E00D Summary Dismissal Board vs Torcita

FACTS: Respondent was charged with 12 administrative complaints which were consolidated into one
major complaint, which is, conduct unbecoming of a police officer. The Summary Dismissal Board
suspended respondent from service for 20 days, for simple irregularity in the performance of
service. The Board later found respondent to have committed a breach of internal discipline by taking
alcoholic drinks while on duty.

HELD: Respondent was entitled to know that he was being charged with being drunk while in the
performance of duty. Although he was given the opportunity to be heard on the multiple and broad
charges filed against him, the absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually found
guilty is not a proper observance of due process.

PARTIES:
1. PETITIONERS: ARLENE BABST, ODETTE ALCANTARA CERES P. DOYO, JO ANN Q. MAGLIPON, DOMINI
TORREVILLAS SUAREZ, LORNA KALAW-TIROL, CIELO BUENAVENTURA, SYLVIA MAYUGA, SHEILA S.
CORONEL, ET AL.
2. RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD, SPECIAL COMMITTEE NO. 2, BRIG. GEN. WILFREDO
ESTRADA (ret.), COL. RENATO ECARMA, NBI ASST. DIRECTOR PONCIANO FERNANDO, COL. BALBINO
DIEGO, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, COL. EUSTAQUIO PERALTA, ET AL.
NATURE: Petition for Prohibition and Issuance of a Writ of Injunction
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Supreme Court: Original Petition filed with the Supreme Court
FACTS:
Petitioners are columnists, feature article writers and reporters of various local publications. Since July 1980,
some of them have allegedly been summoned by military authorities who have subjected them to
sustained interrogation on various aspects of their works, feelings, sentiments, beliefs, associations and even
their private lives. The invitations were contained in letters sent by the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB)
and were of the following tenor:
Madam:
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, you are hereby requested to appear before this Special
Committee at Philippine Army Officers Clubhouse, Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila (sketch attached), 9:00
A.M., December 22, 1982, to shed light on confidential matters being looked into by this Committee.
Your failure to appear on the specified date and place shall be considered as a waiver on your part and
this Committee will be constrained to proceed in accordance with law.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO C. ESTRADA
Brig. General, AFP (Ret.)
Chairman
Petitioners argued that the respondents do not have the authority to conduct the proceeding above-
described which are violative of the constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression since they have the
effect of imposing restrictive guidelines and norms on mass media. Petitioners further claim that such
proceedings are a punitive ordeal or subsequent punishment for lawful publications and that they amount
to a system of censorship, curtailing the free flow of information and petition and opinion, indispensable
to the right of the people to know matters of public concern guaranteed the Constitution. Finally they
claim that such coercive invitations constitute intrusions into spheres of individual liberty.
Respondents countered by claiming that no issue of jurisdiction exists since they do not pretend to exercise
jurisdiction over the petitioners. They claimed that what were sent to petitioners were neither subpoenas
nor summonses, but mere invitations to dialogues which were completely voluntary, without any
compulsion employed on petitioners. The dialogues themselves were designed simply to elicit information
and exchange of ideas. Respondents contended that the that the expression of personal preferences and
opinions by members of the respondent Board is not equivalent to the imposition of norms and guidelines
to be followed by petitioners. Finally, they argued that the petition filed is moot and academic because
the proceedings before NIB Special Committee No. 2 (which conducted the interrogations) have already
been ordered terminated by General Fabian C. Ver in his capacity as Director General and Chairman of
the NIB, and said proceedings have in fact been terminated.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the present petition has become moot and academic.
2. Whether or not the issuance of letters of invitations and the subsequent interrogations that are
conducted thereafter are valid under the Constitution.
ANSWERS:
1. Yes.
2. While the Court did not resolve such issue on its merits, it can be reasonably inferred from the dictum of
the Court that under the facts of this case, such interrogations are unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1. THE PETITION WAS MOOT AND ACADEMIC
Effect of the termination of the proceedings Considering that the proceedings have been terminated and
the acts sought to be prohibited have been abated, the petition has become moot and academic.
2. A MERE INVITATION TO ATTEND A HEARING WHICH A PERSON MAY REFUSE IS NOT ILLEGAL, HOWEVER, AN
INVITATION WHICH HAS AN APPEARANCE OF COERCION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIBLE
Invitation with coercion is constitutionally objectionable Be that as it may, it is not idle to note that
ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may
heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. Under certain circumstances,
however, such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance. Thus, where the invitation comes
from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military officers issued at a time when the
country has just emerged from martial rule and when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus has not entirely been lifted and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can
easily be taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be, but as an authoritative
command which one can only defy at his peril, especially where, as in the instant case, the invitation
carries the ominous seaming that failure to appear . . . shall be considered as a waiver . . . and this
Committee will be constrained to proceed in accordance with law. Fortunately, the NIB director general
and chairman saw the wisdom of terminating the proceedings and the unwelcome interrogation.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.