o! the sale to $Euatorial and allo(ed )ay!air 9to e"ercise its ri'ht o! !irst re!usal at the price (hich it (as entitled to accept or re%ect, (hich is .11,300,000.00.: Justices e'alado, Aa#ide, *ellosillo, )elo, .uno, Hapunan, )endoza and Francisco 'a#e unEuali!ied concurrence in the ponencia, (hile Justice .adilla and 5 (rote -eparate +&oncurrin', Opinions. On the other hand, Justice Vitu', %oined 4y Justice Torres, dissented, (hile Justice omero su4mitted a &oncurrin' and Aissentin' Opinion. &hie! Justice 2ar#asa took no part, as he (as related to an interested party. 5n his Aissent, Justice Vitu' stressed that rescission, 4ein' 9merely su4sidiary,: should e"tend only to a 'rant o! dama'es in !a#or o! the a''rie#ed party. 91 +4reach, o! the ri'ht o! !irst re!usal can only 'i#e rise to an action !or dama'es, primarily under 1rticle 19 o! the &i#il &ode, as (ell as its related pro#isions, 4ut not to an action !or speci!ic per!ormance.: /e ar'ued that a ri'ht o! !irst re!usal lacked 9the indispensa4le element o! consensuality in the per!ection o! contracts,: and that 9no one can 4e !orced, least o! all perhaps 4y a court, into a contract a'ainst his (ill or compelled to per!orm thereunder.: Ae!endin' the Aecision o! the &ourt, 5 (rote that, under the peculiar !acts o! the case, the ri'ht o! !irst re!usal, (hile normally unen!orcea4le pe! se, could 4e implemented or en!orced 4y an action !or speci!ic per!ormance, 4ecause o! the pa!pa9!e 9a3 fa/th on the part o! 4oth $Euatorial and )ay!air. 5 e"plainedC !s already noted, .ayfairs right of first refusal in the case before us is embodied in an express covenant in the lease contracts between it, as lessee, and $armelo, as lessorE hence, the right created is one springing from a contract& Indubitably, this had the force of law between the parties, who should thus comply with it in good faith& Suc rig t also establis ed a correlative obligation

- 125 -

on t e #art o! -ar$elo to give or deliver to 8ay!air a !or$al o!!er o! sale o! t e #ro#erty in t e event -ar$elo decided to sell it. (he decision to sell was eventually made& ;ut instead of giving or tendering to .ayfair the #ro#er offer to sell, $armelo gave it to its now co petitioner, >9uatorial, with whom it eventually perfected and consummated, on "uly +-, ,04?, an absolute sale of the property, doing so within the period of effectivity of .ayfairs right of first refusal& Bess than two months later, or in #eptember ,04?, with the lease still in full force, .ayfair filed the present suit& Corth stressing at this 7uncture is the fact that .ayfair had the right to re9uire that the offer to sell the property be sent to it by $armelo, and not to anybody else& (his was violated when the offer was made to >9uatorial& Lnder its covenant with $armelo, .ayfair had the right, at that point, to sue for either specific performance or rescission, with damages in either case, pursuant to !rts& ,,6/ and ,,0,, $ivil $ode& !n action for specific performance and damages seasonably filed, fortified by a writ of preliminary in7unction, would have enabled .ayfair to #revent t e sale to E.uatorial !ro$ ta(ing #lace and to co$#el -ar$elo to sell t e #ro#erty to 8ay!air !or t e sa$e ter$s and #rice% for the reason that the filing of the action for specific performance may 7uridically be considered a solemn, formal, and un9ualified acceptance by .ayfair of the specific terms of the offer of sale& Aote that by that time, the price and other terms of the proposed sale by $armelo had already been determined, being set forth in the offer of sale that had &rong!ully been directed to >9uatorial& !s it turned out, however, .ayfair did not have a chance to file such suit, for it learned of the sale to >9uatorial only a!ter it had ta8en place& ;ut it did file the present action for specific performance and for invalidation of the wrongful sale immediately after learning about the latter act& (he act of promptly filing this suit, coupled with the fact that it is one for specific performance, indicates beyond cavil or doubt .ayfairs un.uali!ied acce#tance o! t e $isdirected o!!er o! sale , giving rise thereby to a demandable obligation on the part of $armelo to execute the corresponding document of sale upon the payment of the price of P,,,+--,---&--& In other words, the principle of consensuality of a contract of sale should be deemed satisfied& (he aggrieved partys consent to, or acceptance of, the misdirected offer of sale should be legally presumed in the context of the proven facts& (o say, therefore, that the wrongful breach of a right of first refusal does not sanction an action for specific performance simply because, factually, there was no meeting of the minds as to the

- 126 -

particulars of the sale since, ostensibly, no offer was ever made to, let alone accepted by, .ayfair, is to ignore the proven fact of presumed consent& (o repeat, that consent was deemed given by .ayfair when it sued for invalidation of the sale and for specific performance of $armelos obligation to .ayfair& Aothing in the law as it now stands will be violated, or even simply emasculated, by this holding& On the contrary, the decision in Gu*$an supports it&'

- 127 -

Chapter 8I Ep/! "#e: THE REA$ VICTOR+

5n the heat o! the deli4erations on one o! the !ore'oin' cases, a !ello( %ustice pri#ately asked me ho( 5 made up my mind and therea!ter (rote my Opinion in said case. 95 study, 5 re!lect, 5 pray and stick to my conscience: (as my 4rie! reply. )y esteemed collea'ue (as in the crossroads o! makin' up his mind on (hether to uphold his pre#ious #ote in the main Aecision or to chan'e it in the resolution o! the )otion !or econsideration. -o 5 ela4orated, 9Fi!ty years !rom no( (hen (e (ill all 4e 'one !rom this (orld, our decisions and opinions in this &ourt (ill still 4e discussed and dissected 4y la(yers, la( students and the pu4lic. /o( do you (ant to 4e remem4ered especially 4y your 'randchildren and 'reat6'rand childrenL )ore important, (hen (e knock at the pearly 'ates, our 0ord and -upreme Jud'e (ill ask us to account !or our actions and decisions. /o( (ill (e ans(er /imL 5! /e should %ud'e us accordin' to the manner and standards (e %ud'ed others, (ill (e 4e allo(ed to enter the hea#enly 'ateL: 5ndeed, 5 ha#e endea#ored in all 'ood !aith to !ollo( my conscience in all my actions and opinions in the &ourt. Aurin' the early months o! my incum4ency, 5 stru''led to con!orm to precedents and con#entional %udicial (isdom. *ut 5 learned, as the months and years passed, that 5 !ound more !ul!illment in e"pressin' mysel! openly and decisi#ely, e#en i! it meant 4ein' in the minority or e#en 4ein' alone. 1s 5 said earlier, %urists are ne#er diminished 4y their dissents, only 4y their reckless and thou'htless concurrences. 1s can 4e 'leaned !rom the discussions 5 (rote earlier, particularly my summaries o! the 94attles: in the &ourt, there (ere se#eral %ustices (ho, like me, opted to participate acti#ely in the deli4erations and to (rite their opinions #oraciously. )ay their tri4e increase, and may they ne#er !alter in e"pressin' their #ie(s dili'ently and coura'eously. Our &onstitution and our people, 5 4elie#e, e"pect no less. -ince 5 entered the &ourt three years a'o, a num4er o! respected senior %ustices ha#e retired, includin' Justices Feliciano and .adilla. -oon, Justice e'alado, &hie! Justice 2ar#asa and Justice omero (ill also han' their 4lack ro4es upon reachin' compulsory retirement on Octo4er 13, 1998, 2o#em4er 30, 1998 and 1u'ust 1, 1999, respecti#ely.=D97=8B8 5 (ill miss their (ise counsel and measured responses to the
=D9 7=8B8

5 re'ret 5 ha#e not had the opportunity o! deli4eratin' cases (ith other senior %ustices o!

- 128 -

challen'es that !aced the &ourt. *ut 5 !ind consolation and hope in the %udicial pro4ity, 4alanced approach and !earlessness o! their relati#ely youn'er successors, (hose names (ere mentioned in the !ore'oin' pa'es. 5 had crossed %udicial s(ords (ith them, and many times 5 had !ound mysel! on the opposite end o! the issues. -uch duels, re'ardless o! (ho e#entually constituted the ma%ority, increased my respect and esteem !or them. 5ndeed, as sho(n in the 94attles: 5 descri4ed earlier, (e had !reely discussed #arious su4%ects (ith #aryin' de'rees o! passion, e!!er#escence and tone, 4ut al(ays (ith the same commitment to truth and %ustice as (e percei#ed them in the 4est li'ht o! our indi#idual consciences. &hie! Justice 2ar#asa and his contemporaries o! ten years in the &ourt may 4e lea#in' us. That is the 4ad ne(s. *ut the 'ood ne(s is that ne( and 4ri'ht li'hts (ill 4e takin' their places, perhaps cautiously at !irst, 4ut !earlessly al(ays. This is not to !or'et the %ustices (ho ha#e ser#ed and retired a!ter a !e( years. 5ndeed, Justices /ermosisima, Torres and Francisco +and in the same #ein, Justice )artinez (ho (ill retire on Fe4ruary =, 1999, ha#e had stints too 4rie!, 4ut that is not their !ault. The important thin' is that they, too, ha#e contri4uted their share in enrichin' the %urisprudence o! this countryJ and they, too, ha#e le!t their indeli4le imprints in my memory o! 'reat men. 1s 5 close this 4ook, let me say that the ultimate mission o! a %urist and, in a lar'er sense, the &ourt itsel! does not depend on the num4er o! unanimous decisions (ritten and promul'ated. Verily, speakin' (ith a uni!orm and hackneyed #oice on #olatile and contro#ersial issues is not e"pected o! a !ree and thinkin' &ourt. ather, the #ia4ility o! our tripartite system o! 'o#ernment and the meticulous sa!e'uardin' o! our people>s ri'hts are 4est ser#ed 4y a di#ided &ourt and 4y ma'istrates (ho e"pound !rom #arious and #aryin' #ie(points and perspecti#es. 5ndeed, the &ourt should 4e a #erita4le marketplace o! !ree ideas, (here %urists unrestrainedly e"press their most pro!ound thou'hts and ideas. Thus, the real #ictory o! %urists does not consist in their inclination to con!orm to con#entional (isdom, 4ut in their a4ility and determination to pro!!er and e"press their deepest thou'hts, ho(e#er e"tra#a'ant or unorthodo". 5n the midst o! seemin'ly insurmounta4le ma%oritarian precedents, presidential displeasure and e#en pu4lic ridicule, their (illin'ness and do''ed coura'e to sail into the stormy seas o! %urisprudential contro#ersies, to pursue lonely causes and to risk their careers in the shoals o! noncon!ormism 4espeak an independent and o4%ecti#e &ourt. )a'istrates should ha#e no interest in liti'ants and in their #ictories or de!eats, 4ut only in principles, causes and philosophies 66 all (ith the ultimate o4%ecti#e o! upholdin' the rule and ma%esty o! the la(. Justice is 4est ser#ed and %urists attain their real #ictory in the !ree and untrammeled e"pression o! their scruples and credos, una!!ected in the least 4y the !ortunes or
the 2ar#asa &ourt (ho retired 4e!ore 5 reached the Tri4unal, like Justices Gutierrez Jr., )elencio6 /errera, and &ruz (ho ha#e 4ecome le'ends in their o(n time.

- 129 -

mis!ortunes o! indi#idual liti'ants. 5 (ill ha#e, in the normal course o! e#ents, o#er ei'ht years more in the &ourt. 5 ha#e immensely en%oyed the !irst three. @ith the 0ord>s 'race, 5 look !or(ard (ith hope and !ul!illment to participatin' proacti#ely in the !uture 4attles o! consciences in the comin' years.

Appe13/ce, %e!ecte3 ;# tat/ 1, fr 0 #onencias a13 Op/1/ 1, <fr 0 Oct 9er 11= 1775 t Oct 9er 1.= 1776> *n !nterpreting the Constitution and the %aws The !irst reEuisite is that there must 4e 4e!ore a court an actual case callin' !or the e"ercise o! %udicial po(er. &ourts ha#e no authority to pass upon issues throu'h ad#isory opinions or to resol#e hypothetical or !ei'ned pro4lems or !riendly suits collusi#ely arran'ed 4et(een parties (ithout real ad#erse interests. &ourts do not sit to ad%udicate mere academic Euestions to satis!y scholarly interest, ho(e#er intellectually challen'in'. 1s a condition precedent to the e"ercise o! %udicial po(er, an actual contro#ersy 4et(een liti'ants must !irst e"ist. 1n actual case or contro#ersy e"ists (hen there is a con!lict o! le'al ri'hts or an assertion o! opposite le'al claims, (hich can 4e resol#ed on the 4asis o! e"istin' la( and %urisprudence. 1 %usticia4le contro#ersy is distin'uished !rom a hypothetical or a4stract di!!erence or dispute, in that the !ormer in#ol#es a de!inite and concrete dispute touchin' on the le'al relations o! parties ha#in' ad#erse le'al interests. 1 %usticia4le contro#ersy admits o! speci!ic relie! throu'h a decree that is conclusi#e in character, (hereas an opinion only ad#ises (hat the la( (ould 4e upon a hypothetical state o! !acts. """ """ """ The doctrine o! separation o! po(ers calls !or each 4ranch o! 'o#ernment to 4e le!t alone to dischar'e its duties as it sees !it. *ein' one such 4ranch, the %udiciary, Justice 0aurel asserted, 9(ill neither direct nor restrain e"ecuti#e 7or le'islati#e action8 " " ".: The le'islati#e and the e"ecuti#e 4ranches are not allo(ed to seek its ad#ice on (hat to do or not to doJ thus, %udicial inEuiry has to 4e postponed in the meantime. *e!ore a court may enter the picture, a prereEuisite is that somethin' has 4een accomplished or per!ormed 4y either 4ranch. Then #ay it pass on the #alidity o! (hat has 4een doneJ then a'ain, only 9(hen " " " properly challen'ed in an appropriate le'al proceedin'. +Guin%ona . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=;;3=, July 10, 1998, ???

- 130 -

&oncededly, this &ourt has no po(er to pass upon the (isdom, merits and propriety o! the acts o! its coeEual 4ranches in 'o#ernment. /o(e#er, it does ha#e the prero'ati#e to uphold the &onstitution and to strike do(n and annul a la( that contra#enes the &harter. From such duty and prero'ati#e, it shall ne#er shirk or shy a(ay. *y annullin' 1 8180, this &ourt is not makin' a policy statement a'ainst dere'ulation. Iuite the contrary, it is simply in#alidatin' a pseudo dere'ulation la( (hich in reality restrains !ree trade and perpetuates a cartel, an oli'opoly. The &ourt is merely upholdin' constitutional adherence to a truly competiti#e economy that releases the creati#e ener'y o! !ree enterprises. 5t lea#es to &on'ress, as the policy6settin' a'ency o! the 'o#ernment, the speedy cra!tin' o! a 'enuine, constitutionally %usti!ied oil dere'ulation la(. +&oncurrin' Opinion, *atad . Sec!eta!y of .ne!%y, G 2o. 1=B3D0 and La%#an . *o!!es, G 2o. 1=38D3, 2o#em4er ;, 1993, *n #rotecting the !nherent #owers of the State " " ". 7T8he &ourt holds that the principle o! !es /udicata, (hich !inds application in 'enerally all cases and proceedin's, cannot 4ar the !i%ht o! the -tate or its a'ents to e"propriate pri#ate property. The #ery nature o! eminent domain, an inherent po(er o! the -tate, dictates that the !i%ht to e"ercise the po(er 4e a4solute and un!ettered e#en 4y a prior %ud'ment or !es /udicata. The scope o! eminent domain, like police po(er, can 9reach e#ery !orm o! property (hich the -tate mi'ht need !or pu4lic use.: " " ". """ """ """ " " ". 7*ut (8hile the principle o! !es /udicata does not deni'rate the ri'ht o! the -tate to e"ercise eminent domain, it does apply to speci!ic issues decided in a pre#ious case. For e"ample, a !inal %ud'ment dismissin' an e"propriation suit on the 'round that there (as no prior o!!er precludes another suit raisin' the same issueJ it cannot, ho(e#er, 4ar the -tate or its a'ent !rom therea!ter complyin' (ith this reEuirement, as prescri4ed 4y la(, and su4seEuently e"ercisin' its po(er o! eminent domain o#er the same property. *y the same token, our rulin' that petitioner cannot e"ercise its dele'ated po(er o! eminent domain throu'h a mere resolution (ill not 4ar it !rom reinstitutin' similar proceedin's, once the said le'al reEuirement and, !or that matter, all others are properly complied (ith. +Pa!a;a)ue . 1" Realty Co!po!ation, G 2o. 1=38=0, July =0, 1998, 666 @e ha#e care!ully scrutinized 1 1B3; and the su4seEuent pertinent statutes and !ound no e"pression o! a le'islati#e (ill authorizin' a re!und 4ased on the hi'her rates claimed 4y petitioner. " " ". @hen the la( itsel! does not e"plicitly pro#ide that a re!und under 1 1B3; may 4e 4ased on hi'her rates (hich (ere none"istent at the time o! its enactment, this &ourt cannot presume other(ise. 1 le'islati#e lacuna cannot 4e !illed 4y %udicial !iat. +(a ao Gulf Lu#be! Co!po!ation . Co##issione! of Inte!nal Re enue, G 2o. 1133;9, July =3, 1998,

- 131 -

*n ,pholding the #eople1s Sovereignty &lear intention to a4andon should 4e mani!ested 4y the o!!icer concerned. -uch intention may 4e e"press, or in!erred !rom his o(n conduct. Thus, the !ailure to per!orm the duties pertainin' to the o!!ice must 4e (ith the o!!icer>s actual or imputed intention to a4andon and relinEuish the o!!ice. 14andonment o! an o!!ice is not (holly a matter o! intentionJ it results !rom a complete a4andonment o! duties o! such a continuance that the la( (ill in!er a relinEuishment. There!ore, there are t(o essential elements o! a4andonmentC fi!st, an intention to a4andon and, second, an o#ert or 9e"ternal: act 4y (hich the intention is carried into e!!ect. +San%%unian% Bayan of San And!es . Cou!t of Appeals , G 2o. 118883, January 1D, 1998, ??? T/$ .O52T 5-C 5T 5- 52&O $&T TO -1N T/1T )$A51 1AV$ T5-52G -/OM0A *$ *122$A *$&1M-$ O20N T/$ 5&/ &12 1FFO A 5T O , FO T/1T )1TT$ , T/$N )1N 1*M-$ O )5-M-$ 5T. Iuite the contrary, in terms o! reach, pass6on readership, multiplier e!!ect and cost64ene!it ad#anta'e, media ad#ertisin' may 4e the cheapest and most e!!ecti#e campai'n mechanism a#aila4le. 5 am not su''estin' that e#ery candidate should use media ads. 5n the !inal analysis, it is really up to the candidates and their campai'n handlers to adopt such modes and means o! campai'nin' as their 4ud'ets and political strate'ies may reEuire. @hat 5 am stressin' is that candidates, (hether rich or poor, should 4e 'i#en the option o! campai'nin' throu'h media, instead o! 4ein' !orced to use other !orms o! propa'anda that could turn out to 4e less e!!ecti#e and more e"pensi#e. """ """ """ The ma%ority also claims that the prohi4ition is reasona4le 4ecause it is limited in scopeJ that is, it re!ers only to the purchase, sale or donation o! print space and air time !or 9campai'n or other political purposes: and does not restrict ne(s reportin' or commentaries 4y editors, columnists, reporters, and 4roadcasters. *ut the issue here is not the !reedom o! media pro!essionals. The issue is the !reedom o! e"pression o! candidates. That the !reedom o! the press is respected 4y the la( and 4y the &omelec is not a reason to trample upon the candidates> constitutional ri'ht to !ree speech and the people>s ri'ht to in!ormation. 5n this li'ht, the ma%ority>s contention is a clear case o! non se)uitu!. )edia ads do not partake o! the 9real su4stanti#e e#il: that the state has a ri'ht to pre#ent and that %usti!ies the curtailment o! the people>s cardinal ri'ht to choose their means o! e"pression and o! access to in!ormation. +Aissentin' Opinion in :s#e;a . Co#elec, G 2o. 13==31, )arch 31, 1998, *n #ursuing the 4ar Against .raft " " ". .lainly, the la( does not use the (ord 9si'nin'.: 5t employs the (ord 9enterin'.: Ae!initely, si'nin' is not the only (ay o! enterin' into a transaction. Those (ho authorized, appro#ed or assented to such contract must 4e held eEually, i! not more, accounta4le !or ha#in' entered into the a'reement. The ca0pa/"1 a"a/1,t "raft a13 c rr#pt/ 1 4 #!3 9e ,er/ #,!2 #13er0/1e3= /f 1!2 the 9e3/e1t #13er!/1", are

- 132 -

p#1/,he3= 4h/!e the 9/"4/", 4h r3ere3= a#th r/@e3= appr Ae3 r a,,e1te3 t ,#ch a1 0a! #, c 1tract, are free3 f acc #1ta9/!/t2. That /, ,/0p!2 #1c 1,c/ 1a9!eB """ """ """ C C C. [T]h/, lease7and7su5lease chara3e 4a, a c!eAer 3eA/ce t /!!e"a!!2 ,/ph 1 /1t pr/Aate ha13, 0 1e2 that ,h #!3 pr per!2 " t the c ffer, f the " Aer10e1t. %#ch chara3e ca11 t a13 ,h #!3 1 t 9e a!! 4e3B Th/, C #rt ha, the 3#t2 t #10a,D a13 t c 13e01 th/, ra/3 a"a/1,t the p#9!/c trea,#r2. N a0 #1t f Aer9a! E#""!/1" r !e"a! 1/t'p/cD/1" ca1 a!ter the /13e!/9!e fact that pet/t/ 1er= 92 th/, /1"e1/ #, 9#t /!!e"a! 0eth 3= ha, 3epr/Ae3 the " Aer10e1t f 9a3!2 1ee3e3 reAe1#e,. +Aissentin' Opinion in "a!cos . Sandi%anbayan, G 2o. 1=D99;, Octo4er D, 1998, ??? 5nasmuch as seEuestration tends to impede or limit the e"ercise o! proprietary ri'hts 4y pri#ate citizens, it should 4e construed strictly a'ainst the state, pursuant to the le'al ma"im that statutes in dero'ation o! common ri'hts are in 'eneral strictly construed and ri'idly con!ined to cases clearly (ithin their scope and purpose. """ """ """ 14out t(el#e years ha#e no( passed since most o! the seEuestration orders a'ainst corporations and assets, alle'ed to 4e unla(!ully amassed 4y the )arcoses and their cronies, (ere issued, and the so6called 9ill6'otten (ealth cases: !iled in the -andi'an4ayan. -adly, ho(e#er, the su4stantiation o! the claim that they are in !act ill6 'otten most o!ten remains pendent. . . . (e are still discussin' the #alidity o! such orders. """ """ """ Time and a'ain, (e ha#e prodded the petitioner and the -andi'an4ayan to speedily proceed (ith the hearin's and resolutions o! the main cases !or reco#ery and recon#eyance. 5t is a4out time that the .&GG, created (ith the p!i#a!y and pa!a#ount tas& of !eco e!in% ill0%otten 'ealth, act (ith deli4erate dispatch on its primordial (ork o! su4stantiatin' its claims and, there4y, per!orm its 4ounden duty to the Filipino peopleC to render %ustice to all. +Republic . Sandi%anbayan, G 2o. 119=9=, July 31, 1998, ??? @e must commend the chie! 'ra!t64uster !or his #i'ilance and e!!ort to close 'aps that pro#ide clandestine opportunities !or corruption. /is dri#e to eliminate e"istin' systems o! procedure in 'o#ernment that co#ertly allo( 'ra!t and corrupt practices 66 (hich he descri4es as 9predominantly in the !orm o! lee(ay to 4ar'ain: 66 is e"emplary. -imilar approaches to cur4 and arrest the most serious and pre#alent pro4lem in the 4ureaucracy are imperati#e. 5ndeed, (hat (e need no( is not only to punish the (ron'doers or re(ard the 9outstandin': ci#il ser#ants, 4ut also to plu' the hidden 'aps and potholes o! corruption, as (ell as to insist on strict compliance (ith e"istin' le'al procedures in order to a4ate any occasion !or 'ra!t or circum#ention o! the la(. +Callanta . :#buds#an, G 2o. 11;=;363B, January 30, 1998, *n #rotecting the #eople1s Rights 5n the present case, ho(e#er, the issue is not (hether the pri#ate respondents en'a'ed in any prohi4ited acti#ity (hich may (arrant the imposition o! disciplinary

- 133 -

sanctions a'ainst them as a result o! administrati#e proceedin's. 1s already o4ser#ed, the resolution o! this case re#ol#es around the Euestion o! due process o! la(, not on the ri'ht o! 'o#ernment (orkers to strike. The issue is not (hether pri#ate respondents may 4e punished !or en'a'in' in a prohi4ited action, 4ut (hether in the course o! the in#esti'ation o! the alle'ed proscri4ed acti#ity, their ri'ht to due process has 4een #iolated. 5n short, 4e!ore they can 4e in#esti'ated and meted out any penalty, due process must !irst 4e o4ser#ed. +Fabella . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 110339, 2o#em4er =8, 1993, ??? " " ". 7T8he petitioners here " " " (ere not penalized !or the e"ercise o! their ri'ht to assem4le peace!ully and to petition the 'o#ernment !or a redress o! 'rie#ances. ather, the &i#il -er#ice &ommission !ound them 'uilty o! conduct pre%udicial to the 4est interest o! the ser#ice !or ha#in' a4sented themsel#es, (ithout proper authority, !rom their schools durin' re'ular school days in order to participate in the mass protest, their a4sence inelucta4ly resultin' in 7their !ailure to hold8 classes and in the depri#ation o! students o! education, !or (hich they (ere responsi4le. /ad petitioners a#ailed themsel#es o! their !ree time +recess, a!ter classes, (eekends or holidays, to dramatize their 'rie#ances and to dialo'ue (ith the proper authorities (ithin the 4ounds o! la(, no one 66 not the A$&-, the &-& or e#en this &ourt 66 could ha#e held them lia4le !or the #alid e"ercise o! their constitutionally 'uaranteed ri'hts. 1s it (as, the temporary stoppa'e o! classes resultin' !rom their acti#ity necessarily disrupted pu4lic ser#ices, the #ery e#il sou'ht to 4e !orestalled 4y the prohi4ition a'ainst strikes 4y 'o#ernment (orkers. Their act 4y its nature (as en%oined 4y the &i#il -er#ice 0a(, rules and re'ulations, !or (hich they must, there!ore, 4e made ans(era4le. +Jacinto . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=B;B0, 2o#em4er 1B, 1993, ??? @hile (e caution police o!!icers to 4e resolute in sa!e'uardin' the ri'hts o! those under custodial in#esti'ation, the alle'ed #iolation o! the constitutional ri'hts o! the present appellants is immaterial to the disposition o! this case. This alle'ed in!rin'ement is rele#ant and material only to cases in (hich an e"tra%udicial admission or con!ession e"tracted !rom the accused 4ecomes the 4asis o! their con#iction. +People . *idula, G 2o. 1=3=33, July 1D, 1998, ??? The constitutional proscription o! dou4le %eopardy is not #iolated 4y a &ourt o! 1ppeals order reEuirin' the trial court to promul'ate a decision sentencin' the accused to imprisonment e#en i!, earlier, the same decision has 4een promul'ated in re'ard only to the payment o! the modi!ied ci#il lia4ility arisin' !rom the same criminal act. 75n other (ords8, the promul'ation o! only one part o! the decision, i.e., the lia4ility !or ci#il indemnity, is not a 4ar to the su4seEuent promul'ation o! the other part, the imposition o! the criminal accounta4ility. +Cuison . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=8;B0, 1pril 1;, 1998, ??? $"emplary dama'es should also 4e a(arded 4ecause the crime (as committed (ith the a''ra#atin' circumstance o! i'nominy. This a''ra#atin' circumstance is e#idence !rom the acts o! the appellant, (hich made the e!!ects o! the crime more

- 134 -

humiliatin' and su4%ected the o!!ended party to de'radation and ridicule. This &ourt (ill not stand idle (hile scoundrels (a'e (ar a'ainst ci#ilized society. +People . Lo2ano, G 2o. 1=;080, -eptem4er =;, 1998, ??? " " ". [T]he eCte1t f the act#a! taD/1" f a/r t/0e /, e1 r0 #,= eC r9/ta1t a13 #1rea, 1a9!e. 5n their )emorandum, petitioners alle'e +and this has not 4een re4utted at all, that durin' the 199= election period, G)1 2et(ork has 4een compelled to donate .==,B98,;D9 (orth o! ad#ertisin' re#enuesJ and !or the current election period, G)1 stands to lose a sta''erin' .;8,980,8;0. 2o(, clearly and most o4#iously, these amounts are not inconseEuential or de #ini#is. The2 c 1,t/t#te ar9/trar2 taD/1" 1 a "ra13 ,ca!eB """ """ """ 5t is too simplistic to say that 4ecause the &onstitution allo(s &on'ress to alter !ranchises, e!%o, an un4ridled takin' o! pri#ate property may 4e allo(ed. 5! such appropriation (ere only, to use the (ords o! PPI s. Co#elec, de #ini#is or insi'ni!icant 66 say, one house once or t(ice a month 66 perhaps, it can 4e %usti!ied 4y the promotion o! the 9common 'ood.: *ut a takin' in the 'ar'antuan amount o! o#er .;8 million !rom .etitioner G)1 !or the 1998 election season alone is an actual seizure o! its pri#ate in#estment, and not at all a reasona4le 9compensation: or 9alteration: !or the 9common 'ood.: &ertainly, this partakes o! &O2F5-&1T5O2 o! pri#ate property. +Aissentin' Opinion, *elebap . Co#elec, G 2o. 13=9==, 1pril =1, 1998, *n the !nterpretation of Contracts 5ndeed, the le'al e!!ects o! a contract are determined 4y e"tractin' the intention o! the parties !rom the lan'ua'e they used and !rom their contemporaneous and su4seEuent acts. This principle 'ains more !orce (hen third parties are concerned. To reEuire such persons to 'o 4eyond (hat is clearly (ritten in the document is un!air and un%ust. They cannot possi4ly del#e into the contractin' parties> minds and suspect that somethin' is amiss, (hen the lan'ua'e o! the instrument appears clear and uneEui#ocal. +C!u2 . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=D313, July =3, 1998, ??? 2o other construction can 4e 'i#en to the uneEui#ocal stipulation. *ein' clear, plain and !ree o! am4i'uity, the pro#ision must 4e 'i#en its literal meanin' and applied (ithout a con#oluted interpretation. 1e!ba le%is non est !ecedendu#. +Associated Ban& . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=3393, June =9, 1998, ??? &ontracts entered into 4y a corporate president (ithout e"press prior 4oard appro#al 4ind the corporation, (hen such o!!icer>s apparent authority is esta4lished and (hen these contracts are rati!ied 4y the corporation. 666 " " ". 7T8he le'al presumption is al(ays on the #alidity o! contracts. 1 corporation, 4y acceptin' 4ene!its o! a transaction entered into (ithout authority, has rati!ied the a'reement and is, there!ore, 4ound 4y it. +People-s Ai!ca!%o and Na!ehousin% Co., Inc. . CA, G 2o. 1138B3, Octo4er 3, 1998,

- 135 -

*n #rotecting -uman %ife @hile a!!irmin' the criminal culpa4ility o! 4oth appellants, (e remind trial %ud'es to 4e more circumspect in %usti!yin' their conclusions, particularly in o!!enses punisha4le 4y death. The %udicial takin' o! li!e cannot 4e li'htly treated. The duty o! the courts is to disco#er the truth 4ased on !acts and solid e#idence adduced 4y the partiesJ not on surmises, con%ectures and dialectics. &onclusions must al(ays 4e supported 4y the Euantum o! proo! reEuired 4y la( 66 proo! 4eyond reasona4le dou4t in criminal o!!enses. +People . Su#alpon%, G 2o. 1=B30;, January =0, 1998,

*n #rotecting the #oor and the 4ea8 O#erseas employment o!!ers hope !or economic deli#erance not only to the unemployed 4ut also to the underemployed and the underpaid. To them, anyone (ho represents onesel! as someone (ho can !ind them 'ood6payin' %o4s is like an an'el !rom hea#en. 1 considera4le num4er, ho(e#er, turn out to 4e 9!allen an'els: (ho prey upon innocent, unsuspectin' #ictims. These poor un!ortunate indi#iduals deser#e no less than the !ull protection o! the courtsJ and the 9!allen an'els,: the !ull sanction o! the la(. +People . Pe!alta, G 2o. 11B90;, Aecem4er 1=, 1993, ??? The actions o! petitioner are clearly tainted (ith a4use o! po(er and (ith ille'ality. @hile (e reco'nize the prero'ati#e o! mana'ement to re'ulate all aspects o! employment, the po(er to discipline and terminate an employee>s ser#ices may not 4e e"ercised in a despotic or (himsical manner as to erode or render meanin'less the constitutional 'uarantees o! security o! tenure and due process. Time and a'ain, (e ha#e held that the employment status o! (orkers cannot 4e tri!led (ith, such that their constitutional and statutory ri'hts, as (ell as those arisin' !rom #alid a'reements, (ill in e!!ect 4e de!eated or circum#ented. 2o less than the &onstitution itsel! 'uarantees state protection o! la4or and assures (orkers o! security o! tenure in their employment. +PN:C (oc&ya!d and .n%inee!in% Co!p. . NLRC, G 2o. 118==3, June =D, 1998, ??? " " ". 5n la4or cases, the employer has the 4urden o! pro#in' that the dismissal (as !or a %ust causeJ !ailure to sho( this, as in the instant case, (ould necessarily mean that the dismissal (as un%usti!ied and, there!ore, ille'al. To allo( an employer to dismiss an employee 4ased on mere alle'ations and 'eneralities (ould place the employee at the mercy o! his employerJ and the ri'ht to security o! tenure, (hich this &ourt is 4ound to protect, (ould 4e unduly emasculated. +Pascua . NLRC, G 2o. 1=3;18, )arch 13, 1998, ??? To %usti!y retrenchment, the employer must pro#e, amon' other thin's, serious 4usiness losses, and not %usti!y any kind or amount o! loss. Furthermore, i! the reEuisites

- 136 -

pro#ided in 1rticle =83 o! the 0a4or &ode are not !ul!illed, a deed o! Euitclaim and release is una#ailin' to e"culpate an employer !rom lia4ility !or ille'al retrenchment. +Bo%o0"edellin Su%a!cane Plante!s Association, Inc. . NLRC3 G 2o. 938BD, -eptem4er =;, 1998, ??? These, ho(e#er, !all !ar short o! the strin'ent reEuirement o! the la( that the employer pro#e su!!iciently and con#incin'ly its alle'ation o! su4stantial losses. The !ailure o! petitioner to sho( its income or loss !or the immediately precedin' years or to pro#e that it e"pected no a4atement o! such losses in the comin' years 4espeaks the (eakness o! its cause. The !inancial statement !or 199=, 4y itsel!, does not su!!iciently pro#e petitioner>s alle'ation that it 9already su!!ered actual serious losses,: 4ecause it does not sho( (hether its losses increased or decreased. 1lthou'h petitioner posted a loss !or 199=, it is also possi4le that such loss (as considera4ly less than those pre#iously incurred, there4y indicatin' the company>s impro#in' condition. +So#e! ille . NLRC, G 2o. 1=;883, )arch 11, 1998, *n #rotecting the !nnocent The presumption o! innocence is !ounded upon su4stanti#e la( and 4asic principles o! %ustice. 5t ser#es to 4alance the scales o! %ustice in (hat (ould other(ise 4e an une#en contest 4et(een a sin'le indi#idual accused o! a crime and the prosecution (hich has all the resources o! the 'o#ernment in its command. Thus, this presumption cannot 4e o#ercome 4y mere suspicion or con%ecture that the de!endant pro4a4ly committed the crime or that he had the opportunity to do so. The prosecution is reEuired to pro#e the 'uilt o! the accused 4eyond reasona4le dou4t. Other(ise, the accused must 4e set !ree in accordance (ith the rule that con!licts in, and insu!!iciency o!, e#idence must 4e resol#ed in !a#or o! the theory o! innocence rather than the theory o! 'uilt. +People . "aluenda, G 2o. 11;3;1, )arch =3, 1998, ??? *n ,pholding Court #rocedures 5t must 4e stressed that the ules o! &ourt seek to eliminate undue reliance on technical rules and to make liti'ation as ine"pensi#e, as practica4le and as con#enient as can 4e " " ". """ """ """ .ri#ate respondent>s insistence on the continuation o! the -econd &ase, separate !rom the First &ase, #iolates this hallo(ed o4%ecti#e o! the ules o! &ourt. -plittin' a cause o! action makes a mockery o! this &ourt>s crusade to unclo' the dockets o! the %udiciary. +Casil . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=1;3B, January =8, 1998, ??? espondent>s e"planation misses the point. True, he (ithdre( his appeal. *ut it is like(ise true that he had actually !iled an appeal, and that this (as per!ected. False then is his statement that no appeal (as per!ected in the in%unction suit. @orse, he made

- 137 -

the statement 4e!ore this &ourt in order to e"culpate himsel!, thou'h in #ain, !rom the char'e o! !orum shoppin'. +Ben%uet .lect!ic Coope!ati e . Flo!es, 1& 2o. B0;8, )arch 1=, 1998, VVV )oreo#er, petitioner>s plea !or acEuittal due to the alle'ed nullity o! the -andi'an4ayan %ud'ment cannot 4e 'ranted. 1 #oid %ud'ment o! con#iction may entitle the accused only to a remand o! the case to the trial court !or !urther proceedin's con!orma4ly (ith la(.=307=8;8 A re0a13 f her ca,e t the "raft c #rt f r a1 ther f#!!' !e1"th pr cee3/1" 4/!! 1 t 1!2 9e a 4a,te f t/0e a13 eff rt= 9#t a A/rt#a! appr 9at/ 1 f tr/f!/1" 4/th the E#3/c/a! pr ce,,= a 0 cDer2 f /t. It 4 #!3 9e a c p' #t. +Aissentin' Opinion in "a!cos . Sandi%anbayan, G 2o. 1=D99;, Octo4er D, 1998, ??? 5ndeed, there is no miscarria'e o! %ustice to speak o!. /a#in' !ailed to o4ser#e #ery elementary rules o! procedure (hich are mandatory, petitioner caused her o(n predicament. To e"culpate her !rom the compulsory co#era'e o! such rules is to undermine the sta4ility o! the %udicial process, as the 4ench and 4ar (ill 4e con!ounded 4y such irritatin' uncertainties as (hen to o4ey and (hen to i'nore the ules. @e ha#e to dra( the line some(here.: +*an . CA, G 2o. 13031B, -eptem4er ==, 1998, ??? " " ". Mnder the a!oreEuoted pro#isions, a re'ional trial court, in the e"ercise o! its appellate %urisdiction, should remand a case in the e#ent it re#erses a decision o! the )T& (hich ruled on a Euestion o! la(, pro#ided that there (as no trial on the merits. The si'ni!icance o! this second reEuirement cannot 4e o#eremphasized, !or it re#eals the rationale !or remandin' the case. 1 remand is a due process reEuirement, 4ecause it a!!ords the parties an opportunity to present e#idence on the merits o! the case. 7/o(e#er, (8here the parties ha#e presented their respecti#e e#idence 4e!ore the )T&, a remand 4ecomes a useless super!luity, an undue imposition on the time and the dockets o! courts. +"o!ales . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=D19D, January =8, 1998, *n the Conduct of 3udicial *fficers 1 la(yer must 4e a disciple o! truth. Mnder the &ode o! .ro!essional esponsi4ility, he o(es candor, !airness and 'ood !aith to the courts. /e shall neither do any !alsehood nor consent to the doin' o! any. /e also has a duty not to mislead or allo( the courts to 4e misled 4y any arti!ice. +Ben%uet .lect!ic Coope!ati e . Flo!es, 1& 2o. B0;8, )arch 1=, 1998, ??? The alle'ation o! 4ias and pre%udice is not (ell6taken. 5t is a %ud'e>s prero'ati#e and duty to ask clari!icatory Euestions to !erret out the truth. On the (hole, the &ourt !inds that the Euestions propounded 4y the %ud'e (ere merely clari!icatory in nature.
=30 7=8;8

-ee People . .sto#aca, =;D -& 1 B=1, 1pril ==, 199DJ People . 1ene!acion, =B9 -& 1 =BB, Octo4er 1=, 199;J People . Bellaflo!, =33 -& 1 19D, June 1;, 199B, citin' Solis . Cou!t of Appeals, 38 -& 1 ;3 +1931,.

- 138 -

Iuestions (hich merely clear up du4ious points and 4rin' out additional rele#ant e#idence are (ithin %udicial prero'ati#e. )oreo#er, %urisprudence teaches that alle'ations o! 4ias on the part o! the trial court should 4e recei#ed (ith caution, especially (hen the Eueries 4y the %ud'e did not pre%udice the accused. The propriety o! a %ud'e>s Eueries is determined not necessarily 4y their Euantity 4ut 4y their Euality and, in any e#ent, 4y the test o! (hether the de!endant (as pre%udiced 4y such Euestionin'. 5n this case, appellant !ailed to demonstrate that he (as pre%udiced 4y the Euestions propounded 4y the trial %ud'e. 5n !act, e#en i! all such Euestions and the ans(ers thereto (ere eliminated, appellant (ould still 4e con#icted. +People . Castillo, G 2o. 1=0=8=, 1pril =0, 1998, ??? 0iti'ants, la(yers and %ud'es sometimes !or'et that they share the responsi4ility o! unclo''in' the dockets o! the %udiciary. 1s a lamenta4le conseEuence, this &ourt is compelled to resol#e cases (hich are utterly 4ere!t o! merit. This is one o! those cases. """ """ """ " " ". 5t is un!ortunate that the trial court ca#alierly contra#ened a cate'orical rulin' o! the -upreme &ourt. *ut e#en more deplora4le, it insinuated that this &ourt did not take into account all applica4le e"tant la(s. To propound such #ie( is to undermine the people>s trust and con!idence in the %udiciary. This (e cannot countenance. 5t is opportune to remind %ud'es o! their s(orn duty to !ollo( the doctrines and rulin's o! this &ourt. +Ga!cia . Bu!%os, G 2o. 1=B130, June =9, 1998, ??? " " ". 7@8e also lament the trial court>s con#oluted attempt at sophistry, (hich o4#iously ena4led the petitioner to delay the ser#ice o! his imprisonment and to unnecessarily clo' the dockets o! this &ourt and o! the &ourt o! 1ppeals. /is /onor>s e"press desire 9to accept (ith modesty the orders and decisions o! the appellate court: (as, in truth and in !act, merely a sarcastic prelude to his #eiled re%ection o! the superior court>s order modi!yin' his earlier decision. /is sophomoric %usti!ication o! his re!usal to o4ey !or !ear o! 94ein' !ound to 4e 'rossly i'norant o! the la(: does not deser#e one (hit o! sympathy !rom this &ourt. 0ady Justice may 4e 4lind!olded 4ut she is neither 4lind nor nai#e. -he can distin'uish chicanery !rom (isdom, !allacious ar'ument !rom common sense. +Cuison . Cou!t of Appeals, G 2o. 1=8;B0, 1pril 1;, 1998, ?? Tr/9#te, t Teacher,= Pa,t a13 Pre,e1t *n the 9:th 4edding Anniversary of Senator and $rs" 3ovito R" Salonga;<=>;?@A

=31

7=8D8

emarks deli#ered on Fe4ruary 1B, 1998, at the $"ecuti#e /ouse, Mni#ersity o! the .hilippines, Iuezon &ity.

- 139 -

0et me relate to you my !irst encounter (ith -en. Jo#ito . -alon'a and ho(, since then, his philosophy, #alues, and endearin' e"ample o! humility and dedication and upri'htness ha#e dominated my li!e and my career. 5 (as a !reshman at the Far $astern Mni#ersity 5nstitute o! 0a( in 19;D 66 the school year 4arely a !e( (eeks old 66 (hen suddenly the la( students, (ho (ere a thousand stron', declared a 9strike: in protest o! (hat they percei#ed (as a precipitate and un%usti!ied retirement o! the (ell6lo#ed and #enera4le dean o! the la( school. 1s a ne( la( student, 5 did not personally kno( our old dean, 4ut 5 (ent alon' (ith the strikers as they !illed the F$M auditorium (ith chants, slo'ans and an'uished cries o! 9persecution.: Then, a youn'ish 3D6year6old 4espectacled pro!essor, a recent Nale and /ar#ard 'raduate and 4ar topnotcher, (alked on center sta'e, approached the microphone and sin'lehandedly !aced the hostile cro(d. The ne( dean, Ar. Jo#ito . -alon'a, spoke (ith a !orce!ul tremolo and held the ro(dy and ram4unctious cro(d spell4ound. 5n thirty minutes !lat, the hu'e cro(d o! acti#ist students trooped 4ack to their classrooms, con#inced o! the error in their mass action and o! the (isdom, honesty, sincerity and 'ood !aith o! their ne( dean. Thus did 5, alon' (ith many others, !ind the man (ho (ould 4ecome my role model not only in my career 4ut, more important, in my li!e as a (hole. 1s a student, 5 (as #ery acti#e in e"tracurricular acti#ities, ha#in' 4ecome president not only o! the uni#ersity student council 4ut also o! the 2ational Mnion o! -tudents o! the .hilippines. *ecause o! these acti#ities, 5 tended to 'i#e secondary importance to my academic studies. *ut Aean -alon'a constantly reminded me that my !irst duty (as to e"cel in academics. 1!ter 5 'raduated (ith honors and placed si"th in the 19D0 4ar e"aminations, he in#ited me to %oin his presti'ious la( o!!ice. *ecause 5 (ould sometimes #isit their elon'ated, train6like, t(o6storey house in &e4u 1#enue, Iuezon &ity, 5 'ot to meet )rs. -alon'a. -he impressed me as an intelli'ent, charmin' and unassumin' lady, (hose li!e re#ol#ed around her hus4and, his career and their children. )y admiration and a(e o! Ar. -alon'a 're( e#en more. /e tau'ht me the rudiments o! the le'al pro!essionJ more si'ni!icantly, he demonstrated the li!e6de!inin' #irtues o! inte'rity, prudence, !airness and temperance. 5ndeed, he is a li#in' model o! his teachin's. /e tau'ht 4y e"ample, not 4y (ords. /e is a dedicated hus4and, a carin' !ather, a !aith!ul !riend and a de#oted man o! God. 2e#er compromisin' his principles and #alues !or !riendship, con#enience, (ealth or po(er, he li#es an almost ascetic li!e. /e does not smoke, does not drink, and does not 'am4le. )oney, (orldly pleasures, titles and honors hold no !ascination !or him. That (e are o! di!!erent reli'ious !aiths 66 he 4ein' a de#out .rotestant, a respected leader o! the &osmopolitan &hurchJ and 5, a !led'lin' &atholic 66 has not diminished at all our !our decades o! enrichin' !riendship and my o(n admiration, a!!ection and esteem !or him. This is pro4a4ly 4ecause (e ne#er discussed (hat separates us 4ut only (hat truly 4inds us.

- 140 -

0ater, -enator -alon'a accorded me 66 unconsciously, 5 am sure 66 the 'reatest honor in my career as a practisin' la(yer, not 4y a(ardin' me a plaEue o! 'old or con!errin' on me an honorary de'ree, 4ut 4y askin' me to 4e his personal le'al counsel durin' his incum4ency as -enate .resident and as chie! le'al counsel o! the 0i4eral .arty, (hich he then concurrently headed. 2othin' is more !ul!illin', more e"hilaratin', than the honor o! 4ein' counsel to one>s mentorR This happened prior to my appointment to the hi'hest court o! the land. 1s some o! you may kno(, my ascension to the -upreme &ourt (as not easy. From 199= to 199;, there (ere se#en #acancies in the &ourt due to the compulsory retirement o! incum4ents. For each o! these se#en #acancies, my name (as su4mitted to the Judicial and *ar &ouncil +J*&, !or screenin'. 5 !ailed the J*& test 4ecause o! the alle'ed insu!!iciency o! my pro!essional competence and my alle'ed trans'ressions and sins. *ut in all those tryin' three years, -enator -alon'a (as 4eside me, 4ehind me, and e#en a4o#e me, cheerin' me up, tirelessly upli!tin' my sa''in' spirit and prayin' !or me. /e (ould call me !reEuently, assurin' me o! his support and un!ailin' !aith, and ur'in' me ne#er to lose trust in the !aith!ulness o! God. 1nd (hen 5 (ould !eel really lo( and hopeless, he (ould patiently remind me o! omans 8C=8C God #a&es all thin%s 'o!& to%ethe! Fo! the %ood of those 'ho lo e $i# And a!e called acco!din% to $is pu!pose.

@hen !inally 5 (as nominated 4y the J*& and e#entually appointed 4y .resident amos, he (as the !irst to 'reet and con'ratulate me, not only 4ecause o! the appointment, 4ut also !or keepin' my !aith in the 'race and 4ounty o! the 0ordR 5n my conduct and (ork in the -upreme &ourt, 5 am proud to say that 5 try my 4est to !ollo( and e"press his ideas and ideals. Those (ho read my decisions in the &ourt, as (ell as my (ritin's and speeches else(here, (ill surely detect the le'al philosophy and li!e #alues o! -enator -alon'a im4edded in them. 5 try to echo, e#en !aintly, his teachin' that la( cannot 4e separated !rom li!e, that it should 4e used as a 4rick in 4uildin' the social edi!ice and as a means o! !ul!illin' the deepest aspirations o! man. Mpon (akin' up this mornin', my (i!e and 5 said a little prayer !or -enator and )rs. -alon'a, thankin' our 0ord !or enrichin' our li#es (ith our cherished encounters (ith them. On their ;0th (eddin' anni#ersary, (e %oin all o! you, his loyal and true !riends and admirers, in sayin' "abuhay+ Sana-y pa%&alooban pa &ayo n% atin% "ay&apal n% li#a#pun% taon pan% pa%sasa#a at pa%#a#ahalan+ Sana-y hindi &ayo #a%sasa'an% #a%tu!o at #a%bi%ay n% hali#ba'a n% &atutu!an at &ahulu%an n% buhay.

- 141 -

Sala#at po+

A $essage to *utstanding Teachers;<;>;?<A Mp to no(, 5 still remem4er the (isdom, discipline and inte'rity impressed upon my youn' mind 4y my o(n mentorsC my 'rade !our teacher (ho disciplined my nau'hty (aysJ my hi'h school and prela( $n'lish mentors (ho emphasized rules o! 'rammar and style that 5 still apply (hen (ritin' decisions in the -upreme &ourtJ and my la( dean, not only !or his le'al e"pertise 4ut more so !or his moral coura'e, hi'h6mindedness and lo#e o! country. @hen it (as my turn to teach political science and la(, 5 passed on their teachin's to my students as (ell. $#en as a parent and then as a 'randparent, 5 continued to inculcate my children and 'randchildren (ith the #alues and traits 5 had learned as a student. 5 am sure they (ill, in turn, do the same to their o(n descendants. The stirrin' (ords, endearin' e"amples and li!e6mo#in' traits o! a teacher are passed on endlessly !rom 'eneration to 'eneration. 5ndeed, the in!luence o! a teacher is eternal. 2o (onder, our 0ord Jesus &hrist chose to 4e a teacher. )y three6day encounter (ith the =8 !inalists in this yearWs )etro4ank -earch !or Outstandin' Teachers (as most re(ardin' and !ul!illin'. 1ll o! them, (ithout any e"ception, sho(ed characteristic 4rilliance o! mind and sin'le6minded de#otion to the pro!ession o! teachin'. The entire 4oard o! %ud'es, 5 am sure, %oins me in !elicitatin' all o! them !or their sin'ular display o! talent and distinction. )y con'ratulations also to the )etro4ank Foundation !or its outstandin' pro'ram to honor our teachers. 1nd my personal thanks to Ar. and )rs. Geor'e -.H. Ty, Ar. .lacido 0. )apa Jr., )r. 1ntonio -. 14acan Jr., -ec. 1niceto ). -o4repe<a and the other mem4ers o! the )etro4ank !amily !or their !aith in my %ud'ments. They patiently listened durin' the three6day inter#ie(s 66 a demonstration, in my hum4le opinion, o! their deep commitment to this pro'ram and o! their 4elie! in the no4le mission o! the teacher. )ay your tri4e increaseR 5 salute you !or your un!ailin' !idelity to the pursuit

=3=

7=838

1 4rie! messa'e to the a(ardees o! the 1998 )etro4ank -earch !or Outstandin' Teachers, 'i#en on 1u'ust 1B, 1998 4y Justice .an'ani4an (ho (as the chairman o! the !inal 4oard o! %ud'es.

- 142 -

o! e"cellence and !or 4ein' Xonly the 4estX in all your endea#ors. Truly, (eWre Xin 'ood hands (ith )etro4ankRX "abuhay+

- 143 -

I1A cat/ 1, During the 3ournalism Awards Ceremonies of the Rotary Clu5 of $anilaF5-[F66]

/ea#enly Father, (e proclaim Nour presence in our midst today. *y Nour /oly -pirit, Nou are amon'st us, around us, (ithin us, in our hearts and in our spirits 66 moldin', inspirin', 'uidin', empo(erin', healin' and leadin' us into Nour e#erlastin' Hin'dom. 0ord, Nou are our stren'th and our hope. 5n Nou, (e li#e and mo#e and ha#e our 4ein'. 0ord, (e ackno(led'e our nothin'ness 4e!ore Nou, 4ut in all humility and sincerity, (e 4o( our heads, li!t our #oices and plead !or these supplications durin' this special occasion. 0ord, (e ask !or peace and prosperity in our land, sa'acity and inte'rity !or our leaders, di'nity and solidarity !or our people. @e pray !or a nation o! 4elie#ers (here the (eak shall 4e stron', and the stron' shall 4e %ust, and the %ust shall 4e compassionate. @e plead !or a -upreme &ourt su4limated in prayer, united in mind and mission in upholdin' truth and !reedom, tirelessly toilin' so that Nour %ustice 4e done in our country as it is in hea#en. 0ord, (e implore !or a special outpourin' o! Nour 'races and 4lessin's on our honoree today, Justice e'ino &. /ermosisima Jr. 1noint him (ith Nour -pirit that he may continue to emulate Nour *elo#ed -on, Jesus 66 hum4le, upri'ht, o4edient and !aith!ul to Nour (ord and (ill. Grant him 'ood health, peace o! mind, and many more years o! ser#ice to Nou and to our people. 1ll these (e de#outly ask in the name o! Nour -on, (ho li#es and rules (ith Nou in the unity o! the /oly -pirit, one God !ore#er and e#er. 1men.

=33

Aeli#ered on June 18, 1998 durin' the &entennial Journalism 1(ards .ro'ram o! the otary &lu4 o! )anila at the )anila /otel.
7=888

- 144 -

During the Retirement Ceremonies in -onor of 3ustice Regino C" -ermosisima2 3r" F5G[F67] 0ord, (e cele4rate Nour presence in our meetin' today and, !ittin'ly, (e no( 4e'in our pro'ram (ith this prayer o! thanks'i#in'. @e thank Nou 0ord !or Nour 'i!t o! li!e, !or (akin' us up this mornin' to en%oy the risin' o! the sun and to !ace the many challen'es o! this day. @e thank Nou !or the %oy o! our !amilies, !or the lo#e o! our respecti#e spouses, the a!!ection o! our children, the !ello(ship o! our co6 otarians and the esteem o! our !riends. @e thank Nou 0ord !or pro#idin' us (ith the many trappin's that money can 4uy, like the delicious !ood on our ta4les, the nice clothes (e (ear, the 4eauti!ul houses (e li#e in, the (ell6en'ineered cars (e mo#e around in, and the leisure and pleasure o! tra#el that (e sometimes indul'e in. /o(e#er, (e thank Nou e#en more !or inculcatin' in us the essentials that money cannot 4uy like a compellin' conscience that is sensiti#e to rectitude and propriety, lo#e o! country that transcends kinship and !riendship, pursuit o! e"cellence that is 4oth relentless and dauntless, and the moral coura'e to do (hat is ri'ht re'ardless o! personal conseEuences. 1nd today, (e specially thank Nou 0ord !or 'i!tin' us (ith centennial a(ardees (ho personi!y the hi'hest standards o! %ournalismJ disseminate the truth (ithout !ear or !a#orJ e"pose !alsehood and denounce deceptionJ and (ho, throu'h their 'rit and toil, 'i#e rousin' meanin' to !reedom and democracy. /ea#enly Father, (e o!!er Nou this thanks'i#in' in the name o! Jesus, Nour -on , (ho rei'ns and rules (ith Nou in unity (ith the /oly -pirit, one God !ore#er and e#er. 1men.

=3B

7=898

Aeli#ered durin' the retirement ceremonies in honor o! Justice Jr. on Octo4er 13, 1993, at the session hall o! the -upreme &ourt.

e'ino &. /ermosisima

- 145 -