Republic v Sandiganbayan on March 3, 1986 without the consent of respondent, he being

G.R. No. 104768; July 21, 2003 the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. It is also
CARPIO impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she owns the
By: Jeff de Ocampo ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she had no visible
_____________________________________________________ source of income.
Petitioner: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,  This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets
Respondent: SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS and Liabilities of respondent. There was an intention to cover
Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO the existence of these money because these are all ill-gotten
Doctrine: and unexplained wealth. In view of the foregoing, the Board
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the Universal Declaration and the finds that a prima facie case exists against respondent for ill-
International Covenant, great documents of liberty and human rights gotten and unexplained wealth in the amount of
all, are founded on natural law. ₱2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US Dollars. Maj. Gen. Josephus
_____________________________________________________ Q. Ramas (ret.) was prosecuted and tried for violation of RA
FACTS: 3019. Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for
 The PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 ("RA No. 1379") 4
created an AFP Anti-Graft Board ("AFP Board") tasked to against Ramas.
investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt  Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint.
practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or Admitting her employment as a clerk-typist in the office of
retired. Ramas from January-November 1978 only, Dimaano claimed
 Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various ownership of the monies, communications equipment, jewelry
reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine
General Josephus Q. Ramas ("Ramas"). On 27 July 1987, the Constabulary raiding team.
AFP Board issued a Resolution on its findings and  The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner had already delayed
recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of the case for over a year mainly because of its many
Ramas (properties in La Vista and Cebu). postponements. Moreover, petitioner would want the case to
 The equipment/items and communication facilities which were revert to its preliminary stage when in fact the case had long
found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano and were been ready for trial. The Sandiganbayan ordered petitioner to
confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas prepare for presentation of its additional evidence, if any.
were all covered by invoice receipt in the name of CAPT.  During the trial on 23 March 1990, petitioner again admitted
EFREN SALIDO, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These its inability to present further evidence. Giving petitioner one
items could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth more chance to present further evidence or to amend the
Dimaano if not given for her use by respondent Commanding complaint to conform to its evidence, the Sandiganbayan
General of the Philippine Army. reset the trial to 18 May 1990. The Sandiganbayan, however,
 Aside from the military equipment/items and communications hinted that the re-setting was without prejudice to any action
equipment, the raiding team was also able to confiscate that private respondents might take under the circumstances.
money in the amount of ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US  However, on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its
Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano (mistress of inability to proceed to trial because it had no further evidence
Ramas) on 3 March 1986. to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the Sandiganbayan
 Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth Dimaano could not granted petitioner 60 days within which to file an appropriate
have used the military equipment/items seized in her house pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, warned petitioner
 that failure to act would constrain the court to take drastic ISSUE:
action.  (A) Whether the revolutionary government was bound by the
 On 18 November 1991, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum,
resolution, that the confiscated sum of money, that is, after the EDSA Revolution up to 24 March 1986
communications equipment, jewelry and land titles are (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional/Freedom
ordered returned to Elizabeth Dimaano. The records of this Constitution); and (B) whether the protection accorded to
case are hereby remanded and referred to the Hon. individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and
Ombudsman, who has primary jurisdiction over the forfeiture Political Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of
cases under R.A. No. 1379, for such appropriate action as the Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect during the
evidence warrants. This case is also referred to the interregnum.
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a RULING: (a) NO and (b) YES
determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth  SC held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was
Dimaano in connection herewith. not operative during the interregnum. However, the protection
 Petitioner filed for MR, but Sandiganbayan ruled for accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the
respondents. No previous inquiry similar to preliminary Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum.
investigations in criminal cases was conducted against  During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the
Ramas and Dimaano. The evidence adduced against Ramas revolutionary government were the supreme law because no
does not constitute a prima facie case against him. There was constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives
also an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by
 Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher
raiding team conducted the search and seizure "on March 3, than the directives and orders of the revolutionary
1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution." government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not
Petitioner argues that a revolutionary government was invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because
operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1 there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the
announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel interregnum.
were "taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino  From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has
people." Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government been defined as "an inherent right of a people to cast out their
effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their
which guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary right. system of government or institutions by force or a general
 Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making
from an illegal search applies only beginning 2 February such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as
1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. to be unavailable." It has been said that "the locus of positive
Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had law-making power lies with the people of the state" and from
already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the there is derived "the right of the people to abolish, to reform
search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and to alter any existing form of government without regard to
and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence the existing constitution."
against her since at the time of their seizure, private  Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino
respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right. people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the
Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of
Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
 The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de specifically described in the warrant. However, the
jure government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good Constabulary raiding team seized items not included in the
faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is warrant. As admitted by petitioner’s witnesses, the raiding
a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each team confiscated items not included in the warrant
signatory State "to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE TINGA
recognized in the present Covenant." Under Article 17(1) of
the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to
 To begin with, there is unanimity as regards the nullity of the
insure that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or
questioned seizure of items which are not listed in the search
unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
warrant. The disagreement relates to the juridical basis for
correspondence."
voiding the confiscation.
 The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant
 According to the majority, during the interregnum the Filipino
or the Declaration during the interregnum. Whether the
people continued to enjoy, under the auspices of the Universal
revolutionary government could have repudiated all its
Declaration of Human Rights ("Universal Declaration") and
obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that the Court
("International Covenant"), practically the same rights under
considers the Declaration as part of customary
the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution although the said
international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are
Constitution itself was no longer operative then. Justice Puno
proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down
posits that during that period, the right against
in the Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government did
unreasonable search and seizure still held sway, this time
not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same
under the aegis of natural law. Justice Vitug is of the view
way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure
that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained in
government, the revolutionary government could not escape
force and effect mainly because the revolutionary government
responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with its
was bound to respect the Universal Declaration.
treaty obligations under international law.
 As such bill of rights—whether proffered as a statement
 It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution of the inalienable and immutable rights of man vested in
on 25 March 1986 that the directives and orders of the
him by natural law, or as no more than a set of social and
revolutionary government became subject to it. The
economic rights which the prevailing consensus and the
Provisional Constitution adopted verbatim the Bill of Rights of
climate of the times acknowledge to be necessary and
the 1973 Constitution. The Provisional Constitution served as
fundamental in a just society—will inevitably take the form of
a self-limitation by the revolutionary government to avoid
a catalogue of those rights, which experience has taught
abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it by the people.
modern western society to be crucial for the adequate
 During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights protection of the individual and the integrity of his personality.
existed, directives and orders issued by government officers In the case at bar, in the ultimate analysis both jurisprudential
were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the doctrines have found application in the denouement of the
authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The case. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the Universal
directives and orders should not have also violated the Declaration and the International Covenant, great
Covenant or the Declaration. The warrant, issued by a judge documents of liberty and human rights all, are founded
upon proper application, specified the items to be searched on natural law.
and seized. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items
  Even if it is supposed that the Freedom Constitution had no
retroactive effect or it did not extend the effectivity of the Bill
of Rights in the 1973 Constitution, still there would be no void
in the municipal or domestic law at the time as far as the
observance of fundamental rights is concerned. The Bill of
Rights in the 1973 Constitution would still be in force,
independently of the Freedom Constitution, or at least the
provisions thereof proscribing unreasonable search and
seizure and excluding evidence in violation of the proscription.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The

questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 18 November
1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037, remanding the
records of this case to the Ombudsman for such appropriate action
as the evidence may warrant, and referring this case to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination
of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.
 STA. MARIA v LOPEZ recommendations by Sta. Maria to the president, the students
G.R. No. L-30773; February 18, 1970 were not appeased. The students went on to boycott their
SANCHEZ, J. classes which infected the other colleges and the newly
By: Shine installed members of the UP Student Council voted to support
_____________________________________________________ the education students' strike.
Petitioner: FELIXBERTO C. STA. MARIA  Until the day that all academic activity in the university came
Respondent: SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, THE BOARD OF REGENTS to a complete stand still so that the UP President called a
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, and NEMESIO meeting of the faculty of the College of Education. Those
CERALDE present gave him a vote of confidence (40 in favor, 7
Doctrine: The words of Justice Frankfurter come to mind: "It must abstained) to resolve the issue on hand as he sees fit. Armed
never be forgotten, however, that the Bill of Rights was the child of the with the vote of confidence of the education faculty, President
Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free speech lay faith in the Lopez issued the transfer order herein challenged,
power of an appeal to reason by all the peaceful means for gaining Administrative Order 77. Theorder, addressed to Dean Sta.
access to the mind. It was in order to avert force and explosions due Maria and simultaneously appointed ad interim Professor
to restrictions upon rational modes of communication that the guaranty Nemesio R. Ceralde as "acting Dean of the College of
of free speech was given a generous scope. But utterance in a context Education, without additional compensation.
of violence can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and ISSUE:
become part of an instrument of force. Such utterance was not meant  Whether or not the transfer of Sta. Maria constitutes removal.
to be sheltered by the Constitution." RULING: YES
_____________________________________________________  A transfer is a "movement from one position to another which
FACTS: is of equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in service."
 Petitioner Felixberto C. Sta.Maria was the Dean, College of Promotion is the "advancement from one position to another
Education, University of the Philippines (UP), and the the with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized
respondent Salvador P. Lopez the University President. Sta. by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary."
Maria, a professor of English and Comparative Literature, was  A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, advancement
elected Dean of the College of Education on May 5, 1967 by or reduction or a transfer that aims to "lure the employee away
the Board of Regents, on nomination of the UP President. from his permanent position", cannot be done without the
 His appointment as such Dean was for a five year term, employee's consent. For that would constitute removal from
"effective May 16, 1967 until May 17, 1972, unless sooner office. Indeed, no permanent unless the officer or employee is
terminated, with all the rights and privileges as well as the transfer can take place unless the officer of the employee is
duties and obligations attached to the position in accordance first removed from the position held, and then appointed to
with the rules and regulations of the University and the another position.
Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines.  The transfer was a demotion. A demotion, because: First,
 In February 1969, the graduate and undergraduate students Deanship in a university, being an academic position which
of the UP College of Education presented to President requires learning, ability and scholarship, is more exalted than
Salvador P. Lopez a number of demands having a bearing on that of a special assistant who merely assists the President,
the general academic program and the physical plant and as the title indicates. The special assistant does not make
services, with a cluster of special demands. authoritative decisions. Second. The position of dean is a line
 In response, President Lopez created a committee which met position where the holder makes authoritative decisions in his
with Sta. Maria regularly. As a result of the dialogues and own name and responsibility. A special assistant does not rise
 above the level of staff position. Third. The position of dean is
created by law, the university charter, and cannot be
abolished even by the Board of Regents. That of special
assistant, upon the other hand, is not so provided by law; it
was a creation of the university president.
 It will not avail respondents any to say that Sta. Maria retained
"the rank of Dean". In actual administrative practice, the terms
"with rank of" dean is meaningless. He is no dean at all. He of
course, basks, in the trappings of the dean. A palliative it could
have been intended to be. But actually he is a dean without a
college.
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the writ of certiorari and prohibition
prayed for is hereby granted; the transfer of petitioner Felixberto C.
Sta. Maria from his position as Dean of the College of Education,
University of the Philippines, to the position of Special Assistant to the
President, University of the Philippines, as well as the ad interim
appointment of Prof. Nemesio Ceralde "as acting Dean" of the College
of Education, University of the Philippines, are hereby set aside and
declared null and void; the writ of mandamus prayed for is hereby
granted, and the President and the Board of Regents of the University
of the Philippines are hereby ordered to restore said petitioner
Felixberto C. Sta. Maria to his position of Dean, College of Education,
University of the Philippines.

NOTE: (Eto lang connected sa bill of rights definition)

The words of Justice Frankfurter come to mind: "It must never be
forgotten, however, that the Bill of Rights was the child of the
Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free speech lay faith in the
power of an appeal to reason by all the peaceful means for gaining
access to the mind. It was in order to avert force and explosions due
to restrictions upon rational modes of communication that the guaranty
of free speech was given a generous scope. But utterance in a context
of violence can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and
become part of an instrument of force. Such utterance was not meant
to be sheltered by the Constitution ."
 Legazpi vs Civil Service Commission RULING: YES
G.R. No. L-72119; May 29, 1987  The petitioner has firmly anchored his case upon the right of
CORTES, J. the people to information on matters of public concern, which,
By: Edy by its very nature, is a public right. It has been held in the case
_____________________________________________________ of Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27, that when the question
Petitioner: VALENTIN L. LEGASPI is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to
Respondent: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are
Doctrine: regarded as the real party in interest, and the person at whose
1. The Constitution requires government agencies to to provide instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that
information upon request; if they do not want to disclose information, he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being
they carry the burden of proving that the information is not of public sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in
concern or, if it is of public concern, that the information has been the execution of the laws.
specifically exempted by law. Moreover, a citizen does not need to
show any legal or special interest in order to establish his or her right  It becomes apparent that when a mandamus proceeding
to information. involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of
_____________________________________________________ personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the
FACTS: petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public
 The respondent CSC had denied petitioner Valentin Legaspi’s which possesses the right.
request for information on the civil service eligibilities of Julian
Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas who were employed as
sanitarians in the Health Department of Cebu City.  The petitioner, being a citizen who as such, is clothed with
personality to seek redress for the alleged obstruction of the
Sibonghanoy and Agas had allegedly represented
exercise of the public right.
themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil
service examinations for sanitarians.
WHEREFORE, the Civil Service Commission is ordered to open its
register of eligibles for the position of sanitarian, and to confirm or
 Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of
deny, the civil service eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano
Sibonghanoy and Agas is guaranteed by the Constitution, and
Agas, for said position in the Health Department of Cebu City, as
that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to
requested by the petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi.
acquire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of
the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the respondent For every right of the people recognized as fundamental, there lies a
CSC to disclose said information. corresponding duty on the part of those who govern, to respect and
protect that right. That is the very essence of the Bill of Rights in a
 The respondent CSC takes issue on the personality of the constitutional regime. Only governments operating under fundamental
petitioner to bring the suit. It is asserted that the petition is rules defining the limits of their power so as to shield individual rights
bereft of any allegation of Legaspi’s actual interest in the civil against its arbitrary exercise can properly claim to be constitutional
(Cooley, supra, at p. 5). Without a government's acceptance of the limitations
service eligibilities of Sibonghanoy and Agas.
imposed upon it by the Constitution in order to uphold individual liberties,
ISSUE: without an acknowledgment on its part of those duties exacted by the rights
 Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to bring the pertaining to the citizens, the Bill of Rights becomes a sophistry, and liberty,
suit the ultimate illusion.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION v. Company's canteen, and those present were herein
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. petitioners.
G.R. No. L-31195; June 5, 1973  Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said
MAKASIAR, J. projected mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4,
By: JC 1969. PBMEO thru Pagcu who acted as spokesman of the
______________________________________________________ union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated
Petitioners: Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization, that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it
Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino, Roxas, Mariano De has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu
Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do
Rodulfo Munsod. with the Company because the union has no quarrel or
Respondent: Philippine Blooming Mills and Court of Industrial dispute with Management.
Relations.  The Management, thru Atty. de Leon, Company personnel
manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an
Doctrine: inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution
1. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that
human rights over property rights is recognized. Because these matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the
freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious Company. For which reason, the Company, warned the
in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first
almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence
breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present
"with narrow specificity." who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to
___________________________________________________ report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be
dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing
FACTS: CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike.
 The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees  On March 3, 1969, another meeting was held. Company
Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO) is a reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that
legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the while all workers may join the Malacañang demonstration, the
respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should
are officers and members of the petitioner Union. be excused from joining the demonstration and should report
 Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage for work; and thus utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts
a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969, in in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularly
protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE'. All those who
participated in by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismissed;
2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts Company reiterated that the officers shall be primarily liable
(from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); being the organizers of the mass demonstration. The union
and that they informed the respondent Company of their panel countered that it was rather too late to change their
proposed demonstration. plans inasmuch as the Malacañang demonstration will be held
the following morning.
 On March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the
projected mass demonstration. A meeting was then called by  That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a
the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the cablegram to the Company which was received 9:50 A.M.,
 March 4, 1969, the contents of which are as follows: encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have
'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT no patience with general principles."
EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4,  The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the
1969.' right to petition are included among the immunities reserved
 Because the petitioners and their members numbering about by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice
400 proceeded with the demonstration despite the pleas of the Holmes, to protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than
respondent Company that the first shift workers should not be the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated, not only to
required to participate in the demonstration and that the protect the minority who want to talk, but also to benefit the
workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for majority who refuse to listen. And as Justice Douglas cogently
the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the
respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are
on March 4, 1969, with the respondent Court, a charge protected.
against petitioners and other employees who composed the  The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are
first shift, charging them with a "violation of Section 4(a)-6 in not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's
relation to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and
Republic Act No. 875, and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can
and No Lockout.' participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the
 In their reply, petitioners claim that they did not violate the government through their suffrage but also in the
existing CBA because they gave the respondent Company administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of
prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969; that abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so
the said mass demonstration was a valid exercise of their that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or
constitutional freedom of speech against the alleged abuses agencies for redress and protection as well as for the
of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass demonstration imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and
was not a declaration of strike because it was not directed employees.
against the respondent firm.  While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the
 Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, in an order dated September 15, primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
1969, found herein petitioner PBMEO guilty of bargaining in Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well
bad faith and herein petitioners as directly responsible for as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of
perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and were, as a sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the
consequence, considered to have lost their status as actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space
employees of the respondent Company. to survive," permitting government regulation only "with
narrow specificity."
ISSUE: o Property and property rights can be lost thru
Whether human rights are supreme to property rights. prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If
human rights are extinguished by the passage of
time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to
RULING: YES.
limit the power of government and ceases to be an
 The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty,
efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of
equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the
majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of
expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise.
  In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from
and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are other sources during their separation from the service.
essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the With costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Company,
sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Inc.
 The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is
underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational
relation between the means employed by the law and its
object or purpose — that the law is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to validate a
law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other
hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights
requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a
grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the
State has the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in the
main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in Gonzales vs.
Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the opinion in Imbong
vs. Ferrer. It should be added that Mr. Justice Barredo in
Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra, like Justices Douglas, Black
and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs. Sullivan, believes that the
freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful
assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are
absolute when directed against public officials or "when
exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and
women by whom we shall be governed," even as Mr. Justice
Castro relies on the balancing-of-interests test. Chief Justice
Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated by
Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz. — whether the gravity of the
evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of
free expression as is necessary to avoid the danger.

WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered:

(1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the

respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated September 15
and October 9, 1969; and
(2) directing the re-instatement of the herein eight (8)
petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their
separation from the service until re-instated, minus one day's
 Morfe v. Mutuc  Petitioner then assailed the validity of SALN was challenged
G.R. No. L-20387. January 31, 1968 for being violative of due process as an oppressive exercise
Fernando, J; of police power and as an unlawful invasion of the
By: Arthur constitutional right to privacy, implicit in the ban against
_____________________________________________________ unreasonable search and seizure construed together with the
Petitioner: JESUS P. MORFE prohibition against self-incrimination.
Respondent: AMELITO R. MUTUC, as Executive Secretary, ET AL.  Respondents denied the erroneous conclusion of law and as
Doctrine: one of the special affirmative defenses set forth that when a
1. The challenged statutory provision does not call for disclosure government official, like plaintiff, accepts a public position, he
of information which infringes on the right of a person to is deemed to have voluntarily assumed the obligation to give
privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such information about his personal affair, not only at the time of his
a requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute assumption of office but during the time he continues to
goes very far in precluding assent to an objection of such discharge public trust. The private life of an employee cannot
character. This is not to say that a public officer, by virtue of be segregated from his public life.
the position he holds, is bereft of constitutional protection; it is  RTC declared void and unconstitutional sec. 7 of RA3019
only to emphasize that in subjecting him to such a further (SALN provision) in so far as it required periodical submittal of
compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities, including sworn statements of financial conditions, assets and liabilities
the statement of the amounts and sources of income, the of an official or employee of the government after he had once
amounts of personal and family expenses, and the amount of submitted such a sworn statement upon assuming office.
income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there
is no unconstitutional intrusion into what would otherwise be Issue:
a private sphere. 1. Whether the right to privacy was violated?
2. No violation of the guarantee against unreasonable search 2. Whether the right against unreasonable search and seizure
and seizure has been shown to exist by such requirement of was violated?
further periodical submission of one's financial condition as 3. Whether the right against self-incrimination was violated?
set forth in the Anti-Graft of 1960.
3. The protection which the guarantee against self- incrimination
affords will have to await, in the language of Justice J.B.L. Held: No to all.
Reyes, for the existence of actual cases, "be they criminal, 1. The challenged statutory provision does not call for disclosure
civil or administrative." Prior to such a stage, there is no of information which infringes on the right of a person to
pressing need to pass upon the validity of the fear sincerely privacy. It cannot be denied that the rational relationship such
voiced that there is an infringement of the non-incrimination a requirement possesses with the objective of a valid statute
clause. goes very far in precluding assent to an objection of such
_____________________________________________________ character. This is not to say that a public officer, by virtue of
Facts: the position he holds, is bereft of constitutional protection; it is
only to emphasize that in subjecting him to such a further
 Congress in 1960 enacted the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act 1 to deter public officials and employees from compulsory revelation of his assets and liabilities, including
the statement of the amounts and sources of income, the
committing acts of dishonesty and improve the tone of
amounts of personal and family expenses, and the amount of
morality in public service.
income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year, there
 is no unconstitutional intrusion into what would otherwise be
a private sphere.
a. Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the Anti-
Graft Act of 1960 like the earlier statute was precisely
aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities
for official corruption and maintaining a standard of
honesty in the public service. It is intended to further
promote morality in public administration. A public
office must indeed be a public trust. Nobody can cavil
at its objective; the goal to be pursued commands the
assent of all. The conditions then prevailing called for
norms of such character. The times demanded such
a remedial device.
2. No violation of the guarantee against unreasonable search
and seizure has been shown to exist by such requirement of
further periodical submission of one's financial condition as
set forth in the Anti-Graft of 1960.
3. The protection which the guarantee against self- incrimination
affords will have to await, in the language of Justice J.B.L.
Reyes, for the existence of actual cases, "be they criminal,
civil or administrative." Prior to such a stage, there is no
pressing need to pass upon the validity of the fear sincerely
voiced that there is an infringement of the non-incrimination
clause.
 IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA  Petitioner also filed against the respondent Board with the
G.R. No. 119673. July 26, 1996. RTC, alleging that the respondent Board acted without
PUNO, J jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in requiring
By: Charm petitioner to submit the VTR tapes of its TV program and in x-
_____________________________________________________ rating them.
Petitioner: IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC.)  RTC Ruling: BRMPT ordered to grant INC the necessary
Respondent: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BOARD OF permit for all series of INC program. INC is ordered to refrain
REVIEW FOR MOVING PICTURES AND TELEVISION (BRMPT) and from offending and attacking other existing religions in
HONORABLE HENRIETTA S. MENDEZ showing their program. MR granted the deletion of the second
Doctrine: Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status sentence ordering INC to stop attacking other religions.
by the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present. We have  CA Ruling: Reversed the RTC decision, stating that BRMPT
affirmed this preferred status well aware that it is "designed to protect has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program "Ang
the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to Iglesia ni Cristo," and BRMPT did not act with grave abuse of
believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the
he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and three series of "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" on the ground that the
with the common good. materials constitute an attack against another religion.
_____________________________________________________ ISSUE: Whether the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated
by the State.
FACTS: RULING: YES
 Petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo, a duly organized religious  Freedom of religion has been accorded a preferred status by
organization, has a television program entitled "Ang Iglesia ni the framers of our fundamental laws, past and present. We
Cristo" aired on Channel 2 every Saturday and on Channel 13 have affirmed this preferred status well aware that it is
every Sunday. The program presents and propagates "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of
petitioner's religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience
times in comparative studies with other religions. directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he
 Sometime in the months of September, October and ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the
November 1992, petitioner submitted to the respondent Board common good." We have also laboriously defined in our
of Review for Motion Pictures and Television the VTR tapes jurisprudence the intersecting umbras and penumbras of the
of its TV program Series Nos. 116, 119, 121 and 128. The right to religious profession and worship.
Board classified the series as "X" or not for public viewing on  According to Justice Isagani Cruz, the right to religious
the ground that they "offend and constitute an attack against profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to
other religions which is expressly prohibited by law." believe and freedom to act on one's beliefs. The first is
 Petitioner pursued 2 courses of action against the respondent absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of
Board. On November 28, 1992, it appealed to the Office of the thought. The second is subject to regulation where the belief
President the classification of its TV Series No. 128. It is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.
succeeded in its appeal for on December 18, 1992, the Office  Freedom to Believe: The individual is free to believe (or
of the President reversed the decision of the respondent disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may
Board. Forthwith, the Board allowed Series No. 128 to be indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god
publicly telecast. he chooses, or none at all; embrace or reject any religion;
acknowledge the divinity of God or of any being that appeals
 to his reverence; recognize or deny the immortality of his soul religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our
-- in fact, cherish any religious conviction as he and he alone country today.
sees fit. However absurd his beliefs may be to others, even if  Deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is its hostility
they be hostile and heretical to the majority, he has full against all prior restraints on speech, including religious
freedom to believe as he pleases. He may not be required to speech. Hence, any act that restrains speech is hobbled by
prove his beliefs. He may not be punished for his inability to the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted with
do so. Religion, after all, is a matter of faith. "Men may believe furrowed brows. It is the burden of the respondent Board to
19

what they cannot prove." Every one has a right to his beliefs overthrow this presumption. If it fails to discharge this burden,
and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove its act of censorship will be struck down. It failed in the case
what he believes. at bar.
 Freedom to Act on One's Beliefs: But where the individual
externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority
of the State. As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom, dated March 24, 1995 is affirmed insofar as it sustained the jurisdiction
like all the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be of the respondent MTRCB to review petitioner's TV program entitled
enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others. It is "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo," and is reversed and set aside insofar as it
error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will sustained the action of the respondent MTRCB x-rating petitioner's TV
stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the Program.
general welfare. The inherent police power can be exercised
to prevent religious practices inimical to society. And this is VITUG, J. separate opinion:
true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious
conviction and not merely for the purpose of evading the  Religious freedom occupies an exalted position in our
reasonable requirements or prohibitions of the law. hierarchy of rights and that the freedom to disseminate
o Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly: "The religious information is a constitutionally- sanctioned
constitutional provision on religious freedom prerogative that allows any legitimate religious denomination
terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. a free choice of media in the propagation of its credo. Like any
It gave religious liberty, not civil immunity. Its essence other right, however, the exercise of religious belief is not
is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not without inherent and statutory limitations.
freedom from conformity to law because of religious  I certainly do not think that prior censorship should altogether
dogma. be rejected just because sanctions can later be imposed.
 Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears Regulating the exercise of a right is not necessarily an
of children. The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of anathema to it; in fact, it can safeguard and secure that right.
religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will
bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive
evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious
detriment to the more overriding interest of public health,
public morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the
exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but
history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as