Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 502

EN BANC

JENNY M. AGABON and G.R. No. 158693


VIRGILIO C. AGABON,
Petitioners, Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno,
Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
nares!"antiago,
"andova#!Gutierre$,
! versus ! %ar&io,
'ustria!(artine$,
%orona,
%ar&io!(ora#es,
%a##e)o, "r.,
'$*una,
+inga,
%,i*o!Na$ario, and
Gar*ia, JJ.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Promu#gated:
and VICENTE ANGELES,
Res&ondents. November 1-, .//0
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

+,is &etition 1or revie2 see3s to reverse t,e de*ision
415
o1 t,e %ourt o1
'&&ea#s dated Januar6 .3, .//3, in %'!G.R. "P No. 63/1-, modi16ing t,e
de*ision o1 Nationa# 7abor Re#ations %ommission 8N7R%9 in N7R%!N%R %ase
No. /.300.!//.

Private res&ondent Riviera :ome ;m&rovements, ;n*. is engaged in t,e
business o1 se##ing and insta##ing ornamenta# and *onstru*tion materia#s. ;t
em&#o6ed &etitioners <irgi#io 'gabon and Jenn6 'gabon as g6&sum board and
*orni*e insta##ers on Januar6 ., 199.
4.5
unti# =ebruar6 .3, 1999 2,en t,e6 2ere
dismissed 1or abandonment o1 2or3.

Petitioners t,en 1i#ed a *om&#aint 1or i##ega# dismissa# and &a6ment o1
mone6 *#aims
435
and on De*ember .8, 1999, t,e 7abor 'rbiter rendered a de*ision
de*#aring t,e dismissa#s i##ega# and ordered &rivate res&ondent to &a6 t,e monetar6
*#aims. +,e dis&ositive &ortion o1 t,e de*ision states:

>:?R?=@R?, &remises *onsidered, >e 1ind t,e termination o1
t,e *om&#ainants i##ega#. '**ording#6, res&ondent is ,ereb6 ordered to
&a6 t,em t,eir ba*32ages u& to November .9, 1999 in t,e sum o1:

1. Jenn6 (. 'gabon ! P56, .31.93
.. <irgi#io %. 'gabon ! 56, .31.93

and, in #ieu o1 reinstatement to &a6 t,em t,eir se&aration &a6 o1 one 819
mont, 1or ever6 6ear o1 servi*e 1rom date o1 ,iring u& to November .9,
1999.

Res&ondent is 1urt,er ordered to &a6 t,e *om&#ainants t,eir
,o#ida6 &a6 and servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or t,e 6ears 1996, 199- and
1998 as 2e## as t,eir &remium &a6 1or ,o#ida6s and rest da6s and <irgi#io
'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 di11erentia# amounting to +>@ +:@B"'ND
@N? :BNDR?D =;=+ 8P.,15/.//9 Pesos, or t,e aggregate amount o1
@N? :BNDR?D +>?N+ @N? +:@B"'ND ";C :BNDR?D
"?<?N+ ?;G:+ D 93E1// 8P1.1,6-8.939 Pesos 1or Jenn6 'gabon,
and @N? :BNDR?D +>?N+ +:R?? +:@B"'ND ?;G:+
:BNDR?D +>?N+ ?;G:+ D 93E1// 8P1.3,8.8.939 Pesos 1or
<irgi#io 'gabon, as &er atta*,ed *om&utation o1 Ju#ieta %. Ni*o#as, @;%,
Resear*, and %om&utation Bnit, N%R.

"@ @RD?R?D.
405



@n a&&ea#, t,e N7R% reversed t,e 7abor 'rbiter be*ause it 1ound t,at t,e
&etitioners ,ad abandoned t,eir 2or3, and 2ere not entit#ed to ba*32ages and
se&aration &a6. +,e ot,er mone6 *#aims a2arded b6 t,e 7abor 'rbiter 2ere a#so
denied 1or #a*3 o1 eviden*e.
455

B&on denia# o1 t,eir motion 1or re*onsideration, &etitioners 1i#ed a &etition
1or *ertiorari 2it, t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s.

+,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s in turn ru#ed t,at t,e dismissa# o1 t,e &etitioners 2as
not i##ega# be*ause t,e6 ,ad abandoned t,eir em&#o6ment but ordered t,e &a6ment
o1 mone6 *#aims. +,e dis&ositive &ortion o1 t,e de*ision reads:

>:?R?=@R?, t,e de*ision o1 t,e Nationa# 7abor Re#ations
%ommission is R?<?R"?D on#6 inso1ar as it dismissed &etitionerAs
mone6 *#aims. Private res&ondents are ordered to &a6 &etitioners
,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our 809 regu#ar ,o#ida6s in 1996, 199-, and 1998, as
2e## as t,eir servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or said 6ears, and to &a6 t,e
ba#an*e o1 &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 1or 1998 in t,e
amount o1 P.,15/.//.

"@ @RD?R?D.
465

:en*e, t,is &etition 1or revie2 on t,e so#e issue o1 2,et,er &etitioners 2ere
i##ega##6 dismissed.
4-5

Petitioners assert t,at t,e6 2ere dismissed be*ause t,e &rivate res&ondent
re1used to give t,em assignments un#ess t,e6 agreed to 2or3 on a pakyaw basis
2,en t,e6 re&orted 1or dut6 on =ebruar6 .3, 1999. +,e6 did not agree on t,is
arrangement be*ause it 2ou#d mean #osing bene1its as "o*ia# "e*urit6 "6stem
8"""9 members. Petitioners a#so *#aim t,at &rivate res&ondent did not *om&#6 2it,
t,e t2in reFuirements o1 noti*e and ,earing.
485


Private res&ondent, on t,e ot,er ,and, maintained t,at &etitioners 2ere not
dismissed but ,ad abandoned t,eir 2or3.
495
;n 1a*t, &rivate res&ondent sent t2o
#etters to t,e #ast 3no2n addresses o1 t,e &etitioners advising t,em to re&ort 1or
2or3. Private res&ondentAs manager even ta#3ed to &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabon b6
te#e&,one sometime in June 1999 to te## ,im about t,e ne2 assignment at Pa*i1i*
P#a$a +o2ers invo#ving 0/,/// sFuare meters o1 *orni*e insta##ation 2or3.
:o2ever, &etitioners did not re&ort 1or 2or3 be*ause t,e6 ,ad sub*ontra*ted to
&er1orm insta##ation 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. Petitioners a#so demanded 1or an
in*rease in t,eir 2age to P.8/.// &er da6. >,en t,is 2as not granted, &etitioners
sto&&ed re&orting 1or 2or3 and 1i#ed t,e i##ega# dismissa# *ase.
41/5


;t is 2e##!sett#ed t,at 1indings o1 1a*t o1 Fuasi!)udi*ia# agen*ies #i3e t,e
N7R% are a**orded not on#6 res&e*t but even 1ina#it6 i1 t,e 1indings are su&&orted
b6 substantia# eviden*e. +,is is es&e*ia##6 so 2,en su*, 1indings 2ere a11irmed b6
t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s.
4115
:o2ever, i1 t,e 1a*tua# 1indings o1 t,e N7R% and t,e
7abor 'rbiter are *on1#i*ting, as in t,is *ase, t,e revie2ing *ourt ma6 de#ve into
t,e re*ords and eGamine 1or itse#1 t,e Fuestioned 1indings.
41.5

'**ording#6, t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s, a1ter a *are1u# revie2 o1 t,e 1a*ts, ru#ed
t,at &etitionersA dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust *ause. +,e6 ,ad abandoned t,eir
em&#o6ment and 2ere a#read6 2or3ing 1or anot,er em&#o6er.

+o dismiss an em&#o6ee, t,e #a2 reFuires not on#6 t,e eGisten*e o1 a )ust and
va#id *ause but a#so en)oins t,e em&#o6er to give t,e em&#o6ee t,e o&&ortunit6 to
be ,eard and to de1end ,imse#1.
4135
'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode enumerates t,e
)ust *auses 1or termination b6 t,e em&#o6er: 8a9 serious mis*ondu*t or 2i##1u#
disobedien*e b6 t,e em&#o6ee o1 t,e #a21u# orders o1 ,is em&#o6er or t,e #atterAs
re&resentative in *onne*tion 2it, t,e em&#o6eeAs 2or3H 8b9 gross and ,abitua#
neg#e*t b6 t,e em&#o6ee o1 ,is dutiesH 8*9 1raud or 2i##1u# brea*, b6 t,e em&#o6ee
o1 t,e trust re&osed in ,im b6 ,is em&#o6er or ,is du#6 aut,ori$ed re&resentativeH
8d9 *ommission o1 a *rime or o11ense b6 t,e em&#o6ee against t,e &erson o1 ,is
em&#o6er or an6 immediate member o1 ,is 1ami#6 or ,is du#6 aut,ori$ed
re&resentativeH and 8e9 ot,er *auses ana#ogous to t,e 1oregoing.

'bandonment is t,e de#iberate and un)usti1ied re1usa# o1 an em&#o6ee to
resume ,is em&#o6ment.
4105
;t is a 1orm o1 neg#e*t o1 dut6, ,en*e, a )ust *ause 1or
termination o1 em&#o6ment b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4155
=or a va#id 1inding o1
abandonment, t,ese t2o 1a*tors s,ou#d be &resent: 819 t,e 1ai#ure to re&ort 1or
2or3 or absen*e 2it,out va#id or )usti1iab#e reasonH and 8.9 a *#ear intention to
sever em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i&, 2it, t,e se*ond as t,e more determinative
1a*tor 2,i*, is mani1ested b6 overt a*ts 1rom 2,i*, it ma6 be dedu*ed t,at t,e
em&#o6ees ,as no more intention to 2or3. +,e intent to dis*ontinue t,e
em&#o6ment must be s,o2n b6 *#ear &roo1 t,at it 2as de#iberate and un)usti1ied.
4165

;n =ebruar6 1999, &etitioners 2ere 1reFuent#6 absent ,aving sub*ontra*ted
1or an insta##ation 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. "ub*ontra*ting 1or anot,er *om&an6
*#ear#6 s,o2ed t,e intention to sever t,e em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i& 2it,
&rivate res&ondent. +,is 2as not t,e 1irst time t,e6 did t,is. ;n Januar6 1996, t,e6
did not re&ort 1or 2or3 be*ause t,e6 2ere 2or3ing 1or anot,er *om&an6. Private
res&ondent at t,at time 2arned &etitioners t,at t,e6 2ou#d be dismissed i1 t,is
,a&&ened again. Petitioners disregarded t,e 2arning and eG,ibited a *#ear
intention to sever t,eir em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i&. +,e re*ord o1 an
em&#o6ee is a re#evant *onsideration in determining t,e &ena#t6 t,at s,ou#d be
meted out to ,im.
41-5

;n Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,
4185
2e ,e#d t,at an em&#o6ee 2,o de#iberate#6
absented 1rom 2or3 2it,out #eave or &ermission 1rom ,is em&#o6er, 1or t,e
&ur&ose o1 #oo3ing 1or a )ob e#se2,ere, is *onsidered to ,ave abandoned ,is )ob.
>e s,ou#d a&&#6 t,at ru#e 2it, more reason ,ere 2,ere &etitioners 2ere absent
be*ause t,e6 2ere a#read6 2or3ing in anot,er *om&an6.

+,e #a2 im&oses man6 ob#igations on t,e em&#o6er su*, as &roviding )ust
*om&ensation to 2or3ers, observan*e o1 t,e &ro*edura# reFuirements o1 noti*e and
,earing in t,e termination o1 em&#o6ment. @n t,e ot,er ,and, t,e #a2 a#so
re*ogni$es t,e rig,t o1 t,e em&#o6er to eG&e*t 1rom its 2or3ers not on#6 good
&er1orman*e, adeFuate 2or3 and di#igen*e, but a#so good *ondu*t
4195
and #o6a#t6.
+,e em&#o6er ma6 not be *om&e##ed to *ontinue to em&#o6 su*, &ersons 2,ose
*ontinuan*e in t,e servi*e 2i## &atent#6 be inimi*a# to ,is interests.
4./5

'1ter estab#is,ing t,at t,e terminations 2ere 1or a )ust and va#id *ause, 2e
no2 determine i1 t,e &ro*edures 1or dismissa# 2ere observed.

+,e &ro*edure 1or terminating an em&#o6ee is 1ound in Ioo3 <;, Ru#e ;,
"e*tion .8d9 o1 t,e Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code:

Standards o due pro!ess" re#uirements o noti!e. J ;n a## *ases o1
termination o1 em&#o6ment, t,e 1o##o2ing standards o1 due &ro*ess s,a##
be substantia##6 observed:

;. =or termination o1 em&#o6ment based on )ust *auses as
de1ined in 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e %ode:

8a9 ' 2ritten noti*e served on t,e em&#o6ee s&e*i16ing t,e
ground or grounds 1or termination, and giving to said em&#o6ee
reasonab#e o&&ortunit6 2it,in 2,i*, to eG&#ain ,is sideH

8b9 ' ,earing or *on1eren*e during 2,i*, t,e em&#o6ee
*on*erned, 2it, t,e assistan*e o1 *ounse# i1 t,e em&#o6ee so desires, is
given o&&ortunit6 to res&ond to t,e *,arge, &resent ,is eviden*e or rebut
t,e eviden*e &resented against ,imH and

8*9 ' 2ritten noti*e o1 termination served on t,e em&#o6ee
indi*ating t,at u&on due *onsideration o1 a## t,e *ir*umstan*es, grounds
,ave been estab#is,ed to )usti16 ,is termination.

;n *ase o1 termination, t,e 1oregoing noti*es s,a## be served on
t,e em&#o6eeAs #ast 3no2n address.

Dismissa#s based on )ust *auses *ontem&#ate a*ts or omissions attributab#e to
t,e em&#o6ee 2,i#e dismissa#s based on aut,ori$ed *auses invo#ve grounds under
t,e 7abor %ode 2,i*, a##o2 t,e em&#o6er to terminate em&#o6ees. ' termination
1or an aut,ori$ed *ause reFuires &a6ment o1 se&aration &a6. >,en t,e termination
o1 em&#o6ment is de*#ared i##ega#, reinstatement and 1u## ba*32ages are mandated
under 'rti*#e .-9. ;1 reinstatement is no #onger &ossib#e 2,ere t,e dismissa# 2as
un)ust, se&aration &a6 ma6 be granted.

Pro*edura##6, 819 i1 t,e dismissa# is based on a )ust *ause under 'rti*#e .8.,
t,e em&#o6er must give t,e em&#o6ee t2o 2ritten noti*es and a ,earing or
o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard i1 reFuested b6 t,e em&#o6ee be1ore terminating t,e
em&#o6ment: a noti*e s&e*i16ing t,e grounds 1or 2,i*, dismissa# is soug,t a
,earing or an o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard and a1ter ,earing or o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard,
a noti*e o1 t,e de*ision to dismissH and 8.9 i1 t,e dismissa# is based on aut,ori$ed
*auses under 'rti*#es .83 and .80, t,e em&#o6er must give t,e em&#o6ee and t,e
De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment 2ritten noti*es 3/ da6s &rior to t,e
e11e*tivit6 o1 ,is se&aration.

=rom t,e 1oregoing ru#es 1our &ossib#e situations ma6 be derived: 819 t,e
dismissa# is 1or a )ust *ause under 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode, 1or an aut,ori$ed
*ause under 'rti*#e .83, or 1or ,ea#t, reasons under 'rti*#e .80, and due &ro*ess
2as observedH 8.9 t,e dismissa# is 2it,out )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause but due &ro*ess
2as observedH 839 t,e dismissa# is 2it,out )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause and t,ere 2as
no due &ro*essH and 809 t,e dismissa# is 1or )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause but due &ro*ess
2as not observed.

;n t,e 1irst situation, t,e dismissa# is undoubted#6 va#id and t,e em&#o6er
2i## not su11er an6 #iabi#it6.

;n t,e se*ond and t,ird situations 2,ere t,e dismissa#s are i##ega#, 'rti*#e
.-9 mandates t,at t,e em&#o6ee is entit#ed to reinstatement 2it,out #oss o1
seniorit6 rig,ts and ot,er &rivi#eges and 1u## ba*32ages, in*#usive o1 a##o2an*es,
and ot,er bene1its or t,eir monetar6 eFuiva#ent *om&uted 1rom t,e time t,e
*om&ensation 2as not &aid u& to t,e time o1 a*tua# reinstatement.

;n t,e 1ourt, situation, t,e dismissa# s,ou#d be u&,e#d. >,i#e t,e &ro*edura#
in1irmit6 *annot be *ured, it s,ou#d not inva#idate t,e dismissa#. :o2ever, t,e
em&#o6er s,ou#d be ,e#d liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural
re#uirements o due pro!ess.

+,e &resent *ase sFuare#6 1a##s under t,e 1ourt, situation. +,e dismissa#
s,ou#d be u&,e#d be*ause it 2as estab#is,ed t,at t,e &etitioners abandoned t,eir
)obs to 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. Private res&ondent, ,o2ever, did not 1o##o2 t,e
noti*e reFuirements and instead argued t,at sending noti*es to t,e #ast 3no2n
addresses 2ou#d ,ave been use#ess be*ause t,e6 did not reside t,ere an6more.
Bn1ortunate#6 1or t,e &rivate res&ondent, t,is is not a va#id eG*use be*ause t,e #a2
mandates t,e t2in noti*e reFuirements to t,e em&#o6eeAs #ast 3no2n address.
4.15

+,us, it s,ou#d be ,e#d liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural re#uirements
o due pro!ess.

' revie2 and re!eGamination o1 t,e re#evant #ega# &rin*i&#es is a&&ro&riate
and time#6 to *#ari16 t,e various ru#ings on em&#o6ment termination in t,e #ig,t
o1 Serrano v. %ational Labor Relations Commission.
4..5

Prior to 1989, t,e ru#e 2as t,at a dismissa# or termination is i##ega# i1 t,e
em&#o6ee 2as not given an6 noti*e. ;n t,e 1989 *ase o1 &enphil Corp. v. %ational
Labor Relations Commission,
4.35
2e reversed t,is #ong!standing ru#e and ,e#d t,at
t,e dismissed em&#o6ee, a#t,oug, not given an6 noti*e and ,earing, 2as not
entit#ed to reinstatement and ba*32ages be*ause t,e dismissa# 2as 1or grave
mis*ondu*t and insubordination, a )ust ground 1or termination under 'rti*#e .8..
+,e em&#o6ee ,ad a vio#ent tem&er and *aused troub#e during o11i*e ,ours, de16ing
su&eriors 2,o tried to &a*i16 ,im. >e *on*#uded t,at reinstating t,e em&#o6ee and
a2arding ba*32ages Kma6 en*ourage ,im to do even 2orse and 2i## render a
mo*3er6 o1 t,e ru#es o1 dis*i&#ine t,at em&#o6ees are reFuired to observe.L
4.05
>e
1urt,er ,e#d t,at:

Bnder t,e *ir*umstan*es, t,e dismissa# o1 t,e &rivate res&ondent
1or )ust *ause s,ou#d be maintained. :e ,as no rig,t to return to ,is
1ormer em&#o6ment.

:o2ever, t,e &etitioner must nevert,e#ess be ,e#d to a**ount 1or
1ai#ure to eGtend to &rivate res&ondent ,is rig,t to an investigation be1ore
*ausing ,is dismissa#. +,e ru#e is eG&#i*it as above dis*ussed. +,e
dismissa# o1 an em&#o6ee must be or 'ust or authori(ed !ause and ater
due pro!ess. Petitioner *ommitted an in1ra*tion o1 t,e se*ond
reFuirement. +,us, it must be im&osed a san*tion 1or its 1ai#ure to give a
1orma# noti*e and *ondu*t an investigation as reFuired b6 #a2 be1ore
dismissing &etitioner 1rom em&#o6ment. %onsidering t,e *ir*umstan*es
o1 t,is *ase &etitioner must indemni16 t,e &rivate res&ondent t,e amount
o1 P1,///.//. +,e measure o1 t,is a2ard de&ends on t,e 1a*ts o1 ea*,
*ase and t,e gravit6 o1 t,e omission *ommitted b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4.55

+,e ru#e t,us evo#ved: 2,ere t,e em&#o6er ,ad a va#id reason to dismiss an
em&#o6ee but did not 1o##o2 t,e due &ro*ess reFuirement, t,e dismissa# ma6 be
u&,e#d but t,e em&#o6er 2i## be &ena#i$ed to &a6 an indemnit6 to t,e em&#o6ee.
+,is be*ame 3no2n as t,e &enphil or Ie#ated Due Pro*ess Ru#e.

@n Januar6 .-, .///, in Serrano, t,e ru#e on t,e eGtent o1 t,e san*tion 2as
*,anged. >e ,e#d t,at t,e vio#ation b6 t,e em&#o6er o1 t,e noti*e reFuirement in
termination 1or )ust or aut,ori$ed *auses 2as not a denia# o1 due &ro*ess t,at 2i##
nu##i16 t,e termination. :o2ever, t,e dismissa# is ine11e*tua# and t,e em&#o6er
must &a6 1u## ba*32ages 1rom t,e time o1 termination unti# it is )udi*ia##6 de*#ared
t,at t,e dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause.

+,e rationa#e 1or t,e re!eGamination o1 t,e &enphil do*trine in Serrano 2as
t,e signi1i*ant number o1 *ases invo#ving dismissa#s 2it,out reFuisite noti*es. >e
*on*#uded t,at t,e im&osition o1 &ena#t6 b6 2a6 o1 damages 1or vio#ation o1 t,e
noti*e reFuirement 2as not serving as a deterrent. :en*e, 2e no2 reFuired
&a6ment o1 1u## ba*32ages 1rom t,e time o1 dismissa# unti# t,e time t,e %ourt 1inds
t,e dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause.

Serrano 2as *on1ronting t,e &ra*ti*e o1 em&#o6ers to Kdismiss no2 and &a6
#aterL b6 im&osing 1u## ba*32ages.

>e be#ieve, ,o2ever, t,at t,e ru#ing in Serrano did not *onsider t,e 1u##
meaning o1 'rti*#e .-9 o1 t,e 7abor %ode 2,i*, states:

'R+. .-9. "e*urit6 o1 +enure. J ;n *ases o1 regu#ar em&#o6ment,
t,e em&#o6er s,a## not terminate t,e servi*es o1 an em&#o6ee eG*e&t 1or a
)ust *ause or 2,en aut,ori$ed b6 t,is +it#e. 'n em&#o6ee 2,o is un)ust#6
dismissed 1rom 2or3 s,a## be entit#ed to reinstatement 2it,out #oss o1
seniorit6 rig,ts and ot,er &rivi#eges and to ,is 1u## ba*32ages, in*#usive
o1 a##o2an*es, and to ,is ot,er bene1its or t,eir monetar6 eFuiva#ent
*om&uted 1rom t,e time ,is *om&ensation 2as 2it,,e#d 1rom ,im u& to
t,e time o1 ,is a*tua# reinstatement.


+,is means t,at t,e termination is i##ega# on#6 i1 it is not 1or an6 o1 t,e
)usti1ied or aut,ori$ed *auses &rovided b6 #a2. Pa6ment o1 ba*32ages and ot,er
bene1its, in*#uding reinstatement, is )usti1ied on#6 i1 t,e em&#o6ee 2as un)ust#6
dismissed.

+,e 1a*t t,at t,e Serrano ru#ing *an *ause un1airness and in)usti*e 2,i*,
e#i*ited strong dissent ,as &rom&ted us to revisit t,e do*trine.

+o be sure, t,e Due Pro*ess %#ause in 'rti*#e ;;;, "e*tion 1 o1 t,e
%onstitution embodies a s6stem o1 rig,ts based on mora# &rin*i&#es so dee&#6
imbedded in t,e traditions and 1ee#ings o1 our &eo&#e as to be deemed 1undamenta#
to a *ivi#i$ed so*iet6 as *on*eived b6 our entire ,istor6. Due &ro*ess is t,at 2,i*,
*om&orts 2it, t,e dee&est notions o1 2,at is 1air and rig,t and )ust.
4.65
;t is a
*onstitutiona# restraint on t,e #egis#ative as 2e## as on t,e eGe*utive and )udi*ia#
&o2ers o1 t,e government &rovided b6 t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts.

Due &ro*ess under t,e 7abor %ode, #i3e Constitutional due pro!ess) ,as t2o
as&e*ts: substantive, i.e., t,e va#id and aut,ori$ed *auses o1 em&#o6ment
termination under t,e 7abor %odeH and &ro*edura#, i.e., t,e manner o1 dismissa#.
Pro*edura# due &ro*ess reFuirements 1or dismissa# are 1ound in t,e ;m&#ementing
Ru#es o1 P.D. 00., as amended, ot,er2ise 3no2n as t,e 7abor %ode o1 t,e
P,i#i&&ines in Ioo3 <;, Ru#e ;, "e*. ., as amended b6 De&artment @rder Nos. 9
and 1/.
4.-5
Irea*,es o1 t,ese due pro!ess reFuirements vio#ate t,e 7abor %ode.
+,ere1ore statutory due pro!ess s,ou#d be di11erentiated 1rom 1ai#ure to *om&#6
2it,!onstitutional due pro!ess.

Constitutional due pro!ess &rote*ts t,e individua# 1rom t,e government and
assures ,im o1 ,is rig,ts in *rimina#, *ivi# or administrative &ro*eedingsH
2,i#e statutory due pro!ess 1ound in t,e 7abor %ode and ;m&#ementing Ru#es
&rote*ts em&#o6ees 1rom being un)ust#6 terminated 2it,out )ust *ause a1ter noti*e
and ,earing.

;n Sebuguero v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
4.85
t,e dismissa# 2as
1or a )ust and va#id *ause but t,e em&#o6ee 2as not a**orded due &ro*ess. +,e
dismissa# 2as u&,e#d b6 t,e %ourt but t,e em&#o6er 2as san*tioned. +,e san*tion
s,ou#d be in t,e nature o1 indemni1i*ation or &ena#t6, and de&ends on t,e 1a*ts o1
ea*, *ase and t,e gravit6 o1 t,e omission *ommitted b6 t,e em&#o6er.

;n %ath v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
4.95
it 2as ru#ed t,at even i1
t,e em&#o6ee 2as not given due &ro*ess, t,e 1ai#ure did not o&erate to eradi*ate t,e
)ust *auses 1or dismissa#. +,e dismissa# being 1or )ust *ause, albeit 2it,out due
&ro*ess, did not entit#e t,e em&#o6ee to reinstatement, ba*32ages, damages and
attorne6As 1ees.

(r. Justi*e Jose %. <itug, in ,is se&arate o&inion in *++ *arine Servi!es)
In!. v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
43/5
2,i*, o&inion ,e reiterated
in Serrano, stated:

%. >,ere t,ere is )ust *ause 1or dismissa# but due &ro*ess ,as not been
&ro&er#6 observed b6 an em&#o6er, it 2ou#d not be rig,t to order eit,er t,e
reinstatement o1 t,e dismissed em&#o6ee or t,e &a6ment o1 ba*32ages to ,im. ;n
1ai#ing, ,o2ever, to *om&#6 2it, t,e &ro*edure &res*ribed b6 #a2 in terminating
t,e servi*es o1 t,e em&#o6ee, t,e em&#o6er must be deemed to ,ave o&ted or, in
an6 *ase, s,ou#d be made #iab#e, 1or t,e &a6ment o1 se&aration &a6. ;t mig,t be
&ointed out t,at t,e noti*e to be given and t,e ,earing to be *ondu*ted genera##6
*onstitute t,e t2o!&art due &ro*ess reFuirement o1 #a2 to be a**orded to t,e
em&#o6ee b6 t,e em&#o6er. Nevert,e#ess, &e*u#iar *ir*umstan*es mig,t obtain in
*ertain situations 2,ere to underta3e t,e above ste&s 2ou#d be no more t,an a
use#ess 1orma#it6 and 2,ere, a**ording#6, it 2ou#d not be im&rudent to a&&#6
t,e res ipsa lo#uitur ru#e and a2ard, in #ieu o1 se&aration &a6, nomina# damages to
t,e em&#o6ee. G G G.
4315

'1ter *are1u##6 ana#6$ing t,e *onseFuen*es o1 t,e divergent do*trines in t,e
#a2 on em&#o6ment termination, 2e be#ieve t,at in *ases invo#ving dismissa#s 1or
*ause but 2it,out observan*e o1 t,e t2in reFuirements o1 noti*e and ,earing, t,e
better ru#e is to abandon t,e Serrano do*trine and to 1o##o2 &enphil b6 ,o#ding
t,at t,e dismissa# 2as 1or )ust *ause but im&osing san*tions on t,e em&#o6er. "u*,
san*tions, ,o2ever, must be sti11er t,an t,at im&osed in &enphil. I6 doing so, t,is
%ourt 2ou#d be ab#e to a*,ieve a 1air resu#t b6 dis&ensing )usti*e not )ust to
em&#o6ees, but to em&#o6ers as 2e##.

+,e un1airness o1 de*#aring i##ega# or ine11e*tua# dismissa#s 1or va#id or
aut,ori$ed *auses but not *om&#6ing 2it, statutor6 due &ro*ess ma6 ,ave 1ar!
rea*,ing *onseFuen*es.

+,is 2ou#d en*ourage 1rivo#ous suits, 2,ere even t,e most notorious
vio#ators o1 *om&an6 &o#i*6 are re2arded b6 invo3ing due &ro*ess. +,is a#so
*reates absurd situations 2,ere t,ere is a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause 1or dismissa# but
a &ro*edura# in1irmit6 inva#idates t,e termination. 7et us ta3e 1or eGam&#e a *ase
2,ere t,e em&#o6ee is *aug,t stea#ing or t,reatens t,e #ives o1 ,is *o!em&#o6ees or
,as be*ome a *rimina#, 2,o ,as 1#ed and *annot be 1ound, or 2,ere serious
business #osses demand t,at o&erations be *eased in #ess t,an a mont,.
;nva#idating t,e dismissa# 2ou#d not serve &ub#i* interest. ;t *ou#d a#so dis*ourage
investments t,at *an generate em&#o6ment in t,e #o*a# e*onom6.

+,e *onstitutiona# &o#i*6 to &rovide 1u## &rote*tion to #abor is not meant to
be a s2ord to o&&ress em&#o6ers. +,e *ommitment o1 t,is %ourt to t,e *ause o1
#abor does not &revent us 1rom sustaining t,e em&#o6er 2,en it is in t,e rig,t, as in
t,is *ase.
43.5
%ertain#6, an em&#o6er s,ou#d not be *om&e##ed to &a6 em&#o6ees 1or
2or3 not a*tua##6 &er1ormed and in 1a*t abandoned.

+,e em&#o6er s,ou#d not be *om&e##ed to *ontinue em&#o6ing a &erson 2,o
is admitted#6 gui#t6 o1 mis1easan*e or ma#1easan*e and 2,ose *ontinued
em&#o6ment is &atent#6 inimi*a# to t,e em&#o6er. +,e #a2 &rote*ting t,e rig,ts o1
t,e #aborer aut,ori$es neit,er o&&ression nor se#1!destru*tion o1 t,e em&#o6er.
4335

;t must be stressed t,at in t,e &resent *ase, t,e &etitioners *ommitted a grave
o11ense, i.e., abandonment, 2,i*,, i1 t,e reFuirements o1 due &ro*ess 2ere
*om&#ied 2it,, 2ou#d undoubted#6 resu#t in a va#id dismissa#.

'n em&#o6ee 2,o is *#ear#6 gui#t6 o1 *ondu*t vio#ative o1 'rti*#e .8.
s,ou#d not be &rote*ted b6 t,e "o*ia# Justi*e %#ause o1 t,e %onstitution. "o*ia#
)usti*e, as t,e term suggests, s,ou#d be used on#6 to *orre*t an in)usti*e. 's t,e
eminent Justi*e Jose P. 7aure# observed, so*ia# )usti*e must be 1ounded on
t,e rec!n"#"n $ #%e nece&&"#' $ "n#erde(endence a)n! d"*er&e +n"#& $ a
&c"e#' and $ #%e (r#ec#"n #%a# &%+,d -e e.+a,,' and e*en,' ex#ended # a,,
!r+(& a& a c)-"ned $rce "n +r &c"a, and ecn)"c ,"$e, *onsistent 2it, t,e
1undamenta# and &aramount ob)e*tive o1 t,e state o1 &romoting t,e ,ea#t,, *om1ort,
and Fuiet o1 a## &ersons, and o1 bringing about Kt,e greatest good to t,e greatest
number.L
4305

T%"& "& n# # &a' #%a# #%e C+r# /a& /rn! /%en "# r+,ed #%e /a' "# d"d
"n Wenphil, Serrano and re,a#ed ca&e&. Sc"a, 0+&#"ce "& n# -a&ed n r"!"d
$r)+,a& &e# "n &#ne. I# %a& # a,,/ $r c%an!"n! #")e& and c"rc+)&#ance&.

Justi*e ;sagani %ru$ strong#6 asserts t,e need to a&&#6 a ba#an*ed a&&roa*,
to #abor!management re#ations and dis&ense )usti*e 2it, an even ,and in ever6
*ase:

>e ,ave re&eated#6 stressed t,at so*ia# )usti*e J or an6 )usti*e 1or
t,at matter J is 1or t,e deserving, 2,et,er ,e be a mi##ionaire in ,is
mansion or a &au&er in ,is ,ove#. ;t is true t,at, in *ase o1 reasonab#e
doubt, 2e are to ti#t t,e ba#an*e in 1avor o1 t,e &oor to 2,om t,e
%onstitution 1itting#6 eGtends its s6m&at,6 and *om&assion. Iut never is
it )usti1ied to give &re1eren*e to t,e &oor sim&#6 be*ause t,e6 are &oor,
or re)e*t t,e ri*, sim&#6 be*ause t,e6 are ri*,, 1or )usti*e must a#2a6s be
served 1or t,e &oor and t,e ri*, a#i3e, a**ording to t,e mandate o1 t,e
#a2.
4355

Justi*e in ever6 *ase s,ou#d on#6 be 1or t,e deserving &art6. ;t s,ou#d not be
&resumed t,at ever6 *ase o1 i##ega# dismissa# 2ou#d automati*a##6 be de*ided in
1avor o1 #abor, as management ,as rig,ts t,at s,ou#d be 1u##6 res&e*ted and
en1or*ed b6 t,is %ourt. 's interde&endent and indis&ensab#e &artners in nation!
bui#ding, #abor and management need ea*, ot,er to 1oster &rodu*tivit6 and
e*onomi* gro2t,H ,en*e, t,e need to 2eig, and ba#an*e t,e rig,ts and 2e#1are o1
bot, t,e em&#o6ee and em&#o6er.

>,ere t,e dismissa# is 1or a )ust *ause, as in t,e instant *ase, t,e #a*3 o1
statutor6 due &ro*ess s,ou#d not nu##i16 t,e dismissa#, or render it i##ega#, or
ine11e*tua#. :o2ever, t,e em&#o6er s,ou#d indemni16 t,e em&#o6ee 1or t,e
vio#ation o1 ,is statutor6 rig,ts, as ru#ed in Reta v. %ational Labor Relations
Commission.
4365
+,e indemnit6 to be im&osed s,ou#d be sti11er to dis*ourage t,e
ab,orrent &ra*ti*e o1 Kdismiss no2, &a6 #ater,L 2,i*, 2e soug,t to deter in
t,e Serrano ru#ing. +,e san*tion s,ou#d be in t,e nature o1 indemni1i*ation or
&ena#t6 and s,ou#d de&end on t,e 1a*ts o1 ea*, *ase, ta3ing into s&e*ia#
*onsideration t,e gravit6 o1 t,e due &ro*ess vio#ation o1 t,e em&#o6er.

Bnder t,e %ivi# %ode, nomina# damages is ad)udi*ated in order t,at a rig,t
o1 t,e &#ainti11, 2,i*, ,as been vio#ated or invaded b6 t,e de1endant, ma6 be
vindi*ated or re*ogni$ed, and not 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 indemni16ing t,e &#ainti11 1or
an6 #oss su11ered b6 ,im.
43-5

's enun*iated b6 t,is %ourt in ,iernes v. %ational Labor Relations
Commissions,
4385
an em&#o6er is #iab#e to &a6 indemnit6 in t,e 1orm o1 nomina#
damages to an em&#o6ee 2,o ,as been dismissed i1, in e11e*ting su*, dismissa#,
t,e em&#o6er 1ai#s to *om&#6 2it, t,e reFuirements o1 due &ro*ess. +,e %ourt,
a1ter *onsidering t,e *ir*umstan*es t,erein, 1iGed t,e indemnit6 at P.,59/.5/,
2,i*, 2as eFuiva#ent to t,e em&#o6eeAs one mont, sa#ar6. +,is indemnit6 is
intended not to &ena#i$e t,e em&#o6er but to vindi*ate or re*ogni$e t,e em&#o6eeAs
rig,t to statutor6 due &ro*ess 2,i*, 2as vio#ated b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4395

+,e vio#ation o1 t,e &etitionersA rig,t to statutor6 due &ro*ess b6 t,e &rivate
res&ondent 2arrants t,e &a6ment o1 indemnit6 in t,e 1orm o1 nomina# damages.
+,e amount o1 su*, damages is addressed to t,e sound dis*retion o1 t,e *ourt,
ta3ing into a**ount t,e re#evant *ir*umstan*es.
40/5
Cn&"der"n! #%e (re*a","n!
c"rc+)&#ance& "n #%e ca&e a# -ar, /e dee) "# (r(er # $"x "# a# P12,222.22. >e
be#ieve t,is 1orm o1 damages 2ou#d serve to deter em&#o6ers 1rom 1uture
vio#ations o1 t,e statutor6 due &ro*ess rig,ts o1 em&#o6ees. 't t,e ver6 #east, it
&rovides a vindi*ation or re*ognition o1 t,is 1undamenta# rig,t granted to t,e #atter
under t,e 7abor %ode and its ;m&#ementing Ru#es.

Private res&ondent *#aims t,at t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s erred in ,o#ding t,at it
1ai#ed to &a6 &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 and 13
t,
mont,
&a6.

>e are not &ersuaded.

>e a11irm t,e ru#ing o1 t,e a&&e##ate *ourt on &etitionersA mone6 *#aims.
Private res&ondent is #iab#e 1or &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6
and 13
t,
mont, &a6 2it,out dedu*tions.

's a genera# ru#e, one 2,o &#eads &a6ment ,as t,e burden o1 &roving it.
?ven 2,ere t,e em&#o6ee must a##ege non!&a6ment, t,e genera# ru#e is t,at t,e
burden rests on t,e em&#o6er to &rove &a6ment, rat,er t,an on t,e em&#o6ee to
&rove non!&a6ment. +,e reason 1or t,e ru#e is t,at t,e &ertinent &ersonne# 1i#es,
&a6ro##s, re*ords, remittan*es and ot,er simi#ar do*uments J 2,i*, 2i## s,o2 t,at
overtime, di11erentia#s, servi*e in*entive #eave and ot,er *#aims o1 2or3ers ,ave
been &aid J are not in t,e &ossession o1 t,e 2or3er but in t,e *ustod6 and abso#ute
*ontro# o1 t,e em&#o6er.
4015


;n t,e *ase at bar, i1 &rivate res&ondent indeed &aid &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6
and servi*e in*entive #eave &a6, it *ou#d ,ave easi#6 &resented do*umentar6 &roo1s
o1 su*, monetar6 bene1its to dis&rove t,e *#aims o1 t,e &etitioners. Iut it did not,
eG*e&t 2it, res&e*t to t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 2,erein it &resented *as, vou*,ers
s,o2ing &a6ments o1 t,e bene1it in t,e 6ears dis&uted.
40.5
'##egations b6 &rivate
res&ondent t,at it does not o&erate during ,o#ida6s and t,at it a##o2s its em&#o6ees
1/ da6s #eave 2it, &a6, ot,er t,an being se#1!serving, do not *onstitute &roo1 o1
&a6ment. %onseFuent#6, it 1ai#ed to dis*,arge t,e onus probandi t,ereb6 ma3ing it
#iab#e 1or su*, *#aims to t,e &etitioners.

'nent t,e dedu*tion o1 """ #oan and t,e va#ue o1 t,e s,oes 1rom &etitioner
<irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6, 2e 1ind t,e same to be unaut,ori$ed. +,e
evident intention o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 851 is to grant an additional in!ome in
t,e 1orm o1 t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 to em&#o6ees not a#read6 re*eiving t,e same
4035
so as
Kto urther prote!t the level o real wages rom the ravages o world$wide
inlation.L
4005
%#ear#6, as additiona# in*ome, t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 is in*#uded in t,e
de1inition o1 2age under 'rti*#e 9-819 o1 t,e 7abor %ode, to 2it:

819 K>ageL &aid to an6 em&#o6ee s,a## mean t,e remuneration or
earnings, ,o2ever designated, *a&ab#e o1 being eG&ressed in terms o1 mone6
2,et,er 1iGed or as*ertained on a time, tas3, &ie*e , or *ommission basis, or ot,er
met,od o1 *a#*u#ating t,e same, 2,i*, is &a6ab#e b6 an em&#o6er to an em&#o6ee
under a 2ritten or un2ritten *ontra*t o1 em&#o6ment 1or 2or3 done or to be done,
or 1or servi*es rendered or to be rendered and in*#udes t,e 1air and reasonab#e
va#ue, as determined b6 t,e "e*retar6 o1 7abor, o1 board, #odging, or ot,er
1a*i#ities *ustomari#6 1urnis,ed b6 t,e em&#o6er to t,e em&#o6eeML

1rom 2,i*, an em&#o6er is &ro,ibited under 'rti*#e 113
4055
o1 t,e same %ode 1rom
ma3ing an6 dedu*tions 2it,out t,e em&#o6eeAs 3no2#edge and *onsent. ;n t,e
instant *ase, &rivate res&ondent 1ai#ed to s,o2 t,at t,e dedu*tion o1 t,e """ #oan
and t,e va#ue o1 t,e s,oes 1rom &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 2as
aut,ori$ed b6 t,e #atter. +,e #a*3 o1 aut,orit6 to dedu*t is 1urt,er bo#stered b6 t,e
1a*t t,at &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabon in*#uded t,e same as one o1 ,is mone6 *#aims
against &rivate res&ondent.

+,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s &ro&er#6 reinstated t,e monetar6 *#aims a2arded b6
t,e 7abor 'rbiter ordering t,e &rivate res&ondent to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners
,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our regu#ar ,o#ida6s 1rom 1996 to 1998, in t,e amount o1
P6,5././/, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or t,e same &eriod in t,e amount o1
P3,.55.// and t,e ba#an*e o1 <irgi#io 'gabonAs t,irteent, mont, &a6 1or 1998 in
t,e amount o1 P.,15/.//.

3HERE4ORE, in vie2 o1 t,e 1oregoing, t,e &etition is 5ENIE5. +,e
de*ision o1 t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s dated Januar6 .3, .//3, in %'!G.R. "P No.
63/1-, 1inding t,at &etitionersA Jenn6 and <irgi#io 'gabon abandoned t,eir 2or3,
and ordering &rivate res&ondent to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners ,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our
regu#ar ,o#ida6s 1rom 1996 to 1998, in t,e amount o1 P6,5././/, servi*e in*entive
#eave &a6 1or t,e same &eriod in t,e amount o1 P3,.55.// and t,e ba#an*e o1
<irgi#io 'gabonAs t,irteent, mont, &a6 1or 1998 in t,e amount o1 P.,15/.//
is A44IRME5 2it, t,e MO5I4ICATION t,at &rivate res&ondent Riviera :ome
;m&rovements, ;n*. is 1urt,er OR5ERE5 to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners t,e
amount o1 P3/,///.// as nomina# damages 1or non!*om&#ian*e 2it, statutor6 due
&ro*ess.

No *osts.

SO OR5ERE5
G.R. No. L-22196 June 30, 1967
ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH n! "U #AN "UN, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
HON. MART$N$ANO %$%O &n '&( )*)&+, ( A)+&n- Co..&((&one/ o0 $..&-/+&on, respondent-
appellant.
Engracio Fabre Law Office for petitioners-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor A. M. Amores for respondent-appellant.
SANCHE1, J.:
Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen born in Fukien, China on January 6, 19!, arrived in the
"hilippines on #ove$ber !, 1961 to visit her cousin, Sa$uel %ee &alaps. She le't in $ainland
China t(o o' her children by a 'irst $arria)e* Fu +se ,a( and Fu -an .ai With her (as Fu -an Fun,
her $inor son also by the 'irst $arria)e, born in ,on)kon) on Septe$ber 11, 19/0.
Chan Sau Wah and her $inor son Fu -an Fun (ere per$itted only into the "hilippines under a
te$porary visitor1s visa 'or t(o 2!3 $onths and a'ter they posted a cash bond o' "4,555.55.
6n January !4, 196!, Chan Sau Wah $arried 7steban &orano, a native-born Filipino citizen. 8orn
to this union on Septe$ber 16, 196! (as 7steban &orano, Jr.
+o prolon) their stay in the "hilippines, Chan Sau Wah and Fu -an Fun obtained several e9tensions.
+he last e9tension e9pired on Septe$ber 15, 196!.!wph".#$t
:n a letter dated ;u)ust 1, 196!, the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her
son, Fu -an Fun, to leave the country on or be'ore Septe$ber 15, 196! (ith a (arnin) that upon
'ailure so to do, he (ill issue a (arrant 'or their arrest and (ill cause the con'iscation o' their bond.
:nstead o' leavin) the country, on Septe$ber 15, 196!, Chan Sau Wah 2(ith her husband 7steban
&orano3 and Fu -an Fun petitioned the Court o' First :nstance o' &anila 'or mandamus to co$pel
the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration to cancel petitioners1 ;lien Certi'icates o' <e)istration= prohibition
to stop the Co$$issioner 'ro$ issuin) a (arrant 'or their arrest, and preli$inary in>unction to
restrain the Co$$issioner 'ro$ con'iscatin) their cash bond and 'ro$ issuin) (arrants o' arrest
pendin) resolution o' this case.
1
+he trial court, on #ove$ber , 196!, issued the (rit o' preli$inary
in>unction prayed 'or, upon a "!,555-bond. ;'ter trial and the stipulations o' 'acts 'iled by the parties,
the Court o' First :nstance rendered >ud)$ent, %iz*
:# ?:7W 6F ;%% +,7 F6<7@6:#@, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered as 'ollo(s*
2a3 @rantin) this petition 'or Mandamus and "rohibition (ith respect to petitioner C,;# S;A
W;,, (ho is hereby declared a citizen o' the "hilippines= orderin) the respondent to cancel
her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, upon the pay$ent o'
proper dues= and declarin) the preli$inary in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent,
prohibitin) the respondent, his representatives or subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor
deportin) said petitioner=
2b3 Cis$issin) this petition (ith respect to petitioner FA -;# FA#, and dissolvin) the (rit o'
preli$inary in>unction issued herein, restrainin) the respondent, his representatives or
subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor deportin) said petitioner=
2c3 ;uthorizin) respondent Co$$issioner to 'or'eit the bond 'iled by herein petitioners C,;#
S;A W;, and FA -;# FA# in the a$ount o' "4,555.55= and
2d3 Cenyin), 'or lack o' $erit, the prayer to declare Sec. 0 2a3 o' the "hilippine :$$i)ration
;ct o' 1945 unconstitutional=
Without pronounce$ent, as to costs.
"etitioners and respondent Co$$issioner both appealed.
We (ill deal (ith the clai$s o' both appellants in their proper seDuence.
1. +he Solicitor @eneral1s brie' assails the trial court1s declaration that Chan Sau Wah is a citizen o'
the "hilippines. +he court a &uo took the position that EChan Sau Wah beca$e, by virtue o', and
upon, her $arria)e to 7steban &orano, a natural-born Filipino, a Filipino citizen.
!
"laced to the 'ore is para)raph 1, Section 1/ o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 40 F<evised #aturalization ;ctG,
(hich reads*
Sec. 1/. Effect of the naturalization on wife children. H ;ny (o$an (ho is no( or $ay
herea'ter be $arried to a citizen o' the "hilippines, and (ho $i)ht hersel' be la('ully
naturalized shall be dee$ed a citizen o' the "hilippines.
+o apply this provision, t(o reDuisites $ust concur* 2a3 valid $arria)e o' an alien (o$an to a citizen
o' the "hilippines and 2b3 the alien (o$an hersel' $i)ht be la('ully naturalized.
We $ay concede that the 'irst reDuisite has been properly $et. +he validity o' the $arria)e is
presu$ed.
8ut can the sa$e be said o' the second reDuisiteI +his Duestion by all $eans is not ne(. :n a series
o' cases, this Court has declared that the $arria)e o' an alien (o$an to a Filipino citizen does
not ipso facto $ake her a Filipino citizen. She $ust satis'actorily sho( that she has all the
Duali'ications and none o' the disDuali'ications reDuired by the #aturalization %a(.

L' Gio( )a alias


*' Gio( )a et al. %s. Emilio Galang, %-!1!, &arch 1J, 1966,
K
clearly (rites do(n the philosophy
behind the rule in the 'ollo(in) e9pressive lan)ua)e, %iz*
<e'lection (ill reveal (hy this $ust be so. +he Duali'ications prescribed under section ! o'
the #aturalization ;ct, and the disDuali'ications enu$erated in its section 4, are not $utually
e9clusive= and i' all that (ere to be reDuired is that the (i'e o' a Filipino be not disDuali'ied
under section 4, the result $i)ht (ell be that citizenship (ould be con'erred upon persons in
violation o' the policy o' the statute. For e9a$ple, section 4 disDuali'ies only H
E2c3 "oly)a$ists or believers in the practice o' poly)a$y= and
2b3 "ersons convicted o' cri$es involvin) $oral turpitude,E
so that a black$ailer, or a $aintainer o' )a$blin) or ba(dy houses, not previously convicted
by a co$petent court, (ould not be thereby disDuali'ied= still it is certain that the la( did not
intend such a person to, be ad$itted as a citizen in vie( o' the reDuire$ent o' section ! that
an applicant 'or citizenship E$ust be o' )ood $oral character.E
Si$ilarly, the citizen1s (i'e $i)ht be a convinced believer in racial supre$acy, in )overn$ent
by certain selected classes, in the ri)ht to vote e9clusively by certain Eherrenvolk,E and thus
disbelieve in the principles underlyin) the "hilippine Constitution= yet she (ould not be
disDuali'ied under section 4, as lon) as she is not Eopposed to or)anized )overn$ent,E nor
a''iliated to )roups Eupholdin) or teachin) doctrines opposin) all or)anized )overn$ents,E
nor Ede'endin) or teachin) the necessity or propriety o' violence, personal assault or
assassination 'or the success or predo$inance o' their ideas.E Et sic de caeteris.
Apon the principle o' selective citizenship, (e cannot a''ord to depart 'ro$ the (ise precept a''ir$ed
and rea''ir$ed in the cases hereto'ore noted.
:n the additional stipulation o' 'acts o' July , 196, petitioners ad$it that Chan Sau Wah is not
possessed o' all the Duali'ications reDuired by the #aturalization %a(.
8ecause o' all these (e are le't under no doubt that petitioner Chan Sau Wah did not beco$e a
Filipino citizen.
!. SDuarely put in issue by petitioners is the constitutionality o' Section 0 2a3 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct
o' 1945, (hich reads*
Sec. 0. 2a3 +he 'ollo(in) aliens shall be arrested upon the (arrant o' the Co$$issioner o'
:$$i)ration or o' any other o''icer desi)nated by hi$ 'or the purpose and deported upon the
(arrant o' the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration a'ter a deter$ination by the 8oard o'
Co$$issioners o' the e9istence o' the )round 'or deportation as char)ed a)ainst the alien*
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
203 ;ny alien (ho re$ains in the "hilippines in violation o' any li$itation or condition under
(hich he (as ad$itted as a noni$$i)rant.
"etitioners ar)ue that the le)al precept >ust Duoted trenches upon the constitutional $andate in
Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: F8ill o' <i)htsG o' the Constitution, to (it*
23 +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no (arrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or
a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin)
the place to be searched, and the persons or thin)s to be seized.
+hey say that the Constitution li$its to >ud)es the authority to issue (arrants o' arrest and that the
le)islative dele)ation o' such po(er to the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration is thus violative o' the 8ill o'
<i)hts.
Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, (e perceive, does not reDuire >udicial intervention in the
e9ecution o' a 'inal order o' deportation issued in accordance (ith la(. +he constitutional li$itation
conte$plates an order o' arrest in the e9ercise o' >udicial po(er
4
as a step preli$inary or incidental
to prosecution or proceedin)s 'or a )iven o''ense or ad$inistrative action, not as a $easure
indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a co$petent o''icial, such as a le)al order o'
deportation, issued by the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration, in pursuance o' a valid le)islation.
+he 'ollo(in) 'ro$ ;$erican Jurisprudence,
/
is illu$inatin)*
:t is thorou)hly established that Con)ress has po(er to order the deportation o' aliens (hose
presence in the country it dee$s hurt'ul. 6(in) to the nature o' the proceedin), the
deportation o' an alien (ho is 'ound in this country in violation o' la( is not a deprivation o'
liberty (ithout due process o' la(. +his is so, althou)h the inDuiry devolves upon e9ecutive
o''icers, and their 'indin)s o' 'act, a'ter a 'air thou)h su$$ary hearin), are $ade conclusive.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
+he deter$ination o' the propriety o' deportation is not a prosecution 'or, or a conviction o',
cri$e= nor is the deportation a punish$ent, even thou)h the 'acts underlyin) the decision
$ay constitute a cri$e under local la(. +he proceedin) is in e''ect si$ply a re'usal by the
)overn$ent to harbor persons (ho$ it does not (ant. +he coincidence o' local penal la(
(ith the policy o' Con)ress is purely accidental, and, thou)h supported by the sa$e 'acts, a
cri$inal prosecution and a proceedin) 'or deportation are separate and independent.
:n conseDuence, the constitutional )uarantee set 'orth in Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution
a'oresaid, reDuirin) that the issue o' probable cause be deter$ined by a >ud)e, does not e9tend to
deportation proceedin)s.
6
+he vie( (e here e9press 'inds support in the discussions durin) the constitutional convention. +he
convention reco)nized, as sanctioned by due process, possibilities and cases o' deprivation o'
liberty, other than by order o' a co$petent court.
0
:ndeed, the po(er to deport or e9pel aliens is an attribute o' soverei)nty. Such po(er is planted on
the Eaccepted $a9i$ o' international la(, that every soverei)n nation has the po(er, as inherent in
soverei)nty, and essential to sel'-preservation, to 'orbid the entrance o' 'orei)ners (ithin its
do$inions.E
J
So it is, that this Court once aptly re$arked that there can be no controversy on the 'act
that (here aliens are ad$itted as te$porary visitors, Ethe la( is to the e''ect that te$porary visitors
(ho do not depart upon the e9piration o' the period o' stay )ranted the$ are sub>ect to deportation
by the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration, 'or havin) violated the li$itation or condition under (hich they
(ere ad$itted as non-i$$i)rants 2:$$i)ration %a(, Sec. 0 2a3, subsection 203= C.;. 61, as
a$ended3.E
9
;nd, in a case directly in point, (here the po(er o' the Co$$issioner to issue (arrants o'
arrest was challengedas unconstitutional, because Esuch po(er is only vested in a >ud)e by Section
1, para)raph , ;rticle ::: o' our Constitution,E this Court declared H
+his ar)u$ent overlooks the 'act that the stay o' appellant #) ,ua +o as te$porary visitor is
sub>ect to certain contractual stipulations as contained in the cash bond put up by hi$,
a$on) the$, that in case o' breach the Co$$issioner $ay reDuire the reco$$it$ent o' the
person in (hose 'avor the bond has been 'iled. +he Co$$issioner did nothin) but to en'orce
such condition. Such a step is necessary to enable the Co$$issioner to prepare the )round
'or his deportation under section 0 2a3 o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 61. ; contrary interpretation
(ould render such po(er nu)atory to the detri$ent o' the State.
15
:t is in this conte9t that (e rule that Section 0 2a3 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct o' 1945 is not
constitutionally proscribed.
. ; seDuel to the Duestions >ust discussed is the second error set 'orth in the )overn$ent1s brie'.
+he Solicitor @eneral balks at the lo(er court1s rulin) that petitioner Chan Sau Wah is entitled to
per$anent residence in the "hilippines (ithout 'irst co$plyin) (ith the reDuire$ents o' Sections 9
and 1 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct o' 1945, as a$ended by <epublic ;ct /5.
We 'irst )o to the la(, %iz*
S7C. 9 Flast para)raphG
;n alien (ho is ad$itted as a noni$$i)rant cannot re$ain in the "hilippines per$anently. +o
obtain per$anent ad$ission, a noni$$i)rant alien $ust depart voluntarily to so$e 'orei)n
country and procure 'ro$ the appropriate "hilippine consul the proper visa and therea'ter
under)o e9a$ination by the o''icers o' the 8ureau o' :$$i)ration at a "hilippine port o' entry
'or deter$ination o' his ad$issibility in accordance (ith the reDuire$ents o' this ;ct.
S7C. 1. Ander the conditions set 'orth in this ;ct there $ay be ad$itted into the "hilippines
i$$i)rants, ter$ed EDuota i$$i)rantsE not in e9cess o' 'i'ty 2/53 o' any one nationality or
(ithout nationality 'or any one calendar year, e9cept that the 'ollo(in) i$$i)rants, ter$ed
EnonDuota i$$i)rants,E $aybe ad$itted (ithout re)ard to such nu$erical li$itations.
+he correspondin) "hilippine Consular representative abroad shall investi)ate and certi'y
the eli)ibility o' a Duota i$$i)rant previous to his ad$ission into the "hilippines. Luali'ied
and desirable aliens (ho are in the "hilippines under te$porary stay $ay be ad$itted (ithin
the Duota, sub>ect to the provisions o' the last para)raph o' section 9 o' this ;ct.
2a3 +he (i'e or the husband or the un$arried child under t(enty-one years o' a)e o' a
"hilippine citizen, i' acco$panyin) or 'ollo(in) to >oin such citizen=
2b3 ; child o' alien parents born durin) the te$porary visit abroad o' the $other, the $other
havin) been previously la('ully ad$itted into the "hilippine 'or per$anent residence, i' the
child is acco$panyin) or co$in) to >oin a parent and applies 'or ad$ission (ithin 'ive years
'ro$ the date o' its birth=
Concededly, Chan Sau Wah entered the "hilippines on a tourist-temporar' visitor1s visa. She is a
non-i$$i)rant. Ander Section 1 >ust Duoted, she $ay there'ore be ad$itted i' she (ere a Duali'ied
and desirable alien and sub>ect to the provisions o' the last para)raph o' Section 9. +here'ore, first,
she $ust depart voluntarily to so$e 'orei)n country= second, she $ust procure 'ro$ the appropriate
consul the proper visa= and third, she $ust therea'ter under)o e9a$ination by the o''icials o' the
8ureau o' :$$i)ration at the port o' entry 'or deter$ination o' her ad$issibility in accordance (ith
the reDuire$ents o' the i$$i)ration ;ct.
+his Court in a nu$ber o' cases has ruled, and consistently too, that an alien ad$itted as a
te$porary visitor cannot chan)e his or her status (ithout 'irst departin) 'ro$ the country and
co$plyin) (ith the reDuire$ents o' Section 9 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct.
11
+he )rava$en o' petitioners1 ar)u$ent is that Chan Sau Wah has, since her entry, $arried in &anila
a native-born Filipino, 7steban &orano. :t (ill not particularly help analysis 'or petitioners to appeal
to 'a$ily solidarity in an e''ort to th(art her deportation. Chan Sau Wah, see$in)ly is not one (ho
has a hi)h re)ard 'or such solidarity. "roo'* She le't t(o o' her children by the 'irst $arria)e, both
$inors, in the care o' nei)hbors in Fukien, China.
+hen, the (ordin) o' the statute hereto'ore adverted to is a 'orbiddin) obstacle (hich (ill prevent
this Court 'ro$ (ritin) into the la( an additional provision that $arria)e o' a te$porary alien visitor
to a Filipino (ould ipso facto$ake her a per$anent resident in his country. +his is a 'ield closed to
>udicial action. #o breadth o' discretion is allo(ed us. We cannot insulate her 'ro$ the State1s po(er
o' deportation.
<eally, it (ould be an easy $atter 'or an alien (o$an to enter the "hilippines as a te$porary visitor,
)o throu)h a $ock $arria)e, but actually live (ith another $an as husband and (i'e, and thereby
skirt the provisions o' our i$$i)ration la(. ;lso, a (o$an o' undesirable character $ay enter this
country, ply a pernicious trade, $arry a Filipino, and a)ain thro( overboard Sections 9 and 1 o' the
;ct. Such a 'lankin) $ove$ent, (e are con'ident, is i$per$issible.
<ecently (e con'ir$ed the rule that an alien (i'e o' a Filipino $ay not stay per$anently (ithout 'irst
departin) 'ro$ the "hilippines. <eason* Ciscoura)e entry under 'alse pretenses.
1!
+he rulin) o' the trial court on this score should be reversed.
4. :t is petitioners1 turn to point as error the dis$issal o' the petition 'or mandamus and prohibition
(ith respect to petitioner Fu -an Fun.
"etitioners1 line o' thou)ht is this* Fu -an Fun 'ollo(s the citizenship o' his $other. +hey cite Section
1/, para)raph , Co$$on(ealth ;ct 40, (hich says that*
; 'orei)n-born $inor child, i' d(ellin) in the "hilippines at the ti$e o' the naturalization o' the
parent, shall auto$atically beco$e a "hilippine citizen. . . .
"etitioners1 position is based on the assu$ption that Chan Sau Wah, the $other, is a Filipino citizen.
We have held that she is not. ;t best, Fu -an Fun is a step-son o' 7steban &orano, husband o'
Chan Sau Wah. ; step-son is not a 'orei)n-born child o' the step-'ather. +he word child, (e are
certain, $eans le)iti$ate child, not a step-child. We are not (antin) in precedents. +hus, (hen the
Constitution provides that EFtGhose (hose 'athers are citizens o' the "hilippinesE are citizens
thereo',
1
the 'unda$ental charter intends EthoseE to apply to le)iti$ate children.
14
:n another case,
the ter$ E$inor childrenE or E$inor childE in Section 1/ o' the <evised #aturalization %a( re'ers only
to le)iti$ate children o' Filipino citizens. +his Court, thru &r. Chie' Justice <oberto Concepcion,
there said*
1/
:t is clai$ed that the phrases E$inor childrenE and E$inor child,E used in these provisions,
include adopted children. +he ar)u$ent is predicated upon the theory that an adopted child
is, 'or all intents and purposes, a le)iti$ate child. Whenever, the (ord EchildrenE or EchildE is
used in statutes, it is )enerally understood, ho(ever, to re'er to le)iti$ate children, unless
the conte9t o' the la( and its spirit indicate clearly the contrary. +hus, 'or instance, (hen the
Constitution provides that Ethose (hose 'athers are citizens o' the "hilippines,E and Ethose
(hose $others are citizens o' the "hilippinesE (ho shall elect "hilippine citizenship upon
reachin) the a)e o' $a>ority, are citizens o' the "hilippines 2;rticle :?, Section 1, subdivisions
FG and F4G3, our 'unda$ental la( clearly re'ers to legitimate children 2Chion)bian vs. Ce
%eon, 46 6''. @az., 6/!-6/4= Serra v. <epublic, %-4!!, &ay 1!, 19/!3.
;t any rate, Fu -an Fun entered the "hilippines as a te$porary visitor. +he status o' a te$porary
visitor cannot be converted into, that o' a per$anent resident, as (e have hereto'ore held, (ithout
'irst co$plyin) (ith Section 9 o' the :$$i)ration %a(.
/. "etitioners 'inally aver that the lo(er court erred in authorizin) respondent Co$$issioner to 'or'eit
the bond 'iled by petitioners Chan Sau Wah and Fu -an Fun in the a$ount o' "4,555.55.
,ere is petitioners1 posture. +hey en>oyed their stay in the "hilippines upon a bond. #o( they co$e
to court and say that as the prescribed 'or$ o' this bond (as not e9pressly approved by the
Secretary o' Justice in accordance (ith Section o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 61, (hich reads H
S7C. . . . . ,e FCo$$issioner o' :$$i)rationG shall issue, sub>ect to the approval o' the
Cepart$ent ,ead, such rules and re)ulations and prescribes such 'or$s o' bond, reports,
and other papers, and shall issue 'ro$ ti$e to ti$e such instruction, not inconsistent (ith
la(, as he shall dee$ best calculated to carry out the provisions o' the i$$i)ration la(s. . . .
that bond is void.
<easons there are (hich prevent us 'ro$ )ivin) our i$pri$atur to this ar)u$ent.
+he provision reDuirin) o''icial approval o' a bond is $erely directory. E:rre)ularity or entire 'ailure in
this respect does not a''ect the validity o' the bond.
16
+he reason 'or the rule, is 'ound in 9 C.J., p. !6
2'ootnote3, (hich reads*
2a3 +eason for rule. H EStatutes reDuirin) bonds to be approved by certain o''icials are not for the
purpose of protecting the obligors in the bond, but are ai$ed to protect the public, to insure their
solvency, and to create evidence o' an uni$peachable character o' the 'act o' their e9ecution. When
they are e9ecuted 'or a le)al purpose, be'ore a proper tribunal, and are in 'act accepted and
approved by the o''icer or body, (hose duty it (as to approve the$, it could serve no use'ul purpose
o' the la( to hold the$ invalid, to release all the obli)ors thereon, and to de'eat every purpose o' its
e9ecution, si$ply because the 'act o' approval (as not indorsed precisely as had been directed by
the %e)islature.E ;$erican 8ook Co. vs. Wells, J SW 6!!, 6!0, !6 .y %-11/9. 2e$phasis supplied3
;nd another. +his bond (as accepted by the )overn$ent. :t had been there. +he 'or$ o' the bond
here used is o' lon) continued usa)e. :' the )overn$ent did not Duestion the 'or$ o' the bond at all,
then (e $ust assu$e that it counted (ith the Secretary1s approval. For the presu$ption is that
o''icial duty has been le)ally per'or$ed.
Surely enou)h, eDuitable considerations (ill stop petitioners 'ro$ pleadin) invalidity o' the bond.
+hey o''ered that bond to enable the$ to enter and stay in this country. +hey en>oyed bene'its
there'ro$. +hey cannot, Ein la(, and )ood conscience, be allo(ed to reap the 'ruitsE o' that bond,
and then >ettison the sa$e. +hey are Eprecluded 'ro$ attackin) the validityE o' such bond.
10
;ctually, to petitioners the bond (as )ood (hile they sou)ht entry into the "hilippines= they o''ered it
as security 'or the undertakin)= that they E(ill actually depart 'ro$ the "hilippinesE (hen their ter$ o'
stay e9pires. #o( that the bond is bein) con'iscated because they overstayed, they $ake an about-
'ace and say that such bond is null and void. +hey shall not pro'it 'ro$ this inconsistent position.
+heir bond should be con'iscated.
Con'or$ably to the 'ore)oin), the >ud)$ent under revie( is hereby $odi'ied as 'ollo(s*
213 +he portion thereo' (hich reads*
2a3 @rantin) their petition 'or Mandamus and "rohibition (ith respect to petitioner C,;#
S;A W;,, (ho is hereby declared a citizen o' the "hilippines= orderin) the respondent to
cancel her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, upon the pay$ent
o' proper dues= and declarin) preli$inary in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent,
prohibitin) the respondent, his representatives or subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor
deportin) said petitioner=
is hereby reversed* and, in conseDuence H
+he petition 'or mandamus and prohibition (ith respect to petitioner Chan Sau Wah is hereby
denied= and the >ud)$ent declarin) her a citizen o' the "hilippines, directin) respondent to cancel
her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, and declarin) the preli$inary
in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent, are all hereby set aside= and
2!3 :n all other respects, the decision appealed 'ro$ is hereby a''ir$ed.
#o costs. So ordered.
,oncepcion- ,...- +e'es- ../.L.- Ma(alintal- /engzon ..0.- 1aldi%ar and ,astro- ....- concur.
G.R. No. 22270 3e)e.4e/ 15, 1929
3R. NEMES$O E. 6RU3ENTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. E7ECUT$%E JU3GE ABELAR3O M. 3A#R$T, RTC Mn&8, B/n)' 33 n! 6EO6LE
O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
Francisco S/ Ace2as 333- Oscar S. Atencio- +odolfo M. ,apoc'an- Ernesto 0. Fernandez- +omulo /.
Macalintal- +odrigo ). Melchor- +udegelio 4. 5acorda 6irgilio L. 6alle and Luciano 4. 6alencia for
petitioner.

6A3$LLA, J.:
+his is a petition 'or certiorari to annul and set aside the order o' respondent Jud)e dated 9 &arch
19JJ (hich denied the petitioner1s $otion to Duash Search Warrant #o. J0-14, as (ell as his order
dated !5 ;pril 19JJ denyin) petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration o' the earlier order.
:t appears that on 1 6ctober 19J0, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali(, Chie' o' the :ntelli)ence Special
;ction Civision 2:S;C3 o' the Western "olice Cistrict 2W"C3 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3
o' &anila, 8ranch , presided over by respondent Jud)e ;belardo Cayrit, no( ;ssociate Justice o'
the Court o' ;ppeals. an application
1
'or the issuance o' a search (arrant, docketed therein as S7;<C,
W;<<;#+ #6. J0-14, 'or ?:6%;+:6# 6F "C #6. 1J66 2:lle)al "ossession o' Firear$s, etc.3 entitled
E"eople o' the "hilippines, "lainti'', versus #e$esis 7. "rudente, Ce'endant.E :n his application 'or search
(arrant, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( alle)ed, a$on) others, as 'ollo(s*
1. +hat he has been in'or$ed and has )ood and su''icient reasons to believe that
#7&7S:6 "<AC7#+7 (ho $ay be 'ound at the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines, ;nonas St. Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila, has in his control or
possession 'irear$s, e9plosives hand)renades and a$$unition (hich are ille)ally
possessed or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense (hich the
said #7&7S:6 "<AC7#+7 is keepin) and concealin) at the 'ollo(in) pre$ises o'
the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, to (it*
a. 6''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the
)round 'loor and other roo$s at the )round 'loor=
b. 6''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente at "A", Second
Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor=
!. +hat the undersi)ned has veri'ied the report and 'ound it to be a 'act, and
there'ore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the
undersi)ned or any a)ent o' the la( to take possession and brin) to this ,onorable
Court the 'ollo(in) described properties*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unitions=
b. .J and .4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand)renades= and,
d. assorted (eapons (ith a$$unitions.
:n support o' the application 'or issuance o' search (arrant, "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles, 6:C o' the
:ntelli)ence Section o' 2:S;C3 e9ecuted a ECeposition o' WitnessE dated 1 6ctober 19J0,
subscribed and s(orn to be'ore respondent Jud)e. :n his deposition, "B%t. Florenio ;n)eles
declared, inter alia, as 'ollo(s*
L* Co you kno( "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali(, the applicant 'or a
Search WarrantI
;* -es, sir, he is the Chie', :ntelli)ence and Special ;ction Civision,
Western "olice Cistrict.
L* Co you kno( the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines at ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila
;* -es, sir, the said place has been the sub>ect o' our surveillance
and observation durin) the past 'e( days.
L* Co you have personal kno(led)e that in the said pre$ises is kept
the 'ollo(in) properties sub>ect o' the o''ense o' violation o' "C #o.
1J66 or intended to be used as a $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unitions=
b. .J and 4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand)renades= and d. ;ssorted (eapons (ith a$$unitionsI
;* -es sir.
L* Co you kno( (ho is or (ho are the person or persons (ho has or
have control o' the above-described pre$isesI
;* -es sir, it is Cr. #e$esio "rudente, "resident o' the "olytechnic
Aniversity o' the "hilippines.
L* ,o( do you kno( that said property is sub>ect o' the o''ense o'
violation o' "res. Cecree #o. 1J66 or intended to be used as the
$eans o' co$$ittin) an o''enseI
;* Sir, as a result o' our continuous surveillance conducted 'or
several days, (e )athered in'or$ation 'ro$ veri'ied sources that the
holder o' said 'irear$s and e9plosives as (ell as a$$unitions aren1t
licensed to possess said 'irear$s and a$$unition. Further, the
pre$ises is a school and the holders o' these 'irear$s are not
students (ho (ere not supposed to possess 'irear$s, e9plosives and
a$$unition.
6n the sa$e day, 1 6ctober 19J0, respondent Jud)e issued Search Warrant #o. J0-14,
3
the
pertinent portions o' (hich read as 'ollo(s*
:t appearin) to the satis'action o' the undersi)ned, a'ter e9a$inin) under oath
applicant ;%%;C:# &. C:&;@&;%:W and his (itness F%6<7#:6 C. ;#@7%7S that
there are )ood and su''icient reasons to believe 2probable cause3 that #7&7S:6
"<AC7#+7 has in his control in the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines, ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila, properties (hich are sub>ect
o' the above o''ense or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) the said
o''ense.
-ou are hereby co$$anded to $ake an i$$ediate search at any ti$e in the day or
ni)ht o' the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, $ore particularly
2a3 o''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the )round 'loor and
other roo$s at the )round 'loor= 2b3 o''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente at
"A", Second Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor, and 'orth(ith seize and take
possession o' the 'ollo(in) personal properties, to (it*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unition=
b. .J and .4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand )renades= and
d. assorted (eapons (ith a$$unitions.
and brin) the above described properties to the undersi)ned to be dealt (ith as the
la( directs.
6n 1 #ove$ber 19J0, a Sunday and ;ll Saints Cay, the search (arrant (as en'orced by so$e !55
W"C operatives led by "BCol. 7d)ar Cula +orre, Ceputy Superintendent, W"C, and "B&a>or <o$eo
&a)anto, "recinct J Co$$ander.
:n his a''idavit,
5
dated ! #ove$ber 19J0, <icardo ;bando y -usay, a $e$ber o' the searchin) tea$,
alle)ed that he 'ound in the dra(er o' a cabinet inside the (ash roo$ o' Cr. "rudente1s o''ice a bul)in)
bro(n envelope (ith three 23 live 'ra)$entation hand )renades separately (rapped (ith old
ne(spapers, classi'ied by "BS)t. J.%. Cruz as 'ollo(s 2a3 one 213 pc.H& Fra)$entation hand )renade
2live3= 2b3 one 2113 pc.H&!6 Fra)$entation hand )renade 2live3= and 2c3 one 213 pc.H"<8H4!
Fra)$entation hand )renade 2live3.
6n 6 #ove$ber 19J0, petitioner $oved to Duash the search (arrant. ,e clai$ed that 213 the
co$plainant1s lone (itness, %t. Florenio C. ;n)eles, had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts (hich
'or$ed the basis 'or the issuance o' the search (arrant= 2!3 the e9a$ination o' the said (itness (as
not in the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and ans(ers= 23 the search (arrant (as a )eneral (arrant,
'or the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it 'ailed to char)e
one speci'ic o''ense= and 243 the search (arrant (as issued in violation o' Circular #o. 19 o' the
Supre$e Court in that the co$plainant 'ailed to alle)e under oath that the issuance o' the search
(arrant on a Saturday (as ur)ent.
9
+he applicant, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( thru the Chie', :nspectorate and %e)al ;''airs Civision,
W"C, opposed the $otion.
6
;'ter petitioner had 'iled his reply
7
to the opposition, he 'iled a
supple$ental $otion to Duash.
2
+herea'ter, on 9 &arch 19JJ, respondent Jud)e issued an order,
9
denyin) the petitioner1s $otion and
supple$ental $otion to Duash. "etitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration
10
(as like(ise denied in the
order
11
dated !5 ;pril 19JJ.
,ence, the present recourse, petitioner alle)in) that respondent Jud)e has decided a Duestion o'
substance in a $anner not in accord (ith la( or applicable decisions o' the Supre$e Court, or that
the respondent Jud)e )ravely abused his discretion tanta$ount to e9cess o' >urisdiction, in issuin)
the disputed orders.
For a valid search (arrant to issue, there $ust be probable cause, (hich is to be deter$ined
personally by the >ud)e, a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
12
+he probable cause $ust be in connection (ith one speci'ic o''ense
13
and the
>ud)e $ust, be'ore issuin) the (arrant, personally e9a$ine in the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and
ans(ers, in (ritin) and under oath, the co$plainant and any (itness he $ay produce, on 'acts personally
kno(n to the$ and attach to the record their s(orn state$ents to)ether (ith any a''idavits sub$itted.
15
+he Eprobable causeE 'or a valid search (arrant, has been de'ined Eas such 'acts and circu$stances
(hich (ould lead a reasonably discreet arid prudent $an to believe that an o''ense has been
co$$itted, and that ob>ects sou)ht in connection (ith the o''ense are in the place sou)ht to be
searched.E
19
+his probable cause $ust be sho(n to be (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the co$plainant
or the (itnesses he $ay produce and not based on $ere hearsay.
16
"etitioner assails the validity o' Search Warrant #o. J0-14 on the )round that it (as issued on the
basis o' 'acts and circu$stances (hich (ere not (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the applicant and
his (itness but based on hearsay evidence. :n his application 'or search (arrant, "B&a>or ;lladin
Ci$a)$ali( stated that Ehe has been informed7 that #e$esio "rudente Ehas in his control and
possessionE the 'irear$s and e9plosives described therein, and that he Ehas %erified the report and
found it to be a fact.E 6n the other hand, in his supportin) deposition, "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles
declared that, as a result o' their continuous surveillance 'or several days, they E)athered
in'or$ations 'ro$ veri'ied sourcesE that the holders o' the said 'ire ar$s and e9plosives are not
licensed to possess the$. :n other (ords, the applicant and his (itness had no personal
(nowledge o' the 'acts and circu$stances (hich beca$e the basis 'or issuin) the Duestioned search
(arrant, but ac&uired (nowledge thereof only throu)h in'or$ation 'ro$ other sources or persons.
While it is true that in his application 'or search (arrant, applicant "B&a>or Ci$a)$ali( stated
that he %erified the information he had earlier recei%ed that petitioner had in his possession and
custody the t there is nothin) in the record to sho( or indicate ho( and (hen said applicant veri'ied
the earlier in'or$ation acDuired by hi$ as to >usti'y his conclusion that he found such information to
be a fact. ,e $i)ht have clari'ied this point i' there had been searchin) Duestions and ans(ers, but
there (ere none. :n 'act, the records yield no Duestions and ans(ers, (hether searchin) or not, vis-
a-vis the said applicant.
What the records sho( is the deposition o' (itness, "B%t. ;n)eles, as the only support to "B&a>or
Ci$a)$ali(1s application, and the said deposition is based on hearsay. For, it avers that they
2presu$ably, the police authorities3 had conducted continuous surveillance 'or several days o' the
suspected pre$ises and, as a result thereo', they Egathered information from %erified sources7 that
the holders o' the sub>ect 'irear$s and e9plosives are not licensed to possess the$.
3n Al%arez %s. ,ourt of First 3nstance,
17
this Court laid the 'ollo(in) test in deter$inin) (hether the
alle)ations in an application 'or search (arrant or in a supportin) deposition, are based on personal
kno(led)e or notH
+he true test o' su''iciency o' a deposition or a''idavit to (arrant issuance o' a search
(arrant is (hether it has been dra(n in a $anner that per>ury could be char)ed
thereon and the a''iant be held liable 'or da$a)e caused. +he oath reDuired $ust
re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the applicant 'or
search (arrant, andBor his (itnesses, not o' the 'acts $erely reported by a person
(ho$ one considers to be reliable.
+ested by the above standard, the alle)ations o' the (itness, "B%t. ;n)eles, in his deposition, do not
co$e up to the level o' 'acts o' his personal kno(led)e so $uch so that he cannot be held liable
'or per2ur' 'or such alle)ations in causin) the issuance o' the Duestioned search (arrant.
:n the sa$e Al%arez case,
12
the applicant stated that his purpose 'or applyin) 'or a search (arrant (as
that* E:t had been reported to $e by a person (ho$ : consider to be reliable that there are bein) kept in
said pre$ises books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by hi$ in connection (ith his
activities as a $oney lender, challen)in) usurious rate o' interests, in violation o' la(.E +he Court held that
this (as insu''icient 'or the purpose o' issuin) a search (arrant.
:n 0eople %s. S' .uco-
19
(here the a''idavit contained an alle)ation that there had been a report to the
a''iant by a person (ho$ lie considered reliable that in said pre$ises (ere E'raudulent books,
correspondence and records,E this (as like(ise held as not su''icient 'or the purpose o' issuin) a search
(arrant. 7vidently, the alle)ations contained in the application o' "B &a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( and the
declaration o' "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles in his deposition (ere insu''icient basis 'or the issuance o' a valid
search (arrant. ;s held in the Al%arez case*
+he oath reDuired $ust re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o'
the petitioner or his (itnesses, because the purpose thereo' is to convince the
co$$ittin) $a)istrate, not the individual $akin) the a''idavit and seekin) the
issuance o' the (arrant, o' the e9istence o' probable cause.
8esides, respondent Jud)e did not take the deposition o' the applicant as reDuired by the <ules o'
Court. ;s held in +oan %. Gonzales,
20
E2$3ere a''idavits o' the co$plainant and his (itnesses are thus
not su''icient. +he e9a$inin) Jud)e has to take depositions in (ritin) o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce and attach the$ to the record.E
&oreover, a perusal o' the deposition o' "B%t. Florenio ;n)eles sho(s that it (as too brie' and short.
<espondent Jud)e did not e9a$ine hi$ Ein the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and ans(ers.E 6n the
contrary, the Duestions asked (ere leadin) as they called 'or a si$ple EyesE or EnoE ans(er. ;s held
in 8uintero %s. 9/3,E
21
the Duestions propounded by respondent 79ecutive Jud)e to the applicant1s
(itness are not su''iciently searchin) to establish probable cause. ;skin) o' leadin) Duestions to the
deponent in an application 'or search (arrant, and conductin) o' e9a$ination in a )eneral $anner, (ould
not satis'y the reDuire$ents 'or issuance o' a valid search (arrant.E
&ani'estly, in the case at bar, the evidence 'ailed to sho( the e9istence o' probable cause to >usti'y
the issuance o' the search (arrant. +he Court also notes post facto that the search in Duestion
yielded, no ar$alites, hand)uns, pistols, assorted (eapons or a$$unitions as stated in the
application 'or search (arrant, the supportin) deposition, and the search (arrant the supportin)
hand )renades (ere itsel' 6nly three 23 live 'ra)$entation 'ound in the searched pre$ises o' the
"A", accordin) to the a''idavit o' an alle)ed $e$ber o' the searchin) party.
+he Court avails o' this decision to reiterate the strict reDuire$ents 'or deter$ination o' Eprobable
causeE in the valid issuance o' a search (arrant, as enunciated in earlier cases. +rue, these
reDuire$ents are strin)ent but the purpose is to assure that the constitutional ri)ht o' the individual
a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure shall re$ain both $eanin)'ul and e''ective.
"etitioner also assails the validity o' the search (arrant on the )round that it 'ailed to particularly
describe the place to be searched, contendin) that there (ere several roo$s at the )round 'loor and
the second 'loor o' the "A".
+he rule is, that a description o' a place to be searched is su''icient i' the o''icer (ith the (arrant can,
(ith reasonable e''ort, ascertain and :denti'y the place intended .
22
:n the case at bar, the application
'or search (arrant and the search (arrant itsel' described the place to be searched as the pre$ises o'
the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, located at ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila $ore
particularly, the o''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the )round 'loor, and the
6''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente, at "A", Second Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor.
+he desi)nation o' the places to be searched su''iciently co$plied (ith the constitutional in>unction that a
search (arrant $ust particularly describe the place to be searched, even i' there (ere several roo$s at
the )round 'loor and second 'loor o' the "A".
"etitioner ne9t attacks the validity o' the Duestioned (arrant, on the )round that it (as issued in
violation o' the rule that a search (arrant can be issued only in connection (ith one speci'ic o''ense.
+he search (arrant issued by respondent >ud)e, accordin) to petitioner, (as issued (ithout any
re'erence to any particular provision o' "C #o. 1J66 that (as violated (hen alle)edly ".C. #o. 1J66
punishes several o''enses.
:n Stonehill %s. 4io(no,
23
Where the (arrants involved (ere issued upon applications statin) that the
natural and >uridical persons therein na$ed had co$$itted a Eviolation o' Central 8ank %a(s, +ari'' and
Custo$s %a(s, :nternal <evenue Code and <evised "enal Code,E the Court held that no speci'ic o''ense
had been alle)ed in the applications 'or a search (arrant, and that it (ould be a le)al hearsay o' the
hi)hest order to convict anybody o' a E?iolation o' Central 8ank %a(s, +ari'' and Custo$s %a(s, :nternal
<evenue Code and <evised "enal CodeE (ithout re'erence to any deter$inate provision o' said la(s and
codes.
:n the present case, ho(ever, the application 'or search (arrant (as captioned* EFor ?iolation o' "C
#o. 1J66 2:lle)al "ossession o' Firear$s, etc.3 While the said decree punishes several o''enses, the
alle)ed violation in this case (as, Duali'ied by the phrase Eille)al possession o' 'irear$s, etc.E ;s
e9plained by respondent Jud)e, the ter$ Eetc.E re'erred to a$$unitions and e9plosives. :n other
(ords, the search (arrant (as issued 'or the speci'ic o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and
e9plosives. ,ence, the 'ailure o' the search (arrant to $ention the particular provision o' "C #o. 1-
J66 that (as violated is not o' such a )ravity as to call 'or its invalidation on this score. 8esides,
(hile ille)al possession o' 'irear$s is penalized under Section 1 o' "C #o. 1J66 and ille)al
possession o' e9plosives is penalized under Section thereo', it cannot be overlooked that said
decree is a codi'ication o' the various la(s on ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, a$$unitions and
e9plosives= such ille)al possession o' ite$s destructive o' li'e and property are related o''enses or
belon) to the sa$e species, as to be subsu$ed (ithin the cate)ory o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s,
etc. under ".C. #o. 1J66. ;s observed by respondent Jud)e*
25
+he )ra$$atical synta9 o' the phraseolo)y co$parative (ith the title o' "C 1J66 can
only $ean that ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, a$$unitions and e9plosives, have
been codi'ied under Section 1 o' said "residential Cecree so $uch so that the
second and third are 'orthri)htly species o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s under
Section 213 thereo' :t has lon) been a practice in the investi)ative and prosecution
ar$ o' the )overn$ent, to desi)nate the cri$e o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s,
a$$unitions and e9plosives as 1ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, etc.1 +he Constitution
as (ell as the <ules o' Cri$inal "rocedure does not reco)nize the issuance o' one
search (arrant 'or ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, one (arrant 'or ille)al possession o'
a$$unitions, and another 'or ille)al possession o' e9plosives. #either is the 'ilin) o'
three di''erent in'or$ations 'or each o' the above o''enses sanctioned by the <ules o'
Court. +he usual practice adopted by the courts is to 'ile a sin)le in'or$ation 'or
ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions. +his practice is considered to be in
accordance (ith Section 1, <ule 115 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure
(hich provides that* 1; co$plaint or in'or$ation $ust char)e but one o''ense, e:cept
onl' in those cases in which e:isting laws prescribe a single punishment for %arious
offenses. Cescribably, the servers did not search 'or articles other than 'irear$s,
a$$unitions and e9plosives. +he issuance o' Search Warrant #o. J0-14 is dee$ed
pro'oundly consistent (ith said rule and is there'ore valid and en'orceable.
27$phasis supplied3
Finally, in connection (ith the petitioner1s contention that the 'ailure o' the applicant to state, under
oath, the ur)ent need 'or the issuance o' the search (arrant, his application havin) been 'iled on a
Saturday, rendered the Duestioned (arrant invalid 'or bein) violative o' this Court1s Circular #o. 19,
dated 14 ;u)ust 19J0, (hich reads*
. ;pplications 'iled a'ter o''ice hours, durin) Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall
like(ise be taken co)nizance o' and acted upon by any >ud)e o' the court havin)
>urisdiction o' the place to be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certi'y
and state the 'acts under oath, to the satis'action o' the >ud)e, that the issuance is
ur)ent.
it (ould su''ice to state that the above section o' the circular $erely provides 'or a )uideline,
departure 'ro$ (hich (ould not necessarily a''ect the validity o' an other(ise valid search (arrant.
W,7<7F6<7, all the 'ore)oin) considered, the petition is @<;#+7C. +he Duestioned orders dated
9 &arch 19JJ and !5 ;pril 19JJ as (ell as Search Warrant #o. J0-14 are hereby ;##A%%7C and
S7+ ;S:C7.
+he three 23 live 'ra)$entation hand )renades (hich, accordin) to <icardo -. ;bando, a $e$ber o'
the searchin) tea$, (ere seized in the (ashroo$ o' petitioner1s o''ice at the "A", are ordered
delivered to the Chie', "hilippine Constabulary 'or proper disposition.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan- ,...- 9ar%asa- Melencio-)errera- Gutierrez- .r.- ,ruz- 0aras- Feliciano- Ganca'co- /idin-
Sarmiento- ,ortes- Gri#o-A&uino- Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.

G.R. No. L-59392 Jnu/, 29, 1937
NARC$SO AL%ARE1, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT O" "$RST $NSTANCE O" TA#ABAS n! THE ANT$-USUR# BOAR3, respondents.
Godofredo +e'es for petitioner.
Adolfo 9. Feliciano for respondents Anti-;sur' /oard.
9o appearance for other respondent.
$M6ER$AL, J.:
+he petitioner asks that the (arrant o' June , 196, issued by the Court o' First :nstance o'
+ayabas, orderin) the search o' his house and the seizure, at any ti$e o' the day or ni)ht, o' certain
accountin) books, docu$ents and papers belon)in) to hi$ in his residence situated in :n'anta,
"rovince o' +ayabas, as (ell as the order o' a later date, authorizin) the a)ents o' the ;nti-Asury
8oard to retain the articles seized, be declared ille)al and set aside, and prays that all the articles in
Duestion be returned to hi$.
6n the date above-$entioned, the chie' o' the secret service o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard, o' the
Cepart$ent o' Justice, presented to Jud)e 7duardo @utierrez Cavid then presidin) over the Court o'
First :nstance o' +ayabas, an a''idavit alle)in) that accordin) to reliable in'or$ation, the petitioner
kept in his house in :n'anta, +ayabas, books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used
by hi$ in connection (ith his activities as a $oney-lender char)in) usurious rates o' interest in
violation o' the la(. :n his oath at the and o' the a''idavit, the chie' o' the secret service stated that
his ans(ers to the Duestions (ere correct to the best o' his kno(led)e and belie'. ,e did not s(ear
to the truth o' his state$ents upon his o(n kno(led)e o' the 'acts but upon the in'or$ation received
by hi$ 'ro$ a reliable person. Apon the a''idavit in Duestion the Jud)e, on said date, issued the
(arrant (hich is the sub>ect $atter o' the petition, orderin) the search o' the petitioner1s house at
nay ti$e o' the day or ni)ht, the seizure o' the books and docu$ents above-$entioned and the
i$$ediate delivery thereo' to hi$ to be disposed o' in accordance (ith the la(. With said (arrant,
several a)ents o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard entered the petitioner1s store and residence at seven o1clock
on the ni)ht o' June 4, 196, and seized and took possession o' the 'ollo(in) articles* internal
revenue licenses 'or the years 19 to 196, one led)er, t(o >ournals, t(o cashbooks, nine order
books, 'our notebooks, 'our checks stubs, t(o $e$orandu$s, three bankbooks, t(o contracts, 'our
stubs, 'orty-ei)ht stubs o' purchases o' copra, t(o inventories, t(o bundles o' bills o' ladin), one
bundle o' credit receipts, one bundle o' stubs o' purchases o' copra, t(o packa)es o'
correspondence, one receipt book belon)in) to %uis Fernandez, 'ourteen bundles o' invoices and
other papers $any docu$ents and loan contracts (ith security and pro$issory notes, /54 chits,
pro$issory notes and stubs o' used checks o' the ,on)kon) M Shan)hai 8ankin) Corporation. +he
search 'or and a seizure o' said articles (ere $ade (ith the opposition o' the petitioner (ho stated
his protest belo( the inventories on the )round that the a)ents seized even the ori)inals o' the
docu$ents. ;s the articles had not been brou)ht i$$ediately to the >ud)e (ho issued the search
(arrant, the petitioner, throu)h his attorney, 'iled a $otion on June J, 196, prayin) that the a)ent
7$ilio %. Sion)co, or any other a)ent, be ordered i$$ediately to deposit all the seized articles in the
o''ice o' the clerk o' court and that said a)ent be declared )uilty o' conte$pt 'or havin) disobeyed
the order o' the court. 6n said date the court issued an order directin) 7$ilio %. Sion)co to deposit
all the articles seized (ithin t(enty-'our hours 'ro$ the receipt o' notice thereo' and )ivin) hi$ a
period o' 'ive 2/3 days (ithin (hich to sho( cause (hy he should not be punished 'or conte$pt o'
court. 6n June 15th, ;ttorney ;rsenio <odri)uez, representin) the ;nti-Asury 8oard, 'iled a $otion
prayin) that the order o' the Jth o' said $onth be set aside and that the ;nti-Asury 8oard be
authorized to retain the articles seized 'or a period o' thirty 253 days 'or the necessary investi)ation.
+he attorney 'or the petitioner, on June !5th, 'iled another $otion alle)in) that, not(ithstandin) the
order o' the Jth o' said $onth, the o''icials o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard had 'ailed to deposit the articles
seized by the$ and prayin) that a search (arrant be issued, that the sheri'' be ordered to take all
the articles into his custody and deposit o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard be punished 'or conte$pt o' court.
Said attorney, on June !4th, 'iled an e9 parte petition alle)in) that (hile a)ent 7$ilio %. Sion)co had
deposited so$e docu$ents and papers in the o''ice o' the clerk o' court, he had so 'ar 'ailed to 'ile
an inventory duly veri'ied by oath o' all the docu$ents seized by hi$, to return the search (arrant
to)ether (ith the a''idavit it presented in support thereo', or to present the report o' the proceedin)s
taken by hi$= and prayed that said a)ent be directed to 'iled the docu$ents in Duestion i$$ediately.
6n the !/th o' said $onth the court issued an order reDuirin) a)ent 7$ilio %. Sion)co 'orth(ith to 'ile
the search (arrant and the a''idavit in the court, to)ether (ith the proceedin)s taken by hi$, and to
present an inventory duly veri'ied by oath o' all the articles seized. 6n July !d o' said year, the
attorney 'or the petitioner 'iled another petition alle)in) that the search (arrant issue (as ille)al and
that it had nit yet been returned to date to)ether (ith the proceedin)s taken in connection there(ith,
and prayin) that said (arrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directin) the return o' all the
articles seized to the petitioner, that the a)ent (ho seized the$ be declared )uilty o' conte$pt o'
court, and that char)es be 'iled a)ainst hi$ 'or abuse o' authority. 6n Septe$ber 15, 196, the court
issued an order holdin)* that the search (arrant (as obtained and issued in accordance (ith the
la(, that it had been duly co$plied (ith and, conseDuently, should not be cancelled, and that a)ent
7$ilio %. Sion)co did not co$$it any conte$pt o' court and $ust, there'ore, be e9onerated, and
orderin) the chie' o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard in &anila to sho( case, i' any, (ithin the une9tendible
period o' t(o 2!3 days 'ro$ the date o' notice o' said order, (hy all the articles seized appearin) in
the inventory, 79hibit 1, should not be returned to the petitioner. +he assistant chie' o' the ;nti-Asury
8oard o' the Cepart$ent o' Justice 'iled a $otion prayin), 'or the reasons stated therein, that the
articles seized be ordered retained 'or the purpose o' conductin) an investi)ation o' the violation o'
the ;nti-Asury %a( co$$itted by the petitioner. :n vie( o' the opposition o' the attorney 'or the
petitioner, the court, on Septe$ber !/th, issued an order reDuirin) the ;nti-Asury 8oard to speci'y
the ti$e needed by it to e9a$ine the docu$ents and papers seized and (hich o' the$ should be
retained, )rantin) it a period o' 'ive 2/3 days 'or said purpose. 6n the 5th o' said $onth the
assistant chie' o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard 'iled a $otion prayin) that he be )ranted ten 2153 days to
co$ply (ith the order o' Septe$ber !/th and that the clerk o' court be ordered to return to hi$ all
the docu$ents and papers to)ether (ith the inventory thereo'. +he court, in an order o' 6ctober !d
o' said year, )ranted hi$ the additional period o' ten2153 days and ordered the clerk o' court to send
hi$ a copy o' the inventory. 6n 6ctober 15th, said o''icial a)ain 'iled another $otion alle)in) that he
needed si9ty 2653 days to e9a$ine the docu$ents and papers seized, (hich are desi)nated on
pa)es 1 to 4 o' the inventory by #os. /, 1516, !, !/, !6, !0, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, J, 9, 45, 41, 4!,
4 and 4/, and prayin) that he be )ranted said period o' si9ty 2653 days. :n an order o' 6ctober 16th,
the court )ranted hi$ the period o' si9ty 2653 days to investi)ate said nineteen 2193 docu$ents. +he
petitioner alle)es, and it is not denied by the respondents, that these nineteen 2193docu$ents
continue in the possession o' the court, the rest havin) been returned to said petitioner.
:. ; search (arrant is an order in (ritin), issued in the na$e o' the "eople o' the "hilippine
:slands, si)ned by a >ud)e or a >ustice o' the peace, and directed to a peace o''icer,
co$$andin) hi$ to search 'or personal property and brin) it be'ore the court 2section 9/,
@eneral 6rders. #o. /J, as a$ended by section 6 o' ;ct #o. !JJ63. 6' all the ri)hts o' a
citizen, 'e( are o' )reater i$portance or $ore essential to his peace and happiness than the
ri)ht o' personal security, and that involves the e9e$ption o' his private a''airs, books, and
papers 'ro$ the inspection and scrutiny o' others 23n re "aci'ic <ail(ays Co$$ission, !
Fed., !41= :nterstate Co$$erce Co$$ission vs 8ri$son, J %a(. ed., 1540= 8royd %s. A. S.,
!9 %a(. ed., 046= Caroll%s. A. S., 69 %a(. ed., /4, /493. While the po(er to search and
seize is necessary to the public (el'are, still it $ust be e9ercised and the la( en'orced
(ithout trans)ressin) the constitutional ri)hts or citizen, 'or the en'orce$ent o' no statue is o'
su''icient i$portance to >usti'y indi''erence to the basis principles o' )overn$ent
2"eople %s. 7lias, 140 #. 7., 40!3.
::. ;s the protection o' the citizen and the $aintenance o' his constitutional ri)ht is one o' the
hi)hest duties and privile)es o' the court, these constitutional )uaranties should be )iven a
liberal construction or a strict construction in 'avor o' the individual, to prevent stealthy
encroach$ent upon, or )radual depreciation on, the ri)hts secured by the$2State %s. Custer
County, 19J "ac., 6!= State %s. &cCaniel, !1 "ac., 96/= !0 "ac., 03. Since the
proceedin) is a drastic one, it is the )eneral rule that statutes authorizin) searches and
seizure or search (arrants $ust be strictly construed 2<ose %s. St. Clair, !J Fed., F!dG, 1J9=
%eonard %s.A. S., 6 Fed. F!dG, /= "erry %s. A. S. 14 Fed. F!dG,JJ= Co'er %s. State, 11J So.,
613.
:::. +he petitioner clai$s that the search (arrant issued by the court is ille)al because it has
been based upon the a''idavit o' a)ent &ariano @. ;l$eda in (hose oath he declared that he
had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts (hich (ere to serve as a basis 'or the issuance o'
the (arrant but that he had kno(led)e thereo' throu)h $ere in'or$ation secured 'ro$ a
person (ho$ he considered reliable. +o the Duestion EWhat are your reason 'or applyin) 'or
this search (arrantE, appearin) in the a''idavit, the a)ent ans(ered* E:t has been reported to
$e by a person (ho$ : consider to be reliable that there are bein) kept in said pre$ises,
books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits, and other papers used by hi$ in connection (ith his
activities as a $oney-lender, char)in) a usurious rate o' interest, in violation o' the la(E and
in attestin) the truth o' his state$ents contained in the a''idavit, the said a)ent states that he
'ound the$ to be correct and true to the best o' his kno(led)e and belie'.
Section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, relative to the bill o' ri)hts, provides
that E+he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no (arrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath
or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly
describin) the place top be searched, and the persons or thin)s to be seized.E Section 90 o'
@eneral 6rders, #o. /J provides that E; search (arrant shall not issue e9cept 'or probable
cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describin) the place to be
searched and the person or thin) to be seized.E :t (ill be noted that both provisions reDuire
that there be not only probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a search (arrant but that the
search (arrant $ust be based upon an application supported by oath o' the applicant ands
the (itnesses he $ay produce. :n its broadest sense, an oath includes any 'or$ o'
attestation by (hich a party si)ni'ies that he is bound in conscience to per'or$ an act
'aith'ully and truth'ully= and it is so$eti$es de'ined asan out(ard pled)e )iven by the person
takin) it that his attestation or pro$ise is $ade under an i$$ediate sense o' his
responsibility to @od 28ouvier1s %a( Cictionary= State %s. Jackson, 10 #. W., 154= 3n
re Sa)e, !4 6h. Cir. Ct. F#. S.G, 0= "u$phery %s. State, 1!! #. W., 19= "riest %s. State, 6 #.
W., 46J= State %s. Jones, 1/4 "ac., 0J= ;t(ood %s. State, 111 So., J6/3. +he oath reDuired
$ust re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the petitioner or his
(itnesses, because the purpose thereo' is to convince the co$$ittin) $a)istrate, not the
individual $akin) the a''idavit and seekin) the issuance o' the (arrant, o' the e9istence o'
probable cause 2A. S. %s.+ureaud, !5 Fed., 6!1= A. S. %s. &ichalski, !6/ Fed., J49= A.
S. %s. "itotto, !60 Fed., 65= A. S. %s. %ai Che(, !9J Fed., 6/!3. +he true test o' su''iciency
o' an a''idavit to (arrant issuance o' a search (arrant is (hether it has been dra(n in such a
$anner that per>ury could be char)ed thereon and a''iant be held liable 'or da$a)es caused
2State %s. <oosevelt Country !5th Jud. Cis. Ct., !44 "ac., !J5= State %s. Luartier, !6 "ac.,
0463.
:t (ill like(ise be noted that section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizure. Anreasonable searches and seizures are a $enace
a)ainst (hich the constitutional )uarantee a''ord 'ull protection. +he ter$ Eunreasonable
search and seizureE is not de'ined in the Constitution or in @eneral 6rders #o. /J, and it is
said to have no 'i9ed, absolute or unchan)eable $eanin), althou)h the ter$ has been
de'ined in )eneral lan)ua)e. ;ll ille)al searches and seizure are unreasonable (hile la('ul
ones are reasonable. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in
any particular case is purely a >udicial Duestion, deter$inable 'ro$ a consideration o' the
circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the search, the presence or absence or
probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and seizure (as $ade, the place or thin)
searched, and the character o' the articles procured 2@o-8art :$portin) Co. %s. A. S. 0/ %a(.
ed., 04= "eru %s. A. S., 4 Fed., F!dG, JJ1=A. S. %s. ?atune, !9! Fed., 490= ;n)elo %s. A. S.
05 %a(, ed., 14/= %a$bert %s. A. S. !J! Fed., 41= A. S. %s.8ate$an, !0J Fed., !1=
&ason %s. <ollins, 16 Fed. Cas. F#o. 9!/!G, ! 8iss., 993.
:n vie( o' the 'ore)oin) and under the above-cited authorities, it appears that the a''idavit,
(hich served as the e9clusive basis o' the search (arrant, is insu''icient and 'atally de'ective
by reason o' the $anner in (hich the oath (as $ade, and there'ore, it is hereby held that
the search (arrant in Duestion and the subseDuent seizure o' the books, docu$ents and
other papers are ille)al and do not in any (ay (arrant the deprivation to (hich the petitioner
(as sub>ected.
:?. ;nother )round alle)ed by the petitioner in askin) that the search (arrant be declared
ille)al and cancelled is that it (as not supported by other a''idavits aside 'ro$ that $ade by
the applicant. :n other (ords, it is contended that the search (arrant cannot be issued unless
it be supported by a''idavits $ade by the applicant and the (itnesses to be presented
necessity by hi$. Section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution provides that no
(arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter
e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce.
Section 9J o' @eneral 6rders, #o. /J provides that the >ud)e or >ustice $ust, be'ore issuin)
the (arrant, e9a$ine under oath the co$plainant and any (itnesses he $ay produce and
take their depositions in (ritin). :t is the practice in this >urisdiction to attach the a''idavit o' at
least the applicant or co$plainant to the application. :t is ad$itted that the >ud)e (ho issued
the search (arrant in this case, relied e9clusively upon the a''idavit $ade by a)ent &ariano
@. ;l$eda and that he did not reDuire nor take the deposition o' any other (itness. #either
the Constitution nor @eneral 6rders. #o. /J provides that it is o' i$perative necessity to take
the deposition o' the (itnesses to be presented by the applicant or co$plainant in addition to
the a''idavit o' the latter. +he purpose o' both in reDuirin) the presentation o' depositions is
nothin) $ore than to satis'y the co$$ittin) $a)istrate o' the e9istence o' probable cause.
+here'ore, i' the a''idavit o' the applicant or co$plainant is su''icient, the >ud)e $ay dispense
(ith that o' other (itnesses. :nas$uch as the a''idavit o' the a)ent in this case (as
insu''icient because his kno(led)e o' the 'acts (as not personal but $erely hearsay, it is the
duty o' the >ud)e to reDuire the a''idavit o' one or $ore (itnesses 'or the purpose o'
deter$inin) the e9istence o' probable cause to (arrant the issuance o' the search (arrant.
When the a''idavit o' the applicant o' the co$plaint contains su''icient 'acts (ithin his
personal and direct kno(led)e, it is su''icient i' the >ud)e is satis'ied that there e9ist probable
cause= (hen the applicant1s kno(led)e o' the 'acts is $ere hearsay, the a''idavit o' one or
$ore (itnesses havin) a personal kno(led)e o' the 'act is necessary. We conclude,
there'ore, that the (arrant issued is like(ise ille)al because it (as based only on the a''idavit
o' the a)ent (ho had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts.
?. +he petitioner alle)ed as another )round 'or the declaration o' the ille)ality o' the search
(arrant and the cancellation thereo', the 'act that it authorized its e9ecution at ni)ht. Section
151 o' @eneral 6rders, #o. /J authorizes that the search be $ade at ni)ht (hen it is
positively asserted in the a''idavits that the property is on the person or in the place ordered
to be searched. ;s (e have declared the a''idavits insu''icient and the (arrant issued
e9clusively upon it ille)al, our conclusion is that the contention is eDually (ell 'ounded and
that the search could not le)ally be $ade at ni)ht.
?:. 6ne o' the )rounds alle)ed by the petitioner in support o' his contention that the (arrant
(as issued ille)ally is the lack o' an adeDuate description o' the books and docu$ents to be
seized. Section 1, para)raphs , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, and section 90 o' @eneral
6rders, #o. /J provide that the a''idavit to be presented, (hich shall serve as the basis 'or
deter$inin) (hether probable cause e9ist and (hether the (arrant should be issued, $ust
contain a particular description o' the place to be searched and the person or thin) to be
seized. +hese provisions are $andatory and $ust be strictly co$plied (ith 2&unch%s. A. S.,
!4 Fed. F!dG, /1J= A. S. %s. 8oyd, 1 Fed. F!dG, 1519= A. S. %s. Carlson, !9! Fed., 46= A.
S. %s.8orko(ski, !6J Fed., 45J= :n re +ri-State Coal M Coke Co., !/ Fed., 65/=
"eople %s. &ayen, 1JJ Cal., !0= "eople %s. .ahn, !/6 :ll. ;pp., 41!/3= but (here, by the
nature o' the )oods to be seized, their description $ust be rather )enerally, it is not reDuired
that a technical description be )iven, as this (ould $ean that no (arrant could issue
2"eople %s. <ubio, /0 "hil., !J4= "eople %s. .ahn, supra3. +he only description o' the articles
)iven in the a''idavit presented to the >ud)e (as as 'ollo(s* Ethat there are bein) kept in said
pre$ises books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by hi$ in connection
(ith his activities as $oney-lender, char)in) a usurious rate o' interest, in violation o' the
la(.E +akin) into consideration the nature o' the article so described, it is clear that no other
$ore adeDuate and detailed description could have been )iven, particularly because it is
di''icult to )ive a particular description o' the contents thereo'. +he description so $ade
substantially co$plies (ith the le)al provisions because the o''icer o' the la( (ho e9ecuted
the (arrant (as thereby placed in a position enablin) hi$ to identi'y the articles, (hich he
did.
?::. +he last )round alle)ed by the petitioner, in support o' his clai$ that the search (arrant
(as obtained ille)ally, is that the articles (ere seized in order that the ;nti-Asury 8oard
$i)ht provide itsel' (ith evidence to be used by it in the cri$inal case or cases (hich $i)ht
be 'iled a)ainst hi$ 'or violation o' the ;nti-usury %a(. ;t the hearin) o' the incidents o' the
case raised be'ore the court it clearly appeared that the books and docu$ents had really
been seized to enable the ;nti-Asury 8oard to conduct an investi)ation and later use all or
so$e o' the articles in Duestion as evidence a)ainst the petitioner in the cri$inal cases that
$ay be 'iled a)ainst hi$. +he seizure o' books and docu$ents by $eans o' a search
(arrant, 'or the purpose o' usin) the$ as evidence in a cri$inal case a)ainst the person in
(hose possession they (ere 'ound, is unconstitutional because it $akes the (arrant
unreasonable, and it is eDuivalent to a violation o' the constitutional provision prohibitin) the
co$pulsion o' an accused to testi'y a)ainst hi$sel' 2Ay .heytin %s.?illareal, 4! "hil,, JJ6=
8rady %s. A. S., !66 A. S., 6!5= +e$perani %s. A. S., !99 Fed., 6/= A. S. %s.&adden, !90
Fed., 609= 8oyd %s. A. S.,116 A. S., 116= Caroll %s. A. S., !60 A. S., 1!3. +here'ore, it
appearin) that at least nineteen o' the docu$ents in Duestion (ere seized 'or the purpose o'
usin) the$ as evidence a)ainst the petitioner in the cri$inal proceedin) or proceedin)s 'or
violation a)ainst hi$, (e hold that the search (arrant issued is ille)al and that the
docu$ents should be returned to hi$.
+he ;nti-Asury 8oard insinuates in its ans(er that the petitioner cannot no( Duestion the validity o'
the search (arrant or the proceedin)s had subseDuent to the issuance thereo', because he has
(aived his constitutional ri)hts in proposin) a co$pro$ise (hereby he a)reed to pay a 'ine o' "!55
'or the purpose o' evadin) the cri$inal proceedin) or proceedin)s. We are o' the opinion that there
(as no such (aiver, 'irst, because the petitioner has e$phatically denied the o''er o' co$pro$ise
and, second, because i' there (as a co$pro$ise it re''ered but to the institution o' cri$inal
proceedin)s 'ro violation o' the ;nti-Asury %a(. +he (aiver (ould have been a )ood de'ense 'or the
respondents had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the search and seizure o' the articles in
Duestion, but such (as not the case because the petitioner protested 'ro$ the be)innin) and stated
his protest in (ritin) in the insu''icient inventory 'urnished hi$ by the a)ents.
Said board alle)es as another de'ense that the re$edy sou)ht by the petitioner does not lie because
he can appeal 'ro$ the orders (hich pre>udiced hi$ and are the sub>ect $atter o' his petition.
Section !!! o' the Code o' Civil "rocedure in 'act provides that mandamus (ill not issue (hen there
is another plain, speedy and adeDuate re$edy in the ordinary course o' la(. We are o' the opinion,
ho(ever, that an appeal 'ro$ said orders (ould have to lapse be'ore he recovers possession o' the
docu$ents and be'ore the ri)hts, o' (hich he has been unla('ully deprived, are restored to hi$
2Fa>ardo %s. %lorente, 6 "hil., 4!6= &anotoc %s. &c&ickin) and +rinidad, 15 "hil., 119= Cruz ,errera
de %ukban %s. &c&ickin), 14 "hil., 641= %a$b %s. "hipps, !! "hil., 4/63.
Su$$arizin) the 'ore)oin) conclusions, (e hold*
1. +hat the provisions o' the Constitution and @eneral 6rders, #o. /J, relative to search and
seizure, should be )iven a liberal construction in 'avor o' the individual in order to $aintain
the constitutional )uaranties (hole and in their 'ull 'orce=
!. +hat since the provisions in Duestion are drastic in their 'or$ and 'unda$entally restrict
the en>oy$ent o' the o(nership, possession and use o' the personal property o' the
individual, they should be strictly construed=
. +hat the search and seizure $ade are ille)al 'or the 'ollo(in) reasons* 2a3 8ecause the
(arrant (as based solely upon the a''idavit o' the petitioner (ho had no personal kno(led)e
o' the 'acts o' probable cause, and 2b3 because the (arrant (as issued 'or the sole purpose
o' seizin) evidence (hich (ould later be used in the cri$inal proceedin)s that $i)ht be
instituted a)ainst the petitioner, 'or violation o' the ;nti-Asury %a(=
4. +hat as the (arrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in
the a''idavit that the articles (ere in the possession o' the petitioner and in the place
indicated, neither could the search and seizure be $ade at ni)ht=
/. +hat althou)h it is not $andatory to present a''idavits o' (itnesses to corroborate the
applicant or a co$plainant in cases (here the latter has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts,
(hen the applicant1s or co$plainant1s kno(led)e o' the 'acts is $erely hearsay, it is the duty
o' the >ud)e to reDuire a''idavits o' other (itnesses so that he $ay deter$ine (hether
probable cause e9ists=
6. +hat a detailed description o' the person and place to be searched and the articles to be
seized is necessary, but (hereby, by the nature o' the articles to be seized, their description
$ust be rather )eneral, but is not reDuired that a technical description be )iven, as this
(ould $ean that no (arrant could issue=
0. +hat the petitioner did not (aive his constitutional ri)hts because the o''er o' co$pro$ise
or settle$ent attributed to hi$, does not $ean, i' so $ade, that he voluntarily tolerated the
search and seizure= and
J. +hat an appeal 'ro$ the orders Duestioned by the petitioner, i' taken by hi$, (ould not be
an e''ective, speedy or adeDuate re$edy in the ordinary course o' la(, and, conseDuently,
the petition 'or mandamus'iled by hi$, lies.
For the 'ore)oin) considerations, the search (arrant and the seizure o' June , 196, and the orders
o' the respondent court authorizin) the relation o' the books and docu$ents, are declared ille)al and
are set aside, and it is ordered that the >ud)e presidin) over the Court o' First :nstance o' +ayabas
direct the i$$ediate return to the petitioner o' the nineteen 2193 docu$ents desi)nated on pa)es 1
to 4 o' the inventory by #os. /, 15, 16, !, !/,!6, !0, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, J, 9, 45, 41, 4!, 4 and
4/, (ithout special pronounce$ent as to costs. So ordered.
A%ance#a- ,...- 6illa-+eal- 4iaz and ,oncepcion- ...- concur.
[G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971.]
BACHE & C. !"H#L.$, #NC. a%& FRE'ER#C( E. )EGGER*AN, Petitioners, +. HN. ,-'GE .#.ENC#
*. R-#/, *#)AEL ". .ERA, 0% 102 3a4a305y a2 Co660220o%er o7 #%5er%a8 Re+e%ue, AR9-R
LGRN#, R'LF 'E LEN, GA.#N .ELA):-E/, *#*#R 'ELL)A, N#CANR ALCR',
,HN 'E, ,HN 'E, ,HN 'E, a%& ,HN 'E, Respondents.
)a% ,ua%, A7r03a, Go%;a8e2 & )a% A<u250%, 7or Petitioners.
)o80305or Ge%era8 Fe80= :. A%5o%0o, A22025a%5 )o80305or Ge%era8 Cr0240% . . Bau5025a, )o80305or "e&ro
A. Ra60re; a%& )4e30a8 A55or%ey ,a06e *. *a;a 7or Respondents.
' E C # ) # N
.#LLA*R, J.>
This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In their petition Bache & Co. (Phil., Inc., a corporation duly organi!ed
and e"isting under the laws of the Philippines, and its President, #rederic$ %. &eggerman, pray this Court to
declare null and 'oid &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. issued by respondent /udge on #ebruary *0, 12-.3 to
order respondents to desist from enforcing the same and4or $eeping the documents, papers and effects
sei!ed by 'irtue thereof, as well as from enforcing the ta" assessments on petitioner corporation alleged by
petitioners to ha'e been made on the basis of the said documents, papers and effects, and to order the
return of the latter to petitioners. (e ga'e due course to the petition but did not issue the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for therein.
The pertinent facts of this case, as gathered from record, are as follows5chanrob1es 'irtual 1awlibrary
6n #ebruary *7, 12-., respondent ,isael P. 8era, Commissioner of Internal 9e'enue, wrote a letter
addressed to respondent /udge 8i'encio ,. 9ui! re:uesting the issuance of a search warrant against
petitioners for 'iolation of &ection 7;(a of the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code, in relation to all other
pertinent pro'isions thereof, particularly &ections 0<, -*, -<, *.= and *.2, and authori!ing 9e'enue
%"aminer 9odolfo de >eon, one of herein respondents, to ma$e and file the application for search warrant
which was attached to the letter.
In the afternoon of the following day, #ebruary *0, 12-., respondent ?e >eon and his witness, respondent
@rturo >ogronio, went to the Court of #irst Instance of 9i!al. They brought with them the following papers5
respondent 8eraAs aforesaid letter+re:uest3 an application for search warrant already filled up but still
unsigned by respondent ?e >eon3 an affida'it of respondent >ogronio subscribed before respondent ?e
>eon3 a deposition in printed form of respondent >ogronio already accomplished and signed by him but not
yet subscribed3 and a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by respondent /udge.
@t that time respondent /udge was hearing a certain case3 so, by means of a note, he instructed his ?eputy
Cler$ of Court to ta$e the depositions of respondents ?e >eon and >ogronio. @fter the session had
adjourned, respondent /udge was informed that the depositions had already been ta$en. The stenographer,
upon re:uest of respondent /udge, read to him her stenographic notes3 and thereafter, respondent /udge
as$ed respondent >ogronio to ta$e the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and
without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. 9espondent /udge signed respondent de >eonAs
application for search warrant and respondent >ogronioAs deposition, &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. was then
sign by respondent /udge and accordingly issued.
Three days later, or on #ebruary *=, 12-., which was a &aturday, the BI9 agents ser'ed the search warrant
petitioners at the offices of petitioner corporation on @yala @'enue, ,a$ati, 9i!al. PetitionersA lawyers
protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the
warrant. The agents ne'ertheless proceeded with their search which yielded si" bo"es of documents.
6n ,arch <, 12-., petitioners filed a petition with the Court of #irst Instance of 9i!al praying that the search
warrant be :uashed, dissol'ed or recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be
issued, that the search warrant be declared null and 'oid, and that the respondents be ordered to pay
petitioners, jointly and se'erally, damages and attorneyAs fees. 6n ,arch 1=, 12-., the respondents, thru
the &olicitor Beneral, filed an answer to the petition. @fter hearing, the court, presided o'er by respondent
/udge, issued on /uly *2, 12-., an order dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In the
meantime, or on @pril 1;, 12-., the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue made ta" assessments on petitioner
corporation in the total sum of P*,027,-*2.2-, partly, if not entirely, based on the documents thus sei!ed.
Petitioners came to this Court.
The petition should be granted for the following reasons5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
1. 9espondent /udge failed to personally e"amine the complainant and his witness.
The pertinent pro'isions of the Constitution of the Philippines and of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court are5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C(< The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and sei!ures shall not be 'iolated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge after e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
sei!ed.C (@rt. III, &ec. 1, Constitution.
C&%C. <. 9e:uisites for issuing search warrant. D @ search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after
e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei!ed.
C)o search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.
C&%C. 7. %"amination of the applicant. D The judge or justice of the peace must, before issuing the warrant,
personally e"amine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and ta$e
their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affida'its presented to him.C
(9ule 1*;, 9e'ised 9ules of Court.
The e"amination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, re:uired by @rt. III, &ec. 1, par. <,
of the Constitution, and by &ecs. < and 7, 9ule 1*; of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, should be conducted by
the judge himself and not by others. The phrase Cwhich shall be determined by the judge after e"amination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,C appearing in the said
constitutional pro'ision, was introduced by ?elegate #rancisco as an amendment to the draft submitted by
the &ub+Committee of &e'en. The following discussion in the Constitutional Con'ention (>aurel, Proceedings
of the Philippine Constitutional Con'ention, 8ol. III, pp. -00+-0- is enlightening5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C&9. 69%)&%. 8amos a dejar compaEero los piropos y 'amos al grano.
%n los casos de una necesidad de actuar inmediatamente para :ue no se frusten los fines de la justicia
mediante el registro inmediato y la incautacion del cuerpo del delito, no cree &u &eEoria :ue causaria cierta
demora el procedimiento apuntado en su enmienda en tal forma :ue podria frustrar los fines de la justicia o
si &u &eEoria encuentra un remedio para esto casos con el fin de compaginar los fines de la justicia con los
derechos del indi'iduo en su persona, bienes etcetera, etcetera.
C&9. #9@)CI&C6. )o puedo 'er en la practica el caso hipottico :ue &u &eEoria pregunta por la siguiente
ra!on5 el :ue solicita un mandamiento de registro tiene :ue hacerlo por escrito y ese escrito no aparecer en
la ,esa del /ue! sin :ue alguien 'aya el jue! a presentar ese escrito o peticion de sucuestro. %sa persona
:ue presenta el registro puede ser el mismo denunciante o alguna persona :ue solicita dicho mandamiento
de registro. @hora toda la enmienda en esos casos consiste en :ue haya peticion de registro y el jue! no se
atendra solamente a sea peticion sino :ue el jue! e"aminer a ese denunciante y si tiene testigos tambin
e"aminer a los testigos.
C&9. 69%)&%. )o cree &u &eEoria :ue el tomar le declaracion de ese denunciante por escrito siempre
re:ueriria algun tiempoF.
C&9. #9@)CI&C6. &eria cuestio de un par de horas, pero por otro lado minimi!amos en todo lo posible las
'ejaciones injustas con la e"pedicion arbitraria de los mandamientos de registro. Creo :ue entre dos males
debemos escoger. el menor.
x x x
C,9. >@G9%>. . . . The reason why we are in fa'or of this amendment is because we are incorporating in our
constitution something of a fundamental character. )ow, before a judge could issue a search warrant, he
must be under the obligation to e"amine personally under oath the complainant and if he has any witness,
the witnesses that he may produce . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The implementing rule in the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, &ec. 7, 9ule 1*;, is more emphatic and candid, for it
re:uires the judge, before issuing a search warrant, to Cpersonally e"amine on oath or affirmation the
complainant and any witnesses he may produce . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
Personal e"amination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to
determine the e"istence or non+e"istence of a probable cause, pursuant to @rt. III, &ec. 1, par. <, of the
Constitution, and &ec. <, 9ule 1*; of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, both of which prohibit the issuance of
warrants e"cept Cupon probable cause.C The determination of whether or not a probable cause e"ists calls
for the e"ercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in
the absence of any rule to the contrary.
In the case at bar, no personal e"amination at all was conducted by respondent /udge of the complainant
(respondent ?e >eon and his witness (respondent >ogronio. (hile it is true that the complainantAs
application for search warrant and the witnessA printed+form deposition were subscribed and sworn to before
respondent /udge, the latter did not as$ either of the two any :uestion the answer to which could possibly
be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause against herein petitioners. Indeed, the
participants seem to ha'e attached so little significance to the matter that notes of the proceedings before
respondent /udge were not e'en ta$en. @t this juncture it may be well to recall the salient facts. The
transcript of stenographic notes (pp. ;1+-;, @pril 1, 12-., @nne" /+* of the Petition ta$en at the hearing of
this case in the court below shows that per instruction of respondent /udge, ,r. %leodoro 8. Bon!ales,
&pecial ?eputy Cler$ of Court, too$ the depositions of the complainant and his witness, and that
stenographic notes thereof were ta$en by ,rs. Baspar. @t that time respondent /udge was at the sala
hearing a case. @fter respondent /udge was through with the hearing, ?eputy Cler$ Bon!ales, stenographer
Baspar, complainant ?e >eon and witness >ogronio went to respondent /udgeAs chamber and informed the
/udge that they had finished the depositions. 9espondent /udge then re:uested the stenographer to read to
him her stenographic notes. &pecial ?eputy Cler$ Bon!ales testified as follows5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C@ @nd after finishing reading the stenographic notes, the Honorable /udge re:uested or instructed them,
re:uested ,r. >ogronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will be found to be false and
without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. The Honorable Court told ,r. >ogronio whether
he affirms the facts contained in his deposition and the affida'it e"ecuted before ,r. 9odolfo de >eon.
CI @nd thereafterF
C@ @nd thereafter, he signed the deposition of ,r. >ogronio.
CI (ho is this heF
C@ The Honorable /udge.
CI The deposition or the affida'itF
C@ The affida'it, Jour Honor.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
Thereafter, respondent /udge signed the search warrant.
The participation of respondent /udge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of &earch (arrant )o. *+
,+-. was thus limited to listening to the stenographerAs readings of her notes, to a few words of warning
against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This
cannot be consider a personal e"amination. If there was an e"amination at all of the complainant and his
witness, it was the one conducted by the ?eputy Cler$ of Court. But, as stated, the Constitution and the
rules re:uire a personal e"amination by the judge. It was precisely on account of the intention of the
delegates to the Constitutional Con'ention to ma$e it a duty of the issuing judge to personally e"amine the
complainant and his witnesses that the :uestion of how much time would be consumed by the judge in
e"amining them came up before the Con'ention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings :uoted
abo'e. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent /udge did not constitute sufficient compliance
with the constitutional mandate and the rule3 for by that manner respondent /udge did not ha'e the
opportunity to obser'e the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow+
up :uestions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best position to concei'e. These
were important in arri'ing at a sound inference on the all+important :uestion of whether or not there was
probable cause.
*. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.
&earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. was issued forC K'Liolation of &ec. 7;(a of the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code
in relation to all other pertinent pro'isions thereof particularly &ecs. 0<, -*, -<, *.= and *.2.C The :uestion
is5 (as the said search warrant issued Cin connection with one specific offense,C as re:uired by &ec. <, 9ule
1*;F
To arri'e at the correct answer it is essential to e"amine closely the pro'isions of the Ta" Code referred to
abo'e. Thus we find the following5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
&ec. 7;(a re:uires the filing of income ta" returns by corporations.
&ec. 0< re:uires the withholding of income ta"es at source.
&ec. -* imposes surcharges for failure to render income ta" returns and for rendering false and fraudulent
returns.
&ec. -< pro'ides the penalty for failure to pay the income ta", to ma$e a return or to supply the information
re:uired under the Ta" Code.
&ec. *.= penali!esC KaLny person who distills, rectifies, repac$s, compounds, or manufactures any article
subject to a specific ta", without ha'ing paid the pri'ilege ta" therefore, or who aids or abets in the conduct
of illicit distilling, rectifying, compounding, or illicit manufacture of any article subject to specific ta" . . .,C
and pro'ides that in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, the official and4or employee who
caused the 'iolation shall be responsible.
&ec. *.2 penali!es the failure to ma$e a return of receipts, sales, business, or gross 'alue of output
remo'ed, or to pay the ta" due thereon.
The search warrant in :uestion was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Ta" Code. The first is
the 'iolation of &ec. 7;(a, &ec. -* and &ec. -< (the filing of income ta" returns, which are interrelated.
The second is the 'iolation of &ec. 0< (withholding of income ta"es at source. The third is the 'iolation of
&ec. *.= (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation3 and the fourth is the 'iolation of &ec. *.2 (failure to
ma$e a return of receipts, sales, business or gross 'alue of output actually remo'ed or to pay the ta" due
thereon. %'en in their classification the si" abo'e+mentioned pro'isions are embraced in two different titles5
&ecs. 7;(a, 0<, -* and -< are under Title II (Income Ta"3 while &ecs. *.= and *.2 are under Title 8
(Pri'ilege Ta" on Business and 6ccupation.
9espondents argue that &tonehill, %t. @l. '. ?io$no, %t @l., >+1200., /une 12, 12;- (*. &C9@ <=<, is not
applicable, because there the search warrants were issued for C'iolation of Central Ban$ >aws, Internal
9e'enue (Code and 9e'ised Penal Code3C whereas, here &earch (arrant )o *+,+-. was issued for 'iolation
of only one code, i.e., the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code. The distinction more apparent than real, because
it was precisely on account of the &tonehill incident, which occurred sometime before the present 9ules of
Court too$ effect on /anuary 1, 12;7, that this Court amended the former rule by inserting therein the
phrase Cin connection with one specific offense,C and adding the sentence C)o search warrant shall issue for
more than one specific offense,C in what is now &ec. <, 9ule 1*;. Thus we said in &tonehill5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C&uch is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants,
that this Court deemed it fit to amend &ection < of 9ule 1** of the former 9ules of Court that Ma search
warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.A )ot satisfied with
this :ualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that Mno search warrant shall issue for more
than one specific offense.AC
<. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be sei!ed.
The documents, papers and effects sought to be sei!ed are described in &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. in this
manner5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
CGnregistered and pri'ate boo$s of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements
boo$s, customers ledgers3 receipts for payments recei'ed3 certificates of stoc$s and securities3 contracts,
promissory notes and deeds of sale3 tele" and coded messages3 business communications, accounting and
business records3 chec$s and chec$ stubs3 records of ban$ deposits and withdrawals3 and records of foreign
remittances, co'ering the years 12;; to 12-..Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The description does not meet the re:uirement in @rt III, &ec. 1, of the Constitution, and of &ec. <, 9ule 1*;
of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be sei!ed.
In &tonehill, this Court, spea$ing thru ,r. Chief /ustice 9oberto Concepcion, said5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
CThe gra'e 'iolation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was
compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and sei!ed, to wit5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
MBoo$s of accounts, financial records, 'ouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit
journals, typewriters, and other documents and4or paper showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.A
CThus, the warrants authori!ed the search for and sei!ure of records pertaining to all business transactions
of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned
the sei!ure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whate'er their nature, thus
openly contra'ening the e"plicit command of our Bill of 9ights D that the things to be sei!ed be particularly
described D as well as tending to defeat its major objecti'e5 the elimination of general warrants.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
(hile the term Call business transactionsC does not appear in &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-., the said warrant
ne'ertheless tends to defeat the major objecti'e of the Bill of 9ights, i.e., the elimination of general
warrants, for the language used therein is so all+embracing as to include all concei'able records of petitioner
corporation, which, if sei!ed, could possibly render its business inoperati'e.
In Gy Nheytin, %t. @l. '. 8illareal, etc., %t @l., 7* Phil. ==;, =2;, this Court had occasion to e"plain the
purpose of the re:uirement that the warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be sei!ed, to wit5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C. . . Both the /ones >aw (sec. < and Beneral 6rders )o. 0= (sec. 2- specifically re:uire that a search
warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be sei!ed. The e'ident
purpose and intent of this re:uirement is to limit the things to be sei!ed to those, and only those,
particularly described in the search warrant D to lea'e the officers of the law with no discretion regarding
what articles they shall sei!e, to the end that Munreasonable searches and sei!uresA may not be made, D
that abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct interpretation of this constitutional pro'ision is
borne out by @merican authorities.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The purpose as thus e"plained could, surely and effecti'ely, be defeated under the search warrant issued in
this case.
@ search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be sei!ed when the description therein is
as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People '. 9ubio3 0- Phil. <=73 or when the description
e"presses a conclusion of fact D not of law D by which the warrant officer may be guided in ma$ing the
search and sei!ure (idem., dissent of @bad &antos, J.,3 or when the things described are limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (&ec. *, 9ule 1*;, 9e'ised
9ules of Court. The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the foregoing tests. If the articles
desired to be sei!ed ha'e any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily ha'e
some e'idence, other than those articles, to pro'e the said offense3 and the articles subject of search and
sei!ure should come in handy merely to strengthen such e'idence. In this e'ent, the description contained
in the herein disputed warrant should ha'e mentioned, at least, the dates, amounts, persons, and other
pertinent data regarding the receipts of payments, certificates of stoc$s and securities, contracts,
promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and communications, chec$s, ban$ deposits and withdrawals,
records of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant.
9espondents contend that certiorari does not lie because petitioners failed to file a motion for
reconsideration of respondent /udgeAs order of /uly *2, 12-.. The contention is without merit. In the first
place, when the :uestions raised before this Court are the same as those which were s:uarely raised in and
passed upon by the court below, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in said court before certiorari can
be instituted in this Court is no longer a prere:uisite. (Pajo, etc., %t. @l. '. @go, %t @l., 1.= Phil., 2.0. In the
second place, the rule re:uiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration before an application for a writ
of certiorari can be entertained was ne'er intended to be applied without considering the circumstances.
(,atutina '. Buslon, %t @l., 1.2 Phil., 17.. In the case at bar time is of the essence in 'iew of the ta"
assessments sought to be enforced by respondent officers of the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue against
petitioner corporation, 6n account of which immediate and more direct action becomes necessary. (,atute
'. Court of @ppeals, %t @l., *; &C9@ -;=. >astly, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the
depri'ation of petitionersA fundamental right to due process taints the proceeding against them in the court
below not only with irregularity but also with nullity. (,atute '. Court of @ppeals, %t @l., supra.
It is ne"t contended by respondents that a corporation is not entitled to protection against unreasonable
search and sei!ures. @gain, we find no merit in the contention.
C@lthough, for the reasons abo'e stated, we are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is
charged with a 'iolation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the
e"ercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the boo$s and papers of such corporation, we
do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 7th
@mendment, against unreasonable searches and sei!ures. @ corporation is, after all, but an association of
indi'iduals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organi!ing itself as a collecti'e body it
wai'es no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be ta$en without
compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 17th
@mendment, against unlawful discrimination . . .C (Hale '. Hen$el, *.1 G.&. 7<, 0. >. ed. ;0*.
CIn >inn '. Gnited &tates, 1;< C.C.@. 7-., *01 #ed. 7-;, 7=., it was thought that a different rule applied to
a corporation, the ground that it was not pri'ileged from producing its boo$s and papers. But the rights of a
corporation against unlawful search and sei!ure are to be protected e'en if the same result might ha'e been
achie'ed in a lawful way.C (&il'erthorne >umber Company, %t. @l. '. Gnited &tates of @merica, *01 G.&. <=0,
;7 >. ed. <12.
In &tonehill, %t. @l. '. ?io$no, %t @l., supra, this Court impliedly recogni!ed the right of a corporation to
object against unreasonable searches and sei!ures, thus5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C@s regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein ha'e no cause of action to assail the legality of
the contested warrants and of the sei!ures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
corporations ha'e their respecti'e personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stoc$ or the interest of each of them in said corporations,
whate'er, the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a sei!ure can be
contested only by the party whose rights ha'e been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful
search and sei!ure is purely personal and cannot be a'ailed of by third parties. Conse:uently, petitioners
herein may not 'alidly object to the use in e'idence against them of the documents, papers and things
sei!ed from the offices and premises of the corporations ad'erted to abo'e, since the right to object to the
admission of said papers in e'idence belongs e"clusi'ely to the corporations, to whom the sei!ed effects
belong, and may not be in'o$ed by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their indi'idual
capacity . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
In the &tonehill case only the officers of the 'arious corporations in whose offices documents, papers and
effects were searched and sei!ed were the petitioners. In the case at bar, the corporation to whom the
sei!ed documents belong, and whose rights ha'e thereby been impaired, is itself a petitioner. 6n that score,
petitioner corporation here stands on a different footing from the corporations in &tonehill.
The ta" assessments referred to earlier in this opinion were, if not entirely D as claimed by petitioners D at
least partly D as in effect admitted by respondents D based on the documents sei!ed by 'irtue of &earch
(arrant )o. *+,+-.. #urthermore, the fact that the assessments were made some one and one+half months
after the search and sei!ure on #ebruary *0, 12-., is a strong indication that the documents thus sei!ed
ser'ed as basis for the assessments. Those assessments should therefore not be enforced.
P9%,I&%& C6)&I?%9%?, the petition is granted. @ccordingly, &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. issued by
respondent /udge is declared null and 'oid3 respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing the said
search warrant3 the documents, papers and effects sei!ed thereunder are ordered to be returned to
petitioners3 and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue and their representati'es are
permanently enjoined from enforcing the assessments mentioned in @nne" CBC of the present petition, as
well as other assessments based on the documents, papers and effects sei!ed under the search warrant
herein nullified, and from using the same against petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. )o
pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., ?i!on, ,a$alintal, Oaldi'ar, #ernando, Teehan$ee and ,a$asiar, JJ., concur.
9eyes, /.B.>., J., concurs with ,r. /ustice Barredo.
Castro, J., concurs in the result.
)e4ara5e 40%0o%2
B@99%?6, J., concurring5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
I concur.
I agree with the ruling that the search warrants in :uestion 'iolates the specific injunction of &ection <, 9ule
1*; that C)o search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.C There is no :uestion in my mind
that, as 'ery clearly pointed out by ,r. /ustice 8illamor, the phrase Cfor 'iolation of &ection 7; (a of the
)ational Internal 9e'enue Code in relation to all other pertinent pro'isions thereof, particularly &ections 0<,
-*, -<, *.= and *.2C refers to more than one specific offense, considering that the 'iolation of &ection 0<
which refers to withholding of income ta"es at the sources, &ection *.= which punishes pursuit of business
or occupation without payment of the corresponding specific or pri'ilege ta"es, and &ection *.2 which
penali!es failure to ma$e a return of receipts sales, business or gross 'alue output actually remo'ed or to
pay the ta"es thereon in connection with Title 8 on Pri'ilege Ta"es on Business and 6ccupation can hardly
be absorbed in a charge of alleged 'iolation of &ection 7;(a, which merely re:uires the filing of income ta"
returns by corporations, so as to constitute with it a single offense. I percei'e here the danger that the
result of the search applied for may be used as basis not only for a charge of 'iolating &ection 7;(a but also
and separately of &ection 0<, *.= and *.2. 6f course, it is to be admitted that &ections -* and -<, also
mentioned in the application, are really directly related to &ection 7;(a because &ection -* pro'ides for
surcharges for failure to render, returns and for rendering false and fraudulent returns and &ection -< refers
to the penalty for failure to file returns or to pay the corresponding ta". Ta$en together, they constitute one
single offense penali!ed under &ection -<. I am not and cannot be in fa'or of any scheme which amounts to
an indirect means of achie'ing that which not allowed to be done directly. By merely saying that a party is
being charged with 'iolation of one section of the code in relation to a number of other sections thereof
which in truth ha'e no clear or direct bearing with the first is to me condemnable because it is no less than a
shotgun de'ice which trenches on the basic liberties intended to be protected by the une:ui'ocal limitations
imposed by the Constitution and the 9ules of Court on the pri'ilege to secure a search warrant with the
aggra'ating circumstance of being coupled with an attempt to mislead the judge before whom the
application for its issuance is presented.
I cannot close this brief concurrence without e"pressing my 'ehement disappro'al of the action ta$en by
respondent internal re'enue authorities in using the documents and papers secured during the search, the
legality of which was pending resolution by the court, as basis of an assessment, no matter how highly
moti'ated such action might ha'e been. This smac$s of lac$ of respect, if not contempt for the court and is
certainly intolerable. @t the 'ery least, it appears as an attempt to render the court proceedings moot and
academic, and dealing as this case does with constitutionally protected rights which are part and parcel of
the basic concepts of indi'idual liberty and democracy, the go'ernment agents should ha'e been the first
ones to refrain from trying to ma$e a farce of these court proceedings. Indeed, it is to be regretted that the
go'ernment agents and the court ha'e acted irregularly, for it is highly doubtful if it would be consistent with
the sacredness of the rights herein found to ha'e been 'iolated to permit the filing of another application
which complies with the constitutional re:uirements abo'e discussed and the ma$ing of another search upon
the return of the papers and documents now in their illegal possession. This could be an instance wherein
ta"es properly due the &tate will probably remain unassessed and unpaid only because the ones in charge of
the e"ecution of the laws did not $now how to respect basic constitutional rights and liberties.
G.R. No. 22929 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922
MA7$MO %. SOL$%EN, ANTON$O %. ROCES, "RE3ER$C; ;. AGCAOL$, n! GO3O"RE3O L.
MAN1ANAS,petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+ o0 Mn&8,
B/n)' 39, UN3ERSECRETAR# S$L%ESTRE BELLO $$$, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 Ju(+&)e, LU$S C.
%$CTOR, THE C$T# "$SCAL O" MAN$LA n! 6RES$3ENT CORA1ON C. A<U$NO, respondents.
G.R. No. 22227 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922
LU$S 3. BELTRAN, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0 B/n)' 39 o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+, +
Mn&8, THE HON. LU$S %$CTOR, C$T# "$SCAL O" MAN$LA, 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES,
SU6ER$NTEN3ENT O" THE WESTERN 6OL$CE 3$STR$CT, n! THE MEMBERS O" THE
6ROCESS SER%$NG UN$T AT THE REG$ONAL TR$AL COURT O" MAN$LA, respondents.
G.R. No. 23979 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922.
LU$S 3. BELTRAN, petitioner,
vs.
E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR# CATAL$NO MACARA$G, SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE SE3"RE#
OR3O=E1, UN3ERSECRETAR# O" JUST$CE S$L%ESTRE BELLO $$$, THE C$T# "$SCAL O"
MAN$LA JESUS ". GUERRERO, n! JU3GE RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0
B/n)' 39 o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+, + Mn&8, respondents.
Angara- Abello- ,oncepcion- +egala and ,ruz for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <=><>.
0erfecto 6. Fernandez- .ose 0. Fernandez and ,ristobal 0. Fernandez for petitioner in G.+. 9os.
<=<=? and <@A?A.
R E S O L U T $ O N

6ER CUR$AM>
:n these consolidated cases, three principal issues (ere raised* 213 (hether or not petitioners (ere
denied due process (hen in'or$ations 'or libel (ere 'iled a)ainst the$ althou)h the 'indin) o' the
e9istence o' a prima faciecase (as still under revie( by the Secretary o' Justice and, subseDuently,
by the "resident= 2!3 (hether or not the constitutional ri)hts o' 8eltran (ere violated (hen
respondent <+C >ud)e issued a (arrant 'or his arrest (ithout personally e9a$inin) the co$plainant
and the (itnesses, i' any, to deter$ine probable cause= and 23 (hether or not the "resident o' the
"hilippines, under the Constitution, $ay initiate cri$inal proceedin)s a)ainst the petitioners throu)h
the 'ilin) o' a co$plaint-a''idavit.
SubseDuent events have rendered the 'irst issue $oot and acade$ic. 6n &arch 5, 19JJ, the
Secretary o' Justice denied petitioners1 $otion 'or reconsideration and upheld the resolution o' the
Andersecretary o' Justice sustainin) the City Fiscal1s 'indin) o' a prima facie case a)ainst
petitioners. ; second $otion 'or reconsideration 'iled by petitioner 8eltran (as denied by the
Secretary o' Justice on ;pril 0, 19JJ. 6n appeal, the "resident, throu)h the 79ecutive Secretary,
a''ir$ed the resolution o' the Secretary o' Justice on &ay !, 19JJ. +he $otion 'or reconsideration
(as denied by the 79ecutive Secretary on &ay 16, 19JJ. With these develop$ents, petitioners1
contention that they have been denied the ad$inistrative re$edies available under the la( has lost
'actual support.
:t $ay also be added that (ith respect to petitioner 8eltran, the alle)ation o' denial o' due process o'
la( in the preli$inary investi)ation is ne)ated by the 'act that instead o' sub$ittin) his counter-
a''idavits, he 'iled a E&otion to Ceclare "roceedin)s Closed,E in e''ect (aivin) his ri)ht to re'ute the
co$plaint by 'ilin) counter-a''idavits. Cue process o' la( does not reDuire that the respondent in a
cri$inal case actually 'ile his counter-a''idavits be'ore the preli$inary investi)ation is dee$ed
co$pleted. ;ll that is reDuired is that the respondent be )iven the opportunity to sub$it counter-
a''idavits i' he is so $inded.
+he second issue, raised by petitioner 8eltran, calls 'or an interpretation o' the constitutional
provision on the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +he pertinent provision reads*
;rt. :::, Sec. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and e''ects a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall
issue e9cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter
e9a$ination nder oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay
produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
+he addition o' the (ord EpersonallyE a'ter the (ord Edeter$inedE and the deletion o' the )rant o'
authority by the 190 Constitution to issue (arrants to Eother responsible o''icers as $ay be
authorized by la(,E has apparently convinced petitioner 8eltran that the Constitution no( reDuires
the >ud)e to personally e9a$ine the co$plainant and his (itnesses in his deter$ination o' probable
cause 'or the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +his is not an accurate interpretation.
What the Constitution underscores is the e9clusive and personal responsibility o' the issuin) >ud)e to
satis'y hi$sel' o' the e9istence o' probable cause. :n satis'yin) hi$sel' o' the e9istence o' probable
cause 'or the issuance o' a (arrant o' arrest, the >ud)e is not reDuired to personally e9a$ine the
co$plainant and his (itnesses. Follo(in) established doctrine and procedure, he shall* 213
personally evaluate the report and the supportin) docu$ents sub$itted by the 'iscal re)ardin) the
e9istence o' probable cause and, on the basis thereo', issue a (arrant o' arrest= or 2!3 i' on the basis
thereo' he 'inds no probable cause, he $ay disre)ard the 'iscal1s report and reDuire the sub$ission
o' supportin) a''idavits o' (itnesses to aid hi$ in arrivin) at a conclusion as to the e9istence o'
probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, other(ise >ud)es (ould be unduly laden (ith the preli$inary
e9a$ination and investi)ation o' cri$inal co$plaints instead o' concentratin) on hearin) and
decidin) cases 'iled be'ore their courts.
6n June 5, 19J0, the Supre$e Court unani$ously adopted Circular #o. 1!, settin) do(n
)uidelines 'or the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +he procedure therein provided is reiterated and
clari'ied in this resolution.
:t has not been sho(n that respondent >ud)e has deviated 'ro$ the prescribed procedure. +hus, (ith
re)ard to the issuance o' the (arrants o' arrest, a 'indin) o' )rave abuse o' discretion a$ountin) to
lack or e9cess o' >urisdiction cannot be sustained.
;nent the third issue, petitioner 8eltran ar)ues that Ethe reasons (hich necessitate presidential
i$$unity 'ro$ suit i$pose a correlative disability to 'ile suit.E ,e contends that i' cri$inal
proceedin)s ensue by virtue o' the "resident1s 'ilin) o' her co$plaint-a''idavit, she $ay subseDuently
have to be a (itness 'or the prosecution, brin)in) her under the trial court1s >urisdiction. +his,
continues 8eltran, (ould in an indirect (ay de'eat her privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit, as by testi'yin)
on the (itness stand, she (ould be e9posin) hersel' to possible conte$pt o' court or per>ury.
+he rationale 'or the )rant to the "resident o' the privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit is to assure the
e9ercise o' "residential duties and 'unctions 'ree 'ro$ any hindrance or distraction, considerin) that
bein) the Chie' 79ecutive o' the @overn$ent is a >ob that, aside 'ro$ reDuirin) all o' the o''ice
holder1s ti$e, also de$ands undivided attention.
8ut this privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit, pertains to the "resident by virtue o' the o''ice and $ay be
invoked only by the holder o' the o''ice= not by any other person in the "resident1s behal'. +hus, an
accused in a cri$inal case in (hich the "resident is co$plainant cannot raise the presidential
privile)e as a de'ense to prevent the case 'ro$ proceedin) a)ainst such accused.
&oreover, there is nothin) in our la(s that (ould prevent the "resident 'ro$ (aivin) the privile)e.
+hus, i' so $inded the "resident $ay shed the protection a''orded by the privile)e and sub$it to the
court1s >urisdiction. +he choice o' (hether to e9ercise the privile)e or to (aive it is solely the
"resident1s prero)ative. :t is a decision that cannot be assu$ed and i$posed by any other person.
;s re)ards the contention o' petitioner 8eltran that he could not be held liable 'or libel because o' the
privile)ed character or the publication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier o' 'acts and that such
a de'ense is best le't to the trial court to appreciate a'ter receivin) the evidence o' the parties.
;s to petitioner 8eltran1s clai$ that to allo( the libel case to proceed (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE
on press 'reedo$, the Court 'inds no basis at this sta)e to rule on the point.
+he petitions 'ail to establish that public respondents, throu)h their separate acts, )ravely abused
their discretion as to a$ount to lack o' >urisdiction. ,ence, the (rits o' certiorari and prohibition
prayed 'or cannot issue.
W,7<7F6<7, 'indin) no )rave abuse o' discretion a$ountin) to e9cess or lack o' >urisdiction on
the part o' the public respondents, the Court <esolved to C:S&:SS the petitions in @. <. #os. J!/J/,
J!J!0 and J909. +he 6rder to $aintain the status &uo contained in the <esolution o' the Court en
banc dated ;pril 0, 19JJ and reiterated in the <esolution dated ;pril !6, 19JJ is %:F+7C.
Fernan- ,...- 9ar%asa- Melencio-)errera- ,ruz- 0aras- Feliciano- Ganca'co- 0adilla- /idin-
Sarmiento- ,ortes- Gri#o-A&uino Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.


Se*/+e O*&n&on(

GUT$ERRE1, JR., J., concurrin)*
: concur (ith the $a>ority opinion inso'ar as it involves the three principal issues $entioned in its
openin) state$ent. ,o(ever, as to the $ore i$portant issue on (hether or not the prosecution o'
the libel case (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE on press 'reedo$, : be) to reserve $y vote. : believe
this is the $ore i$portant issue in these petitions and it should be resolved no( rather that later.
Consistent (ith our decision in Salonga %. ,ruz 0ano 214 SC<; 4J F19J/G3, the Court should not
hesitate to Duash a cri$inal prosecution in the interest o' $ore enli)htened and substantial >ustice
(here it is not alone the cri$inal liability o' an accused in a see$in)ly $inor libel case (hich is
involved but broader considerations o' )overn$ental po(er versus a pre'erred 'reedo$.
We have in these 'our petitions the unusual situation (here the hi)hest o''icial o' the <epublic and
one (ho en>oys unprecedented public support asks 'or the prosecution o' a ne(spaper colu$nist,
the publisher and chair$an o' the editorial board, the $ana)in) editor and the business $ana)er in
a not too indubitable a case 'or alle)ed libel.
: a$ 'ully in accord (ith an all out prosecution i' the e''ect (ill be li$ited to punishin) a
ne(spaper$an (ho, instead o' observin) accuracy and 'airness, en)a)es in un(arranted personal
attacks, irresponsible t(istin) o' 'acts, o' $alicious distortions o' hal'-truths (hich tend to cause
dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' the co$plainant. ,o(ever, this case is not a si$ple prosecution
'or libel. We have as co$plainant a po(er'ul and popular "resident (ho heads the investi)ation and
prosecution service and appoints $e$bers o' appellate courts but (ho 'eels so terribly $ali)ned
that she has taken the unorthodo9 step o' )oin) to court inspite o' the invocations o' 'reedo$ o' the
press (hich (ould inevitably 'ollo(.
: believe that this Court should have acted on this issue no( instead o' leavin) the $atter to 'iscals
and de'ense la(yers to ar)ue be'ore a trial >ud)e.
+here is al(ays bound to be harass$ent inherent in any cri$inal prosecution. Where the
harass$ent )oes beyond the usual di''iculties encountered by any accused and results in an
un(illin)ness o' $edia to 'reely criticize )overn$ent or to Duestion )overn$ent handlin) o' sensitive
issues and public a''airs, this Court and not a lo(er tribunal should dra( the de$arcation line.
;s early as &arch J, 191J, the decision in ;nited States %. /ustos 20 "hil. 013 stated that
E2c3o$plete liberty to co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech.
+he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abscesses o' o''icialdo$. &en in public li'e $ay su''er
under a hostile and un>ust accusation= the (ound can be assua)ed (ith the bal$ o' a clear
conscience.E +he Court pointed out that (hile de'a$ation is not authorized, criticis$ is to be
e9pected and should be borne 'or the co$$on )ood.
:n 0eople %. 0erfecto 24 "hil. JJ0 F19!!G3, the Court stated*
999 999 999
... #o lon)er is there a &inister o' the Cro(n o(n or a person in authority o' such
e9alted position that the citizen $ust speak o' hi$ only (ith bated breath. E:n the eye
o' our Constitution and la(s, every $an is a soverei)n, a ruler and a 'ree$an, and
has eDual ri)hts (ith every other $an.E 2at p. 9553
:n 'act, the Court observed that hi)h o''icial position, instead o' a''ordin) i$$unity 'ro$ slanderous
and libelous char)es, (ould actually invite attacks by those (ho desire to create sensation. :t (ould
see$ that (hat (ould ordinarily be slander i' directed at the typical person should be e9a$ined 'ro$
various perspectives i' directed at a hi)h )overn$ent o''icial. ;)ain, the Supre$e Court should dra(
this 'ine line instead o' leavin) it to lo(er tribunals.
+his Court has stressed as authoritative doctrine in Elizalde %. Gutierrez 206 SC<; 44J F1900G3 that a
prosecution 'or libel lacks >usti'ication i' the o''endin) (ords 'ind sanctuary (ithin the shelter o' the
'ree press )uaranty. :n other (ords, a prosecution 'or libel should not be allo(ed to continue, (here
a'ter discountin) the possibility that the (ords $ay not be really that libelous, there is likely to be a
chillin) e''ect, a patently inhibitin) 'actor on the (illin)ness o' ne(spaper$en, especially editors and
publishers to coura)eously per'or$ their critical role in society. :', instead o' $erely readin) $ore
care'ully (hat a colu$nist (rites in his daily colu$n, the editors tell their people to lay o'' certain
issues or certain o''icials, the e''ect on a 'ree press (ould be hi)hly in>urious.
8ecause $any Duestions re)ardin) press 'reedo$ are le't unans(ered by our resolution, : $ust call
attention to our decisions (hich caution that Eno inroads on press 'reedo$ should be allo(ed in the
)uise o' punitive action visited on (hat other(ise should be characterized as libel.E 2%opez v. Court
o' ;ppeals, 4 SC<; 110 F1905G= See also the citations in 7lizalde v. @utierrez, supra3.
+he Anited States Supre$e Court is even $ore e$phatic, to (it*
:n decidin) the Duestion no(, (e are co$pelled by neither precedent nor policy to
)ive any $ore (ei)ht to the epithet ElibelE than (e have to other E$ere labelsE o'
state la(. #. ;. ;. C. ". v. 8utton, 01 AS 41/, 4!9, 9% ed !d 45/, 41/, J S Ct !J.
%ike insurrection, conte$pt, advocacy o' unla('ul acts, breach o' the peace,
obscenity, solicitation o' le)al business, and the other various other 'or$ulae 'or the
repression o' e9pression that have been challen)ed in this Court, libel can clai$ no
talis$anic i$$unity 'ro$ constitutional li$itations. :t $ust be $easured by standards
that satis'y the First ;$end$ent.
999 999 999
+hose (ho (on our independence believed ... that public discussion is a political
duty= and that this should be a 'unda$ental principle o' the ;$erican )overn$ent.
+hey reco)nized the risk to (hich all hu$an institutions are sub>ect. 8ut they kne(
that order cannot be secured $erely throu)h 'ear o' punish$ent 'or its in'raction= that
it is hazardous to discoura)e thou)ht, hope and i$a)ination= that 'ear breeds
repression= that repression breeds hate= that hate $enaces stable )overn$ent= that
the path o' sa'ety lies in the opportunity to discuss 'reely supposed )rievances and
proposed re$edies= and that the 'ittin) re$edy 'or evil counsel is )ood ones.
8elievin) in the po(er o' reason as applied throu)h public discussion, they
esche(ed silence coerced by la(Hthe ar)u$ent o' 'orce in its (orst 'or$. ...
+hus (e consider this case a)ainst the back)round o' a pro'ound national
co$$it$ent to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open, and that it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and
so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public o''icials. ... 2at pp.
055-0513
Shuntin) aside the individual liability o' &r. %uis 8eltran, is there a prima facie sho(in) that &essrs.
&a9i$o Soliven, ;ntonio ?. <oces, Frederick .. ;)caoili, and @odo'redo %. &anzanas kno(in)ly
participated in a (il'ul purveyin) o' 'alsehoodI Considerin) the 'ree speech aspects o' these
petitions, should not a di''erentiated approach to their particular liabilities be taken instead o' lu$pin)
up everybody (ith the o''endin) colu$nistI : realize that the la( includes publishers and editors but
perhaps the Echillin) e''ectE issue applies (ith sin)ular e''ectivity to publishers and editors vis-a-vis
ne(spaper colu$nists. +here is no Duestion that, ordinarily, libel is not protected by the 'ree speech
clause but (e have to understand that so$e provocative (ords, (hich i' taken literally $ay appear
to sha$e or dispara)e a public 'i)ure, $ay really be intended to provoke debate on public issues
(hen uttered or (ritten by a $edia personality. Will not a cri$inal prosecution in the type o' case
no( be'ore us da$pen the vi)or and li$it the variety o' public debateI +here are $any other
Duestions arisin) 'ro$ this unusual case (hich have not been considered.
:, o' course, concur (ith the Court1s opinion because it has decided to li$it the issues to narro(ly
dra(n ones. : see no reason to disa)ree (ith the (ay the Court has resolved the$. +he 'irst issue
on pre$aturity is $oot. +he second issue discusses a procedure no( e$bodied in the recently
a$ended <ules o' Court on ho( a Jud)e should proceed be'ore he issues a (arrant o' arrest. ;nent
the third issue, considerations o' public policy dictate that an incu$bent "resident should not be
sued. ;t the sa$e ti$e, the "resident cannot stand by helplessly bere't o' le)al re$edies i'
so$ebody vili'ies or $ali)ns hi$ or her.
+he Court has decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day. +o this, : take e9ception. :
kno( that $ost o' our 'iscals and >ud)es are coura)eous individuals (ho (ould not allo( any
considerations o' possible conseDuences to their careers to stand in the (ay o' public duty. 8ut (hy
should (e sub>ect the$ to this proble$I ;nd (hy should (e allo( the possibility o' the trial court
treatin) and decidin) the case as one 'or ordinary libel (ithout botherin) to 'ully e9plore the $ore
i$portant areas o' concern, the e9tre$ely di''icult issues involvin) )overn$ent po(er and 'reedo$
o' e9pression.
,o(ever, since (e have decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day, : li$it $ysel' to
reiteratin) the dissentin) (ords o' &r. Justice Jackson in the ;$erican case o' /eaurnhais %.
3llinois 24 A. S. !/53 (hen he said*
:' one can clai$ to announce the >ud)$ent o' le)al history on any sub>ect, it is that
cri$inal libel la(s are consistent (ith the concept o' ordered liberty only (hen
applied (ith sa'e)uards evolved to prevent their invasion o' 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
:n the trial o' the libel case a)ainst the petitioners, the sa'e)uards in the na$e o' 'reedo$ o'
e9pression should be 'aith'ully applied.
Se*/+e O*&n&on(
GUT$ERRE1, JR., J., concurrin)*
: concur (ith the $a>ority opinion inso'ar as it involves the three principal issues $entioned in its
openin) state$ent. ,o(ever, as to the $ore i$portant issue on (hether or not the prosecution o'
the libel case (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE on press 'reedo$, : be) to reserve $y vote. : believe
this is the $ore i$portant issue in these petitions and it should be resolved no( rather that later.
Consistent (ith our decision in Salonga %. ,ruz 0ano 214 SC<; 4J F19J/G3, the Court should not
hesitate to Duash a cri$inal prosecution in the interest o' $ore enli)htened and substantial >ustice
(here it is not alone the cri$inal liability o' an accused in a see$in)ly $inor libel case (hich is
involved but broader considerations o' )overn$ental po(er versus a pre'erred 'reedo$.
We have in these 'our petitions the unusual situation (here the hi)hest o''icial o' the <epublic and
one (ho en>oys unprecedented public support asks 'or the prosecution o' a ne(spaper colu$nist,
the publisher and chair$an o' the editorial board, the $ana)in) editor and the business $ana)er in
a not too indubitable a case 'or alle)ed libel.
: a$ 'ully in accord (ith an all out prosecution i' the e''ect (ill be li$ited to punishin) a
ne(spaper$an (ho, instead o' observin) accuracy and 'airness, en)a)es in un(arranted personal
attacks, irresponsible t(istin) o' 'acts, o' $alicious distortions o' hal'-truths (hich tend to cause
dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' the co$plainant. ,o(ever, this case is not a si$ple prosecution
'or libel. We have as co$plainant a po(er'ul and popular "resident (ho heads the investi)ation and
prosecution service and appoints $e$bers o' appellate courts but (ho 'eels so terribly $ali)ned
that she has taken the unorthodo9 step o' )oin) to court inspite o' the invocations o' 'reedo$ o' the
press (hich (ould inevitably 'ollo(.
: believe that this Court should have acted on this issue no( instead o' leavin) the $atter to 'iscals
and de'ense la(yers to ar)ue be'ore a trial >ud)e.
+here is al(ays bound to be harass$ent inherent in any cri$inal prosecution. Where the
harass$ent )oes beyond the usual di''iculties encountered by any accused and results in an
un(illin)ness o' $edia to 'reely criticize )overn$ent or to Duestion )overn$ent handlin) o' sensitive
issues and public a''airs, this Court and not a lo(er tribunal should dra( the de$arcation line.
;s early as &arch J, 191J, the decision in ;nited States %. /ustos 20 "hil. 013 stated that
E2c3o$plete liberty to co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech.
+he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abscesses o' o''icialdo$. &en in public li'e $ay su''er
under a hostile and un>ust accusation= the (ound can be assua)ed (ith the bal$ o' a clear
conscience.E +he Court pointed out that (hile de'a$ation is not authorized, criticis$ is to be
e9pected and should be borne 'or the co$$on )ood.
:n 0eople %. 0erfecto 24 "hil. JJ0 F19!!G3, the Court stated*
999 999 999
... #o lon)er is there a &inister o' the Cro(n o(n or a person in authority o' such
e9alted position that the citizen $ust speak o' hi$ only (ith bated breath. E:n the eye
o' our Constitution and la(s, every $an is a soverei)n, a ruler and a 'ree$an, and
has eDual ri)hts (ith every other $an.E 2at p. 9553
:n 'act, the Court observed that hi)h o''icial position, instead o' a''ordin) i$$unity 'ro$ slanderous
and libelous char)es, (ould actually invite attacks by those (ho desire to create sensation. :t (ould
see$ that (hat (ould ordinarily be slander i' directed at the typical person should be e9a$ined 'ro$
various perspectives i' directed at a hi)h )overn$ent o''icial. ;)ain, the Supre$e Court should dra(
this 'ine line instead o' leavin) it to lo(er tribunals.
+his Court has stressed as authoritative doctrine in Elizalde %. Gutierrez 206 SC<; 44J F1900G3 that a
prosecution 'or libel lacks >usti'ication i' the o''endin) (ords 'ind sanctuary (ithin the shelter o' the
'ree press )uaranty. :n other (ords, a prosecution 'or libel should not be allo(ed to continue, (here
a'ter discountin) the possibility that the (ords $ay not be really that libelous, there is likely to be a
chillin) e''ect, a patently inhibitin) 'actor on the (illin)ness o' ne(spaper$en, especially editors and
publishers to coura)eously per'or$ their critical role in society. :', instead o' $erely readin) $ore
care'ully (hat a colu$nist (rites in his daily colu$n, the editors tell their people to lay o'' certain
issues or certain o''icials, the e''ect on a 'ree press (ould be hi)hly in>urious.
8ecause $any Duestions re)ardin) press 'reedo$ are le't unans(ered by our resolution, : $ust call
attention to our decisions (hich caution that Eno inroads on press 'reedo$ should be allo(ed in the
)uise o' punitive action visited on (hat other(ise should be characterized as libel.E 2%opez v. Court
o' ;ppeals, 4 SC<; 110 F1905G= See also the citations in 7lizalde v. @utierrez, supra3.B!reCCanDEFwG
+he Anited States Supre$e Court is even $ore e$phatic, to (it*
:n decidin) the Duestion no(, (e are co$pelled by neither precedent nor policy to
)ive any $ore (ei)ht to the epithet ElibelE than (e have to other E$ere labelsE o'
state la(. #. ;. ;. C. ". v. 8utton, 01 AS 41/, 4!9, 9% ed !d 45/, 41/, J S Ct !J.
%ike insurrection, conte$pt, advocacy o' unla('ul acts, breach o' the peace,
obscenity, solicitation o' le)al business, and the other various other 'or$ulae 'or the
repression o' e9pression that have been challen)ed in this Court, libel can clai$ no
talis$anic i$$unity 'ro$ constitutional li$itations. :t $ust be $easured by standards
that satis'y the First ;$end$ent.
999 999 999
+hose (ho (on our independence believed ... that public discussion is a political
duty= and that this should be a 'unda$ental principle o' the ;$erican )overn$ent.
+hey reco)nized the risk to (hich all hu$an institutions are sub>ect. 8ut they kne(
that order cannot be secured $erely throu)h 'ear o' punish$ent 'or its in'raction= that
it is hazardous to discoura)e thou)ht, hope and i$a)ination= that 'ear breeds
repression= that repression breeds hate= that hate $enaces stable )overn$ent= that
the path o' sa'ety lies in the opportunity to discuss 'reely supposed )rievances and
proposed re$edies= and that the 'ittin) re$edy 'or evil counsel is )ood ones.
8elievin) in the po(er o' reason as applied throu)h public discussion, they
esche(ed silence coerced by la(Hthe ar)u$ent o' 'orce in its (orst 'or$. ...
+hus (e consider this case a)ainst the back)round o' a pro'ound national
co$$it$ent to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open, and that it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and
so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public o''icials. ... 2at pp.
055-0513
Shuntin) aside the individual liability o' &r. %uis 8eltran, is there a prima facie sho(in) that &essrs.
&a9i$o Soliven, ;ntonio ?. <oces, Frederick .. ;)caoili, and @odo'redo %. &anzanas kno(in)ly
participated in a (il'ul purveyin) o' 'alsehoodI Considerin) the 'ree speech aspects o' these
petitions, should not a di''erentiated approach to their particular liabilities be taken instead o' lu$pin)
up everybody (ith the o''endin) colu$nistI : realize that the la( includes publishers and editors but
perhaps the Echillin) e''ectE issue applies (ith sin)ular e''ectivity to publishers and editors vis-a-vis
ne(spaper colu$nists. +here is no Duestion that, ordinarily, libel is not protected by the 'ree speech
clause but (e have to understand that so$e provocative (ords, (hich i' taken literally $ay appear
to sha$e or dispara)e a public 'i)ure, $ay really be intended to provoke debate on public issues
(hen uttered or (ritten by a $edia personality. Will not a cri$inal prosecution in the type o' case
no( be'ore us da$pen the vi)or and li$it the variety o' public debateI +here are $any other
Duestions arisin) 'ro$ this unusual case (hich have not been considered.
:, o' course, concur (ith the Court1s opinion because it has decided to li$it the issues to narro(ly
dra(n ones. : see no reason to disa)ree (ith the (ay the Court has resolved the$. +he 'irst issue
on pre$aturity is $oot. +he second issue discusses a procedure no( e$bodied in the recently
a$ended <ules o' Court on ho( a Jud)e should proceed be'ore he issues a (arrant o' arrest. ;nent
the third issue, considerations o' public policy dictate that an incu$bent "resident should not be
sued. ;t the sa$e ti$e, the "resident cannot stand by helplessly bere't o' le)al re$edies i'
so$ebody vili'ies or $ali)ns hi$ or her.
+he Court has decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day. +o this, : take e9ception. :
kno( that $ost o' our 'iscals and >ud)es are coura)eous individuals (ho (ould not allo( any
considerations o' possible conseDuences to their careers to stand in the (ay o' public duty. 8ut (hy
should (e sub>ect the$ to this proble$I ;nd (hy should (e allo( the possibility o' the trial court
treatin) and decidin) the case as one 'or ordinary libel (ithout botherin) to 'ully e9plore the $ore
i$portant areas o' concern, the e9tre$ely di''icult issues involvin) )overn$ent po(er and 'reedo$
o' e9pression.
,o(ever, since (e have decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day, : li$it $ysel' to
reiteratin) the dissentin) (ords o' &r. Justice Jackson in the ;$erican case o' /eaurnhais %.
3llinois 24 A. S. !/53 (hen he said*
:' one can clai$ to announce the >ud)$ent o' le)al history on any sub>ect, it is that
cri$inal libel la(s are consistent (ith the concept o' ordered liberty only (hen
applied (ith sa'e)uards evolved to prevent their invasion o' 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
:n the trial o' the libel case a)ainst the petitioners, the sa'e)uards in the na$e o' 'reedo$ o'
e9pression should be 'aith'ully applied.
G.R. No. 105961 O)+o4e/ 7, 1995
CONGRESSMAN "RANC$SCO B. AN$AG, JR., petitioner,
vs.
COMM$SS$ON ON ELECT$ONS n! 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE S6EC$AL TAS;
"ORCE, respondents.
+onolfo S. 0asamba for petitioner.

BELLOS$LLO, JR., J.:
"7+:+:6#7< assails in this petition 2'or declaratory relie', certiorari and prohibition3 the 'ollo(in)
resolutions o' the Co$$ission on 7lections* <esolution #o. !!0 dated !6 Cece$ber 1991 'or bein)
unconstitutional, and <esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 dated 6 ;pril 199! and <esolution #o. 9!-5999 dated
! ;pril 199!, 'or (ant o' le)al and 'actual bases.
+he 'actual backdrop* :n preparation 'or the synchronized national and local elections scheduled on
11 &ay 199!, the Co$$ission on 7lections 2C6&7%7C3 issued on 11 Cece$ber 1991 <esolution
#o. !! other(ise re'erred to as the E@un 8an,E pro$ul)atin) rules and re)ulations on bearin),
carryin) and transportin) o' 'irear$s or other deadly (eapons, on security personnel or body)uards,
on bearin) ar$s by $e$bers o' security a)encies or police or)anizations, and or)anization or
$aintenance o' reaction 'orces durin) the election period.
1
SubseDuently, on !6 Cece$ber 1991
C6&7%7C issued <esolution #o. !!0 providin) 'or the su$$ary disDuali'ication o' candidates en)a)ed
in )unrunnin), usin) and transportin) o' 'irear$s, or)anizin) special strike 'orces, and establishin) spot
checkpoints.
2
6n 15 January 199!, pursuant to the E@un 8an,E &r. Serapio ". +accad, Ser)eant-at-;r$s, ,ouse o'
<epresentatives, (rote petitioner (ho (as then Con)ress$an o' the 1st Cistrict o' 8ulacan
reDuestin) the return o' the t(o 2!3 'irear$s
3
issued to hi$ by the ,ouse o' <epresentatives. Apon
bein) advised o' the reDuest on 1 January 199! by his sta'', petitioner i$$ediately instructed his driver,
7rnesto ;rellano, to pick up the 'irear$s 'ro$ petitioner1s house at ?alle ?erde and return the$ to
Con)ress.
&ean(hile, at about 'ive o1clock in the a'ternoon o' the sa$e day, the "hilippine #ational "olice
2"#"3 headed by Senior Superintendent Canilo Cordero set up a checkpoint outside the 8atasan
Co$ple9 so$e t(enty 2!53 $eters a(ay 'ro$ its entrance. ;bout thirty $inutes later, the police$en
$annin) the outpost 'la))ed do(n the car driven by ;rellano as it approached the checkpoint. +hey
searched the car and 'ound the 'irear$s neatly packed in their )un cases and placed in a ba) in the
trunk o' the car. ;rellano (as then apprehended and detained. ,e e9plained that he (as ordered by
petitioner to )et the 'irear$s 'ro$ the house and return the$ to Ser)eant-at-;r$s +accad o' the
,ouse o' <epresentatives.
+herea'ter, the police re'erred ;rellano1s case to the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor 'or inDuest. +he
re'erral did not include petitioner as a$on) those char)ed (ith an election o''ense. 6n 1/ January
199!, the City "rosecutor ordered the release o' ;rellano a'ter 'indin) the latter1s s(orn e9planation
$eritorious.
5
6n !J January 199!, the City "rosecutor invited petitioner to shed li)ht on the circu$stances
$entioned in ;rellano1s s(orn e9planation. "etitioner not only appeared at the preli$inary
investi)ation to con'ir$ ;rellano1s state$ent but also (rote the City "rosecutor ur)in) hi$ to
e9onerate ;rellano. ,e e9plained that ;rellano did not violate the 'irear$s ban as he in 'act (as
co$plyin) (ith it (hen apprehended by returnin) the 'irear$s to Con)ress= and, that he (as
petitioner1s driver, not a security o''icer nor a body)uard.
9
6n 6 &arch 199!, the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor issued a resolution (hich, a$on) other $atters,
reco$$ended that the case a)ainst ;rellano be dis$issed and that the Euno''icialE char)e a)ainst
petitioner be also dis$issed.
6
#evertheless, on 6 ;pril 199!, upon reco$$endation o' its %a( Cepart$ent, C6&7%7C issued
<esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 directin) the 'ilin) o' in'or$ation a)ainst petitioner and ;rellano 'or violation
o' Sec. !61, par. 2D3, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1 other(ise kno(n as the 6$nibus 7lection Code, in relation to
Sec. ! o' <.;. #o. 0166=
7
and petitioner to sho( cause (hy he should not be disDuali'ied 'ro$ runnin)
'or an elective position, pursuant to C6&7%7C <esolution #o. !!0, in relation to Sec. !, and / o'
<.;. 0166, and
Sec. /!, par. 2c3, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1.
2
6n 1 ;pril 199!, petitioner $oved 'or reconsideration and to hold in abeyance the ad$inistrative
proceedin)s as (ell as the 'ilin) o' the in'or$ation in court.
9
6n ! ;pril 199!, the C6&7%7C denied
petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration.
10
,ence, this recourse.
"etitioner Duestions the constitutionality o' <esolution #o. !!0. ,e ar)ues that the rules and
re)ulations o' an ad$inistrative body $ust respect the li$its de'ined by la(= that the 6$nibus
7lection Code provides 'or the disDuali'ication o' any personBcandidate 'ro$ runnin) 'or or holdin) a
public o''ice, i.e., any person (ho has either been declared by co$petent authority as insane or
inco$petent or has been sentenced by 'inal >ud)$ent 'or subversion, insurrection, rebellion or 'or
any o''ense 'or (hich he has been sentenced to a penalty o' $ore than ei)hteen $onths or 'or a
cri$e involvin) $oral turpitude= that )unrunnin), usin) or transportin) 'irear$s or si$ilar (eapons
and other acts $entioned in the resolution are not (ithin the letter or spirit o' the provisions o' the
Code= that the resolution did a(ay (ith the reDuire$ent o' 'inal conviction be'ore the co$$ission o'
certain o''enses= that instead, it created a presu$ption o' )uilt as a candidate $ay be disDuali'ied
'ro$ o''ice in situations 2a3 (here the cri$inal char)e is still pendin), 2b3 (here there is no pendin)
cri$inal case, and 2c3 (here the accused has already been acDuitted, all contrary to the reDuisite
Duantu$ o' proo' 'or one to be disDuali'ied 'ro$ runnin) or holdin) public o''ice under the 6$nibus
7lection Code, i.e., proo' beyond reasonable doubt. ;s a result, petitioner concludes, <esolution #o.
!!0 violates the 'unda$ental la( thus renderin) it 'atally de'ective.
8ut, the issue on the disDuali'ication o' petitioner 'ro$ runnin) in the
11 &ay 199! synchronized elections (as rendered $oot (hen he lost his bid 'or a seat in Con)ress
in the elections that ensued. ConseDuently, it is no( 'utile to discuss the i$plications o' the char)e
a)ainst hi$ on his Duali'ication to run 'or public o''ice.
,o(ever, there still re$ains an i$portant Duestion to be resolved, i.e., (hether he can be validly
prosecuted 'or instructin) his driver to return to the Ser)eant-at-;r$s o' the ,ouse o'
<epresentatives the t(o 'irear$s issued to hi$ on the basis o' the evidence )athered 'ro$ the
(arrantless search o' his car.
"etitioner stron)ly protests a)ainst the $anner by (hich the "#" conducted the search. ;ccordin)
to hi$, (ithout a (arrant and (ithout in'or$in) the driver o' his 'unda$ental ri)hts the police$en
searched his car. +he 'irear$s (ere not tucked in the (aist nor (ithin the i$$ediate reach o'
;rellano but (ere neatly packed in their )un cases and (rapped in a ba) kept in the trunk o' the car.
+hus, the search o' his car that yielded the evidence 'or the prosecution (as clearly violative o'
Secs. ! and , par. 2!3, ;rt. :::, o' the Constitution.
11
"etitioner 'urther $aintains that he (as neither i$pleaded as party respondent in the preli$inary
investi)ation be'ore the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor nor included in the char)e sheet. ConseDuently,
$akin) hi$ a respondent in the cri$inal in'or$ation (ould violate his constitutional ri)ht to due
process.
"etitioner disputes the char)e that he violated Sec. o' <.;. 0166, (hich prohibits any candidate
'or public o''ice durin) the election period 'ro$ e$ployin) or availin) hi$sel' or en)a)in) the
services o' security personnel or body)uards since, ad$ittedly, ;rellano (as not a security o''icer or
body)uard but a civilian e$ployee assi)ned to hi$ as driver by the ,ouse o' <epresentatives.
Speci'ically, petitioner 'urther ar)ues, ;rellano (as instructed to return to Con)ress, as he did, the
'irear$s in co$pliance (ith the directive o' its Ser)eant-at-;r$s pursuant to the E@un 8an,E thus, no
la( (as in 'act violated.
12
6n !/ June 199!, (e reDuired C6&7%7C to 'ile its o(n co$$ent on the
petition
13
upon $ani'estation o' the Solicitor @eneral that it could not take the position o' C6&7%7C and
prayed instead to be e9cused 'ro$ 'ilin) the reDuired co$$ent.
15
C6&7%7C clai$s that petitioner is char)ed (ith violation o' Sec. !61, par. 2D3, in relation to Sec.
!6, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1 (hich provides that Ethe principals, acco$plices and accessories, as de'ined in
the <evised "enal Code, shall be cri$inally liable 'or election o''enses.E :t points out that it (as upon
petitioner1s instruction that ;rellano brou)ht the 'irear$s in Duestion outside petitioner1s residence,
sub$ittin) that his ri)ht to be heard (as not violated as he (as invited by the City "rosecutor to
e9plain the circu$stances re)ardin) ;rellano1s possession o' the 'irear$s. "etitioner also 'iled a
s(orn (ritten e9planation about the incident. Finally, C6&7%7C clai$s that violation o'
the E@un 8anE is mala prohibita, hence, the intention o' the o''ender is i$$aterial.
19
8e that as it $ay, (e 'ind no need to delve into the alle)ed constitutional in'ir$ity o' <esolution #o.
!!0 since this petition $ay be resolved (ithout passin) upon this particular issue.
16
;s a rule, a valid search $ust be authorized by a search (arrant duly issued by an appropriate
authority. ,o(ever, this is not absolute. ;side 'ro$ a search incident to a la('ul arrest, a (arrantless
search had been upheld in cases o' $ovin) vehicles and the seizure o' evidence in plain vie(,
17
as
(ell as the search conducted at police or $ilitary checkpoints (hich (e declared are not ille)al per se,
and stressed that the warrantless search is not %iolati%e of the ,onstitution for as long as the %ehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants sub2ected to a bod' search- and the inspection of the %ehicle is merel'
limited to a %isual search.
12
"etitioner contends that the )uns (ere not tucked in ;rellano1s (aist nor placed (ithin his reach, and
that they (ere neatly packed in )un cases and placed inside a ba) at the back o' the car.
Si)ni'icantly, C6&7%7C did not rebut this clai$. +he records do not sho( that the $anner by (hich
the packa)e (as bundled led the "#" to suspect that it contained 'irear$s. +here (as no $ention
either o' any report re)ardin) any nervous, suspicious or unnatural reaction 'ro$ ;rellano (hen the
car (as stopped and searched. @iven these circu$stances and relyin) on its visual observation, the
"#" could not thorou)hly search the car la('ully as (ell as the packa)e (ithout violatin) the
constitutional in>unction.
;n e9tensive search (ithout (arrant could only be resorted to i' the o''icers conductin) the search
had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the $otorist (as a la(
o''ender or that they (ould 'ind the instru$entality or evidence pertainin) to the co$$ission o' a
cri$e in the vehicle to be searched.
19
+he e9istence o' probable cause >usti'yin) the (arrantless search
is deter$ined by the 'acts o' each case.
20
+hus, (e upheld the validity o' the (arrantless search in
situations (here the s$ell o' $ari>uana e$anated 'ro$ a plastic ba) o(ned by the accused, or (here the
accused (as actin) suspiciously, and atte$pted to 'lee.
21
We also reco)nize the stop-and-search (ithout (arrant conducted by police o''icers on the basis o'
prior con'idential in'or$ation (hich (ere reasonably corroborated by other attendant $atters, e.).,
(here a con'idential report that a sizeable volu$e o' $ari>uana (ould be transported alon) the route
(here the search (as conducted and appellants (ere cau)ht in flagrante delicto transportin) dru)s
at the ti$e o' their arrest=
22
(here apart 'ro$ the intelli)ence in'or$ation, there (ere reports by an
undercover Edeep penetrationE a)ent that appellants (ere brin)in) prohibited dru)s into the
country=
23
(here the in'or$ation that a Caucasian co$in) 'ro$ Sa)ada brin)in) prohibited dru)s (as
stren)thened by the conspicuous bul)e in accused1s (aistline, and his suspicious 'ailure to produce his
passport and other identi'ication papers=
25
(here the physical appearance o' the accused 'itted the
description )iven in the con'idential in'or$ation about a (o$an transportin) $ari>uana=
29
(here the
accused carryin) a bul)in) black leather ba) (ere suspiciously Duiet and nervous (hen Dueried about its
contents=
26
or (here the identity o' the dru) courier (as already established by police authorities (ho
received con'idential in'or$ation about the probable arrival o' accused on board one o' the vessels
arrivin) in Cu$a)uete City.
27
:n the case at bench, (e 'ind that the checkpoint (as set up t(enty 2!53 $eters 'ro$ the entrance to
the 8atasan Co$ple9 to en'orce <esolution
#o. !!0. +here (as no evidence to sho( that the police$en (ere i$pelled to do so because o' a
con'idential report leadin) the$ to reasonably believe that certain $otorists $atchin) the description
'urnished by their in'or$ant (ere en)a)ed in )unrunnin), transportin) 'irear$s or in or)anizin)
special strike 'orces. #or, as adverted to earlier, (as there any indication 'ro$ the packa)e or
behavior o' ;rellano that could have tri))ered the suspicion o' the police$en. ;bsent such >usti'yin)
circu$stances speci'ically pointin) to the culpability o' petitioner and ;rellano, the search could not
be valid. +he action then o' the police$en unreasonably intruded into petitioner1s privacy and the
security o' his property, in violation o' Sec. !, ;rt. :::, o' the Constitution. ConseDuently, the 'irear$s
obtained in violation o' petitioner1s ri)ht a)ainst (arrantless search cannot be ad$itted 'or any
purpose in any proceedin).
:t $ay be ar)ued that the see$in) acDuiescence o' ;rellano to the search constitutes an i$plied
(aiver o' petitioner1s ri)ht to Duestion the reasonableness o' the search o' the vehicle and the
seizure o' the 'irear$s.
While <esolution #o. !!0 authorized the settin) up o' checkpoints, it ho(ever stressed that
E)uidelines shall be $ade to ensure that no in'rin)e$ent o' civil and political ri)hts results 'ro$ the
i$ple$entation o' this authority,E and that Ethe places and $anner o' settin) up o' checkpoints shall
be deter$ined in consultation (ith the Co$$ittee on Firear$s 8an and Security "ersonnel created
under Sec. /, <esolution #o. !!.E
22
+he 'acts sho( that "#" installed the checkpoint at about 'ive
o1clock in the a'ternoon o' 1 January 199!. +he search (as $ade soon therea'ter, or thirty $inutes later.
:t (as not sho(n that ne(s o' i$pendin) checkpoints (ithout necessarily )ivin) their locations, and the
reason 'or the sa$e have been announced in the $edia to 'ore(arn the citizens. #or did the in'or$al
checkpoint that a'ternoon carry si)ns in'or$in) the public o' the purpose o' its operation. ;s a result,
$otorists passin) that place did not have any inklin) (hatsoever about the reason behind the instant
e9ercise. With the authorities in control to stop and search passin) vehicles, the $otorists did not have
any choice but to sub$it to the "#"1s scrutiny. 6ther(ise, any atte$pt to turnabout albeit innocent (ould
raise suspicion and provide probable cause 'or the police to arrest the $otorist and to conduct an
e9tensive search o' his vehicle.
:n the case o' petitioner, only his driver (as at the car at that ti$e it (as stopped 'or inspection. ;s
conceded by C6&7%7C, driver ;rellano did not kno( the purpose o' the checkpoint. :n the 'ace o'
'ourteen 2143 ar$ed police$en conductin) the operation,
29
driver ;rellano bein) alone and a $ere
e$ployee o' petitioner could not have $arshalled the stren)th and the coura)e to protest a)ainst the
e9tensive search conducted in the vehicle. :n such scenario, the Ei$plied acDuiescence,E i' there (as any,
could not be $ore than a $ere passive con'or$ity on ;rellano1s part to the search, and EconsentE )iven
under inti$idatin) or coercive circu$stances is no consent (ithin the purvie( o' the constitutional
)uaranty.
&oreover, the $anner by (hich C6&7%7C proceeded a)ainst petitioner runs counter to the due
process clause o' the Constitution. +he 'acts sho( that petitioner (as not a$on) those char)ed by
the "#" (ith violation o' the 6$nibus 7lection Code. #or (as he sub>ected by the City "rosecutor
to a preli$inary investi)ation 'or such o''ense. +he non-disclosure by the City "rosecutor to the
petitioner that he (as a respondent in the preli$inary investi)ation is violative o' due process (hich
reDuires that the procedure established by la( should be obeyed.
30
C6&7%7C ar)ues that petitioner (as )iven the chan)e to be heard because he (as invited to
enli)hten the City "rosecutor re)ardin) the circu$stances leadin) to the arrest o' his driver, and that
petitioner in 'act sub$itted a s(orn letter o' e9planation re)ardin) the incident. +his does not satis'y
the reDuire$ent o' due process the essence o' (hich is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and
to sub$it any evidence one $ay have in support o' his de'ense.
31
Cue process )uarantees the
observance o' both substantive and procedural ri)hts, (hatever the source o' such ri)hts, be it the
Constitution itsel' or only a statute or a rule o' court.
32
:n Go %. ,ourt of Appeals,
33
(e held
that H
While the ri)ht to preli$inary investi)ation is statutory rather than constitutional in its
'unda$ent, since it has in 'act been established by statute, it is a component part of
due process in criminal 2ustice. +he ri)ht to have a preli$inary investi)ation
conducted be'ore bein) bound over to trial 'or a cri$inal o''ense and hence 'or$ally
at risk o' incarceration or so$e other penalty is not a $ere 'or$al or technical ri)ht= it
is a substanti%e right . . . . F+Ghe ri)ht to an opportunity to avoid a process pain'ul to
anyone save, perhaps, to hardened cri$inals is a valuable ri)ht. +o deny petitioner1s
clai$ to a preli$inary investi)ation (ould be to deprive hi$ o' the 'ull $easure o' his
ri)ht to due process.
;pparently, petitioner (as $erely invited durin) the preli$inary investi)ation o' ;rellano to
corroborate the latter1s e9planation. "etitioner then (as $ade to believe that he (as not a party
respondent in the case, so that his (ritten e9planation on the incident (as only intended to
e9culpate ;rellano, not petitioner hi$sel'. ,ence, it cannot be seriously contended that petitioner
(as 'ully )iven the opportunity to $eet the accusation a)ainst hi$ as he (as not apprised that he
(as hi$sel' a respondent (hen he appeared be'ore the City "rosecutor.
Finally, it $ust be pointed out too that petitioner1s 'ilin) o' a $otion 'or reconsideration (ith
C6&7%7C cannot be considered as a (aiver o' his clai$ to a separate preli$inary investi)ation 'or
hi$sel'. +he $otion itsel' e9presses petitioner1s vi)orous insistence on his ri)ht. "etitioner1s
protestation started as soon as he learned o' his inclusion in the char)e, and did not ease up even
a'ter C6&7%7C1s denial o' his $otion 'or reconsideration. +his is understandably so since the
prohibition a)ainst carryin) 'irear$s bears the penalty o' i$prison$ent o' not less than one 213 year
nor $ore than si9 263 years (ithout probation and (ith disDuali'ication 'ro$ holdin) public o''ice, and
deprivation o' the ri)ht to su''ra)e. ;)ainst such stron) stance, petitioner clearly did not (aive his
ri)ht to a preli$inary investi)ation.
W,7<7F6<7, the instant petition is @<;#+7C. +he (arrantless search conducted by the
"hilippine #ational "olice on 1 January 199! is declared ille)al and the 'irear$s seized durin) the
(arrantless search cannot be used as evidence in any proceedin) a)ainst petitioner. ConseDuently,
C6&7%7C <esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 dated 6 ;pril 199! bein) violative o' the Constitution is S7+
;S:C7.
+he te$porary restrainin) order (e issued on / &ay 199! is $ade per$anent.
S6 6<C7<7C.
9ar%asa- ,...- +omero- 8uiason- 0uno- Hapunan and Mendoza- ...- concur.
Feliciano- 0adilla and /idin- ...- are on lea%e.
NNNNNNN
G.R. No. 23922 M, 25, 1990
R$CAR3O C. %ALMONTE AN3 UN$ON O" LAW#ERS AN3 A3%OCATES "OR 6EO6LES?S
R$GHTS @ULA6A,petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA AN3 NAT$ONAL CA6$TAL REG$ON 3$STR$CT
COMMAN3, respondents.
+icardo ,. 6almonte for and in his own behalf and co-petitioners.

6A3$LLA, J.:
:n the Court1s decision dated !9 Septe$ber 19J9, petitioners1 petition 'or prohibition seekin) the
declaration o' the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their dis$antlin) andBor bannin), (as
dis$issed.
"etitioners have 'iled the instant $otion and supple$ental $otion 'or reconsideration o' said
decision. 8e'ore sub$ission o' the incident 'or resolution, the Solicitor @eneral, 'or the respondents,
'iled his co$$ent, to (hich petitioners 'iled a reply.
:t should be stated, at the outset, that no(here in the Duestioned decision did this Court
le)alize all checkpoints, i.e. at all ti$es and under all circu$stances. What the Court declared is, that
checkpoints are not ille)al per se.+hus, under e9ceptional circu$stances, as (here the survival o'
or)anized )overn$ent is on the balance, or (here the lives and sa'ety o' the people are in )rave
peril, checkpoints $ay be allo(ed and installed by the )overn$ent. :$plicit in this proposition is, that
(hen the situation clears and such )rave perils are re$oved, checkpoints (ill have absolutely no
reason to re$ain.
<ecent and on-)oin) events have pointed to the continuin) validity and need 'or checkpoints
$anned by either $ilitary or police 'orces. +he si9th 26th3 atte$pted coup dI etat 2stron)er than all
previous ones3 (as sta)ed only last 1 Cece$ber 19J9. ;nother atte$pt at a coup dI etat is taken
al$ost 'or )ranted. +he #";, throu)h its sparro( units, has not relented but instead accelerated its
liDuidation o' ar$ed 'orces and police personnel. &urders, se9 cri$es, hold-ups and dru) abuse
have beco$e daily occurrences. Anlicensed 'irear$s and a$$unition have beco$e 'avorite ob>ects
o' trade. S$u))lin) is at an all ti$e hi)h. Whether or not e''ective as e9pected, checkpoints have
been re)arded by the authorities as a security $easure desi)ned to entrap cri$inals and insur)ents
and to constitute a dra)net 'or all types o' articles in ille)al trade.
#o one can be co$pelled, under our libertarian syste$, to share (ith the present )overn$ent its
ideolo)ical belie's and practices, or co$$end its political, social and econo$ic policies or
per'or$ance. 8ut, at least, one $ust concede to it the basic ri)ht to de'end itsel' 'ro$ its ene$ies
and, (hile in po(er, to pursue its pro)ra$ o' )overn$ent intended 'or public (el'are= and in the
pursuit o' those ob>ectives, the )overn$ent has the eDual ri)ht, under its police po(er, to select the
reasonable $eans and $ethods 'or best achievin) the$. +he checkpoint is evidently one o' such
$eans it has selected.
;d$ittedly, the routine checkpoint stop does intrude, to a certain e9tent, on $otorist1s ri)ht to E'ree
passa)e (ithout interruptionE, but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brie' detention
o' travellers durin) (hich the vehicle1s occupants are reDuired to ans(er a brie' Duestion or
t(o.
1
For as lon) as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub>ected to a body search, and
the inspection o' the vehicle is li$ited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be re)arded as
violative o' an individual1s ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search.
+hese routine checks, (hen conducted in a 'i9ed area, are even less intrusive. ;s held by the A.S.
Supre$e Court*
<outine checkpoint stops do not intrude si$ilarly on the $otorin) public. First, the
potential inter'erence (ith le)iti$ate tra''ic is $ini$al. &otorists usin) these
hi)h(ays are not taken by surprise as they kno(, or $ay obtain kno(led)e o', the
location o' the checkpoints and (ill not be stopped else(here. Second, checkpoint
operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary en'orce$ent
activity. +he re)ularized $anner in (hich established checkpoints are operated is
visible evidence, reassurin) to la(-abidin) $otorists, that the stops are duly
authorized and believed to serve the public interest. +he location o' a 'i9ed
checkpoint is not chosen by o''icers in the 'ield, but by o''icials responsible 'or
$akin) overall decisions as to the $ost e''ective allocation o' li$ited en'orce$ent
resources. We $ay assu$e that such o''icials (ill be unlikely to locate a checkpoint
(here it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on $otorists as a class, and since 'ield
o''icers $ay stop only those cars passin) the checkpoint, there is less roo$ 'or
abusive or harassin) stops o' individuals than there (as in the case o' rovin)-patrol
stops. &oreover, a clai$ that a particular e9ercise o' discretion in locatin) or
operatin) a checkpoint is unreasonable is sub>ect to post-stop >udicial revie(.
2
+he checkpoints are nonetheless attacked by the $ovants as a warrantless search and seizure and,
there'ore, violative o' the Constitution.
3
;s already stated, vehicles are )enerally allo(ed to pass these checkpoints a'ter a routine
inspection and a 'e( Duestions. :' vehicles are stopped and e9tensively searched, it is because o'
so$e probable cause (hich >usti'ies a reasonable belie' o' the $en at the checkpoints that either the
$otorist is a la(-o''ender or the contents o' the vehicle are or have been instru$ents o' so$e
o''ense. ;)ain, as held by the A.S. Supre$e CourtH
;uto$obiles, because o' their $obility, $ay be searched (ithout a (arrant upon
'acts not >usti'yin) a (arrantless search o' a residence or o''ice. /rinegar %. ;nited
States, J AS 165, 9 % 7d 1J09, 69 S Ct 15! 219493= ,arroll %. ;nited States, !60
AS 1!, 69 % 7d /4,4/ S Ct !J5, 9 ;%< 095 219!/3. +he cases so holdin) have,
ho(ever, al(ays insisted that the o''icers conductin) the search have 1reasonable or
probable cause to believe that they (ill 'ind the instru$entality o' a cri$e or evidence
pertainin) to a cri$e be'ore they be)in their (arrantless search. ...
5
8esides these (arrantless searches and seizures at the checkpoints are Duite si$ilar to searches
and seizures acco$panyin) (arrantless arrests durin) the co$$ission o' a cri$e, or i$$ediately
therea'ter. :n 0eople %s. Hagui Malasu&ui it (as heldH
+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence
and tokens o' his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e
e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o'
cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any instances.
9
8y the sa$e token, a (arrantless search o' inco$in) and out)oin) passen)ers, at the arrival and
departure areas o' an international airport, is a practice not constitutionally ob>ectionable because it
is 'ounded on public interest, sa'ety, and necessity.
%astly, the Court1s decision on checkpoints does not, in any (ay, validate nor condone abuses
co$$itted by the $ilitary $annin) the checkpoints. +he Court1s decision (as concerned (ith po(er,
i.e. (hether the )overn$ent e$ployin) the $ilitary has the po(er to install said checkpoints. 6nce
that po(er is ackno(led)ed, the Court1s inDuiry ceases. +rue, po(er i$plies the possibility o' its
abuse. 8ut (hether there is abuse in a particular situation is a di''erent Eball )a$eE to be resolved in
the constitutional arena.
+he Court, like all other concerned $e$bers o' the co$$unity, has beco$e a(are o' ho( so$e
checkpoints have been used as points o' thievery and e9tortion practiced upon innocent civilians.
7ven the increased prices o' 'oodstu''s co$in) 'ro$ the provinces, enterin) the &etro &anila area
and other urban centers, are lar)ely bla$ed on the checkpoints, because the $en $annin) the$
have reportedly beco$e Ee9pertsE in $ulctin) travellin) traders. +his, o' course, is a national tra)edy
.
8ut the Court could not a priori re)ard in its no( assailed decision that the $en in uni'or$ are
rascals or thieves. +he Court had to assume that the $en in uni'or$ live and act by the code o'
honor and they are assi)ned to the checkpoints to protect, and not to abuse, the citizenry.
6
+he
checkpoint is a $ilitary Econcoction.E :t behooves the $ilitary to i$prove the LA;%:+- o' their $en
assi)ned to these checkpoints. For no syste$ or institution (ill succeed unless the $en behind it are
honest, noble and dedicated.
:n any situation, (here abuse $arks the operation o' a checkpoint, the citizen is not helpless. For the
$ilitary is not above but sub>ect to the la(. ;nd the courts e9ist to see that the la( is supre$e.
Soldiers, includin) those (ho $an checkpoints, (ho abuse their authority act beyond the scope o'
their authority and are, there'ore, liable cri$inally and civilly 'or their abusive acts=
7
+his tenet should
be in)rained in the soldiery in the clearest o' ter$s by hi)her $ilitary authorities.
;CC6<C:#@%-, the &otion and Supple$ental &otion 'or <econsideration are C7#:7C. +his denial
is F:#;%.
S6 6<C7<7C.
G.R. No. 165219 Se*+e.4e/ 3, 2009
SR. $NS6. JERR# C. %ALEROSO, "etitioner,
vs.
COURT O" A66EALS n! 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, <espondents.
< 7 S 6 % A + : 6 #
NACHURA, J.:
For resolution is the %etter-;ppeal
1
o' Senior :nspector 2Sr. :nsp.3 Jerry C. ?aleroso 2?aleroso3
prayin) that our February !!, !55J Cecision
!
and June 5, !55J <esolution

be set aside and a ne(


one be entered acDuittin) hi$ o' the cri$e o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
+he 'acts are brie'ly stated as 'ollo(s*
?aleroso (as char)ed (ith violation o' "residential Cecree #o. 1J66, co$$itted as 'ollo(s*
+hat on or about the 15th day o' July, 1996, in Luezon City, "hilippines, the said accused (ithout
any authority o' la(, did then and there (ill'ully, unla('ully and kno(in)ly have in hisBher possession
and under hisBher custody and control
6ne 213 cal. J ECharter ;r$sE revolver bearin) serial no. /!1/ (ith 'ive 2/3 live a$$o.
(ithout 'irst havin) secured the necessary licenseBper$it issued by the proper authorities.
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
4
When arrai)ned, ?aleroso pleaded Enot )uilty.E
/
+rial on the $erits ensued.
Curin) trial, the prosecution presented t(o (itnesses* Senior "olice 6''icer 2S"63! ;ntonio
Cisuanco 2Cisuanco3 o' the Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Civision o' the Central "olice Cistrict Co$$and=
and 7pi'anio CeriDuito 2CeriDuito3, <ecords ?eri'ier o' the Firear$s and 79plosives Civision in Ca$p
Cra$e. +heir testi$onies are su$$arized as 'ollo(s*
6n July 15, 1996, at around 9*5 a.$., Cisuanco received a Cispatch 6rder 'ro$ the desk o''icer
directin) hi$ and three 23 other police$en to serve a Warrant o' ;rrest, issued by Jud)e :)nacio
Salvador, a)ainst ?aleroso 'or a case o' kidnappin) (ith ranso$.
6
;'ter a brie'in), the tea$ conducted the necessary surveillance on ?aleroso checkin) his hideouts in
Cavite, Caloocan, and 8ulacan. 7ventually, the tea$ $e$bers proceeded to the :nte)rated #ational
"olice 2:#"3 Central "olice Station in Culiat, Luezon City, (here they sa( ?aleroso about to board a
tricyle. Cisuanco and his tea$ approached ?aleroso. +hey put hi$ under arrest, in'or$ed hi$ o' his
constitutional ri)hts, and bodily searched hi$. +hey 'ound a Charter ;r$s revolver, bearin) Serial
#o. /!1/, (ith 'ive 2/3 pieces o' live a$$unition, tucked in his (aist.
0
?aleroso (as then brou)ht to the police station 'or Duestionin). Apon veri'ication in the Firear$s and
79plosives Civision in Ca$p Cra$e, CeriDuito presented a certi'ication
J
that the sub>ect 'irear$ (as
not issued to ?aleroso, but (as licensed in the na$e o' a certain <aul "alencia Salvatierra o'
Sa$paloc, &anila.
9
6n the other hand, ?aleroso, S"6 ;)ustin <. +i$bol, Jr. 2+i$bol3, and ;drian -uson testi'ied 'or the
de'ense. +heir testi$onies are su$$arized as 'ollo(s*
6n July 15, 1996, ?aleroso (as sleepin) inside a roo$ in the boardin) house o' his children located
at Sa)ana ,o$es, 8aran)ay #e( 7ra, Luezon City. ,e (as a(akened by 'our 243 heavily ar$ed
$en in civilian attire (ho pointed their )uns at hi$ and pulled hi$ out o' the roo$.
15
+he raidin) tea$
tied his hands and placed hi$ near the 'aucet 2outside the roo$3 then (ent back inside, searched
and ransacked the roo$. &o$ents later, an operative ca$e out o' the roo$ and e9clai$ed, E,oy,
$ay nakuha akon) baril sa loobOE
11
Cisuanco in'or$ed ?aleroso that there (as a standin) (arrant 'or his arrest. ,o(ever, the raidin)
tea$ (as not ar$ed (ith a search (arrant.
1!
+i$bol testi'ied that he issued to ?aleroso a &e$orandu$ <eceipt
1
dated July 1, 199 coverin) the
sub>ect 'irear$ and its a$$unition, upon the verbal instruction o' Col. ;n)elito &oreno.
14
6n &ay 6, 199J, the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3, 8ranch 90, Luezon City, convicted ?aleroso as
char)ed and sentenced hi$ to su''er the indeter$inate penalty o' 'our 243 years, t(o 2!3 $onths and
one 213 day, as $ini$u$, to si9 263 years, as $a9i$u$. +he )un sub>ect o' the case (as 'urther
ordered con'iscated in 'avor o' the )overn$ent.
1/
6n appeal, the Court o' ;ppeals 2C;3 a''ir$ed
16
the <+C decision but the $ini$u$ ter$ o' the
indeter$inate penalty (as lo(ered to 'our 243 years and t(o 2!3 $onths.
6n petition 'or revie(, (e a''ir$ed
10
in 'ull the C; decision. ?aleroso 'iled a &otion 'or
<econsideration
1J
(hich (as denied (ith 'inality
19
on June 5, !55J.
?aleroso is a)ain be'ore us throu)h this %etter-;ppeal
!5
i$plorin) this Court to once $ore take a
conte$plative re'lection and deliberation on the case, 'ocusin) on his breached constitutional ri)hts
a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure.
!1
&ean(hile, as the 6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral 26S@3 'ailed to ti$ely 'ile its Co$$ent on
?alerosoPs &otion 'or <econsideration, it instead 'iled a &ani'estation in %ieu o' Co$$ent.
!!
:n its &ani'estation, the 6S@ chan)ed its previous position and no( reco$$ends ?alerosoPs
acDuittal. ;'ter a second look at the evidence presented, the 6S@ considers the testi$onies o' the
(itnesses 'or the de'ense $ore credible and thus concludes that ?aleroso (as arrested in a
boardin) house. &ore i$portantly, the 6S@ a)rees (ith ?aleroso that the sub>ect 'irear$ (as
obtained by the police o''icers in violation o' ?alerosoPs constitutional ri)ht a)ainst ille)al search and
seizure, and should thus be e9cluded 'ro$ the evidence 'or the prosecution. %astly, assu$in) that
the sub>ect 'irear$ (as ad$issible in evidence, still, ?aleroso could not be convicted o' the cri$e,
since he (as able to establish his authority to possess the )un throu)h the &e$orandu$ <eceipt
issued by his superiors.
;'ter considerin) ane( ?alerosoPs ar)u$ents throu)h his %etter-;ppeal, to)ether (ith the 6S@Ps
position reco$$endin) his acDuittal, and keepin) in $ind that substantial ri)hts $ust ulti$ately
rei)n supre$e over technicalities, this Court is s(ayed to reconsider.
!
+he %etter-;ppeal is actually in the nature o' a second $otion 'or reconsideration. While a second
$otion 'or reconsideration is, as a )eneral rule, a prohibited pleadin), it is (ithin the sound discretion
o' the Court to ad$it the sa$e, provided it is 'iled (ith prior leave (henever substantive >ustice $ay
be better served thereby.
!4
+his is not the 'irst ti$e that this Court is suspendin) its o(n rules or e9ceptin) a particular case
'ro$ the operation o' the rules. :n Ce @uz$an v. Sandi)anbayan,
!/
despite the denial o' Ce
@uz$anPs $otion 'or reconsideration, (e still entertained his 6$nibus &otion, (hich (as actually a
second $otion 'or reconsideration. 7ventually, (e reconsidered our earlier decision and re$anded
the case to the Sandi)anbayan 'or reception and appreciation o' petitionerPs evidence. :n that case,
(e said that i' (e (ould not co$passionately bend back(ards and 'le9 technicalities, petitioner
(ould surely e9perience the dis)race and $isery o' incarceration 'or a cri$e (hich he $i)ht not
have co$$itted a'ter all.
!6
;lso in ;stor)a v. "eople,
!0
on a second $otion 'or reconsideration, (e
set aside our earlier decision, re-e9a$ined the records o' the case, then 'inally acDuitted 8enito
;stor)a o' the cri$e o' ;rbitrary Cetention on the )round o' reasonable doubt. ;nd in Sta. <osa
<ealty Cevelop$ent Corporation v. ;$ante,
!J
by virtue o' the January 1, !554 7n 8anc <esolution,
the Court authorized the Special First Civision to suspend the <ules, so as to allo( it to consider and
resolve respondentPs second $otion 'or reconsideration a'ter the $otion (as heard on oral
ar)u$ents. ;'ter a re-e9a$ination o' the $erits o' the case, (e )ranted the second $otion 'or
reconsideration and set aside our earlier decision.
Clearly, suspension o' the rules o' procedure, to pave the (ay 'or the re-e9a$ination o' the 'indin)s
o' 'act and conclusions o' la( earlier $ade, is not (ithout basis.
We (ould like to stress that rules o' procedure are $erely tools desi)ned to 'acilitate the attain$ent
o' >ustice. +hey are conceived and pro$ul)ated to e''ectively aid the courts in the dispensation o'
>ustice. Courts are not slaves to or robots o' technical rules, shorn o' >udicial discretion. :n renderin)
>ustice, courts have al(ays been, as they ou)ht to be, conscientiously )uided by the nor$ that, on
the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive ri)hts, and not the other (ay around. +hus,
i' the application o' the <ules (ould tend to 'rustrate rather than to pro$ote >ustice, it (ould al(ays
be (ithin our po(er to suspend the rules or e9cept a particular case 'ro$ its operation.
!9
#o( on the substantive aspect.
+he Court notes that the version o' the prosecution, as to (here ?aleroso (as arrested, is di''erent
'ro$ the version o' the de'ense. +he prosecution clai$s that ?aleroso (as arrested near the :#"
Central "olice Station in Culiat, Luezon City, (hile he (as about to board a tricycle. ;'ter placin)
?aleroso under arrest, the arrestin) o''icers bodily searched hi$, and they 'ound the sub>ect 'irear$
and a$$unition. +he de'ense, on the other hand, insists that he (as arrested inside the boardin)
house o' his children. ;'ter servin) the (arrant o' arrest 2alle)edly 'or kidnappin) (ith ranso$3,
so$e o' the police o''icers searched the boardin) house and 'orcibly opened a cabinet (here they
discovered the sub>ect 'irear$.
;'ter a thorou)h re-e9a$ination o' the records and consideration o' the >oint appeal 'or acDuittal by
?aleroso and the 6S@, (e 'ind that (e $ust )ive $ore credence to the version o' the de'ense.
?alerosoPs appeal 'or acDuittal 'ocuses on his constitutional ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and
seizure alle)ed to have been violated by the arrestin) police o''icers= and i' so, (ould render the
con'iscated 'irear$ and a$$unition inad$issible in evidence a)ainst hi$.
+he ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section !, ;rticle ::: o' the
Constitution (hich states*
S7C. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined
personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
Fro$ this constitutional provision, it can readily be )leaned that, as a )eneral rule, the procure$ent
o' a (arrant is reDuired be'ore a la( en'orcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers,
or e''ects o' any individual.
5
+o underscore the si)ni'icance the la( attaches to the 'unda$ental ri)ht o' an individual a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares in ;rticle :::, Section 2!3,
that Eany evidence obtained in violation o' this or the precedin) section shall be inad$issible in
evidence 'or any purpose in any proceedin).E
1
+he above proscription is not, ho(ever, absolute. +he 'ollo(in) are the (ell-reco)nized instances
(here searches and seizures are allo(ed even (ithout a valid (arrant*
1. Warrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest=
!. FSeizureG o' evidence in Eplain vie(.E +he ele$ents are* a3 a prior valid intrusion based on
the valid (arrantless arrest in (hich the police are le)ally present in the pursuit o' their
o''icial duties= b3 the evidence (as inadvertently discovered by the police (ho have the ri)ht
to be (here they are= c3 the evidence $ust be i$$ediately apparent= and d3 Eplain vie(E
>usti'ied $ere seizure o' evidence (ithout 'urther search=
. Search o' a $ovin) vehicle. ,i)hly re)ulated by the )overn$ent, the vehiclePs inherent
$obility reduces e9pectation o' privacy especially (hen its transit in public thorou)h'ares
'urnishes a hi)hly reasonable suspicion a$ountin) to probable cause that the occupant
co$$itted a cri$inal activity=
4. Consented (arrantless search=
/. Custo$s search=
6. Stop and Frisk=
0. 79i)ent and e$er)ency circu$stances.
!
J. Search o' vessels and aircra't= FandG
9. :nspection o' buildin)s and other pre$ises 'or the en'orce$ent o' 'ire, sanitary and
buildin) re)ulations.

:n the e9ceptional instances (here a (arrant is not necessary to e''ect a valid search or seizure,
(hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a >udicial Duestion,
deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the
search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and
seizure (as $ade, the place or thin) searched, and the character o' the articles procured.
4
:n li)ht o' the enu$erated e9ceptions, and applyin) the test o' reasonableness laid do(n above, is
the (arrantless search and seizure o' the 'irear$ and a$$unition validI
We ans(er in the ne)ative.
For one, the (arrantless search could not be >usti'ied as an incident to a la('ul arrest. Searches and
seizures incident to la('ul arrests are )overned by Section 1, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules o' Court, (hich
reads*
S7C. 1. Search incident to la('ul arrest. Q ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or
dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay have been used or constitute proo' in the co$$ission o'
an o''ense (ithout a search (arrant.
We (ould like to stress that the scope o' the (arrantless search is not (ithout li$itations. :n "eople
v. %ean)siri,
/
"eople v. Cubcubin, Jr.,
6
and "eople v. 7stella,
0
(e had the occasion to lay do(n the
para$eters o' a valid (arrantless search and seizure as an incident to a la('ul arrest.
When an arrest is $ade, it is reasonable 'or the arrestin) o''icer to search the person arrested in
order to re$ove any (eapon that the latter $i)ht use in order to resist arrest or e''ect his escape.
6ther(ise, the o''icerPs sa'ety $i)ht (ell be endan)ered, and the arrest itsel' 'rustrated. :n addition,
it is entirely reasonable 'or the arrestin) o''icer to search 'or and seize any evidence on the
arresteePs person in order to prevent its conceal$ent or destruction.
J
&oreover, in la('ul arrests, it beco$es both the duty and the ri)ht o' the apprehendin) o''icers to
conduct a (arrantless search not only on the person o' the suspect, but also in the per$issible area
(ithin the latterPs reach.
9
6ther(ise stated, a valid arrest allo(s the seizure o' evidence or
dan)erous (eapons either on the person o' the one arrested or (ithin the area o' his i$$ediate
control.
45
+he phrase E(ithin the area o' his i$$ediate controlE $eans the area 'ro$ (ithin (hich he
$i)ht )ain possession o' a (eapon or destructible evidence.
41
; )un on a table or in a dra(er in 'ront
o' one (ho is arrested can be as dan)erous to the arrestin) o''icer as one concealed in the clothin)
o' the person arrested.
4!
:n the present case, ?aleroso (as arrested by virtue o' a (arrant o' arrest alle)edly 'or kidnappin)
(ith ranso$. ;t that ti$e, ?aleroso (as sleepin) inside the boardin) house o' his children. ,e (as
a(akened by the arrestin) o''icers (ho (ere heavily ar$ed. +hey pulled hi$ out o' the roo$, placed
hi$ beside the 'aucet outside the roo$, tied his hands, and then put hi$ under the care o'
Cisuanco.
4
+he other police o''icers re$ained inside the roo$ and ransacked the locked
cabinet
44
(here they 'ound the sub>ect 'irear$ and a$$unition.
4/
With such discovery, ?aleroso (as
char)ed (ith ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) narration o' 'acts, (e can readily conclude that the arrestin) o''icers served the
(arrant o' arrest (ithout any resistance 'ro$ ?aleroso. +hey placed hi$ i$$ediately under their
control by pullin) hi$ out o' the bed, and brin)in) hi$ out o' the roo$ (ith his hands tied. +o be
sure, the cabinet (hich, accordin) to ?aleroso, (as locked, could no lon)er be considered as an
Earea (ithin his i$$ediate controlE because there (as no (ay 'or hi$ to take any (eapon or to
destroy any evidence that could be used a)ainst hi$.
+he arrestin) o''icers (ould have been >usti'ied in searchin) the person o' ?aleroso, as (ell as the
tables or dra(ers in 'ront o' hi$, 'or any concealed (eapon that $i)ht be used a)ainst the 'or$er.
8ut under the circu$stances obtainin), there (as no co$parable >usti'ication to search throu)h all
the desk dra(ers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that roo$ itsel'.
46
:t is (orthy to note that the purpose o' the e9ception 2(arrantless search as an incident to a la('ul
arrest3 is to protect the arrestin) o''icer 'ro$ bein) har$ed by the person arrested, (ho $i)ht be
ar$ed (ith a concealed (eapon, and to prevent the latter 'ro$ destroyin) evidence (ithin reach.
+he e9ception, there'ore, should not be strained beyond (hat is needed to serve its purpose.
40
:n the
case be'ore us, search (as $ade in the locked cabinet (hich cannot be said to have been (ithin
?alerosoPs i$$ediate control. +hus, the search e9ceeded the bounds o' (hat $ay be considered as
an incident to a la('ul arrest.
4J
#or can the (arrantless search in this case be >usti'ied under the Eplain vie( doctrine.E
+he Eplain vie( doctrineE $ay not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscri$inate seizures
or to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search $ade solely to 'ind evidence o' de'endantPs )uilt. +he
doctrine is usually applied (here a police o''icer is not searchin) 'or evidence a)ainst the accused,
but nonetheless inadvertently co$es across an incri$inatin) ob>ect.
49
;s enunciated in "eople v. Cubcubin, Jr.
/5
and "eople v. %ean)siri*
/1
What the Eplain vie(E cases have in co$$on is that the police o''icer in each o' the$ had a prior
>usti'ication 'or an intrusion in the course o' (hichF,G he ca$e inadvertently across a piece o'
evidence incri$inatin) the accused. +he doctrine serves to supple$ent the prior >usti'ication Q
(hether it be a (arrant 'or another ob>ect, hot pursuit, search incident to la('ul arrest, or so$e other
le)iti$ate reason 'or bein) present unconnected (ith a search directed a)ainst the accused Q and
per$its the (arrantless seizure. 6' course, the e9tension o' the ori)inal >usti'ication is le)iti$ate only
(here it is i$$ediately apparent to the police that they have evidence be'ore the$= the Eplain vie(E
doctrine $ay not be used to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search 'ro$ one ob>ect to another until
so$ethin) incri$inatin) at last e$er)es.
/!
:ndeed, the police o''icers (ere inside the boardin) house o' ?alerosoPs children, because they (ere
supposed to serve a (arrant o' arrest issued a)ainst ?aleroso. :n other (ords, the police o''icers had
a prior >usti'ication 'or the intrusion. ConseDuently, any evidence that they (ould inadvertently
discover $ay be used a)ainst ?aleroso. ,o(ever, in this case, the police o''icers did not >ust
accidentally discover the sub>ect 'irear$ and a$$unition= they actually searched 'or evidence
a)ainst ?aleroso.
Clearly, the search $ade (as ille)al, a violation o' ?alerosoPs ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and
seizure. ConseDuently, the evidence obtained in violation o' said ri)ht is inad$issible in evidence
a)ainst hi$.a%%phi
Anreasonable searches and seizures are the $enace a)ainst (hich the constitutional )uarantees
a''ord 'ull protection. While the po(er to search and seize $ay at ti$es be necessary 'or public
(el'are, still it $ay be e9ercised and the la( en'orced (ithout trans)ressin) the constitutional ri)hts
o' the citizens, 'or no en'orce$ent o' any statute is o' su''icient i$portance to >usti'y indi''erence to
the basic principles o' )overn$ent. +hose (ho are supposed to en'orce the la( are not >usti'ied in
disre)ardin) the ri)hts o' an individual in the na$e o' order. 6rder is too hi)h a price to pay 'or the
loss o' liberty.
/
8ecause a (arrantless search is in dero)ation o' a constitutional ri)ht, peace o''icers (ho conduct it
cannot invoke re)ularity in the per'or$ance o' o''icial 'unctions.
/4
+he 8ill o' <i)hts is the bedrock o' constitutional )overn$ent. :' people are stripped naked o' their
ri)hts as hu$an bein)s, de$ocracy cannot survive and )overn$ent beco$es $eanin)less. +his
e9plains (hy the 8ill o' <i)hts, contained as it is in ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, occupies a position
o' pri$acy in the 'unda$ental la( (ay above the articles on )overn$ental po(er.
//
Without the ille)ally seized 'irear$, ?alerosoPs conviction cannot stand. +here is si$ply no su''icient
evidence to convict hi$.
/6
;ll told, the )uilt o' ?aleroso (as not proven beyond reasonable doubt
$easured by the reDuired $oral certainty 'or conviction. +he evidence presented by the prosecution
(as not enou)h to overco$e the presu$ption o' innocence as constitutionally ordained. :ndeed, it
(ould be better to set 'ree ten $en (ho $i)ht probably be )uilty o' the cri$e char)ed than to convict
one innocent $an 'or a cri$e he did not co$$it.
/0
With the 'ore)oin) disDuisition, there is no $ore need to discuss the other issues raised by ?aleroso.
6ne 'inal note. +he Court values liberty and (ill al(ays insist on the observance o' basic
constitutional ri)hts as a condition sine Dua non a)ainst the a(eso$e investi)ative and prosecutory
po(ers o' the )overn$ent.
/J
W,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' the 'ore)oin), the February !!, !55J Cecision and June 5, !55J
<esolution are <7C6#S:C7<7C and S7+ ;S:C7. Sr. :nsp. Jerry ?aleroso is hereby ;CLA:++7C o'
ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
S6 6<C7<7C.
.R. No. 96177 Jnu/, 27, 1993
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
MAR$ MUSA , HANTATALU, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
0ablo L. Murillo for accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.:
+he appellant, &ari &usa, seeks, in this appeal, the reversal o' the decision, dated ;u)ust 1,
1995,
1
o' the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3 o' Ra$boan)a City, 8ranch S::, 'indin) hi$ )uilty o' sellin)
$ari>uana in violation o' ;rticle ::, Section 4 o' <epublic ;ct #o. 64!/, as a$ended, other(ise kno(n as
the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!.
+he in'or$ation 'iled on Cece$ber 1/, 19J9 a)ainst the appellant reads*
+hat on or about Cece$ber 14, 19J9, in the City o' Ra$boan)a, "hilippines, and
(ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the
above-na$ed accused, not bein) authorized by la(, did then and there, (il'ully,
unla('ully and 'eloniously sell to one S@+. ;&;C6 ;#:, t(o 2!3 (rappers containin)
dried $ari>uana leaves, kno(in) the sa$e to be a prohibited dru).
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
2
Apon his arrai)n$ent on January 11, 1995, the appellant pleaded not )uilty.
3
;t the trial, the prosecution presented three 23 (itnesses, na$ely* 213 S)t. ;$ado ;ni, Jr. o' the 9th
#arcotics Co$$and 2#;<C6&3 o' Ra$boan)a City, (ho acted as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation $ade a)ainst the appellant= 2!3 +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a, also o' the 9th #arcotics Co$$and
o' Ra$boan)a City, (ho (as the #;<C6& tea$ leader o' the buy-bust operation= and 23 ;thena
7lisa ". ;nderson, the Cocu$ent 79a$iner and Forensic Che$ist o' "C-:#" Cri$e %aboratory o'
<e)ional Co$$and 2<7C6&3 9. +he evidence o' the prosecution (as su$$arized by the trial court
as 'ollo(s*
"rosecution evidence sho(s that in the $ornin) o' Cece$ber 1, 19J9, +BS)t. Jesus
8elar)a, leader o' a #;<C6+:CS C6&&;#C 2#;<C6&3 tea$ based at Calarian,
Ra$boan)a City, instructed S)t. ;$ado ;ni to conduct surveillance and test buy on a
certain &ari &usa o' Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. :n'or$ation received 'ro$ civilian
in'or$er (as that this &ari &usa (as en)a)ed in sellin) $ari>uana in said place. So
S)t. ;$ado ;ni, another #;<C6& a)ent, proceeded to Suterville, in co$pany (ith a
#;<C6& civilian in'or$er, to the house o' &ari &usa to (hich house the civilian
in'or$er had )uided hi$. +he sa$e civilian in'or$er had also described to hi$ the
appearance o' &ari &usa. ;$ado ;ni (as able to buy one ne(spaper-(rapped dried
$ari>uana 279h. E7E3 'or "15.55. S)t. ;ni returned to the #;<C6& o''ice and turned
over the ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana to +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a. S)t. 8elar)a
inspected the stu'' turned over to hi$ and 'ound it to be $ari>uana.
+he ne9t day, Cece$ber 14, 19J9, about 1*5 ".&., a buy-bust (as planned. S)t.
;$ado ;ni (as assi)ned as the poseur buyer 'or (hich purpose he (as )iven
"!5.55 2(ith S# @;9//JJ3 by 8elar)a. +he
buy-bust $oney had been taken by +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a 'ro$ &BS)t. #oh Sali
&ihasun, Chie' o' :nvesti)ation Section, and 'or (hich 8elar)a si)ned a receipt 279h.
E%E M E%-lE 3 +he tea$ under S)t. Foncar)as (as assi)ned as back-up security. ; pre-
arran)ed si)nal (as arran)ed consistin) o' S)t. ;ni1s raisin) his ri)ht hand, a'ter he
had succeeded to buy the $ari>uana. +he t(o #;<C6& tea$s proceeded to the
tar)et site in t(o civilian vehicles. 8elar)a1s tea$ (as co$posed o' S)t. 8elar)a,
tea$ leader, S)t. ;$ado ;ni, poseur buyer, S)t. %e)o and S)t. 8ion).
;rrivin) at the tar)et site, S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house o' &ari &usa, (hile the
rest o' the #;<C6& )roup positioned the$selves at strate)ic places about 95 to
155 $eters 'ro$ &ari &usa1s house. +BS)t. 8elar)a could see (hat (ent on bet(een
;ni and suspect &ari &usa 'ro$ (here he (as. ;ni approached &ari &usa, (ho
ca$e out o' his house, and asked ;ni (hat he (anted. ;ni said he (anted so$e
$ore stu''. ;ni )ave &ari &usa the "!5.55 $arked $oney. ;'ter receivin) the
$oney, &ari &usa (ent back to his house and ca$e back and )ave ;$ado ;ni t(o
ne(spaper (rappers containin) dried $ari>uana. ;ni opened the t(o (rappers and
inspected the contents. Convinced that the contents (ere $ari>uana, ;ni (alked
back to(ards his co$panions and raised his ri)ht hand. +he t(o #;<C6& tea$s,
ridin) the t(o civilian vehicles, sped to(ards S)t. ;ni. ;ni >oined 8elar)a1s tea$ and
returned to the house.
;t the ti$e S)t. ;ni 'irst approached &ari &usa, there (ere 'our persons inside his
house* &ari &usa, another boy, and t(o (o$en, one o' (ho$ ;ni and 8elar)a later
ca$e to kno( to be &ari &usa1s (i'e. +he second ti$e, ;ni (ith the #;<C6& tea$
returned to &ari &usa1s house, the (o$an, (ho (as later kno(n as &ari &usa1s
(i'e, slipped a(ay 'ro$ the house. S)t. 8elar)a 'risked &ari &usa but could not 'ind
the "!5.55 $arked $oney (ith hi$. &ari &usa (as then asked (here the "!5.55
(as and he told the #;<C6& tea$ he has )iven the $oney to his (i'e 2(ho had
slipped a(ay3. S)t. 8elar)a also 'ound a plastic ba) containin) dried $ari>uana
inside it so$e(here in the kitchen. &ari &usa (as then placed under arrest and
brou)ht to the #;<C6& o''ice. ;t Suterville, S)t. ;ni turned over to S)t. 8elar)a the
t(o ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana he had earlier bou)ht 'ro$ &ari &usa 279hs. ECE
M ECE3.
:n the #;<C6& o''ice, &ari &usa 'irst )ave his na$e as ,ussin &usa. %ater on,
&ari &usa )ave his true na$e H &ari &usa. +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a turned over the
t(o ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana 2bou)ht at the buy-bust3, the one ne(spaper-
(rapped $ari>uana 2bou)ht at the test-buy3 and the plastic ba) containin) $ore
$ari>uana 2(hich had been taken by S)t. %e)o inside the kitchen o' &ari &usa3 to
the "C Cri$e %aboratory, Ra$boan)a City, 'or laboratory e9a$ination. +he turnover
o' the $ari>uana speci$en to the "C Cri$e %aboratory (as by (ay o' a letter-
reDuest, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9 279h. E8E3, (hich (as sta$ped E<7C7:?7CE by
the "C Cri$e %aboratory 279h. E8-1E3 on the sa$e day.
&rs. ;thena 7lisa ". ;nderson, the Forensic Che$ist o' the "C Cri$e %aboratory,
e9a$ined the $ari>uana speci$ens sub>ectin) the sa$e to her three tests. ;ll
sub$itted speci$ens she e9a$ined )ave positive results 'or the presence o'
$ari>uana. &rs. ;nderson reported the results o' her e9a$ination in her Che$istry
<eport C-155-J9, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, 279h. EJE, EJ-1E, EJ-!E, EJ-E, EJ-4E and
EJ-/E3. &rs. ;nderson identi'ied in court the t(o ne(spaper (rapped $ari>uana
bou)ht at the
buy-bust on Cece$ber 14, 19J9, throu)h her initial and the (ei)ht o' each speci$en
(ritten (ith red ink on each (rapper 279hs. EC-1E and EC-1E3. She also identi'ied the
one ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana bou)ht at the test-buy on Cece$ber 1, 19J9,
throu)h her $arkin)s 279h. E7-1E3. &rs. ;nderson also identi'ied her Che$istry
<eport 279h. EJE M sub-$arkin)s.3
+. S)t. 8elar)a identi'ied the t(o buy-bust ne(spaper (rapped $ari>uana throu)h his
initial, the (ords Ebuy-bustE and the (ords ECece$ber 14, 19J9, !*4/ ".&.E 2(ritten
on 79hs. ECE and ECE3. 8elar)a also identi'ied the receipt o' the "!5 $arked $oney
2(ith S# @;9//JJ3 279h. E%E3, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, and his si)nature thereon
279h.
E%-1E3. ,e also identi'ied the letter-reDuest, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, addressed to
the "C Cri$e %aboratory 279h. E8E3 and his si)nature thereon 279h. E8-!E3 and the
sta$p o' the "C Cri$e %aboratory $arked E<7C7:?7CE 279h. E8-1E3.
5
For the de'ense, the 'ollo(in) testi'ied as (itnesses* 213 the accused-appellant &ari ,. &usa= and
2!3 ;hara <. &usa, his (i'e. +he trial court su$$arized the version o' the de'ense, thus*
F6Gn Cece$ber 14, 19J9, at about 1*5 in the a'ternoon, &ari &usa (as in his house
at Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. With hi$ (ere his (i'e, ;hara &usa, kno(n as ;ra,
his one-year old child, a (o$an $anicurist, and a $ale cousin na$ed ;bdul &usa.
;bout 1*5 that a'ternoon, (hile he (as bein) $anicured at one hand, his (i'e (as
inside the one roo$ o' their house, puttin) their child to sleep. +hree #;<C6&
a)ents, (ho introduced the$selves as #;<C6& a)ents, dressed in civilian clothes,
)ot inside &ari &usa1s house (hose door (as open. +he #;<C6& a)ents did not
ask per$ission to enter the house but si$ply announced that they (ere #;<C6&
a)ents. +he #;<C6& a)ents searched &ari &usa1s house and &ari &usa asked
the$ i' they had a search (arrant. +he #;<C6& a)ents (ere >ust silent. +he
#;<C6& a)ents 'ound a red plastic ba) (hose contents, &ari &usa said, he did not
kno(. ,e also did not kno( i' the plastic ba) belon)ed to his brother, Faisal, (ho
(as livin) (ith hi$, or his 'ather, (ho (as livin) in another house about ten ar$s-
len)th a(ay. &ari &usa, then, (as handcu''ed and (hen &ari &usa asked (hy, the
#;<C6& a)ents told hi$ 'or clari'ication.
&ari &usa (as brou)ht in a pick-up, his (i'e >oinin) hi$ to the #;<C6& 6''ice at
Calarian, Ra$boan)a City. :nside the #;<C6& 6''ice, &ari &usa (as investi)ated
by one #;<C6& a)ent (hich investi)ation (as reduced into (ritin). +he (ritin) or
docu$ent (as interpreted to &ari &usa in +a)alo). +he docu$ent stated that the
$ari>uana belon)ed to &ari &usa and &ari &usa (as asked to si)n it. 8ut &ari
&usa re'used to si)n because the $ari>uana did not belon) to hi$. &ari &usa said
he (as not told that he (as entitled to the assistance o' counsel, althou)h he hi$sel'
told the #;<C6& a)ents he (anted to be assisted by counsel.
&ari &usa said 'our bullets (ere then placed bet(een the 'in)ers o' his ri)ht hand
and his 'in)ers (ere pressed (hich 'elt very pain'ul. +he #;<C6& a)ents bo9ed
hi$ and &ari &usa lost consciousness. While &ari &usa (as $altreated, he said his
(i'e (as outside the #;<C6& buildin). +he very day he (as arrested 2on cross-
e9a$ination &ari &usa said it (as on the ne9t day3, &ari &usa (as brou)ht to the
Fiscal1s 6''ice by three #;<C6& a)ents. +he 'iscal asked hi$ i' the $ari>uana (as
o(ned by hi$ and he said Enot.E ;'ter that sin)le Duestion, &ari &usa (as brou)ht to
the City Jail. &ari &usa said he did not tell the 'iscal that he had been $altreated by
the #;<C6& a)ents because he (as a'raid he $i)ht be $altreated in the 'iscal1s
o''ice.
&ari &usa denied the #;<C6& a)ents1 char)e that he had sold t(o (rappers o'
$ari>uana to the$= that he had received 'ro$ the$ a "!5.55 bill (hich he had )iven
to his (i'e. ,e did not sell $ari>uana because he (as a'raid that (as a)ainst the la(
and that the person sellin) $ari>uana (as cau)ht by the authorities= and he had a
(i'e and a very s$all child to support. &ari &usa said he had not been arrested 'or
sellin) $ari>uana be'ore.
9
;'ter trial, the trial court rendered the assailed decision (ith the 'ollo(in) disposition*
W,7<7F6<7, 'indin) accused &ari &usa y ,antatalu )uilty beyond reasonable
doubt o' sellin) $ari>uana and pursuant to Sec. 4, ;rt :: o' <ep. ;ct #o. 64!/, he is
sentenced to li'e i$prison$ent and to pay the 'ine o' "!5,555.55, the latter i$posed
(ithout subsidiary i$prison$ent.
6
:n this appeal, the appellant contends that his )uilt (as not proved beyond reasonable doubt and
i$pu)ns the credibility o' the prosecution (itnesses.
+he appellant clai$s that the testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni, the poseur-buyer, is not credible because* 213
prior to the buy-bust operation, neither S)t. ;ni nor the other #;<C6& a)ents (ere personally
kno(n by the appellant or vice-versa= and 2!3 there (as no (itness to the alle)ed )ivin) o' the t(o
(rappers o' $ari>uana by the appellant to S)t. ;ni.
S)t. ;ni testi'ied that on Cece$ber 1, 19J9, upon instruction by +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a, he
conducted a test-buy operation on the appellant (hereby he bou)ht one (rapper o' $ari>uana 'or
"1/.55 'ro$ the latter.
7
,e reported the success'ul operation to +BS)t. 8elar)a on the sa$e
day.
2
Whereupon, +BS)t. 8elar)a conducted a con'erence to or)anize a buy-bust operation 'or the
'ollo(in) day.
9
6n Cece$ber 14, 19J9, at 1*5 p.$., t(o #;<C6& tea$s in separate vehicles headed by +BS)t.
8elar)a and a certain S)t. Foncardas (ent to the place o' operation, (hich (as the appellant1s
house located in %aDuian Co$pound, Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. S)t. ;ni (as (ith the tea$ o'
+BS)t. 8elar)a, (hose other $e$bers (ere S)ts. %e)o and 8ion).
10
S)t. ;ni (as )iven a $arked
"!5.55 bill by +BS)t. 8elar)a, (hich (as to be used in the operation.
Apon reachin) the place, the #;<C6& a)ents positioned the$selves at strate)ic places.
11
S)t. ;ni
approached the house. 6utside the house, the appellant asked S)t. ;ni (hat he (anted. S)t. ;ni asked
hi$ 'or so$e $ore $ari>uana.
12
S)t. ;ni )ave hi$ the $arked "!5.55 bill and the appellant (ent inside
the house and brou)ht back t(o paper (rappers containin) $ari>uana (hich he handed to S)t.
;ni.
13
Fro$ his position, S)t. ;ni could see that there (ere other people in the house.
15
;'ter the e9chan)e, S)t. ;ni approached the other #;<C6& a)ents and $ade the pre-arran)ed
si)nal o' raisin) his ri)ht hand.
19
+he #;<C6& a)ents, acco$panied by S)t. ;ni, (ent inside the house
and $ade the arrest. +he a)ents searched the appellant and unable to 'ind the $arked $oney, they
asked hi$ (here it (as. +he appellant said that he )ave it to his (i'e.
16
+he Court, a'ter a care'ul readin) o' the record, 'inds the testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni re)ardin) the buy-
bust operation, (hich resulted in the apprehension, prosecution and subseDuent conviction o' the
appellant, to be direct, lucid and 'orthri)ht. 8ein) totally untainted by contradictions in any o' the
$aterial points, it deserves credence.
+he contention that the appellant could not have transacted (ith S)t. ;ni because they do not kno(
each other is (ithout $erit. +he day be'ore the
buy-bust operation, S)t. ;ni conducted a test-buy and he success'ully bou)ht a (rapper o'
$ari>uana 'ro$ the appellant. +hrou)h this previous transaction, S)t. ;ni (as able to )ain the
appellant1s con'idence 'or the latter to sell $ore $ari>uana to S)t. ;ni the 'ollo(in) day, durin) the
buy-bust operation. &oreover, the Court has held that (hat $atters is not an e9istin) 'a$iliarity
bet(een the buyer and the seller, 'or Duite o'ten, the parties to the transaction $ay be stran)ers, but
their a)ree$ent and the acts constitutin) the sale and delivery o' the $ari>uana.
17
+he appellant, a)ain to cast doubt on the credibility o' S)t. ;ni, ar)ues that it (as i$possible 'or the
appellant to sell $ari>uana (hile his (i'e, cousin and $anicurist (ere present. 8ut the place o' the
co$$ission o' the cri$e o' sellin) prohibited dru)s has been held to be not crucial
12
and the
presence o' other people apart 'ro$ the buyer and seller (ill not necessarily prevent the consu$$ation o'
the ille)al sale. ;s the Court observed in 0eople %. 0aco,
19
these 'actors $ay so$eti$es ca$ou'la)e the
co$$ission o' the cri$e. :n the instant case, the 'act that the other people inside the appellant1s house
are kno(n to the appellant $ay have )iven hi$ so$e assurance that these people (ill not report hi$ to
the authorities.
+he appellant, besides assailin) S)t. ;ni1s credibility, also Duestions the credibility o' +BS)t. 8elar)a.
+he appellant sub$its that since +BS)t. 8elar)a ad$itted that he (as about 95 $eters a(ay 'ro$
S)t. ;ni and the appellant, he could not have possibly (itnessed the sale. +he appellant
invokes 0eople %.
Ale
20
(here the Court observed that 'ro$ a distance o' 15-1/ $eters, a police$an cannot distin)uish
bet(een $ari>uana ci)arette 'ro$ ordinary ones by the type o' rollin) done on the ci)arette sticks. ;nd
since +BS)t. 8elar)a alle)edly did not see the sale, the appellant contends that the uncorroborated
testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni can not stand as basis 'or his conviction.
0eople %. Ale does not apply here because the police$an in that case testi'ied that he and his
co$panion (ere certain that the appellant therein handed $ari>uana ci)arettes to the poseur-buyer
based on the appearance o' the ci)arette sticks. +he Court re>ected this clai$, statin) that*
+his Court cannot )ive 'ull credit to the testi$onies o' the prosecution (itnesses
$arked as they are (ith contradictions and tainted (ith inaccuracies.
8iTan testi'ied that they (ere able to tell that the 'our ci)arettes (ere $ari>uana
ci)arettes because accordin) to hi$, the rollin) o' ordinary ci)arettes are di''erent
'ro$ those o' $ari>uana ci)arettes. 2tsn, #ove$ber 1, 19J4, p. 153.
:t is ho(ever, incredible to believe that they could discern the type o' rollin) done on
those ci)arettes 'ro$ the distance (here they (ere observin) the alle)ed sale o'
$ore or less 15 to 1/ $eters.
21
:n the case at bar, ho(ever, +BS)t. 8elar)a did not positively clai$ that he sa( the appellant hand
over $ari>uana to S)t. ;ni. What he said (as that there (as an e9chan)e o' certain articles bet(een
the t(o. +he relevant portion o' +BS)t. 8elar)a1s testi$ony reads*
22
L #o(, do you re$e$ber (hether S)t. ;ni (as able to reach the
house o' &ari &usaI
; -es, $a1a$.
L ;'ter reachin) &ari &usa, did you see (hat happened 2sic3I
; -es, $a1a$.
L Could you please tell usI
; Fro$ our vehicle the stainless o(ner type >eep (here S)t. %e)o,
S)t. 8ion) (ere boarded, : sa( that S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house
near the road and he (as $et by one person and later kno(n as &ari
&usa (ho (as at the ti$e (earin) short pants and later on : sa( that
S)t. ;ni handed so$ethin) to hi$, therea'ter received by &ari &usa
and (ent inside the house and ca$e back later and handed
so$ethin) to S)t. ;ni.
Contrary to the contention o' the appellant, it (as not i$possible 'or +BS)t. 8elar)a to have seen,
'ro$ a distance o' 95-155 $eters, S)t. ;ni hand to the appellant Eso$ethin)E and 'or the latter to
)ive to the 'or$er Eso$ethin).E
#ot(ithstandin) the 'act that +BS)t. 8elar)a could not have been certain that (hat S)t. ;ni received
'ro$ the appellant (as $ari>uana because o' the distance, his testi$ony, nevertheless, corroborated
the direct evidence, (hich the Court earlier ruled to be convincin), presented by S)t. ;ni on the
'ollo(in) $aterial points* 213 +BS)t. 8elar)a instructed S)t. ;ni to conduct a surveillance and test-buy
operation on the appellant at Suterville, Ra$boan)a City on Cece$ber 1, 19J9=
23
2!3 later that sa$e
day, S)t. ;ni (ent back to their o''ice and reported a success'ul operation and turned over to +BS)t.
8elar)a one (rapper o' $ari>uana=
25
23 +BS)t. 8elar)a then or)anized a tea$ to conduct a buy-bust
operation the 'ollo(in) day=
29
243 on Cece$ber 14, 19J9, +BS)t. 8elar)a led a tea$ o' #;<C6& a)ents
(ho (ent to Suterville, Ra$boan)a City=
26
2/3 +BS)t. 8elar)a )ave a "!5.55 $arked bill to S)t. ;ni (hich
(as to be used in the buy-bust operation=
27
263 upon the arrival o' the #;<C6& a)ents in Suterville,
Ra$boan)a City, S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house o' the appellant (hile so$e a)ents stayed in the
vehicles and others positioned the$selves in strate)ic places=
22
the appellant $et S)t. ;ni and an
e9chan)e o' articles took place.
29
+he corroborative testi$ony o' +BS)t. 8elar)a stren)thens the direct evidence )iven by S)t. ;ni.
;dditionally, the Court has ruled that the 'act that the police o''icers (ho acco$panied the poseur-
buyer (ere unable to see e9actly (hat the appellant )ave the poseur-buyer because o' their
distance or position (ill not be 'atal to the prosecution1s case
30
provided there e9ists other evidence,
direct or circu$stantial, e.)., the testi$ony o' the poseur-buyer, (hich is su''icient to prove the
consu$$ation o' the sale o' the prohibited dru)
+he appellant ne9t assails the seizure and ad$ission as evidence o' a plastic ba) containin)
$ari>uana (hich the #;<C6& a)ents 'ound in the appellant1s kitchen. :t appears that a'ter S)t. ;ni
)ave the pre-arran)ed si)nal to the other #;<C6& a)ents, the latter $oved in and arrested the
appellant inside the house. +hey searched hi$ to retrieve the $arked $oney but didn1t 'ind it. Apon
bein) Duestioned, the appellant said that he )ave the $arked $oney to his (i'e.
31
+herea'ter, +BS)t.
8elar)a and S)t. %e)o (ent to the kitchen and noticed (hat +BS)t. 8elar)a described as a Ecellophane
colored (hite and stripe han)in) at the corner o' the kitchen.E
32
+hey asked the appellant about its
contents but 'ailin) to )et a response, they opened it and 'ound dried $ari>uana leaves. ;t the trial, the
appellant Duestioned the ad$issibility o' the plastic ba) and the $ari>uana it contains but the trial court
issued an 6rder rulin) that these are ad$issible in evidence.
33
8uilt into the Constitution are )uarantees on the 'reedo$ o' every individual a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures by providin) in ;rticle :::, Section !, the 'ollo(in)*
+he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept
upon probable cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination
under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itness he $ay produce, and
particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or thin)s to be
seized.
Further$ore, the Constitution, in con'or$ity (ith the doctrine laid do(n in Stonehill %.
4io(no,
35
declares inad$issible, any evidence obtained in violation o' the 'reedo$ 'ro$ unreasonable
searches and seizures.
39
While a valid search (arrant is )enerally necessary be'ore a search and seizure $ay be e''ected,
e9ceptions to this rule are reco)nized. +hus, in Al%ero %. 4izon,
36
the Court stated that. EFtGhe $ost
i$portant e9ception to the necessity 'or a search (arrant is the ri)ht o' search and seizure as an incident
to a la('ul arrest.E
37
<ule 1!6, Section 1! o' the <ules o' Court e9pressly authorizes a (arrantless search and seizure
incident to a la('ul arrest, thus*
Sec. 1!. Search incident to lawful arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be
searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay be used as proo' o' the
co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant.
+here is no doubt that the (arrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest authorizes the arrestin)
o''icer to $ake a search upon the person o' the person arrested. ;s early as 1959, the Court has
ruled that EFaGn o''icer $akin) an arrest $ay take 'ro$ the person arrested any $oney or property
'ound upon his person (hich (as used in the co$$ission o' the cri$e or (as the 'ruit o' the cri$e or
(hich $i)ht 'urnish the prisoner (ith the $eans o' co$$ittin)
violence or o' escapin), or (hich $ay be used as evidence in the trial o' the cause . . . E
32
,ence, in a
buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a dru)-pusher, the la( en'orce$ent a)ents $ay seize the $arked
$oney 'ound on the person
o' the pusher i$$ediately a'ter the arrest even (ithout arrest and search (arrants.
39
:n the case at bar, the #;<C6& a)ents searched the person o' the appellant a'ter arrestin) hi$ in
his house but 'ound nothin). +hey then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, 'ound and
seized a plastic ba) han)in) in a corner.
+he (arrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect1s la('ul arrest, $ay e9tend beyond
the person o' the one arrested to include the pre$ises or surroundin)s under his i$$ediate
control.
50
6b>ects in the Eplain vie(E o' an o''icer (ho has the ri)ht to be in the position to have that vie(
are sub>ect to seizure and $ay be presented as evidence.
51
:n Her %. ,alifornia
52
police o''icers, (ithout securin) a search (arrant but havin) in'or$ation that the
de'endant husband (as sellin) $ari>uana 'ro$ his apart$ent, obtained 'ro$ the buildin) $ana)er a
passkey to de'endants1 apart$ent, and entered it. +here they 'ound the de'endant husband in the livin)
roo$. +he de'endant (i'e e$er)ed 'ro$ the kitchen, and one o' the o''icers, a'ter identi'yin) hi$sel',
observed throu)h the open door(ay o' the kitchen, a s$all scale atop the kitchen sink, upon (hich lay a
brick-shaped packa)e containin) )reen lea'y substance (hich he reco)nized as $ari>uana. +he packa)e
o' $ari>uana (as used as evidence in prosecutin) de'endants 'or violation o' the #arcotic %a(. +he
ad$issibility o' the packa)e (as challen)ed be'ore the A.S. Supre$e Court, (hich held, a'ter observin)
that it (as not unreasonable 'or the o''icer to (alk to the door(ay o' the ad>acent kitchen on seein) the
de'endant (i'e e$er)e there'ro$, that Ethe discovery o' the brick o' $ari>uana did not constitute a search,
since the o''icer $erely sa( (hat (as placed be'ore hi$ in 'ull vie(.
53
+he A.S. Supre$e Court ruled that
the (arrantless seizure o' the $ari>uana (as le)al on the basis o' the Eplain vie(E doctrine and upheld the
ad$issibility o' the seized dru)s as part o' the prosecution1s evidence.
55
+he Eplain vie(E doctrine $ay not, ho(ever, be used to launch unbridled searches and
indiscri$inate seizures nor to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search $ade solely to 'ind evidence o'
de'endant1s )uilt. +he Eplain vie(E doctrine is usually applied (here a police o''icer is not searchin)
'or evidence a)ainst the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently co$es across an incri$inatin)
ob>ect.
59
Further$ore, the A.S. Supre$e Court stated the 'ollo(in) li$itations on the application o' the
doctrine*
What the Eplain vie(E cases have in co$$on is that the police o''icer in each o' the$ had a prior
>usti'ication 'or an intrusion in the course o' (hich he ca$e inadvertently across a piece o' evidence
incri$inatin) the accused. +he doctrine serves to supple$ent the prior >usti'ication H (hether it be a
(arrant 'or another ob>ect, hot pursuit, search incident to la('ul arrest, or so$e other le)iti$ate
reason 'or bein) present unconnected (ith a search directed a)ainst the accused H and per$its the
(arrantless seizure. 6' course, the e9tension o' the ori)inal >usti'ication is le)iti$ate only (here it is
i$$ediately apparent to the police that they have evidence be'ore the$= the Eplain vie(E doctrine
$ay not be used to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search 'ro$ one ob>ect to another until so$ethin)
incri$inatin) at last e$er)es.
56
:t has also been su))ested that even i' an ob>ect is observed in Eplain vie(,E the Eplain vie(E doctrine
(ill not >usti'y the seizure o' the ob>ect (here the incri$inatin) nature o' the ob>ect is not apparent
'ro$ the Eplain vie(E o' the ob>ect.
57
Stated di''erently, it $ust be i$$ediately apparent to the police that
the ite$s that they observe $ay be evidence o' a cri$e, contraband, or other(ise sub>ect to seizure.
:n the instant case, the appellant (as arrested and his person searched in the livin) roo$. Failin) to
retrieve the $arked $oney (hich they hoped to 'ind, the #;<C6& a)ents searched the (hole
house and 'ound the plastic ba) in the kitchen. +he plastic ba) (as, there'ore, not (ithin their Eplain
vie(E (hen they arrested the appellant as to >usti'y its seizure. +he #;<C6& a)ents had to $ove
'ro$ one portion o' the house to another be'ore they si)hted the plastic ba). Anlike Her %s.
,alifornia, (here the police o''icer had reason to (alk to the door(ay o' the ad>acent kitchen and
'ro$ (hich position he sa( the $ari>uana, the #;<C6& a)ents in this case (ent 'ro$ roo$ to roo$
(ith the obvious intention o' 'ishin) 'or $ore evidence.
&oreover, (hen the #;<C6& a)ents sa( the plastic ba) han)in) in one corner o' the kitchen, they
had no clue as to its contents. +hey had to ask the appellant (hat the ba) contained. When the
appellant re'used to respond, they opened it and 'ound the $ari>uana. Anlike Her %. ,alifornia, (here
the $ari>uana (as visible to the police o''icer1s eyes, the #;<C6& a)ents in this case could not
have discovered the inculpatory nature o' the contents o' the ba) had they not 'orcibly opened it.
7ven assu$in) then, that the #;<C6& a)ents inadvertently ca$e across the plastic ba) because it
(as (ithin their Eplain vie(,E (hat $ay be said to be the ob>ect in their Eplain vie(E (as >ust the
plastic ba) and not the $ari>uana. +he incri$inatin) nature o' the contents o' the plastic ba) (as not
i$$ediately apparent 'ro$ the Eplain vie(E o' said ob>ect. :t cannot be clai$ed that the plastic ba)
clearly betrayed its contents, (hether by its distinctive con'i)uration, its transprarency, or other(ise,
that its contents are obvious to an observer.
52
We, there'ore, hold that under the circu$stances o' the case, the Eplain vie(E doctrine does not
apply and the $ari>uana contained in the plastic ba) (as seized ille)ally and cannot be presented in
evidence pursuant to ;rticle :::, Section 2!3 o' the Constitution.
+he e9clusion o' this particular evidence does not, ho(ever, di$inish, in any (ay, the da$a)in)
e''ect o' the other pieces o' evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold
$ari>uana, in violation o' ;rticle ::, Section 4 o' the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!. We hold that by
virtue o' the testi$onies o' S)t. ;ni and +BS)t. 8elar)a and the t(o (rappin)s o' $ari>uana sold by
the appellant to S)t. ;ni, a$on) other pieces o' evidence, the )uilt o' the appellant o' the cri$e
char)ed has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
W,7<7F6<7, the appeal is C:S&:SS7C and the >ud)$ent o' the <e)ional +rial Court ;FF:<&7C.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Gutierrez- .r.- /idin- 4a%ide- .r. and Melo- ...- concur.
G.R. No. 29139 Au-u(+ 2, 1990
ROMEO 6OSA3AS , 1AMORA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT O" A66EALS n! THE 6EO6LE O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
+ud' G. Agra%ate for petitioner.

GANCA#CO, J.:
+he validity o' a (arrantless search on the person o' petitioner is put into issue in this case.
6n 6ctober 16, 19J6 at about 15*55 o1clock in the $ornin) "at. Arsicio An)ab and "at. A$bra
A$par, both $e$bers o' the :nte)rated #ational "olice 2:#"3 o' the Cavao &etrodisco$ assi)ned
(ith the :ntelli)ence +ask Force, (ere conductin) a surveillance alon) &a)allanes Street, Cavao
City. While they (ere (ithin the pre$ises o' the <izal &e$orial Colle)es they spotted petitioner
carryin) a EburiE ba) and they noticed hi$ to be actin) suspiciously.
+hey approached the petitioner and identi'ied the$selves as $e$bers o' the :#". "etitioner
atte$pted to 'lee but his atte$pt to )et a(ay (as th(arted by the t(o not(ithstandin) his
resistance.
+hey then checked the EburiE ba) o' the petitioner (here they 'ound one 213 caliber .J S$ith M
Wesson revolver (ith Serial #o. 005196
1
t(o 2!3 rounds o' live a$$unition 'or a .J caliber )un
2
a
s$oke 2tear )as3 )renade,
3
and t(o 2!3 live a$$unitions 'or a .!! caliber )un.
5
+hey brou)ht the
petitioner to the police station 'or 'urther investi)ation. :n the course o' the sa$e, the petitioner (as asked
to sho( the necessary license or authority to possess 'irear$s and a$$unitions 'ound in his possession
but he 'ailed to do so. ,e (as then taken to the Cavao &etrodisco$ o''ice and the prohibited articles
recovered 'ro$ hi$ (ere indorsed to &BS)t. Cidoy the o''icer then on duty. ,e (as prosecuted 'or ille)al
possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions in the <e)ional +rial Court o' Cavao City (herein a'ter a plea o'
not )uilty and trial on the $erits a decision (as rendered on 6ctober J, 19J0 'indin) petitioner )uilty o'
the o''ense char)ed as 'ollo(s*
W,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' all the 'ore)oin), this Court , 'inds the accused )uilty
beyond reasonable doubt o' the o''ense char)ed.
:t appearin) that the accuse d (as belo( ei)hteen 21J3 years old at the ti$e o' the
co$$ission o' the o''ense 2;rt. 6J, par. !3, he is hereby sentenced to an
indeter$inate penalty ran)in) 'ro$ +7# 2153 -7;<S and 6#7 213 C;- o' prision
ma'or to +W7%?7 21!3 -ears, F:?7 2/3 $onths and 7leven 2113 days o' +eclusion
5emporal, and to pay the costs.
+he 'irear$, a$$unitions and s$oke )renade are 'or'eited in 'avor o' the
)overn$ent and the 8ranch Clerk o' Court is hereby directed to turn over said ite$s
to the Chie', Cavao &etrodisco$, Cavao City.
9
#ot satis'ied there(ith the petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court o' ;ppeals (herein in due
course a decision (as rendered on February !, 19J9 a''ir$in) in toto the appealed decision (ith
costs a)ainst the petitioner.
6
,ence, the herein petition 'or revie(, the $ain thrust o' (hich is that there bein) no la('ul arrest or
search and seizure, the ite$s (hich (ere con'iscated 'ro$ the possession o' the petitioner are
inad$issible in evidence a)ainst hi$.
+he Solicitor @eneral, in >usti'yin) the (arrantless search o' the buri ba) then carried by the
petitioner, ar)ues that under Section 1!, <ule 16 o' the <ules o' Court a person la('ully arrested
$ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) used as proo' o' a co$$ission o' an o''ense
(ithout a search (arrant. :t is 'urther alle)ed that the arrest (ithout a (arrant o' the petitioner (as
la('ul under the circu$stances.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure provides as 'ollo(s*
S7C. /. Arrest without warrantJ when lawful K ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a
(arrant shall be 'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall
be proceeded a)ainst in accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0. 26a, 10a3
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) provision o' la( it is clear that an arrest (ithout a (arrant $ay be e''ected by a
peace o''icer or private person, a$on) others, (hen in his presence the person to be arrested has
co$$itted, is actually co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense= or (hen an o''ense has in
'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts indicatin) that the person
arrested has co$$itted it.
+he Solicitor @eneral ar)ues that (hen the t(o police$en approached the petitioner, he (as
actually co$$ittin) or had >ust co$$itted the o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and
a$$unitions in the presence o' the police o''icers and conseDuently the search and seizure o' the
contraband (as incidental to the la('ul arrest in accordance (ith Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the 19J/
<ules on Cri$inal "rocedure. We disa)ree.
;t the ti$e the peace o''icers in this case identi'ied the$selves and apprehended the petitioner as
he atte$pted to 'lee they did not kno( that he had co$$itted, or (as actually co$$ittin) the
o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions. +hey >ust suspected that he (as hidin)
so$ethin) in the buri ba). +hey did no( kno( (hat its contents (ere. +he said circu$stances did
not >usti'y an arrest (ithout a (arrant.
,o(ever, there are $any instances (here a (arrant and seizure can be e''ected (ithout necessarily
bein) preceded by an arrest, 'ore$ost o' (hich is the Estop and searchE (ithout a search (arrant at
$ilitary or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity o' (hich has been upheld by this Court
in 6almonte %s. de 6illa,
7
as 'ollo(s*
"etitioner ?al$onte1s )eneral alle)ation to the e''ect that he had been stopped and
searched (ithout a search (arrant by the $ilitary $annin) the checkpoints, (ithout
$ore, i.e., (ithout statin) the details o' the incidents (hich a$ount to a violation o'
his li)ht a)ainst unla('ul search and seizure, is not su''icient to enable the Court to
deter$ine (hether there (as a violation o' ?al$onte1s ri)ht a)ainst unla('ul search
and seizure. 9ot all searches and seizures are prohibited. 5hose which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined b' an'
fi:ed formula but is to be resol%ed according to the facts of each case.
Where, 'or e9a$ple, the o''icer $erely dra(s aside the curtain o' a vacant vehicle
(hich is parked on the public 'air )rounds, or si$ply looks into a vehicle or 'lashes a
li)ht therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search.
+he settin) up o' the Duestioned checkpoints in ?alenzuela 2and probably in other
areas3 $ay be considered as a security $easure to enable the #C<CC to pursue its
$ission o' establishin) e''ective territorial de'ense and $aintainin) peace and order
'or the bene'it o' the public. Checkpoints $ay also be re)arded as $easures to
th(art plots to destabilize the )overn$ent in the interest o' public security. :n this
connection, the Court $ay take >udicial notice o' the shi't to urban centers and their
suburbs o' the insur)ency $ove$ent, so clearly re'lected in the increased killin)s in
cities o' police and $ilitary $en by #"; Esparro( units,E not to $ention the
abundance o' unlicensed 'irear$s and the alar$in) rise in la(lessness and violence
in such urban centers, not all o' (hich are reported in $edia, $ost likely brou)ht
about by deterioratin) econo$ic conditions H (hich all su$ up to (hat one can
ri)htly consider, at the very least, as abnor$al ti$es. /etween the inherent right of
the state to protect its e:istence and promote public welfare and an indi%idualIs right
against a warrantless search which is howe%er reasonabl' conducted- the former
should pre%ail.
+rue, the $annin) o' checkpoints by the $ilitary is susceptible o' abuse by the $en
in uni'or$ in the sa$e $anner that all )overn$ental po(er is susceptible o' abuse.
8ut, at the cost o' occasional inconvenience, disco$'ort and even irritation to the
citizen, the checkpoints durin) these abnor$al ti$es, (hen conducted (ithin
reasonable li$its, are part o' the price (e pay 'or an orderly society and a peace'ul
co$$unity. 27$phasis supplied3.
+hus, as bet(een a (arrantless search and seizure conducted at $ilitary or police checkpoints and
the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no Duestion that, indeed, the latter is $ore reasonable
considerin) that unlike in the 'or$er, it (as e''ected on the basis o' a probable cause. +he probable
cause is that (hen the petitioner acted suspiciously and atte$pted to 'lee (ith the buri ba) there
(as a probable cause that he (as concealin) so$ethin) ille)al in the ba) and it (as the ri)ht and
duty o' the police o''icers to inspect the sa$e.
:t is too $uch indeed to reDuire the police o''icers to search the ba) in the possession o' the
petitioner only a'ter they shall have obtained a search (arrant 'or the purpose. Such an e9ercise
$ay prove to be useless, 'utile and $uch too late.
:n 0eople %s. ,F3 of +izal,
2
this Court held as 'ollo(s*
. . . :n the ordinary cases (here (arrant is indispensably necessary, the $echanics
prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the <ules o' Court $ust be 'ollo(ed
and satis'ied. 8ut We need not ar)ue that there are e9ceptions. +hus in the
e9traordinary events (here (arrant is not necessary to e''ect a valid search or
seizure, or (hen the latter cannot be per'or$ed e9cept (ithout (arrant, (hat
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure beco$es purely a
>udicial Duestion, deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved,
includin) the purpose o' the search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable
cause, the $anner in (hich the search and seizure (as $ade, the place or thin)
searched and the character o' the articles procured.
+he Court reproduces (ith approval the 'ollo(in) disDuisition o' the Solicitor @eneral*
+he assailed search and seizure $ay still be >usti'ied as akin to a Estop and 'riskE
situation (hose ob>ect is either to deter$ine the identity o' a suspicious individual or
to $aintain the status Duo $o$entarily (hile the police o''icer seeks to obtain $ore
in'or$ation. +his is illustrated in the case o'5err' %s. Ohio, 9! A.S. 1 2196J3. :n this
case, t(o $en repeatedly (alked past a store (indo( and returned to a spot (here
they apparently con'erred (ith a third $an. +his aroused the suspicion o' a police
o''icer. +o the e9perienced o''icer, the behaviour o' the $en indicated that they (ere
sizin) up the store 'or an ar$ed robbery. When the police o''icer approached the
$en and asked the$ 'or their na$es, they $u$bled a reply. Whereupon, the o''icer
)rabbed one o' the$, spun hi$ around and 'risked hi$. Findin) a concealed (eapon
in one, he did the sa$e to the other t(o and 'ound another (eapon. :n the
prosecution 'or the o''ense o' carryin) a concealed (eapon, the de'ense o' ille)al
search and seizure (as put up. +he Anited States Supre$e Court held that Ea police
o''icer $ay in appropriate circu$stances and in an appropriate $anner approach a
person 'or the purpose o' investi)atin) possible cri$inal behaviour even thou)h there
is no probable cause to $ake an arrest.E :n such a situation, it is reasonable 'or an
o''icer rather than si$ply to shru) his shoulder and allo( a cri$e to occur, to stop a
suspicious individual brie'ly in order to deter$ine his identity or $aintain thestatus
&uo (hile obtainin) $ore in'or$ation. . . .
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the e9ceptions hereto'ore discussed,
and hence, the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures has not been
violated.
9
W,7<7F6<7, the petition is C7#:7C (ith costs a)ainst petitioner.
S6 6<C7<7C.
9ar%asa L,hairmanM- ,ruz- Gri#o-A&uino and Medialdea- ...- concur.
NNNN
G.R. No. 136292 Jnu/, 19, 2002
RU3# CABALLES , TA$=O, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O" A66EALS n! 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
6UNO, J.:
+his is an appeal by certiorari 'ro$ the decision
1
o' respondent Court o' ;ppeals dated Septe$ber
1/, 199J (hich a''ir$ed the >ud)$ent rendered by the <e)ional +rial Court o' Santa Cruz, %a)una,
'indin) herein petitioner, <udy Caballes y +aiTo, )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' the't,
and the resolution
!
dated #ove$ber 9, 199J (hich denied petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration.
:n an :n'or$ation

dated 6ctober 16, 19J9, petitioner (as char)ed (ith the cri$e o' the't co$$itted
as 'ollo(s*
E+hat on or about the !Jth day o' June, 19J9, in the &unicipality o' "a)san>an, andBor
else(here in the "rovince o' %a)una, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the
above-na$ed accused, (ith intent o' )ain, and (ithout the kno(led)e and consent o' the
o(ner thereo', the #;+:6#;% "6W7< C6<"6<;+:6#, did then and there (il'ully,
unla('ully and 'eloniously take, steal and carry a(ay about 65-k) o' ;lu$inu$ Cable
Conductors, valued at "!0, 4/5.55, belon)in) to and to the da$a)e and pre>udice o' said
o(ner #ational "o(er Corp., in the a'oresaid a$ount.
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.E
Curin) the arrai)n$ent, petitioner pleaded not )uilty and hence, trial on the $erits ensued.
+he 'acts are su$$arized by the appellate court as 'ollo(s*
EF;tG about 9*1/ p.$. o' June !J, 19J9, S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a and "at. ;le9 de Castro, (hile
on a routine patrol in 8aran)ay Sa$palucan, "a)san>an, %a)una, spotted a passen)er >eep
unusually covered (ith Ekaka(atiE leaves.
Suspectin) that the >eep (as loaded (ith s$u))led )oods, the t(o police o''icers 'la))ed
do(n the vehicle. +he >eep (as driven by appellant. When asked (hat (as loaded on the
>eep, he did not ans(er= he appeared pale and nervous.
With appellant1s consent, the police o''icers checked the car)o and they discovered bundles
o' .5J $$ alu$inu$B)alvanized conductor (ires e9clusively o(ned by #ational "o(er
Corporation 2#"C3. +he conductor (ires (ei)hed 055 kilos and valued at "//, !44.4/.
#oce>a asked appellant (here the (ires ca$e 'ro$ and appellant ans(ered that they ca$e
'ro$ Cavinti, a to(n appro9i$ately J kilo$eters a(ay 'ro$ Sa$palucan. +herea'ter,
appellant and the vehicle (ith the hi)h-volta)e (ires (ere brou)ht to the "a)san>an "olice
Station. Canilo Cabale took pictures o' the appellant and the >eep loaded (ith the (ires
(hich (ere turned over to the "olice Station Co$$ander o' "a)san>an, %a)una. ;ppellant
(as incarcerated 'or 0 days in the &unicipal >ail.
:n de'ense, appellant interposed denial and alibi. ,e testi'ied that he is a driver and resident
o' "a)san>an, %a)una= a #;<C6& civilian a)ent since January, 19JJ althou)h his
identi'ication card 2:C3 has already e9pired. :n the a'ternoon o' June !J, 19J9, (hile he (as
drivin) a passen)er >eepney, he (as stopped by one <esty Fernandez (ho reDuested hi$ to
transport in his >eepney conductor (ires (hich (ere in Cavinti, %a)una. ,e told <esty to (ait
until he had 'inished his last trip 'or the day 'ro$ Santa Cruz, %a)una. 6n his (ay to Santa
Cruz, %a)una, he dropped by the #;<C6& headDuarters and in'or$ed his superior, S)t.
Callos, that so$ethin) unla('ul (as )oin) to happen. S)t. Callos advised hi$ to proceed
(ith the loadin) o' the (ires and that the 'or$er (ould act as back-up and intercept the
vehicle at the Sa$bat "atrol 8ase in "a)san>an.
;'ter receivin) those instructions, he (ent back to see <esty. ;lthou)h <esty had his o(n
vehicle, its tires (ere old so the cable (ires (ere loaded in appellant1s >eep and covered (ith
kaka(ati leaves. +he loadin) (as done by about 'ive 2/3 $asked $en. ,e (as
pro$ised "1,555.55 'or the >ob. Apon crossin) a brid)e, the t(o vehicles separated but in
his case, he (as intercepted by S)t. #oce>a and "at. Ce Castro. When they discovered the
cables, he told the police o''icers that the cables (ere loaded in his >eep by the o(ner, <esty
Fernandez. 8ut despite his e9planation, he (as ordered to proceed to police headDuarters
(here he (as interro)ated. +he police o''icers did not believe hi$ and instead locked hi$ up
in >ail 'or a (eek.E
4
6n ;pril !0, 199, the court a &uo rendered >ud)$ent
/
the dispositive portion o' (hich reads*
EW,7<7F6<7, 'indin) the accused )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' +he't o'
property (orth"//,!44.4/, the Court hereby sentences hi$ to su''er i$prison$ent 'ro$
+W6 2!3 F-7;<SG, F6A< 243 &6#+,S, and 6#7 213 C;- o' "rision Correccional, as
$ini$u$, to +7# 2153 -7;<S o' "rision &ayor, as $a9i$u$, to inde$ni'y the co$plainant
#ational "o(er Corporation in the a$ount o' "//, !44.4/, and to pay the costs.E
6n appeal, the Court o' ;ppeals a''ir$ed the >ud)$ent o' conviction but deleted the a(ard 'or
da$a)es on the )round that the stolen $aterials (ere recovered and $odi'ied the penalty i$posed,
to (it*
EW,7<7F6<7, the appealed decision is hereby ;FF:<&7C (ith the $odi'ication that
appellant <AC- C;8;%%7S is 'ound )uilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the't,
de'ined and penalized under ;rticles 5J and 59, par. 1, <evised "enal Code, and there
bein) no $odi'yin) circu$stances, he is hereby $eted an indeter$inate penalty o' Four 243
years, #ine 293 $onths and 7leven 2113 days o' prision correccional, as $ini$u$ ter$, to
7i)ht 2J3 years, 7i)ht 2J3 $onths and one 213 day o' prision $ayor, as $a9i$u$ ter$. #o
civil inde$nity and no costs.E
6
"etitioner co$es be'ore us and raises the 'ollo(in) issues*
E2a3 Whether or not the constitutional ri)ht o' petitioner (as violated (hen the police o''icers
searched his vehicle and seized the (ires 'ound therein (ithout a search (arrant and (hen
sa$ples o' the (ires and re'erences to the$ (ere ad$itted in evidence as basis 'or his
conviction=
2b3 Whether or not respondent Court erred in re>ectin) petitioner1s de'ense that he (as
en)a)ed in an entrap$ent operation and in indul)in) in speculation and con>ecture in
re>ectin) said de'ense= and
2c3 Whether or not the evidence o' the prosecution 'ailed to establish the )uilt o' petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt and thus 'ailed to overco$e the constitutional ri)ht o' petitioner to
presu$ption o' innocence.E
+he conviction or acDuittal o' petitioner hin)es pri$arily on the validity o' the (arrantless search and
seizure $ade by the police o''icers, and the ad$issibility o' the evidence obtained by virtue thereo'.
:n holdin) that the (arrantless search and seizure is valid, the trial court ruled that*
E;s his last stra( o' ar)u$ent, the accused Duestions the constitutionality o' the search and
validity o' his arrest on the )round that no (arrant (as issued to that e''ect. +he Court
cannot a)ain sustain such vie(. :n the case o' "eople v. %o ,o FWin)G, @.<. #o. JJ510,
January !1, 1991, it has been held that 1considerin) that be'ore a (arrant can be obtained,
the place, thin)s and persons to be searched $ust be described to the satis'action o' the
issuin) >ud)e - a reDuire$ent (hich borders on the i$possible in the case o' s$u))lin)
e''ected by the use o' a $ovin) vehicle that can transport contraband 'ro$ one place to
another (ith i$punity, a (arrantless search o' a $ovin) vehicle is >usti'ied on )rounds o'
practicability.1 +he doctrine is not o' recent vinta)e. :n the case o' ?al$onte vs. de ?illa, @.<.
#o. J9JJ, &ay !4, 1995 2<esolution on &otion 'or <econsideration, Septe$ber !9, 19J93,
it (as ruled that 1auto$obiles because o' their $obility $ay be searched (ithout a (arrant
upon 'acts not >usti'yin) (arrantless search o' a resident or o''ice. 9 9 9 +o hold that no
cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence and tokens o' his cri$e
(ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest,
the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o' cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any
instances1 2:bid.3. :n A$il v. <a$os, 1J0 SC<; 11, and "eople vs. 6rtiz, 191 SC<; J6, the
Supre$e Court held that a search $ay be $ade even (ithout a (arrant (here the accused
is cau)ht in 'la)rante. Ander the circu$stances, the police o''icers are not only authorized
but are also under obli)ation to arrest the accused even (ithout a (arrant.E
0
"etitioner contends that the 'la))in) do(n o' his vehicle by police o''icers (ho (ere on routine
patrol, $erely on EsuspicionE that Eit $i)ht contain s$u))led )oods,E does not constitute probable
cause that (ill >usti'y a (arrantless search and seizure. ,e insists that, contrary to the 'indin)s o' the
trial court as adopted by the appellate court, he did not )ive any consent, e9press or i$plied, to the
search o' the vehicle. "er'orce, any evidence obtained in violation o' his ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable
search and seizure shall be dee$ed inad$issible.
7nshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons and
properties a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures, as de'ined under Section !, ;rticle :::
thereo', (hich reads*
ESec. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept upon probable
cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation
o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place
to be searched and the persons or thin)s to be seized.E
+he e9clusionary rule under Section 2!3, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution bars the ad$ission o'
evidence obtained in violation o' such ri)ht.
+he constitutional proscription a)ainst (arrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but ad$its
o' certain e9ceptions, na$ely* 213 (arrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest reco)nized under
Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules o' Court and by prevailin) >urisprudence=
J
2!3 seizure o' evidence
in plain vie(=
9
23 search o' $ovin) vehicles=
15
243 consented (arrantless search=
11
2/3 custo$s
search= 263 stop and 'risk situations 2+erry search3=
1!
and 203 e9i)ent and e$er)ency circu$stances.
1
:n cases (here (arrant is necessary, the steps prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the
<ules o' Court $ust be co$plied (ith. :n the e9ceptional events (here (arrant is not necessary to
e''ect a valid search or seizure, or (hen the latter cannot be per'or$ed e9cept (ithout a (arrant,
(hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a >udicial Duestion,
deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the
search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and
seizure (as $ade, the place or thin) searched and the character o' the articles procured.
14
:t is not controverted that the search and seizure conducted by the police o''icers in the case at bar
(as not authorized by a search (arrant. +he $ain issue is (hether the evidence taken 'ro$ the
(arrantless search is ad$issible a)ainst the appellant. Without said evidence, the prosecution
cannot prove the )uilt o' the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Nwphi .nOt
3. Search of mo%ing %ehicle
,i)hly re)ulated by the )overn$ent, the vehicle1s inherent $obility reduces e9pectation o' privacy
especially (hen its transit in public thorou)h'ares 'urnishes a hi)hly reasonable suspicion a$ountin)
to probable cause that the occupant co$$itted a cri$inal activity.
1/
+hus, the rules )overnin) search
and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized (henever a $ovin) vehicle is the ob>ect o'
the search on the basis o' practicality. +his is so considerin) that be'ore a (arrant could be obtained,
the place, thin)s and persons to be searched $ust be described to the satis'action o' the issuin)
>ud)e H a reDuire$ent (hich borders on the i$possible in the case o' s$u))lin) e''ected by the use
o' a $ovin) vehicle that can transport contraband 'ro$ one place to another (ith i$punity. We $i)ht
add that a (arrantless search o' a $ovin) vehicle is >usti'ied on the )round that it is not practicable
to secure a (arrant because the vehicle can be Duickly $oved out o' the locality or >urisdiction in
(hich the (arrant $ust be sou)ht.
16
Searches (ithout (arrant o' auto$obiles is also allo(ed 'or the
purpose o' preventin) violations o' s$u))lin) or i$$i)ration la(s, provided such searches are
$ade at borders or 1constructive borders1 like checkpoints near the boundary lines o' the State.
10
+he $ere $obility o' these vehicles, ho(ever, does not )ive the police o''icers unli$ited discretion to
conduct indiscri$inate searches (ithout (arrants i' $ade (ithin the interior o' the territory and in the
absence o' probable cause.
1J
Still and all, the i$portant thin) is that there (as probable cause to
conduct the (arrantless search, (hich $ust still be present in such a case.
;lthou)h the ter$ eludes e9act de'inition, probable cause si)ni'ies a reasonable )round o' suspicion
supported by circu$stances su''iciently stron) in the$selves to (arrant a cautious $an1s belie' that
the person accused is )uilty o' the o''ense (ith (hich he is char)ed= or the e9istence o' such 'acts
and circu$stances (hich could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent $an to believe that an
o''ense has been co$$itted and that the ite$s, articles or ob>ects sou)ht in connection (ith said
o''ense or sub>ect to seizure and destruction by la( is in the place to be searched.
19
+he reDuired
probable cause that (ill >usti'y a (arrantless search and seizure is not deter$ined by a 'i9ed 'or$ula
but is resolved accordin) to the 'acts o' each case.
!5
6ne such 'or$ o' search o' $ovin) vehicles is the Estop-and-searchE (ithout (arrant at $ilitary or
police checkpoints (hich has been declared to be not ille)al per se,
!1
'or as lon) as it is (arranted by
the e9i)encies o' public order
!!
and conducted in a (ay least intrusive to $otorists.
!
; checkpoint
$ay either be a $ere routine inspection or it $ay involve an e9tensive search.
<outine inspections are not re)arded as violative o' an individual1s ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable
search. +he search (hich is nor$ally per$issible in this instance is li$ited to the 'ollo(in) instances*
213 (here the o''icer $erely dra(s aside the curtain o' a vacant vehicle (hich is parked on the public
'air )rounds=
!4
2!3 si$ply looks into a vehicle=
!/
23 'lashes a li)ht therein (ithout openin) the car1s
doors=
!6
243 (here the occupants are not sub>ected to a physical or body search=
!0
2/3 (here the
inspection o' the vehicles is li$ited to a visual search or visual inspection=
!J
and 263 (here the routine
check is conducted in a 'i9ed area.
!9
#one o' the 'ore)oin) circu$stances is obtainin) in the case at bar. +he police o''icers did not
$erely conduct a visual search or visual inspection o' herein petitioner1s vehicle. +hey had to reach
inside the vehicle, li't the kaka(ati leaves and look inside the sacks be'ore they (ere able to see the
cable (ires. :t cannot be considered a si$ple routine check.
:n the case o' Un&+e! S++e( :(. 6&e//e,
5
the Court held that the physical intrusion o' a part o' the
body o' an a)ent into the vehicle )oes beyond the area protected by the Fourth ;$end$ent, to (it*
E+he ;)ent . . . stuck his head throu)h the driver1s side (indo(. +he a)ent thus e''ected a
physical intrusion into the vehicle. . . FWGe are a(are o' no case holdin) that an o''icer did not
conduct a search (hen he physically intruded part o' his body into a space in (hich the
suspect had a reasonable e9pectation o' privacy. F+heG ;)entF1sG . . . physical intrusion
allo(ed hi$ to see and to s$ell thin)s he could not see or s$ell 'ro$ outside the vehicle. . .
:n doin) so, his inspection (ent beyond that portion o' the vehicle (hich $ay be vie(ed 'ro$
outside the vehicle by either inDuisitive passersby or dili)ent police o''icers, and into the area
protected by the Fourth a$end$ent, >ust as $uch as i' he had stuck his head inside the
open (indo( o' a ho$e.E
6n the other hand, (hen a vehicle is stopped and sub>ected to an e9tensive search, such a
(arrantless search (ould be constitutionally per$issible only i' the o''icers conductin) the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe, be'ore the search, that either the $otorist is a la(-
o''ender or they (ill 'ind the instru$entality or evidence pertainin) to a cri$e in the vehicle to be
searched.
1
+his Court has in the past 'ound probable cause to conduct (ithout a >udicial (arrant an e9tensive
search o' $ovin) vehicles in situations (here 213 there had e$anated 'ro$ a packa)e the distinctive
s$ell o' $ari>uana= 2!3 a)ents o' the #arcotics Co$$and 2E#arco$E3 o' the "hilippine #ational
"olice 2E"#"E3 had received a con'idential report 'ro$ in'or$ers that a sizeable volu$e o' $ari>uana
(ould be transported alon) the route (here the search (as conducted= 23 #arco$ a)ents had
received in'or$ation that a Caucasian co$in) 'ro$ Sa)ada, &ountain "rovince, had in his
possession prohibited dru)s and (hen the #arco$ a)ents con'ronted the accused Caucasian,
because o' a conspicuous bul)e in his (aistline, he 'ailed to present his passport and other
identi'ication papers (hen reDuested to do so= 243 #arco$ a)ents had received con'idential
in'or$ation that a (o$an havin) the sa$e physical appearance as that o' the accused (ould be
transportin) $ari>uana=
!
2/3 the accused (ho (ere ridin) a >eepney (ere stopped and searched by
police$en (ho had earlier received con'idential reports that said accused (ould transport a lar)e
Duantity o' $ari>uana= and 263 (here the $ovin) vehicle (as stopped and searched on the basis o'
intelli)ence in'or$ation and clandestine reports by a deep penetration a)ent or spy - one (ho
participated in the dru) s$u))lin) activities o' the syndicate to (hich the accused belon)ed - that
said accused (ere brin)in) prohibited dru)s into the country.

:n the case at bar, the vehicle o' the petitioner (as 'la))ed do(n because the police o''icers (ho
(ere on routine patrol beca$e suspicious (hen they sa( that the back o' the vehicle (as covered
(ith kaka(ati leaves (hich, accordin) to the$, (as unusual and unco$$on.
"at. ;le9 de Castro recounted the incident as 'ollo(s*
E;++-. S;#+6S
L #o( on said date and ti$e do you re$e$ber o' any unusual incident (hile you (ere
per'or$in) your dutyI
; -es, sir, at that ti$e and date $ysel' and "olice S)t. #oce>a (ere conductin) patrol in
the said place (hen (e spotted a suspicious >eepney so (e stopped the >eepney and
searched the load o' the >eepney and (e 'ound out 2sic3 these conductor (ires.
L -ou $entioned about the 'act that (hen you sa( the >eepney you beca$e
suspicious, B', !&! ,ou 4e)o.e (u(*&)&ou(C
; Be)u(e +'e )/-o B( )o:e/e! B&+' 8e:e( n! 4/n)'e(, (&/.
L When you beca$e suspicious upon seein) those leaves on top o' the load (hat did
you do ne9t, i' anyI
; We stopped the >eepney and searched the contents thereo', sir.E
4
+he testi$ony o' ?ictorino #oce>a did not 'are any better*
E;++- S;#+6S
L When you sa( the accused drivin) the said vehicle, (hat did you doI
; Be)u(e $ (B +'+ +'e :e'&)8e 4e&n- !/Bn 4, C488e( B( )o:e/e! 4,
DDB+& 8e:e(, $ 4e).e (u(*&)&ou( (&n)e (u)' :e'&)8e ('ou8! no+ 4e )o:e/e! 4,
+'o(e n! $ 08--e! '&., (&/.E
/
We hold that the 'act that the vehicle looked suspicious si$ply because it is not co$$on 'or such to
be covered (ith kaka(ati leaves does not constitute Eprobable causeE as (ould >usti'y the conduct o'
a search (ithout a (arrant.
:n 6eo*8e :(. C'u Ho Sn,
6
(e held that the 'act that the (atercra't used by the accused (as
di''erent in appearance 'ro$ the usual 'ishin) boats that co$$only cruise over the 8acnotan seas
coupled (ith the suspicious behavior o' the accused (hen he atte$pted to 'lee 'ro$ the police
authorities do not su''iciently establish probable cause. +hus*
E:n the case at bar, the Solicitor @eneral proposes that the 'ollo(in) details are su))estive o'
probable cause - persistent reports o' ra$pant s$u))lin) o' 'irear$ and other contraband
articles, C,A;1s (atercra't di''erin) in appearance 'ro$ the usual 'ishin) boats that
co$$only cruise over the 8acnotan seas, C,A;1s ille)al entry into the "hilippines 9 9 9,
C,A;1s suspicious behavior, i.e., he atte$pted to 'lee (hen he sa( the police authorities,
and the apparent ease by (hich C,A; can return to and navi)ate his speedboat (ith
i$$ediate dispatch to(ards the hi)h seas, beyond the reach o' "hilippine la(s.
+his Court, ho(ever, 'inds that these do not constitute Eprobable cause.E #one o' the telltale
clues, e.)., ba) or packa)e e$anatin) the pun)ent odor o' $ari>uana or other prohibited
dru), con'idential report andBor positive identi'ication by in'or$ers o' courier o' prohibited
dru) andBor the ti$e and place (here they (ill transportBdeliver the sa$e, suspicious
de$eanor or behavior, and suspicious bul)e in the (aist - accepted by this Court as
su''icient to >usti'y a (arrantless arrest e9ists in this case. +here (as no classi'ied
in'or$ation that a 'orei)ner (ould dise$bark at +a$$ocalao beach bearin) prohibited dru)
on the date in Duestion. C,A; (as not identi'ied as a dru) courier by a police in'or$er or
a)ent. T'e 0)+ +'+ +'e :e((e8 +'+ 0e//&e! '&. +o ('o/e 4o/e no /e(e.48n)e +o +'e
0&('&n- 4o+( o0 +'e /e !&! no+ u+o.+&)88, ./D '&. ( &n +'e */o)e(( o0
*e/*e+/+&n- n o00en(e. 9 9 9.E 2emphasis supplied3
:n addition, the police authorities do not clai$ to have received any con'idential report or tipped
in'or$ation that petitioner (as carryin) stolen cable (ires in his vehicle (hich could other(ise have
sustained their suspicion. 6ur >urisprudence is replete (ith cases (here tipped in'or$ation has
beco$e a su''icient probable cause to e''ect a (arrantless search and seizure.
0
An'ortunately, none
e9ists in this case.
33. 0lain %iew doctrine
:t cannot like(ise be said that the cable (ires 'ound in petitioner1s vehicle (ere in plain vie(, $akin)
its (arrantless seizure valid.
Jurisprudence is to the e''ect that an ob>ect is in plain vie( i' the ob>ect itsel' is plainly e9posed to
si)ht. Where the ob>ect seized (as inside a closed packa)e, the ob>ect itsel' is not in plain vie( and
there'ore cannot be seized (ithout a (arrant. ,o(ever, i' the packa)e proclai$s its contents,
(hether by its distinctive con'i)uration, its transparency, or i' its contents are obvious to an observer,
then the contents are in plain vie( and $ay be seized. :n other (ords, i' the packa)e is such that an
e9perienced observer could in'er 'ro$ its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the
article is dee$ed in plain vie(. :t $ust be i$$ediately apparent to the police that the ite$s that they
observe $ay be evidence o' a cri$e, contraband or other(ise sub>ect to seizure.
J
:t is clear 'ro$ the records o' this case that the cable (ires (ere not e9posed to si)ht because they
(ere placed in sacks
9
and covered (ith leaves. +he articles (ere neither transparent nor
i$$ediately apparent to the police authorities. +hey had no clue as to (hat (as hidden underneath
the leaves and branches. ;s a $atter o' 'act, they had to ask petitioner (hat (as loaded in his
vehicle. :n such a case, it has been held that the ob>ect is not in plain vie( (hich could have >usti'ied
$ere seizure o' the articles (ithout 'urther search.
45
333. ,onsented search
"etitioner contends that the state$ent o' S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a that he checked the vehicle E(ith the
consent o' the accusedE is too va)ue to prove that petitioner consented to the search. ,e clai$s that
there is no speci'ic state$ent as to ho( the consent (as asked and ho( it (as )iven, nor the
speci'ic (ords spoken by petitioner indicatin) his alle)ed Econsent.E ;t $ost, there (as only an
i$plied acDuiescence, a $ere passive con'or$ity, (hich is no EconsentE at all (ithin the purvie( o'
the constitutional )uarantee.
Coubtless, the constitutional i$$unity a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
ri)ht (hich $ay be (aived. +he consent $ust be voluntary in order to validate an other(ise ille)al
detention and search, i.e., the consent is uneDuivocal, speci'ic, and intelli)ently )iven,
unconta$inated by any duress or coercion.
41
,ence, consent to a search is not to be li)htly in'erred,
but $ust be sho(n by clear and convincin) evidence.
4!
+he Duestion (hether a consent to a search
(as in 'act voluntary is a Duestion o' 'act to be deter$ined 'ro$ the totality o' all the
circu$stances.
4
<elevant to this deter$ination are the 'ollo(in) characteristics o' the person )ivin)
consent and the environ$ent in (hich consent is )iven* 213 the a)e o' the de'endant= 2!3 (hether he
(as in a public or secluded location= 23 (hether he ob>ected to the search or passively looked
on=
44
243 the education and intelli)ence o' the de'endant= 2/3 the presence o' coercive police
procedures= 263 the de'endant1s belie' that no incri$inatin) evidence (ill be 'ound=
4/
203 the nature o'
the police Duestionin)= 2J3 the environ$ent in (hich the Duestionin) took place= and 293 the possibly
vulnerable sub>ective state o' the person consentin).
46
:t is the State (hich has the burden o'
provin), by clear and positive testi$ony, that the necessary consent (as obtained and that it (as
'reely and voluntarily )iven.
40
:n the case at bar, S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a testi'ied on the $anner in (hich the search (as conducted
in this (ise*
EW:+#7SS
L 6n June !J, 19J9, (here (ere youI
; We (ere conductin) patrol at the poblacion and so$e baran)ays, sir.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
L ;'ter conductin) the patrol operation, do you re$e$ber o' any unusual incident on
said date and ti$eI
; -es, sir.
L What is that incidentI
; While : (as conductin) $y patrol at baran)ay Sa$palucan, : sa( <udy Caballes
drivin) a vehicle and the vehicle contained alu$inu$ (ires, sir.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
L When you sa( the accused drivin) the said vehicle, (hat did you doI
; 8ecause : sa( that the vehicle bein) driven by Caballes (as covered by kaka(ati
leaves, : beca$e suspicious since such vehicle should not be covered by those and :
'la))ed hi$, sir.
L Cid the vehicle stopI
; #e(, (&/, n! 0+e/ (&! :e'&)8e (+o*F*e!G, $ /e.o:e! +'e )o:e/ o0 (&! :e'&)8e n!
4, (o !o&n-, $ (B +'e 8u.&nu. B&/e(.
L 8e'ore you sa( the alu$inu$ (ires, did you talk to the accusedI
; -es, sir, : asked hi$ (hat his load (as.
L What (as the ans(er o' CaballesI
; He !&! no+ n(Be/ n! $ o4(e/:e! '&. +o 4e *8e, En-**.u+8E @sicA, (o $ +o8!
'&. $ B&88 8ooD + +'e )on+en+( o0 '&( :e'&)8e n! 'e n(Be/e! &n +'e *o(&+&:e.
L ;nd a'ter you sa( 'or yoursel' the alu$inu$ (ires loaded on the >eep, (hat did you
doI
; : asked hi$ (here those (ires ca$e 'ro$ and he ans(ered those ca$e 'ro$ the
Cavinti area, sir.E
4J
+his Court is not un$ind'ul o' cases upholdin) the validity o' consented (arrantless searches and
seizure. 8ut in these cases, the police o''icers1 reDuest to search personnel e''ects (as orally
articulated to the accused and in such lan)ua)e that le't no roo$ 'or doubt that the latter 'ully
understood (hat (as reDuested. :n so$e instance, the accused even verbally replied to the reDuest
de$onstratin) that he also understood the nature and conseDuences o' such reDuest.
49
:n A(un)&on :(. Cou/+ o0 A**e8(,
/5
the apprehendin) o''icers sou)ht the per$ission o' petitioner
to search the car, to (hich the latter a)reed. "etitioner therein hi$sel' 'reely )ave his consent to said
search. :n 6eo*8e :(. L)e/n,
/1
the appellants (ho (ere ridin) in a ta9i (ere stopped by t(o
police$en (ho asked per$ission to search the vehicle and the appellants readily a)reed. :n
upholdin) the validity o' the consented search, the Court held that appellant hi$sel' (ho (as
Eurbanized in $anneris$ and speechE e9pressly said that he (as consentin) to the search as he
alle)edly had nothin) to hide and had done nothin) (ron). :n 6eo*8e :(. Cu&Hon,
/!
the accused
ad$itted that they si)ned a (ritten per$ission statin) that they 'reely consented to the search o'
their lu))a)e by the #8: a)ents to deter$ine i' they (ere carryin) shabu. :n 6eo*8e :(. Mon+&88,
/
it
(as held that the accused spontaneously per'or$ed a''ir$ative acts o' volition by hi$sel' openin)
the ba) (ithout bein) 'orced or inti$idated to do so, (hich acts should properly be construed as a
clear (aiver o' his ri)ht. :n 6eo*8e :(. O.Ben-,
/4
the police o''icers asked the accused i' they
could see the contents o' his ba) to (hich the accused said Eyou can see the contents but those are
only clothin)s.E +hen the police$en asked i' they could open and see it, and accused ans(ered Eyou
can see it.E +he Court said there (as a valid consented search.Nwphi .nOt
:n case o' consented searches or (aiver o' the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst obtrusive searches,
it is 'unda$ental that to constitute a (aiver, it $ust 'irst appear that 213 the ri)ht e9ists= 2!3 that the
person involved had kno(led)e, either actual or constructive, o' the e9istence o' such ri)ht= and 23
the said person had an actual intention to relinDuish the ri)ht.
//
:n the case at bar, the evidence is lackin) that the petitioner intentionally surrendered his ri)ht
a)ainst unreasonable searches. +he $anner by (hich the t(o police o''icers alle)edly obtained the
consent o' petitioner 'or the$ to conduct the search leaves $uch to be desired. When petitioner1s
vehicle (as 'la))ed do(n, S)t. #oce>a approached petitioner and E+o8! '&. $ B&88 8ooD + +'e
)on+en+( o0 '&( :e'&)8e n! 'e n(Be/e! &n +'e *o(&+&:e.E We are hard put to believe that by
utterin) those (ords, the police o''icers (ere askin) or reDuestin) 'or per$ission that they be
allo(ed to search the vehicle o' petitioner. For all intents and purposes, they (ere &n0o/.&n-, n,,
&.*o(&n- upon herein petitioner that they (ill search his vehicle. +he EconsentE )iven under
inti$idatin) or coercive circu$stances is no consent (ithin the purvie( o' the constitutional
)uaranty. :n addition, in cases (here this Court upheld the validity o' consented search, it (ill be
noted that the police authorities e9pressly asked, in no uncertain ter$s, 'or the consent o' the
accused to be searched. ;nd the consent o' the accused (as established by clear and positive
proo'. :n the case o' herein petitioner, the state$ents o' the police o''icers (ere no+ (D&n- 0o/ '&(
)on(en+= they (ere !e)8/&n- to hi$ that they (ill look inside his vehicle. 8esides, it is doubt'ul
(hether per$ission (as actually reDuested and )ranted because (hen S)t. #oce>a (as asked
durin) his direct e9a$ination (hat he did (hen the vehicle o' petitioner stopped, he ans(ered that
he re$oved the cover o' the vehicle and sa( the alu$inu$ (ires. :t (as only a'ter he (as asked a
clari'icatory Duestion that he added that he told petitioner he (ill inspect the vehicle. +o our $ind,
this (as $ore o' an a'terthou)ht. %ike(ise, (hen "at. de Castro (as asked t(ice in his direct
e9a$ination (hat they did (hen they stopped the >eepney, his consistent ans(er (as that they
searched the vehicle. ,e never testi'ied that he asked petitioner 'or per$ission to conduct the
search.
/6
#either can petitioner1s passive sub$ission be construed as an i$plied acDuiescence to the
(arrantless search. :n6eo*8e :(. B//o(,
/0
appellant 8arros, (ho (as carryin) a carton bo9,
boarded a bus (here t(o police$en (ere ridin). +he police$en inspected the carton and 'ound
$ari>uana inside. When asked (ho o(ned the bo9, appellant denied o(nership o' the bo9 and 'ailed
to ob>ect to the search. +he Court there struck do(n the (arrantless search as ille)al and held that
the accused is not to be presu$ed to have (aived the unla('ul search conducted si$ply because
he 'ailed to ob>ect, citin) the rulin) in the case o' 6eo*8e :(. Bu/-o(,
/J
to (itP
E;s the constitutional )uaranty is not dependent upon any a''ir$ative act o' the citizen, the
courts do not place the citizens in the position o' either contestin) an o''icer1s authority by
'orce, or (aivin) his constitutional ri)hts= but instead they hold that a peace'ul sub$ission to
a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is $erely a de$onstration o'
re)ard 'or the supre$acy o' the la(.E
Castin) aside the cable (ires as evidence, the re$ainin) evidence on record are insu''icient to
sustain petitioner1s conviction. ,is )uilt can only be established (ithout violatin) the constitutional
ri)ht o' the accused a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure.
WHERE"ORE, the i$pu)ned decision is RE%ERSE3 and SET AS$3E, and accused <udy Caballes
is herebyAC<U$TTE3 o' the cri$e char)ed. Cost de o'icio.
SO OR3ERE3.
4a%ide- .r.- ,...- Hapunan- 0ardo and Qnares-Santiago- ...- concur.
FG.R. No. 132221. 3e)e.4e/ 12, 2000G
THE 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LE$LA
JOHNSON # RE#ES, accused-appellant.
3 E C $ S $ O N
MEN3O1A, J.>
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision,
F1G
dated &ay 14, 1999, o' the <e)ional +rial
Court, 8ranch 115, "asay City, 'indin) accused-appellant %eila Johnson y <eyes

)uilty
o' violation o' U16 o' <.;. #o. 64!/ 2Can)erous Cru)s ;ct3, as a$ended by <.;. #o.
06/9, and sentencin) her to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua and to pay a 'ine
o' "/55,555.55 and the costs o' the suit.
+he in'or$ation a)ainst accused-appellant alle)ed*
+hat on June !6, 199J inside the #inoy ;Duino :nternational ;irport, and
(ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed ;ccused did
then and there (ill'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously possess three plastic ba)s
o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride, a re)ulated dru), each ba) (ei)hin)*
V1 6#7 ,A#C<7C 7:@,+- S7?7# "6:#+ F:?7 21J0./3 )ra$s=
V!

6#7 ,A#C<7C #:#7+- 7:@,+ "6:#+ R7<6 219J.53 )ra$s= and
V 6#7 ,A#C<7C #:#7+- F6A< "6:#+ S7?7# 2194.03 )ra$s,
respectively,
or a total o' "$%E HUN3RE3 E$GHT# 6O$NT TWO @920.2A -/.( o0
.e+'.*'e+.&ne ',!/o)'8o/&!e.
+hat the above-na$ed accused does not have the correspondin)
license or prescription to possess or use said re)ulated dru).
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
F!G
Apon bein) arrai)ned, accused-appellant pleaded not )uilty,
FG
(hereupon trial (as
held.
+he prosecution presented 'our (itnesses, na$ely, #8: Forensic Che$ist @eor)e
de %ara, S"64 <eynaldo 7$bile, duty 'risker 6livia <a$irez, and S"61 <izalina
8ernal. +he de'ense presented accused-appellant (ho testi'ied in her o(n behal'.
+he 'acts are as 'ollo(s*
;ccused-appellant %eila <eyes Johnson (as, at the ti$e o' the incident, /J years
old, a (ido(, and a resident o' 6cean Side, Cali'ornia, A.S.;. She is a 'or$er Filipino
citizen (ho (as naturalized as an ;$erican on June 16, 196J and had since been
(orkin) as a re)istered nurse, takin) care o' )eriatric patients and those (ith
;lzhei$erPs disease, in convalescent ho$es in the Anited States.
F4G
6n June 16, 199J, she arrived in the "hilippines to visit her sonPs 'a$ily in
Cala$ba, %a)una. She (as due to 'ly back to the Anited States on July !6. 6n July
!/, she checked in at the "hilippine ?illa)e ,otel to avoid the tra''ic on the (ay to the
#inoy ;Duino :nternational ;irport 2#;:;3 and checked out at /*5 p.$. the ne9t day,
June !6, 199J.
F/G
;t around 0*5 p.$. o' that day, 6livia <a$irez (as on duty as a lady 'risker at @ate
16 o' the #;:; departure area. ,er duty (as to 'risk departin) passen)ers,
e$ployees, and cre( and check 'or (eapons, bo$bs, prohibited dru)s, contraband
)oods, and e9plosives.
F6G
When she 'risked accused-appellant %eila Johnson, a departin) passen)er bound
'or the Anited States via Continental ;irlines CS-91!, she 'elt so$ethin) hard on the
latterPs abdo$inal area. Apon inDuiry, &rs. Johnson e9plained she needed to (ear t(o
panty )irdles as she had >ust under)one an operation as a result o' an ectopic
pre)nancy.
F0G
#ot satis'ied (ith the e9planation, <a$irez reported the $atter to her superior,
S"64 <eynaldo 7$bile, sayin) WSir- hindi po a(o naniniwalang pant' lang po i'on.X
2WSir, : do not believe that it is >ust a panty.X3 She (as directed to take accused-appellant
to the nearest (o$enPs roo$ 'or inspection. <a$irez took accused-appellant to the rest
roo$, acco$panied by S"61 <izalina 8ernal. 7$bile stayed outside.
FJG
:nside the (o$enPs roo$, accused-appellant (as asked a)ain by <a$irez (hat the
hard ob>ect on her sto$ach (as and accused-appellant )ave the sa$e ans(er she had
previously )iven. <a$irez then asked her Wto brin) out the thin) under her )irdle.X
;ccused-appellant brou)ht out three plastic packs, (hich <a$irez then turned over to
7$bile, outside the (o$enPs roo$.
F9G
+he con'iscated packs, $arked as 79hibits C-1, C-! and C-, contained a total o'
/J5.! )ra$s o' a substance (hich (as 'ound by #8: Che$ist @eor)e de %ara to be
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride or Wshabu.X
F15G
7$bile took accused-appellant and the plastic packs to the 1st <e)ional ;viation
and Security 6''ice 21st <;S63 at the arrival area o' the #;:;, (here accused-
appellantPs passport and ticket (ere taken and her lu))a)e opened. "ictures (ere
taken and her personal belon)in)s (ere ite$ized.
F11G
:n her de'ense, accused-appellant alle)ed that she (as standin) in line at the last
boardin) )ate (hen she (as approached by 7$bile and t(o 'e$ale o''icers. She
clai$ed she (as handcu''ed and taken to the (o$enPs roo$. +here, she (as asked to
undress and (as then sub>ected to a body search. She insisted that nothin) (as 'ound
on her person. She (as later taken to a roo$ 'illed (ith bo9es, )arba)e, and a
chair. ,er passport and her purse containin) YJ/5.55 and so$e chan)e (ere taken
'ro$ her, 'or (hich no receipt (as issued to her. ;'ter t(o hours, she said, she (as
trans'erred to the o''ice o' a certain Col. Castillo.
F1!G
;'ter another t(o hours, Col. Castillo and about ei)ht security )uards ca$e in and
thre( t(o (hite packa)es on the table. +hey told her to ad$it that the packa)es (ere
hers. 8ut she denied kno(led)e and o(nership o' the packa)es. She (as detained at
the 1st <;S6 o''ice until noon o' June !J, 1999 (hen she (as taken be'ore a 'iscal 'or
inDuest.
F1G
She clai$ed that throu)hout the period o' her detention, 'ro$ the ni)ht o'
June !6 until June !J, she (as never allo(ed to talk to counsel nor (as she allo(ed to
call the A.S. 7$bassy or any o' her relatives in the "hilippines.
F14G
6n &ay 14, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion o'
(hich reads*
F1/G
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered 'indin) the accused %7:%;
J6,#S6# - <7-7S, @A:%+- beyond reasonable doubt o' the o''ense o'
?iolation o' Section 16 o' <epublic ;ct 64!/ as a$ended and hereby i$poses
on her the penalty o' <7C%AS:6# "7<"7+A; and conde$ns said accused
to pay a 'ine o' F:?7 ,A#C<7C +,6AS;#C "7S6S 2"/55,555.553 (ithout
subsidiary i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency and to pay the costs o' suit.
+he &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride 2shabu3 havin) a total net (ei)ht o'
/J5.! )ra$s 279hibits W@X, WC-!X and WC-X3 are hereby con'iscated in 'avor o'
the )overn$ent and the 8ranch Clerk o' Court is hereby ordered to cause the
transportation thereo' to the Can)erous Cru)s 8oard 'or disposition in
accordance (ith la(.
+he accused shall be credited in 'ull 'or the period o' her detention at the City
Jail o' "asay City durin) the pendency o' this case provided that she a)reed
in (ritin) to abide by and co$ply strictly (ith the rules and re)ulations o' the
City Jail.
S6 6<C7<7C.
;ccused-appellant contends that the trial court convicted her* 213 Wdespite 'ailure o'
the prosecution in provin) the ne)ative alle)ation in the in'or$ation=X 2!3 Wdespite 'ailure
o' the prosecution in provin) the Duantity o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride=X 23
Wdespite violation o' her constitutional ri)hts=X and 243 W(hen )uilt (as not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.X
F16G
First. ;ccused-appellant clai$s that she (as arrested and detained in )ross
violation o' her constitutional ri)hts. She ar)ues that the WshabuX con'iscated 'ro$ her is
inad$issible a)ainst her because she (as 'orced to a''i9 her si)nature on the plastic
ba)s (hile she (as detained at the 1
st
<;S6 o''ice, (ithout the assistance o' counsel
and (ithout havin) been in'or$ed o' her constitutional ri)hts. ,ence, she ar)ues, the
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride, or Wshabu,X should have been e9cluded 'ro$ the
evidence.
F10G
+he contention has no $erit. #o state$ent, i' any, (as taken 'ro$ accused-
appellant durin) her detention and used in evidence a)ainst her. +here is, there'ore, no
basis 'or accused-appellantPs invocation o' ;rt. :::, U1!213 and 23. 6n the other hand,
(hat is involved in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search
$ade on her person.
+he trial court held*
+he constitutional ri)ht o' the accused (as not violated as she (as never
placed under custodial investi)ation but (as validly arrested (ithout (arrant
pursuant to the provisions o' Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules o'
Cri$inal "rocedure (hich provides*
Sec. /. ;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay,
(ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 (hen in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 (hen an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2Anderscorin) supplied3
9 9 9 9
; custodial investi)ation has been de'ined in "eople. v. ;yson 10/ SC<; !5
as Wthe Duestionin) initiated by la( en'orce$ent o''icers a'ter a person has
been taken FinG custody or other(ise deprived o' his 'reedo$ in any si)ni'icant
(ay. +his presupposes that he is suspected o' havin) co$$itted an o''ense
and that the investi)ator is tryin) to elicit in'or$ation or FaG con'ession 'ro$
hi$.E
+he circu$stances surroundin) the arrest o' the accused above 'alls in either
para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o' the <ule above cited, hence the alle)ation that she has
been sub>ected to custodial investi)ation is 'ar 'ro$ bein) accurate.
F1JG
+he $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride seized 'ro$ her durin) the routine 'risk at the
airport (as acDuired le)iti$ately pursuant to airport security procedures.
"ersons $ay lose the protection o' the search and seizure clause by e9posure o'
their persons or property to the public in a $anner re'lectin) a lack o' sub>ective
e9pectation o' privacy, (hich e9pectation society is prepared to reco)nize as
reasonable.
F19G
Such reco)nition is i$plicit in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hi>ackin) and terroris$ has co$e increased security at the
nationPs airports. "assen)ers atte$ptin) to board an aircra't routinely pass throu)h
$etal detectors= their carry-on ba))a)e as (ell as checked lu))a)e are routinely
sub>ected to 9-ray scans. Should these procedures su))est the presence o' suspicious
ob>ects, physical searches are conducted to deter$ine (hat the ob>ects are. +here is
little Duestion that such searches are reasonable, )iven their $ini$al intrusiveness, the
)ravity o' the sa'ety interests involved, and the reduced privacy e9pectations associated
(ith airline travel.
F!5G
:ndeed, travelers are o'ten noti'ied throu)h airport public address
syste$s, si)ns, and notices in their airline tickets that they are sub>ect to search and, i'
any prohibited $aterials or substances are 'ound, such (ould be sub>ect to
seizure. +hese announce$ents place passen)ers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections a)ainst (arrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
+he packs o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride havin) thus been obtained throu)h a
valid (arrantless search, they are ad$issible in evidence a)ainst the accused-appellant
herein. Corollarily, her subseDuent arrest, althou)h like(ise (ithout (arrant, (as
>usti'ied since it (as e''ected upon the discovery and recovery o' WshabuX in her
person in flagrante delicto.
;nent her alle)ation that her si)nature on the said packs 279hibits C-1, C-! and C-
herein3 had been obtained (hile she (as in the custody o' the airport authorities (ithout
the assistance o' counsel, the Solicitor @eneral correctly points out that no(here in the
records is it indicated that accused-appellant (as reDuired to a''i9 her si)nature to the
packs. :n 'act, only the si)natures o' 7$bile and <a$irez thereon, alon) (ith their
testi$ony to that e''ect, (ere presented by the prosecution in provin) its case.
+here is, ho(ever, no >usti'ication 'or the con'iscation o' accused-appellantPs
passport, airline ticket, lu))a)e, and other personal e''ects. +he pictures taken durin)
that ti$e are also inad$issible, as are the )irdle taken 'ro$ her, and her si)nature
thereon. <ule 1!6, U! o' the <evised <ules o' Cri$inal "rocedure authorizes the
search and seizure only o' the 'ollo(in)*
0ersonal propert' to be seized. Z ; search (arrant $ay be issued 'or the
search and seizure o' personal property*
2a3 Sub>ect o' the o''ense=
2b3 Stolen or e$bezzled and other proceeds or 'ruits o' the o''ense= and
2c3 Ased or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense.
;ccordin)ly, the above ite$s seized 'ro$ accused-appellant should be returned to
her.
Second. ;ccused-appellant ar)ues that the prosecution 'ailed to 'ully ascertain the
Duantity o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride to >usti'y the i$position o' the penalty
o' reclusion perpetua.
Section !5 o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended by <.;. #o. 06/9, states*
Section !5 - Application Of 0enalties- ,onfiscation And Forfeiture Of 5he
0roceeds or 3nstrument Of 5he ,rime Q +he penalties 'or o''enses under
Section , 4, 0, J and 9 o' ;rticle :: and Sections 14, 14-;, 1/ and 16 o' ;rticle
::: o' this ;ct, shall be applied i' the dan)erous dru)s involved is in any o' the
'ollo(in) Duantities*
1. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' opiu$=
!. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' $orphine=
3. 200 -/.( o/ .o/e o0 ('4u, o/ .e+',8.*'e+.&ne ',!/o)'8o/&!eI
4. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' heroin=
/. 0/5 )ra$s or $ore o' indian he$p o' $ari>uana=
6. /5 )ra$s o' $ari>uana resin or $ari>uana resin oil=
0. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride= or
J. :n case o' other dan)erous dru)s, the Duantity o' (hich is 'ar beyond
therapeutic reDuire$ents as deter$ined and pro$ul)ated by the Can)erous
Cru)s 8oard, a'ter public consultationBhearin)s conducted 'or the purpose.
6ther(ise, i' the Duantity involved is less than the 'ore)oin) Duantities, the
penalty shall ran)e 'ro$ prision correccional to reclusion perpetuadependin)
upon the Duantity.
Ander this provision, accused-appellant there'ore stands to su''er the penalty
o' reclusion perpetua to death 'or her possession o' /J5.! )ra$s o' shabu.
;ccused-appellant atte$pts to distin)uish bet(een a Duantitative and a Dualitative
e9a$ination o' the substance contained in 79hibits C-1, C-! and C-. She ar)ues that
the e9a$ination conducted by the #8: 'orensic che$ist (as a Dualitative one (hich
$erely yielded positive 'indin)s 'or shabu, but 'ailed to establish its purity= hence, its
e9act Duantity re$ains indeter$inate and unproved.
+his contention is like(ise (ithout $erit.
+he e9pert (itness, @eor)e Ce %ara, stated that the tests conducted (ould have
indicated the presence o' i$purities i' there (ere any. ,e testi'ied*
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 8y $i9in) it t(ice, &r. Witness, i' there are any adulterants or i$purities,
it (ill be discovered by >ust $i9in) itI
W:+#7SS :' so$e dru)s or additives (ere present, it (ill appear in a thin layer
chro$ato)raphic e9a$ination.
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 Cid other dru)s or other additives appear &r. WitnessI
W:+#7SS :n $y thin layer chro$ato)raphic plate, it only appears one spot (hich
rese$bles or the sa$e as the &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride sa$ple
. . . .
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 So, &r. Witness, i' there are any adulterants present in the che$icals you
have e9a$ined, in che$ical e9a$ination, (hat color it (ill re)ister, i' anyI
W:+#7SS :n sa$ple, it contained a potassiu$ alu$inu$ sul'ate, it (ill not react (ith the
rea)ent, there'ore it (ill not dissolve. :n $y e9a$ination, all the speci$ens reacted on
the re-a)ents, sir.
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 ;nd (hat is potassiu$ alu$inu$ sul'ate in lay$anPs ter$I
W:+#7SS :t is only a ta(as.
. . . .
C6A<+ :n this particular case, did you 'ind any alu$inu$ sul'ate or ta(as in the
speci$enI
W:+#7SS #one, your ,onor.
. . . .
;++-. ;@66+ : (ill cite an e9a$ple, supposin) ten )ra$s o' &etha$pheta$ine
,ydrochloride is $i9ed (ith !55 )ra$s o' ta(as, you (ill sub$it that to Dualitative
e9a$ination, (hat (ill be your 'indin)s, ne)ative or positive, &r. WitnessI
W:+#7SS :t (ill )ive a positive result 'or &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride.
;++-. ;@66+ +hat is Dualitative e9a$ination.
W:+#7SS ;nd also positive 'or alu$inu$ sul'ate.
F!1G
; Dualitative deter$ination relates to the identity o' the $aterial, (hereas a
Duantitative analysis reDuires the deter$ination o' the percenta)e co$bination o' the
co$ponents o' a $i9ture. ,ence, a Dualitative identi'ication o' a po(der $ay reveal the
presence o' heroin and Duinine, 'or instance, (hereas a Duantitative analysis $ay
conclude the presence o' 15 percent heroin and 95 percent Duinine.
F!!G
Ce %ara testi'ied that he used a chro$ato)raphy test to deter$ine the contents o'
79hibits C-1, C-! and C-. Chro$ato)raphy is a $eans o' separatin) and tentatively
identi'yin) the co$ponents o' a $i9ture. :t is particularly use'ul 'or analyzin) the
$ultico$ponent speci$ens that are 'reDuently received in a cri$e lab.

For e9a$ple,
illicit dru)s sold on the street $ay be diluted (ith practically any $aterial that is at the
disposal o' the dru) dealer to increase the Duantity o' the product that is $ade available
to prospective custo$ers. ,ence, the task o' identi'yin) an illicit dru) preparation (ould
be an arduous one (ithout the aid o' chro$ato)raphic $ethods to 'irst separate the
$i9ture into its co$ponents.
F!G
+he testi$ony o' Ce %ara established not only that the tests (ere thorou)h, but also
that the scienti'ically correct $ethod o' obtainin) an accurate representative sa$ple had
been obtained.
F!4G
;t any rate, as the Solicitor-@eneral has pointed out, i' accused-
appellant (as not satis'ied (ith the results, it (ould have been a si$ple $atter 'or her to
ask 'or an independent e9a$ination o' the substance by another che$ist. +his she did
not do.
5hird. ;ccused-appellant ar)ues that the prosecution 'ailed to prove the ne)ative
alle)ation in the in'or$ation that she did not have a license to possess or use
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride or Wshabu.X
;rt. ::: o' <epublic ;ct #o. 64!/, as a$ended by <epublic ;ct #o. 06/9 provides*
S7C. 16. 0ossession or ;se of +egulated 4rugs. - +he penalty o' reclusion
perpetua to death and a 'ine ran)in) 'ro$ 'ive hundred thousand pesos to ten
$illion pesos shall be i$posed upon any person (ho shall possess or use any
re)ulated dru) (ithout the correspondin) license or prescription, sub>ect to
the provisions o' Section !5 hereo'.
;ccused-appellant clai$s that possession or use o' $etha$pheta$ine
hydrochloride or Wshabu,Xa re)ulated dru), is not unla('ul unless the possessor or user
does not have the reDuired license or prescription. She points out that since the
prosecution 'ailed to present any certi'ication that she is not authorized to possess or
use re)ulated dru)s, it there'ore 'alls short o' the Duantu$ o' proo' needed to sustain a
conviction.
+he contention has no $erit.
+he Duestion raised in this case is si$ilar to that raised in ;nited States %. ,han
5oco.
F!/G
+he accused in that case (as char)ed (ith s$okin) opiu$ (ithout bein) duly
re)istered. ,e de$urred to the in'or$ation on the )round that it 'ailed to alle)e that the
use o' opiu$ had not been prescribed as a $edicine by a duly licensed and practicin)
physician.
+his Court denied the $otion and said*
+he evident interest and purpose o' the statute is to prohibit and to penalize
)enerally the s$okin) o' opiu$ in these :slands. 8ut the le)islator desired to
(ithdra( 'ro$ the operation o' the statute a li$ited class o' s$okers (ho
s$oked under the advice and by prescription o' a licensed and practicin)
physician . . . . ,ence (here one is char)ed (ith a violation o' the )eneral
provisions o' the 6piu$ %a(, it is $ore lo)ical as (ell as $ore practical and
convenient, i' he did in 'act s$oke opiu$ under the advice o' a physician, that
he should set up this 'act by (ay o' de'ense, than that the prosecution should
be called upon to prove that every s$oker, char)ed (ith a violation o' the la(,
does so (ithout such advice or prescription. :ndeed, (hen it is considered
that under the la( any person $ay, in case o' need and at any ti$e, procure
the advice o' a physician to use opiu$ or so$e o' its derivatives, and that in
the nature o' thin)s no public record o' prescriptions o' this kind is or can be
reDuired to be kept, it is $ani'est that it (ould be (holly i$practicable and
absurd to i$pose on the prosecution the burden o' alle)in) and provin) the
'act that one usin) opiu$ does so (ithout the advice o' a physician. +o prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, in a particular case, that one usin) opiu$ does
so (ithout the advice or prescription o' a physician (ould be in $ost cases a
practical i$possibility (ithout the aid o' the de'endant hi$sel', (hile a
de'endant char)ed (ith the ille)al use o' opiu$ should 'ind little di''iculty in
establishin) the 'act that he used it under the advice and on the prescription o'
a physician, i' in 'act he did so.
F!6G
;n accused person so$eti$es o(es a duty to hi$sel' i' not to the State. :' he does
not per'or$ that duty he $ay not al(ays e9pect the State to per'or$ it 'or hi$. :' he
'ails to $eet the obli)ation (hich he o(es to hi$sel', (hen to $eet it is an easy thin)
'or hi$ to do, he has no one but hi$sel' to bla$e.
&oreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor @eneral, there is nothin) in <.;.
#o. 64!/ or the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct, as a$ended, (hich reDuires the prosecution to
present a certi'ication that accused-appellant has no license or per$it to possess
shabu. &ere possession o' the prohibited substance is a cri$e per se and the burden
o' proo' is upon accused-appellant to sho( that she has a license or per$it under the
la( to possess the prohibited dru).
Fourth. %astly, accused-appellant contends that the evidence presented by the
prosecution is not su''icient to support a 'indin) that she is )uilty o' the cri$e char)ed.
+his contention $ust like(ise be re>ected.
Credence (as properly accorded to the testi$onies o' the prosecution (itnesses,
(ho are la( en'orcers. When police o''icers have no $otive to testi'y 'alsely a)ainst the
accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presu$ption. :n this case, no evidence has
been presented to su))est any i$proper $otive on the part o' the police en'orcers in
arrestin) accused-appellant. +his Court accords )reat respect to the 'indin)s o' the trial
court on the $atter o' credibility o' the (itnesses in the absence o' any palpable error or
arbitrariness in its 'indin)s.
F!0G
:t is note(orthy that, aside 'ro$ the denial o' accused-appellant, no other (itness
(as presented in her behal'. ,er denial cannot prevail over the positive testi$onies o'
the prosecution (itnesses.
F!JG
;s has been held, denial as a rule is a (eak 'or$ o'
de'ense, particularly (hen it is not substantiated by clear and
convincin) evidence. +he de'ense o' denial or 'ra$e-up, like alibi, has been invariably
vie(ed by the courts (ith dis'avor 'or it can >ust as easily be concocted and is a
co$$on and standard de'ense ploy in $ost prosecutions 'or violation o' the Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct.
F!9G
+he Court is convinced that the reDuire$ents o' the la( in order that a person $ay
be validly char)ed (ith and convicted o' ille)al possession o' a dan)erous dru) in
violation o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended, have been co$plied (ith by the prosecution in
this case. +he decision o' the trial court $ust accordin)ly be upheld.
;s re)ards the 'ine i$posed by the trial court, it has been held that courts $ay 'i9
any a$ount (ithin the li$its established by la(.
F5G
Considerin) that 'ive hundred ei)hty
point t(o 2/J5.!3 )ra$s o' shabu (ere con'iscated 'ro$ accused-appellant, the 'ine
i$posed by the trial court $ay properly be reduced to "/5,555.55.
WHERE"ORE, the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' "asay City, 8ranch 115,
'indin) accused-appellant )uilty o' violation o' U16 o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended, and
i$posin) upon her the penalty o' reclusion perpetua is hereby ;FF:<&7C (ith the
&6C:F:C;+:6# that the 'ine i$posed on accused-appellant is reduced
to "/5,555.55. Costs a)ainst appellant.
+he passport, airline ticket, lu))a)e, )irdle and other personal e''ects not yet
returned to the accused-appellant are hereby ordered returned to her.
SO OR3ERE3.
G.R. No. 93239 M/)' 12, 1991
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
E3$SON SUCRO, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Fidencio S. +az for accused-appellant.

GUT$ERRE1, JR., J.:p
7dison Sucro (as char)ed (ith and convicted o' violation o' Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct, under an :n'or$ation (hich reads*
+hat on or about the !1st day o' &arch, 19J9, in the evenin), in the "oblacion,
&unicipality o' .alibo, "rovince o' ;klan, <epublic o' the "hilippines, and (ithin the
>urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused, actin) as a pusher or
broker in the business o' sellin), ad$inisterin), delivery, )ivin) a(ay to another
andBor distributin) prohibited dru)s, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and
'eloniously and (ithout authority o' la( have in his possession and control nineteen
2193 pieces o' $ari>uana ci)arette sticks and 'our 243 tea ba)s o' dried $ari>uana
leaves (hich (ere con'iscated 'ro$ hi$ by the police authorities o' .alibo, ;klan,
shortly a'ter havin) sold one tea ba) o' dried $ari>uana leaves to a custo$er. 2+ollo,
p. 93
Apon arrai)n$ent, the accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea o' Enot )uiltyE to the
o''ense char)ed. +rial ensued and a >ud)$ent o' conviction (as rendered, the pertinent portion o'
(hich reads*
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is rendered 'indin) the accused 7dison Sucro )uilty o' the
sale o' prohibited dru) under Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous Cru) ;ct, as
a$ended, and sentencin) hi$ to su''er the penalty o' li'e i$prison$ent, and pay a
'ine o' "!5,555, and costs. ,e shall be entitled to 'ull credit in the service o' his
sentence (ith the period 'or (hich he has under)one preventive i$prison$ent to the
date o' pro$ul)ation o' this >ud)$ent. ;ll the ite$s o' $ari>uana con'iscated in this
case are declared 'or'eited in 'avor o' the State. 2+ollo, p. 413
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) >ud)$ent o' conviction, accused-appellant interposes this appeal, assi)nin) the
'ollo(in) as errors alle)edly co$$itted by the court a &uo, to (it*
:
+,7 %6W7< C6A<+ 7<<7C :# ;C&:++:#@ ;S 7?:C7#C7 F6< +,7
"<6S7CA+:6# 7S,:8:+S E7E-E7-4E, +7; 8;@S 6F ;%%7@7C &;<:JA;#;, +6
87 +,7 ,O+0;S 4EL3,53J FA<+,7<&6<7, +,;+ +,7 S;&7 W7<7 +;.7#
W:+,6A+ +,7 <7LA:<7C W;<<;#+ 6F S7;<C, ;#C ;<<7S+ S:#C7 +,7
;CCAS7C W;S #6+ :# +,7 ;C+ 6F C6&&:++:#@ ;#- 6FF7#S7 ;+ +,7 +:&7
6F ,:S ;<<7S+.
::
+,7 %6W7< C6A<+ 7<<7C :# F:#C:#@ +,7 ;CCAS7C 7C:S6# SAC<6
@A:%+- 6F +,7 S;%7 6F "<6,:8:+7C C<A@S A#C7< S7C+:6# 4, ;<+:C%7 ::,
6F +,7 C;#@7<6AS C<A@S ;C+ ;#C S7#+7#C:#@ ,:& +6 SAFF7< ;
"7#;%+- 6F %:F7 :&"<:S6#&7#+ ;#C +6 ";- ; F:#7 6F " !5,555.55.
2;ppellant1s 8rie', p. 13
+he antecedent 'acts o' the case as su$$arized by the Solicitor @eneral are as 'ollo(s*
6n &arch !1, 19J9, "at. <oy Ful)encio, a $e$ber o' the :#", .alibo, ;klan, (as
instructed by "B%t. ?icente Seraspi, Jr. 2Station Co$$ander o' the :#" .alibo, ;klan3
to $onitor the activities o' appellant 7dison Sucro, because o' in'or$ation )athered
by Seraspi that Sucro (as sellin) $ari>uana. 2p. 6, +S#, &ay !,19J93.
;s planned, at about /*55 ".&. on said date, "at. Ful)encio "ositioned hi$sel' under
the house o' a certain ;rlie <e)alado at C. Lui$po Street. ;d>acent to the house o'
<e)alado, about ! $eters a(ay, (as a chapel. +herea'ter, "at. Ful)encio sa(
appellant enter the chapel, takin) so$ethin) (hich turned out later to be $ari>uana
'ro$ the co$part$ent o' a cart 'ound inside the chapel, and then return to the street
(here he handed the sa$e to a buyer, ;ldie 8orro$eo. ;'ter a (hile appellant (ent
back to the chapel and a)ain ca$e out (ith $ari>uana (hich he )ave to a )roup o'
persons. 2pp. 6-J, 1/-1J, 3bid3. :t (as at this instance that "at. Ful)encio radioed
"B%t. Seraspi and reported the activity )oin) on. "B%t. Seraspi instructed "at.
Ful)encio to continue $onitorin) develop$ents. ;t about 6*5 ".&., "at. Ful)encio
a)ain called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later :denti'ied as <onnie
&acabante, (as transactin) (ith appellant. 2pp. 1J-19, 3bid3
;t that point, the tea$ o' "B%t. Seraspi proceeded to the area and (hile the police
o''icers (ere at the -outh ,ostel at &aa)$a St., "at. Ful)encio told "B%t. Seraspi to
intercept &acabante and appellant. "B%t. Seraspi and his tea$ cau)ht up (ith
&acabante at the crossin) o' &abini and &aa)$a Sts. in 'ront o' the ;klan &edical
Center. Apon seein) the police, &acabante thre( so$ethin) to the )round (hich
turned out to be a tea ba) o' $ari>uana. 2pp. 6-J, +S#, June 19, 19J93 When
con'ronted, &acabante readily ad$itted that he bou)ht the sa$e 'ro$ appellant
27dison Sucro3 in 'ront o' the chapel. 2p. 6, +S#, &ay !4, 19J93 +he police tea$ (as
able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner o' C. Lui$po and ?eterans Sts.
+he police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teaba)s o' $ari>uana 'ro$ the cart inside the
chapel and another teaba) 'ro$ &acabante, +he teaba)s o' $ari>uana (ere sent to
the "C-:#" Cri$e %aboratory Service, at Ca$p Cel)ado, :loilo City 'or analysis. +he
speci$ens 279hibits E@E to E@-1JE, 79hibits E7E to E7-4E3 (ere all 'ound positive o'
$ari>uana. 2pp. 40, +S#, Sept. 4, 19J93E 2;ppellee1s 8rie', pp. -63
;s can be seen 'ro$ the 'acts, the issue hin)es $ainly on (hether or not the arrest (ithout (arrant
o' the accused is la('ul and conseDuently, (hether or not the evidence resultin) 'ro$ such arrest is
ad$issible.
We rule in the a''ir$ative.
+he accused-appellant contends that his arrest (as ille)al, bein) a violation o' his ri)hts )ranted
under Section !, ;rticle ::: o' the 19J0 Constitution. ,e stresses that there (as su''icient ti$e 'or the
police o''icers to apply 'or a search and arrest (arrants considerin) that Ful)encio in'or$ed his
Station Co$$ander o' the activities o' the accused t(o days be'ore &arch !1, 19J9, the date o' his
arrest.
+his contention is (ithout $erit.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure provides 'or the instances (here arrest
(ithout (arrant is considered la('ul. +he rule states*
Arrest without warrant- when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or private person $ay, (ithout
(arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 *hen in his presence- the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 *hen an offense has in fact 2ust been committed- and he has personal
(nowledge o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it=
27$phasis supplied3
;n o''ense is co$$itted in the presence or (ithin the vie( o' an o''icer, (ithin the $eanin) o' the
rule authorizin) an arrest (ithout a (arrant, (hen the o''icer sees the o''ense, althou)h at a
distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereo'.
2A.S. v. Fortaleza, 1! "hil. 40! F1959G= and A.S. v. Sa$onte, 16 "hil. /16 F1915G3
+he records sho( that Ful)encio (ent to ;rlie <e)alado1s house at C. Lui$po Street to $onitor the
activities o' the accused (ho (as earlier reported to be sellin) $ari>uana at a chapel t(o 2!3 $eters
a(ay 'ro$ <e)alado1s house.
Ful)encio, (ithin a distance o' t(o $eters sa( Sucro conduct his ne'arious activity. ,e sa( Sucro
talk to so$e persons, )o inside the chapel, and return to the$ and e9chan)e so$e thin)s. +hese,
Sucro did three ti$es durin) the ti$e that he (as bein) $onitored. Ful)encio (ould then relay the
on-)oin) transaction to "B%t. Seraspi.
;nent the second reDuire$ent, the 'act that &acabante, (hen intercepted by the police, (as cau)ht
thro(in) the $ari>uana stick and (hen con'ronted, readily ad$itted that he bou)ht the sa$e 'ro$
accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had >ust sold the $ari>uana stick to &acabante, and
there'ore, had >ust co$$itted an ille)al act o' (hich the police o''icers had personal kno(led)e,
bein) $e$bers o' the tea$ (hich $onitored Sucro1s ne'arious activity.
+he court earlier indicated in the case o' 0eople %. /ati 2@.<. #o. J04!9, ;u)ust !0, 19953 that
police o''icers have personal kno(led)e o' the actual co$$ission o' the cri$e (hen it had earlier
conducted surveillance activities o' the accused. +hus, it stated*
When %uciano and Caraan reached the place (here the alle)ed transaction (ould
take place and (hile positioned at a street co$er, they sa( appellant <e)alado 8ati
and Warner &arDuez by the side o' the street about 'orty to 'i'ty $eters a(ay 'ro$
the$ 2the public o''icers3. +hey sa( &arDuez )ivin) so$ethin) to 8ati, (ho,
therea'ter handed a (rapped ob>ect to &arDuez (ho then inserted the ob>ect inside
the 'ront o' his pants in 'ront o' his abdo$en (hile 8ati, on his part, placed the thin)
)iven to hi$ inside his pocket. 2p. !3
999 999 999
. . . 8oth "atrol$an %uciano and Caraan actuall' witnessed the sa$e and their
testi$onies (ere based on their actual and personal kno(led)e o' the events that
took place leadin) to appellant1s arrest. +hey $ay not have been (ithin hearin)
distance, specially since conversation (ould e9pectedly be carried on in hushed
tones, but they (ere certainly near enou)h to observe the $ove$ents o' the
appellant and the buyer. &oreover, these prosecution (itnesses are all la( en'orcers
and are, there'ore, presu$ed to have re)ularly per'or$ed their duties in the absence
o' proo' to the contrary 2"eople v. 8ati, supra citing "eople v. ;)apito, @.<. #o.
00J6, 6ctober 1!, 19J03
+he accused Duestions the 'ailure o' the police o''icers to secure a (arrant considerin) that
Ful)encio hi$sel' kne( o' Sucro1s activities even prior to the 'or$er1s >oinin) the police 'orce.
Ful)encio reported Sucro1s activities only three days be'ore the incident.
;s the records reveal, Ful)encio and Sucro had kno(n each other since their childhood years and
that a'ter Ful)encio >oined the police 'orce, he told the accused-appellant not to sell dru)s in their
locality. ,ence, it is possible that because o' this 'riendship, Ful)encio hesitated to report his
childhood 'riend and $erely advised hi$ not to en)a)e in such activity. ,o(ever, because o' reliable
in'or$ation )iven by so$e in'or$ants that sellin) (as )oin) on everyday, he (as constrained to
report the $atter to the Station Co$$ander.
6n the other hand, the 'ailure o' the police o''icers to secure a (arrant ste$s 'ro$ the 'act that their
kno(led)e acDuired 'ro$ the surveillance (as insu''icient to 'ul'ill the reDuire$ents 'or the issuance
o' a search (arrant. What is para$ount is that probable cause e9isted. +hus, it has been held in the
case o' 0eople %. Lo )o *ing- et al. 2@.<. #o. JJ510, January !1, 19913*
:n the instant case, it (as 'ir$ly established 'ro$ the 'actual 'indin)s o' the trial court
that the authorities had reasonable )round to believe that appellant (ould atte$pt to
brin) in contraband and transport it (ithin the country. +he belie' (as based on
intelli)ence reports )athered 'ro$ surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate,
o' (hich appellant (as touted to be a $e$ber. ;side 'ro$ this, they (ere also
certain as to the e9pected date and ti$e o' arrival o' the accused 'ro$ China. 8ut
such kno(led)e (as clearly insu''icient to enable the$ to 'ul'ill the reDuire$ents 'or
the issuance o' a search (arrant. Still and all, the i$portant thin) is that there (as
probable cause to conduct the (arrantless search, (hich $ust still be present in
such a case.
;s the Solicitor @eneral has pointed out*
+here are several instances (hen a (arrantless search and seizure can be e''ected
(ithout necessarily bein) preceded by an arrest provided the sa$e is e''ected on the
basis o' probable cause 2e.). stop and search (ithout (arrant at checkpoints3.
8et(een (arrantless searches and seizures at checkpoints and in the case at bar
the latter is $ore reasonable considerin) that unlike in the 'or$er, it (as e''ected on
the basis o' probable cause. Ander the circu$stances 2$onitorin) o' transactions3
there e9isted probable cause 'or the arrestin) o''icers, to arrest appellant (ho (as in
'act sellin) $ari>uana and to seize the contraband.
+hat searches and seizures $ust be supported by a valid (arrant is not an absolute rule 2&anipon,
Jr. v. Sandi)anbayan, 14 SC<; !60 F19J6G3. ;$on) the e9ceptions )ranted by la( is a search
incidental to a la('ul arrest under Sec. 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, (hich
provides that a person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich
$ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant. 2"eople v. Castiller,
@.<. #o. J00J, ;u)ust 6, 19953
+he accused-appellant clai$s that the arrest havin) been done (ithout (arrant, it 'ollo(s that the
evidence obtained there'ro$ is inad$issible.
;s earlier discussed, there is nothin) unla('ul about the arrest considerin) its co$pliance (ith the
reDuire$ents o' a (arrantless arrest. 7r)o, the 'ruits obtained 'ro$ such la('ul arrest are ad$issible
in evidence.
7dison Sucro assails the trial court1s reliance on the state$ent o' &acabante (hose reason 'or
testi'yin) could be $erely to escape prosecution.
We Duote the trial court1s 'indin) as to the testi$ony o' &acabante*
+he non-'ilin) o' a co$plaint a)ainst hi$ 'or possession o' $ari>uana $ay have been
the reason o' 2sic3 his (illin)ness to testi'y in court a)ainst the accused. 8ut this
does not necessarily taint the evidence that proceeds 'ro$ his lips. ;s e9plained by
%t. Seraspi, the best sources o' in'or$ation a)ainst dru) pushers are usually their
custo$ers, especially i' as in this case, there is no other direct evidence o' the sellin)
e9cept the testi$ony o' the buyer. We accept this observation as a realistic appraisal
o' a situation in (hich dru) users are, and should be e$ployed by la( en'orce$ent
authorities to bolster the drive a)ainst pushers (ho are the real 'elons in our society.
We have observed the de$eanor o' the (itness in court, and 'ound hi$ to be
strai)ht'or(ard, unhesitatin), and spontaneous in his declarations, so that (e are
satis'ied as to his intention and disposition to tell the truth 2+ollo, p. 453
+i$e and a)ain it has been held that the 'indin)s o' the trial court are entitled to )reat (ei)ht and
should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is sho(n that the trial court had overlooked certain 'acts
o' (ei)ht and i$portance, it bein) ackno(led)ed. that the court belo(, havin) seen and heard the
(itnesses durin) the trial, is in a better position to evaluate their testi$onies 2"eople v. A$ali, et al.,
@.<. #o. J44/5, February 4, 1991 citing "eople v. ;lvarez, 16 SC<; 04/ F19JJG= "eople v. Corado,
5 SC<; / F1969G= and "eople v. 7spe>o, 6 SC<; 455 F1905G3.
Further$ore, the testi$ony o' &acabante (as corroborated on $aterial points by public o''icers
Ful)encio and Seraspi.
+here is nothin) in the record to su))est that the police o''icers (ere co$pelled by any $otive than
to acco$plish their $ission to capture a dru) pusher in the e9ecution o' the cri$e, the presu$ption
bein) that police o''icers per'or$ their duties re)ularly in the absence o' any evidence to the contrary
2<ule 11, Sec. 2$3, <evised <ules on 7vidence= "eople v. Castiller, supra citing "eople v.
#atipravat, 14/ SC<; 4J F19J6G3.
+he prosecution evidence (as 'urther bolstered by the 'indin)s o' the Forensic Che$ist that the
ite$s seized (ere all positive 'or $ari>uana.
:n contrast to the evidence presented by the prosecution, accused-appellant1s de'ense is alibi (hich
is unavailin) considerin) that he (as positively identi'ied by &acabante to be the person 'ro$ (ho$
he bou)ht $ari>uana.
Sucro alle)es that he could not have co$$itted the cri$e since he (as (ith his uncle and cousin
distributin) handbills 'or his ;untie1s candidacy. +he 'act, ho(ever, re$ains that it does not preclude
the possibility that he (as present in the vicinity as established by his ad$ission that he $oved a lot
and even had the occasion to $eet &acabante on the street.
:t is (ell-settled that $ere denials cannot prevail a)ainst the positive identi'ication o' the appellant as
the seller o' the prohibited substances. 2"eople v. .han, 161 SC<; 456 F19JJG= and "eople v. "aco,
105 SC<; 6J1 F19J9G3
"re$ises considered, this Court is convinced that appellant 7dison Sucro had indeed co$$itted the
o''ense char)ed. +he trial court1s decision $ust be upheld.
W,7<7F6<7, the decision appealed 'ro$ is hereby ;FF:<&7C.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan- ,...- Feliciano- /idin and 4a%ide- .r.- ...- concur.
G.R. No. 95993 Se*+e.4e/ 9, 1995
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
ARMAN3O 3E LARA # GALARO, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
5an- Manzano R 6elez for accused-appellant.

<U$ASON, J.:
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court, 8ranch !J, &anila in Cri$inal Case
#o. 949/, 'indin) appellant )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' violatin) Section 4 o' <epublic ;ct
#o. 64!/, as a$ended by 8.". 8l). 109.
:
+he :n'or$ation char)ed appellant as 'ollo(s*
+hat on or about January 9, 19J0, in the City o' &anila, "hilippines, the said
accused, not bein) authorized by la( to sell, deliver, )ive a(ay to another or
distribute any prohibited dru), did then and there (ill'ully and unla('ully sell or o''er
'or sale t(o 2!3 'oils o' 'lo(erin) tops o' $ari>uana and one 213 plastic ba) o'
'lo(erin) tops o' $ari>uana, (hich are prohibited dru)s 2+ollo, p. 63.
Apon arrai)n$ent, appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte- pleaded not )uilty to the in'or$ation
2<ecords p. /3.
::
6n Cece$ber 1/, 19J6, Capt. <estituto Cablayan o' the #ational Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Service
2#C:S3 o' the Western "olice Cistrict 2W"C3, instructed S)t. 7nriDue Cavid to conduct a surveillance
operation in the vicinity o' @arrido and Ra$ora Streets at Sta. ;na, &anila, a'ter receivin) reports o'
ra$pant dru)-pushin) in that area 2+S#, Cece$ber 14, 19J0, p. !13.
:n co$pliance thereo', a tea$ led by S)t. 7nriDue Cavid, conducted a surveillance operation on
Cece$ber 1/ and 10, and con'ir$ed the reported dru)-pushin) activities in that area by the )roup o'
appellant and a certain <icky alias E"ilayE 2+S#, Cece$ber !, 19J0, pp. /-63. #o arrest (as $ade
because the tea$ (as instructed by their superior to conduct a surveillance operation only 2+S#,
January 11, 19JJ, p. !J3.
6n January J, 19J0, &alaya 279h. EFE3 and "eople1s +oni)ht 279h. E.E3, reported that there (ere
ra$pant, dru)-pushin) activities in the vicinity o' @arrido and Ra$ora Streets in Sta. ;na, &anila,
pro$ptin) @en. ;l'redo %i$, then W"C Superintendent, to repri$and the #C:S o''ice 2+S#,
Cece$ber !, 19J0, p. !3.
6n January 9, because o' the repri$and )iven by @en. %i$, Capt. Cablayan instructed S)t. Cavid to
plan a buy-bust operation and to 'or$ a
si9-$an tea$ (ith "'c. &artin 6rol'o, Jr. as the poseur-buyer 2+S#, Cece$ber !, 19J0, p. 6,
January 11, 19JJ, p. 63.
;t around 4*4/ ".&. o' the sa$e day, the tea$, to)ether (ith their con'idential in'or$ant, (ent to
@arrido Street. Apon arrivin) threat, they strate)ically positioned the$selves. "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. and the
con'idential in'or$ant proceeded to the house o' appellant located at #o. !!60 @arrido Street, (here
they sa( hi$ standin) outside. +he con'idential in'or$ant introduced "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. to appellant as
an interested buyer o' $ari>uana. ;ppellant asked "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. E:lan an) bibilhin ninyoIE 2,o(
$uch (ill you buyI3. "'c. 6rol'o, Jr., replied* E+(o 'oilsE handin) at the sa$e ti$e the $arked
t(enty-peso bill 279h. E7E3 to appellant. +he latter, a'ter placin) the $oney in the ri)ht pocket o' his
pants, (ent inside his house 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp. 0-93. &inutes later, appellant ca$e back
and handed t(o 'oils 279hs. EC-1-aE and EC-1-bE3 (rapped in onion paper 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, p.
J3. :t (as a'ter he handed the t(o 'oils to "'c. 6rol'o Jr., that he sensed the presence o' the police
operatives. ,e then tried to retrieve the t(o 'oils but "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. prevented hi$ 'ro$ doin) so.
Curin) the scu''le, one 'oil (as torn. ;ppellant then ran inside his house (ith "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. in
pursuit. +he latter (as able to subdue appellant. S)t. Cavid con'ronted appellant, (ho ad$itted that
he kept prohibited dru)s in his house. ;ppellant sho(ed the arrestin) o''icers a blue plastic ba) (ith
(hite linin) containin) prohibited dru)s. ; receipt o' the articles seized 279h. EFE3 (as $ade by "'c.
6rol'o, Jr. 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp. 1!-1/3.
+herea'ter, the tea$, to)ether (ith appellant, proceeded to the W"C headDuarters 'or investi)ation.
+hereat, S)t. Cavid ordered "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. to co$$ence the investi)ation o' appellant 2+S#,
January 11, 19JJ, pp. 19-!13.
Curin) the investi)ation, appellant (as apprised o' his constitutional ri)hts to re$ain silent and to
have the assistance o' counsel. When appellant (as asked to )ive a (ritten state$ent, he re'used to
do so pendin) arrival o' his la(yer 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, p. !3.
+he prohibited dru)s seized 'ro$ appellant (ere brou)ht to the #8: 'or che$ical analysis. ; report
and certi'ication o' &s. ;ida "ascual, Forensic Che$ist o' the #8: 279hs. ECE and ECE3, sho( the
dru)s to be positive 'or $ari>uana.
;ppellant denied havin) sold $ari>uana to anyone and clai$ed that the arrestin) o''icers $erely
planted the $ari>uana on his person. ,e testi'ied that on January 9, 19J0, he arrived ho$e 'ro$
(ork as a security )uard o' the ?er)ara 8rothers ;)ency at around *55 ".&. ;'ter chan)in) his
clothes, he (ent out to 'etch his son, (ho (as le't in the care o' a nei)hbor. Apon returnin) to his
house (ith his son, he (as arrested by the police. +he police proceeded to search his house,
(ithout any search (arrant sho(n to hi$. ;'ter the search, he and his (i'e (ere brou)ht to the W"C
headDuarters. ,e clai$ed that inspite o' his protestation that he (ould like to (ait 'or his la(yer
be'ore )ivin) any state$ent, the police continued their interro)ation.
;ppellant denied that the t(enty-peso bill (as )iven to hi$ by the poseur-buyer. ,e clai$ed that he
(as $erely 'orced to si)n his na$e on the photocopy o' the t(enty-peso bill 279h. EFE3 and that the
'irst ti$e he sa( the blue plastic ba) containin) prohibited dru)s (as (hen he (as at the police
station 2+S#, June 14, 19JJ, pp. 1-113.
+o corroborate his story, appellant presented his youn)er brother, @erry de %ara.
6n 6ctober !, 19J9, the trial court rendered its decision, disposin) as 'ollo(s*
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered 'indin) the accused )uilty beyond
reasonable doubt o' violation o' Sec 4, ;rt :: o' <.;. 64!/ as a$ended as char)ed in
the :n'or$ation= and this Court hereby sentences the accused to su''er a penalty o'
li'e i$prison$ent and to pay a 'ine o' "!5,555.55 2+ollo- p. !43.
,ence, this appeal.
:::
:n his appeal, appellant Duestions the le)ality o' his arrest and the seizure o' prohibited dru)s 'ound
inside his house. Further$ore, he clai$s that he (as not assisted by counsel durin) his custodial
interro)ation 2+ollo, pp. //-/03.
;s to the le)ality o' appellant1s arrest, (e 'ind that the police operatives acted (ithin the bounds o'
la(.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedures dealin) (ith (arrantless arrests
provides*
;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. H ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay,
(ithout a (arrant, arrest a person=
a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted and he has personal kno(led)e
o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it=
999 999 999
:n the case at bench, appellant (as cau)ht red-handed in deliverin) t(o tin 'oils o' $ari>uana to "at.
6rol'o, Jr., the poseur-buyer. ;pplyin) the a'ore$entioned provision o' la(, appellant1s arrest (as
la('ully e''ected (ithout need o' a (arrant o' arrest. E,avin) cau)ht the appellant in flagrante as a
result o' the buy-bust operation, the police$en (ere not only authorized but (ere also under
obli)ation to apprehend the dru) pusher even (ithout a (arrant o' arrestE 2"eople v. .alubiran, 196
SC<; 644 F1991G= 0eople %s. 4e Los Santos, !55 SC<; 41 F1991G3.
;ppellant, ho(ever, asseverates that his arrest (as precipitated only by ne(spaper publications
about the ra$pant sale o' dru)s alon) @arrido and Ra$ora Streets, Sta. ;na, &anila 2+ollo, p. /3. :'
appellant i$plies that the police $erely sta)e-$ana)ed his arrest in order to sho( that they (ere not
re$iss in their duties, then appellant is (ron). ; surveillance on the ille)al activities o' the appellant
(as already conducted by the police as early as Cece$ber 1/ and 10, 19J6. +he ne(spaper reports
concernin) the ille)al dru) activities ca$e out only on January J and 14, 19J0, lon) a'ter the police
kne( o' the said ille)al activities. ;ppellant1s eventual arrest on January 9, 19J0 (as the result o' the
surveillance conducted and the buy-bust operation.
+he evidence sho(s that appellant ran inside his house upon sensin) the presence o' the police
operatives. +he testi$ony o' "at. 6rol'o, Jr., the poseur-buyer, is as 'ollo(s*
F:SC;%*
L* ;'ter placin) the "!5 bill in his ri)ht pocket, (hat did he doI
;* ,e (ent to his house and $inutes later, he ca$e back, sir.
L* When he ca$e back (hat happenedI
;* ,e handed to $e t(o tin 'oils containin) suspected $ari>uana
leaves (rapped in onion paper.
L* ;nd (hat happened ne9t (hen he returned (ith those ite$sI
;* ;'ter he handed to $e t(o 'oils, he sensed the presence o' the
operatives and he tried to retrieve the t(o 'oils, sir, and : prevented
hi$ and durin) the scu''le one piece o' 'oil (as broken, he tried to run
inside the house, so : subdued hi$ i$$ediately and apprehended
hi$ (hile he (as inside the house.
L* ;'ter he (as subdued by your )roup, (hat happenedI
;* S)t. Cavid con'ronted hi$ re)ardin) this case and he voluntarily
ad$itted that he (as still keepin) prohibited dru)s inside his houseI
L* What did the )roup do a'ter he voluntarily ad$itted that he (as
keepin) prohibited dru)s inside his houseI
;* ,e pointed inside his house 2sic3 one plastic ba) colored blue (ith
(hite linin) containin) prohibited dru)E 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp.
1!-143.
+he police$en1s entry into the house o' appellant (ithout a search (arrant (as in hot-pursuit o' a
person cau)ht co$$ittin) an o''ense in flagrante. +he arrest that 'ollo(ed the hot-pursuit (as valid
219J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, <ule 11, Section /FaG3.
We also 'ind as valid the seizure o' the plastic ba) o' prohibited dru)s 'ound inside appellant1s
house.
+he seizure o' the plastic ba) containin) prohibited dru)s (as the result o' appellant1s arrest inside
his house. ; conte$poraneous search $ay be conducted upon the person o' the arrestee and the
i$$ediate vicinity (here the arrest (as $ade 2"eople v. Castiller, 1JJ SC<; 06 F1995G3.
We 'ind to be $eritorious appellant1s clai$ that he (as not assisted by counsel durin) the custodial
investi)ation, speci'ically (hen he (as 'orced to si)n the photocopy o' the $arked t(enty-peso bill
279h. E7E3, <eceipt o' "roperty Seized 279h. EFE3, and the 8ookin) and :n'or$ation Sheet 279h. E,E3.
+he said docu$ents are inad$issible in evidence 'or the reason that there (as no sho(in) that
appellant (as then assisted by counsel nor his (aiver thereto put into (ritin) 2Constitution, ;rt. :::,
Sec. F!G3.
8e that as it $ay, the re>ection o' said evidence (ould not a''ect the conviction o' appellant in vie( o'
the abundance o' other evidence establishin) his )uilt. +he rulin) in 0eople %. Mau'ao, !50 SC<;
0! 2199!3 isapropos*
:t bears e$phasis, ho(ever, that the accused appellant1s con'or$ity to the
Duestioned docu$ents has not been a 'actor at all in his conviction. For even i' these
docu$ents (ere disre)arded, still the accused-appellant1s )uilt has been adeDuately
established by other evidence o' record. +he trial court1s verdict (as based on the
evidence o' the prosecution not on his si)natures on the Duestioned docu$ents.
;ccused-appellant1s denial si$ply can not prevail over the detailed and unshaken
testi$onies o' the apprehendin) o''icers (ho cau)ht hi$ red-handed sellin)
$ari>uana and (ho have not sho(n to have any ulterior $otive to testi'y 'alsely
a)ainst accused-appellant.
:?
+he trial court sentenced appellant to su''er the penalty o' li'e i$prison$ent and to pay a 'ine o'
"!5,555.55 pursuant to Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!, as a$ended by
8.". 8l). 109. ,o(ever, said la( (as 'urther a$ended by <.;. #o. 06/9.
Ander Section 10 o' <.;. #o. 06/9, the penalty to be i$posed 'or sellin), ad$inisterin), deliverin) or
distributin) less than 0/5 )ra$s o' $ari>uana, shall ran)e 'ro$ 7prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua dependin) upon the Duantity.E
Ander Section 4 o' <.;. #o. 06/9, the penalty 'or sellin), dispensin), deliverin), transportin) or
distributin) $ari>uana in e9cess o' 0/5 )ra$s or $ore shall be Ereclusion perpetua to death and a
'ine ran)in) 'ro$ Five ,undred +housand "esos to +en &illion "esos.E
We noticed that the penalty o' reclusion perpetua (as i$posed by <.;. #o. 06/9 as the $a9i$u$
penalty (hen the Duantity o' the $ari>uana involved in the o''ense is less than 0/5 )ra$s and at the
sa$e ti$e as the $ini$u$ penalty (hen the Duantity o' $ari>uana involved is 0/5 )ra$s or $ore. :t
is the duty o' the Court to har$onize con'lictin) provisions to )ive e''ect to the (hole la( 2<u'ino
%opez and Sons v. Court o' ;ppeals, 155 "hil. J/5 F19/0G3. Further$ore, one o' this Court1s
pri$ordial responsibilities is to )ive a statute its sensible construction. +his is to e''ectuate the
intention o' the le)islature so as to avoid an absurd conclusion (ith re)ard to its $eanin) 2%a$b v.
"hipps, !! "hil. 4/6 F191!G3. +here'ore, (hen the Duantity involved is less than 0/5 )ra$s, Section
10 o' <.;. #o. 06/9 should be read correctly to provide a penalty ran)in) 'ro$ prision
correccional to reclusion temporal only.
+he provision o' ;rticle !! o' the <evised "enal Code, (hich states that Epenal la(s shall have a
retroactive e''ect inso'ar as they 'avor the person )uilty o' a 'elony,E 'inds $eanin) in this case.
;ppellant is entitled to bene'it 'ro$ the reduction o' the penalty introduced by <.;. #o. 06/9.
:n order to deter$ine the penalty to be i$posed on appellant, (e 'irst divide the a$ount o' 0/5
)ra$s into three to correspond to the three applicable penalties, na$ely, prision correccional, prision
ma'or and reclusion temporal.
:' the $ari>uana involved is 'ro$ /55 to 049 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is reclusion temporal.
:' the $ari>uana involved is 'ro$ !/5 to 499 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is prision ma'or and i'
the (ei)ht o' the $ari>uana involved is belo( !/5 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is prision
correccional.
Since there is no evidence as to the (ei)ht o' the t(o 'oils and one plastic ba) o' 'lo(erin) tops o'
$ari>uana seized 'ro$ appellant, (e resolve the doubt in 'avor o' appellant and conclude that the
Duantity involved (as* 2i3 belo( 0/5 )ra$s= and 2ii3 not less than !/5 but not $ore than 499 )ra$s.
,ence, the $a9i$u$ penalty that can be i$posed on appellant is prision ma'or. ;pplyin) the
:ndeter$inate Sentence %a( to appellant, (ho (as convicted under a special la( 2"eople vs.
&acantando, 159 SC<; / F19J1G3, and as such la( (as interpreted in 0eople %. Simon- @.<. #o.
95!J, July !9, 1994, the $ini$u$ penalty that can be i$posed on appellant should be (ithin the
ran)e o' prision correccional.
W,7<7F6<7, the Cecision appealed 'ro$ is ;FF:<&7C (ith the $odi'ication that appellant shall
su''er an indeter$inate penalty o' F6A< 243 years and +W6 2!3 days o' prision correccional, as
$ini$u$, to 7:@,+ 2J3 years and 6#7 213 day o' prision ma'or, as $a9i$u$.
S6 6<C7<7C.
4a%ide- .r.- /ellosillo and Hapunan- ...- concur.
,ruz- ..- is on lea%e.
G.R. No. 99257-52. M/)' 10, 1993.
"76"%7 6F +,7 ",:%:"":#7S, plainti''-appellee, vs. @;8<:7% @7<7#+7 y 8A%%6, accused-
appellant.
+he Solicitor @eneral 'or plainti''-appellee.
"ublic ;ttorney1s 6''ice 'or accused-appellant.
S-%%;8AS
1. <7&7C:;% %;W= C<:&:#;% "<6C7CA<7= ;<<7S+ W:+,6A+ W;<<;#+= %;WFA% W,7#
;<<7S+:#@ 6FF:C7< ,;S "7<S6#;% .#6W%7C@7 +,;+ +,7 "7<S6# +6 87 ;<<7S+7C
,;S C6&&:++7C +,7 C<:&7= C;S7 ;+ 8;<. H +he police$en arrested @erente only so$e
three 23 hours a'ter @erente and his co$panions had killed 8lace. +hey sa( 8lace dead in the
hospital and (hen they inspected the scene o' the cri$e, they 'ound the instru$ents o' death* a
piece o' (ood and a concrete hollo( block (hich the killers had used to blud)eon hi$ to death. +he
eye-(itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, reported the happenin) to the police$en and pinpointed her
nei)hbor, @erente, as one o' the killers. Ander those circu$stances, since the police$en had
personal kno(led)e o' the violent death o' 8lace and o' 'acts indicatin) that @erente and t(o others
had killed hi$, they could la('ully arrest @erente (ithout a (arrant. :' they had postponed his arrest
until they could obtain a (arrant, he (ould have 'led the la( as his t(o co$panions did.
!. :C.= :C.= S7;<C, ;#C S7:RA<7= ?;%:C 7?7# W:+,6A+ ; W;<<;#+ W,7# &;C7 ;S ;#
:#C:C7#+ +6 %;WFA% ;<<7S+= <;+:6#;%7. H +he search conducted on @erente1s person (as
like(ise la('ul because it (as $ade as an incident to a valid arrest. +his is in accordance (ith
Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <evised <ules o' Court (hich provides* ESection 1!. Search incident to
la('ul arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin)
(hich $ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant.E +he 'risk
and search o' appellant1s person upon his arrest (as a per$issible precautionary $easure o'
arrestin) o''icers to protect the$selves, 'or the person (ho is about to be arrested $ay be ar$ed
and $i)ht attack the$ unless he is 'irst disar$ed. :n ;da$s vs. Willia$s, 40 A.S. 14, cited in
Justice :sa)ani ;. Cruz1s Constitutional %a(, 1991 7dition, p. 1/5, it (as ruled that Ethe individual
bein) arrested $ay be 'risked 'or concealed (eapons that $ay be used a)ainst the arrestin) o''icer
and all unla('ul articles 'ound his person, or (ithin his i$$ediate control $ay be seized.E
. C<:&:#;% %;W= C6#S":<;C-= %:;8:%:+- 6F C6#S":<;+6<S= <A%7= C;S7 ;+ 8;<. H
+here is no $erit in appellant1s alle)ation that the trial court erred in convictin) hi$ o' havin)
conspired and cooperated (ith Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren to kill 8lace despite the testi$ony o' Cr.
?alentin 8ernales that the 'racture on the back o' the victi$1s skull could have been in'licted by one
person only. (hat Cr. 8ernales stated (as a $ere possibility that only one person dropped the
concrete hollo( block on the head o' the victi$, s$ashin) it. +hat circu$stance, even i' true, does
not absolve the other t(o co-conspirators in the $urder o' 8lace 'or (hen there is a conspiracy to
co$$it a cri$e, the act o' one conspirator is the act o' all. +he conspiracy (as proven by the
eye(itness-testi$ony o' 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she overheard the appellant and his co$panions
conspire to kill 8lace, that actin) in concert, they attacked their victi$ (ith a piece o' (ood and a
hollo( block and caused his death. EWhen there is no evidence indicatin) that the principal (itness
'or the prosecution (as $oved by i$proper $otive, the presu$ption is that he (as not so $oved
and his testi$ony is entitled to 'ull 'aith and creditE 2"eople vs. 8elibet, 199 SC<; /J0, /JJ3. ,ence,
the trial court did not err in )ivin) 'ull credit to 7dna <eyes1 testi$ony.
4. :C.= C:?:% :#C7&#:+- F6< C7;+,= :#C<7;S7C +6 "/5,555.55. H +he Solicitor @eneral
correctly pointed out in the appellee1s brie' that the a(ard o' "5,555.55 as civil inde$nity 'or the
death o' Clarito 8lace should be increased to "/5,555.55 in accordance (ith our rulin) in "eople vs.
Sison, 1J9 SC<; 64.
C 7 C : S : 6 #
@<:[6-;LA:#6, J p*
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila, 8ranch
10!, (hich 'ound the appellant )uilty o' ?iolation o' Section J o' <epublic ;ct 64!/ 2Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct o' 190!3 and sentenced hi$ to su''er the penalty o' i$prison$ent 'or a ter$ o' t(elve 21!3
years and one 213 day, as $ini$u$, to t(enty 2!53 years, as $a9i$u$= and also 'ound hi$ )uilty o'
&urder 'or (hich cri$e he (as sentenced to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua. +he dispositive
portion o' the appealed decision reads*
EW,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' the 'ore)oin) the Court 'inds the accused @abriel @erente in Cri$inal
Case #o. 15!//-?-95 )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' ?iolation o' Section J o' <.;. 64!/ and
hereby sentences hi$ to su''er the penalty o' i$prison$ent o' t(elve years and one day as
$ini$u$ to t(enty years as $a9i$u$, and a 'ine o' t(elve thousand, (ithout subsidiary
i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency, and to pay the costs.
E:n Cri$inal Case #o. 15!/6-?-95, the Court 'inds the accused @abriel @erente )uilty beyond
reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' &urder, and there by 2sic3 no a))ravatin) circu$stances nor
$iti)atin) circu$stances, is hereby sentenced to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua= to
inde$ni'y the heirs o' the victi$ in the su$ o' "5,555.55, and in the a$ount o' "10,659.55 as
'uneral e9penses, (ithout subsidiary i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency, and to pay the costs. +he
accused @abriel @erente shall be credited (ith the 'ull ter$ o' his preventive i$prison$ent.E 2p. !/,
<ollo.3
;ppellant @abriel @erente y 8ullo (as char)ed (ith ?iolation o' Section J, ;rt. :: o' <.;. 64!/, (hich
(as docketed as Cri$inal Case #o. 15!//-?-95 o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' ?alenzuela, &etro
&anila. +he :n'or$ation reads*
E+hat on or about the 5th day o' ;pril, 1995, in the $unicipality o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila,
"hilippines, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused, (ithout
>usti'ication, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously have in his possession and control
dried 'lo(erin) tops (rapped in 'oil (ith $arkin)s and place in a transparent plastic ba) (hich are
considered prohibited dru)s.E 2p. !, <ollo.3
+he sa$e accused, to)ether (ith +otoy and Fredo 7chi)oren (ho are both at lar)e, (as char)ed
(ith &urder in Cri$inal Case #o. 15!/6-?-95 in an in'or$ation o' the sa$e date and si)ned by the
sa$e ;ssistant "rovincial "rosecutor, as 'ollo(s*
E+hat on or about the 5th day o' ;pril, 1995, in the $unicipality o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila,
"hilippines, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused to)ether
(ith t(o 2!3 others (ho are still at lar)e and a)ainst (ho$ the preli$inary investi)ation has not yet
been ter$inated by the 6''ice o' the "rovincial "rosecutor o' 8ulacan, conspirin), con'ederatin)
to)ether and $utually helpin) one another, ar$ed (ith a piece o' (ood and hallo( 2sic3 block and
(ith intent to kill one Clarito 8. 8lace, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously, (ith
evident pre$editation and treachery, attack, assault and hit (ith the said piece o' (ood and hollo(
block the said Clarito 8. 8lace, hittin) the latter on the di''erent parts o' his body, thereby in'lictin)
serious physical in>uries (hich directly caused the death o' the said victi$.E 2p. , <ollo.3
7dna 7d(ina <eyes testi'ied that at about 0*55 a.$. o' ;pril 5, 1995, appellant @abriel @erente,
to)ether (ith Fredo 7chi)oren and +otoy 7chi)oren, started drinkin) liDuor and s$okin) $ari>uana
in the house o' the appellant (hich is about si9 263 $eters a(ay 'ro$ the house o' the prosecution
(itness (ho (as in her house on that day. She overheard the three $en talkin) about their intention
to kill Clarito 8lace. She testi'ied that she heard Fredo 7chi)oren sayin), E@abriel, papatayin natin si
Clarito 8lace,E and +otoy 7chi)oren alle)edly seconded Fredo1s su))estion sayin)* E"apatayin natin
1yan $a$aya.E ;ppellant alle)edly a)reed* ESi)ue, papatayin natin $a$aya.E 2pp. -4, tsn, ;u)ust
!4, 1995.3
Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren and @erente carried out their plan to kill Clarito 8lace at about !*55 p.$.
o' the sa$e day. +he prosecution (itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, testi'ied that she (itnessed the
killin). Fredo 7chi)oren struck the 'irst blo( a)ainst Clarito 8lace, 'ollo(ed by +otoy 7chi)oren and
@abriel @erente (ho hit hi$ t(ice (ith a piece o' (ood in the head and (hen he 'ell, +otoy
7chi)oren dropped a hollo( block on the victi$1s head. +herea'ter, the three $en dra))ed 8lace to
a place behind the house o' @erente.
;t about 4*55 p.$. o' the sa$e day, "atrol$an Jai$e Arrutia o' the ?alenzuela "olice Station
received a report 'ro$ the "alo "olice Cetach$ent about a $aulin) incident. ,e (ent to the
?alenzuela Cistrict ,ospital (here the victi$ (as brou)ht. ,e (as in'or$ed by the hospital o''icials
that the victi$ died on arrival. +he cause o' death (as $assive 'racture o' the skull caused by a hard
and heavy ob>ect. <i)ht a(ay, "atrol$an Arrutia, to)ether (ith "olice Corporal <o$eo %i$a and
"atrol$an ;le9 A$ali, proceeded to "aseo de 8las (here the $aulin) incident took place. +here
they 'ound a piece o' (ood (ith blood stains, a hollo( block and t(o roaches o' $ari>uana. +hey
(ere in'or$ed by the prosecution (itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she sa( the killin) and she
pointed to @abriel @erente as one o' the three $en (ho killed Clarito.
+he police$en proceeded to the house o' the appellant (ho (as then sleepin). +hey told hi$ to
co$e out o' the house and they introduced the$selves as police$en. "atrol$an Arrutia 'risked
appellant and 'ound a coin purse in his pocket (hich contained dried leaves (rapped in ci)arette
'oil. +he dried leaves (ere sent to the #ational 8ureau o' :nvesti)ation 'or e9a$ination. +he Forensic
Che$ist 'ound the$ to be $ari>uana.
6nly the appellant, @abriel @erente, (as apprehended by the police. +he other suspects, Fredo and
+otoy 7chi)oren, are still at lar)e.
6n &ay !, 1995, t(o separate in'or$ations (ere 'iled by ;ssistant "rovincial "rosecutor 8en>a$in
Carai) a)ainst hi$ 'or ?iolation o' Section J, ;rt. ::, o' <.;. 64!/, and 'or &urder.
When arrai)ned on &ay 16, 1995, the appellant pleaded not )uilty to both char)es. ; >oint trial o' the
t(o cases (as held. 6n Septe$ber !4, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision convictin) hi$ o'
?iolation o' Section J o' <.;. 64!/ and o' &urder.
:n this appeal o' the appellant, the 'ollo(in) errors are ascribed to the trial court*
1. the court a Duo )ravely erred in ad$ittin) the $ari>uana leaves adduced in evidence by the
prosecution= and
!. the court a Duo )ravely erred in convictin) the accused-appellant o' the cri$es char)ed despite
the absence o' evidence reDuired to prove his )uilt beyond reasonable doubt.
+he appellant contends that the trial court erred in ad$ittin) the $ari>uana leaves as evidence in
violation o' his constitutional ri)ht not to be sub>ected to ille)al search and seizure, 'or the dried
$ari>uana leaves (ere seized 'ro$ hi$ in the course o' a (arrantless arrest by the police o''icers.
We do not a)ree.
+he search o' appellant1s person and the seizure o' the $ari>uana leaves in his possession (ere
valid because they (ere incident to a la('ul (arrantless arrest.
"ara)raphs 2a3 and 2b3, Section /, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court provide*
1S7C+:6# /. ;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. H ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay, (ithout
a (arrant, arrest a person*
E2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually co$$ittin), or is
atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=E
E2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal kno(led)e o' 'acts
indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= . . .1
+he police$en arrested @erente only so$e three 23 hours a'ter @erente and his co$panions had
killed 8lace. +hey sa( 8lace dead in the hospital and (hen they inspected the scene o' the cri$e,
they 'ound the instru$ents o' death* a piece o' (ood and a concrete hollo( block (hich the killers
had used to blud)eon hi$ to death. +he eye-(itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, reported the happenin)
to the police$en and pinpointed her nei)hbor, @erente, as one o' the killers. Ander those
circu$stances, since the police$en had personal kno(led)e o' the violent death o' 8lace and o'
'acts indicatin) that @erente and t(o others had killed hi$, they could la('ully arrest @erente (ithout
a (arrant. :' they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a (arrant, he (ould have 'led the
la( as his t(o co$panions did.
:n A$il vs. <a$os, 1J0 SC<; 11, the arrest o' the accused (ithout a (arrant (as e''ected one 213
day a'ter he had shot to death t(o Capco$ soldiers. +he arrest (as held la('ul by this Court upon
the rationale stated by us in "eople vs. &alasu)ui, 6 "hil. !!1, !!J, thus*
E+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence and tokens o'
his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e e9tent, at the $ercy o' the
shre(dest, the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o' cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any
instances.E
+he search conducted on @erente1s person (as like(ise la('ul because it (as $ade as an incident
to a valid arrest. +his is in accordance (ith Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <evised <ules o' Court (hich
provides*
ES7C+:6# 1!. Search incident to la('ul arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or
dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense,
(ithout a search (arrant.E
+he 'risk and search o' appellant1s person upon his arrest (as a per$issible precautionary $easure
o' arrestin) o''icers to protect the$selves, 'or the person (ho is about to be arrested $ay be ar$ed
and $i)ht attack the$ unless he is 'irst disar$ed. :n ;da$s vs. Willia$s, 40 A.S. 14, cited in
Justice :sa)ani ;. Cruz1s Constitutional %a(, 1991 7dition, p. 1/5, it (as ruled that Ethe individual
bein) arrested $ay be 'risked 'or concealed (eapons that $ay be used a)ainst the arrestin) o''icer
and all unla('ul articles 'ound in his person, or (ithin his i$$ediate control $ay be seized.E
+here is no $erit in appellant1s alle)ation that the trial court erred in convictin) hi$ o' havin)
conspired and cooperated (ith Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren to kill 8lace despite the testi$ony o' Cr.
?alentin 8ernales that the 'racture on the back o' the victi$1s skull could have been in'licted by one
person only.
What Cr. 8ernales stated (as a $ere possibility that only one person dropped the concrete hollo(
block on the head o' the victi$, s$ashin) it. +hat circu$stance, even i' true, does not absolve the
other t(o co-conspirators in the $urder o' 8lace 'or (hen there is a conspiracy to co$$it a cri$e,
the act o' one conspirator is the act o' all. +he conspiracy (as proven by the eye(itness-testi$ony
o' 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she overheard the appellant and his co$panions conspire to kill 8lace,
that actin) in concert, they attacked their victi$ (ith a piece o' (ood and a hollo( block and caused
his death. EWhen there is no evidence indicatin) that the principal (itness 'or the prosecution (as
$oved by i$proper $otive, the presu$ption is that he (as not so $oved and his testi$ony is
entitled to 'ull 'aith and creditE 2"eople vs. 8elibet, 199 SC<; /J0, /JJ3. ,ence, the trial court did not
err in )ivin) 'ull credit to 7dna <eyes1 testi$ony.
;ppellant1s 'ailure to escape 2because he (as very drunk3 is no indiciu$ o' his innocence.
+he Solicitor @eneral correctly pointed out in the appellee1s brie' that the a(ard o' "5,555.55 as
civil inde$nity 'or the death o' Clarito 8lace should be increased to "/5,555.55 in accordance (ith
our rulin) in "eople vs. Sison, 1J9 SC<; 64.
W,7<7F6<7, the appealed decision is hereby ;FF:<&7C, (ith $odi'ication o' the civil inde$nity
a(arded to the heirs o' the victi$, Clarito 8lace, (hich is hereby increased to "/5,555.55.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Cruz, 8ellosillo and Luiason, JJ ., concur.
PEOPLE O4 THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO6 ALBERT
ABRIOL, MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JAN7ARIO
5OS5OS, accused-appellants.
5 E C I S I O N
87IS7MBING, J.9
@n a&&ea# is t,e de*ision dated (a6 1-, 1995, o1 t,e Regiona# +ria# %ourt o1 %ebu %it6,
Iran*, 1/, in %rimina# %ases Nos. %IB!3/35/ 1or murder and %IB!33660 1or i##ega#
&ossession o1 1irearms, 1inding a&&e##ants '#bert 'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero, and Januario Dosdos
gui#t6 be6ond reasonab#e doubt o1 murder and vio#ation o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 1866 on
;##ega# Possession o1 =irearms. ;ts de*reta# &ortion reads:
>:?R?=@R?, )udgement is ,ereb6 rendered:
;n %rimina# %ase No. %IB!3/35/ 1or (urder, t,e %ourt 1inds a**used '#bert 'brio#,
(a*ario 'ste##ero and Januario Dosdos, GB;7+ o1 murder be6ond reasonab#e doubt
and ea*, is ,ereb6 senten*ed to re!lusion perpetua, 2it, t,e a**essor6 &ena#ties
&rovided b6 #a2H to indemni16 t,e ,eirs o1 de*eased '#e)andro =#ores t,e sum o1
P5/,///.//H a*tua# damages o1 P3/,///.//, re&resenting a reasonab#e amount 1or t,e
emba#ming, vigi#, 2a3e, and buria# eG&ensesH P3/,///.// 1or attorne6As 1eesH and to
&a6 t,e *osts.
=or insu11i*ien*6 o1 eviden*e, a**used Gaudioso Nava#es is ,ereb6 '%QB;++?D
2it, !osts de oi!io.
;n %rimina# %ase No. %IB!33660 1or ;##ega# Possession o1 =irearms, a**used '#bert
'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero and Januario Dosdos, are ,ereb6 senten*ed to su11er an
indeterminate &ena#t6 o1 10 6ears, 8 mont,s and 1 da6 to 1- 6ears and 0 mont,s and
to &a6 t,e *osts.
+,e .38 *a#iber revo#ver, "N P/8005 and t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 2it, "N PG@
135/6 and "N 5.069, are ,ereb6 *on1is*ated and 1or1eited in 1avor o1 t,e Government
and a**ording#6, t,e %#er3 o1 %ourt o1 t,is Iran*, is dire*ted to turn over t,e said
1irearms to t,e %,ie1 o1 Po#i*e, %ebu %it6, or to t,e =irearms and ?G&#osives @11i*e
8=?@9 o1 t,e PNP Region -, u&on &ro&er re*ei&t.
+,e %ebu %it6 %,ie1 o1 Po#i*e is dire*ted to re#ease immediate#6 u&on re*ei&t ,ereo1,
t,e &erson o1 Gaudioso Nava#es, un#ess t,ere be an6 ot,er va#id reason 1or ,is
*ontinued detention.
"@ @RD?R?D.
415
+,is )udgment 2as t,e *u#mination o1 &ro*eedings beginning 2it, t,e 'mended ;n1ormation
dated "e&tember 6, 1993, do*3eted as %rimina# %ase No. %IB!3/35/, 2,erein a&&e##ants P@.
'#bert 'brio# o1 t,e P,i#i&&ine Nationa# Po#i*e 8PNP9, (a*ario 'ste##ero, Januario Dosdos, and
PNP PE%,ie1 ;ns&e*tor Gaudioso Nava#es 2ere *,arged 2it, murder a##eged#6 *ommitted as
1o##o2s:
+,at on or about t,e 5
t,
da6 o1 June, 1993, at about 11:5/ P.(., in t,e %it6 o1 %ebu,
P,i#i&&ines and 2it,in t,e )urisdi*tion o1 t,is :onorab#e %ourt, t,e said a**used,
armed 2it, ,andguns, *onniving and *on1ederating toget,er and mutua##6 ,e#&ing one
anot,er, 2it, trea*,er6 and evident &remeditation, 2it, de#iberate intent, 2it, intent
to 3i##, did t,en and t,ere s,ot one '#e)andro =#ores a#ias '#eG 2it, t,e said ,andguns,
,itting ,im on t,e di11erent &arts o1 ,is bod6, t,ereb6 in1#i*ting u&on ,im t,e
1o##o2ing &,6si*a# in)uries:
%'RD;@ R?"P;R'+@R 'RR?"+ DB? +@ ":@%N 'ND
:?(@RR:'G? "?%@ND'R +@ (B7+;P7? GBN":@+ >@BND" +@
+:? +RBNN 'ND +:? :?'D
as a *onseFuen*e o1 2,i*, t,e said '#e)andro =#ores a#ias '#eG died #ater.
%@N+R'R +@ 7'>.
4.5
't t,e time o1 t,e in*ident, a&&e##ant 'brio#, a &o#i*eman &revious#6 detai#ed as a )ai#guard
at t,e Iagong Iu,a6 Re,abi#itation %enter 8IIR%9 in %ebu %it6, 2as ,imse#1 a detention
&risoner in IIR%. :e 2as *,arged 2it, murder, a non!bai#ab#e o11ense, in %rimina# %ase No.
%IB!.8803 be1ore t,e R+% o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 10.
435
'&&e##ant 'ste##ero 2as a 1ormer &risoner at IIR%, 2,o ,ad served time 1or grave t,reats.
405
+,e 2arden t,en, %,ie1 ;ns&e*tor Nava#es,
455
em&#o6ed ,im as ,is &ersona# driver and genera#
1a*totum.
465
Nava#es 2as 1ound gui#t6 o1 grave mis*ondu*t in 'dministrative %ase No. /1!93 1or
a##o2ing 'brio# and Dosdos out o1 IIR% on t,e da6 o1 t,e murder and 2as summari#6
dismissed 1rom t,e &o#i*e 1or*e.
Dosdos ,ad been *onvi*ted b6 t,e R+% o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 1/, o1 ,ig,2a6 robber6 in
%rimina# %ase No. %IB!1815. but Nava#es 1ai#ed to a*t on t,e mittimus ordering DosdosA
trans1er to t,e nationa# &enitentiar6, and ,e remained in IIR%.
4-5
'brio# and Dosdos en)o6ed
s&e*ia# &rivi#eges at IIR% as t,e 2ardenAs errand bo6s
485
or Ktrustees.L
+,e vi*tim, '#e)andro =#ores a#ias K'#eG,L 2as a 1ormer &o#i*eman. :e 2as dismissed 1rom
t,e PNP in 'ugust 199. a1ter testing &ositive 1or &ro,ibited drugs.
495
'brio#, 'ste##ero, and Dosdos 2ere a#so indi*ted 1or i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms in
%rimina# %ase No. %IB!33660. +,e *,arge s,eet reads:
+,at on or about t,e 5
t,
da6 o1 June 1993 at about 11:08 P.(. in t,e %it6 o1 %ebu,
P,i#i&&ines, and 2it,in t,e )urisdi*tion o1 t,is :onorab#e %ourt, t,e said a**used,
*onniving and *on1ederating toget,er and mutua##6 ,e#&ing one anot,er, 2it,
de#iberate intent, did t,en and t,ere 3ee& under t,eir *ontro# and &ossession t,e
1o##o2ing:
1. one 819 .38 *a#. revo#ver 8'rms*or9 2it, "N P/8005 2it, siG
em&t6 s,e##sH
.. one 819 .05 *a#. &isto# 8%o#t9 2it, "N P6/135/6 2it, 9 #ive
ammunitions 8si*9H
3. one 819 .05 *a#. Pisto# 8%o#t9 2it, "N 5.069 2it, 1ive #ive
ammunitions.
2it,out 1irst obtaining a &ermit or #i*ense t,ere1or 1rom *om&etent aut,orit6.
%@N+R'R +@ 7'>.
41/5
>,en arraigned, a## t,e a**used &#eaded not gui#t6 to bot, *,arges. "in*e t,e indi*tments
arose 1rom t,e same in*ident, t,e *ases 2ere )oint#6 tried.
+,e 1a*ts o1 t,e *ase are as 1o##o2s:
't around 11:5/ P.(., June 5, 1993, Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., a radio ne2s re&orter t,en aboard
,is )ee&, ,ad )ust rea*,ed t,e 'I"!%IN *om&ound in P. de# Rosario "treet, %ebu %it6, 2,en ,e
,eard a *ou&#e o1 guns,ots. :e #oo3ed around and sa2 a man running unsteadi#6 to2ards t,e
interse*tion o1 P. de# Rosario "treet and Jones 'venue 8@smeOa Iou#evard9. +,e man 2as
s,outing -abang) tabang. 8K:e#&P :e#&PL9. "ta. %ru$, Jr., sa2 a red KJi116L ma3e a B!turn near
t,e gate o1 t,e *it6 *entra# s*,oo# t,at near#6 ran over t,e man s,outing 1or ,e#&. +,e man turned
ba*3 and staggered to2ards t,e dire*tion o1 Ia*a#so 'venue and Brge##o Private Road, but a1ter
a 1e2 meters on 2obb#6 #egs, ,e sto&&ed and *o##a&sed.
(ean2,i#e, t,e KJi116L 1o##o2ed. ;t sto&&ed beside t,e 1a##en 1igure and a ta##, t,in man
a#ig,ted. +,e man 1ired severa# s,ots at t,e &rostrate 1igure. :e boarded t,e KJi116L 2,i*, s&ed
a2a6 to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., moved ,is )ee& and 1o*used its ,ead#ig,ts
on t,e vi*tim.
;n t,e meantime, P@3 '#eGander Ruste#a 2as at a vu#*ani$ing s,o& near t,e interse*tion o1
Ia*a#so 'venue and 7eon Ni#at "treet, 2,en ,e ,eard guns,ots *oming 1rom t,e nort,. :e ran
to2ards 2,ere t,e guns,ots *ame and sa2 &eo&#e s*am&ering. '## o1 a sudden, t,e KJi116L 2it,
t,ree &ersons on board s&ed &ast ,im and made an abru&t #e1t turn at 7eon Ni#at "treet. Ruste#a
immediate#6 radioed 1or assistan*e. (inutes #ater, &atro# *ar No. ./1 2it, P@. :erbert Ramos
on board arrived. Ruste#a boarded t,e *ar and t,e6 1o##o2ed t,e KJi116,L 2,i#e broad*asting an
a#arm to &o#i*e ,eadFuarters and ot,er mobi#e &atro# *ars.
@n nearb6 %o#on "treet, "P@1 ?#ea$ar 'brigana and P@. Romeo 'be##ana 2ere *ruising
aboard &atro# *ar No. ./8, 2,en t,e6 ,eard a radio message t,at t,e sus&e*ts in t,e s,ooting
in*ident 2ere aboard a KJi116.L 's t,e6 turned #e1t at 7eon Ni#at "treet, t,e6 sa2 t,e KJi116L
,eading to2ards %arbon (ar3et. +,e6 &ursued t,e KJi116L 2,i*, sto&&ed in 1ront o1 t,e Don
Ios*o Iui#ding near IIR%, 2,en &o#i*e *ar No. ./5, 2it, P@ ?ugenio Iadrinas and P@.
Gera#d %ue aboard, b#o*3ed t,e KJi116AsL &at,. %ue 1ired a 2arning s,ot and t,ree &ersons
a#ig,ted. +,e driver 2as a&&e##ant 'ste##ero, 2,om %ue ,ad re*ogni$ed and seen be1ore at t,e
IIR%. 'brigana and %ue a&&roa*,ed t,e trio 2,o stood a meter a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116.L "P@1
'brigana 1ris3ed 'brio# and sei$ed 1rom ,is 2aist a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, seria# number
P@8085 2it, siG 869 em&t6 s,e##s in its *6#inder.
4115
Bnder 'brio#As seat, t,e &o#i*e a#so 1ound a .
05 *a#iber &isto# bearing seria# number PG@ 135/6 2it, nine 899 #ive rounds in its maga$ine and
anot,er .05 *a#iber &isto# 2it, seria# number 5.069 #oaded 2it, 1ive 859 un1ired bu##ets.
41.5
>,i#e t,e &atro# *ars 2ere *,asing t,e KJi116,L anot,er &o#i*e team &ro*eeded to t,e *rime
s*ene in res&onse to t,e a#arm. +,is team 1rom Po#i*e "tation No. 3 in "an Ni*o#as, %ebu %it6
rus,ed t,e vi*tim to t,e %ebu %it6 (edi*a# %enter, 2,ere ,e 2as &ronoun*ed dead on
arriva#. (ean2,i#e, P@3 %e#so "evi##e, Jr., a ,omi*ide investigator o1 Po#i*e "tation No. 3 1ound
1our 809 .05 *a#iber s,e##s some 1our 809 1eet a2a6 1rom t,e vi*timAs bod6, and t2o 8.9 de1ormed
s#ugs 2,ere t,e vi*tim ,ad #ain, and submitted t,em to t,e Region - PNP %rime 7aborator6 1or
ba##isti*s testing.
4135
Dr. 7adis#ao Dio#a, Jr., %,ie1 o1 t,e PNP Region - %rime 7aborator6 auto&sied t,e vi*timAs
bod6. :e 1ound t,at t,e *ause o1 t,e vi*timAs deat, 2as K*ardiores&irator6 arrest due to s,o*3
and ,emorr,age se*ondar6 to mu#ti&#e guns,ot 2ounds to t,e trun3 and ,ead.L
4105
Dr. Dio#a
re*overed a .38 *a#iber s#ug 1rom t,e *or&se, 2,i*, ,e #ater submitted 1or ba##isti*s eGamination.
"P@0 7emue# %aser, ba##isti*ian o1 t,e PNP %rime 7aborator6, re&orted t,e 1o##o2ing:
1. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed KJ'!1L to KJ'!3L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .05 2it, "N:
PG@135/6H
.. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed KJ'!0L and K?!69!6L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .05 &isto# 2it, "N:
5.069H
3. =ired bu##et meta# )a*3et mar3ed KJ'!5L &ossesses simi#ar individua# *,ara*teristi*s
mar3ings 2it, test bu##ets 1ired 1rom *a# .05 &isto# 2it, "N: PG@135/6H
0. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed K?!05!1L to K?!05!6L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .38 Rev. "N:
P8005H
5. =ired bu##ets mar3ed as KJ'!6L and K7DL &ossesses simi#ar individua# *,ara*teristi*
mar3ings 2it, t,e test bu##ets 1ired 1rom *a# .38 Rev. "N: P8005.
4155
+,e 1o##o2ing da6, a&&e##ants under2ent a &ara11in test. +,e ,ands o1 a&&e##ants 2ere 1ound
&ositive 1or gun&o2der residues. ' *,emistr6 test on t,e 1irearms s,o2ed t,at t,e t,ree
,andguns 2ere a#so &ositive. ;ns&e*tor (6rna 'reo#a, %,ie1 o1 t,e %,emistr6 "e*tion o1 t,e
PNP Region - %rime 7aborator6, stated in ,er testimon6 t,at t,e 1irearms ,ad been 1ired,
4165
and
t,at a&&e##ants ,ad 1ired t,e guns 2it,in a &eriod o1 sevent6!t2o 8-.9 ,ours &rior to t,e
eGamination.
+,e 2ido2 and re#atives o1 t,e vi*tim testi1ied on t,e &ossib#e motive be,ind t,e
3i##ing. +,e6 *#aimed t,e vi*tim, a *on1essed drug user, ma6 ,ave been Krubbed outL on t,e
orders o1 Nava#es 1or 1ai#ure to remit P31,/// as &ro*eeds 1rom &us,ing &ro,ibited drugs. '1ter
1ai#ing to de#iver t,e drug mone6 to Nava#es, 1or 2,om ,e 2as re&eated#6 &us,ing drugs, t,e
vi*tim 2ent into ,iding, but #ater returned to %ebu %it6 be*ause ,e missed ,is 1ami#6.
41-5
'&&e##ants den6 t,e a**usations. 'brio# averred t,at ,e and Dosdos 2ere among t,e severa#
KtrusteesL at IIR% assigned to 2or3 in t,e 3it*,en. '&&e##ant 'ste##ero, 2,o 2as t,e 2ardenAs
driver, 2as a#so in *,arge o1 mar3eting 1or t,e &risonersA 1ood. @n t,e da6 o1 t,e in*ident,
'ste##ero rea#i$ed t,at t,ere 2as no mone6 1or t,e neGt da6As mar3eting so ,e as3ed 'brio# to
a**om&an6 ,im to t,e ,ouse o1 Nava#es, but sin*e ,e 2as not in, t,e6 returned to IIR% and sa2
Nava#es an ,our #ater. '1ter t,e6 re*eived t,e mone6 1rom Nava#esA nie*e on t,eir 2a6 ba*3 to
IIR%, Dosdos ,eard guns,ots. 'brio# ordered 'ste##ero, 2,o 2as driving, to turn ba*3. +,en
'brio# *#aimed ,e sa2 a ta##, s#im man a#ig,t 1rom a KJi116L and s,oot at a &rone 1igure on t,e
ground. "e*onds #ater, t,e gunman returned to t,e KJi116,L 2,i*, s&ed o11. 'brio# said ,e
ordered 'ste##ero to *,ase t,at KJi116L but it ,ad too mu*, o1 a ,eadstart and t,e6 #ost sig,t o1
it. 'brio# ordered 'ste##ero to &ro*eed to IIR%. 't %o#on "treet, t,e6 ,eard guns,ots be,ind
t,em and t,e b#aring siren o1 a &o#i*e *ar. +,e6 eG&#ained t,at sin*e t,e6 2ere detention
&risoners, t,e6 ,ad to evade meeting t,e &o#i*e. +,e6 ,eard more gun s,ots. B&on rea*,ing
IIR%, t,e gates 2ere *#osed, so t,e6 drove to t,e o#d air&ort. @n t,eir 2a6 ba*3 to IIR%
severa# &o#i*e *ars b#o*3ed t,em and arrested t,em. "P@0 ?#ea$ar 'brigana 1ris3ed ,im and
too3 t,e .38 servi*e revo#ver 1rom ,is 2aist.
4185
'brio# a#so testi1ied t,at ,e surrendered ,is servi*e 1irearm to t,e IIR% 'dministrative
@11i*er 2,en ,e 2as served a 2arrant o1 arrest 1or murder in %rimina# %ase No. %IB!
.8803. :o2ever, t,e ,andgun 2as de1e*tive and it 2as returned to ,im 1or re&air b6 'rms*or,
and u&on re&air ,e ,anded it over to t,e IIR% armor6. +,e armorer returned it to ,im sin*e
t,ere 2as no &#a*e to 3ee& it. :e said t,at a#t,oug, ,e 2as a detention &risoner, ,e ,ad 6et to be
dis*,arged 1rom t,e servi*e. :e 2as assigned guard and es*ort duties b6 t,e 2arden.
4195
'brio#
said t,at on t,e da6 o1 t,e in*ident ,e 2as, as a IIR% )ai#guard, aut,ori$ed to *arr6 ,is servi*e
1irearm.
4./5
:e &resented a (emorandum Re*ei&t
4.15
aut,ori$ing ,im to *arr6 t,e government!
issued .38 revo#ver.
4..5
@n t,e 2itness stand, 'ste##ero and Dosdos narrated a simi#ar version o1 t,e in*ident as did
'brio#. Iot, ve,ement#6 denied ,aving an6 3no2#edge o1 t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 1ound b6
P@3 %ue in t,e KJi116.L
4.35
+,e de1ense a#so &resented Dr. Jesus P. %erna, medi*o!#ega# o11i*er o1 t,e %ebu %it6 PNP
%ommand, to testi16 on t,e *a#iber o1 t,e 1irearms 2,i*, mig,t ,ave *aused t,e guns,ot 2ounds
o1 t,e vi*tim. Re#6ing on t,e Ne*ro&s6 Re&ort &re&ared b6 Dr. Dio#a, Dr. %erna de*#ared t,at
2ound nos. 1 and ., 2,i*, ea*, measured /.6 *m. b6 /.6 *m., ma6 ,ave been *aused b6 a .38
*a#iber 1irearm. 's to 2ound nos. 3 and 0, 2,i*, ea*, measured /.5 *m. b6 /.5 *m., it 2as
&ossib#e t,at a .38 ,andgun 2as used, or one 2it, a sma##er bore. Dr. %erna o&ined t,at a .05
&isto# *ou#d not ,ave in1#i*ted a## t,e 1oregoing 2ounds, as t,e entr6 &oints 2ere too sma## 1or a .
05 *a#iber bu##et. >it, res&e*t to t,e gra$ing 2ounds 1ound on t,e vi*timAs bod6, Dr. %erna
testi1ied t,at it 2as im&ossib#e to determine t,e *a#iber o1 t,e 1irearm used.
4.05
+,e tria# *ourt 1ound a&&e##antsA version o1 t,e in*ident neit,er *onvin*ing and *redib#e and,
as ear#ier stated, it be#ieved t,e &rose*utionAs version. PetitionersA 2ere *onvi*ted o1 t,e o11enses
*,arged.
:en*e, t,is a&&ea#, 2it, a&&e##ants assigning t,e 1o##o2ing errors:
I
+:? 7@>?R %@BR+ ?RR?D ;N %@N<;%+;NG +:? '%%B"?D!'PP?77'N+"
@= +:? %R;(?" @= (BRD?R 'ND ;77?G'7 P@""?"";@N @= =;R?'R("
D?"P;+? +:? =7;(" 'ND BNR?7;'I7? ?<;D?N%? PR?"?N+?D I +:?
PR@"?%B+;@N.
II
+:? 7@>?R %@BR+ ?RR?D ;N =;ND;NG +:? GB;7+ @= +:? '%%B"?D!
'PP?77'N+" @= +:? %R;(? @= (BRD?R 'ND ;77?G'7 P@""?"";@N @=
=;R?'R(" I?@ND R?'"@N'I7? D@BI+.
't issue is 2,et,er t,e &rose*utionAs eviden*e, 2,i*, is main#6 *ir*umstantia#, su11i*es to
*onvi*t a&&e##ants 1or murder and vio#ation o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 1866, be6ond reasonab#e
doubt.
A. Criinal Case No. C!"-#$#%$
@n t,eir *onvi*tion 1or murder, a&&e##ants argue t,at t,e &rose*utionAs *ir*umstantia#
eviden*e against t,em is 2ea3, ambiguous, and in*on*#usive. "&e*i1i*a##6, a&&e##ants *ontend
t,at t,e6 s,ou#d be a*Fuitted be*ause:
/irst, e6e2itness Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., did not &ersona##6 identi16 t,em as t,e *u#&rits. 't
no &oint in ,is testimon6 did e6e2itness "ta. %ru$, Jr., &ositive#6 identi16 an6 o1 t,e a&&e##ants or
a&&e##ant 'brio# as t,e gunman. "ta. %ru$, Jr. on#6 gave a genera# des*ri&tion o1 t,e assai#ants,
des&ite attem&ts to ma3e ,im give a *ategori*a# identi1i*ation. :e admitted ,e 1ound out t,e
name o1 'brio# 1rom te#evision and ne2s re&orts and *ou#d not identi16 'brio# as t,e one 2,om
,e sa2 s,ot t,e vi*tim. +,e trans*ri&t o1 ,is testimon6 is revea#ing.
Q: +,en a1ter t,e Ji116 sto&&ed in 1ront o1 t,e 1a##en vi*tim, 2,at ,a&&ened neGtQ
': ; sa2 t,at t,ere 2as a man 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116. :e 2as a ta##, t,in 1e##o2 2,o
disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116 and at t,e same time, ,e s,ot t,e 1a##en vi*tim.
Q: :o2 man6 times did ,e s,oot t,e vi*timQ
': ; *annot *ount attorne6 but ; sa2 ,im s,ooting t,e vi*tim.
Q: ;n 6our a11idavit, 6ou said t,at t,e &erson 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116, 2,ose name 6ou
3no2 #ater on as P@. '#bert 'brio#, PNP, s,ot t,e vi*tim in t,e di11erent &arts o1 ,is bod6. ;1
'#bert 'brio# is no2 in t,e *ourtroom, 2i## 6ou &#ease &oint to ,imQ
': ; 2i## 3no2 ,im attorne6 be*ause o1 t,e +< s,o2s and ne2s&a&ers.
%@BR+: 8+@ >;+N?""9
Q: ou are re1erring to t,e name o1 t,at man 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116 and 1ired severa# s,ots
at t,e 1a##en vi*timQ
': es, ; 3no2 ,is name our :onor on 8si*9 t,e ne2s *ast.
%@BR+: 8+@ >;+N?""9
Q: '#rig,t, 1orget t,e ne2s. +,e man 6ou sa2 2,en ,e a#ig,ted 1rom t,e Ji116 and &oured 8si*9
severa# bu##ets on t,e 1a##en man, #oo3 around i1 ,e is in t,e *ourtroomQ
': I !annot identiy 0our 1onor.
%@BR+:
Q: ou *annotQ
': 2ut 3be!ause4 what I saw is a man who is tall and thin be!ause it was dark.
G G G
Q: :o2 man6 &ersons 1ired a s,ot at t,e 1a##en manQ
': ; on#6 sa2 t,at man our :onor 2,o a#ig,ted 1rom t,e Ji116.
Q: Did 6ou see ,is &,6si*a# 1eaturesQ
': Only 5t6his) I !an only tell his height) he was tall and his body build is thin. -all and
thin. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied9
4.55
"in*e t,e so#e e6e2itness *ou#d not identi16 t,e gunman and ,is *om&anions, t,e
&rose*ution re#ied on *ir*umstantia# eviden*e 1rom 2,i*, t,e tria# *ourt *ou#d dra2 its 1indings
and *on*#usion o1 *u#&abi#it6.
4.65
%ir*umstantia# eviden*e ma6 be re#ied u&on, as in t,is *ase,
2,en to insist on dire*t testimon6 2ou#d resu#t in setting 1e#ons 1ree.
Se!ond, a&&e##ants assert t,at t,e &ara11in tests are )udi*ia##6 re*ogni$ed as unre#iab#e and
in*on*#usive. ' &ara11in test *ou#d estab#is, t,e &resen*e or absen*e o1 nitrates on t,e
,and. :o2ever, it *annot estab#is, t,at t,e sour*e o1 t,e nitrates 2as t,e dis*,arge o1
1irearms. Nitrates are a#so 1ound in substan*es ot,er t,an gun&o2der. ' &erson 2,o tests
&ositive ma6 ,ave ,and#ed one or more substan*es 2it, t,e same &ositive rea*tion 1or nitrates
su*, as eG&#osives, 1ire2or3s, 1erti#i$ers, &,arma*euti*a#s, toba**o, and #eguminous
&#ants. :en*e, t,e &resen*e o1 nitrates s,ou#d on#6 be ta3en as an indi*ation o1 a &ossibi#it6 t,at
a &erson ,as 1ired a gun.
4.-5
:o2ever, it must be borne in mind t,at a&&e##ants 2ere not *onvi*ted
on t,e so#e basis o1 t,e &ara11in test.
-hird, a&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e auto&s6 re&ort o1 &rose*ution 2itness Dr. 7adis#ao Dio#a
revea#ed serious ambiguities.
4.85
Dr. Jesus P. %erna, using t,e same auto&s6 re&ort, said t,at t,e
guns,ot 2ounds measuring /.6 G /.6 *entimeters *ou#d not ,ave been *aused b6 a .05 *a#iber
&isto# be*ause an entran*e 2ound o1 t,at si$e 2as too sma## 1or a .05 *a#iber bu##et.
4.95
Dr. %erna
*#aimed t,at a 2ound in1#i*ted b6 a .05 &isto# 2ou#d ,ave an entr6 &oint o1 an62,ere 1rom 1.1 to
1.3 *entimeters. :e de*#ared t,at it 2as 2it, more reason t,at an entran*e 2ound measuring .5 G
.5 *entimeters *ou#d not be *aused b6 a *a#iber .05 bu##et.
43/5
"in*e no 1irearm sma##er t,an a .38
*a#iber &isto# 2as sei$ed 1rom a&&e##ants, t,e6 *#aim t,e observation o1 Dr. %erna on#6 s,o2s
t,at t,e6 *ou#d not ,ave s,ot t,e vi*tim.
>e note, ,o2ever, t,at during *ross!eGamination, Dr. Dio#a *are1u##6 eG&#ained t,at a
1irearmAs *a#iber is not t,e on#6 basis 1or determining t,e *ause o1 t,e guns,ot 2ound. :e said:
'++. R?(@+;QB?:
Q: "o, norma##6 t,e si$e o1 .5 *m G .5 *m 2,i*, is t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 guns,ot 2ound No. 3 t,is
ma6 ,ave been *aused b6 a 1irearm o1 #esser *a#iber t,an *a#iber .38Q
': Not ne*essari#6. +,ere is a ver6 sma## di11eren*e in t,e si$e and t,is does not &re*#ude t,at
guns,ot 2ound No. 3 ma6 ,ave a#so been *aused b6 t,e same 1irearm 2,i*, *aused guns,ot
2ounds Nos. 1 and .. -here are a!tors whi!h oten ae!t the si(e o the wounds at the time o
the e7amination) perhaps a re!ission 5si!6 o the skin in the area where gunshot &ound %o. 8 was
inli!ted so that gunshot wound be!omes smaller.
Q: Did 6ou not sa6 t,at norma##6 t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 t,e guns,ot 2ounds var6 2it, t,e *a#iber o1
t,e 1irearm 2,i*, *aused it, so t,at t,e &oint o1 entr6 *aused b6 one 1irearm o1 a &arti*u#ar *a#iber
ma6 be bigger t,an t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 a guns,ot 2ound *aused b6 anot,er 1irearm o1 #esser
*a#iberQ
': I told you o other a!tors that oten ae!t the si(e o the entry o the bullet although the !aliber
is one basis o the si(e o the wounds.
G G G
Q: >i## 6ou eG&#ain 1urt,er on t,at be*ause m6 understanding is t,at .5 *m 2ound must &er1or*e be
*aused b6 a 1irearm o1 #esser *a#iber t,an t,at 2,i*, *aused t,e .6 *m 2oundQ
': 's ; said t,ere are ranges in t,e si$e o1 t,e 2ounds. +,e varian*e in t,e si$e o1 t,e 2ound 2,en
it is minima# does not eG*#ude t,e &ossibi#it6 t,at a 2ound 2it, a .5 *m si$e and .6 *m si$e *ou#d
,ave been *aused b6 t,e same *a#iber. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied9.
4315
+,e @11i*e o1 t,e "o#i*itor Genera# &oints out t,at Dr. Dio#aAs testimon6 is su&&orted b6 Dr.
Pedro P. "o#is, a medi*a# eG&ert, in ,is boo3 entit#ed Legal *edi!ine. +,e 1a*tors 2,i*, *ou#d
ma3e t,e 2ound o1 entran*e bigger t,an t,e *a#iber in*#ude: 819 s,ooting in *onta*t or near 1ireH
8.9 de1ormit6 o1 t,e bu##et 2,i*, enteredH 839 a bu##et 2,i*, mig,t ,ave entered t,e s3in
side2iseH and 809 an a*ute angu#ar a&&roa*, o1 t,e bu##et. :o2ever, 2,ere t,e 2ound o1
entran*e is sma##er t,an t,e 1irearmAs *a#iber, t,e same ma6 be attributed to t,e 1ragmentation o1
t,e bu##et be1ore entering t,e s3in or to a !ontra!tion o the elasti! tissues o the skin8stress
su&&#ied9.
43.5
Dr. Dio#a testi1ied t,at a .05 *a#iber &isto# *ou#d ,ave *aused t,e gra$ing 2ounds on
t,e vi*timAs ,ead and eGtremities.
4335
Dr. %erna *orroborated Dr. Dio#aAs 1indings in t,is regard.
4305
"u*, eG&ert o&inions dis&rove a&&e##antsA t,eor6 t,at t,e .05 *a#iber ,andguns *on1is*ated
1rom t,em *ou#d not ,ave been used in 3i##ing t,e vi*tim.
/ourth, a&&e##ants a##ege t,at t,e testimon6 o1 PE;ns&e*tor 7emue# %aser, t,e &rose*utionAs
ba##isti*s eG&ert, *#ear#6 s,o2s t,at: 819 :e is ignorant about su*, ba##isti*s instruments su*, as
t,e mi*rometer, goniometer, and &ressure barre#.
4355
8.9 :e is not *onversant 2it, Kt,e reFuired
re1eren*es *on*erning ba##isti*s,L &arti*u#ar#6 boo3s on t,e sub)e*t b6 1oreign aut,orities.
4365
839
:e *ou#d not Ks*ienti1i*a##6 determine t,e *a#iber o1 a bu##et.L
43-5
"in*e PE;ns&e*tor %aser #a*3ed
adeFuate training and eG&ertise in ba##isti*s, t,e6 *#aim t,at ,is o&inion t,at t,e test bu##ets and
*artridges mat*,ed t,e s#ugs and *artridges re*overed 1rom t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime 2as not
re#iab#e. '&&e##ants a#so assai# %aserAs 1ai#ure to ta3e t,e ne*essar6 &,otogra&,s to su&&ort ,is
1indings.
'n eG&ert 2itness is Kone 2,o be#ongs to t,e &ro1ession or *a##ing to 2,i*, t,e sub)e*t
matter o1 t,e inFuir6 re#ates and 2,o &ossesses s&e*ia# 3no2#edge on Fuestions on 2,i*, ,e
&ro&oses to eG&ress an o&inion.L
4385
+,ere is no de1inite standard o1 determining t,e degree o1
s3i## or 3no2#edge t,at a 2itness must &ossess in order to testi16 as an eG&ert. ;t is su11i*ient t,at
t,e 1o##o2ing 1a*tors be &resent: 819 training and edu*ationH 8.9 &arti*u#ar, 1irst!,and 1ami#iarit6
2it, t,e 1a*ts o1 t,e *aseH and 839 &resentation o1 aut,orities or standards u&on 2,i*, ,is o&inion
is based.
4395
+,e Fuestion o1 2,et,er a 2itness is &ro&er#6 Fua#i1ied to give an eG&ert o&inion on
ba##isti*s rests 2it, t,e dis*retion o1 t,e tria# *ourt.
40/5
;n giving *reden*e to %aserAs eG&ert testimon6, t,e tria# *ourt eG&#ained:
+,e de1ense do2ngraded t,e *a&abi#it6 o1 %aser in 1orensi*s ba##isti*s and identi16ing
1irearms. (u*, stress is given to t,e absen*e o1 &,otogra&,s o1 ,is
eGamination. Nonet,e#ess, t,e %ourt is satis1ied 82it,9 %aserAs eGamination, 1indings
and *on*#usions 2it, t,e use o1 a mi*ros*o&e. %aserAs *on*#usion based on ,is
eGamination deserves *redit. :e 1ound t,e im&ressions on t,e &rimer o1 t,e 1ired
*artridges t,at 2ere test!1ired to ,ave t,e same *,ara*teristi*s 2it, t,ose re*overed at
t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime. >,enever a triggerman &um&s a bu##et 8into9 t,e bod6 o1 ,is
vi*tim, ,e re#eases a *,un3 o1 *on*rete eviden*e t,at binds ,im inse&arab#6 to ,is
a*t. ?ver6 gun barre# dee&#6 im&rints on ever6 bu##et its *,ara*teristi* mar3ing
&e*u#iar to t,at gun and t,at gun a#one. +,ese mar3ing mig,t be mi*ros*o&i* but t,e6
are terrib#6 vo*a# in announ*ing t,eir origin. 'nd t,e6 are as in1a##ib#e 1or &ur&oses o1
identi1i*ation, as t,e &rint #e1t b6 t,e ,uman 1inger.
4015
>e agree 2it, t,e tria# *ourt t,at PE;ns&e*tor %aser Fua#i1ies as a ba##isti*s eG&ert. :e is a
#i*ensed *rimino#ogist, trained at t,e Ia##isti*s %ommand and 7aborator6 %enter in =ort
Ioni1a*io, in t,e PNP %rime 7aborator6 in %am& %rame, and in t,e Nationa# Iureau o1
;nvestigation. :e ,ad &revious#6 testi1ied as an eG&ert 2itness in at #east t2ent6!seven 8.-9
murder and ,omi*ide *ases a## over t,e *ountr6.
40.5
'n eG&ert 2itness need not &resent
*om&arative mi*ro&,otogra&,s o1 test bu##ets and *artridges to su&&ort ,is 1indings.
4035
?Gamination under a *om&arison mi*ros*o&e s,o2ing t,at t,e test bu##et and t,e eviden*e
bu##et bot, *ame 1rom t,e same gun is su11i*ient.
4005
(oreover, t,e ba##isti*ian *on*#usive#6 1ound
simi#ar *,ara*teristi* mar3ings in t,e eviden*e, test *artridges and s#ugs.
/ith, a&&e##ants aver t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to s,o2 an6 &#ausib#e motive 1or a&&e##ants
to 3i## t,e vi*tim. +,e &rose*ution tried to &rove t,at t,eir *o!a**used Nava#es instigated t,em to
3i## t,e vi*tim be*ause Nava#es ,ad a grudge against ,im. :o2ever, as Nava#es 2as a*Fuitted,
a&&e##ants insist t,at Nava#esA a*Fuitta# s,ou#d redound to t,eir bene1it sin*e no motive 2as
im&uted on t,eir &art.
(otive is not an essentia# e#ement o1 a *rime,
4055
&arti*u#ar#6 o1 murder.
4065
;t be*omes re#evant
on#6 2,ere t,ere is no &ositive eviden*e o1 an a**usedAs dire*t &arti*i&ation in t,e *ommission o1
a *rime.
40-5
"tated ot,er2ise, &roo1 o1 motive be*omes essentia# to a *onvi*tion on#6 2,ere t,e
eviden*e o1 an a**usedAs &arti*i&ation in an o11ense is *ir*umstantia#.
4085
' *are1u# &erusa# o1 t,e
"tateAs eviden*e revea#s t,at t,e &rose*ution ,ad estab#is,ed su11i*ient motive 2,6 a&&e##ants
3i##ed t,e vi*tim, inde&endent o1 an6 grudge 2,i*, Nava#es ma6 ,ave ,ad against t,e #atter. 't
t,e time o1 t,e in*ident, a&&e##ants 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere bot, IIR% detention &risoners
during Nava#esA term as 2arden. 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere treated as ,ig,#6 1avored KtrusteesL o1
Nava#es and 2ere never #o*3ed u&. 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere even a##o2ed to go out o1 IIR% to
do t,e mar3eting 1or t,e &risonAs 3it*,en. '&&e##ant 'ste##ero, a 1ormer detention &risoner, 2as
a#so a re*i&ient o1 Nava#esA 1avors. Nava#es ,ired 'ste##ero as ,is &ersona# driver a1ter t,e #atter
served ,is senten*e. Nava#es and t,e vi*tim, a 1ormer IIR% )ai#guard, 2ere asso*iates in
dea#ing 2it, &ro,ibited drugs, unti# t,e6 ,ad a 1a##ing out a##eged#6 a1ter t,e vi*tim 1ai#ed to
remit to Nava#es &ro*eeds 1rom t,e sa#e o1 i##ega# drugs amounting to P31,///. '&&e##ants
a&&arent#6 3i##ed t,e vi*tim to return t,e Ks&e*ia# 1avorsL Nava#es ,ad s,o2ered t,em. 7a*3 o1 a
motive does not ne*essari#6 &re*#ude *onvi*tion. Persons ,ave been 3i##ed or assau#ted 1or no
reason at a##, and 1riends,i& or even re#ations,i& is no deterrent to t,e *ommission o1 a *rime.
4095
Si7th) in t,e &resent *ase, a&&e##ants *ontend t,at t,e PNP *annot be &resumed to ,ave done
t,eir 2or3 sin*e it *ommitted errors and b#unders in trans1erring &ossession and *ustod6 o1 t,e
&,6si*a# eviden*e. +,e6 a##ege t,ere 2as a &ossibi#it6 t,at t,e eviden*e 2as tainted, &#anted, or
manu1a*tured. Iesides, a&&e##ants &oint out t,at t,e &resum&tion o1 regu#arit6 *annot &revai#
over t,e *onstitutiona# &resum&tion o1 inno*en*e o1 t,e a**used.
+,e re*ord s,o2s t,at t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers did not issue a*3no2#edgement re*ei&ts in some
instan*es. :o2ever, minor #a&ses do not mean t,at t,e "tate ,ad 1ai#ed to s,o2 an unbro3en
*,ain o1 *ustod6 o1 t,e sub)e*t 1irearms and ammunition, nor t,at said 1irearms and ammunition
2ere tam&ered. +,e s#ugs and s&ent s,e##s re*overed 1rom t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime and t,e
vi*timAs *or&se 2ere &#ain#6 identi1ied in o&en *ourt b6 t,e PNP investigators. +,e ba##isti*ian
testi1ied t,at t,e bu##ets and *artridges re*overed 1rom t,e *rime s*ene ,ad been 1ired 1rom t,e
sub)e*t ,andguns. Bnder t,ese *ir*umstan*es, 2e must res&e*t t,e &resum&tion o1 t,e regu#arit6
in t,e &er1orman*e o1 duties.
Seventh) a&&e##ants insist t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to s,o2 t,at t,e red KJi116L used b6
t,em and sei$ed b6 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers 2as t,e same ve,i*#e used b6 t,e gunmen 2,o 3i##ed
'#e)andro =#ores. '&&e##ants &oint out t,at P@3 Ruste#a, 2,o 2as aboard &o#i*e *ar No. ./1,
testi1ied t,at t,e6 #ost sig,t o1 t,e red KJi116L 2,i#e *,asing it a#ong 7eon Ni#at
"treet. '&&e##ants argue t,at t,e KJi116L 2,i*, 2as *,ased b6 &atro# *ar No. ./8 unti# it 2as
*ornered near IIR% b6 t,e ot,er &ursuing &atro# *ars 2as not t,e same ve,i*#e origina##6
sig,ted and tai#ed b6 &atro# *ar No. ./1.
;n re)e*ting t,is t,eor6, t,e tria# *ourt stated t,at:
MP@3 Ruste#a 2,o 2as nearb6, immediate#6 ran to t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime and met
t,e red )i116 2it, t,ree &ersons on board, t,at s&eedi#6 &assed b6 ,im &ro*eeding
to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. %ar ./8 readi#6 &i*3ed u& t,e trai# and &ursued t,e red
)i116 1rom 7eon Ni#at, t,en ma3ing abru&t turns on do2nto2n streets unti# ot,er &atro#
*ars )oined t,e *,ase and *a&tured t,em in 7a,ug, near t,e IIR%. +,e identit6 o1 t,e
red )i116 2as never interru&ted. (embers o1 t,e (obi#e Patro# %ars identi1ied in *ourt
2it,out batting an e6e#as,, t,e red )i116 2,i*, 2as t,e ob)e*t o1 t,e s,ooting
a#arm. +,ere 2as no interru&tion, no #et!u& in t,e *,ase, rig,t a1ter '#e)andro =#ores
2as s,ot and t,ere 2as no ot,er red )i116 t,at t,e *re2s o1 t,e 8&ursuing9 &atro# *ars
noti*ed.
+,e %ourt re)e*ts t,eir *#aim o1 inno*en*e, 1or t,eir ver6 a*ts be#ied t,e same.
'ste##ero *ou#d ,ave sto&&ed t,e )ee& u&on noti*ing t,at &atro# *ars 2ere a#read6
running a1ter t,em 2it, sirens, b#in3ers and 2arning s,ots 1ired. =rom 7eon Ni#at
"treet to 7a,ug air&ort, t,ere 2ere severa# &o#i*e stations t,at t,e6 *ou#d ,ave soug,t
s,e#ter and &o#i*e assistan*e. Gui#t ,as man6 2a6s o1 sur1a*ing. ;nstead o1 sto&&ing,
'brio# ordered 'ste##ero to a**e#erate t,eir s&eed. +,eir obvious &ur&ose 2as to e#ude
t,e &atro# *ars. =#ig,t is indi*ative o1 gui#t.
45/5
Iut, in t,is *ase, is t,e tota#it6 o1 t,e *ir*umstantia# eviden*e re#ied u&on b6 t,e tria# *ourt
su11i*ient to su&&ort a *onvi*tionQ
%ir*umstantia# eviden*e is t,at 2,i*, indire*t#6 &roves a 1a*t in issue. =or *ir*umstantia#
eviden*e to be su11i*ient to su&&ort a *onvi*tion, a## t,e *ir*umstan*es must be *onsistent 2it,
ea*, ot,er, *onsistent 2it, t,e t,eor6 t,at t,e a**used is gui#t6 o1 t,e o11ense *,arged, and at t,e
same time in*onsistent 2it, t,e ,6&ot,esis t,at ,e is inno*ent and 2it, ever6 ot,er &ossib#e,
rationa# ,6&ot,esis, eG*e&t t,at o1 gui#t.
4515
'n a**used *an be *onvi*ted on t,e basis o1
*ir*umstantia# eviden*e 2,ere a## t,e *ir*umstan*es *onstitute an unbro3en *,ain #eading to one
1air and reasonab#e *on*#usion &ointing to t,e a**used, to t,e eG*#usion o1 a## ot,ers, as t,e
*u#&rit.
45.5
;n our assessment, t,e &rose*utionAs eviden*e *onstitutes an unbro3en *,ain o1 events
#eading to t,e inevitab#e *on*#usion o1 gui#t on t,e &art o1 a&&e##ants. =irst, t,e 1ata# s,ooting o1
'#e)andro =#ores o**urred at around 11:5/ P.(. o1 June 5, 1993 in 1ront o1 t,e 'I"!%IN
*om&ound in %ebu %it6. +,e gunman, 2,o 2as ta## and t,in, a#ig,ted 1rom a red KJi116,L
&um&ed severa# bu##ets into t,e &rone vi*tim, and got ba*3 aboard t,e KJi116L 2,i*, t,en s&ed
to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. "e*ond, e6e2itness Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr.As des*ri&tion o1 t,e gunman
as Kta## and t,inL &er1e*t#6 mat*,es t,e &,6siFue o1 a&&e##ant 'brio#. +,ird, P@3 '#eGander
Ruste#a, 2,o 2as *#ose to t,e *rime s*ene, ,eard t,e guns,ots and ran to2ards t,e &#a*e 2,ere
t,e sound o1 guns,ots emanated. ' red KJi116L 2it, t,ree &ersons aboard 2,i$$ed b6 ,im and
abru&t#6 turned at 7eon Ni#at "treet. '1ter "ta. %ru$, Jr. in1ormed ,im t,at t,e gunmen 2ere
aboard a red KJi116,L Ruste#a boarded &atro# *ar No. ./1, radioed an a#arm, and *ommen*ed a
&ursuit o1 t,e 1#eeing ve,i*#e. Po#i*e *ar no. ./8 re*eived t,e a#arm, and on turning into 7eon
Ni#at "treet, en*ountered t,e s&eeding red KJi116.L +,e6 immediate#6 *,ased t,e KJi116L but 1ai#ed
to *at*, it. Po#i*e *ars Nos. ./8 and ./5 *ornered t,e ve,i*#e in 1ront o1 t,e Don Ios*o bui#ding
near IIR%. P@. Gera#d %ue, on &atro# *ar no. ./5 1ired a 2arning s,ot at t,e ve,i*#e and
dire*ted a## t,ose aboard to disembar3. +,ree men got out, 2it, t,eir ,ands raised. "P@1
'brigana, on &atro# *ar no. ./8 and P@. %ue a&&roa*,ed t,e trio. 'brigana 1ris3ed t,e man 2,o
2as seated in t,e 1ront &assenger seat, 2,o turned out to be a&&e##ant 'brio#, and re*overed 1rom
,is 2aist a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, siG em&t6 s,e##s. %ue sear*,ed t,e red KJi116L and 1ound
t2o #oaded .05 *a#iber &isto#s under t,e 1ront seat 2,ere 'brio# ,ad sat. @t,er &o#i*e o11i*ers
immediate#6 2ent to t,e *rime s*ene 2,ere t,e6 1ound t,e vi*tim bare#6 a#ive. P@3 "evi##e
retrieved 1our .05 *a#iber s#ugs and t2o de1ormed s#ugs at t,e s&ot 2,ere t,e vi*tim 2as
s,ot. +,e auto&s6 o1 t,e vi*timAs remains s,o2ed t,at ,e died o1 *ardio res&irator6 arrest due to
s,o*3 and ,emorr,age se*ondar6 to guns,ot 2ounds. ' de1ormed meta# )a*3et o1 a .38 *a#iber
s#ug 2as re*overed 1rom t,e *or&se. Ia##isti*s tests s,o2ed t,at t,e bu##ets and *artridges ,ad
identi*a# individua# *,ara*teristi*s 2it, t,ose o1 t,e test bu##ets and *artridges. Para11in tests
*ondu*ted on ea*, o1 t,e a&&e##ants, one da6 a1ter t,e in*ident, revea#ed t,at a## 2ere &ositive 1or
gun&o2der residues. +,e sub)e*t 1irearms 2ere a#so *,emi*a##6 eGamined and 1ound &ositive 1or
gun&o2der residue. Ie1ore t,e s,ooting in*ident, a&&e##ants 2ere seen at Nava#esA ,ouse unti#
around -:3/ P.(., 2,en t,e6 #e1t aboard Nava#esA red KJi116L 2it, 'ste##ero driving, 'brio# in t,e
1ront &assenger seat, and Dosdos in t,e ba*3 seat.
4535
'&&e##antsA seating arrangements 2ere
eGa*t#6 t,e same, severa# ,ours #ater, a1ter t,e6 2ere &ursued and *ornered b6 &o#i*e *ars near
IIR%. '&&e##ants admitted t,at t,e6 dro&&ed b6 t,e Nava#es residen*e at around -:// P.(. and
11:// P.(.
+,ese unbro3en *,ain o1 events &rove not on#6 a&&e##antsA identities but a#so t,eir
&arti*i&ation and *o##e*tive res&onsibi#it6 in t,e murder o1 '#e)andro =#ores. +,e6 revea# a unit6
o1 &ur&ose and *on*erted a*tion eviden*ing t,eir *ons&ira*6 to 3i## ,im. 'gainst t,is matriG o1
1a*ts and *ir*umstan*es, a&&e##antsA bare denia#s *annot stand. +,eir stor6 o1 *,asing a red
KJi116L is mere#6 a disingenuous diversion o1 no evidentiar6 va#ue 1or t,e de1ense.
=ina##6, t,e in1ormation 1or murder a##eged trea*,er6 and evident &remeditation. >e note,
t,oug,, t,at t,e tria# *ourt did not state 2,i*, *ir*umstan*e Fua#i1ied t,e 3i##ing into murder.
' revie2 o1 t,e re*ord 2ou#d revea# t,at t,ere 2as no evident &remeditation. +,ere is
evident &remeditation 2,en t,e 1o##o2ing are s,o2n: 8a9 t,e time 2,en t,e a**used determined
to *ommit t,e *rimeH 8b9 an a*t or a*ts mani1est#6 indi*ating t,at t,e a**used ,as *#ung to ,is
determinationH and 8*9 a #a&se o1 time bet2een t,e determination to *ommit t,e *rime and t,e
eGe*ution t,ereo1 su11i*ient to a##o2 ,im to re1#e*t u&on t,e *onseFuen*es o1 ,is a*t.
4505
?vident
&remeditation indi*ates de#iberate &#anning and &re&aration. No2,ere in t,e re*ord is it s,o2n
2,en and ,o2 a&&e##ants &#anned and &re&ared to 3i## t,e vi*tim.
%on*erning trea*,er6, ,o2ever, it 2as s,o2n t,at: 819 t,e means o1 eGe*ution em&#o6ed
gave t,e &erson atta*3ed no o&&ortunit6 to de1end ,imse#1 or reta#iateH and 8.9 t,e means o1
eGe*ution 2as de#iberate#6 or *ons*ious#6 ado&ted.
4555
+,ese t2in reFuisites 2ere adeFuate#6
&roved.
'&&e##ants ,ad su&eriorit6 in numbers and 2ea&ons. +,e vi*tim 2as 2it,out an6 means to
de1end ,imse#1 as no 2ea&on 2as 1ound or even intimated to be in ,is &ossession. +,e vi*tim
2as running a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116L &rior to t,e 3i##ing. +,at ,e 2as 2arned or t,reatened ear#ier
is o1 no moment. ?ven 2,en t,e vi*tim is 2arned o1 danger to ,is &erson, i1 t,e eGe*ution o1 t,e
atta*3 made it im&ossib#e 1or t,e vi*tim to de1end ,imse#1 or to reta#iate, trea*,er6 *an sti## be
a&&re*iated.
4565
+,e vi*tim 2as #6ing &rostrate on t,e ground 2,en ,e 2as de#iberate#6 and
mer*i#ess#6 ridd#ed 2it, bu##ets. +,e 2ea&ons used, t,e number o1 assai#ants, t,e s2i1t and
&#anned manner o1 t,e atta*3, and t,e mu#ti&#e number o1 2ounds in1#i*ted u&on t,e vi*tim a##
demonstrate a determined assau#t 2it, intent to 3i## t,e vi*tim. No doubt t,ere 2as trea*,er6.
!. Criinal Case No. C!"-##&&'
@n t,eir *onvi*tion 1or i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms, a&&e##ants *ontend t,at t,e ,andguns
and ammunitions a##eged#6 ta3en 1rom t,em b6 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers 2ere i##ega##6 sei$ed. +,e6
assert t,at t,e &o#i*e ,ad no 2arrant to e11e*t a sear*, and sei$ure, su*, t,at t,ese i##ega##6 sei$ed
1irearms 2ere inadmissib#e as eviden*e, and it 2as error 1or t,e tria# *ourt to admit t,em.
+,ere are eig,t 889 instan*es 2,ere a 2arrant#ess sear*, and sei$ure is va#id. +,e6 are: 819
*onsented sear*,esH
45-5
8.9 as an in*ident to a #a21u# arrestH
4585
839 sear*,es o1 vesse#s and air*ra1t
1or vio#ation o1 immigration, *ustoms, and drug #a2sH
4595
809 sear*,es o1 moving ve,i*#esH
46/5
859
sear*,es o1 automobi#es at borders or *onstru*tive bordersH 869 2,ere t,e &ro,ibited arti*#es are
in K&#ain vie2HL
4615
8-9 sear*,es o1 bui#dings and &remises to en1or*e 1ire, sanitar6, and bui#ding
regu#ationsH and 889 Ksto& and 1ris3L o&erations.
46.5
;n t,is *ase, t,e 2arrant#ess sear*, and sei$ure o1 t,e sub)e*t ,andguns and ammunition is
va#id 1or t2o reasons. ;t 2as a sear*, in*identa# to a #a21u# arrest. ;t 2as made a1ter a 1ata#
s,ooting, and &ursuit o1 a 1ast!moving ve,i*#e see3ing to e#ude &ursuing &o#i*e o11i*ers, and a
more t,an reasonab#e be#ie1 on t,e &art o1 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers t,at t,e 1#eeing sus&e*ts aboard said
ve,i*#e ,ad )ust engaged in *rimina# a*tivit6. +,e urgent need o1 t,e &o#i*e to ta3e immediate
a*tion in t,e #ig,t o1 t,e 1oregoing eGigen*ies *#ear#6 satis1ies t,e reFuirements 1or 2arrant#ess
arrests under t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
4635
(oreover, 2,en *aug,t in lagrante deli!to 2it, 1irearms and
ammunition 2,i*, t,e6 2ere not aut,ori$ed to *arr6, a&&e##ants 2ere a*tua##6 vio#ating P.D. No.
1866, anot,er ground 1or va#id arrest under t,e Ru#es.
4605
'&&e##ants 1urt,er *ontend t,at t,e tria# *ourt erred in *onvi*ting a&&e##ants 'ste##ero and
Dosdos o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms. +,e6 &oint out t,at t,e .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2as
re*overed 1rom a&&e##ant 'brio#, 2,o as a &o#i*eman 2as aut,ori$ed to *arr6 and &ossess said
1irearm, as eviden*ed b6 ,is (emorandum Re*ei&t 8(R9, 2,i*, ,ad Knot been re*a##ed,
*an*e##ed or revo3ed unti# t,e time o1 t,e tria# o1 t,ese *ases.L '&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e t2o .05
*a#iber &isto#s *ou#d ,ave been #e1t in t,e ve,i*#e b6 PNP &ersonne# assigned at IIR%,
*onsidering t,at t,e red KJi116L 2as genera##6 used as a servi*e ve,i*#e b6 IIR%
&ersonne#. +,e6 a#so argue t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to &rove a&&e##antsA o2ners,i&, *ontro#,
and &ossession o1 t,e .05 *a#iber &isto#s, *onsidering t,at a&&e##ants 2ere siG meters a2a6 1rom
t,e KJi116L 2,en said ,andguns 2ere a##eged#6 1ound.
+o sustain a *onvi*tion 1or vio#ation o1 P.D. No. 1866, t,e &rose*ution must &rove t2o
e#ements o1 t,e o11ense: 819 t,e eGisten*e o1 t,e sub)e*t 1irearmH 8.9 t,e 1a*t t,at t,e a**used 2,o
o2ned or &ossessed t,e 1irearm does not ,ave t,e *orres&onding #i*ense or &ermit to &ossess it.
4655
+,ese t,e &rose*ution did. ;t &resented a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, seria# number P@8005, a .
05 *a#iber &isto# 2it, seria# number PG@ 135/6 Para @rdinan*e, and a .05 *a#iber &isto# 2it,
seria# number 5.069. +,e .38 *a#iber ,andgun 2as re*overed 1rom a&&e##ant 'brio#, 2,i#e t,e
t2o .05 *a#iber automati*s 2ere 1ound and sei$ed 1rom under t,e 1ront &assenger seat o1
a&&e##antsA ve,i*#e. "P@0 'Fui##es =amoso o1 t,e %ebu %it6 PNP (etro&o#itan Distri*t
%ommandAs =irearms and ?G&#osive Bnit testi1ied t,at a&&e##ants 2ere not #isted as #i*ensed
1irearm o2ners in %ebu %it6.
4665
+,e &rose*ution a#so &resented a *erti1i*ation 1rom PE"enior
;ns&e*tor ?d2in RoFue o1 t,e =irearms and ?G&#osives Division o1 PNP :eadFuarters at %am&
%rame, Que$on %it6 t,at a&&e##ant 'brio# is not #i*ensed to ,o#d an6 1irearmH t,at t,e .05 *a#iber
&isto#s 2ere un#i*ensedH and t,at a *erti1i*ation 1rom t,e PNP =irearms and ?G&#osives @11i*e
attesting t,at a &erson is not a #i*ensee o1 an6 1irearm, &roves be6ond reasonab#e doubt t,e
se*ond e#ement o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearm.
46-5
'brio# insists t,at ,e ,ad a va#id (R aut,ori$ing ,im to *arr6 t,e .38 revo#ver. >e agree
2it, t,e observation o1 t,e tria# *ourt t,at:
+,e *#aim o1 'brio# t,at .38 *a#iber 2as issued to ,im, as eviden*ed b6 t,e
*orres&onding re*ei&t 8(R9, is o1 no moment. >,i#e an (R is an aut,orit6 o1 'brio#
to &ossess t,e government 1irearm t,at 2as issued to ,im, 2,en ,e 2as *,arged and
detained at IIR% 1or an ear#ier *ase o1 murder, ot,er t,an t,e *ase at bar, ,e 2as
a#read6 t,en at t,at moment a detained &risoner and t,ere1ore, 8un9aut,ori$ed to *arr6
a 1irearm. ' mi#itar6 man or a member o1 t,e PNP 2,o *ommits a *rime, is
immediate#6 disarmed u&on ,is arrest and stri&&ed o1 a## t,e rig,ts and &rivi#eges t,at
go 2it, t,e 1un*tion o1 ,is o11i*e, and t,is in*#udes, in t,e *ase o1 'brio#, ,is
(R. +,us, 2,en ,e s,ot '#e)andro =#ores 2it, ,is .38 *a#iber revo#ver, t,is 1irearm
2as a#read6 unaut,ori$ed and its use and &ossession i##ega#.
4685
?ven i1 'brio#As (R 2as va#id, said aut,ori$ation 2as #imited on#6 to t,e .38 *a#iber
revo#ver and not t,e t2o .05 *a#iber automati* &isto#s 1ound under t,e 1ront &assenger seat o1 t,e
KJi116.L '&&e##ants 2ere sti## in t,e un#a21u# &ossession o1 t,e .05 *a#iber &isto#s. Bnder P.D. No.
1866, &ossession is not #imited to a*tua# &ossession.
4695
;n t,is *ase, a&&e##ants ,ad *ontro# over
t,e &isto#s. +,e6 2ere a## #iab#e sin*e *ons&ira*6 2as estab#is,ed and t,e a*t o1 one is t,e a*t o1
a##.
4-/5
'&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e6 2ere siG meters a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116L 2,en it 2as sear*,ed and
t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 2ere sei$ed. +,e6 suggest t,at t,e &o#i*emen 2,o sear*,ed t,e
ve,i*#e *ou#d ,ave &#anted said 1irearms. +,e tria# *ourt 1ound t,at t,e6 2ere in 1a*t on#6 one
meter a2a6 1rom t,e ve,i*#e. =indings o1 1a*t o1 t,e tria# *ourt, 2,en su&&orted b6 t,e eviden*e
on re*ord, are binding and *on*#usive u&on a&&e##ate *ourts.
4-15
'## to#d, on t,e *,arge o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms, no reversib#e error 2as *ommitted
b6 t,e tria# *ourt 2,en it 1ound a&&e##ants gui#t6 be6ond reasonab#e doubt.
+,e @11i*e o1 t,e "o#i*itor Genera# re*ommends t,at a#t,oug, a&&e##ants 2ere *,arged 2it,
and *onvi*ted o1 t2o se&arate o11enses o1 murder and vio#ation o1 P.D. No. 1866, R.'. No. 8.90,
2,i*, amended said de*ree, s,ou#d be a&&#ied to a&&e##ants retroa*tive#6, *iting 9eople v.
*olina) .9. "%R' -0., --9 819989 inter&reting R.'. No. 8.90.
>e agree. >e ru#ed in *olina t,at 2it, t,e &assage o1 R.'. No. 8.90 on June 6, 199-, t,e
use o1 an un#i*ensed 1irearm in murder or ,omi*ide is not a se&arate *rime, but mere#6 a s&e*ia#
aggravating *ir*umstan*e. +,is 2as re*ent#6 reiterated in 9eople v. Castillo) G.R. Nos. 13159.!
93, =ebruar6 15, .///.
4-.5
'&&e##ants are t,us gui#t6 on#6 o1 murder 2it, t,e s&e*ia# aggravating
*ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms. +,e im&osition o1 t,e &ena#t6 o1 re!lusion
perpetua*annot ,o2ever be modi1ied sin*e t,e murder too3 &#a*e be1ore t,e e11e*tivit6 o1 R.'.
No. -659.
' 1ina# 2ord on t,e damages. ;n addition to t,e a2ard o1 P5/,/// as indemnit6 e7 deli!to,
t,e tria# *ourt a2arded P3/,/// in a*tua# damages, Kre&resenting a reasonab#e amount 1or t,e
emba#ming, vigi#, 2a3e and buria# eG&enses,L and P3/,/// as attorne6As 1ees. +o be entit#ed to
a*tua# damages, it is ne*essar6 to &rove t,e a*tua# amount o1 #oss 2it, a reasonab#e degree o1
*ertaint6, &remised u&on *om&etent &roo1, and on t,e best eviden*e obtainab#e b6 t,e in)ured
&art6.
4-35
No su*, eviden*e 2as o11ered. +,e a2ard o1 a*tua# damages must, t,ere1ore, be
de#eted. :o2ever, tem&erate damages ma6 be a2arded sin*e t,e 1ami#6 o1 t,e vi*tim ,as
demonstrab#6 s&ent 1or t,e 2a3e, 1unera# and buria# arrangements. +,e amount o1 P./,///
s,ou#d su11i*e as tem&erate damages. ;n addition, 2e 1ind an a2ard o1 eGem&#ar6 damages in
order, &ursuant to 'rti*#e ..3/ o1 t,e %ivi# %ode.
4-05
+,e 3i##ing 2as attended b6 t,e s&e*ia#
aggravating *ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms. (oreover, t,e &ub#i* good demands
t,at detained &risoners s,ou#d not abuse t,eir status as Ktrustees.L :ad t,e &o#i*e been
unsu**ess1u# in t,eir &ursuit o1 a&&e##ants, t,e #atter 2ou#d ,ave used t,e IIR% as s,e#ter and as
an a#ibi t,at t,e6 *ou#d not ,ave *ommitted t,e *rime sin*e t,e6 2ere t,en in detention. +,us,
2e 1ind an a2ard o1 P1/,/// as eGem&#ar6 damages in order. '**ording#6, t,e a2ard o1
attorne6As 1ees is sustained.
4-55
3HERE4ORE, t,e assai#ed De*ision o1 t,e Regiona# +ria# %ourt o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 1/,
in %rimina# %ases Nos. %IB!3/35/ and %IB!33660 is ,ereb6 (@D;=;?D. '&&e##ants '#bert
'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero, and Januario Dosdos are ,ereb6 1ound GB;7+ o1 murder, Fua#i1ied
b6 trea*,er6, 2it, t,e s&e*ia# aggravating *ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms and are
,ereb6 senten*ed to su11er t,e &ena#t6 o1 re!lusion perpetua 2it, t,e a**essor6 &ena#ties
&rovided 1or b6 #a2. '&&e##ants 'brio#, 'ste##ero, and Dosdos are a#so ordered to &a6, )oint#6
and severa##6, t,e ,eirs o1 '#e)andro =#ores t,e sum o1 P5/,/// as deat, indemnit6, P./,/// as
tem&erate damages, P1/,/// as eGem&#ar6 damages, and P3/,/// as attorne6As 1ees, as 2e## as
t,e *osts.
SO OR5ERE5.
2ellosillo) 5Chairman6) *endo(a) 2uena) and :e Leon) Jr.) JJ.) *on*ur.
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. 21967 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" ROBERTO UM$L, ROLAN3O
3URAL n! RENATO %$LLANUE%A. MANOL$TA O. UM$L, n! N$CANOR 6. 3URAL, "EL$C$TAS
%. SESE, petitioners,
vs.
"$3EL %. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA, BR$G. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BR$G. GEN.
ALE7AN3ER AGU$RRE, respondents.
G.R. No(. 25921-22 Ju8, 9, 1990
AMEL$A RO<UE n! W$L"RE3O BUENAOBRA, petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA n! GEN. RAMON MONTANO, respondents.
G.R. No(. 25923-25 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" ATT#. 3OM$NGO T.
ANONUE%O n! RAMON CAS$6LE. 3OM$NGO T. ANONUE%O n! RAMON
CAS$6LE, petitioners,
vs.
HON. "$3EL %. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. 3E %$LLA, COL. E%AR$STO CAR$NO, LT. COL. RE7
3. 6$A3, TJSGT. CONRA3O 3E TORRES, SJSGT. ARNOL3 3UR$AN, n! Co..n!&n- O00&)e/,
6C-$N6 3e+en+&on Cen+e/, C.* C/.e, <ueHon C&+,, respondents.
G.R. No. 23162 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE A66L$CAT$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" %$C;# A. OCA#A AN3
3ANN# R$%ERA. %$RG$L$O A. OCA#A, petitioner,
vs.
BR$G. GEN. ALE7AN3ER AGU$RRE, COL. HERCULES CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR
MAR$ANO, respondents.
G.R. No. 29727 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" A66L$CAT$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O"> 3EOGRAC$AS
ES6$R$TU, petitioner,
vs.
BR$G. GEN. AL"RE3O S. L$M, COL. R$CAR3O RE#ES, respondents.
G.R. No. 26332 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" NARC$SO B. NA1ARENO.
AL"RE3O NA1ARENO, petitioner,
vs.
THE STAT$ON COMMAN3ER O" THE MUNT$NGLU6A 6OL$CE STAT$ON, Mun+&n-8u*, Me+/o
Mn&8, 6JSGT. JAC$NTO ME3$NA, 6JSGT. ELA3$O TAGLE, 6JSGT. LE%$ SOLE3A3, n! 6JSGT.
MAURO AROJA3O,respondents.
Efren ). Mercado for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <>S?.
+icardo ,. 6almonte for petitioners in G.+. 9os. <T><-<=.
+amon S. Esguerra- /arbara Anne ,. Migallos and Agripino G. Morga for petitioners in G.+. 9os.
<T><@-<T.
Efren ). Mercado for petitioner in G.+. 9o. <@S=.
/anzuela- Flores- Miralles- +aneses- S'- 5a&uio R Association for petitioner in G.+. 9o. <>?=?.
.osefina G. ,ampbell-,astillo for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <S@@=.
5he Solicitor General for the respondents.

6ER CUR$AM>
+he are ei)ht 2J3 petitioners 'or habeas corpus 'iled be'ore the Court, (hich have been consolidated
because o' the si$ilarity o' issues raised, prayin) 'or the issuance o' the (rit o' habeas corpus,
orderin) the respective respondents to produce the bodies o' the persons na$ed therein and to
e9plain (hy they should not be set at liberty (ithout 'urther delay.
:n their respective <eturns, the respondents uni'or$ly assert that the privile)e o' the (rit o' habeas
corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have been legall' arrested and are detained by
virtue o' %alid informations 'iled in court a)ainst the$.
+he petitioners counter that their detention is unla('ul as their arrests (ere $ade without
warrant and, that no preliminar' in%estigation (as 'irst conducted, so that the in'or$ations 'iled
a)ainst the$ are null and void.
+he Court has care'ully revie(ed the contentions o' the parties in their respective pleadin)s, and it
'inds that the persons detained have not been ille)ally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived o' their
constitutional ri)ht to liberty, and that the circu$stances attendin) these cases do not (arrant their
release on habeas corpus.
+he arrest o' a person (ithout a (arrant o' arrest or previous co$plaint is reco)nized in la(. +he
occasions or instances (hen such an arrest $ay be e''ected are clearly spelled out in Section /,
<ule 11 o' the <ules o' Court, as a$ended, (hich provides*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a
(arrant shall be 'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall
be proceeded a)ainst in accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
;n arrest (ithout a (arrant o' arrest, under Section / para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 o' <ule 11 o' the
<ules o' Court, as a$ended, is >usti'ied (hen the person arrested is cau)ht in flagranti delicto, %iz.,
in the act o' co$$ittin) an o''ense= or (hen an o''ense has >ust been co$$itted and the person
$akin) the arrest has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts indicatin) that the person arrested has
co$$itted it. +he rationale behind la('ul arrests, (ithout (arrant, (as stated by this Court in the
case o' 0eople %s. Hagui Malasugui
1
thus*
+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence
and tokens o' his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e
e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest, the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o'
cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any instances.
+he record o' the instant cases (ould sho( that the persons in (hose behal' these petitions
'or habeas corpushave been 'iled, had 'reshly co$$itted or (ere actually co$$ittin) an o''ense,
(hen apprehended, so that their arrests (ithout a (arrant (ere clearly >usti'ied, and that they are,
'urther, detained by virtue o' valid in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ in court.
; brie' narration o' the 'acts and events surroundin) each o' the ei)ht 2J3 petitions is in order.
:
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il vs. <a$os3, the record sho(s that, on 1 February 19JJ, the <e)ional
:ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 received con'idential
in'or$ation about a $e$ber o' the #"; Sparro( Anit 2liDuidation sDuad3 bein) treated 'or a )unshot
(ound at the St. ;)nes ,ospital in <oosevelt ;venue, Luezon City. Apon veri'ication, it (as 'ound
that the (ounded person, (ho (as listed in the hospital records as <onnie Javelon, is actually
<olando Cural, a $e$ber o' the #"; liDuidation sDuad, responsible 'or the killin) o' t(o 2!3
C;"C6& soldiers the day be'ore, or on 1 January 19JJ, in &acaninin) Street, 8a)on) 8arrio,
Caloocan City. :n vie( o' this veri'ication, <olando Cural (as trans'erred to the <e)ional &edical
Services o' the C;"C6&, 'or security reasons. While con'ined thereat, or on 4 February 19JJ,
<olando Cural (as positively identi'ied by eye(itnesses as the )un$an (ho (ent on top o' the hood
o' the C;"C6& $obile patrol car, and 'ired at the t(o 2!3 C;"C6& soldiers seated inside the car
identi'ied as +BS)t. Carlos "abon and C:C <enato &anli)ot.
;s a conseDuence o' this positive identi'ication, <olando Cural (as re'erred to the Caloocan City
Fiscal (ho conducted an inDuest and therea'ter 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' Caloocan City
an in'or$ation char)in) <olando Cural alias <onnie Javelon (ith the cri$e o' ECouble &urder (ith
;ssault Apon ;)ents o' "ersons in ;uthority.E +he case (as docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o.
C-511! and no bail (as reco$$ended. 6n 1/ February 19JJ, the in'or$ation (as a$ended to
include, as de'endant, 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. (ho, at the 'ilin) o' the ori)inal in'or$ation, (as still
unidenti'ied.
&ean(hile, on 6 February 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal'
o' +oberto ;mil,+olando 4ural, and +enato 6illanue%a. +he Court issued the (rit o' habeas
corpus on 9 February 19JJ and the respondents 'iled a <eturn o' the Writ on 1! February 19JJ.
+herea'ter, the parties (ere heard on 1/ February 19JJ.
6n !6 February 19JJ, ho(ever, +oberto ;mil and +enato 6illanue%a posted bail be'ore the
<e)ional +rial Court o' "asay City (here char)es 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct had been
'iled a)ainst the$, and they (ere accordin)ly released. +he petition 'or habeas corpus, inso'ar as
A$il and ?illanueva are concerned, is no( $oot and acade$ic and is accordin)ly dis$issed, since
the (rit o' habeas corpus does not lie in 'avor o' an accused in a cri$inal case (ho has been
released on bail.
2
;s to +olando 4ural, it clearly appears that he (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) the t(o
2!3 C;"C6& soldiers a'ore$entioned. #or (as he arrested >ust a'ter the co$$ission o' the said
o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident. See$in)ly, his arrest (ithout
(arrant is un>usti'ied.
,o(ever, <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eoples ;r$y 2#";3, an
outla(ed subversive or)anization. Subversion bein) a continuing offense, the arrest o' <olando
Cural (ithout (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense (hen arrested.
+he cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes. ;s stated by the Court in an earlier
case*
Fro$ the 'acts as above-narrated, the clai$ o' the petitioners that they (ere initially
arrested ille)ally is, there'ore, (ithout basis in la( and in 'act. +he cri$es o'
insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es,
and other cri$es and o''enses co$$itted in the 'urtherance, on the occasion thereo',
or incident thereto, or in connection there(ith under "residential "rocla$ation #o.
!54/, are all in the nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the
co$$on o''enses, aside 'ro$ their essentially involvin) a $assive conspiracy o'
nation(ide $a)nitude. Clearly then, the arrest o' the herein detainees (as (ell
(ithin the bounds o' the la( and e9istin) >urisprudence in our >urisdiction.
!. +he arrest o' persons involved in the rebellion (hether as its 'i)htin) ar$ed
ele$ents, or 'or co$$ittin) non-violent acts but in 'urtherance o' the rebellion, is
$ore an act o' capturin) the$ in the course o' an ar$ed con'lict, to Duell the
rebellion, than 'or the purpose o' i$$ediately prosecutin) the$ in court 'or a
statutory o''ense. +he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the usual procedure in the
prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuires the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the e9istence
o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin)
o' bail i' the o''ense is bailable. 6bviously, the absence o' a >udicial (arrant is no
le)al i$pedi$ent to arrestin) or capturin) persons co$$ittin) overt acts o' violence
a)ainst )overn$ent 'orces, or any other $ilder acts but eDually in pursuance o' the
rebellious $ove$ent. +he arrest or capture is thus i$pelled by the e9i)encies o' the
situation that involves the very survival o' society and its )overn$ent and duly
constituted authorities. :' killin) and other acts o' violence a)ainst the rebels 'ind
>usti'ication in the e9i)encies o' ar$ed hostilities (hich is o' the essence o' (a)in) a
rebellion or insurrection, $ost assuredly so in case o' invasion, $erely seizin) their
persons and detainin) the$ (hile any o' these contin)encies continues cannot be
less >usti'ied. . . .
3
+he record, $oreover, sho(s that the cri$inal case 'iled a)ainst +olando 4ural and /ernardo
3tucal, .r. 'or ECouble &urder, etc.E (as tried in the court belo( and at the conclusion thereo', or on
10 ;u)ust 19JJ, <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. (ere 'ound )uilty o' the char)e and
sentenced accordin)ly. <olando Cural is no( servin) the sentence i$posed upon hi$ by the trial
court. +hus, the (rit o' habeas corpus is no lon)er available to hi$. For, as held in the early case
o' ;.S. %s. *ilson*
5
:n this case, (hatever $ay be said about the $anner o' his arrest, the 'act re$ains
that the de'endant (as actually in court in the custody o' the la( on &arch !9, (hen
a co$plaint su''icient in 'or$ and substance (as read to hi$. +o this he pleaded not
)uilty. +he trial 'ollo(ed, in (hich, and in the >ud)$ent o' )uilty pronounced by the
court, (e 'ind no error. Whether, i' there (ere irre)ularities in brin)in) hi$ personally
be'ore the court, he could have been released on a (rit o' habeas corpus or no( has
a civil action 'or da$a)es a)ainst the person (ho arrested hi$ (e need not inDuire.
:t is enou)h to say that such irre)ularities are not su''icient to set aside a valid
>ud)$ent rendered upon a su''icient co$plaint and a'ter a trial 'ree 'ro$ error.
::
:n @.<. #os. J4/J1-J! 2<oDue vs. Ce ?illa3, the arrest o' Amelia +o&ue and *ilfredo /uenaobra,
(ithout (arrant, is also >usti'ied. When apprehended at the house o' <enato Constantino in &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, Wil'redo 8uenaobra admitted that he (as an #"; courier and he
had (ith hi$ letters to <enato Constantino and other $e$bers o' the rebel )roup. ;$elia <oDue,
upon the other hand, (as a $e$ber o' the #ational Anited Front Co$$ission, in char)e o' 'inance,
and admitted o(nership o' subversive docu$ents 'ound in the house o' her sister in Caloocan City.
She (as also in possession o' a$$unition and a 'ra)$entation )renade 'or (hich she had no per$it
or authority to possess.
+he record o' these t(o 2!3 cases sho(s that on !0 June 19JJ, one <o)elio <a$os y :banes, a
$e$ber o' the #";, (ho had surrendered to the $ilitary authorities, told $ilitary a)ents about the
operations o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2C""3 and the #e( "eoples ;r$y 2#";3 in
&etro &anila. ,e identi'ied so$e o' his 'or$er co$rades as E.a &on)E, a sta'' $e$ber o' the
Co$$unications and +ransportation 8ureau= E.a #eliaE, a sta'' $e$ber in char)e o' 'inance= E.a
&illerE, an #"; courier 'ro$ Sorso)on and %opez, Luezon= E.a +edE, and E.a +otoyE. ,e also
pointed to a certain house occupied by <enato Constantino located in the ?illaluz Co$pound,
&olave St., &arikina ,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, (hich is used as a sa'ehouse o' the #ational
Anited Front Co$$ission 2#AFC3 o' the C""-#";.
:n vie( o' these revelations, the Constantino house (as placed under $ilitary surveillance and on 1!
;u)ust 19JJ, pursuant to a search (arrant issued by Jud)e 7utropio &i)rino o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), a search o' the house (as conducted at about /*55 o1clock in the a'ternoon, by a
co$bined tea$ o' the Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Service, #ational Capital Cistrict 2C:S-#CC3 and the
Constabulary Security @roup 2CS@3. :n the course o' the search, the 'ollo(in) articles (ere 'ound
and taken under proper receipt*
a3 6ne 213 Colt &16;1 lon) ri'le (ith de'aced serial nu$ber=
b3 6ne 213 Cal. .J5 ;C+B9$$ &odel "".BJ S#* !65/00 M !65/00J=
c3 +(o 2!3 'ra)$entation hand )renades=
d3 Fi'ty-si9 2/63 live a$$unition 'or Cal. /./6 $$=
e3 Five 2/3 live a$$unition 'or Cal. .J5=
'3 6ne 213 :C6& ?,F F& <adio +ransciever S#* 1495
)3 6ne 213 <e)ulated po(er supply !!5? ;C=
h3 6ne 213 ;ntennae 2ad>ustable3=
i3 6ne 213 Speaker (ith cord ;%7S;<=
>3 ?olu$inous Subversive docu$ents.
When con'ronted, <enato Constatino could not produce any per$it or authority to possess the
'irear$s, a$$unition, radio and other co$$unications eDuip$ent. ,ence, he (as brou)ht to the
C:S ,eadDuarters 'or investi)ation. When Duestioned, he re'used to )ive a (ritten state$ent,
althou)h he admitted that he (as a sta'' $e$ber o' the e9ecutive co$$ittee o' the #AFC and a
rankin) $e$ber o' the :nternational Cepart$ent o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2C""3.
;t about J*55 o1clock in the evenin) o' the sa$e day 21! ;u)ust 19JJ3, Wil'redo 8uenaobra arrived
at the house o' <enato Constantino in the ?illaluz Co$pound. When accosted, he
readily admitted to the $ilitary a)ents that he is a re)ular $e$ber o' the C""B#"; and that he (ent
to the place to deliver letters to E.a &on)E, re'errin) to <enato Constatino, and other $e$bers o'
the rebel )roup. 6n 'urther Duestionin), he also ad$itted that he is kno(n as E.a &illerE and that he
(as 'ro$ 8aran)ay San "edro, %opez, Luezon. ;$on) the ite$s taken 'ro$ hi$ (ere the 'ollo(in)*
213 ,and(ritten letter addressed to E.a 8in) M Co. 'ro$ ; M Co.E dated ;u)ust 11,
19JJ=
2!3 ,and(ritten letter addressed to E<6C 'ro$ ?:C 2Schell datre3E dated ;u)ust 11,
19JJ=
23 ,and(ritten letter addressed to ESuzieE 'ro$ E?icE, dated ;u)ust 11, 19JJ.
;lso 'ound 8uenaobra1s possession (as a piece o' paper containin) a (ritten but >u$bled telephone
nu$ber o' Florida &. <oDue, sister o' ;$elia <oDue alias E.a #eliaE, at 69 @eroni$o St., Caloocan
City. ;ctin) on the lead provided as to the (hereabouts o' Amelia +o&ue, the $ilitary a)ents (ent to
the )iven address the ne9t day 21 ;u)ust 19JJ3. +hey arrived at the place at about 11*55 o1clock in
the $ornin). ;'ter identi'yin) the$selves as $ilitary a)ents and a'ter seekin) per$ission to search
the place, (hich (as )ranted, the $ilitary a)ents conducted a search in the presence o' the
occupants o' the house and the baran)ay captain o' the place, one Jesus C. 6lba.
+he $ilitary a)ents 'ound the place to be another sa'ehouse o' the #AFCBC"". +hey 'ound led)ers,
>ournals, vouchers, bank deposit books, 'olders, co$puter diskettes, and subversive docu$ents as
(ell as live a$$unition 'or a .J S"% Winchester, 11 rounds o' live a$$unition 'or a cal. .4/, 19
rounds o' live a$$unition 'or an &16 <i'le, and a 'ra)$entation )renade. ;s a result, ;$elia <oDue
and the other occupants o' the house (ere brou)ht to the "C-C:S ,eadDuarters at Ca$p Cra$e,
Luezon City, 'or investi)ation. ;$elia <oDue admitted to the investi)ators that the volu$inous
docu$ents belon)ed to her and that the other occupants o' the house had no kno(led)e o' the$. ;s
a result, the said other occupants o' the house (ere released 'ro$ custody.
6n 1/ ;u)ust 19JJ, ;$elia <oDue (as brou)ht to the Caloocan City Fiscal 'or inDuest a'ter (hich
an in'or$ation char)in) her (ith violation o' "C 1J66 (as 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o'
Caloocan City. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. C-1196. ;nother in'or$ation 'or
violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct (as 'iled a)ainst ;$elia <oDue be'ore the &etropolitan +rial
Court o' Caloocan City, (hich is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. C-1/54/J.
;n in'or$ation 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct (as 'iled a)ainst *ilfredo /uenaobra be'ore
the &etropolitan +rial Court o' &arikina, &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal
Case #o. !01/. 8ail (as set at "4,555.55.
6n !4 ;u)ust 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled be'ore this Court on behal' o' ;$elia
<oDue and Wil'redo 8uenaobra. ;t the hearin) o' the case, ho(ever, Wil'redo 8uenaobra
$ani'ested his desire to stay in the "C-:#" Stockade at Ca$p Cra$e, Luezon City. ;ccordin), the
petition 'or habeas corpus 'iled on his behal' is no( $oot and acade$ic. 6nly the petition o' ;$elia
<oDue re$ains 'or resolution.
+he contention o' respondents that petitioners <oDue and 8uenaobra are o''icers andBor $e$bers
o' the #ational Anited Front Co$$ission 2#AFC3 o' the C"" (as not controverted or traversed by
said petitioners. +he contention $ust be dee$ed ad$itted.
9
;s o''icers andBor $e$bers o' the #AFC-
C"", their arrest, (ithout (arrant, (as >usti'ied 'or the sa$e reasons earlier stated %is-a-%is +olando
4ural. +he arrest (ithout (arrant o' <oDue (as additionally >usti'ied as she (as, at the ti$e o'
apprehension, in possession o' a$$unitions (ithout license to possess the$.
:::
:n @.<. #os. J4/J-J4 2;nonuevo vs. <a$os3, the arrest o' 4omingo Anonue%o and +amon
,asiple, (ithout (arrant, is also >usti'ied under the rules. 8oth are ad$ittedly $e$bers o' the
standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFC and, (hen apprehended in the house o' <enato Constatino, they
had a ba) containin) subversive $aterials, and both carried 'irear$s and a$$unition 'or (hich they
had no license to possess or carry.
+he record o' these t(o 2!3 cases sho(s that at about 0*5 o1clock in the evenin) o' 1 ;u)ust 19JJ,
Co$in)o +. ;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple arrived at the house o' <enato Constatino at &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, (hich (as still under surveillance by $ilitary a)ents. +he $ilitary a)ents noticed
bul)in) ob>ects on their (aist lines. When 'risked, the a)ents 'ound the$ to be loaded )uns.
;nonuevo and Casiple (ere asked to sho( their per$it or license to possess or carry 'irear$s and
a$$unition, but they could not produce any. ,ence, they (ere brou)ht to "C ,eadDuarters 'or
investi)ation. Found in their possession (ere the 'ollo(in) articles*
a3 ?olu$inous subversive docu$ents
b3 6ne 213 Cal. 0.6/ &6C J !C "istol S#* 55141! (ith one 213 $a)azine 'or Cal.
0.6/ containin) ten 2153 live a$$unition o' sa$e caliber=
c3 6ne 213 Cal. 0.6/ "ietro 8arreta S#= ;1JJ6J last di)it ta$pered (ith one 213
$a)azine containin) 'ive 2/3 live a$$unition o' sa$e caliber.
;t the "C Stockade, Co$in)o ;nonuevo (as identi'ied as E.a +edE, and <a$on Casiple as E.a
+otoyE o' the C"", by their co$rades (ho had previously surrendered to the $ilitary.
6n 1/ ;u)ust 19JJ, the record o' the investi)ation and other docu$entary evidence (ere 'or(arded
to the "rovincial Fiscal at "asi), &etro &anila, (ho conducted an inDuest, a'ter (hich Co$in)o
;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple (ere char)ed (ith violation o' "residential Cecree #o. 1J66 be'ore
the <e)ional +rial Court o' "asi), &etro &anila. +he cases are docketed therein as Cri$inal Cases
#os. 04J6 ad 04J0, respectively. #o bail (as reco$$ended.
6n !4 ;u)ust 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal' o' Co$in)o
;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple, alle)in) that the said ;nonuevo and Casiple (ere unla('ully
arrested (ithout a (arrant and that the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ are null and void 'or havin)
been 'iled (ithout prior hearin) and preli$inary investi)ation. 6n 5 ;u)ust 19JJ, the Court issued
the (rit o' habeas corpus, and a'ter the respondents had 'iled a <eturn o' the Writ, the parties (ere
heard.
+he petitioners1 2;nonuevo and Casiple3 clai$ that they (ere unla('ully arrested because there (as
no previous (arrant o' arrest, is (ithout $erit +he record sho(s that Co$in)o ;nonuevo and
<a$on Casiple (ere carryin) unlicensed 'irear$s and a$$unition in their person (hen they (ere
apprehended.
+here is also no $erit in the contention that the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ are null and void 'or
(ant o' a preli$inary investi)ation. +he 'ilin) o' an in'or$ation, (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation
havin) been 'irst conducted, is sanctioned by the <ules. Sec. 0, <ule 11! o' the <ules o' Court, as
a$ended, reads*
Sec. 0. *hen accused lawfull' arrested without a warrant. H When a person is
la('ully arrested (ithout a (arrant 'or an o''ense co)nizable by the <e)ional +rial
Court the co$plaint or in'or$ation $ay be 'iled by the o''ended party, peace o''icer
or 'iscal (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation havin) been 'irst conducted, on the basis
o' the a''idavit o' the o''ended party or arrestin) o''icer or person.
,o(ever, be'ore the 'ilin) o' such co$plaint or in'or$ation, the person arrested $ay
ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation by a proper o''icer in accordance (ith this <ule,
but he $ust si)n a (aiver o' the provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code,
as a$ended, (ith the assistance o' a la(yer and in case o' non-availability o' a
la(yer, a responsible person o' his choice. #ot(ithstandin) such (aiver, he $ay
apply 'or bail as provided in the correspondin) rule and the investi)ation $ust be
ter$inated (ithin 'i'teen 21/3 days 'ro$ its inception.
:' the case has been 'iled in court (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation havin) been 'irst
conducted, the accused $ay (ithin 'ive 2/3 days 'ro$ the ti$e he learns o' the 'ilin)
o' the in'or$ation, ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation (ith the sa$e ri)ht to adduced
evidence in his 'avor in the $anner prescribed in this <ule.
+he petitioners Co$in)o ;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple, ho(ever, re'used to si)n a (aiver o' the
provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. :n the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst
the$, the prosecutor $ade identical certi'ications, as 'ollo(s*
+his is to certi'y that the accused has been char)ed in accordance (ith Sec. 0, <ule
11! o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, that no preli$inary investi)ation (as
conducted because the accused has not $ade and si)ned a (aiver o' the provisions
o' ;rt. 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended= that based on the evidence
presented, there is reasonable )round to believe that the cri$e has been co$$itted,
and that the accused is probably )uilty thereo'.
#or did petitioners ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation a'ter the in'or$ations had been 'iled a)ainst
the$ in court. "etitioners cannot no( clai$ that they have been deprived o' their constitutional ri)ht
to due process.
:?
:n @.<. #o. J16! 26caya vs. ;)uirre3, the arrest (ithout (arrant, o' 6ic(' Oca'a is >usti'ied under
the <ules, since she had (ith her unlicensed a$$unition (hen she (as arrested. +he record o' this
case sho(s that on 1! &ay 19JJ, a)ents o' the "C :ntelli)ence and :nvesti)ation o' the <izal "C-
:#" Co$$and, ar$ed (ith a search (arrant issued by Jud)e 7utropio &i)rino o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), &etro &anila, conducted a search o' a house located at 8lock 19, "hase ::, &arikina
@reen ,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, believed to be occupied by 8enito +ia$son, head o' the
C""-#";. :n the course o' the search, ?icky 6caya arrived in a car driven by Canny <ivera.
Subversive docu$ents and several rounds o' a$$unition 'or a .4/ cal. pistol (ere 'ound in the car
o' ?icky 6caya. ;s a result, ?icky 6caya and Canny <ivera (ere brou)ht to the "C ,eadDuarters
'or investi)ation. When ?icky 6caya could not produce any per$it or authorization to possess the
a$$unition, an in'or$ation char)in) her (ith violation o' "C 1J66 (as 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. 0440. Canny
<ivera, on the other hand, (as released 'ro$ custody.
6n 10 &ay 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled, (ith this Court on behal' o' ?icky 6caya
and Canny <ivera. :t (as alle)ed therein that ?icky 6caya (as ille)ally arrested and detained, and
denied the ri)ht to a preli$inary investi)ation.
:t (ould appear, ho(ever, that ?icky 6caya (as arrested in flagranti delicto so that her arrest (ithout
a (arrant is >usti'ied. #o preli$inary investi)ation (as conducted because she (as arrested (ithout
a (arrant and she re'used to (aive the provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code,
pursuant to Sec. 0, <ule 11! o' the <ule o' Court, as a$ended.
?
+he petitioners ?icky 6caya, Co$in)o ;nonuevo, <a$on Casiple, and ;$elia <oDue clai$ that the
'irear$s, a$$unition and subversive docu$ents alle)ed to have been 'ound in their possession
(hen they (ere arrested, did not belon) to the$, but (ere EplantedE by the $ilitary a)ents to >usti'y
their ille)al arrest.
+he petitioners, ho(ever, have not introduced any evidence to support their a'oresaid clai$. 6n the
other hand, no evil $otive or ill-(ill on the part o' the arrestin) o''icers that (ould cause the said
arrestin) o''icers in these cases to accuse the petitioners 'alsely, has been sho(n. 8esides, the
arrestin) o''icers in these cases do not appear to be seekers o' )lory and bounty hunters 'or, as
counsel 'or the petitioners ;nonuevo and Casiple say, Ethere is absolutely nothin) in the evidence
sub$itted durin) the inDuest that petitioners are on the 1;F" 6rder o' 8attle (ith a re(ard o'
"1/5,555.55 each on their heads.1E
6
6n the other hand, as pointed out by the Solicitor @eneral, the
arrest o' the petitioners is not a product o' a (itch hunt or a 'ishin) e9pedition, but the result o' an in-depth
surveillance o' #"; sa'ehouses pointed to by no less than 'or$er co$rades o' the petitioners in the rebel
$ove$ent.
+he Solicitor @eneral, in his Consolidated &e$orandu$, aptly observes*
. . . . +o reiterate, the 'ocal point in the case o' petitioners <oDue, 8uenaobra,
;nonuevo and Casiple, (as the la('ul search and seizure conducted by the $ilitary
at the residence o' <enato Constantino at ?illaluz Co$pound, &olave St., &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila. +he raid at Constantino1s residence, (as not a (itch
huntin) or 'ishin) e9pedition on the part o' the $ilitary. :t (as a result o' an in-depth
$ilitary surveillance coupled (ith the leads provided by 'or$er $e$bers o' the
under)round subversive or)anizations. +hat raid produced positive results. to date,
nobody has disputed the 'act that the residence o' Constantino (hen raided yielded
co$$unication eDuip$ent, 'irear$s and a$$unitions, as (ell as subversive
docu$ents.
+he $ilitary a)ents (orkin) on the in'or$ation provided by Constantino that other
$e$bers o' his )roup (ere co$in) to his place, reasonably conducted a Estake-outE
operation (hereby so$e $e$bers o' the raidin) tea$ (ere le't behind the place.
+rue enou)h, barely t(o hours a'ter the raid and Constantino1s arrest, petitioner
8uenaobra arrived at Constantino1s residence. ,e acted suspiciously and (hen
'risked and searched by the $ilitary authorities, 'ound in his person (ere letters.
+hey are no ordinary letters, as even a cursory readin) (ould sho(. #ot only that,
8uenaobra ad$itted that he is a #"; courier and (as there to deliver the letters to
Constantino.
SubseDuently, less than t(enty 'our hours a'ter the arrest o' Constantino and
8uenaobra, petitioners ;nonuevo and Casiple arrived at Constantino1s place. Would
it be unreasonable 'or the $ilitary a)ents to believe that petitioners ;nonuevo and
Casiple are a$on) those e9pected to visit Constantino1s residence considerin) that
Constatino1s in'or$ation (as true, in that 8uenaobra did co$e to that placeI Was it
unreasonable under the circu$stances, on the part o' the $ilitary a)ents, not to 'risk
and search anyone (ho should visit the residence o' Constantino, such as
petitioners ;nonuevo and CasipleI &ust this ,onorable Court yield to ;nonuevo and
Casiple1s 'li$sy and bare assertion that they (ent to visit Constantino, (ho (as to
leave 'or Saudi ;rabia on the day they (ere arrested thereatI
;s to petitioner <oDue, (as it unreasonable 'or the $ilitary authorities to e''ect her
arrest (ithout (arrant considerin) that it (as 8uenaobra (ho provided the leads on
her identityI :t cannot be denied that 8uenaobra had connection (ith <oDue.
8ecause the 'or$er has the phone nu$ber o' the latter. Why the necessity o'
>u$blin) <oDue1s telephone nu$ber as (ritten on a piece o' paper taken 'ro$
8uenaobra1s possessionI "etitioners <oDue and 8uenaobra have not o''ered any
plausible reason so 'ar.
:n all the above incidents, respondents $aintain that they acted reasonably, under
the ti$e, place and circu$stances o' the events in Duestion, especially considerin)
that at the ti$e o' petitioner1s arrest, incri$inatory evidence, i.e, 'irear$s,
a$$unitions andBor subversive docu$ents (ere 'ound in their possession.
"etitioners, (hen arrested, (ere neither takin) their snacks nor innocently visitin) a
ca$p, but (ere arrested in such ti$e, place and circu$stances, 'ro$ (hich one can
reasonably conclude tat they (ere up to a sinister plot, involvin) ut$ost secrecy and
co$prehensive conspiracy.
:?
:n. @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu vs. %i$3, the release on habeas corpus o' the petitioner Ceo)racias
7spiritu, (ho is detained by virtue o' an :n'or$ation 'or ?iolation o' ;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal
Code 2:ncitin) to Sedition3 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila, is si$ilarly not (arranted.
+he record o' the case sho(s that the said petitioner is the @eneral Secretary o' the "ina)kaisahan)
Sa$ahan n) +super at 6perators #ation(ide 2":S+6#3, an association o' drivers and operators o'
public service vehicles in the "hilippines, or)anized 'or their $utual aid and protection.
"etitioner clai$s that at about /*55 o1clock in the $ornin) o' ! #ove$ber 19JJ, (hile he (as
sleepin) in his ho$e located at 6 ?alencia St., Sta. &esa, &anila, he (as a(akened by his sister
&aria "az %alic (ho told hi$ that a )roup o' persons (anted to hire his >eepney. When he (ent
do(n to talk to the$, he (as i$$ediately put under arrest. When he asked 'or the (arrant o' arrest,
the $en, headed by Col. <icardo <eyes, bodily li'ted hi$ and placed hi$ in their o(ner-type
>eepney. ,e de$anded that his sister, &aria "az %alic, be allo(ed to acco$pany hi$, but the $en
did not accede to his reDuest and hurriedly sped a(ay.
,e (as brou)ht to "olice Station #o. J o' the Western "olice Cistrict at 8lu$entritt, &anila (here he
(as interro)ated and detained. +hen, at about 9*55 o1clock o' the sa$e $ornin), he (as brou)ht
be'ore the respondent %i$ and, there and then, the said respondent ordered his arrest and
detention. ,e (as therea'ter brou)ht to the @eneral ;ssi)n$ent Section, :nvesti)ation Civision o'
the Western "olice Cistrict under "olice Capt. Cresenciano ;. Cabasal (here he (as detained,
restrained and deprived o' his liberty.
7
+he respondents clai$ ho(ever, that the detention o' the petitioner is >usti'ied in vie( o' the
:n'or$ation 'iled a)ainst hi$ be'ore the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila, docketed therein as Cri$inal
Case #o. JJ-6J-J/, char)in) hi$ (ith violation o' ;rt. 14! o' the <evised "enal Code 2:ncitin) to
Sedition3.
+he respondents also clai$ that the petitioner (as la('ully arrested (ithout a >udicial (arrant o'
arrest since petitioner (hen arrested had in 'act >ust co$$itted an o''ense in that in the a'ternoon o'
!! #ove$ber 19JJ, durin) a press con'erence at the #ational "ress Club.
Ceo)racias 7spiritu throu)h tri-$edia (as heard ur)in) all drivers and operators to
)o on nation(ide strike on #ove$ber !, 19JJ, to 'orce the )overn$ent to )ive into
their de$ands to lo(er the prices o' spare parts, co$$odities, (ater and the
i$$ediate release 'ro$ detention o' the president o' the ":S+6# 2"ina)-isan)
Sa$ahan n) +super 6perators #ation(ide3. Further, (e heard Ceo)racias 7spiritu
takin) the place o' ":S+6# president &edardo <oda and also announced the
'or$ation o' the ;lliance Crivers ;ssociation to )o on nation(ide strike on #ove$ber
!, 19JJ.
2
"olice$en (aited 'or petitioner outside the #ational "res Club in order to investi)ate hi$, but he
)ave the la($en the slip.
9
,e (as ne9t seen at about /*55 o1clock that a'ternoon at a )atherin) o'
drivers and sy$phatizers at the corner o' &a)saysay 8lvd. and ?alencia Street, Sta. &esa, &anila (here
he (as heard to say*
8ukas tuloy an) (el)a natin, su$a)ot na an) Cebu at 8icol na kasali sila, at hindi
tayo titi)il han))an) hindi binibi)ay n) )obyerno ni Cory an) )usto natin) pa)baba
n) hala)a n) spare parts, bilihin at and pa)papalaya sa atin) pinuno na si .a
<oda hanggang sa mag(agulo na.
10
2e$phasis supplied3
+he police 'inally cau)ht up (ith the petitioner on ! #ove$ber 19JJ. ,e (as invited 'or Duestionin)
and brou)ht to police headDuarters a'ter (hich an :n'or$ation 'or violation o' ;rt. 14! o' the <evised
"enal Code (as 'iled a)ainst hi$ be'ore the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila.
11
Since the arrest o' the petitioner (ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' <ule
11, Sec. /2b3 o' the <ules o' Court and that the petitioner is detained by virtue o' a valid in'or$ation
'iled (ith the co$petent court, he $ay not be released on habeas corpus. ,e $ay, ho(ever be
released upon postin) bail as reco$$ended. ,o(ever, (e 'ind the a$ount o' the reco$$ended bail
2"65,555.553 e9cessive and (e reduce it to "15,555.55 only.
?::
:n @.<. #o. J6! 2#azareno vs. Station Co$$ander3, (e also 'ind no $erit in the sub$ission
o' 9arciso 9azareno that he (as ille)ally arrested and is unla('ully detained. +he record o' this case
sho(s that at about J*5 o1clock in the $ornin) o' 14 Cece$ber 19JJ, one <o$ulo 8unye :: (as
killed by a )roup o' $en near the corner o' +. &olina and &endiola Streets in ;laban), &untin)lupa,
&etro &anila. 6ne o' the suspects in the killin) (as <a$il <e)al (ho (as arrested by the police on
!J Cece$ber 19JJ. Apon Duestionin), <e)al pointed to #arciso #azareno as on o' his co$panions
in the killin) o' the said <o$ulo 8unye ::. :n vie( thereo', the police o''icers, (ithout (arrant, picked
up #arciso #azareno and brou)ht hi$ to the police headDuarters 'or Duestionin). 6bviously, the
evidence o' petitioner1s )uilt is stron) because on January 19J9, an in'or$ation char)in) #arciso
#azareno, <a$il <e)ala, and t(o 2!3 others, (ith the killin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: (as 'iled (ith the
<e)ional +rial Court o' &akati, &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o.
01.
6n 0 January 19J9, #arciso #azareno 'iled a $otion to post bail, but the $otion (as denied by the
trial court in an order dated 15 January 19J9, even as the $otion to post bail, earlier 'iled by his co-
accused, &anuel %aurea)a, (as )ranted by the sa$e trial court.
6n 1 January 19J9, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal' o' #arciso
#azareno and on 1 January 19J9, the Court issued the (rit o' habeas corpus, returnable to the
"residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' 8iTan, %a)una, 8ranch !4, orderin) said court to hear
the case on 5 January 19J9 and therea'ter resolve the petition.
;t the conclusion o' the hearin), or on 1 February 19J9, the "residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' 8iTan, %a)una issued a resolution denyin) the petition 'or habeas corpus, it appearin) that
the said #arciso #azareno is in the custody o' the respondents by reason o' an in'or$ation 'iled
a)ainst hi$ (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' &akati, &etro &anila (hich had taken co)nizance o'
said case and had, in 'act, denied the $otion 'or bail 'iled by said #arciso #azareno 2presu$ably
because o' the stren)th o' the evidence a)ainst hi$3.
+he 'indin)s o' the "residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' 8iTan, %a)una are based upon the
'acts and the la(. ConseDuently, (e (ill not disturb the sa$e. 7vidently, the arrest o' #azareno (as
e''ected by the police (ithout (arrant pursuant to Sec. /2b3, <ule 11, <ules o' Court a'ter he (as
positively i$plicated by his co-accused <a$il <e)ala in the killin) o' <o$ulo 8unye
::= and a'ter investi)ation by the police authorities. ;s held in 0eople %s. Ancheta*
12
+he obli)ation o' an a)ent o' authority to $ake an arrest by reason o' a cri$e, does
not presuppose as a necessary reDuisite 'or the 'ul'ill$ent thereo', the indubitable
e9istence o' a cri$e. For the detention to be per'ectly le)al, it is su''icient that the
a)ent or person in authority $akin) the arrest has reasonably su''icient )rounds to
believe the e9istence o' an act havin) the characteristics o' a cri$e and that the
sa$e )rounds e9ist to believe that the person sou)ht to be detained participated
therein.
?:::
:t is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, cri$inal char)es have been 'iled in the
proper courts a)ainst the petitioners. +he rule is, that i' a person alle)ed to be restrained o' his
liberty is in the custody o' an o''icer under process issued by a court >ud)e, and that the court or
>ud)e had >urisdiction to issue the process or $ake the order, o' if such person is charged before
an' court, the (rit o' habeas corpus (ill not be allo(ed. Section 4, <ule 15!, <ules o' Court, as
a$ended is Duite e9plicit in providin) that*
Sec. 4. *hen writ is allowed or discharge authorized. H :' it appears that the person
alle)ed to be restrained o' his liberty is in the custody o' an o''icer under process
issued by a court or >ud)e or by virtue o' a >ud)$ent or order o' a court o' record, and
that the court or >ud)e had >urisdiction to issue the process, render the >ud)$ent, or
$ake the order, the (rit shall not be allo(ed= or i' the >urisdiction appears a'ter the
(rit is allo(ed, the person shall not be dischar)ed by reason o' any in'or$ality or
de'ect in the process, >ud)$ent, or order. 9or shall an'thing in this rule be held to
authorize the discharge of a person charged with a con%icted of an offense in the
0hilippines or o' a person su''erin) i$prison$ent under la('ul >ud)$ent. 2e$phasis
supplied3
;t this point, (e re'er to petitioner1s plea 'or the Court o' re-e9a$ine and, therea'ter, abandon its
pronounce$ent in 3lagan %s. Enrile,
13
that a (rit o' habeas corpus is no lon)er available a'ter an
in'or$ation is 'iled a)ainst the person detained and a (arrant o' arrest or an order o' co$$it$ent, is
issued by the court (here said in'or$ation has been 'iled.
15
+he petitioners clai$ that the said rulin),
(hich (as handed do(n durin) the past dictatorial re)i$e to en'orce and stren)then said re)i$e, has no
place under the present de$ocratic dispensation and collides (ith the basic, 'unda$ental, and
constitutional ri)hts o' the people. "etitioners point out that the said doctrine $akes possible the arrest
and detention o' innocent persons despite lack o' evidence a)ainst the$, and, $ost o'ten, it is only a'ter a
petition 'or habeas corpus is 'iled be'ore the court that the $ilitary authorities 'ile the cri$inal in'or$ation
in the courts o' la( to be able to hide behind the protective $antle o' the said doctrine. +his, petitioners
assert, stands as an obstacle to the 'reedo$ and liberty o' the people and per$its la(less and arbitrary
State action.
We 'ind, ho(ever, no co$pellin) reason to abandon the said doctrine. :t is based upon e9press
provision o' the <ules o' Court and the e9i)encies served by the la(. +he 'ears e9pressed by the
petitioners are not really unre$ediable. ;s the Court sees it, re-e9a$ination or reappraisal, (ith a
vie( to its abandon$ent, o' the :la)an case doctrine is not the ans(er. +he ans(er and the better
practice (ould be, not to li$it the 'unction o' thehabeas corpus to a $ere inDuiry as to (hether or not
the court (hich issued the process, >ud)$ent or order o' co$$it$ent or be'ore (ho$ the detained
person is char)ed, had >urisdiction or not to issue the process, >ud)$ent or order or to take
co)nizance o' the case, but rather, as the Court itsel' states in Morales- .r. %s. Enrile,
19
Ein all
petitions 'or habeas corpus the court $ust inDuire into every phase and aspect o' petitioner1s detention-
'ro$ the $o$ent petition was ta(en into custod' up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of
the petition=E and Eonl' after such a scrutin' can the court satisf' itself that the due process clause of our
,onstitution has in fact been satisfied.E +his is e9actly (hat the Court has done in the petitions at bar.
+his is (hat should hence'orth be done in all 'uture cases o' habeas corpus. :n Short, all cases involvin)
deprivation o' individual liberty should be pro$ptly brou)ht to the courts 'or their i$$ediate scrutiny and
disposition.
W,7<7F6<7, the petitions are hereby C:S&:SS7C, e9cept that in G.+. 9o. <>?=? 27spiritu vs.
%i$3, the bail bond 'or petitioner1s provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced 'ro$ "65,555.55 to
"15,555.55. #o costs.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan ,...- 9ar%asa- ,...- Melencio-)errera- Gutierrez- .r.- 0aras- Ganca'co- 0adilla- /idin- Gri#o-
A&uino- Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.



Se*/+e O*&n&on(

CRU1, J., dissentin) and concurrin)*
: dissent inso'ar as the ponencia a''ir$s the rulin) in Garcia-0adilla %. 7nrile that subversion is a
continuin) o''ense, to >usti'y the arrest (ithout (arrant o' any person at an' time as lon) as the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion o' the o''ense. +hat is a
dan)erous doctrine. ; person $ay be arrested (hen he is doin) the $ost innocent acts, as (hen he
is only (ashin) his hands, or takin) his supper, or even (hen he is sleepin), on the )round that he
is co$$ittin) the Econtinuin)E o''ense o' subversion. %ibertarians (ere appalled (hen that doctrine
(as i$posed durin) the &arcos re)i$e. : a$ alar$ed that even no( this ne( Court is (illin) to
sustain it. : stron)ly ur)e $y collea)ues to discard it alto)ether as one o' the dis)race'ul vesti)es o'
the past dictatorship and uphold the rule )uaranteein) the ri)ht o' the people a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures. We can do no less i' (e are really to re>ect the past oppression and co$$it
ourselves to the true 'reedo$. 7ven i' it be ar)ued that the $ilitary should be )iven every support in
our 'i)ht a)ainst subversion, : $aintain that that 'i)ht $ust be (a)ed honorably, in accordance (ith
the 8ill o' <i)hts. : do not believe that in 'i)htin) the ene$y (e $ust adopt the (ays o' the ene$y,
(hich are precisely (hat (e are 'i)htin) against. : sub$it that our $ore i$portant $otivation should
be (hat are (e 'i)htin) for.
79cept 'or this reservation and appeal, : concur (ith the decision.

"EL$C$ANO, J., concurrin)*
: concur in the result reached in each o' the ei)ht 2J3 consolidated "etitions 'or )abeas ,orpus. ;t
the sa$e ti$e, : have so$e reservations concernin) certain state$ents $ade by the Court in @.<.
#o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3 2"art : o' the Cecision3 and in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3
2"art ?: o' the Cecision3.
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3, the per curiam opinion states cate)orically that* Ethe
cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes.E +he $a>ority here relies upon Garcia-
0adilla %. Enrile 21!1 SC<; 40! F19JG3. +he $a>ority there $ade the sa$e eDually broad state$ent
but (ithout any visible e''ort to e9a$ine the basis, scope and $eanin) o' such a s(eepin)
state$ent. Garcia-0adilla did not even identi'y the speci'ic o''enses (hich it re)arded as Ein the
nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the co$$on o''ensesE 21!1 SC<; at 4J93.
:t appears to $e that in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 2"art ?: o' the Cecision3, the per
curiam opinion has in e''ect included the o''ense o' Eincitin) to seditionE penalized under ;rticle 14!
o' the <evised "enal Code as a Econtinuin) o''enseE under the capacious blanket o' the $a>ority
opinion in Garcia-0adilla, at least 'or purposes o' deter$inin) the le)ality o' the arrest (ithout a
(arrant o' petitioner Ceo)racias 7spiritu.
: (ould respect'ully recall to $y learned collea)ues in the Court that Eincitin) to seditionE is de'ined in
;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal Code in ter$s o' speech
1
and that conseDuently it is i$portant
constantly do distin)uish bet(een speech (hich is protected by the constitutional )uaranty o' 'reedo$ o'
speech and o' the press and speech (hich $ay constitutionally be re)arded as violative o' ;rticle 14! o'
the <evised "enal Code. "recisely because speech (hich the police authorities $i)ht re)ard as seditious
or as cri$inal incitin) to sedition $ay (ell turn out to be only an e9ercise o' a constitutionally )uaranteed
'reedo$, : (ould sub$it that (e $ust apply the concept o' Econtinuin) o''enseE narro(ly 'or purposes o'
application o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court.
:n $y vie(, the very broad state$ent $ade about Econtinuin) cri$esE in @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al
v. <a$os3 constitutes dictum, considerin) that <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. had already
been tried in the court belo( 'or Edouble $urder, etc.E and 'ound )uilty o' the o''ense char)ed,
sentenced accordin)ly, and at least in the case o' <olando Cural, service o' the sentence i$posed
upon hi$ by the trial court had already be)un.
Si$ilarly, in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 the state$ent that the arrest o' petitioner 7spiritu
(ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised
<ules o' Court does not appear strictly necessary, considerin) that the petitioner had already been
char)ed in a valid in'or$ation 'iled (ith the co$petent court, (hich court had presu$ably issued an
order 'or his co$$it$ent, and considerin) 'urther that he is entitled to bail.
+here is thus no obstacle, to $y $ind, to a care'ul e9a$ination o' the doctrine o' Econtinuin) cri$esE
as applied to such o''enses as subversion and incitin) to sedition and possibly other o''enses, in
so$e 'uture case (here that issue is raised sDuarely and is unavoidable.
,ortes- ..- concurs.

SARM$ENTO, J., dissentin)*
: be) to di''er 'ro$ $y brethren. : sub$it that habeas corpus lies in all ei)ht cases.
@.<. #o. J1/60
+he $a>ority says that <olando Cural1s arrest (ithout a (arrant is la('ul under the <ules o' Court,
(hich reads*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a (arrant shall be
'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall be proceeded a)ainst in
accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
1
E<olando Cural,E so states the $a>ority, E(as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y
2#";3, an outla(ed subversive or)anization,E
2
and that EFsGubversion bein) a continuing offense, the
arrest o' <olando Cural (ithout a (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense
(hen arrested.E
3
;s : said, : be) to di''er.
First, <olando Cural (as char)ed (ith ECouble &urder (ith ;ssault upon ;)ents o' ;uthority.E
5
:' he
had been )uilty o' subversion H the o''ense 'or (hich he (as supposedly arrested %ia a (arrantless
arrest H subversion (as the lo)ical cri$e (ith (hich he should have been char)ed.
+he authorities could not have ri)htly arrested hi$ 'or subversion on account o' the slay o' the t(o
C;"C6& soldiers, a possible basis 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct, because as the $a>ority
points out, Ehe (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) Fthe$G . . . FnGor (as he arrested >ust
a'ter the co$$ission o' the said o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident.E
9
Second, : do not believe that a (arrantless 2or citizen1s3 arrest is possible in case o' subversion H in
the absence o' any overt act that (ould >usti'y the authorities to act. ESubversion,E as the ter$ is
kno(n in la(, $eans Ekno(in)ly, (il'ully and b' o%ert acts a''iliatFin)G Fonesel'G (ith, beco$Fin)G or
re$ainFin)G a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines andBor its successor or o' any
subversion association as de'ined in sections t(o and three hereo'. . . . E
6
%o)ically, the $ilitary could
not have kno(n that Cural, at the ti$e he (as taken, (as a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y because
he (as not per'or$in) any over act that he (as truly, a rebel. :ndeed, it had to take a Everi'icationE
6
be'ore
he could be identi'ied as alle)edly a $e$ber o' the under)round ar$y. Ander these circu$stances, : a$
hard put to say that he (as co$$ittin) subversion (hen he (as arrested, assu$in) that he (as )uilty o'
subversion, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest.
E6vert actE is $ade up o' EFeGvery act, $ove$ent, deed and (ord o' the
FaccusedG,E
7
indicatin) intent to acco$plish a cri$inal ob>ective. Cural, at the ti$e he
(as arrested, (as lyin) in a hospital bed. +his is not the overt act conte$plated by la(.
Ander the <ule above-Duoted, the person $ust have either been apprehended in flagranti 2'irst
para)raph3 or a'ter the act, provided that the peace o''icer has Epersonal kno(led)eE that he, the
suspect, is )uilty. 2second para)raph.3 ;s : stated, Cural (as not cau)ht in the act. &oreover, (hat
the <e)ional :ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 had in its
hands (as a $ere Econ'idential in'or$ation.E : do not think that this is the personal kno(led)e
re'erred to by the second para)raph.
2
"lainly and si$ply, it is hearsay.
+he rule, 'urther$ore, on (arrantless arrest is an e9ceptional one. 8y its lan)ua)e, it $ay be
e9ercised only in the $ost ur)ent cases and (hen the )uilt o' an o''ender is plain and evident. What
: think (e have here is purely and si$ply, the $ilitary takin) the la( in its hands.
8y sta$pin) validity to <olando Cural1s (arrantless arrest, : a$ a'raid that the $a>ority has set a
very dan)erous precedent. With all due respect, $y brethren has accorded the $ilitary a blanket
authority to pick up any Juan, "edro, and &aria (ithout a (arrant 'or the si$ple reason that
subversion is supposed to be a continuin) o''ense.
+hat <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$yE
9
is 'urther$ore to
$e, a hasty state$ent. :t has yet to be established that Cural is indeed a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist
"arty1s $ilitary ar$. ;nd unless proven )uilty, he is presu$ed, and $ust be presu$ed $ost o' all by this
Court, to be innocent.
+he $a>ority also says that habeas corpus is $oot and acade$ic because Cural has been convicted
and is servin) sentence. : like(ise take e9ception. :t has been held that* E+he (rit $ay be )ranted
upon a >ud)$ent already 'inal.E
10
+he (rit o' liberty is a hi)h prero)ative (rit.
11
?indication o' due process is its historic o''ice.
12
@.<. #os. J4/J1-J!
:n the case o' Wil'redo 8uenaobra, the $a>ority avers that he had E$ani'ested his desire to stay in
the "C-:#" stockade,E
13
'or (hich habeas corpus has supposedly beco$e $oot and acade$ic. : a$ not
convinced that that is reason enou)h to dis$iss habeas corpus as $oot and acade$ic. :t is the duty o'
this Court, in $y opinion, to $ake sure that 8uenaobra has $ade his choice 'reely and voluntarily.
"ersonally, : 'ind it indeed stran)e (hy he should pre'er to stay in >ail than )o scot-'ree.
+here is 'urther no doubt that 8uenaobra1s petition is one i$pressed (ith a public interest. :n one
case
15
(e denied a $otion to (ithdra( a petition 'or habeas corpus in vie( o' its 'ar-reachin) i$portance
to the $otion, : do not see ho( (e should act di''erently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially since
it involves persons (ho think and believe di''erently 'ro$ the rest o' us.
8oth 8uenaobra and ;$elia <oDue supposedly ad$itted that they (ere rankin) o''icers o' the
Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines. ;ccordin) to the $a>ority, 8uenaobra and <oDue are bound by
their ad$issions.
19
+hat both parties had ad$itted to be $e$bers o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2the
#ational Anited Front Co$$ission3 is a naked contention o' the $ilitary. +he 'act that it has not been
controverted, in $y vie(, does not >usti'y the couple1s arrest (ithout (arrant. Worse, by relyin) on
the bare (ord o' the $ilitary, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, conde$ned the duo 'or
a cri$e 2subversion andBor ille)al possession o' 'irear$s3 the bone o' contention, precisely, belo(.
@.<. #os. J4/J-J4
: also 'ind the (arrantless arrests o' Co$in)o ;Tonuevo and <a$on Casiple to be contrary to la(.
+hat they are Ead$ittedly $e$bers o' the standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFCE
16
and that Esubversive
$aterialsE
17
and unlicensed 'irear$s (ere 'ound in their possession, are, like 8uenaobra1s and <oDue1s
cases, barren clai$s o' the $ilitary. : also 'ear that by the $a>ority1s stron) lan)ua)e 2that ;Tonuevo and
Casiple are ad$itted #ACF o''icers3 the $a>ority has pronounced the petitioners )uilty, (hen the lo(er
courts have yet to sit in >ud)$ent. : think (e should be the last to pree$pt the decision o' the trial courts.
We (ould have set to nau)ht the presu$ption o' innocence accused persons en>oy.
@.<. #o. J16!
With respect to the case o' ?icky 6caya, : a$ a'raid that : a$ inclined to(ards the sa$e conclusion.
+here (as basis H at the outset H to say that 6caya (as probably )uilty o' ille)al possession o'
'irear$s. ;s : have observed, a (arrantless arrest $ust be predicated upon the e9istence o' a cri$e
bein) actually co$$itted or havin) been co$$itted. What : 'ind here, rather, is nothin) less than a
success'ul 'ishin) e9pedition conducted by the $ilitary upon an un(ary citizen. : a$ Duite distressed
to note that this is still possible under a supposed de$ocracy.
@.<. #o. J/0!0
Ceo)racias 7spiritu (as 'ast asleep in his house (hen he (as placed under arrest. For the li'e o'
$e, : can not 'i)ure out ho( one can be picked upon in one1s o(n ho$e and held $o$ents later
(ithout a (arrant o' arrest.
7spiritu (as alle)edly )uilty o' incitin) to sedition as a result o' a speech delivered in a press
con'erence at the #ational "ress Club on #ove$ber !1, 19JJ. ,e (as, ho(ever, arrested the day
a'ter, #ove$ber !!, 19JJ. Ander these circu$stances, it eludes $e ho( an arrest (ithout a (arrant
could be >usti'ied, either under para)raph 2a3 or para)raph 2b3 o' the <ule on (arrantless arrests.
+he $a>ority avers that since an in'or$ation had been 'iled (ith the court, 7spiritu1s detention, is
alle)edly >usti'iable. +he Duestion is (hether or not an in'or$ation is an authority to hold a person in
custody. Ander the <ules, an in'or$ation $eans Ean accusation in (ritin) char)in) a person (ith an
o''ense subscribed by the 'iscal and 'iled (ith the court.E
12
:t is not, ho(ever, an order to keep one
under detention.
@.<. #o. J6!
+he o''ense 'or (hich #arciso #azareno is bein) held H the 'atal shootin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: H
(as co$$itted on Cece$ber 14, 19JJ. :t (as, ho(ever, only on Cece$ber !J, 19JJ that the police
collared a suspect, <a$il <e)ala, (ho subseDuently pointed to #azareno as his acco$plice. :t also
escapes $e ho( #azareno, under these circu$stances, could have been validly put under arrest
(ithout a (arrant or the e9istence o' the circu$stance described under either para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o'
the <ule above-Duoted* +he cri$e had lon) been co$$itted prior to the arrest.
@.<. #os. J1/60= J4/J1-J!= J4/J-J4= J16!=
J/0!0 M J6!= "ostscripts
+he $a>ority has disposed o' these cases on the bedrock o' (hat : vie( as doctrines that have lost
their luster*
1. +he teachin) o' Garcia-0adilla %. Enrile,
19
(hich held that subversion is a continuin) o''ense=
!. +he rulin) in 3lagan %. Enrile.
20
: also 'ind, 'or reasons to be set 'orth hereina'ter, a )lossin) over o' the 'unda$ental ri)hts o' the
petitioners under the Constitution in the authorities1 handlin) o' the petitioners1 cases.
: hold that Garcia-0adilla is no lon)er )ood la( under the present Constitution. +(o reasons
persuade $e. First, it is repu)nant to due process o' la(. 2E+he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the
usual procedure in the prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuire the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the
e9istence o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin) o'
bail i' the o''ense is bailable.E
21
Ander the 19J0 Constitution, not even EFaG state o' $artial la(
suspendFsG the operation o' Fthe CharterG. . .E
22
Second, it leaves the liberty o' citizens to the (hi$ o' one
$an 2E6n these occasions Fthe e9istence o' a state o' e$er)encyG, the "resident takes absolute
co$$and, 'or the very li'e o' the #ation and its )overn$ent, (hich, incidentally, includes the courts, is in
)rave peril. :n so doin), the "resident is ans(erable only to his conscience, the people and to @od. For
their part, in )ivin) hi$ the supre$e $andate as their "resident, the people can only trust and pray that,
)ivin) hi$ their o(n loyalty and (ithout patriotis$, the "resident (ill not 'ail the$.E
23
3 Ander the Charter
no( prevailin), the Chie' 79ecutive shares, to a certain e9tent, the e9ercise o' e$er)ency po(ers, (ith
Con)ress.
25
;s a la( advocate under the re)i$e o' &arcos, : had challen)ed the soundness o' Garcia-0adilla. :
doubted (hether it could stand up under the ae)is o' the 190 Constitution. : still doubt (hether it
can (ithstand scrutiny under the 19J0 Constitution.
+he $a>ority also 'ails to point out that si9 days a'ter @arcia-"adilla (as handed do(n, the Court
pro$ul)atedMorales- .r. %. Enrile,
29
a case that in $y vie( has si)ni'icantly (hittled do(n Garcia-
0adillaIs very esse. :n that case, &r. Justice ,er$o)enes Concepcion, Jr. (rote 'or the $a>ority*
999 999 999
16. ;'ter a person is arrested . . . (ithout a (arrant . . . the proper co$plaint or
in'or$ation a)ainst hi$ $ust be 'iled (ith the courts o' >ustice (ithin the ti$e
prescribed by la(. . .
10. Failure o' the public o''icer to do so (ithout any valid reason (ould constitute a
violation o' ;rt. 1!/, <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. ;nd the person detained
(ould be entitled to be released on a (rit o' habeas corpus, unless he is detained
under subsistin) process issued by a co$petent court.
26
: also )ather 'ro$ the records that none o' the petitioners had been* 213 in'or$ed o' their ri)ht to
re$ain silent= and 2!3 to have co$petent and independent counsel.
27
;s : said, the $a>ority is denyin) habeas corpus on sel'-servin) clai$s o' the $ilitary that the
petitioners 2Cural, 8uenaobra, <oDue, ;Tonuevo, and Casiple3 are $e$bers o' the Co$$unist
"arty o' the "hilippines H and that they have supposedly con'essed to be in 'act $e$bers o' the
outla(ed or)anization. +he Duestion that has not been ans(ered is (hether or not these supposed
con'essions are ad$issible, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest, as evidence o' )uilt, in the absence
o' any sho(in) that they (ere apprised o' their constitutional ri)hts. : a$ perturbed by the silence o'
the $a>ority. : a$ distressed because as (e held in one case, violation o' the Constitution divests
the court o' >urisdiction and entitles the accused to habeas corpus.
22
;ccordin) to the $a>ority, a Ere-e9a$ination or re-appraisal . . . o'
the :la)an doctrine is not the ans(er.E
29
:n $y considered opinion, 3lagan %. Enrile
30
does not ri)ht'ully
belon) in the volu$es o' "hilippine >urisprudence. :n that case, the petitioners, three Cavao-based
la(yers, (ere held by virtue o' a si$ple in'or$ation 2Ethe petition herein has been rendered $oot and
acade$ic by virtue o' the 'ilin) o' an :n'or$ation a)ainst the$ 'or <ebellion . . . and the issuance o' a
Warrant o' ;rrest a)ainst the$E
31
3 (ithout any preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3 havin) been
previously conducted 2to >usti'y the issuance o' a (arrant3.i EtEc-aUsl ;s : have stated, an in'or$ation is not a
(arrant o' arrest. +he 'act that an in'or$ation e9ists does not $ean that a (arrant (ill be issued.
;ccused persons have the ri)ht o' preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3.
32
:t 'or$s part and parcel
o' due process o' la( .
33
: 'ind the $a>ority1s reliance on ;.S. %. *ilson,
35
an ancient 2195/3 decision, inapt and untenable. :n
that case, the accused had been served (ith a (arrant and therea'ter taken into custody. +he Duestion
that 'aced the Court (as (hether or not the (arrant (as valid, a$id the accused1s char)es that the >ud)e
(ho issued it did not e9a$ine the co$plainant under oath. We held that the Duery (as acade$ic,
because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial sta)e.
+he cases at bar are not on all 'ours. ,ere, no (arrant has been issued. : sub$it that in that event,
the petitioners are entitled to 'reedo$ by (ay o' the (rit o' liberty.
999 999 999
+he apprehensions in Duestion chronicle in $y $ind the increasin) pattern o' arrests and detention
in the country (ithout the sanction o' a >udicial decree. Four years a)o at E7CS;E, and $any years
be'ore it, althou)h (ith $uch 'e(er o' us, (e valiantly challen)ed a dictator and all the evils his
re)i$e had stood 'or* repression o' civil liberties and tra$plin) on o' hu$an ri)hts. We set up a
popular )overn$ent, restored its honored institutions, and cra'ted a de$ocratic constitution that
rests on the )uideposts o' peace and 'reedo$. : 'eel that (ith this Court1s rulin), (e have 'rittered
a(ay, by a stroke o' the pen, (hat (e had so painstakin)ly built in 'our years o' de$ocracy, and
al$ost t(enty years o' stru))le a)ainst tyranny.
:t also occurs to $e that : a$ interposin) (hat loo$s as a Dui9otic outlook o' "hilippine la( on
(arrantless arrests and its i$plications on liberty. :t is an i$pression that does not surprise $e.
Lui9otic as they $ay see$, and $odesty aside, $y vie(s re'lect a stron) bias on $y part H 'or)ed
by years o' e9perience and sharpened by a pain'ul and lonely stru))le 'or 'reedo$ and >ustice H
to(ard $en and (o$en (ho challen)e settled belie's. :' this dissent can not )ain any adherent 'or
no(, let it nevertheless )o on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal 'or tolerance o' opinions
(ith (hich (e not only disa)ree, but opinions (e loathe.
: 'eel it is $y duty to articulate this dissent.

Se*/+e O*&n&on(
CRU1, J., dissentin) and concurrin)*
: dissent inso'ar as the ponencia a''ir$s the rulin) in Garcia-0adilla %. 7nrile that subversion is a
continuin) o''ense, to >usti'y the arrest (ithout (arrant o' any person at an' time as lon) as the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion o' the o''ense. +hat is a
dan)erous doctrine. ; person $ay be arrested (hen he is doin) the $ost innocent acts, as (hen he
is only (ashin) his hands, or takin) his supper, or even (hen he is sleepin), on the )round that he
is co$$ittin) the Econtinuin)E o''ense o' subversion. %ibertarians (ere appalled (hen that doctrine
(as i$posed durin) the &arcos re)i$e. : a$ alar$ed that even no( this ne( Court is (illin) to
sustain it. : stron)ly ur)e $y collea)ues to discard it alto)ether as one o' the dis)race'ul vesti)es o'
the past dictatorship and uphold the rule )uaranteein) the ri)ht o' the people a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures. We can do no less i' (e are really to re>ect the past oppression and co$$it
ourselves to the true 'reedo$. 7ven i' it be ar)ued that the $ilitary should be )iven every support in
our 'i)ht a)ainst subversion, : $aintain that that 'i)ht $ust be (a)ed honorably, in accordance (ith
the 8ill o' <i)hts. : do not believe that in 'i)htin) the ene$y (e $ust adopt the (ays o' the ene$y,
(hich are precisely (hat (e are 'i)htin) against. : sub$it that our $ore i$portant $otivation should
be (hat are (e 'i)htin) for.
79cept 'or this reservation and appeal, : concur (ith the decision.

"EL$C$ANO, J., concurrin)*
: concur in the result reached in each o' the ei)ht 2J3 consolidated "etitions 'or )abeas ,orpus. ;t
the sa$e ti$e, : have so$e reservations concernin) certain state$ents $ade by the Court in @.<.
#o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3 2"art : o' the Cecision3 and in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3
2"art ?: o' the Cecision3.
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3, the per curiam opinion states cate)orically that* Ethe
cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes.E +he $a>ority here relies upon Garcia-
0adilla %. Enrile 21!1 SC<; 40! F19JG3. +he $a>ority there $ade the sa$e eDually broad state$ent
but (ithout any visible e''ort to e9a$ine the basis, scope and $eanin) o' such a s(eepin)
state$ent. Garcia-0adilla did not even identi'y the speci'ic o''enses (hich it re)arded as Ein the
nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the co$$on o''ensesE 21!1 SC<; at 4J93.
:t appears to $e that in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 2"art ?: o' the Cecision3, the per
curiam opinion has in e''ect included the o''ense o' Eincitin) to seditionE penalized under ;rticle 14!
o' the <evised "enal Code as a Econtinuin) o''enseE under the capacious blanket o' the $a>ority
opinion in Garcia-0adilla, at least 'or purposes o' deter$inin) the le)ality o' the arrest (ithout a
(arrant o' petitioner Ceo)racias 7spiritu.
: (ould respect'ully recall to $y learned collea)ues in the Court that Eincitin) to seditionE is de'ined in
;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal Code in ter$s o' speech
1
and that conseDuently it is i$portant
constantly do distin)uish bet(een speech (hich is protected by the constitutional )uaranty o' 'reedo$ o'
speech and o' the press and speech (hich $ay constitutionally be re)arded as violative o' ;rticle 14! o'
the <evised "enal Code. "recisely because speech (hich the police authorities $i)ht re)ard as seditious
or as cri$inal incitin) to sedition $ay (ell turn out to be only an e9ercise o' a constitutionally )uaranteed
'reedo$, : (ould sub$it that (e $ust apply the concept o' Econtinuin) o''enseE narro(ly 'or purposes o'
application o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court.
:n $y vie(, the very broad state$ent $ade about Econtinuin) cri$esE in @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al
v. <a$os3 constitutes dictum, considerin) that <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. had already
been tried in the court belo( 'or Edouble $urder, etc.E and 'ound )uilty o' the o''ense char)ed,
sentenced accordin)ly, and at least in the case o' <olando Cural, service o' the sentence i$posed
upon hi$ by the trial court had already be)un.
Si$ilarly, in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 the state$ent that the arrest o' petitioner 7spiritu
(ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised
<ules o' Court does not appear strictly necessary, considerin) that the petitioner had already been
char)ed in a valid in'or$ation 'iled (ith the co$petent court, (hich court had presu$ably issued an
order 'or his co$$it$ent, and considerin) 'urther that he is entitled to bail.
+here is thus no obstacle, to $y $ind, to a care'ul e9a$ination o' the doctrine o' Econtinuin) cri$esE
as applied to such o''enses as subversion and incitin) to sedition and possibly other o''enses, in
so$e 'uture case (here that issue is raised sDuarely and is unavoidable.
,ortes- ..- concurs.

SARM$ENTO, J., dissentin)*
: be) to di''er 'ro$ $y brethren. : sub$it that habeas corpus lies in all ei)ht cases.
@.<. #o. J1/60
+he $a>ority says that <olando Cural1s arrest (ithout a (arrant is la('ul under the <ules o' Court,
(hich reads*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a (arrant shall be
'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall be proceeded a)ainst in
accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
1
E<olando Cural,E so states the $a>ority, E(as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y
2#";3, an outla(ed subversive or)anization,E
2
and that EFsGubversion bein) a continuing offense, the
arrest o' <olando Cural (ithout a (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense
(hen arrested.E
3
;s : said, : be) to di''er.
First, <olando Cural (as char)ed (ith ECouble &urder (ith ;ssault upon ;)ents o' ;uthority.E
5
:' he
had been )uilty o' subversion H the o''ense 'or (hich he (as supposedly arrested %ia a (arrantless
arrest H subversion (as the lo)ical cri$e (ith (hich he should have been char)ed.
+he authorities could not have ri)htly arrested hi$ 'or subversion on account o' the slay o' the t(o
C;"C6& soldiers, a possible basis 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct, because as the $a>ority
points out, Ehe (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) Fthe$G . . . FnGor (as he arrested >ust
a'ter the co$$ission o' the said o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident.E
9
Second, : do not believe that a (arrantless 2or citizen1s3 arrest is possible in case o' subversion H in
the absence o' any overt act that (ould >usti'y the authorities to act. ESubversion,E as the ter$ is
kno(n in la(, $eans Ekno(in)ly, (il'ully and b' o%ert acts a''iliatFin)G Fonesel'G (ith, beco$Fin)G or
re$ainFin)G a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines andBor its successor or o' any
subversion association as de'ined in sections t(o and three hereo'. . . . E
6
%o)ically, the $ilitary could
not have kno(n that Cural, at the ti$e he (as taken, (as a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y because
he (as not per'or$in) any over act that he (as truly, a rebel. :ndeed, it had to take a Everi'icationE
6
be'ore
he could be identi'ied as alle)edly a $e$ber o' the under)round ar$y. Ander these circu$stances, : a$
hard put to say that he (as co$$ittin) subversion (hen he (as arrested, assu$in) that he (as )uilty o'
subversion, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest.
E6vert actE is $ade up o' EFeGvery act, $ove$ent, deed and (ord o' the
FaccusedG,E
7
indicatin) intent to acco$plish a cri$inal ob>ective. Cural, at the ti$e he
(as arrested, (as lyin) in a hospital bed. +his is not the overt act conte$plated by la(.
Ander the <ule above-Duoted, the person $ust have either been apprehended in flagranti 2'irst
para)raph3 or a'ter the act, provided that the peace o''icer has Epersonal kno(led)eE that he, the
suspect, is )uilty. 2second para)raph.3 ;s : stated, Cural (as not cau)ht in the act. &oreover, (hat
the <e)ional :ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 had in its
hands (as a $ere Econ'idential in'or$ation.E : do not think that this is the personal kno(led)e
re'erred to by the second para)raph.
2
"lainly and si$ply, it is hearsay.
+he rule, 'urther$ore, on (arrantless arrest is an e9ceptional one. 8y its lan)ua)e, it $ay be
e9ercised only in the $ost ur)ent cases and (hen the )uilt o' an o''ender is plain and evident. What
: think (e have here is purely and si$ply, the $ilitary takin) the la( in its hands.
8y sta$pin) validity to <olando Cural1s (arrantless arrest, : a$ a'raid that the $a>ority has set a
very dan)erous precedent. With all due respect, $y brethren has accorded the $ilitary a blanket
authority to pick up any Juan, "edro, and &aria (ithout a (arrant 'or the si$ple reason that
subversion is supposed to be a continuin) o''ense.
+hat <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$yE
9
is 'urther$ore to
$e, a hasty state$ent. :t has yet to be established that Cural is indeed a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist
"arty1s $ilitary ar$. ;nd unless proven )uilty, he is presu$ed, and $ust be presu$ed $ost o' all by this
Court, to be innocent.
+he $a>ority also says that habeas corpus is $oot and acade$ic because Cural has been convicted
and is servin) sentence. : like(ise take e9ception. :t has been held that* E+he (rit $ay be )ranted
upon a >ud)$ent already 'inal.E
10
+he (rit o' liberty is a hi)h prero)ative (rit.
11
?indication o' due process is its historic o''ice.
12
@.<. #os. J4/J1-J!
:n the case o' Wil'redo 8uenaobra, the $a>ority avers that he had E$ani'ested his desire to stay in
the "C-:#" stockade,E
13
'or (hich habeas corpus has supposedly beco$e $oot and acade$ic. : a$ not
convinced that that is reason enou)h to dis$iss habeas corpus as $oot and acade$ic. :t is the duty o'
this Court, in $y opinion, to $ake sure that 8uenaobra has $ade his choice 'reely and voluntarily.
"ersonally, : 'ind it indeed stran)e (hy he should pre'er to stay in >ail than )o scot-'ree.
+here is 'urther no doubt that 8uenaobra1s petition is one i$pressed (ith a public interest. :n one
case
15
(e denied a $otion to (ithdra( a petition 'or habeas corpus in vie( o' its 'ar-reachin) i$portance
to the $otion, : do not see ho( (e should act di''erently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially since
it involves persons (ho think and believe di''erently 'ro$ the rest o' us.
8oth 8uenaobra and ;$elia <oDue supposedly ad$itted that they (ere rankin) o''icers o' the
Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines. ;ccordin) to the $a>ority, 8uenaobra and <oDue are bound by
their ad$issions.
19
+hat both parties had ad$itted to be $e$bers o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2the
#ational Anited Front Co$$ission3 is a naked contention o' the $ilitary. +he 'act that it has not been
controverted, in $y vie(, does not >usti'y the couple1s arrest (ithout (arrant. Worse, by relyin) on
the bare (ord o' the $ilitary, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, conde$ned the duo 'or
a cri$e 2subversion andBor ille)al possession o' 'irear$s3 the bone o' contention, precisely, belo(.
@.<. #os. J4/J-J4
: also 'ind the (arrantless arrests o' Co$in)o ;Tonuevo and <a$on Casiple to be contrary to la(.
+hat they are Ead$ittedly $e$bers o' the standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFCE
16
and that Esubversive
$aterialsE
17
and unlicensed 'irear$s (ere 'ound in their possession, are, like 8uenaobra1s and <oDue1s
cases, barren clai$s o' the $ilitary. : also 'ear that by the $a>ority1s stron) lan)ua)e 2that ;Tonuevo and
Casiple are ad$itted #ACF o''icers3 the $a>ority has pronounced the petitioners )uilty, (hen the lo(er
courts have yet to sit in >ud)$ent. : think (e should be the last to pree$pt the decision o' the trial courts.
We (ould have set to nau)ht the presu$ption o' innocence accused persons en>oy.
@.<. #o. J16!
With respect to the case o' ?icky 6caya, : a$ a'raid that : a$ inclined to(ards the sa$e conclusion.
+here (as basis H at the outset H to say that 6caya (as probably )uilty o' ille)al possession o'
'irear$s. ;s : have observed, a (arrantless arrest $ust be predicated upon the e9istence o' a cri$e
bein) actually co$$itted or havin) been co$$itted. What : 'ind here, rather, is nothin) less than a
success'ul 'ishin) e9pedition conducted by the $ilitary upon an un(ary citizen. : a$ Duite distressed
to note that this is still possible under a supposed de$ocracy.
@.<. #o. J/0!0
Ceo)racias 7spiritu (as 'ast asleep in his house (hen he (as placed under arrest. For the li'e o'
$e, : can not 'i)ure out ho( one can be picked upon in one1s o(n ho$e and held $o$ents later
(ithout a (arrant o' arrest.
7spiritu (as alle)edly )uilty o' incitin) to sedition as a result o' a speech delivered in a press
con'erence at the #ational "ress Club on #ove$ber !1, 19JJ. ,e (as, ho(ever, arrested the day
a'ter, #ove$ber !!, 19JJ. Ander these circu$stances, it eludes $e ho( an arrest (ithout a (arrant
could be >usti'ied, either under para)raph 2a3 or para)raph 2b3 o' the <ule on (arrantless arrests.
+he $a>ority avers that since an in'or$ation had been 'iled (ith the court, 7spiritu1s detention, is
alle)edly >usti'iable. +he Duestion is (hether or not an in'or$ation is an authority to hold a person in
custody. Ander the <ules, an in'or$ation $eans Ean accusation in (ritin) char)in) a person (ith an
o''ense subscribed by the 'iscal and 'iled (ith the court.E
12
:t is not, ho(ever, an order to keep one
under detention.
@.<. #o. J6!
+he o''ense 'or (hich #arciso #azareno is bein) held H the 'atal shootin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: H
(as co$$itted on Cece$ber 14, 19JJ. :t (as, ho(ever, only on Cece$ber !J, 19JJ that the police
collared a suspect, <a$il <e)ala, (ho subseDuently pointed to #azareno as his acco$plice. :t also
escapes $e ho( #azareno, under these circu$stances, could have been validly put under arrest
(ithout a (arrant or the e9istence o' the circu$stance described under either para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o'
the <ule above-Duoted* +he cri$e had lon) been co$$itted prior to the arrest.
@.<. #os. J1/60= J4/J1-J!= J4/J-J4= J16!=
J/0!0 M J6!= "ostscripts
+he $a>ority has disposed o' these cases on the bedrock o' (hat : vie( as doctrines that have lost
their luster*
1. +he teachin) o' Garcia-0adilla %. Enrile,
19
(hich held that subversion is a continuin) o''ense=
!. +he rulin) in 3lagan %. Enrile.
20
: also 'ind, 'or reasons to be set 'orth hereina'ter, a )lossin) over o' the 'unda$ental ri)hts o' the
petitioners under the Constitution in the authorities1 handlin) o' the petitioners1 cases.
: hold that Garcia-0adilla is no lon)er )ood la( under the present Constitution. +(o reasons
persuade $e. First, it is repu)nant to due process o' la(. 2E+he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the
usual procedure in the prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuire the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the
e9istence o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin) o'
bail i' the o''ense is bailable.E
21
Ander the 19J0 Constitution, not even EFaG state o' $artial la(
suspendFsG the operation o' Fthe CharterG. . .E
22
Second, it leaves the liberty o' citizens to the (hi$ o' one
$an 2E6n these occasions Fthe e9istence o' a state o' e$er)encyG, the "resident takes absolute
co$$and, 'or the very li'e o' the #ation and its )overn$ent, (hich, incidentally, includes the courts, is in
)rave peril. :n so doin), the "resident is ans(erable only to his conscience, the people and to @od. For
their part, in )ivin) hi$ the supre$e $andate as their "resident, the people can only trust and pray that,
)ivin) hi$ their o(n loyalty and (ithout patriotis$, the "resident (ill not 'ail the$.E
23
3 Ander the Charter
no( prevailin), the Chie' 79ecutive shares, to a certain e9tent, the e9ercise o' e$er)ency po(ers, (ith
Con)ress.
25
;s a la( advocate under the re)i$e o' &arcos, : had challen)ed the soundness o' Garcia-0adilla. :
doubted (hether it could stand up under the ae)is o' the 190 Constitution. : still doubt (hether it
can (ithstand scrutiny under the 19J0 Constitution.
+he $a>ority also 'ails to point out that si9 days a'ter @arcia-"adilla (as handed do(n, the Court
pro$ul)atedMorales- .r. %. Enrile,
29
a case that in $y vie( has si)ni'icantly (hittled do(n Garcia-
0adillaIs very esse. :n that case, &r. Justice ,er$o)enes Concepcion, Jr. (rote 'or the $a>ority*
999 999 999
16. ;'ter a person is arrested . . . (ithout a (arrant . . . the proper co$plaint or
in'or$ation a)ainst hi$ $ust be 'iled (ith the courts o' >ustice (ithin the ti$e
prescribed by la(. . .
10. Failure o' the public o''icer to do so (ithout any valid reason (ould constitute a
violation o' ;rt. 1!/, <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. ;nd the person detained
(ould be entitled to be released on a (rit o' habeas corpus, unless he is detained
under subsistin) process issued by a co$petent court.
26
: also )ather 'ro$ the records that none o' the petitioners had been* 213 in'or$ed o' their ri)ht to
re$ain silent= and 2!3 to have co$petent and independent counsel.
27
;s : said, the $a>ority is denyin) habeas corpus on sel'-servin) clai$s o' the $ilitary that the
petitioners 2Cural, 8uenaobra, <oDue, ;Tonuevo, and Casiple3 are $e$bers o' the Co$$unist
"arty o' the "hilippines H and that they have supposedly con'essed to be in 'act $e$bers o' the
outla(ed or)anization. +he Duestion that has not been ans(ered is (hether or not these supposed
con'essions are ad$issible, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest, as evidence o' )uilt, in the absence
o' any sho(in) that they (ere apprised o' their constitutional ri)hts. : a$ perturbed by the silence o'
the $a>ority. : a$ distressed because as (e held in one case, violation o' the Constitution divests
the court o' >urisdiction and entitles the accused to habeas corpus.
22
;ccordin) to the $a>ority, a Ere-e9a$ination or re-appraisal . . . o'
the :la)an doctrine is not the ans(er.E
29
:n $y considered opinion, 3lagan %. Enrile
30
does not ri)ht'ully
belon) in the volu$es o' "hilippine >urisprudence. :n that case, the petitioners, three Cavao-based
la(yers, (ere held by virtue o' a si$ple in'or$ation 2Ethe petition herein has been rendered $oot and
acade$ic by virtue o' the 'ilin) o' an :n'or$ation a)ainst the$ 'or <ebellion . . . and the issuance o' a
Warrant o' ;rrest a)ainst the$E
31
3 (ithout any preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3 havin) been
previously conducted 2to >usti'y the issuance o' a (arrant3.i EtEc-aUsl ;s : have stated, an in'or$ation is not a
(arrant o' arrest. +he 'act that an in'or$ation e9ists does not $ean that a (arrant (ill be issued.
;ccused persons have the ri)ht o' preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3.
32
:t 'or$s part and parcel
o' due process o' la( .
33
: 'ind the $a>ority1s reliance on ;.S. %. *ilson,
35
an ancient 2195/3 decision, inapt and untenable. :n
that case, the accused had been served (ith a (arrant and therea'ter taken into custody. +he Duestion
that 'aced the Court (as (hether or not the (arrant (as valid, a$id the accused1s char)es that the >ud)e
(ho issued it did not e9a$ine the co$plainant under oath. We held that the Duery (as acade$ic,
because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial sta)e.
+he cases at bar are not on all 'ours. ,ere, no (arrant has been issued. : sub$it that in that event,
the petitioners are entitled to 'reedo$ by (ay o' the (rit o' liberty.
999 999 999
+he apprehensions in Duestion chronicle in $y $ind the increasin) pattern o' arrests and detention
in the country (ithout the sanction o' a >udicial decree. Four years a)o at E7CS;E, and $any years
be'ore it, althou)h (ith $uch 'e(er o' us, (e valiantly challen)ed a dictator and all the evils his
re)i$e had stood 'or* repression o' civil liberties and tra$plin) on o' hu$an ri)hts. We set up a
popular )overn$ent, restored its honored institutions, and cra'ted a de$ocratic constitution that
rests on the )uideposts o' peace and 'reedo$. : 'eel that (ith this Court1s rulin), (e have 'rittered
a(ay, by a stroke o' the pen, (hat (e had so painstakin)ly built in 'our years o' de$ocracy, and
al$ost t(enty years o' stru))le a)ainst tyranny.
:t also occurs to $e that : a$ interposin) (hat loo$s as a Dui9otic outlook o' "hilippine la( on
(arrantless arrests and its i$plications on liberty. :t is an i$pression that does not surprise $e.
Lui9otic as they $ay see$, and $odesty aside, $y vie(s re'lect a stron) bias on $y part H 'or)ed
by years o' e9perience and sharpened by a pain'ul and lonely stru))le 'or 'reedo$ and >ustice H
to(ard $en and (o$en (ho challen)e settled belie's. :' this dissent can not )ain any adherent 'or
no(, let it nevertheless )o on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal 'or tolerance o' opinions
(ith (hich (e not only disa)ree, but opinions (e loathe.
: 'eel it is $y duty to articulate this dissent.
NNNNNNNNNN


Re&ub#i* o1 t,e P,i#i&&ines
"BPR?(? %@BR+
(ani#a

?N I'N%

SOCIAL J7STICE SOCIETY (SJS), G.R. N. :;<=<2
Petitioner,

! versus !

5ANGERO7S 5R7GS BOAR5 and
PHILIPPINE 5R7G EN4ORCEMENT
AGENCY (P5EA),
Res&ondents.
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
ATTY. MAN7EL J. LASERNA, JR., G.R. N. :;=>11
Petitioner,

! versus !

5ANGERO7S 5R7GS BOAR5 and
PHILIPPINE 5R7G EN4ORCEMENT
AGENCY,
Res&ondents.
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
A87ILINO 8. PIMENTEL, JR., G.R. N. :>:>;=
Petitioner,
Present:
PBN@, C.
J.,
QB;"B(I;NG,
N'R?"!"'N+;'G@,
%'RP;@,
'B"+R;'!('R+;N?R,
! versus ! %@R@N',
%'RP;@ (@R'7?",
'R%BN',
+;NG',
%:;%@!N'R'R;@,
<?7'"%@, JR.,
N'%:BR',
R??",
7?@N'RD@!D? %'"+R@, and
IR;@N, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promu#gated:
Res&ondent.
November 3, .//8
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
5 E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.9

;n t,ese 3indred &etitions, t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 "e*tion 36 o1 Re&ub#i* '*t
No. 8R'9 9165, ot,er2ise 3no2n as t,eComprehensive :angerous :rugs ;!t o
<==<, inso1ar as it reFuires mandator6 drug testing o1 *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e,
students o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s, o11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and
&rivate o11i*es, and &ersons *,arged be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, *ertain
o11enses, among ot,er &ersona#ities, is &ut in issue.

's 1ar as &ertinent, t,e *,a##enged se*tion reads as 1o##o2s:

"?%. 36. ;uthori(ed :rug -esting.S'ut,ori$ed drug testing s,a## be done
b6 an6 government 1orensi* #aboratories or b6 an6 o1 t,e drug testing #aboratories
a**redited and monitored b6 t,e D@: to sa1eguard t,e Fua#it6 o1 t,e test
resu#ts. G G G +,e drug testing s,a## em&#o6, among ot,ers, t2o 8.9 testing
met,ods, t,e s*reening test 2,i*, 2i## determine t,e &ositive resu#t as 2e## as t,e
t6&e o1 drug used and t,e *on1irmator6 test 2,i*, 2i## *on1irm a &ositive
s*reening test. G G G +,e 1o##o2ing s,a## be sub)e*ted to undergo drug testing:

G G G G

8*9 "tudents o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s.S"tudents o1 se*ondar6
and tertiar6 s*,oo#s s,a##, &ursuant to t,e re#ated ru#es and regu#ations as
*ontained in t,e s*,oo#As student ,andboo3 and 2it, noti*e to t,e &arents,
undergo a random drug testing G G GH

8d9 @11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es.S@11i*ers and
em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es, 2,et,er domesti* or overseas, s,a## be
sub)e*ted to undergo a random drug test as *ontained in t,e *om&an6As 2or3 ru#es
and regu#ations, G G G 1or &ur&oses o1 redu*ing t,e ris3 in t,e 2or3&#a*e. 'n6
o11i*er or em&#o6ee 1ound &ositive 1or use o1 dangerous drugs s,a## be dea#t 2it,
administrative#6 2,i*, s,a## be a ground 1or sus&ension or termination, sub)e*t to
t,e &rovisions o1 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode and &ertinent &rovisions o1 t,e
%ivi# "ervi*e 7a2H

G G G G

819 '## &ersons *,arged be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, a *rimina#
o11ense ,aving an im&osab#e &ena#t6 o1 im&risonment o1 not #ess t,an siG 869
6ears and one 819 da6 s,a## undergo a mandator6 drug testH


8g9 '## *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e 2,et,er a&&ointed or e#e*ted bot, in
t,e nationa# or #o*a# government s,a## undergo a mandator6 drug test.

;n addition to t,e above stated &ena#ties in t,is "e*tion, t,ose 1ound to be
&ositive 1or dangerous drugs use s,a## be sub)e*t to t,e &rovisions o1 "e*tion 15 o1
t,is '*t.


G.R. N. :>:>;= 8;#uilino >. 9imentel) Jr. v. Commission on ?le!tions9

@n De*ember .3, .//3, t,e %ommission on ?#e*tions 8%@(?7?%9 issued
Reso#ution No. 6086, &res*ribing t,e ru#es and regu#ations on t,e mandator6 drug
testing o1 *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e in *onne*tion 2it, t,e (a6 1/,
.//0 s6n*,roni$ed nationa# and #o*a# e#e*tions. +,e &ertinent &ortions o1 t,e said
reso#ution read as 1o##o2s:


>:?R?'", "e*tion 36 8g9 o1 Re&ub#i* '*t No. 9165 &rovides:

"?%. 36. ;uthori(ed :rug -esting.SG G G

G G G G

8g9 '## *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e G G G bot, in t,e nationa# or #o*a#
government &%a,, +nder! a )anda#r' dr+! #e&#.

>:?R?'", "e*tion 1, 'rti*#e C; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution &rovides t,at
&ub#i* o11i*ers and em&#o6ees must at a## times be a**ountab#e to t,e &eo&#e,
serve t,em 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6, integrit6, #o6a#t6 and e11i*ien*6H

>:?R?'", b6 reFuiring *andidates to undergo mandator6 drug test, t,e
&ub#i* 2i## 3no2 t,e Fua#it6 o1 *andidates t,e6 are e#e*ting and t,e6 2i## be
assured t,at on#6 t,ose 2,o *an serve 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6, integrit6,
#o6a#t6, and e11i*ien*6 2ou#d be e#e*ted G G G.

N@> +:?R?=@R?, +,e 4%@(?7?%5, &ursuant to t,e aut,orit6 vested
in it under t,e %onstitution, Iatas Pambansa I#g. 881 8@mnibus ?#e*tion %ode9,
4R'5 9165 and ot,er e#e*tion #a2s, R?"@7<?D to &romu#gate, as it ,ereb6
&romu#gates, t,e 1o##o2ing ru#es and regu#ations on t,e *ondu*t o1 mandator6
drug testing to *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e4:5

"?%+;@N 1. Coverage.SA,, cand"da#e& $r (+-,"c $$"ce, -#% na#"na,
and ,ca,, "n #%e Ma' :2, 622? S'nc%rn"@ed Na#"na, and Lca,
E,ec#"n& s,a## undergo mandator6 drug test in government 1orensi* #aboratories
or an6 drug testing #aboratories monitored and a**redited b6 t,e De&artment o1
:ea#t,.

"?%. 3. G G G

@n (ar*, .5, .//0, in addition to t,e drug *erti1i*ates 1i#ed 2it, t,eir
res&e*tive o11i*es, t,e %ome#e* @11i*es and em&#o6ees *on*erned s,a## submit to
t,e 7a2 De&artment t2o 8.9 se&arate #ists o1 *andidates. +,e 1irst #ist s,a## *onsist
o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o *om&#ied 2it, t,e mandator6 drug test 2,i#e t,e se*ond
#ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o 1ai#ed to *om&#6 G G G.

"?%. 0. 9reparation and publi!ation o names o !andidates.SIe1ore t,e
start o1 t,e *am&aign &eriod, t,e 4%@(?7?%5 s,a## &re&are t2o se&arate #ists o1
*andidates. +,e 1irst #ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o *om&#ied 2it, t,e
mandator6 drug test 2,i#e t,e se*ond #ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o
1ai#ed to *om&#6 2it, said drug test. G G G

"?%. 5. ?e!t o ailure to undergo mandatory drug test and ile drug test
!ertii!ate.SNo &erson e#e*ted to an6 &ub#i* o11i*e s,a## enter u&on t,e duties o1
,is o11i*e unti# ,e ,as undergone mandator6 drug test and 1i#ed 2it, t,e o11i*es
enumerated under "e*tion . ,ereo1 t,e drug test *erti1i*ate ,erein
reFuired. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied.9


Petitioner 'Fui#ino Q. Pimente#, Jr., a senator o1 t,e Re&ub#i* and a
*andidate 1or re!e#e*tion in t,e (a6 1/, .//0 e#e*tions,
415
1i#ed a Petition 1or
%ertiorari and Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65. ;n it, ,e see3s 819 to nu##i16 "e*. 368g9 o1
R' 9165 and %@(?7?% Reso#ution No. 6086 dated De*ember .3, .//3 1or being
un*onstitutiona# in t,at t,e6 im&ose a Fua#i1i*ation 1or *andidates 1or senators in
addition to t,ose a#read6 &rovided 1or in t,e 198- %onstitutionH and 8.9 to en)oin
t,e %@(?7?% 1rom im&#ementing Reso#ution No. 6086.

Pimente# invo3es as #ega# basis 1or ,is &etition "e*. 3, 'rti*#e <; o1 t,e
%onstitution, 2,i*, states:


"?%+;@N 3. No &erson s,a## be a "enator un#ess ,e is a natura#!born
*iti$en o1 t,e P,i#i&&ines, and, on t,e da6 o1 t,e e#e*tion, is at #east t,irt6!1ive
6ears o1 age, ab#e to read and 2rite, a registered voter, and a resident o1 t,e
P,i#i&&ines 1or not #ess t,an t2o 6ears immediate#6 &re*eding t,e da6 o1 t,e
e#e*tion.



'**ording to Pimente#, t,e %onstitution on#6 &res*ribes a maGimum o1 1ive
859 Fua#i1i*ations 1or one to be a *andidate 1or, e#e*ted to, and be a member o1 t,e
"enate. :e sa6s t,at bot, t,e %ongress and %@(?7?%, b6 reFuiring, via R'
9165 and Reso#ution No. 6086, a senatoria# as&irant, among ot,er *andidates, to
undergo a mandator6 drug test, *reate an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation t,at a## *andidates
1or senator must 1irst be *erti1ied as drug 1ree. :e adds t,at t,ere is no &rovision in
t,e %onstitution aut,ori$ing t,e %ongress or %@(?7?% to eG&and t,e
Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements o1 *andidates 1or senator.

G.R. N. :;<=<2 8So!ial Justi!e So!iety v. :angerous
:rugs 2oard and 9hilippine :rug ?nor!ement ;gen!y9


;n its Petition 1or Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65, &etitioner "o*ia# Justi*e "o*iet6
8"J"9, a registered &o#iti*a# &art6, see3s to &ro,ibit t,e Dangerous Drugs Ioard
8DDI9 and t,e P,i#i&&ine Drug ?n1or*ement 'gen*6 8PD?'9 1rom en1or*ing
&aragra&,s 8*9, 8d9, 819, and 8g9 o1 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 on t,e ground t,at t,e6 are
*onstitutiona##6 in1irm. =or one, t,e &rovisions *onstitute undue de#egation o1
#egis#ative &o2er 2,en t,e6 give unbrid#ed dis*retion to s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers to
determine t,e manner o1 drug testing. =or anot,er, t,e &rovisions tren*, in t,e
eFua# &rote*tion *#ause inasmu*, as t,e6 *an be used to ,arass a student or an
em&#o6ee deemed undesirab#e. 'nd 1or a t,ird, a &ersonAs *onstitutiona# rig,t
against unreasonab#e sear*,es is a#so brea*,ed b6 said &rovisions.

G.R. N. :;=>11 8;tty. *anuel J. Laserna) Jr. v. :angerous
:rugs 2oard and 9hilippine :rug ?nor!ement ;gen!y9


Petitioner 'tt6. (anue# J. 7aserna, Jr., as *iti$en and taG&a6er, a#so see3s in
,is Petition 1or %ertiorari and Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65 t,at "e*. 368*9, 8d9, 819,
and 8g9 o1 R' 9165 be stru*3 do2n as un*onstitutiona# 1or in1ringing on t,e
*onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6, t,e rig,t against unreasonab#e sear*, and sei$ure,
and t,e rig,t against se#1!in*rimination, and 1or being *ontrar6 to t,e due &ro*ess
and eFua# &rote*tion guarantees.



T%e I&&+e n (ocus Standi

=irst o11, 2e s,a## address t,e )usti*iabi#it6 o1 t,e *ases at ben*, and t,e
matter o1 t,e standing o1 &etitioners "J" and 7aserna to sue. 's res&ondents DDI
and PD?' assert, "J" and 7aserna 1ai#ed to a##ege an6 in*ident amounting to a
vio#ation o1 t,e *onstitutiona# rig,ts mentioned in t,eir se&arate &etitions.
4.5

;t is basi* t,at t,e &o2er o1 )udi*ia# revie2 *an on#6 be eGer*ised in
*onne*tion 2it, a bona ide *ontrovers6 2,i*, invo#ves t,e statute soug,t to be
revie2ed.
435
Iut even 2it, t,e &resen*e o1 an a*tua# *ase or *ontrovers6, t,e %ourt
ma6 re1use to eGer*ise )udi*ia# revie2 un#ess t,e *onstitutiona# Fuestion is broug,t
be1ore it b6 a &art6 ,aving t,e reFuisite standing to *,a##enge it.
405
+o ,ave
standing, one must estab#is, t,at ,e or s,e ,as su11ered some a*tua# or t,reatened
in)ur6 as a resu#t o1 t,e a##eged#6 i##ega# *ondu*t o1 t,e governmentH t,e in)ur6 is
1air#6 tra*eab#e to t,e *,a##enged a*tionH and t,e in)ur6 is #i3e#6 to be redressed b6
a 1avorab#e a*tion.
455


+,e ru#e on standing, ,o2ever, is a matter o1 &ro*edureH ,en*e, it *an be
re#aGed 1or non!traditiona# &#ainti11s, #i3e ordinar6 *iti$ens, taG&a6ers, and
#egis#ators 2,en t,e &ub#i* interest so reFuires, su*, as 2,en t,e matter is o1
trans*endenta# im&ortan*e, o1 overar*,ing signi1i*an*e to so*iet6, or o1 &aramount
&ub#i* interest.
465
+,ere is no doubt t,at Pimente#, as senator o1 t,e P,i#i&&inesand
*andidate 1or t,e (a6 1/, .//0 e#e*tions, &ossesses t,e reFuisite standing sin*e ,e
,as substantia# interests in t,e sub)e*t matter o1 t,e &etition, among ot,er
&re#iminar6 *onsiderations. Regarding "J" and 7aserna, t,is %ourt is 2ont to re#aG
t,e ru#e on lo!us standi o2ing &rimari#6 to t,e trans*endenta# im&ortan*e and t,e
&aramount &ub#i* interest invo#ved in t,e en1or*ement o1 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165.
T%e Cn&,"da#ed I&&+e&

+,e &rin*i&a# issues be1ore us are as 1o##o2s:

819 Do "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and %@(?7?% Reso#ution No. 6086 im&ose
an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation 1or *andidates 1or senatorQ %oro##ari#6, *an %ongress
ena*t a #a2 &res*ribing Fua#i1i*ations 1or *andidates 1or senator in addition to t,ose
#aid do2n b6 t,e %onstitutionQ and

8.9 're &aragra&,s 8*9, 8d9, 819, and 8g9 o1 "e*. 36, R' 9165 un*onstitutiona#Q
"&e*i1i*a##6, do t,ese &aragra&,s vio#ate t,e rig,t to &riva*6, t,e rig,t against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ure, and t,e eFua# &rote*tion *#auseQ @r do t,e6
*onstitute undue de#egation o1 #egis#ative &o2erQ

P")en#e, Pe#"#"n
(Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>A!B $ RA C:>; and
COMELEC Re&,+#"n N. >?=>)

;n essen*e, Pimente# *#aims t,at "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and %@(?7?%
Reso#ution No. 6086 i##ega##6 im&ose an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation on *andidates 1or
senator. :e &oints out t,at, sub)e*t to t,e &rovisions on nuisan*e *andidates, a
*andidate 1or senator needs on#6 to meet t,e Fua#i1i*ations #aid do2n in "e*. 3, 'rt.
<; o1 t,e %onstitution, to 2it: 819 *iti$ens,i&, 8.9 voter registration, 839 #itera*6, 809
age, and 859 residen*6. Ie6ond t,ese stated Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements, *andidates
1or senator need not &ossess an6 ot,er Fua#i1i*ation to run 1or senator and be voted
u&on and e#e*ted as member o1 t,e "enate. +,e %ongress *annot va#id#6 amend or
ot,er2ise modi16 t,ese Fua#i1i*ation standards, as it *annot disregard, evade, or
2ea3en t,e 1or*e o1 a *onstitutiona# mandate,
4-5
or a#ter or en#arge t,e %onstitution.

Pimente#As *ontention is 2e##!ta3en. '**ording#6, "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165
s,ou#d be, as it is ,ereb6 de*#ared as, un*onstitutiona#. ;t is basi* t,at i1 a #a2 or an
administrative ru#e vio#ates an6 norm o1 t,e %onstitution, t,at issuan*e is nu## and
void and ,as no e11e*t. +,e %onstitution is t,e basi* #a2 to 2,i*, a## #a2s must
*on1ormH no a*t s,a## be va#id i1 it *on1#i*ts 2it, t,e %onstitution.
485
;n t,e
dis*,arge o1 t,eir de1ined 1un*tions, t,e t,ree de&artments o1 government ,ave no
*,oi*e but to 6ie#d obedien*e to t,e *ommands o1 t,e %onstitution. >,atever
#imits it im&oses must be observed.
495


%ongressA in,erent #egis#ative &o2ers, broad as t,e6 ma6 be, are sub)e*t to
*ertain #imitations. 's ear#6 as 19.-, in+overnment v. Springer, t,e %ourt ,as
de1ined, in t,e abstra*t, t,e #imits on #egis#ative &o2er in t,e 1o##o2ing 2ise:

"omeone ,as said t,at t,e &o2ers o1 t,e #egis#ative de&artment o1 t,e
Government, #i3e t,e boundaries o1 t,e o*ean, are un#imited. ;n *onstitutiona#
governments, ,o2ever, as 2e## as governments a*ting under de#egated aut,orit6,
t,e &o2ers o1 ea*, o1 t,e de&artments G G G are #imited and *on1ined 2it,in t,e
1our 2a##s o1 t,e *onstitution or t,e *,arter, and ea*, de&artment *an on#6
eGer*ise su*, &o2ers as are ne*essari#6 im&#ied 1rom t,e given &o2ers. +,e
%onstitution is t,e s,ore o1 #egis#ative aut,orit6 against 2,i*, t,e 2aves o1
#egis#ative ena*tment ma6 das,, but over 2,i*, it *annot #ea&.
41/5

+,us, #egis#ative &o2er remains #imited in t,e sense t,at it is sub)e*t to
substantive and *onstitutiona# #imitations 2,i*, *ir*ums*ribe bot, t,e eGer*ise o1
t,e &o2er itse#1 and t,e a##o2ab#e sub)e*ts o1 #egis#ation.
4115
+,e substantive
*onstitutiona# #imitations are *,ie1#6 1ound in t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts
41.5
and ot,er
&rovisions, su*, as "e*. 3, 'rt. <; o1 t,e %onstitution &res*ribing t,e Fua#i1i*ations
o1 *andidates 1or senators.

;n t,e same vein, t,e %@(?7?% *annot, in t,e guise o1 en1or*ing and
administering e#e*tion #a2s or &romu#gating ru#es and regu#ations to im&#ement
"e*. 368g9, va#id#6 im&ose Fua#i1i*ations on *andidates 1or senator in addition to
2,at t,e %onstitution &res*ribes. ;1 %ongress *annot reFuire a *andidate 1or senator
to meet su*, additiona# Fua#i1i*ation, t,e %@(?7?%, to be sure, is a#so 2it,out
su*, &o2er. +,e rig,t o1 a *iti$en in t,e demo*rati* &ro*ess o1 e#e*tion s,ou#d not
be de1eated b6 un2arranted im&ositions o1 reFuirement not ot,er2ise s&e*i1ied in
t,e %onstitution.
4135


"e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165, as soug,t to be im&#emented b6 t,e assai#ed
%@(?7?% reso#ution, e11e*tive#6 en#arges t,e Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements
enumerated in t,e "e*. 3, 'rt. <; o1 t,e %onstitution. 's *ou*,ed, said "e*. 368g9
unmista3ab#6 reFuires a *andidate 1or senator to be *erti1ied i##ega#!drug *#ean,
obvious#6 as a &re!*ondition to t,e va#idit6 o1 a *erti1i*ate o1 *andida*6 1or senator
or, 2it, #i3e e11e*t, a *ondition sine #ua non to be voted u&on and, i1 &ro&er, be
&ro*#aimed as senator!e#e*t. +,e %@(?7?% reso#ution *om&#etes t,e *,ain 2it,
t,e &roviso t,at K4n5o &erson e#e*ted to an6 &ub#i* o11i*e s,a## enter u&on t,e duties
o1 ,is o11i*e unti# ,e ,as undergone mandator6 drug test.L <ie2ed, t,ere1ore, in its
&ro&er *onteGt, "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and t,e im&#ementing %@(?7?%
Reso#ution add anot,er Fua#i1i*ation #a6er to 2,at t,e 198- %onstitution, at t,e
minimum, reFuires 1or members,i& in t,e "enate. >,et,er or not t,e drug!1ree bar
set u& under t,e *,a##enged &rovision is to be ,urd#ed be1ore or a1ter e#e*tion is
rea##6 o1 no moment, as getting e#e*ted 2ou#d be o1 #itt#e va#ue i1 one *annot
assume o11i*e 1or non!*om&#ian*e 2it, t,e drug!testing reFuirement.

;t ma6 o1 *ourse be argued, in de1ense o1 t,e va#idit6 o1 "e*. 368g9 o1 R'
9165, t,at t,e &rovision does not eG&ress#6 state t,at non!*om&#ian*e 2it, t,e drug
test im&osition is a disFua#i16ing 1a*tor or 2ou#d 2or3 to nu##i16 a *erti1i*ate o1
*andida*6. +,is argument ma6 be a**orded &#ausibi#it6 i1 t,e drug test reFuirement
is o&tiona#. Iut t,e &arti*u#ar se*tion o1 t,e #a2, 2it,out eG*e&tion, made drug!
testing on t,ose *overed mandator6, ne*essari#6 suggesting t,at t,e obstinate ones
s,a## ,ave to su11er t,e adverse *onseFuen*es 1or not ad,ering to t,e statutor6
*ommand. 'nd sin*e t,e &rovision dea#s 2it, *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e, it stands
to reason t,at t,e adverse *onseFuen*e adverted to *an on#6 re1er to and revo#ve
around t,e e#e*tion and t,e assum&tion o1 &ub#i* o11i*e o1 t,e *andidates. 'n6
ot,er *onstrua# 2ou#d redu*e t,e mandator6 nature o1 "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 into a
&ure )argon 2it,out meaning and e11e*t 2,atsoever.

>,i#e it is anti!*#ima*ti* to state it at t,is )un*ture, %@(?7?% Reso#ution
No. 6086 is no #onger en1or*eab#e, 1or b6 its terms, it 2as intended to *over on#6
t,e (a6 1/, .//0 s6n*,roni$ed e#e*tions and t,e *andidates running in t,at
e#e*tora# event. Nonet,e#ess, to obviate re&etition, t,e %ourt deems it a&&ro&riate
to revie2 and ru#e, as it ,ereb6 ru#es, on its va#idit6 as an im&#ementing issuan*e.

;t oug,t to be made abundant#6 *#ear, ,o2ever, t,at t,e un*onstitutiona#it6 o1
"e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 is rooted on its ,aving in1ringed t,e *onstitutiona# &rovision
de1ining t,e Fua#i1i*ation or e#igibi#it6 reFuirements 1or one as&iring to run 1or and
serve as senator.

SJS Pe#"#"n
(Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>AcB, AdB, A$B, and A!B $ RA C:>;)

+,e drug test &res*ribed under "e*. 368*9, 8d9, and 819 o1 R' 9165 1or
se*ondar6 and tertiar6 #eve# students and &ub#i* and &rivate em&#o6ees, 2,i#e
mandator6, is a random and sus&i*ion#ess arrangement. +,e ob)e*tive is to stam&
out i##ega# drug and sa1eguard in t,e &ro*ess Kt,e 2e## being o1 4t,e5 *iti$enr6,
&arti*u#ar#6 t,e 6out,, 1rom t,e ,arm1u# e11e*ts o1 dangerous drugs.L +,is
statutor6 &ur&ose, &er t,e &o#i*6!de*#aration &ortion o1 t,e #a2, *an be a*,ieved via
t,e &ursuit b6 t,e state o1 Kan intensive and unre#enting *am&aign against t,e
tra11i*3ing and use o1 dangerous drugs G G G t,roug, an integrated s6stem o1
&#anning, im&#ementation and en1or*ement o1 anti!drug abuse &o#i*ies, &rograms
and &ro)e*ts.L
4105
+,e &rimar6 #egis#ative intent is not *rimina# &rose*ution, as
t,ose 1ound &ositive 1or i##ega# drug use as a resu#t o1 t,is random testing are not
ne*essari#6 treated as *rimina#s. +,e6 ma6 even be eGem&t 1rom *rimina# #iabi#it6
s,ou#d t,e i##ega# drug user *onsent to undergo re,abi#itation. "e*s. 50 and 55 o1
R' 9165 are *#ear on t,is &oint:


"e*. 50. ,oluntary Submission o a :rug :ependent to Coninement)
-reatment and Rehabilitation.S' drug de&endent or an6 &erson 2,o vio#ates
"e*tion 15 o1 t,is '*t ma6, b6 ,imse#1E,erse#1 or t,roug, ,isE,er &arent, 4*#ose
re#atives5 G G G a&&#6 to t,e Ioard G G G 1or treatment and re,abi#itation o1 t,e
drug de&enden*6. B&on su*, a&&#i*ation, t,e Ioard s,a## bring 1ort, t,e matter to
t,e %ourt 2,i*, s,a## order t,at t,e a&&#i*ant be eGamined 1or drug
de&enden*6. ;1 t,e eGamination G G G resu#ts in t,e *erti1i*ation t,at t,e a&&#i*ant
is a drug de&endent, ,eEs,e s,a## be ordered b6 t,e %ourt to undergo treatment and
re,abi#itation in a %enter designated b6 t,e Ioard G G G.

G G G G

"e*. 55. ?7emption rom the Criminal Liability @nder the ,oluntary
Submission 9rogram.S' drug de&endent under t,e vo#untar6 submission
&rogram, 2,o is 1ina##6 dis*,arged 1rom *on1inement, s,a## be eGem&t 1rom t,e
*rimina# #iabi#it6 under "e*tion 15 o1 t,is '*t sub)e*t to t,e 1o##o2ing *onditions:

G G G G


"*,oo# *,i#dren, t,e B" "u&reme %ourt noted, are most vu#nerab#e to t,e
&,6si*a#, &s6*,o#ogi*a#, and addi*tive e11e*ts o1 drugs. (aturing nervous s6stems
o1 t,e 6oung are more *riti*a##6 im&aired b6 intoGi*ants and are more in*#ined to
drug de&enden*6. +,eir re*over6 is a#so at a de&ressing#6 #o2 rate.
4155


+,e rig,t to &riva*6 ,as been a**orded re*ognition in t,is )urisdi*tion as a
1a*et o1 t,e rig,t &rote*ted b6 t,e guarantee against unreasonab#e sear*, and
sei$ure
4165
under "e*. ., 'rt. ;;;
41-5
o1 t,e %onstitution. Iut 2,i#e t,e rig,t to &riva*6
,as #ong *ome into its o2n, t,is *ase a&&ears to be t,e 1irst time t,at t,e va#idit6 o1
a state!de*reed sear*, or intrusion t,roug, t,e medium o1 mandator6 random drug
testing among students and em&#o6ees is, in t,is )urisdi*tion, made t,e 1o*a# &oint.
+,us, t,e issue tendered in t,ese &ro*eedings is veritab#6 one o1 1irst im&ression.

B" )uris&ruden*e is, ,o2ever, a ri*, sour*e o1 &ersuasive )uris&ruden*e.
>it, res&e*t to random drug testing among s*,oo# *,i#dren, 2e turn to t,e
tea*,ings o1 ,ernonia S!hool :istri!t ABJ v. ;!ton 8,ernonia9 and 2oard o
?du!ation o Independent S!hool :istri!t %o. C< o 9ottawatomie County, et al. v.
?arls, et al. 82oard o ?du!ation9,
4185
bot, 1air#6 &ertinent B" "u&reme %ourt!
de*ided *ases invo#ving t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 governmenta# sear*,.

;n ,ernonia, s*,oo# administrators in <ernonia, @regon 2anted to address
t,e drug mena*e in t,eir res&e*tive institutions 1o##o2ing t,e dis*over6 o1 1reFuent
drug use b6 s*,oo# at,#etes. '1ter *onsu#tation 2it, t,e &arents, t,e6 reFuired
random urina#6sis drug testing 1or t,e s*,oo#As at,#etes. James '*ton, a ,ig,
s*,oo# student, 2as denied &arti*i&ation in t,e 1ootba## &rogram a1ter ,e re1used to
underta3e t,e urina#6sis drug testing. '*ton 1ort,2it, sued, *#aiming t,at t,e
s*,oo#As drug testing &o#i*6 vio#ated, inter alia, t,e =ourt, 'mendment
4195
o1 t,e
B" %onstitution.

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt, in 1as,ioning a so#ution to t,e issues raised
in ,ernonia, *onsidered t,e 1o##o2ing: 819 s*,oo#s standin lo!o parentis over t,eir
studentsH 8.9 s*,oo# *,i#dren, 2,i#e not s,edding t,eir *onstitutiona# rig,ts at t,e
s*,oo# gate, ,ave #ess &riva*6 rig,tsH 839 at,#etes ,ave #ess &riva*6 rig,ts t,an non!
at,#etes sin*e t,e 1ormer observe *ommuna# undress be1ore and a1ter s&orts eventsH
809 b6 )oining t,e s&orts a*tivit6, t,e at,#etes vo#untari#6 sub)e*ted t,emse#ves to a
,ig,er degree o1 s*,oo# su&ervision and regu#ationH 859 reFuiring urine sam&#es
does not invade a studentAs &riva*6 sin*e a student need not undress 1or t,is 3ind o1
drug testingH and 869 t,ere is need 1or t,e drug testing be*ause o1 t,e dangerous
e11e*ts o1 i##ega# drugs on t,e 6oung. +,e B" "u&reme %ourt ,e#d t,at t,e &o#i*6
*onstituted reasonab#e sear*, under t,e =ourt,
4./5
and 10t, 'mendments and
de*#ared t,e random drug!testing &o#i*6 *onstitutiona#.

;n 2oard o ?du!ation, t,e Ioard o1 ?du*ation o1 a s*,oo#
in +e*umse,, @3#a,oma reFuired a drug test 1or ,ig, s*,oo# students desiring to
)oin eGtra!*urri*u#ar a*tivities. 7indsa6 ?ar#s, a member o1 t,e s,o2 *,oir,
mar*,ing band, and a*ademi* team de*#ined to undergo a drug test and averred t,at
t,e drug!testing &o#i*6 made to a&&#6 to non!at,#etes vio#ated t,e =ourt, and 10t,
'mendments. 's ?ar#s argued, un#i3e at,#etes 2,o routine#6 undergo &,6si*a#
eGaminations and undress be1ore t,eir &eers in #o*3er rooms, non!at,#etes are
entit#ed to more &riva*6.

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt, *iting ,ernonia, u&,e#d t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 drug
testing even among non!at,#etes on t,e basis o1 t,e s*,oo#As *ustodia#
res&onsibi#it6 and aut,orit6. ;n so ru#ing, said *ourt made no distin*tion bet2een a
non!at,#ete and an at,#ete. ;t ratio*inated t,at s*,oo#s and tea*,ers a*t in &#a*e o1
t,e &arents 2it, a simi#ar interest and dut6 o1 sa1eguarding t,e ,ea#t, o1 t,e
students. 'nd in ,o#ding t,at t,e s*,oo# *ou#d im&#ement its random drug!testing
&o#i*6, t,e %ourt ,inted t,at su*, a test 2as a 3ind o1 sear*, in 2,i*, even a
reasonab#e &arent mig,t need to engage.

;n sum, 2,at *an reasonab#6 be dedu*ed 1rom t,e above t2o *ases and
a&&#ied to t,is )urisdi*tion are: 819 s*,oo#s and t,eir administrators stand in lo!o
parentis 2it, res&e*t to t,eir studentsH 8.9 minor students ,ave *onteGtua##6 1e2er
rig,ts t,an an adu#t, and are sub)e*t to t,e *ustod6 and su&ervision o1 t,eir &arents,
guardians, and s*,oo#sH 839 s*,oo#s, a*ting in lo!o parentis, ,ave a dut6 to
sa1eguard t,e ,ea#t, and 2e##!being o1 t,eir students and ma6 ado&t su*, measures
as ma6 reasonab#6 be ne*essar6 to dis*,arge su*, dut6H and 809 s*,oo#s ,ave t,e
rig,t to im&ose *onditions on a&&#i*ants 1or admission t,at are 1air, )ust, and non!
dis*riminator6.

Guided b6 ,ernonia and 2oard o ?du!ation, t,e %ourt is o1 t,e vie2 and so
,o#ds t,at t,e &rovisions o1 R' 9165 reFuiring mandator6, random, and
sus&i*ion#ess drug testing o1 students are *onstitutiona#. ;ndeed, it is 2it,in t,e
&rerogative o1 edu*ationa# institutions to reFuire, as a *ondition 1or admission,
*om&#ian*e 2it, reasonab#e s*,oo# ru#es and regu#ations and &o#i*ies. +o be sure,
t,e rig,t to enro## is not abso#uteH it is sub)e*t to 1air, reasonab#e, and eFuitab#e
reFuirements.

+,e %ourt *an ta3e )udi*ia# noti*e o1 t,e &ro#i1eration o1 &ro,ibited drugs in
t,e *ountr6 t,at t,reatens t,e 2e##!being o1 t,e &eo&#e,
4.15
&arti*u#ar#6 t,e 6out, and
s*,oo# *,i#dren 2,o usua##6 end u& as vi*tims. '**ording#6, and unti# a more
e11e*tive met,od is *on*e&tua#i$ed and &ut in motion, a random drug testing o1
students in se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s is not on#6 a**e&tab#e but ma6 even be
ne*essar6 i1 t,e sa1et6 and interest o1 t,e student &o&u#ation, doubt#ess a #egitimate
*on*ern o1 t,e government, are to be &romoted and &rote*ted. +o borro2
1rom ,ernonia, K4d5eterring drug use b6 our NationAs s*,oo#*,i#dren is as
im&ortant as en,an*ing e11i*ient en1or*ement o1 t,e NationAs #a2s against t,e
im&ortation o1 drugsLH t,e ne*essit6 1or t,e "tate to a*t is magni1ied b6 t,e 1a*t t,at
t,e e11e*ts o1 a drug!in1ested s*,oo# are visited not )ust u&on t,e users, but u&on
t,e entire student bod6 and 1a*u#t6.
4..5
Need#ess to stress, t,e random testing
s*,eme &rovided under t,e #a2 argues against t,e idea t,at t,e testing aims to
in*riminate unsus&e*ting individua# students.

Just as in t,e *ase o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 #eve# students, t,e mandator6 but
random drug test &res*ribed b6 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 1or o11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1
&ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es is )usti1iab#e, a#beit not eGa*t#6 1or t,e same reason. +,e
%ourt notes in t,is regard t,at &etitioner "J", ot,er t,an sa6ing t,at Ksub)e*ting
a#most ever6bod6 to drug testing, 2it,out &robab#e *ause, is unreasonab#e, an
un2arranted intrusion o1 t,e individua# rig,t to &riva*6,L
4.35
,as 1ai#ed to s,o2 ,o2
t,e mandator6, random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing under "e*. 368*9 and 8d9 o1
R' 9165 vio#ates t,e rig,t to &riva*6 and *onstitutes un#a21u# andEor un*onsented
sear*, under 'rt. ;;;, "e*s. 1 and . o1 t,e %onstitution.
4.05
Petitioner 7asernaAs
#ament is )ust as sim&#isti*, s2ee&ing, and gratuitous and does not merit serious
*onsideration. %onsider 2,at ,e 2rote 2it,out e#aboration:

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt and B" %ir*uit %ourts o1 '&&ea#s ,ave made
various ru#ings on t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 mandator6 drug tests in t,e s*,oo# and
t,e 2or3&#a*es. +,e B" *ourts ,ave been *onsistent in t,eir ru#ings t,at t,e
mandator6 drug tests vio#ate a *iti$enAs *onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6 and rig,t
against unreasonab#e sear*, and sei$ure. +,e6 are Fuoted eGtensive#6
,ereinbe#o2.
4.55

+,e essen*e o1 &riva*6 is t,e rig,t to be #e1t a#one.
4.65
;n *onteGt, t,e rig,t to
&riva*6 means t,e rig,t to be 1ree 1rom un2arranted eG&#oitation o1 oneAs &erson or
1rom intrusion into oneAs &rivate a*tivities in su*, a 2a6 as to *ause ,umi#iation to
a &ersonAs ordinar6 sensibi#ities.
4.-5
'nd 2,i#e t,ere ,as been genera# agreement
as to t,e basi* 1un*tion o1 t,e guarantee against un2arranted sear*,, Ktrans#ation o1
t,e abstra*t &ro,ibition against Tunreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$uresA into 2or3ab#e
broad guide#ines 1or t,e de*ision o1 &arti*u#ar *ases is a di11i*u#t tas3,L to borro2
1rom C. Camara v. *uni!ipal Court.
4.85
'ut,orities are agreed t,oug, t,at t,e
rig,t to &riva*6 6ie#ds to *ertain &aramount rig,ts o1 t,e &ub#i* and de1ers to t,e
stateAs eGer*ise o1 &o#i*e &o2er.
4.95

's t,e 2arrant#ess *#ause o1 "e*. ., 'rt ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution is *ou*,ed
and as ,as been ,e#d, Kreasonab#enessL is t,e tou*,stone o1 t,e va#idit6 o1 a
government sear*, or intrusion.
43/5
'nd 2,et,er a sear*, at issue ,e2s to t,e
reasonab#eness standard is )udged b6 t,e ba#an*ing o1 t,e government!mandated
intrusion on t,e individua#As &riva*6 interest against t,e &romotion o1 some
*om&e##ing state interest.
4315
;n t,e *rimina# *onteGt, reasonab#eness reFuires
s,o2ing o1 &robab#e *ause to be &ersona##6 determined b6 a )udge. Given t,at t,e
drug!testing &o#i*6 1or em&#o6eesJJand students 1or t,at matterJJunder R' 9165
is in t,e nature o1 administrative sear*, needing 2,at 2as re1erred to
in ,ernonia as Ks2i1t and in1orma# dis*i&#inar6 &ro*edures,L t,e &robab#e!*ause
standard is not reFuired or even &ra*ti*ab#e. Ie t,at as it ma6, t,e revie2 s,ou#d
1o*us on t,e reasonab#eness o1 t,e *,a##enged administrative sear*, in Fuestion.

+,e 1irst 1a*tor to *onsider in t,e matter o1 reasonab#eness is t,e nature o1
t,e &riva*6 interest u&on 2,i*, t,e drug testing, 2,i*, e11e*ts a sear*, 2it,in t,e
meaning o1 "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, intrudes. ;n t,is *ase, t,e o11i*e or
2or3&#a*e serves as t,e ba*3dro& 1or t,e ana#6sis o1 t,e &riva*6 eG&e*tation o1 t,e
em&#o6ees and t,e reasonab#eness o1 drug testing reFuirement. +,e em&#o6eesA
&riva*6 interest in an o11i*e is to a #arge eGtent *ir*ums*ribed b6 t,e *om&an6As
2or3 &o#i*ies, t,e *o##e*tive bargaining agreement, i1 an6, entered into b6
management and t,e bargaining unit, and t,e in,erent rig,t o1 t,e em&#o6er to
maintain dis*i&#ine and e11i*ien*6 in t,e 2or3&#a*e. +,eir &riva*6 eG&e*tation in a
regu#ated o11i*e environment is, in 1ine, redu*edH and a degree o1 im&ingement
u&on su*, &riva*6 ,as been u&,e#d.

Just as de1ining as t,e 1irst 1a*tor is t,e *,ara*ter o1 t,e intrusion aut,ori$ed
b6 t,e *,a##enged #a2. Redu*ed to a Fuestion 1orm, is t,e s*o&e o1 t,e sear*, or
intrusion *#ear#6 set 1ort,, or, as 1ormu#ated in Ople v. -orres, is t,e enab#ing #a2
aut,ori$ing a sear*, Knarro2#6 dra2nL or Knarro2#6 1o*usedLQ
43.5

+,e &oser s,ou#d be ans2ered in t,e a11irmative. =or one, "e*. 36 o1 R'
9165 and its im&#ementing ru#es and regu#ations 8;RR9, as *ou*,ed, *ontain
&rovisions s&e*i1i*a##6 dire*ted to2ards &reventing a situation t,at 2ou#d undu#6
embarrass t,e em&#o6ees or &#a*e t,em under a ,umi#iating eG&erien*e. >,i#e
ever6 o11i*er and em&#o6ee in a &rivate estab#is,ment is under t,e #a2 deemed
1ore2arned t,at ,e or s,e ma6 be a &ossib#e sub)e*t o1 a drug test, nobod6 is rea##6
sing#ed out in advan*e 1or drug testing. +,e goa# is to dis*ourage drug use b6 not
te##ing in advan*e an6one 2,en and 2,o is to be tested. 'nd as ma6 be observed,
"e*. 368d9 o1 R' 9165 itse#1 &res*ribes 2,at, in Ople, is a narro2ing ingredient b6
&roviding t,at t,e em&#o6ees *on*erned s,a## be sub)e*ted to Krandom drug test as
*ontained in t,e *om&an6As 2or3 ru#es and regu#ations G G G 1or &ur&oses o1
redu*ing t,e ris3 in t,e 2or3 &#a*e.L

=or anot,er, t,e random drug testing s,a## be underta3en under *onditions
*a#*u#ated to &rote*t as mu*, as &ossib#e t,e em&#o6eeAs &riva*6 and dignit6. 's to
t,e me*,ani*s o1 t,e test, t,e #a2 s&e*i1ies t,at t,e &ro*edure s,a## em&#o6 t2o
testing met,ods, i.e., t,e s*reening test and t,e *on1irmator6 test, doubt#ess to
ensure as mu*, as &ossib#e t,e trust2ort,iness o1 t,e resu#ts. Iut t,e more
im&ortant *onsideration #ies in t,e 1a*t t,at t,e test s,a## be *ondu*ted b6 trained
&ro1essiona#s in a**ess!*ontro##ed #aboratories monitored b6 t,e De&artment o1
:ea#t, 8D@:9 to sa1eguard against resu#ts tam&ering and to ensure an a**urate
*,ain o1 *ustod6.
4335
;n addition, t,e ;RR issued b6 t,e D@: &rovides t,at a**ess to
t,e drug resu#ts s,a## be on t,e Kneed to 3no2L basisH
4305
t,at t,e Kdrug test resu#t
and t,e re*ords s,a## be 43e&t5 *on1identia# sub)e*t to t,e usua# a**e&ted &ra*ti*es
to &rote*t t,e *on1identia#it6 o1 t,e test resu#ts.L
4355
Notab#6, R' 9165 does not
ob#ige t,e em&#o6er *on*erned to re&ort to t,e &rose*uting agen*ies an6
in1ormation or eviden*e re#ating to t,e vio#ation o1 t,e Comprehensive :angerous
:rugs ;!t re*eived as a resu#t o1 t,e o&eration o1 t,e drug testing. '## to#d,
t,ere1ore, t,e intrusion into t,e em&#o6eesA &riva*6, under R' 9165, is
a**om&anied b6 &ro&er sa1eguards, &arti*u#ar#6 against embarrassing #ea3ages o1
test resu#ts, and is re#ative#6 minima#.

+o reiterate, R' 9165 2as ena*ted as a measure to stam& out i##ega# drug in
t,e *ountr6 and t,us &rote*t t,e 2e##!being o1 t,e *iti$ens, es&e*ia##6 t,e 6out,,
1rom t,e de#eterious e11e*ts o1 dangerous drugs. +,e #a2 intends to a*,ieve t,is
t,roug, t,e medium, among ot,ers, o1 &romoting and reso#ute#6 &ursuing a
nationa# drug abuse &o#i*6 in t,e 2or3&#a*e via a mandator6 random drug test.
4365
+o t,e %ourt, t,e need 1or drug testing to at #east minimi$e i##ega# drug use is
substantia# enoug, to override t,e individua#As &riva*6 interest under t,e
&remises. +,e %ourt *an *onsider t,at t,e i##ega# drug mena*e *uts a*ross gender,
age grou&, and so*ia#! e*onomi* #ines. 'nd it ma6 not be amiss to state t,at t,e
sa#e, manu1a*ture, or tra11i*3ing o1 i##ega# drugs, 2it, t,eir read6 mar3et, 2ou#d be
an investorAs dream 2ere it not 1or t,e i##ega# and immora# *om&onents o1 an6 o1
su*, a*tivities. +,e drug &rob#em ,as ,ard#6 abated sin*e t,e martia# #a2 &ub#i*
eGe*ution o1 a notorious drug tra11i*3er. +,e state *an no #onger assume a #aid ba*3
stan*e 2it, res&e*t to t,is modern!da6 s*ourge. Drug en1or*ement agen*ies
&er*eive a mandator6 random drug test to be an e11e*tive 2a6 o1 &reventing and
deterring drug use among em&#o6ees in &rivate o11i*es, t,e t,reat o1 dete*tion b6
random testing being ,ig,er t,an ot,er modes. +,e %ourt ,o#ds t,at t,e *,osen
met,od is a reasonab#e and enoug, means to #i*3 t,e &rob#em.

+a3ing into a**ount t,e 1oregoing 1a*tors, i.e., t,e redu*ed eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 on t,e &art o1 t,e em&#o6ees, t,e *om&e##ing state *on*ern #i3e#6 to be met
b6 t,e sear*,, and t,e 2e##!de1ined #imits set 1ort, in t,e #a2 to &ro&er#6 guide
aut,orities in t,e *ondu*t o1 t,e random testing, 2e ,o#d t,at t,e *,a##enged drug
test reFuirement is, under t,e #imited *onteGt o1 t,e *ase, reasonab#e and,ergo,
*onstitutiona#.

7i3e t,eir *ounter&arts in t,e &rivate se*tor, government o11i*ia#s and
em&#o6ees a#so #abor under reasonab#e su&ervision and restri*tions im&osed b6 t,e
%ivi# "ervi*e #a2 and ot,er #a2s on &ub#i* o11i*ers, a## ena*ted to &romote a ,ig,
standard o1 et,i*s in t,e &ub#i* servi*e.
43-5
'nd i1 R' 9165 &asses t,e norm o1
reasonab#eness 1or &rivate em&#o6ees, t,e more reason t,at it s,ou#d &ass t,e test
1or *ivi# servants, 2,o, b6 *onstitutiona# *ommand, are reFuired to be a**ountab#e
at a## times to t,e &eo&#e and to serve t,em 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6 and
e11i*ien*6.
4385


Petitioner "J"A neGt &osture t,at "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 is ob)e*tionab#e on t,e
ground o1 undue de#egation o1 &o2er ,ard#6 *ommends itse#1 1or
*on*urren*e. %ontrar6 to its &osition, t,e &rovision in Fuestion is not so
eGtensive#6 dra2n as to give unbrid#ed o&tions to s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers to
determine t,e manner o1 drug testing. "e*. 36 eG&ress#6 &rovides ,o2 drug testing
1or students o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s and o11i*ersEem&#o6ees o1
&ub#i*E&rivate o11i*es s,ou#d be *ondu*ted. ;t enumerates t,e &ersons 2,o s,a##
undergo drug testing. ;n t,e *ase o1 students, t,e testing s,a## be in a**ordan*e 2it,
t,e s*,oo# ru#es as *ontained in t,e student ,andboo3 and 2it, noti*e to &arents.
@n t,e &art o1 o11i*ersEem&#o6ees, t,e testing s,a## ta3e into a**ount t,e *om&an6As
2or3 ru#es. ;n eit,er *ase, t,e random &ro*edure s,a## be observed, meaning t,at
t,e &ersons to be sub)e*ted to drug test s,a## be &i*3ed b6 *,an*e or in an
un&#anned 2a6. 'nd in a## *ases, sa1eguards against misusing and *om&romising
t,e *on1identia#it6 o1 t,e test resu#ts are estab#is,ed.

7est it be over#oo3ed, "e*. 90 o1 R' 9165 *,arges t,e DDI to issue, in
*onsu#tation 2it, t,e D@:, De&artment o1 t,e ;nterior and 7o*a# Government,
De&artment o1 ?du*ation, and De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment, among ot,er
agen*ies, t,e ;RR ne*essar6 to en1or*e t,e #a2. ;n net e11e*t t,en, t,e &arti*i&ation
o1 s*,oo#s and o11i*es in t,e drug testing s*,eme s,a## a#2a6s be sub)e*t to t,e ;RR
o1 R' 9165. ;t is, t,ere1ore, in*orre*t to sa6 t,at s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers ,ave
un*,e*3ed dis*retion to determine ,o2 o1ten, under 2,at *onditions, and 2,ere
t,e drug tests s,a## be *ondu*ted.

+,e va#idit6 o1 de#egating #egis#ative &o2er is no2 a Fuiet area in t,e
*onstitutiona# #ands*a&e.
4395
;n t,e 1a*e o1 t,e in*reasing *om&#eGit6 o1 t,e tas3 o1
t,e government and t,e in*reasing inabi#it6 o1 t,e #egis#ature to *o&e dire*t#6 2it,
t,e man6 &rob#ems demanding its attention, resort to de#egation o1 &o2er, or
entrusting to administrative agen*ies t,e &o2er o1 subordinate #egis#ation, ,as
be*ome im&erative, as ,ere.

La&erna Pe#"#"n (Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>AcB, AdB,
A$B, and A!B $ RA C:>;)

Bn#i3e t,e situation *overed b6 "e*. 368*9 and 8d9 o1 R' 9165, t,e %ourt
1inds no va#id )usti1i*ation 1or mandator6 drug testing 1or &ersons a**used o1
*rimes. ;n t,e *ase o1 students, t,e *onstitutiona# viabi#it6 o1 t,e mandator6,
random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing 1or students emanates &rimari#6 1rom t,e
2aiver b6 t,e students o1 t,eir rig,t to &riva*6 2,en t,e6 see3 entr6 to t,e s*,oo#,
and 1rom t,eir vo#untari#6 submitting t,eir &ersons to t,e &arenta# aut,orit6 o1
s*,oo# aut,orities. ;n t,e *ase o1 &rivate and &ub#i* em&#o6ees, t,e *onstitutiona#
soundness o1 t,e mandator6, random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing &ro*eeds 1rom
t,e reasonab#eness o1 t,e drug test &o#i*6 and reFuirement.

>e 1ind t,e situation entire#6 di11erent in t,e *ase o1 &ersons *,arged be1ore
t,e &ub#i* &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, *rimina# o11enses &unis,ab#e 2it, siG 869 6ears
and one 819 da6 im&risonment. +,e o&erative *on*e&ts in t,e mandator6 drug
testing are KrandomnessL and Ksus&i*ion#ess.L ;n t,e *ase o1 &ersons *,arged 2it,
a *rime be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e, a mandator6 drug testing *an never be
random or sus&i*ion#ess. +,e ideas o1 randomness and being sus&i*ion#ess are
antit,eti*a# to t,eir being made de1endants in a *rimina# *om&#aint. +,e6 are not
random#6 &i*3edH neit,er are t,e6 be6ond sus&i*ion. >,en &ersons sus&e*ted o1
*ommitting a *rime are *,arged, t,e6 are sing#ed out and are im&#eaded against
t,eir 2i##. +,e &ersons t,us *,arged, b6 t,e bare 1a*t o1 being ,a#ed be1ore t,e
&rose*utorAs o11i*e and &ea*eab#6 submitting t,emse#ves to drug testing, i1 t,at be
t,e *ase, do not ne*essari#6 *onsent to t,e &ro*edure, #et a#one 2aive t,eir rig,t to
&riva*6.
40/5
+o im&ose mandator6 drug testing on t,e a**used is a b#atant attem&t to
,arness a medi*a# test as a too# 1or *rimina# &rose*ution, *ontrar6 to t,e stated
ob)e*tives o1 R' 9165. Drug testing in t,is *ase 2ou#d vio#ate a &ersonsA rig,t to
&riva*6 guaranteed under "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution. >orse sti##, t,e
a**used &ersons are veritab#6 1or*ed to in*riminate t,emse#ves.

3HERE4ORE, t,e %ourt reso#ves to GRANT t,e &etition in G.R. No.
161658 and de*#ares Sec. 1>(!) o1 RA C:>; andCOMELEC Re&,+#"n N.
>?=> as 7NCONSTIT7TIONALH and to PARTIALLY GRANT t,e &etition in
G.R. Nos. 15-8-/ and 158633 b6 de*#aring Sec. 1>(c) and (d) o1 RA
C:>; CONSTIT7TIONAL, but de*#aring its Sec.
1>($)7NCONSTIT7TIONAL. '## *on*erned agen*ies are, a**ording#6,
&ermanent#6 en)oined 1rom im&#ementing Sec. 1>($) and (!) o1RA C:>;. No *osts.

SO OR5ERE5.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
'sso*iate Justi*e



>? %@N%BR9


REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e




LEONAR5O A. 87IS7MBING CONS7ELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA A7STRIA-MARTINED
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




A5OL4O S. ADC7NA 5ANTE O. TINGA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate
Justi*e



MINITA V. CHICO-NADARIO ANTONIO E57AR5O B. NACH7RA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e









R7BEN T. REYES TERESITA J. LEONAR5O-5E CASTRO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




ART7RO 5. BRION
'sso*iate Justi*e



C E R T I 4 I C A T I O N


Pursuant to "e*tion 13, 'rti*#e <;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, ; *erti16 t,at t,e
*on*#usions in t,e above De*ision ,ad been rea*,ed in *onsu#tation be1ore t,e *ase
2as assigned to t,e 2riter o1 t,e o&inion o1 t,e %ourt.




REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e

415
Re!e#e*ted as senator in t,e .//0 e#e*tions.

4.5
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &&. 180!185.

435
:umlao v. CO*?L?C, No. 7!5..05, Januar6 .., 198/, 95 "%R' 39., 0/1.

405
Iernas, +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R 939 8.//39.

455
+on(ales v. %arvasa, G.R. No. 10/835, 'ugust 10, .///, 33- "%R' -33, -0/.

465
-atad v. Se!retary o the :epartment o ?nergy, G.R. Nos. 1.036/ D 1.-86-, November 5, 199-, .81
"%R' 33/, 309H :e +uia v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/0-1., (a6 6, 199., ./8 "%R' 0./, 0...

4-5
9almer v. 2oard o ?du!ation, .-6 N ... 11 N? .d 88-.

485
%ru$, %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> 0 8.///9.

495
*utu! v. Commission on ?le!tions, No. 7!3.-1-, November .6, 19-/, 36 "%R' ..8, .30.

41/5
5/ P,i#. .59, 3/9 819.-9.

4115
J. Iernas, ".J., +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R 6/0 819969.

41.5
;d.

4135
See *on*urring o&inion in +o v. Commision on ?le!tions, G.R. No. 10--01, (a6 1/, .//1, 35- "%R'
-39, -53.
4105
R' 9165, "e*. ..

4155
,ernonia S!hool :istri!t ABJ v. ;!ton, 515 B.". 606 819959, 661.

4165
Ople v. -orres, G.R. No. 1.-685, Ju#6 .3, 1998, .93 "%R' 101, 169H *iting *ore v. *utu!, No. 7!
./38-, Januar6 31, 1968, .. "%R' 0.0, 000!005.

41-5
"e*. .. +,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures o1 2,atever nature and 1or an6 &ur&ose s,a## be invio#ab#e, and no sear*,
2arrant or 2arrant o1 arrest s,a## issue eG*e&t u&on &robab#e *ause to be determined &ersona##6 b6 t,e )udge a1ter
eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e 2itnesses ,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6
des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed and t,e &erson or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4185
536 B.". 8.. 8.//.9H *ited in . Iernas, %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 R;G:+" 'ND "@%;'7
D?('ND" ..0!..- 8.//09.

4195
+,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts, against unreasonab#e
sear*,es and sei$ures, s,a## not be vio#ated, and no >arrants s,a## issue, but u&on &robab#e *ause, su&&orted b6 @at,
or a11irmation, and &arti*u#ar#6 des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed, and t,e &ersons or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4./5
+,e =ourt, 'mendment is a#most simi#ar to "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, eG*e&t t,at t,e #atter
#imited t,e determination o1 &robab#e *ause to a )udge a1ter an eGamination under oat, o1 t,e *om&#ainant and ,is
2itnesses. :en*e, &ronoun*ements o1 t,e B" =edera# "u&reme %ourt and "tate '&&e##ate %ourt ma6 be *onsidered
do*trina# in t,is )urisdi*tion, un#ess t,e6 are mani1est#6 *ontrar6 to our %onstitution. See :errera, :'NDI@@N
@N 'RR?"+, "?'R%: 'ND "?;RBR? 8 8.//39.

4.15
-olentino v. ;l!on!el, No. 7!630//, (ar*, 18, 1983, 1.1 "%R' 9., 95!96.

4..5
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &. ./0, res&ondentsA %onso#idated (emorandum.

4.35
Rollo 8G.R. No. 15-8-/9, &. 1/.

4.05
Sec#"n :. No &erson s,a## be de&rived o1 #i1e, #ibert6, or &ro&ert6 2it,out due &ro*ess o1 #a2, nor s,a##
an6 &erson be denied t,e eFua# &rote*tion o1 t,e #a2s.
Sec. 6. +,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures o1 2,atever nature and 1or an6 &ur&ose s,a## be invio#ab#e, and no sear*,
2arrant or 2arrant o1 arrest s,a## issue eG*e&t u&on &robab#e *ause to be determined &ersona##6 b6 t,e )udge a1ter
eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e 2itnesses ,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6
des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed and t,e &erson or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4.55
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &. 9.
4.65
Ople, su&ra note 16, at 153H *iting %oo#e6 on +orts, "e*. 135, <o#. 1, 0t, ed., 4193.5.

4.-5
6. 'm. Jur. .d, 9riva!y, "e*. 1.

4.85
38- B.". 5.3H *ited in . Iernas, su&ra note 18, at .3..

4.95
6. 'm. Jur. .d, 9riva!y, "e*. 1-.
43/5
,ernonia D 2oard o ?du!ation, su&ra notes 15 D 18.

4315
Skinner v. Railway Labor ?7e!utives ;ssn., 089 B.". 6/., 619 819899H *ited in ,ernonia, su&ra.

43.5
"u&ra note 16, at 166 D 169.

4335
Bnder "e*. - 435 o1 t,e D@: ;RR Governing 7i*ensing and '**reditation o1 Drug 7aboratories, a
#aborator6 is reFuired to use do*umented *,ain o1 *ustod6 &ro*edures to maintain *ontro# and *ustod6 o1 s&e*imens.

4305
D@: ;RR Governing 7i*ensing and '**reditation o1 Drug 7aboratories, "e*. - 41/.35 &rovides t,at t,e
origina# *o&6 o1 t,e test resu#ts 1orm s,a## be given to t,e *#ientEdonor, *o&6 1urnis,ed t,e D@: and t,e reFuesting
agen*6.

4355
;d., "e*. - 41/.05.

4365
"e*s. 0- and 08 o1 R' 9165 *,arge t,e De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment 2it, t,e dut6 to deve#o&
and &romote a nationa# drug &revention &rogram and t,e ne*essar6 guide#ines in t,e 2or3 &#a*e, 2,i*, s,a## in*#ude
a mandator6 dra1ting and ado&tion o1 &o#i*ies to a*,ieve a drug!1ree 2or3&#a*e.
43-5
%@D? @= %@NDB%+ 'ND ?+:;%'7 "+'ND'RD" =@R PBI7;% @==;%?R" 'ND
?(P7@??", "e*. ..

4385
%@N"+;+B+;@N, 'rt. C;, "e*. 1.

4395
-atad, su&ra note 6, at 351.

40/5
Leona 9asion ,iuda de +ar!ia v. Lo!sin, 65 P,i#. 689, 695 819389H *iting %oo#e6, %@N"+. 7;(. 63/
88t, ed.9.
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, G.+. 9o. =V@@@>- Februar' =VT
W 4ecision- Abad X.Y
W ,oncurring and 4issenting Opinion- Sereno X.Y
W ,oncurring and 4issenting Opinion- ,arpio X.Y
W 4issenting and ,oncurring Opinion- Leonen X.Y
W Separate ,oncurring Opinion- /rion X.Y
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. 203339 "e4/u/, 11, 2015
JOSE JESUS M. 3$S$N$, JR., ROWENA S. 3$S$N$, L$ANNE $%# 6. ME3$NA, JANETTE TORAL n! ERNESTO SON$3O,
JR., "etitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE 3E6ARTMENT O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,
THE E7ECUT$%E 3$RECTOR O" THE $N"ORMAT$ON AN3 COMMUN$CAT$ONS TECHNOLOG# O""$CE, THE CH$E" O" THE
6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE n! THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203299
LOU$S EBARO;E C. B$RAOGO, "etitioner,
vs.
NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON n! 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203306
ALAB NG MAMAMAHA#AG @ALAMA, HU;UMAN NG MAMAMA#AN MO%EMENT, $NC., JERR# S. #A6, BERTEN$ ETOTOE
CAUS$NG, HERNAN$ <. CUARE, 6ERC# LA6$3, TRAC# CABRERA, RONAL3O E. RENTA, C$R$LO 6. SABARRE, JR., 3ER%$N
CASTRO, ET AL., "etitioners,
vs.
O""$CE O" THE 6RES$3ENT, /e*/e(en+e! 4, 6/e(&!en+ Ben&-no S&.eon AKu&no $$$, SENATE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, n!
HOUSE O" RE6RESENTAT$%ES, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203399
SENATOR TEO"$STO 3L GU$NGONA $$$, "etitioner,
vs.
E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE 3E6ARTMENT O" $NTER$OR AN3
LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, THE CH$E" O" THE 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, n! 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU
O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203372
ALE7AN3ER A3ON$S, ELLEN TOR3ES$LLAS, MA. G$SELA OR3ENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARR# L. RO<UE, JR., ROMEL R.
BAGARES, n! G$LBERT T. AN3RES, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE 3E6ARTMENT O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT, THE 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE, THE
3E6ARTMENT O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE
6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, AN3 THE $N"ORMAT$ON AN3 COMMUN$CAT$ONS TECHNOLOG# O""$CE-3E6ARTMENT
O" SC$ENCE AN3 TECHNOLOG#, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203391
HON. RA#MON3 %. 6ALAT$NO, HON. ANTON$O T$N$O, %ENCER MAR$ CR$SOSTOMO O" ANA;BA#AN, MA. ;ATHER$NE
ELONA O" THE 6H$L$66$NE COLLEG$AN, $SABELLE THERESE BAGU$S$ O" THE NAT$ONAL UN$ON O" STU3ENTS O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, ET AL., "etitioners,
vs.
6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/, n! 8+e/-e-o o0 6/e(&!en+ Ben&-no S&.eon AKu&no $$$,
LE$LA 3E L$MA &n 'e/ )*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203507
BAGONG AL#ANSANG MA;ABA#AN SECRETAR# GENERAL RENATO M. RE#ES, JR., N+&on8 A/+&(+ B$EN%EN$3O L.
LUMBERA, C'&/*e/(on o0 Con)e/ne! A/+&(+( o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(, ELMER C. LABOG, C'&/*e/(on o0 ;&8u(n- M,o Uno,
CR$ST$NA E. 6ALABA#, Se)/e+/, Gene/8 o0 ;/*+n, "ER3$NAN3 R. GA$TE, C'&/*e/(on o0 COURAGE, JOEL B.
MAGLUNSO3, %&)e 6/e(&!en+ o0 AnD*B&( 6/+,-L&(+, LANA R. L$NABAN, Se)/e+/, Gene/8 G4/&e8 Wo.en?( 6/+,,
A3OL"O ARES 6. GUT$ERRE1, n! JUL$US GARC$A MAT$BAG, "etitioners,
vs.
BEN$GNO S$MEON C. A<U$NO $$$, 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(, 6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., ELe)u+&:e
Se)/e+/,, SENATE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, SENATE 6RES$3ENT JUAN 6ONCE ENR$LE, HOUSE O"
RE6RESENTAT$%ES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, S6EA;ER "EL$C$ANO BELMONTE, JR., LE$LA 3E L$MA, Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+
o0 Ju(+&)e, LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e $n0o/.+&on n! Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-,
O00&)e, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&on, 3JGEN. N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME,
C'&e0 o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, MANUEL A. RO7AS $$, Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 +'e $n+e/&o/ n! Lo)8
Go:e/n.en+,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203550
MELENC$O S. STA. MAR$A, SE3"RE# M. CAN3ELAR$A, AM6AR$TA STA. MAR$A, RA# 6AOLO J. SANT$AGO, G$LBERT %.
SEMBRANO, n! R#AN JEREM$AH 3. <UAN @88 o0 +'e A+eneo Hu.n R&-'+( Cen+e/A,"etitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE 6A<U$TO OCHOA &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,, HONORABLE LE$LA 3E L$MA &n 'e/ )*)&+, (
Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)e, HONORABLE MANUEL RO7AS &n '&( )*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 $n+e/&o/ n! Lo)8
Go:e/n.en+, T'e CH$E" o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, T'e 3$RECTOR o0 +'e N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&on @88 o0 +'e
ELe)u+&:e 3e*/+.en+ o0 Go:e/n.en+A,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203593
NAT$ONAL UN$ON O" JOURNAL$STS O" THE 6H$L$66$NES @NUJ6A, 6H$L$66$NE 6RESS $NST$TUTE @66$A, CENTER "OR
ME3$A "REE3OM AN3 RES6ONS$B$L$T#, ROWENA CARRAN1A 6ARAAN, MEL$N3A <U$NTOS-3E JESUS, JOSE6H ALW#N
ALBURO, AR$EL SEBELL$NO AN3 THE 6ET$T$ONERS $N THE e-6ET$T$ON '++*>JJBBB.nuM*.o/-Jno-+o-/10179J, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL
GO%ERNMENT, THE SECRETAR# O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT, THE 3$RECTOR GENERAL O" THE 6H$L$66$NE
NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE C#BERCR$ME $N%EST$GAT$ON
AN3 COOR3$NAT$NG CENTER, AN3 ALL AGENC$ES AN3 $NSTRUMENTAL$T$ES O" GO%ERNMENT AN3 ALL 6ERSONS
ACT$NG UN3ER THE$R $NSTRUCT$ONS, OR3ERS, 3$RECT$ON $N RELAT$ON TO THE $M6LEMENTAT$ON O" RE6UBL$C ACT
NO. 10179, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203595
6AUL CORNEL$US T. CAST$LLO N R#AN 3. AN3RES, "etitioners,
vs.
THE HON. SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE THE HON. SECRETAR# O" $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203569
ANTHON# $AN M. CRU1I MARCELO R. LAN3$CHOI BENJAM$N NOEL A. ES6$NAI MARC; RONAL3 C. R$MOR$NI JUL$US 3.
ROCASI OL$%ER R$CHAR3 %. ROB$LLOI AARON ER$C; A. LO1A3AI GERAR3 A3R$AN 6. MAGNA#EI JOSE REG$NAL3 A.
RAMOSI MA. ROSAR$O T. JUANI BREN3AL#N 6. RAM$RE1I MAUREEN A. HERM$TAN$OI ;R$ST$NE JO# S. REMENT$LLAI
MAR$CEL O. GRA#I JUL$US $%AN ". CAB$GONI BENRAL6H S. #UI CEBU BLOGGERS SOC$ET#, $NC. 6RES$3ENT RUBEN B.
L$CERA, JRI n! 6$NO# E76ATJO"W BLOG AWAR3S, $NC. COOR3$NATOR 6E3RO E. RAHONI "etitioners,
vs.
H$S E7CELLENC# BEN$GNO S. A<U$NO $$$, &n '&( )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(I SENATE O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, HON. JUAN 6ONCE ENR$LE, &n '&( )*)&+, ( Sen+e 6/e(&!en+I HOUSE O"
RE6RESENTAT$%ES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, "EL$C$ANO R. BELMONTE, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( S*eDe/ o0 +'e Hou(e o0
Re*/e(en++&:e(I HON. 6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,I HON. LE$LA M. 3E L$MA, &n 'e/
)*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)eI HON. LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/,
$n0o/.+&on n! Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-, O00&)eI HON. NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, &n '&( )*)&+, ( 3&/e)+o/,
N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&onI n! 6J3GEN. N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME, &n '&( )*)&+, ( C'&e0, 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8
6o8&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203901
6H$L$66$NE BAR ASSOC$AT$ON, $NC., "etitioner,
vs.
H$S E7CELLENC# BEN$GNO S. A<U$NO $$$, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(I HON.
6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,I HON. LE$LA M. 3E L$MA, &n 'e/ o00&)&8 )*)&+, (
Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)eI LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/, $n0o/.+&on n!
Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-, O00&)eI NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e N+&on8
Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&onI n! 3$RECTOR GENERAL N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( C'&e0 o0 +'e
6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203909
BA#AN MUNA RE6RESENTAT$%E NER$ J. COLMENARES, "etitioner,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR# 6A<U$TO OCHOA, JR., <espondent.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203919
NAT$ONAL 6RESS CLUB O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, $NC. /e*/e(en+e! 4, BENN# 3. ANT$6OR3A &n '&( )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+
n! &n '&( *e/(on8 )*)&+,, "etitioner,
vs.
O""$CE O" THE 6RES$3ENT, 6RES. BEN$GNO S$MEON A<U$NO $$$, 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE, 3E6ARTMENT O"
$NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON,
3E6ARTMENT O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT AN3 ALL OTHER GO%ERNMENT $NSTRUMENTAL$T$ES WHO HA%E
HAN3S $N THE 6ASSAGE AN3JOR $M6LEMENTAT$ON O" RE6UBL$C ACT 10179, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203912
6H$L$66$NE $NTERNET "REE3OM ALL$ANCE, )o.*o(e! o0 3A;$LA-6H$L$66$NE COLLECT$%E "OR MO3ERN HERO$SM,
/e*/e(en+e! 4, Len& %e8()o, 6ART$3O LA;AS NG MASA, /e*/e(en+e! 4, Ce(/ S. Me8en)&o, "RANC$S EUSTON R. ACERO,
MARLON ANTHON# ROMASANTA TONSON, TEO3ORO A. CAS$=O, NOEM$ LAR3$1ABAL-3A3O, $MEL3A ORALES, JAMES
MATTHEW B. M$RA"LOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAG$O, MAR$A "AT$MA A. %$LLENA, ME3AR3O M. MANR$<UE, JR., LAUREN
3A3O, MARCO %$TTOR$A TOB$AS SUMA#AO, $RENE CH$A, ERASTUS NOEL T. 3EL$1O, CR$ST$NA SARAH E. OSOR$O,
ROMEO "ACTOLER$N, NAOM$ L. TU6AS, ;ENNETH ;ENG, ANA ALE7AN3RA C. CASTRO, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,
THE SECRETAR# O" SC$ENCE AN3 TECHNOLOG#, THE E7ECUT$%E 3$RECTOR O" THE $N"ORMAT$ON TECHNOLOG#
O""$CE, THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE CH$E", 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE,
THE HEA3 O" THE 3OJ O""$CE O" C#BERCR$ME, n! THE OTHER MEMBERS O" THE C#BERCR$ME $N%EST$GAT$ON
AN3 COOR3$NAT$NG CENTER, <espondents.
C 7 C : S : 6 #
ABA3, J.:
+hese consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions o' <epublic ;ct 2<.;.3 1510/, the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct o'
!51!, unconstitutional and void.
+he Facts and the Case
+he cybercri$e la( ai$s to re)ulate access to and use o' the cyberspace. Asin) his laptop or co$puter, a person can connect to the
internet, a syste$ that links hi$ to other co$puters and enable hi$, a$on) other thin)s, to*
1. ;ccess virtual libraries and encyclopedias 'or all kinds o' in'or$ation that he needs 'or research, study,
a$use$ent, upli't$ent, or pure curiosity=
!. "ost billboard-like notices or $essa)es, includin) pictures and videos, 'or the )eneral public or 'or special
audiences like associates, class$ates, or 'riends and read postin)s 'ro$ the$=
. ;dvertise and pro$ote )oods or services and $ake purchases and pay$ents=
4. :nDuire and do business (ith institutional entities like )overn$ent a)encies, banks, stock e9chan)es, trade
houses, credit card co$panies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools= and
/. Co$$unicate in (ritin) or by voice (ith any person throu)h his e-$ail address or telephone.
+his is cyberspace, a syste$ that acco$$odates $illions and billions o' si$ultaneous and on)oin) individual accesses to and uses
o' the internet. +he cyberspace is a boon to the need o' the current )eneration 'or )reater in'or$ation and 'acility o' co$$unication.
8ut all is not (ell (ith the syste$ since it could not 'ilter out a nu$ber o' persons o' ill (ill (ho (ould (ant to use cyberspace
technolo)y 'or $ischie's and cri$es. 6ne o' the$ can, 'or instance, avail hi$sel' o' the syste$ to un>ustly ruin the reputation o'
another or bully the latter by postin) de'a$atory state$ents a)ainst hi$ that people can read.
;nd because linkin) (ith the internet opens up a user to co$$unications 'ro$ others, the ill-$otivated can use the cyberspace 'or
co$$ittin) the't by hackin) into or surreptitiously accessin) his bank account or credit card or de'raudin) hi$ throu)h 'alse
representations. +he (icked can use the cyberspace, too, 'or illicit tra''ickin) in se9 or 'or e9posin) to porno)raphy )uileless children
(ho have access to the internet. For this reason, the )overn$ent has a le)iti$ate ri)ht to re)ulate the use o' cyberspace and
contain and punish (ron)doin)s.
#otably, there are also those (ho (ould (ant, like vandals, to (reak or cause havoc to the co$puter syste$s and net(orks o'
indispensable or hi)hly use'ul institutions as (ell as to the laptop or co$puter pro)ra$s and $e$ories o' innocent individuals. +hey
acco$plish this by sendin) electronic viruses or virtual dyna$ites that destroy those co$puter syste$s, net(orks, pro)ra$s, and
$e$ories. +he )overn$ent certainly has the duty and the ri)ht to prevent these to$'ooleries 'ro$ happenin) and punish their
perpetrators, hence the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct.
8ut petitioners clai$ that the $eans adopted by the cybercri$e la( 'or re)ulatin) undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain o'
their constitutional ri)hts. +he )overn$ent o' course asserts that the la( $erely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace
activities, punish (ron)doin)s, and prevent hurt'ul attacks on the syste$.
"endin) hearin) and ad>udication o' the issues presented in these cases, on February /, !51 the Court e9tended the ori)inal 1!5-
day te$porary restrainin) order 2+<63 that it earlier issued on 6ctober 9, !51!, en>oinin) respondent )overn$ent a)encies 'ro$
i$ple$entin) the cybercri$e la( until 'urther orders.
+he :ssues "resented
"etitioners challen)e the constitutionality o' the 'ollo(in) provisions o' the cybercri$e la( that re)ard certain acts as cri$es and
i$pose penalties 'or their co$$ission as (ell as provisions that (ould enable the )overn$ent to track do(n and penalize violators.
+hese provisions are*
a. Section 42a3213 on :lle)al ;ccess=
b. Section 42a323 on Cata :nter'erence=
c. Section 42a3263 on Cyber-sDuattin)=
d. Section 42b323 on :dentity +he't=
e. Section 42c3213 on Cyberse9=
'. Section 42c32!3 on Child "orno)raphy=
). Section 42c323 on Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications=
h. Section 42c3243 on %ibel=
i. Section / on ;idin) or ;bettin) and ;tte$pt in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$es=
>. Section 6 on the "enalty o' 6ne Ce)ree ,i)her=
k. Section 0 on the "rosecution under both the <evised "enal Code 2<"C3 and <.;. 1510/=
l. Section J on "enalties=
$. Section 1! on <eal-+i$e Collection o' +ra''ic Cata=
n. Section 1 on "reservation o' Co$puter Cata=
o. Section 14 on Cisclosure o' Co$puter Cata=
p. Section 1/ on Search, Seizure and 79a$ination o' Co$puter Cata=
D. Section 10 on Cestruction o' Co$puter Cata=
r. Section 19 on <estrictin) or 8lockin) ;ccess to Co$puter Cata=
s. Section !5 on 6bstruction o' Justice=
t. Section !4 on Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin) Center 2C:CC3= and
u. Section !62a3 on C:CCPs "o(ers and Functions.
So$e petitioners also raise the constitutionality o' related ;rticles /, /4, 61, and 6! o' the <"C on the cri$e o' libel.
+he <ulin)s o' the Court
Section 42a3213
Section 42a3213 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
213 :lle)al ;ccess. Q +he access to the (hole or any part o' a co$puter syste$ (ithout ri)ht.
"etitioners contend that Section 42a3213 'ails to $eet the strict scrutiny standard reDuired o' la(s that inter'ere (ith the 'unda$ental
ri)hts o' the people and should thus be struck do(n.
+he Court has in a (ay 'ound the strict scrutiny standard, an ;$erican constitutional construct,
1
use'ul in deter$inin) the
constitutionality o' la(s that tend to tar)et a class o' thin)s or persons. ;ccordin) to this standard, a le)islative classi'ication that
i$per$issibly inter'eres (ith the e9ercise o' 'unda$ental ri)ht or operates to the peculiar class disadvanta)e o' a suspect class is
presu$ed unconstitutional. +he burden is on the )overn$ent to prove that the classi'ication is necessary to achieve a co$pellin)
state interest and that it is the least restrictive $eans to protect such interest.
!
%ater, the strict scrutiny standard (as used to assess
the validity o' la(s dealin) (ith the re)ulation o' speech, )ender, or race as (ell as other 'unda$ental ri)hts, as e9pansion 'ro$ its
earlier applications to eDual protection.

:n the cases be'ore it, the Court 'inds nothin) in Section 42a3213 that calls 'or the application o' the strict scrutiny standard since no
'unda$ental 'reedo$, like speech, is involved in punishin) (hat is essentially a conde$nable act Q accessin) the co$puter syste$
o' another (ithout ri)ht. :t is a universally conde$ned conduct.
4
"etitioners o' course 'ear that this section (ill >eopardize the (ork o' ethical hackers, pro'essionals (ho e$ploy tools and techniDues
used by cri$inal hackers but (ould neither da$a)e the tar)et syste$s nor steal in'or$ation. 7thical hackers evaluate the tar)et
syste$Ps security and report back to the o(ners the vulnerabilities they 'ound in it and )ive instructions 'or ho( these can be
re$edied. 7thical hackers are the eDuivalent o' independent auditors (ho co$e into an or)anization to veri'y its bookkeepin)
records.
/
8esides, a clientPs en)a)e$ent o' an ethical hacker reDuires an a)ree$ent bet(een the$ as to the e9tent o' the search, the
$ethods to be used, and the syste$s to be tested. +his is re'erred to as the E)et out o' >ail 'ree card.E
6
Since the ethical hacker does
his >ob (ith prior per$ission 'ro$ the client, such per$ission (ould insulate hi$ 'ro$ the covera)e o' Section 42a3213.
Section 42a323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42a323 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
9 9 9 9
23 Cata :nter'erence. Q +he intentional or reckless alteration, da$a)in), deletion or deterioration o' co$puter data, electronic
docu$ent, or electronic data $essa)e, (ithout ri)ht, includin) the introduction or trans$ission o' viruses.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42a323 su''ers 'ro$ overbreadth in that, (hile it seeks to discoura)e data inter'erence, it intrudes into
the area o' protected speech and e9pression, creatin) a chillin) and deterrent e''ect on these )uaranteed 'reedo$s.
Ander the overbreadth doctrine, a proper )overn$ental purpose, constitutionally sub>ect to state re)ulation, $ay not be achieved by
$eans that unnecessarily s(eep its sub>ect broadly, thereby invadin) the area o' protected 'reedo$s.
0
8ut Section 42a323 does not
encroach on these 'reedo$s at all. :t si$ply punishes (hat essentially is a 'or$ o' vandalis$,
J
the act o' (ill'ully destroyin) (ithout
ri)ht the thin)s that belon) to others, in this case their co$puter data, electronic docu$ent, or electronic data $essa)e. Such act
has no connection to )uaranteed 'reedo$s. +here is no 'reedo$ to destroy other peoplePs co$puter syste$s and private
docu$ents.
;ll penal la(s, like the cybercri$e la(, have o' course an inherent chillin) e''ect, an in terrore$ e''ect
9
or the 'ear o' possible
prosecution that han)s on the heads o' citizens (ho are $inded to step beyond the boundaries o' (hat is proper. 8ut to prevent the
State 'ro$ le)islatin) cri$inal la(s because they instill such kind o' 'ear is to render the state po(erless in addressin) and
penalizin) socially har$'ul conduct.
15
,ere, the chillin) e''ect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section 42a323 clearly
describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to inti$idate the 'ree e9ercise o' onePs constitutional ri)hts.
8esides, the overbreadth challen)e places on petitioners the heavy burden o' provin) that under no set o' circu$stances (ill Section
42a323 be valid.
11
"etitioner has 'ailed to dischar)e this burden.
Section 42a3263 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42a3263 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
9 9 9 9
263 Cyber-sDuattin). Q +he acDuisition o' do$ain na$e over the internet in bad 'aith to pro'it, $islead, destroy the reputation, and
deprive others 'ro$ re)isterin) the sa$e, i' such a do$ain na$e is*
2i3 Si$ilar, identical, or con'usin)ly si$ilar to an e9istin) trade$ark re)istered (ith the appropriate )overn$ent
a)ency at the ti$e o' the do$ain na$e re)istration=
2ii3 :dentical or in any (ay si$ilar (ith the na$e o' a person other than the re)istrant, in case o' a personal na$e=
and
2iii3 ;cDuired (ithout ri)ht or (ith intellectual property interests in it.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42a3263 or cyber-sDuattin) violates the eDual protection clause
1!
in that, not bein) narro(ly tailored, it
(ill cause a user usin) his real na$e to su''er the sa$e 'ate as those (ho use aliases or take the na$e o' another in satire, parody,
or any other literary device. For e9a$ple, supposin) there e9ists a (ell kno(n billionaire-philanthropist na$ed EJulio @andol'o,E the
la( (ould punish 'or cyber-sDuattin) both the person (ho re)isters such na$e because he clai$s it to be his pseudo-na$e and
another (ho re)isters the na$e because it happens to be his real na$e. "etitioners clai$ that, considerin) the substantial distinction
bet(een the t(o, the la( should reco)nize the di''erence.
8ut there is no real di''erence (hether he uses EJulio @andol'oE (hich happens to be his real na$e or use it as a pseudo-na$e 'or it
is the evil purpose 'or (hich he uses the na$e that the la( conde$ns. +he la( is reasonable in penalizin) hi$ 'or acDuirin) the
do$ain na$e in bad 'aith to pro'it, $islead, destroy reputation, or deprive others (ho are not ill-$otivated o' the ri)ht'ul opportunity
o' re)isterin) the sa$e. +he challen)e to the constitutionality o' Section 42a3263 on )round o' denial o' eDual protection is baseless.
Section 42b323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42b323 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
b3 Co$puter-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
23 Co$puter-related :dentity +he't. Q +he intentional acDuisition, use, $isuse, trans'er, possession, alteration, or deletion o'
identi'yin) in'or$ation belon)in) to another, (hether natural or >uridical, (ithout ri)ht* "rovided* that i' no da$a)e has yet been
caused, the penalty i$posable shall be one 213 de)ree lo(er.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42b323 violates the constitutional ri)hts to due process and to privacy and correspondence, and
trans)resses the 'reedo$ o' the press.
+he ri)ht to privacy, or the ri)ht to be let alone, (as institutionalized in the 19J0 Constitution as a 'acet o' the ri)ht protected by the
)uarantee a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures.
1
8ut the Court ackno(led)ed its e9istence as early as 196J in &or'e v.
&utuc,
14
it ruled that the ri)ht to privacy e9ists independently o' its identi'ication (ith liberty= it is in itsel' 'ully deservin) o'
constitutional protection.
<elevant to any discussion o' the ri)ht to privacy is the concept kno(n as the ERones o' "rivacy.E +he Court e9plained in E:n the
&atter o' the "etition 'or :ssuance o' Writ o' ,abeas Corpus o' Sabio v. Senator @ordonE
1/
the relevance o' these zones to the ri)ht to
privacy*
Rones o' privacy are reco)nized and protected in our la(s. Within these zones, any 'or$ o' intrusion is i$per$issible unless
e9cused by la( and in accordance (ith custo$ary le)al process. +he $eticulous re)ard (e accord to these zones arises not only
'ro$ our conviction that the ri)ht to privacy is a Econstitutional ri)htE and Ethe ri)ht $ost valued by civilized $en,E but also 'ro$ our
adherence to the Aniversal Ceclaration o' ,u$an <i)hts (hich $andates that, Eno one shall be sub>ected to arbitrary inter'erence
(ith his privacyE and Eeveryone has the ri)ht to the protection o' the la( a)ainst such inter'erence or attacks.E
+(o constitutional )uarantees create these zones o' privacy* 2a3 the ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches
16
and seizures, (hich is the
basis o' the ri)ht to be let alone, and 2b3 the ri)ht to privacy o' co$$unication and correspondence.
10
:n assessin) the challen)e that
the State has i$per$issibly intruded into these zones o' privacy, a court $ust deter$ine (hether a person has e9hibited a
reasonable e9pectation o' privacy and, i' so, (hether that e9pectation has been violated by unreasonable )overn$ent intrusion.
1J
+he usual identi'yin) in'or$ation re)ardin) a person includes his na$e, his citizenship, his residence address, his contact nu$ber,
his place and date o' birth, the na$e o' his spouse i' any, his occupation, and si$ilar data.
19
+he la( punishes those (ho acDuire or
use such identi'yin) in'or$ation (ithout ri)ht, i$plicitly to cause da$a)e. "etitioners si$ply 'ail to sho( ho( )overn$ent e''ort to
curb co$puter-related identity the't violates the ri)ht to privacy and correspondence as (ell as the ri)ht to due process o' la(.
;lso, the char)e o' invalidity o' this section based on the overbreadth doctrine (ill not hold (ater since the speci'ic conducts
proscribed do not intrude into )uaranteed 'reedo$s like speech. Clearly, (hat this section re)ulates are speci'ic actions* the
acDuisition, use, $isuse or deletion o' personal identi'yin) data o' another. +here is no 'unda$ental ri)ht to acDuire anotherPs
personal data.
Further, petitioners 'ear that Section 42b323 violates the 'reedo$ o' the press in that >ournalists (ould be hindered 'ro$ accessin)
the unrestricted user account o' a person in the ne(s to secure in'or$ation about hi$ that could be published. 8ut this is not the
essence o' identity the't that the la( seeks to prohibit and punish. 7vidently, the the't o' identity in'or$ation $ust be intended 'or an
ille)iti$ate purpose. &oreover, acDuirin) and disse$inatin) in'or$ation $ade public by the user hi$sel' cannot be re)arded as a
'or$ o' the't.
+he Court has de'ined intent to )ain as an internal act (hich can be established throu)h the overt acts o' the o''ender, and it $ay be
presu$ed 'ro$ the 'urtive takin) o' use'ul property pertainin) to another, unless special circu$stances reveal a di''erent intent on the
part o' the perpetrator.
!5
;s such, the press, (hether in Duest o' ne(s reportin) or social investi)ation, has nothin) to 'ear since a
special circu$stance is present to ne)ate intent to )ain (hich is reDuired by this Section.
Section 42c3213 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c3213 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses.Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
213 Cyberse9.Q +he (ill'ul en)a)e$ent, $aintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, o' any lascivious e9hibition o' se9ual
or)ans or se9ual activity, (ith the aid o' a co$puter syste$, 'or 'avor or consideration.
"etitioners clai$ that the above violates the 'reedo$ o' e9pression clause o' the Constitution.
!1
+hey e9press 'ear that private
co$$unications o' se9ual character bet(een husband and (i'e or consentin) adults, (hich are not re)arded as cri$es under the
penal code, (ould no( be re)arded as cri$es (hen done E'or 'avorE in cyberspace. :n co$$on usa)e, the ter$ E'avorE includes
E)racious kindness,E Ea special privile)e or ri)ht )ranted or conceded,E or Ea token o' love 2as a ribbon3 usually (orn
conspicuously.E
!!
+his $eanin) )iven to the ter$ E'avorE e$braces socially tolerated trysts. +he la( as (ritten (ould invite la(
en'orce$ent a)encies into the bedroo$s o' $arried couples or consentin) individuals.
8ut the deliberations o' the 8ica$eral Co$$ittee o' Con)ress on this section o' the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct )ive a proper
perspective on the issue. +hese deliberations sho( a lack o' intent to penalize a Eprivate sho(in) 9 9 9 bet(een and a$on) t(o
private persons 9 9 9 althou)h that $ay be a 'or$ o' obscenity to so$e.E
!
+he understandin) o' those (ho dre( up the cybercri$e
la( is that the ele$ent o' Een)a)in) in a businessE is necessary to constitute the ille)al cyberse9.
!4
+he ;ct actually seeks to punish
cyber prostitution, (hite slave trade, and porno)raphy 'or 'avor and consideration. +his includes interactive prostitution and
porno)raphy, i.e., by (ebca$.
!/
+he sub>ect o' Section 42c3213Hlascivious e9hibition o' se9ual or)ans or se9ual activityHis not novel. ;rticle !51 o' the <"C
punishes Eobscene publications and e9hibitions and indecent sho(s.E +he ;nti-+ra''ickin) in "ersons ;ct o' !55 penalizes those
(ho E$aintain or hire a person to en)a)e in prostitution or porno)raphy.E
!6
+he la( de'ines prostitution as any act, transaction,
sche$e, or desi)n involvin) the use o' a person by another, 'or se9ual intercourse or lascivious conduct in e9chan)e 'or $oney,
pro'it, or any other consideration.
!0
+he case o' #o)ales v. "eople!J sho(s the e9tent to (hich the State can re)ulate $aterials that serve no other purpose than satis'y
the $arket 'or violence, lust, or porno)raphy.
!9
+he Court (ei)hed the property ri)hts o' individuals a)ainst the public (el'are. "rivate
property, i' containin) porno)raphic $aterials, $ay be 'or'eited and destroyed. %ike(ise, en)a)in) in se9ual acts privately throu)h
internet connection, perceived by so$e as a ri)ht, has to be balanced (ith the $andate o' the State to eradicate (hite slavery and
the e9ploitation o' (o$en.
:n any event, consentin) adults are protected by the (ealth o' >urisprudence delineatin) the bounds o' obscenity.
5
+he Court (ill not
declare Section 42c3213 unconstitutional (here it stands a construction that $akes it apply only to persons en)a)ed in the business o'
$aintainin), controllin), or operatin), directly or indirectly, the lascivious e9hibition o' se9ual or)ans or se9ual activity (ith the aid o'
a co$puter syste$ as Con)ress has intended.
Section 42c32!3 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c32!3 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
2!3 Child "orno)raphy. H +he unla('ul or prohibited acts de'ined and punishable by <epublic ;ct #o. 900/ or the ;nti-Child
"orno)raphy ;ct o' !559, co$$itted throu)h a co$puter syste$* "rovided, +hat the penalty to be i$posed shall be 213 one de)ree
hi)her than that provided 'or in <epublic ;ct #o. 900/.
:t see$s that the above $erely e9pands the scope o' the ;nti-Child "orno)raphy ;ct o' !559
1
2;C";3 to cover identical activities in
cyberspace. :n theory, nothin) prevents the )overn$ent 'ro$ invokin) the ;C"; (hen prosecutin) persons (ho co$$it child
porno)raphy usin) a co$puter syste$. ;ctually, ;C";Ps de'inition o' child porno)raphy already e$braces the use o' Eelectronic,
$echanical, di)ital, optical, $a)netic or any other $eans.E #otably, no one has Duestioned this ;C"; provision.
6' course, the la( $akes the penalty hi)her by one de)ree (hen the cri$e is co$$itted in cyberspace. 8ut no one can co$plain
since the intensity or duration o' penalty is a le)islative prero)ative and there is rational basis 'or such hi)her penalty.
!
+he potential
'or uncontrolled proli'eration o' a particular piece o' child porno)raphy (hen uploaded in the cyberspace is incalculable.
"etitioners point out that the provision o' ;C"; that $akes it unla('ul 'or any person to Eproduce, direct, $anu'acture or create any
'or$ o' child porno)raphyE

clearly relates to the prosecution o' persons (ho aid and abet the core o''enses that ;C"; seeks to
punish.
4
"etitioners are (ary that a person (ho $erely doodles on paper and i$a)ines a se9ual abuse o' a 16-year-old is not
cri$inally liable 'or producin) child porno)raphy but one (ho 'or$ulates the idea on his laptop (ould be. Further, i' the author
bounces o'' his ideas on +(itter, anyone (ho replies to the t(eet could be considered aidin) and abettin) a cybercri$e.
+he Duestion o' aidin) and abettin) the o''ense by si$ply co$$entin) on it (ill be discussed else(here belo(. For no( the Court
$ust hold that the constitutionality o' Section 42c32!3 is not success'ully challen)ed.
Section 42c323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c323 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
23 Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications. Q +he trans$ission o' co$$ercial electronic co$$unication (ith the use o' co$puter
syste$ (hich seeks to advertise, sell, or o''er 'or sale products and services are prohibited unless*
2i3 +here is prior a''ir$ative consent 'ro$ the recipient= or
2ii3 +he pri$ary intent o' the co$$unication is 'or service andBor ad$inistrative announce$ents 'ro$ the sender to its
e9istin) users, subscribers or custo$ers= or
2iii3 +he 'ollo(in) conditions are present*
2aa3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication contains a si$ple, valid, and reliable (ay 'or the recipient to
re>ect receipt o' 'urther co$$ercial electronic $essa)es 2opt-out3 'ro$ the sa$e source=
2bb3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication does not purposely dis)uise the source o' the electronic
$essa)e= and
2cc3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication does not purposely include $isleadin) in'or$ation in any part
o' the $essa)e in order to induce the recipients to read the $essa)e.
+he above penalizes the trans$ission o' unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unications, also kno(n as Espa$.E +he ter$ Espa$E sur'aced
in early internet chat roo$s and interactive 'antasy )a$es. 6ne (ho repeats the sa$e sentence or co$$ent (as said to be $akin)
a Espa$.E +he ter$ re'erred to a &onty "ythonPs Flyin) Circus scene in (hich actors (ould keep sayin) ESpa$, Spa$, Spa$, and
Spa$E (hen readin) options 'ro$ a $enu.
/
+he @overn$ent, represented by the Solicitor @eneral, points out that unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unications or spa$s are a
nuisance that (astes the stora)e and net(ork capacities o' internet service providers, reduces the e''iciency o' co$$erce and
technolo)y, and inter'eres (ith the o(nerPs peace'ul en>oy$ent o' his property. +rans$ittin) spa$s a$ounts to trespass to onePs
privacy since the person sendin) out spa$s enters the recipientPs do$ain (ithout prior per$ission. +he 6S@ contends that
co$$ercial speech en>oys less protection in la(.
8ut, 'irstly, the )overn$ent presents no basis 'or holdin) that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the Ee''iciency o' co$puters.E
Secondly, people, be'ore the arrival o' the a)e o' co$puters, have already been receivin) such unsolicited ads by $ail. +hese have
never been outla(ed as nuisance since people $i)ht have interest in such ads. What $atters is that the recipient has the option o'
not openin) or readin) these $ail ads. +hat is true (ith spa$s. +heir recipients al(ays have the option to delete or not to read the$.
+o prohibit the trans$ission o' unsolicited ads (ould deny a person the ri)ht to read his e$ails, even unsolicited co$$ercial ads
addressed to hi$. Co$$ercial speech is a separate cate)ory o' speech (hich is not accorded the sa$e level o' protection as that
)iven to other constitutionally )uaranteed 'or$s o' e9pression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.
6
+he State cannot rob hi$ o'
this ri)ht (ithout violatin) the constitutionally )uaranteed 'reedo$ o' e9pression. Ansolicited advertise$ents are le)iti$ate 'or$s o'
e9pression.
;rticles /, /4, and // o' the "enal Code
Section 42c3243 o' the Cyber Cri$e %a(
"etitioners dispute the constitutionality o' both the penal code provisions on libel as (ell as Section 42c3243 o' the Cybercri$e
"revention ;ct on cyberlibel.
+he <"C provisions on libel read*
;rt. /. Ce'inition o' libel. H ; libel is public and $alicious i$putation o' a cri$e, or o' a vice or de'ect, real or i$a)inary, or any act,
o$ission, condition, status, or circu$stance tendin) to cause the dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' a natural or >uridical person, or
to blacken the $e$ory o' one (ho is dead.
;rt. /4. <eDuire$ent 'or publicity. H 7very de'a$atory i$putation is presu$ed to be $alicious, even i' it be true, i' no )ood
intention and >usti'iable $otive 'or $akin) it is sho(n, e9cept in the 'ollo(in) cases*
1. ; private co$$unication $ade by any person to another in the per'or$ance o' any le)al, $oral or social duty= and
!. ; 'air and true report, $ade in )ood 'aith, (ithout any co$$ents or re$arks, o' any >udicial, le)islative or other
o''icial proceedin)s (hich are not o' con'idential nature, or o' any state$ent, report or speech delivered in said
proceedin)s, or o' any other act per'or$ed by public o''icers in the e9ercise o' their 'unctions.
;rt. //. %ibel $eans by (ritin)s or si$ilar $eans. H ; libel co$$itted by $eans o' (ritin), printin), litho)raphy, en)ravin), radio,
phono)raph, paintin), theatrical e9hibition, cine$ato)raphic e9hibition, or any si$ilar $eans, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its $ini$u$ and $ediu$ periods or a 'ine ran)in) 'ro$ !55 to 6,555 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action
(hich $ay be brou)ht by the o''ended party.
+he libel provision o' the cybercri$e la(, on the other hand, $erely incorporates to 'or$ part o' it the provisions o' the <"C on libel.
+hus Section 42c3243 reads*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. H +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
243 %ibel. H +he unla('ul or prohibited acts o' libel as de'ined in ;rticle // o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended, co$$itted
throu)h a co$puter syste$ or any other si$ilar $eans (hich $ay be devised in the 'uture.
"etitioners la$ent that libel provisions o' the penal code
0
and, in e''ect, the libel provisions o' the cybercri$e la( carry (ith the$ the
reDuire$ent o' Epresu$ed $aliceE even (hen the latest >urisprudence already replaces it (ith the hi)her standard o' Eactual $aliceE
as a basis 'or conviction.
J
"etitioners ar)ue that in'errin) Epresu$ed $aliceE 'ro$ the accusedPs de'a$atory state$ent by virtue o'
;rticle /4 o' the penal code in'rin)es on his constitutionally )uaranteed 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
"etitioners (ould )o 'urther. +hey contend that the la(s on libel should be stricken do(n as unconstitutional 'or other(ise )ood
>urisprudence reDuirin) Eactual $aliceE could easily be overturned as the Court has done in Fer$in v. "eople
9
even (here the
o''ended parties happened to be public 'i)ures.
+he ele$ents o' libel are* 2a3 the alle)ation o' a discreditable act or condition concernin) another= 2b3 publication o' the char)e= 2c3
identity o' the person de'a$ed= and 2d3 e9istence o' $alice.
45
+here is Eactual $aliceE or $alice in 'act
41
(hen the o''ender $akes the de'a$atory state$ent (ith the kno(led)e that it is 'alse or
(ith reckless disre)ard o' (hether it (as 'alse or not.
4!
+he reckless disre)ard standard used here reDuires a hi)h de)ree o'
a(areness o' probable 'alsity. +here $ust be su''icient evidence to per$it the conclusion that the accused in 'act entertained serious
doubts as to the truth o' the state$ent he published. @ross or even e9tre$e ne)li)ence is not su''icient to establish actual $alice.
4
+he prosecution bears the burden o' provin) the presence o' actual $alice in instances (here such ele$ent is reDuired to establish
)uilt. +he de'ense o' absence o' actual $alice, even (hen the state$ent turns out to be 'alse, is available (here the o''ended party
is a public o''icial or a public 'i)ure, as in the cases o' ?asDuez 2a baran)ay o''icial3 and 8or>al 2the 79ecutive Cirector, First #ational
Con'erence on %and +ransportation3. Since the penal code and i$plicitly, the cybercri$e la(, $ainly tar)et libel a)ainst private
persons, the Court reco)nizes that these la(s i$ply a stricter standard o' E$aliceE to convict the author o' a de'a$atory state$ent
(here the o''ended party is a public 'i)ure. SocietyPs interest and the $aintenance o' )ood )overn$ent de$and a 'ull discussion o'
public a''airs.
44
"arenthetically, the Court cannot accept the proposition that its rulin) in Fer$in disre)arded the hi)her standard o' actual $alice or
$alice in 'act (hen it 'ound Cristinelli Fer$in )uilty o' co$$ittin) libel a)ainst co$plainants (ho (ere public 'i)ures. ;ctually, the
Court 'ound the presence o' $alice in 'act in that case. +hus*
:t can be )leaned 'ro$ her testi$ony that petitioner had the $otive to $ake de'a$atory i$putations a)ainst co$plainants. +hus,
petitioner cannot, by si$ply $akin) a )eneral denial, convince us that there (as no $alice on her part. ?erily, not only (as there
$alice in la(, the article bein) $alicious in itsel', but there (as also $alice in 'act, as there (as $otive to talk ill a)ainst
co$plainants durin) the electoral ca$pai)n. 27$phasis ours3
:ndeed, the Court took into account the relatively (ide lee(ay )iven to utterances a)ainst public 'i)ures in the above case, cine$a
and television personalities, (hen it $odi'ied the penalty o' i$prison$ent to >ust a 'ine o'"6,555.55.
8ut, (here the o''ended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence o' $alice. +he la( e9plicitly
presu$es its e9istence 2$alice in la(3 'ro$ the de'a$atory character o' the assailed state$ent.
4/
For his de'ense, the accused $ust
sho( that he has a >usti'iable reason 'or the de'a$atory state$ent even i' it (as in 'act true.
46
"etitioners peddle the vie( that both the penal code and the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct violate the countryPs obli)ations under the
:nternational Covenant o' Civil and "olitical <i)hts 2:CC"<3. +hey point out that in ;donis v. <epublic o' the "hilippines,
40
the Anited
#ations ,u$an <i)hts Co$$ittee 2A#,<C3 cited its @eneral Co$$ent 4 to the e''ect that penal de'a$ation la(s should include
the de'ense o' truth.
8ut @eneral Co$$ent 4 does not say that the truth o' the de'a$atory state$ent should constitute an all-enco$passin) de'ense. ;s
it happens, ;rticle 61 reco)nizes truth as a de'ense but under the condition that the accused has been pro$pted in $akin) the
state$ent by )ood $otives and 'or >usti'iable ends. +hus*
;rt. 61. "roo' o' the truth. H :n every cri$inal prosecution 'or libel, the truth $ay be )iven in evidence to the court and i' it appears
that the $atter char)ed as libelous is true, and, $oreover, that it (as published (ith )ood $otives and 'or >usti'iable ends, the
de'endants shall be acDuitted.
"roo' o' the truth o' an i$putation o' an act or o$ission not constitutin) a cri$e shall not be ad$itted, unless the i$putation shall
have been $ade a)ainst @overn$ent e$ployees (ith respect to 'acts related to the dischar)e o' their o''icial duties.
:n such cases i' the de'endant proves the truth o' the i$putation $ade by hi$, he shall be acDuitted.
8esides, the A#,<C did not actually en>oin the "hilippines, as petitioners ur)e, to decri$inalize libel. :t si$ply su))ested that
de'a$ation la(s be cra'ted (ith care to ensure that they do not sti'le 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
4J
:ndeed, the :CC"< states that althou)h
everyone should en>oy 'reedo$ o' e9pression, its e9ercise carries (ith it special duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not
absolute. :t is sub>ect to certain restrictions, as $ay be necessary and as $ay be provided by la(.
49
+he Court a)rees (ith the Solicitor @eneral that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the )overn$ent has an
obli)ation to protect private individuals 'ro$ de'a$ation. :ndeed, cyberlibel is actually not a ne( cri$e since ;rticle /, in relation to
;rticle // o' the penal code, already punishes it. :n e''ect, Section 42c3243 above $erely a''ir$s that online de'a$ation constitutes
Esi$ilar $eansE 'or co$$ittin) libel.
8ut the CourtPs acDuiescence )oes only inso'ar as the cybercri$e la( penalizes the author o' the libelous state$ent or article.
Cyberlibel brin)s (ith it certain intricacies, unheard o' (hen the penal code provisions on libel (ere enacted. +he culture associated
(ith internet $edia is distinct 'ro$ that o' print.
+he internet is characterized as encoura)in) a 'ree(heelin), anythin)-)oes (ritin) style.
/5
:n a sense, they are a (orld apart in ter$s
o' Duickness o' the readerPs reaction to de'a$atory state$ents posted in cyberspace, 'acilitated by one-click reply options o''ered by
the net(orkin) site as (ell as by the speed (ith (hich such reactions are disse$inated do(n the line to other internet users.
Whether these reactions to de'a$atory state$ent posted on the internet constitute aidin) and abettin) libel, acts that Section / o' the
cybercri$e la( punishes, is another $atter that the Court (ill deal (ith ne9t in relation to Section / o' the la(.
Section / o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section / provides*
Sec. /. 6ther 6''enses. H +he 'ollo(in) acts shall also constitute an o''ense*
2a3 ;idin) or ;bettin) in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$e. Q ;ny person (ho (ill'ully abets or aids in the co$$ission o'
any o' the o''enses enu$erated in this ;ct shall be held liable.
2b3 ;tte$pt in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$e. H ;ny person (ho (ill'ully atte$pts to co$$it any o' the o''enses
enu$erated in this ;ct shall be held liable.
"etitioners assail the constitutionality o' Section / that renders cri$inally liable any person (ho (ill'ully abets or aids in the
co$$ission or atte$pts to co$$it any o' the o''enses enu$erated as cybercri$es. :t su''ers 'ro$ overbreadth, creatin) a chillin)
and deterrent e''ect on protected e9pression.
+he Solicitor @eneral contends, ho(ever, that the current body o' >urisprudence and la(s on aidin) and abettin) su''iciently protects
the 'reedo$ o' e9pression o' Enetizens,E the $ultitude that avail the$selves o' the services o' the internet. ,e points out that e9istin)
la(s and >urisprudence su''iciently delineate the $eanin) o' Eaidin) or abettin)E a cri$e as to protect the innocent. +he Solicitor
@eneral ar)ues that plain, ordinary, and co$$on usa)e is at ti$es su''icient to )uide la( en'orce$ent a)encies in en'orcin) the
la(.
/1
+he le)islature is not reDuired to de'ine every sin)le (ord contained in the la(s they cra't.
;idin) or abettin) has o' course (ell-de'ined $eanin) and application in e9istin) la(s. When a person aids or abets another in
destroyin) a 'orest,
/!
s$u))lin) $erchandise into the country,
/
or inter'erin) in the peace'ul picketin) o' laborers,
/4
his action is
essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assess$ent as cri$inal in character. +hese 'or$s o' aidin) or abettin) lend
the$selves to the tests o' co$$on sense and hu$an e9perience.
8ut, (hen it co$es to certain cybercri$es, the (aters are $uddier and the line o' si)ht is so$e(hat blurred. +he idea o' Eaidin) or
abettin)E (ron)doin)s online threatens the hereto'ore popular and unchallen)ed do)$as o' cyberspace use.
;ccordin) to the !511 Southeast ;sia Ci)ital Consu$er <eport, \ o' Filipinos have accessed the internet (ithin a year, translatin)
to about 1 $illion users.
//
8ased on a recent survey, the "hilippines ranks 6th in the top 15 $ost en)a)ed countries 'or social
net(orkin).
/6
Social net(orkin) sites build social relations a$on) people (ho, 'or e9a$ple, share interests, activities, back)rounds,
or real-li'e connections.
/0
+(o o' the $ost popular o' these sites are Facebook and +(itter. ;s o' late !51!, 1.! billion people (ith shared interests use
Facebook to )et in touch.
/J
Asers re)ister at this site, create a personal pro'ile or an open book o' (ho they are, add other users as
'riends, and e9chan)e $essa)es, includin) auto$atic noti'ications (hen they update their pro'ile.
/9
; user can post a state$ent, a
photo, or a video on Facebook, (hich can be $ade visible to anyone, dependin) on the userPs privacy settin)s.
:' the post is $ade available to the public, $eanin) to everyone and not only to his 'riends, anyone on Facebook can react to the
postin), clickin) any o' several buttons o' pre'erences on the pro)ra$Ps screen such as E%ike,E ECo$$ent,E or EShare.E E%ikeE
si)ni'ies that the reader likes the postin) (hile ECo$$entE enables hi$ to post online his 'eelin)s or vie(s about the sa$e, such as
E+his is )reatOE When a Facebook user ESharesE a postin), the ori)inal Epostin)E (ill appear on his o(n Facebook pro'ile,
conseDuently $akin) it visible to his do(n-line Facebook Friends.
+(itter, on the other hand, is an internet social net(orkin) and $icroblo))in) service that enables its users to send and read short
te9t-based $essa)es o' up to 145 characters. +hese are kno(n as E+(eets.E &icroblo))in) is the practice o' postin) s$all pieces o'
di)ital contentH(hich could be in the 'or$ o' te9t, pictures, links, short videos, or other $ediaHon the internet. :nstead o' 'riends, a
+(itter user has EFollo(ers,E those (ho subscribe to this particular userPs posts, enablin) the$ to read the sa$e, and EFollo(in),E
those (ho$ this particular user is subscribed to, enablin) hi$ to read their posts. %ike Facebook, a +(itter user can $ake his t(eets
available only to his Follo(ers, or to the )eneral public. :' a post is available to the public, any +(itter user can E<et(eetE a )iven
postin). <et(eetin) is >ust repostin) or republishin) another personPs t(eet (ithout the need o' copyin) and pastin) it.
:n the cyber(orld, there are $any actors* a3 the blo))er (ho ori)inates the assailed state$ent= b3 the blo) service provider like
-ahoo= c3 the internet service provider like "%C+, S$art, @lobe, or Sun= d3 the internet ca'] that $ay have provided the co$puter
used 'or postin) the blo)= e3 the person (ho $akes a 'avorable co$$ent on the blo)= and '3 the person (ho posts a link to the blo)
site.
65
#o(, suppose &aria 2a blo))er3 $aintains a blo) on Word"ress.co$ 2blo) service provider3. She needs the internet to access
her blo) so she subscribes to Sun 8roadband 2:nternet Service "rovider3.
6ne day, &aria posts on her internet account the state$ent that a certain $arried public o''icial has an illicit a''air (ith a $ovie star.
%inda, one o' &ariaPs 'riends (ho sees this post, co$$ents online, E-es, this is so trueO +hey are so i$$oral.E &ariaPs ori)inal post is
then $ultiplied by her 'riends and the latterPs 'riends, and do(n the line to 'riends o' 'riends al$ost ad in'initu$. #ena, (ho is a
stran)er to both &aria and %inda, co$es across this blo), 'inds it interestin) and so shares the link to this apparently de'a$atory
blo) on her +(itter account. #enaPs EFollo(ersE then E<et(eetE the link to that blo) site.
"a$ela, a +(itter user, stu$bles upon a rando$ personPs E<et(eetE o' #enaPs ori)inal t(eet and posts this on her Facebook
account. :$$ediately, "a$elaPs Facebook Friends start %ikin) and $akin) Co$$ents on the assailed postin). ; lot o' the$ even
press the Share button, resultin) in the 'urther spread o' the ori)inal postin) into tens, hundreds, thousands, and )reater postin)s.
+he Duestion is* are online postin)s such as E%ikin)E an openly de'a$atory state$ent, ECo$$entin)E on it, or ESharin)E it (ith
others, to be re)arded as Eaidin) or abettin)IE :n libel in the physical (orld, i' #estor places on the o''ice bulletin board a s$all
poster that says, E;r$and is a thie'O,E he could certainly be char)ed (ith libel. :' <o)er, seein) the poster, (rites on it, E: like thisO,E
that could not be libel since he did not author the poster. :' ;rthur, passin) by and noticin) the poster, (rites on it, ECorrectO,E (ould
that be libelI #o, 'or he $erely e9presses a)ree$ent (ith the state$ent on the poster. ,e still is not its author. 8esides, it is not
clear i' aidin) or abettin) libel in the physical (orld is a cri$e.
8ut suppose #estor posts the blo), E;r$and is a thie'OE on a social net(orkin) site. Would a reader and his Friends or Follo(ers,
availin) the$selves o' any o' the E%ike,E ECo$$ent,E and EShareE reactions, be )uilty o' aidin) or abettin) libelI ;nd, in the co$ple9
(orld o' cyberspace e9pressions o' thou)hts, (hen (ill one be liable 'or aidin) or abettin) cybercri$esI Where is the venue o' the
cri$eI
79cept 'or the ori)inal author o' the assailed state$ent, the rest 2those (ho pressed %ike, Co$$ent and Share3 are essentially knee-
>erk senti$ents o' readers (ho $ay think little or haphazardly o' their response to the ori)inal postin). Will they be liable 'or aidin) or
abettin)I ;nd, considerin) the inherent i$possibility o' >oinin) hundreds or thousands o' respondin) EFriendsE or EFollo(ersE in the
cri$inal char)e to be 'iled in court, (ho (ill $ake a choice as to (ho should )o to >ail 'or the outbreak o' the challen)ed postin)I
+he old para$eters 'or en'orcin) the traditional 'or$ o' libel (ould be a sDuare pe) in a round hole (hen applied to cyberspace libel.
Anless the le)islature cra'ts a cyber libel la( that takes into account its uniDue circu$stances and culture, such la( (ill tend to
create a chillin) e''ect on the $illions that use this ne( $ediu$ o' co$$unication in violation o' their constitutionally-)uaranteed
ri)ht to 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
+he Anited States Supre$e Court 'aced the sa$e issue in <eno v. ;$erican Civil %iberties Anion,
61
a case involvin) the
constitutionality o' the Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996. +he la( prohibited 213 the kno(in) trans$ission, by $eans o' a
teleco$$unications device, o'
Eobscene or indecentE co$$unications to any recipient under 1J years o' a)e= and 2!3 the kno(in) use o' an interactive co$puter
service to send to a speci'ic person or persons under 1J years o' a)e or to display in a $anner available to a person under 1J years
o' a)e co$$unications that, in conte9t, depict or describe, in ter$s Epatently o''ensiveE as $easured by conte$porary co$$unity
standards, se9ual or e9cretory activities or or)ans.
+hose (ho challen)ed the ;ct clai$ that the la( violated the First ;$end$entPs )uarantee o' 'reedo$ o' speech 'or bein)
overbroad. +he A.S. Supre$e Court a)reed and ruled*
+he va)ueness o' the Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996 2CC;3, 40 A.S.C.S. U!!, is a $atter o' special concern 'or t(o
reasons. First, the CC; is a content-based re)ulation o' speech. +he va)ueness o' such a re)ulation raises special A.S. Const.
a$end. : concerns because o' its obvious chillin) e''ect on 'ree speech. Second, the CC; is a cri$inal statute. :n addition to the
opprobriu$ and sti)$a o' a cri$inal conviction, the CC; threatens violators (ith penalties includin) up to t(o years in prison 'or
each act o' violation. +he severity o' cri$inal sanctions $ay (ell cause speakers to re$ain silent rather than co$$unicate even
ar)uably unla('ul (ords, ideas, and i$a)es. ;s a practical $atter, this increased deterrent e''ect, coupled (ith the risk o'
discri$inatory en'orce$ent o' va)ue re)ulations, poses )reater A.S. Const. a$end. : concerns than those i$plicated by certain civil
re)ulations.
9 9 9 9
+he Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996 2CC;3, 40 A.S.C.S. U !!, presents a )reat threat o' censorin) speech that, in 'act, 'alls
outside the statute1s scope. @iven the va)ue contours o' the covera)e o' the statute, it unDuestionably silences so$e speakers
(hose $essa)es (ould be entitled to constitutional protection. +hat dan)er provides 'urther reason 'or insistin) that the statute not
be overly broad. +he CC;Ps burden on protected speech cannot be >usti'ied i' it could be avoided by a $ore care'ully dra'ted statute.
27$phasis ours3
%ibel in the cyberspace can o' course stain a personPs i$a)e (ith >ust one click o' the $ouse. Scurrilous state$ents can spread and
travel 'ast across the )lobe like bad ne(s. &oreover, cyberlibel o'ten )oes hand in hand (ith cyberbullyin) that oppresses the victi$,
his relatives, and 'riends, evokin) 'ro$ $ild to disastrous reactions. Still, a )overn$ental purpose, (hich seeks to re)ulate the use o'
this cyberspace co$$unication technolo)y to protect a personPs reputation and peace o' $ind, cannot adopt $eans that (ill
unnecessarily and broadly s(eep, invadin) the area o' protected 'reedo$s.
6!
:' such $eans are adopted, sel'-inhibition borne o' 'ear o' (hat sinister predica$ents a(ait internet users (ill suppress other(ise
robust discussion o' public issues. Ce$ocracy (ill be threatened and (ith it, all liberties. "enal la(s should provide reasonably clear
)uidelines 'or la( en'orce$ent o''icials and triers o' 'acts to prevent arbitrary and discri$inatory en'orce$ent.
6
+he ter$s Eaidin) or
abettin)E constitute broad s(eep that )enerates chillin) e''ect on those (ho e9press the$selves throu)h cyberspace posts,
co$$ents, and other $essa)es.
64
,ence, Section / o' the cybercri$e la( that punishes Eaidin) or abettin)E libel on the cyberspace
is a nullity.
When a penal statute encroaches upon the 'reedo$ o' speech, a 'acial challen)e )rounded on the void-'or-va)ueness doctrine is
acceptable. +he inapplicability o' the doctrine $ust be care'ully delineated. ;s Justice ;ntonio +. Carpio e9plained in his dissent in
<o$ualdez v. Co$$ission on 7lections,
6/
E(e $ust vie( these state$ents o' the Court on the inapplicability o' the overbreadth and
va)ueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only inso'ar as these doctrines are used to $ount ^'acialP challen)es to penal
statutes not involvin) 'ree speech.E
:n an Eas appliedE challen)e, the petitioner (ho clai$s a violation o' his constitutional ri)ht can raise any constitutional )round Q
absence o' due process, lack o' 'air notice, lack o' ascertainable standards, overbreadth, or va)ueness. ,ere, one can challen)e the
constitutionality o' a statute only i' he asserts a violation o' his o(n ri)hts. :t prohibits one 'ro$ assailin) the constitutionality o' the
statute based solely on the violation o' the ri)hts o' third persons not be'ore the court. +his rule is also kno(n as the prohibition
a)ainst third-party standin).
66
8ut this rule ad$its o' e9ceptions. ; petitioner $ay 'or instance $ount a E'acialE challen)e to the constitutionality o' a statute even i'
he clai$s no violation o' his o(n ri)hts under the assailed statute (here it involves 'ree speech on )rounds o' overbreadth or
va)ueness o' the statute.
+he rationale 'or this e9ception is to counter the Echillin) e''ectE on protected speech that co$es 'ro$ statutes violatin) 'ree speech.
; person (ho does not kno( (hether his speech constitutes a cri$e under an overbroad or va)ue la( $ay si$ply restrain hi$sel'
'ro$ speakin) in order to avoid bein) char)ed o' a cri$e. +he overbroad or va)ue la( thus chills hi$ into silence.
60
;s already stated, the cyberspace is an inco$parable, pervasive $ediu$ o' co$$unication. :t is inevitable that any )overn$ent
threat o' punish$ent re)ardin) certain uses o' the $ediu$ creates a chillin) e''ect on the constitutionally-protected 'reedo$ o'
e9pression o' the )reat $asses that use it. :n this case, the particularly co$ple9 (eb o' interaction on social $edia (ebsites (ould
)ive la( en'orcers such latitude that they could arbitrarily or selectively en'orce the la(.
Who is to decide (hen to prosecute persons (ho boost the visibility o' a postin) on the internet by likin) itI #etizens are not )iven
E'air noticeE or (arnin) as to (hat is cri$inal conduct and (hat is la('ul conduct. When a case is 'iled, ho( (ill the court ascertain
(hether or not one netizenPs co$$ent aided and abetted a cybercri$e (hile another co$$ent did notI
6' course, i' the ECo$$entE does not $erely react to the ori)inal postin) but creates an alto)ether ne( de'a$atory story a)ainst
;r$and like E,e beats his (i'e and children,E then that should be considered an ori)inal postin) published on the internet. 8oth the
penal code and the cybercri$e la( clearly punish authors o' de'a$atory publications. &ake no $istake, libel destroys reputations
that society values. ;llo(ed to cascade in the internet, it (ill destroy relationships and, under certain circu$stances, (ill )enerate
en$ity and tension bet(een social or econo$ic )roups, races, or reli)ions, e9acerbatin) e9istin) tension in their relationships.
:n re)ard to the cri$e that tar)ets child porno)raphy, (hen E@oo)le procures, stores, and inde9es child porno)raphy and 'acilitates
the co$pletion o' transactions involvin) the disse$ination o' child porno)raphy,E does this $ake @oo)le and its users aiders and
abettors in the co$$ission o' child porno)raphy cri$esI
6J
8yars hi)hli)hts a 'eature in the ;$erican la( on child porno)raphy that
the Cybercri$es la( lacksHthe e9e$ption o' a provider or notably a plain user o' interactive co$puter service 'ro$ civil liability 'or
child porno)raphy as 'ollo(s*
#o provider or user o' an interactive co$puter service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker o' any in'or$ation provided by
another in'or$ation content provider and cannot be held civilly liable 'or any action voluntarily taken in )ood 'aith to restrict access to
or availability o' $aterial that the provider or user considers to be obscene...(hether or not such $aterial is constitutionally
protected.
69
When a person replies to a +(eet containin) child porno)raphy, he e''ectively republishes it (hether (ittin)ly or un(ittin)ly. Coes
this $ake hi$ a (illin) acco$plice to the distribution o' child porno)raphyI When a user do(nloads the Facebook $obile
application, the user $ay )ive consent to Facebook to access his contact details. :n this (ay, certain in'or$ation is 'or(arded to third
parties and unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unication could be disse$inated on the basis o' this in'or$ation.
05
;s the source o' this
in'or$ation, is the user aidin) the distribution o' this co$$unicationI +he le)islature needs to address this clearly to relieve users o'
annoyin) 'ear o' possible cri$inal prosecution.
Section / (ith respect to Section 42c3243 is unconstitutional. :ts va)ueness raises apprehension on the part o' internet users because
o' its obvious chillin) e''ect on the 'reedo$ o' e9pression, especially since the cri$e o' aidin) or abettin) ensnares all the actors in
the cyberspace 'ront in a 'uzzy (ay. What is $ore, as the petitioners point out, 'or$al cri$es such as libel are not punishable unless
consu$$ated.
01
:n the absence o' le)islation tracin) the interaction o' netizens and their level o' responsibility such as in other
countries, Section /, in relation to Section 42c3243 on %ibel, Section 42c323 on Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications, and Section
42c32!3 on Child "orno)raphy, cannot stand scrutiny.
8ut the cri$e o' aidin) or abettin) the co$$ission o' cybercri$es under Section / should be per$itted to apply to Section 42a3213 on
:lle)al ;ccess, Section 42a32!3 on :lle)al :nterception, Section 42a323 on Cata :nter'erence, Section 42a3243 on Syste$ :nter'erence,
Section 42a32/3 on &isuse o' Cevices, Section 42a3263 on Cyber-sDuattin), Section 42b3213 on Co$puter-related For)ery, Section 42b3
2!3 on Co$puter-related Fraud, Section 42b323 on Co$puter-related :dentity +he't, and Section 42c3213 on Cyberse9. #one o' these
o''enses borders on the e9ercise o' the 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
+he cri$e o' (ill'ully atte$ptin) to co$$it any o' these o''enses is 'or the sa$e reason not ob>ectionable. ; hacker $ay 'or instance
have done all that is necessary to ille)ally access another partyPs co$puter syste$ but the security e$ployed by the syste$Ps la('ul
o(ner could 'rustrate his e''ort. ;nother hacker $ay have )ained access to userna$es and pass(ords o' others but 'ail to use these
because the syste$ supervisor is alerted.
0!
:' Section / that punishes any person (ho (ill'ully atte$pts to co$$it this speci'ic
o''ense is not upheld, the o(ner o' the userna$e and pass(ord could not 'ile a co$plaint a)ainst hi$ 'or atte$pted hackin). 8ut this
is not ri)ht. +he hacker should not be 'reed 'ro$ liability si$ply because o' the vi)ilance o' a la('ul o(ner or his supervisor.
"etitioners o' course clai$ that Section / lacks positive li$its and could cover the innocent.
0
While this $ay be true (ith respect to
cybercri$es that tend to sneak past the area o' 'ree e9pression, any atte$pt to co$$it the other acts speci'ied in Section 42a3213,
Section 42a32!3, Section 42a323, Section 42a3243, Section 42a32/3, Section 42a3263, Section 42b3213, Section 42b32!3, Section 42b323,
and Section 42c3213 as (ell as the actors aidin) and abettin) the co$$ission o' such acts can be identi'ied (ith so$e reasonable
certainty throu)h adroit trackin) o' their (orks. ;bsent concrete proo' o' the sa$e, the innocent (ill o' course be spared.
Section 6 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 6 provides*
Sec. 6. ;ll cri$es de'ined and penalized by the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended, and special la(s, i' co$$itted by, throu)h and
(ith the use o' in'or$ation and co$$unications technolo)ies shall be covered by the relevant provisions o' this ;ct* "rovided, +hat
the penalty to be i$posed shall be one 213 de)ree hi)her than that provided 'or by the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended, and
special la(s, as the case $ay be.
Section 6 $erely $akes co$$ission o' e9istin) cri$es throu)h the internet a Duali'yin) circu$stance. ;s the Solicitor @eneral points
out, there e9ists a substantial distinction bet(een cri$es co$$itted throu)h the use o' in'or$ation and co$$unications technolo)y
and si$ilar cri$es co$$itted usin) other $eans. :n usin) the technolo)y in Duestion, the o''ender o'ten evades identi'ication and is
able to reach 'ar $ore victi$s or cause )reater har$. +he distinction, there'ore, creates a basis 'or hi)her penalties 'or cybercri$es.
Section 0 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 0 provides*
Sec. 0. %iability under 6ther %a(s. H ; prosecution under this ;ct shall be (ithout pre>udice to any liability 'or violation o' any
provision o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended, or special la(s.
+he Solicitor @eneral points out that Section 0 $erely e9presses the settled doctrine that a sin)le set o' acts $ay be prosecuted and
penalized si$ultaneously under t(o la(s, a special la( and the <evised "enal Code. When t(o di''erent la(s de'ine t(o cri$es,
prior >eopardy as to one does not bar prosecution o' the other althou)h both o''enses arise 'ro$ the sa$e 'act, i' each cri$e involves
so$e i$portant act (hich is not an essential ele$ent o' the other.
04
With the e9ception o' the cri$es o' online libel and online child
porno)raphy, the Court (ould rather leave the deter$ination o' the correct application o' Section 0 to actual cases.
6nline libel is di''erent. +here should be no Duestion that i' the published $aterial on print, said to be libelous, is a)ain posted online
or vice versa, that identical $aterial cannot be the sub>ect o' t(o separate libels. +he t(o o''enses, one a violation o' ;rticle / o'
the <evised "enal Code and the other a violation o' Section 42c3243 o' <.;. 1510/ involve essentially the sa$e ele$ents and are in
'act one and the sa$e o''ense. :ndeed, the 6S@ itsel' clai$s that online libel under Section 42c3243 is not a ne( cri$e but is one
already punished under ;rticle /. Section 42c3243 $erely establishes the co$puter syste$ as another $eans o'
publication.
0/
Char)in) the o''ender under both la(s (ould be a blatant violation o' the proscription a)ainst double >eopardy.
06
+he sa$e is true (ith child porno)raphy co$$itted online. Section 42c32!3 $erely e9pands the ;C";Ps scope so as to include
identical activities in cyberspace. ;s previously discussed, ;C";Ps de'inition o' child porno)raphy in 'act already covers the use o'
Eelectronic, $echanical, di)ital, optical, $a)netic or any other $eans.E +hus, char)in) the o''ender under both Section 42c32!3 and
;C"; (ould like(ise be tanta$ount to a violation o' the constitutional prohibition a)ainst double >eopardy.
Section J o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section J provides*
Sec. J. "enalties. H ;ny person 'ound )uilty o' any o' the punishable acts enu$erated in Sections 42a3 and 42b3 o' this ;ct shall be
punished (ith i$prison$ent o' prision $ayor or a 'ine o' at least +(o hundred thousand pesos 2"h"!55,555.553 up to a $a9i$u$
a$ount co$$ensurate to the da$a)e incurred or both.
;ny person 'ound )uilty o' the punishable act under Section 42a32/3 shall be punished (ith i$prison$ent o' prision $ayor or a 'ine o'
not $ore than Five hundred thousand pesos 2"h"/55,555.553 or both.
:' punishable acts in Section 42a3 are co$$itted a)ainst critical in'rastructure, the penalty o' reclusion te$poral or a 'ine o' at least
Five hundred thousand pesos 2"h"/55,555.553 up to $a9i$u$ a$ount co$$ensurate to the da$a)e incurred or both, shall be
i$posed.
;ny person 'ound )uilty o' any o' the punishable acts enu$erated in Section 42c3213 o' this ;ct shall be punished (ith i$prison$ent
o' prision $ayor or a 'ine o' at least +(o hundred thousand pesos 2"h"!55,555.553 but not e9ceedin) 6ne $illion pesos
2"h"1,555,555.553 or both.
;ny person 'ound )uilty o' any o' the punishable acts enu$erated in Section 42c32!3 o' this ;ct shall be punished (ith the penalties
as enu$erated in <epublic ;ct #o. 900/ or the E;nti-Child "orno)raphy ;ct o' !559*E "rovided, +hat the penalty to be i$posed shall
be one 213 de)ree hi)her than that provided 'or in <epublic ;ct #o. 900/, i' co$$itted throu)h a co$puter syste$.
;ny person 'ound )uilty o' any o' the punishable acts enu$erated in Section 42c323 shall be punished (ith i$prison$ent o' arresto
$ayor or a 'ine o' at least Fi'ty thousand pesos 2"h"/5,555.553 but not e9ceedin) +(o hundred 'i'ty thousand pesos
2"h"!/5,555.553 or both.
;ny person 'ound )uilty o' any o' the punishable acts enu$erated in Section / shall be punished (ith i$prison$ent one 213 de)ree
lo(er than that o' the prescribed penalty 'or the o''ense or a 'ine o' at least 6ne hundred thousand pesos 2"h"155,555.553 but not
e9ceedin) Five hundred thousand pesos 2"h"/55,555.553 or both.
Section J provides 'or the penalties 'or the 'ollo(in) cri$es* Sections 42a3 on 6''enses ;)ainst the Con'identiality, :nte)rity and
;vailability o' Co$puter Cata and Syste$s= 42b3 on Co$puter-related 6''enses= 42a32/3 on &isuse o' Cevices= (hen the cri$e
punishable under 42a3 is co$$itted a)ainst critical in'rastructure= 42c3213 on Cyberse9= 42c32!3 on Child "orno)raphy= 42c323 on
Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications= and Section / on ;idin) or ;bettin), and ;tte$pt in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$e.
+he $atter o' 'i9in) penalties 'or the co$$ission o' cri$es is as a rule a le)islative prero)ative. ,ere the le)islature prescribed a
$easure o' severe penalties 'or (hat it re)ards as deleterious cybercri$es. +hey appear proportionate to the evil sou)ht to be
punished. +he po(er to deter$ine penalties 'or o''enses is not diluted or i$properly (ielded si$ply because at so$e prior ti$e the
act or o$ission (as but an ele$ent o' another o''ense or $i)ht >ust have been connected (ith another cri$e.
00
Jud)es and
$a)istrates can only interpret and apply the$ and have no authority to $odi'y or revise their ran)e as deter$ined by the le)islative
depart$ent.
+he courts should not encroach on this prero)ative o' the la($akin) body.
0J
Section 1! o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 1! provides*
Sec. 1!. <eal-+i$e Collection o' +ra''ic Cata. H %a( en'orce$ent authorities, (ith due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record
by technical or electronic $eans tra''ic data in real-ti$e associated (ith speci'ied co$$unications trans$itted by $eans o' a
co$puter syste$.
+ra''ic data re'er only to the co$$unicationPs ori)in, destination, route, ti$e, date, size, duration, or type o' underlyin) service, but
not content, nor identities.
;ll other data to be collected or seized or disclosed (ill reDuire a court (arrant.
Service providers are reDuired to cooperate and assist la( en'orce$ent authorities in the collection or recordin) o' the above-stated
in'or$ation.
+he court (arrant reDuired under this section shall only be issued or )ranted upon (ritten application and the e9a$ination under
oath or a''ir$ation o' the applicant and the (itnesses he $ay produce and the sho(in)* 213 that there are reasonable )rounds to
believe that any o' the cri$es enu$erated hereinabove has been co$$itted, or is bein) co$$itted, or is about to be co$$itted= 2!3
that there are reasonable )rounds to believe that evidence that (ill be obtained is essential to the conviction o' any person 'or, or to
the solution o', or to the prevention o', any such cri$es= and 23 that there are no other $eans readily available 'or obtainin) such
evidence.
"etitioners assail the )rant to la( en'orce$ent a)encies o' the po(er to collect or record tra''ic data in real ti$e as tendin) to curtail
civil liberties or provide opportunities 'or o''icial abuse. +hey clai$ that data sho(in) (here di)ital $essa)es co$e 'ro$, (hat kind
they are, and (here they are destined need not be incri$inatin) to their senders or recipients be'ore they are to be protected.
"etitioners invoke the ri)ht o' every individual to privacy and to be protected 'ro$ )overn$ent snoopin) into the $essa)es or
in'or$ation that they send to one another.
+he 'irst Duestion is (hether or not Section 1! has a proper )overn$ental purpose since a la( $ay reDuire the disclosure o' $atters
nor$ally considered private but then only upon sho(in) that such reDuire$ent has a rational relation to the purpose o' the la(,
09
that
there is a co$pellin) State interest behind the la(, and that the provision itsel' is narro(ly dra(n.
J5
:n assessin) re)ulations a''ectin)
privacy ri)hts, courts should balance the le)iti$ate concerns o' the State a)ainst constitutional )uarantees.
J1
Andoubtedly, the State has a co$pellin) interest in enactin) the cybercri$e la( 'or there is a need to put order to the tre$endous
activities in cyberspace 'or public )ood.
J!
+o do this, it is (ithin the real$ o' reason that the )overn$ent should be able to $onitor
tra''ic data to enhance its ability to co$bat all sorts o' cybercri$es.
Chapter :? o' the cybercri$e la(, o' (hich the collection or recordin) o' tra''ic data is a part, ai$s to provide la( en'orce$ent
authorities (ith the po(er they need 'or spottin), preventin), and investi)atin) cri$es co$$itted in cyberspace. Cri$e-'i)htin) is a
state business. :ndeed, as Chie' Justice Sereno points out, the 8udapest Convention on Cybercri$es reDuires si)natory countries to
adopt le)islative $easures to e$po(er state authorities to collect or record Etra''ic data, in real ti$e, associated (ith speci'ied
co$$unications.E
J
;nd this is precisely (hat Section 1! does. :t e$po(ers la( en'orce$ent a)encies in this country to collect or
record such data.
8ut is not evidence o' yesterdayPs tra''ic data, like the scene o' the cri$e a'ter it has been co$$itted, adeDuate 'or 'i)htin)
cybercri$es and, there'ore, real-ti$e data is super'luous 'or that purposeI 7vidently, it is not. +hose (ho co$$it the cri$es o'
accessin) a co$puter syste$ (ithout ri)ht,
J4
trans$ittin) viruses,
J/
lasciviously e9hibitin) se9ual or)ans or se9ual activity 'or 'avor or
consideration=
J6
and producin) child porno)raphy
J0
could easily evade detection and prosecution by si$ply $ovin) the physical
location o' their co$puters or laptops 'ro$ day to day. :n this di)ital a)e, the (icked can co$$it cybercri$es 'ro$ virtually any(here*
'ro$ internet ca']s, 'ro$ kindred places that provide 'ree internet services, and 'ro$ unre)istered $obile internet connectors.
Cri$inals usin) cellphones under pre-paid arran)e$ents and (ith unre)istered S:& cards do not have listed addresses and can
neither be located nor identi'ied. +here are $any (ays the cyber cri$inals can Duickly erase their tracks. +hose (ho peddle child
porno)raphy could use relays o' co$puters to $islead la( en'orce$ent authorities re)ardin) their places o' operations. 7vidently, it
is only real-ti$e tra''ic data collection or recordin) and a subseDuent recourse to court-issued search and seizure (arrant that can
succeed in 'erretin) the$ out.
"etitioners o' course point out that the provisions o' Section 1! are too broad and do not provide a$ple sa'e)uards a)ainst crossin)
le)al boundaries and invadin) the peoplePs ri)ht to privacy. +he concern is understandable. :ndeed, the Court reco)nizes in &or'e v.
&utuc
JJ
that certain constitutional )uarantees (ork to)ether to create zones o' privacy (herein )overn$ental po(ers $ay not
intrude, and that there e9ists an independent constitutional ri)ht o' privacy. Such ri)ht to be le't alone has been re)arded as the
be)innin) o' all 'reedo$s.
J9
8ut that ri)ht is not unDuali'ied. :n Whalen v. <oe,
95
the Anited States Supre$e Court classi'ied privacy into t(o cate)ories*
decisional privacy and in'or$ational privacy. Cecisional privacy involves the ri)ht to independence in $akin) certain i$portant
decisions, (hile in'or$ational privacy re'ers to the interest in avoidin) disclosure o' personal $atters. :t is the latter ri)htHthe ri)ht to
in'or$ational privacyHthat those (ho oppose )overn$ent collection or recordin) o' tra''ic data in real-ti$e seek to protect.
:n'or$ational privacy has t(o aspects* the ri)ht not to have private in'or$ation disclosed, and the ri)ht to live 'reely (ithout
surveillance and intrusion.
91
:n deter$inin) (hether or not a $atter is entitled to the ri)ht to privacy, this Court has laid do(n a t(o-
'old test. +he 'irst is a sub>ective test, (here one clai$in) the ri)ht $ust have an actual or le)iti$ate e9pectation o' privacy over a
certain $atter. +he second is an ob>ective test, (here his or her e9pectation o' privacy $ust be one society is prepared to accept as
ob>ectively reasonable.
9!
Since the validity o' the cybercri$e la( is bein) challen)ed, not in relation to its application to a particular person or )roup,
petitionersP challen)e to Section 1! applies to all in'or$ation and co$$unications technolo)y 2:C+3 users, $eanin) the lar)e
se)$ent o' the population (ho use all sorts o' electronic devices to co$$unicate (ith one another. ConseDuently, the e9pectation o'
privacy is to be $easured 'ro$ the )eneral publicPs point o' vie(. Without reasonable e9pectation o' privacy, the ri)ht to it (ould
have no basis in 'act.
;s the Solicitor @eneral points out, an ordinary :C+ user (ho courses his co$$unication throu)h a service provider, $ust o'
necessity disclose to the latter, a third person, the tra''ic data needed 'or connectin) hi$ to the recipient :C+ user. For e9a$ple, an
:C+ user (ho (rites a te9t $essa)e intended 'or another :C+ user $ust 'urnish his service provider (ith his cellphone nu$ber and
the cellphone nu$ber o' his recipient, acco$panyin) the $essa)e sent. :t is this in'or$ation that creates the tra''ic data.
+rans$ittin) co$$unications is akin to puttin) a letter in an envelope properly addressed, sealin) it closed, and sendin) it throu)h
the postal service. +hose (ho post letters have no e9pectations that no one (ill read the in'or$ation appearin) outside the envelope.
Co$puter dataH$essa)es o' all kindsHtravel across the internet in packets and in a (ay that $ay be likened to parcels o' letters or
thin)s that are sent throu)h the posts. When data is sent 'ro$ any one source, the content is broken up into packets and around
each o' these packets is a (rapper or header. +his header contains the tra''ic data* in'or$ation that tells co$puters (here the packet
ori)inated, (hat kind o' data is in the packet 2S&S, voice call, video, internet chat $essa)es, e$ail, online bro(sin) data, etc.3,
(here the packet is )oin), and ho( the packet 'its to)ether (ith other packets.
9
+he di''erence is that tra''ic data sent throu)h the
internet at ti$es across the ocean do not disclose the actual na$es and addresses 2residential or o''ice3 o' the sender and the
recipient, only their coded internet protocol 2:"3 addresses. +he packets travel 'ro$ one co$puter syste$ to another (here their
contents are pieced back to)ether.
Section 1! does not per$it la( en'orce$ent authorities to look into the contents o' the $essa)es and uncover the identities o' the
sender and the recipient.
For e9a$ple, (hen one calls to speak to another throu)h his cellphone, the service providerPs co$$unicationPs syste$ (ill put his
voice $essa)e into packets and send the$ to the other personPs cellphone (here they are re'itted to)ether and heard. +he latterPs
spoken reply is sent to the caller in the sa$e (ay. +o be connected by the service provider, the sender reveals his cellphone nu$ber
to the service provider (hen he puts his call throu)h. ,e also reveals the cellphone nu$ber to the person he calls. +he other (ays o'
co$$unicatin) electronically 'ollo( the sa$e basic pattern.
:n S$ith v. &aryland,
94
cited by the Solicitor @eneral, the Anited States Supre$e Court reasoned that telephone users in the ^05s
$ust realize that they necessarily convey phone nu$bers to the telephone co$pany in order to co$plete a call. +hat Court ruled that
even i' there is an e9pectation that phone nu$bers one dials should re$ain private, such e9pectation is not one that society is
prepared to reco)nize as reasonable.
:n $uch the sa$e (ay, :C+ users $ust kno( that they cannot co$$unicate or e9chan)e data (ith one another over cyberspace
e9cept throu)h so$e service providers to (ho$ they $ust sub$it certain tra''ic data that are needed 'or a success'ul cyberspace
co$$unication. +he conveyance o' this data takes the$ out o' the private sphere, $akin) the e9pectation to privacy in re)ard to
the$ an e9pectation that society is not prepared to reco)nize as reasonable.
+he Court, ho(ever, a)rees (ith Justices Carpio and 8rion that (hen see$in)ly rando$ bits o' tra''ic data are )athered in bulk,
pooled to)ether, and analyzed, they reveal patterns o' activities (hich can then be used to create pro'iles o' the persons under
surveillance. With enou)h tra''ic data, analysts $ay be able to deter$ine a personPs close associations, reli)ious vie(s, political
a''iliations, even se9ual pre'erences. Such in'or$ation is likely beyond (hat the public $ay e9pect to be disclosed, and clearly 'alls
(ithin $atters protected by the ri)ht to privacy. 8ut has the procedure that Section 1! o' the la( provides been dra(n narro(ly
enou)h to protect individual ri)htsI
Section 1! e$po(ers la( en'orce$ent authorities, E(ith due cause,E to collect or record by technical or electronic $eans tra''ic data
in real-ti$e. "etitioners point out that the phrase Edue causeE has no precedent in la( or >urisprudence and that (hether there is due
cause or not is le't to the discretion o' the police. <eplyin) to this, the Solicitor @eneral asserts that Con)ress is not reDuired to
de'ine the $eanin) o' every (ord it uses in dra'tin) the la(.
:ndeed, courts are able to save va)ue provisions o' la( throu)h statutory construction. 8ut the cybercri$e la(, dealin) (ith a novel
situation, 'ails to hint at the $eanin) it intends 'or the phrase Edue cause.E +he Solicitor @eneral su))ests that Edue causeE should
$ean E>ust reason or $otiveE and Eadherence to a la('ul procedure.E 8ut the Court cannot dra( this $eanin) since Section 1! does
not even bother to relate the collection o' data to the probable co$$ission o' a particular cri$e. :t >ust says, E(ith due cause,E thus
>usti'yin) a )eneral )atherin) o' data. :t is akin to the use o' a )eneral search (arrant that the Constitution prohibits.
Cue cause is also not descriptive o' the purpose 'or (hich data collection (ill be used. Will the la( en'orce$ent a)encies use the
tra''ic data to identi'y the perpetrator o' a cyber attackI 6r (ill it be used to build up a case a)ainst an identi'ied suspectI Can the
data be used to prevent cybercri$es 'ro$ happenin)I
+he authority that Section 1! )ives la( en'orce$ent a)encies is too s(eepin) and lacks restraint. While it says that tra''ic data
collection should not disclose identities or content data, such restraint is but an illusion. ;d$ittedly, nothin) can prevent la(
en'orce$ent a)encies holdin) these data in their hands 'ro$ lookin) into the identity o' their sender or receiver and (hat the data
contains. +his (ill unnecessarily e9pose the citizenry to leaked in'or$ation or, (orse, to e9tortion 'ro$ certain bad ele$ents in these
a)encies.
Section 1!, o' course, li$its the collection o' tra''ic data to those Eassociated (ith speci'ied co$$unications.E 8ut this supposed
li$itation is no li$itation at all since, evidently, it is the la( en'orce$ent a)encies that (ould speci'y the tar)et co$$unications. +he
po(er is virtually li$itless, enablin) la( en'orce$ent authorities to en)a)e in E'ishin) e9pedition,E choosin) (hatever speci'ied
co$$unication they (ant. +his evidently threatens the ri)ht o' individuals to privacy.
+he Solicitor @eneral points out that Section 1! needs to authorize collection o' tra''ic data Ein real ti$eE because it is not possible to
)et a court (arrant that (ould authorize the search o' (hat is akin to a E$ovin) vehicle.E 8ut (arrantless search is associated (ith a
police o''icerPs deter$ination o' probable cause that a cri$e has been co$$itted, that there is no opportunity 'or )ettin) a (arrant,
and that unless the search is i$$ediately carried out, the thin) to be searched stands to be re$oved. +hese preconditions are not
provided in Section 1!.
+he Solicitor @eneral is honest enou)h to ad$it that Section 1! provides $ini$al protection to internet users and that the procedure
envisioned by the la( could be better served by providin) 'or $ore robust sa'e)uards. ,is bare assurance that la( en'orce$ent
authorities (ill not abuse the provisions o' Section 1! is o' course not enou)h. +he )rant o' the po(er to track cyberspace
co$$unications in real ti$e and deter$ine their sources and destinations $ust be narro(ly dra(n to preclude abuses.
9/
"etitioners also ask that the Court strike do(n Section 1! 'or bein) violative o' the void-'or-va)ueness doctrine and the overbreadth
doctrine. +hese doctrines ho(ever, have been consistently held by this Court to apply only to 'ree speech cases. 8ut Section 1! on
its o(n neither re)ulates nor punishes any type o' speech. +here'ore, such analysis is unnecessary.
+his Court is $ind'ul that advances in technolo)y allo( the )overn$ent and kindred institutions to $onitor individuals and place
the$ under surveillance in (ays that have previously been i$practical or even i$possible. E;ll the 'orces o' a technolo)ical a)e 9 9 9
operate to narro( the area o' privacy and 'acilitate intrusions into it. :n $odern ter$s, the capacity to $aintain and support this
enclave o' private li'e $arks the di''erence bet(een a de$ocratic and a totalitarian society.E
96
+he Court $ust ensure that la(s
seekin) to take advanta)e o' these technolo)ies be (ritten (ith speci'icity and de'initeness as to ensure respect 'or the ri)hts that
the Constitution )uarantees.
Section 1 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 1 provides*
Sec. 1. "reservation o' Co$puter Cata. H +he inte)rity o' tra''ic data and subscriber in'or$ation relatin) to co$$unication
services provided by a service provider shall be preserved 'or a $ini$u$ period o' si9 263 $onths 'ro$ the date o' the transaction.
Content data shall be si$ilarly preserved 'or si9 263 $onths 'ro$ the date o' receipt o' the order 'ro$ la( en'orce$ent authorities
reDuirin) its preservation.
%a( en'orce$ent authorities $ay order a one-ti$e e9tension 'or another si9 263 $onths* "rovided, +hat once co$puter data
preserved, trans$itted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the $ere 'urnishin) to such service provider o'
the trans$ittal docu$ent to the 6''ice o' the "rosecutor shall be dee$ed a noti'ication to preserve the co$puter data until the
ter$ination o' the case.
+he service provider ordered to preserve co$puter data shall keep con'idential the order and its co$pliance.
"etitioners in @.<. !591
90
clai$ that Section 1 constitutes an undue deprivation o' the ri)ht to property. +hey liken the data
preservation order that la( en'orce$ent authorities are to issue as a 'or$ o' )arnish$ent o' personal property in civil 'or'eiture
proceedin)s. Such order prevents internet users 'ro$ accessin) and disposin) o' tra''ic data that essentially belon) to the$.
#o doubt, the contents o' $aterials sent or received throu)h the internet belon) to their authors or recipients and are to be
considered private co$$unications. 8ut it is not clear that a service provider has an obli)ation to inde'initely keep a copy o' the
sa$e as they pass its syste$ 'or the bene'it o' users. 8y virtue o' Section 1, ho(ever, the la( no( reDuires service providers to
keep tra''ic data and subscriber in'or$ation relatin) to co$$unication services 'or at least si9 $onths 'ro$ the date o' the
transaction and those relatin) to content data 'or at least si9 $onths 'ro$ receipt o' the order 'or their preservation.
;ctually, the user ou)ht to have kept a copy o' that data (hen it crossed his co$puter i' he (as so $inded. +he service provider has
never assu$ed responsibility 'or their loss or deletion (hile in its keep.
;t any rate, as the Solicitor @eneral correctly points out, the data that service providers preserve on orders o' la( en'orce$ent
authorities are not $ade inaccessible to users by reason o' the issuance o' such orders. +he process o' preservin) data (ill not
unduly ha$per the nor$al trans$ission or use o' the sa$e.
Section 14 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 14 provides*
Sec. 14. Cisclosure o' Co$puter Cata. H %a( en'orce$ent authorities, upon securin) a court (arrant, shall issue an order reDuirin)
any person or service provider to disclose or sub$it subscriberPs in'or$ation, tra''ic data or relevant data in hisBits possession or
control (ithin seventy-t(o 20!3 hours 'ro$ receipt o' the order in relation to a valid co$plaint o''icially docketed and assi)ned 'or
investi)ation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant 'or the purpose o' investi)ation.
+he process envisioned in Section 14 is bein) likened to the issuance o' a subpoena. "etitionersP ob>ection is that the issuance o'
subpoenas is a >udicial 'unction. 8ut it is (ell-settled that the po(er to issue subpoenas is not e9clusively a >udicial 'unction.
79ecutive a)encies have the po(er to issue subpoena as an ad>unct o' their investi)atory po(ers.
9J
8esides, (hat Section 14 envisions is $erely the en'orce$ent o' a duly issued court (arrant, a 'unction usually lod)ed in the hands
o' la( en'orcers to enable the$ to carry out their e9ecutive 'unctions. +he prescribed procedure 'or disclosure (ould not constitute
an unla('ul search or seizure nor (ould it violate the privacy o' co$$unications and correspondence. Cisclosure can be $ade only
a'ter >udicial intervention.
Section 1/ o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 1/ provides*
Sec. 1/. Search, Seizure and 79a$ination o' Co$puter Cata. H Where a search and seizure (arrant is properly issued, the la(
en'orce$ent authorities shall like(ise have the 'ollo(in) po(ers and duties.
Within the ti$e period speci'ied in the (arrant, to conduct interception, as de'ined in this ;ct, and*
2a3 +o secure a co$puter syste$ or a co$puter data stora)e $ediu$=
2b3 +o $ake and retain a copy o' those co$puter data secured=
2c3 +o $aintain the inte)rity o' the relevant stored co$puter data=
2d3 +o conduct 'orensic analysis or e9a$ination o' the co$puter data stora)e $ediu$= and
2e3 +o render inaccessible or re$ove those co$puter data in the accessed co$puter or co$puter and
co$$unications net(ork.
"ursuant thereo', the la( en'orce$ent authorities $ay order any person (ho has kno(led)e about the 'unctionin) o' the co$puter
syste$ and the $easures to protect and preserve the co$puter data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary in'or$ation,
to enable the undertakin) o' the search, seizure and e9a$ination.
%a( en'orce$ent authorities $ay reDuest 'or an e9tension o' ti$e to co$plete the e9a$ination o' the co$puter data stora)e $ediu$
and to $ake a return thereon but in no case 'or a period lon)er than thirty 253 days 'ro$ date o' approval by the court.
"etitioners challen)e Section 1/ on the assu$ption that it (ill supplant established search and seizure procedures. 6n its 'ace,
ho(ever, Section 1/ $erely enu$erates the duties o' la( en'orce$ent authorities that (ould ensure the proper collection,
preservation, and use o' co$puter syste$ or data that have been seized by virtue o' a court (arrant. +he e9ercise o' these duties do
not pose any threat on the ri)hts o' the person 'ro$ (ho$ they (ere taken. Section 1/ does not appear to supersede e9istin)
search and seizure rules but $erely supple$ents the$.
Section 10 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 10 provides*
Sec. 10. Cestruction o' Co$puter Cata. H Apon e9piration o' the periods as provided in Sections 1 and 1/, service providers and
la( en'orce$ent authorities, as the case $ay be, shall i$$ediately and co$pletely destroy the co$puter data sub>ect o' a
preservation and e9a$ination.
Section 10 (ould have the co$puter data, previous sub>ect o' preservation or e9a$ination, destroyed or deleted upon the lapse o'
the prescribed period. +he Solicitor @eneral >usti'ies this as necessary to clear up the service providerPs stora)e syste$s and prevent
overload. :t (ould also ensure that investi)ations are Duickly concluded.
"etitioners clai$ that such destruction o' co$puter data sub>ect o' previous preservation or e9a$ination violates the userPs ri)ht
a)ainst deprivation o' property (ithout due process o' la(. 8ut, as already stated, it is unclear that the user has a de$andable ri)ht
to reDuire the service provider to have that copy o' the data saved inde'initely 'or hi$ in its stora)e syste$. :' he (anted the$
preserved, he should have saved the$ in his co$puter (hen he )enerated the data or received it. ,e could also reDuest the service
provider 'or a copy be'ore it is deleted.
Section 19 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 19 e$po(ers the Cepart$ent o' Justice to restrict or block access to co$puter data*
Sec. 19. <estrictin) or 8lockin) ;ccess to Co$puter Cata.H When a co$puter data is pri$a 'acie 'ound to be in violation o' the
provisions o' this ;ct, the C6J shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such co$puter data.
"etitioners contest Section 19 in that it sti'les 'reedo$ o' e9pression and violates the ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches and
seizures. +he Solicitor @eneral concedes that this provision $ay be unconstitutional. 8ut since la(s en>oy a presu$ption o'
constitutionality, the Court $ust satis'y itsel' that Section 19 indeed violates the 'reedo$ and ri)ht $entioned.
Co$puter data
99
$ay re'er to entire pro)ra$s or lines o' code, includin) $al(are, as (ell as 'iles that contain te9ts, i$a)es, audio, or
video recordin)s. Without havin) to )o into a len)thy discussion o' property ri)hts in the di)ital space, it is indisputable that co$puter
data, produced or created by their (riters or authors $ay constitute personal property. ConseDuently, they are protected 'ro$
unreasonable searches and seizures, (hether (hile stored in their personal co$puters or in the service providerPs syste$s.
Section !, ;rticle ::: o' the 19J0 Constitution provides that the ri)ht to be secure in onePs papers and e''ects a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose shall be inviolable. Further, it states that no search (arrant shall
issue e9cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e. ,ere, the @overn$ent, in e''ect, seizes and places the
co$puter data under its control and disposition (ithout a (arrant. +he Cepart$ent o' Justice order cannot substitute 'or >udicial
search (arrant.
+he content o' the co$puter data can also constitute speech. :n such a case, Section 19 operates as a restriction on the 'reedo$ o'
e9pression over cyberspace. Certainly not all 'or$s o' speech are protected. %e)islature $ay, (ithin constitutional bounds, declare
certain kinds o' e9pression as ille)al. 8ut 'or an e9ecutive o''icer to seize content alle)ed to be unprotected (ithout any >udicial
(arrant, it is not enou)h 'or hi$ to be o' the opinion that such content violates so$e la(, 'or to do so (ould $ake hi$ >ud)e, >ury,
and e9ecutioner all rolled into one.
155
#ot only does Section 19 preclude any >udicial intervention, but it also disre)ards >urisprudential )uidelines established to deter$ine
the validity o' restrictions on speech. <estraints on 'ree speech are )enerally evaluated on one o' or a co$bination o' three tests* the
dan)erous tendency doctrine, the balancin) o' interest test, and the clear and present dan)er rule.
151
Section 19, ho(ever, $erely
reDuires that the data to be blocked be 'ound pri$a 'acie in violation o' any provision o' the cybercri$e la(. +akin) Section 6 into
consideration, this can actually be $ade to apply in relation to any penal provision. :t does not take into consideration any o' the
three tests $entioned above.
+he Court is there'ore co$pelled to strike do(n Section 19 'or bein) violative o' the constitutional )uarantees to 'reedo$ o'
e9pression and a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures.
Section !5 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section !5 provides*
Sec. !5. #onco$pliance. H Failure to co$ply (ith the provisions o' Chapter :? hereo' speci'ically the orders 'ro$ la( en'orce$ent
authorities shall be punished as a violation o' "residential Cecree #o. 1J!9 (ith i$prison$ent o' prision correctional in its $a9i$u$
period or a 'ine o' 6ne hundred thousand pesos 2"hp155,555.553 or both, 'or each and every nonco$pliance (ith an order issued by
la( en'orce$ent authorities.
"etitioners challen)e Section !5, alle)in) that it is a bill o' attainder. +he ar)u$ent is that the $ere 'ailure to co$ply constitutes a
le)islative 'indin) o' )uilt, (ithout re)ard to situations (here non-co$pliance (ould be reasonable or valid.
8ut since the non-co$pliance (ould be punished as a violation o' "residential Cecree 2".C.3 1J!9,
15!
Section !5 necessarily
incorporates ele$ents o' the o''ense (hich are de'ined therein. :' Con)ress had intended 'or Section !5 to constitute an o''ense in
and o' itsel', it (ould not have had to $ake re'erence to any other statue or provision.
".C. 1J!9 states*
Section 1. +he penalty o' prision correccional in its $a9i$u$ period, or a 'ine ran)in) 'ro$ 1,555 to 6,555 pesos, or both, shall be
i$posed upon any person (ho kno(in)ly or (ill'ully obstructs, i$pedes, 'rustrates or delays the apprehension o' suspects and the
investi)ation and prosecution o' cri$inal cases by co$$ittin) any o' the 'ollo(in) acts*
9 9 9.
+hus, the act o' non-co$pliance, 'or it to be punishable, $ust still be done Ekno(in)ly or (ill'ully.E +here $ust still be a >udicial
deter$ination o' )uilt, durin) (hich, as the Solicitor @eneral assu$es, de'ense and >usti'ications 'or non-co$pliance $ay be raised.
+hus, Section !5 is valid inso'ar as it applies to the provisions o' Chapter :? (hich are not struck do(n by the Court.
Sections !4 and !62a3 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Sections !4 and !62a3 provide*
Sec. !4. Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin) Center.Q +here is hereby created, (ithin thirty 253 days 'ro$ the e''ectivity o'
this ;ct, an inter-a)ency body to be kno(n as the Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin) Center 2C:CC3, under the
ad$inistrative supervision o' the 6''ice o' the "resident, 'or policy coordination a$on) concerned a)encies and 'or the 'or$ulation
and en'orce$ent o' the national cybersecurity plan.
Sec. !6. "o(ers and Functions.Q +he C:CC shall have the 'ollo(in) po(ers and 'unctions*
2a3 +o 'or$ulate a national cybersecurity plan and e9tend i$$ediate assistance o' real ti$e co$$ission o' cybercri$e o''enses
throu)h a co$puter e$er)ency response tea$ 2C7<+3= 9 9 9.
"etitioners $ainly contend that Con)ress invalidly dele)ated its po(er (hen it )ave the Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin)
Center 2C:CC3 the po(er to 'or$ulate a national cybersecurity plan (ithout any su''icient standards or para$eters 'or it to 'ollo(.
:n order to deter$ine (hether there is undue dele)ation o' le)islative po(er, the Court has adopted t(o tests* the co$pleteness test
and the su''icient standard test. Ander the 'irst test, the la( $ust be co$plete in all its ter$s and conditions (hen it leaves the
le)islature such that (hen it reaches the dele)ate, the only thin) he (ill have to do is to en'orce it.a%%phi +he second test $andates
adeDuate )uidelines or li$itations in the la( to deter$ine the boundaries o' the dele)atePs authority and prevent the dele)ation 'ro$
runnin) riot.
15
,ere, the cybercri$e la( is co$plete in itsel' (hen it directed the C:CC to 'or$ulate and i$ple$ent a national cybersecurity plan.
;lso, contrary to the position o' the petitioners, the la( )ave su''icient standards 'or the C:CC to 'ollo( (hen it provided a de'inition
o' cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity re'ers to the collection o' tools, policies, risk $ana)e$ent approaches, actions, trainin), best practices, assurance and
technolo)ies that can be used to protect cyber environ$ent and or)anization and userPs assets.
154
+his de'inition serves as the
para$eters (ithin (hich C:CC should (ork in 'or$ulatin) the cybersecurity plan.
Further, the 'or$ulation o' the cybersecurity plan is consistent (ith the policy o' the la( to Eprevent and co$bat such FcyberG o''enses
by 'acilitatin) their detection, investi)ation, and prosecution at both the do$estic and international levels, and by providin)
arran)e$ents 'or 'ast and reliable international cooperation.E
15/
+his policy is clearly adopted in the interest o' la( and order, (hich
has been considered as su''icient standard.
156
,ence, Sections !4 and !62a3 are like(ise valid.
W,7<7F6<7, the Court C7C%;<7S*
1. ?6:C 'or bein) A#C6#S+:+A+:6#;%*
a. Section 42c323 o' <epublic ;ct 1510/ that penalizes postin) o' unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unications=
b. Section 1! that authorizes the collection or recordin) o' tra''ic data in real-ti$e= and
c. Section 19 o' the sa$e ;ct that authorizes the Cepart$ent o' Justice to restrict or block access to
suspected Co$puter Cata.
!. ?;%:C and C6#S+:+A+:6#;%*
a. Section 42a3213 that penalizes accessin) a co$puter syste$ (ithout ri)ht=
b. Section 42a323 that penalizes data inter'erence, includin) trans$ission o' viruses=
c. Section 42a3263 that penalizes cyber-sDuattin) or acDuirin) do$ain na$e over the internet in bad 'aith to
the pre>udice o' others=
d. Section 42b323 that penalizes identity the't or the use or $isuse o' identi'yin) in'or$ation belon)in) to
another=
e. Section 42c3213 that penalizes cyberse9 or the lascivious e9hibition o' se9ual or)ans or se9ual activity 'or
'avor or consideration=
'. Section 42c32!3 that penalizes the production o' child porno)raphy=
). Section 6 that i$poses penalties one de)ree hi)her (hen cri$es de'ined under the <evised "enal Code
are co$$itted (ith the use o' in'or$ation and co$$unications technolo)ies=
h. Section J that prescribes the penalties 'or cybercri$es=
i. Section 1 that per$its la( en'orce$ent authorities to reDuire service providers to preserve tra''ic data and
subscriber in'or$ation as (ell as speci'ied content data 'or si9 $onths=
>. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure o' co$puter data under a court-issued (arrant=
k. Section 1/ that authorizes the search, seizure, and e9a$ination o' co$puter data under a court-issued
(arrant=
l. Section 10 that authorizes the destruction o' previously preserved co$puter data a'ter the e9piration o' the
prescribed holdin) periods=
$. Section !5 that penalizes obstruction o' >ustice in relation to cybercri$e investi)ations=
n. Section !4 that establishes a Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin) Center 2C:CC3=
o. Section !62a3 that de'ines the C:CCPs "o(ers and Functions= and
p. ;rticles /, /4, 61, and 6! o' the <evised "enal Code that penalizes libel.
Further, the Court C7C%;<7S*
1. Section 42c3243 that penalizes online libel as ?;%:C and C6#S+:+A+:6#;% (ith respect to the ori)inal author o'
the post= but ?6:C and A#C6#S+:+A+:6#;% (ith respect to others (ho si$ply receive the post and react to it= and
!. Section / that penalizes aidin) or abettin) and atte$pt in the co$$ission o' cybercri$es as ?; % : C and
C6#S+:+A+:6#;% only in relation to Section 42a3213 on :lle)al ;ccess, Section 42a32!3 on :lle)al :nterception,
Section 42a323 on Cata :nter'erence, Section 42a3243 on Syste$
:nter'erence, Section 42a32/3 on &isuse o' Cevices, Section 42a3263 on Cyber-sDuattin), Section 42b3213 on Co$puter-related For)ery,
Section 42b32!3 on Co$puter-related Fraud, Section 42b323 on Co$puter-related :dentity +he't, and Section 42c3213 on Cyberse9= but
?6:C and A#C6#S+:+A+:6#;% (ith respect to Sections 42c32!3 on Child "orno)raphy, 42c323 on Ansolicited Co$$ercial
Co$$unications, and 42c3243 on online %ibel.Nwphi
%astly, the Court <7S6%?7S to %7;?7 +,7 C7+7<&:#;+:6# o' the correct application o' Section 0 that authorizes prosecution o'
the o''ender under both the <evised "enal Code and <epublic ;ct 1510/ to actual cases, W:+, +,7 7SC7"+:6# o' the cri$es o'*
1. 6nline libel as to (hich, char)in) the o''ender under both Section 42c3243 o' <epublic ;ct 1510/ and ;rticle / o'
the <evised "enal Code constitutes a violation o' the proscription a)ainst double >eopardy= as (ell as
!. Child porno)raphy co$$itted online as to (hich, char)in) the o''ender under both Section 42c32!3 o' <epublic ;ct
1510/ and <epublic ;ct 900/ or the ;nti-Child "orno)raphy ;ct o' !559 also constitutes a violation o' the sa$e
proscription, and, in respect to these, is ?6:C and A#C6#S+:+A+:6#;%.
S6 6<C7<7C.
ROBERTO A. ABA3
;ssociate Justice
W7 C6#CA<*
See Concurrin) M Cissentin) 6pinion
MAR$A LOUR3ES 6. A. SERENO
Chie' Justice
See Concurrin) M Cissentin) 6pinion
ANTON$O T. CAR6$O
;ssociate Justice
2no part due to prior case3
6RESB$TERO J. %ELASCO, JR.K
;ssociate Justice
TERES$TA J. LEONAR3O-3E CASTRO
;ssociate Justice
See Separate Concurrin) 6pinion
ARTURO 3. BR$ON
;ssociate Justice
3$OS3A3O M. 6ERALTA
;ssociate Justice
LUCAS 6. BERSAM$N
;ssociate Justice
MAR$ANO C. 3EL CAST$LLO
;ssociate Justice
MART$N S. %$LLARAMA, JR.
;ssociate Justice
JOSE 6ORTUGAL 6ERE1
;ssociate Justice
: >oin Justice 8rion in all his positions
JOSE CATRAL MEN3O1A
;ssociate Justice
B$EN%EN$3O L. RE#ES
;ssociate Justice
#o "art
ESTELA M. 6ERLAS-BERNABEK
;ssociate Justice
See separate dissentin) and concurrin) opinion
MAR%$C MAR$O %$CTOR ". LEONEN
;ssociate Justice
C 7 < + : F : C ; + : 6 #
"ursuant to Section 1, ;rticle ?::: o' the Constitution, it is hereby certi'ied that the conclusions in the above Cecision had been
reached in consultation be'ore the case (as assi)ned to the (riter o' the opinion o' the Court.
MAR$A LOUR3ES 6.A. SERENO
Chie' Justice
"oo+no+e(
K#o part.
1
+he AS Supre$e Court 'irst su))ested the standard by i$plication in 'ootnote 4 o' Anited States v. Carolene
"roducts 254 A.S. 144, 1/! n.4 219J3. See Fatal in +heory and Strict in Fact* ;n 7$pirical ;nalysis o' Strict
Scrutiny in the Federal Courts. Winkler, ;. AC%; School o' %a(, "ublic %a( M %e)al +heory <esearch "aper Series,
<esearch "aper #o. 56-14, http*BBssrn.co$Babstract_J9065 2last accessed ;pril 15, !513.
!
Serrano v. @allant &ariti$e Services, :nc., @.<. #o. 160614, &arch !4, !559, /J! SC<; !/4, !0J.

White %i)ht Corporation v. City o' &anila, @.<. #o. 1!!J46, January !5, !559, /06 SC<; 416, 40.
4
;ll /5 states o' the Anited States have passed individual state la(s cri$inalizin) hackin) or unauthorized access,
http*BB(((.ncsl.or)Bissues-researchBteleco$Bco$puter-hackin)-and-unauthorized-access-la(s.asp9 2last accessed
&ay 16, !513. +he Anited States Con)ress has also passed the Co$puter Fraud and ;buse ;ct 1J A.S.C. U 155
that penalizes, a$on) others, hackin). +he 8udapest Convention on Cybercri$e considers hackin) as an o''ense
a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s and !9 countries have already
rati'ied or acceded, http*BBconventions.coe.intB+reatyBCo$$unBChercheSi).aspI#+_1J/MC&_MCF_MC%_7#@ 2last
accessed &ay 16, !513.
/
7thical ,ackin). "al$er, C. :8& Syste$s Journal, ?ol. 45, #o. , !551, p. 005,
http*BBpd'.te9t'iles.co$BsecurityBpal$er.pd' 2last accessed ;pril 15, !513.
6
:d. at 004.
0
Southern ,e$isphere 7n)a)e$ent #et(ork, :nc. v. ;nti-+erroris$ Council, @.<. #os. 10J//!, 10J//4, 10J/J1,
10JJ95, 1091/0 M 109461, 6ctober /, !515, 6! SC<; 146, 1J/.
J
+he intentional destruction o' property is popularly re'erred to as vandalis$. :t includes behavior such as breakin)
(indo(s, slashin) tires, spray paintin) a (all (ith )ra''iti, and destroyin) a co$puter syste$ throu)h the use o' a
co$puter virus, http*BBle)al-dictionary.the'reedictionary.co$B?andalis$ 2last accessed ;u)ust 1!, !513.
9
Southern ,e$isphere 7n)a)e$ent #et(ork, :nc. v. ;nti-+erroris$ Council, supra note 0, at 1J6= 7strada v.
Sandi)anbayan, 4!1 "hil. !95, /4 2!5513.
15
:d.
11
:d., citin) the 6pinion o' Justice ?icente ?. &endoza in 7strada v. Sandi)anbayan.
1!
19J0 C6#S+:+A+:6#, ;rticle :::, Section 1.
1
"ollo v. Constantino-Cavid, @.<. #o. 1J1JJ1, 6ctober 1J, !511, 6/9 SC<; 1J9, !54-!5/.
14
15 "hil. 41/ 2196J3
1/
// "hil. 6J0, 014-01/ 2!5563.
16
Supra note 1!, ;rticle ::, Section !.
10
Supra note 1!, ;rticle :::, Section .
1J
:n the &atter o' the "etition 'or :ssuance o' Writ o' ,abeas Corpus o' Sabio v. Senator @ordon, supra note 1/.
19
Section 2)3 o' <epublic ;ct 1510 or the Cata "rivacy ;ct o' !51! de'ines personal in'or$ation as Eany in'or$ation
(hether recorded in a $aterial 'or$ or not, 'ro$ (hich the identity o' an individual is apparent or can be reasonably
and directly ascertained by the entity holdin) the in'or$ation, or (hen put to)ether (ith other in'or$ation (ould
directly and certainly identi'y an individual.E
!5
"eople v. Ay, @.<. #o. 104665, &ay 5, !511, 649 SC<; !6.
!1
Supra note 10 2@.<. #o. !5/9 F@uin)onaG= @.<. #o. !5/1J F":F;G3.
!!
&erria$-Webster, http*BB(((.$erria$-(ebster.co$BdictionaryB'avor 2last accessed &ay 5, !513.
!
8ica$eral Con'erence Co$$ittee, pp. /-6.
!4
:d.
!/
6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral, C6&&7#+, p. 01.
!6
<7"A8%:C ;C+ 9!5J, Section 42e3.
!0
:d., Section 2c3.
!J
@.<. #o. 1915J5, #ove$ber !1, !511, 665 SC<; 40/.
!9
<7?:S7C "7#;% C6C7, ;rticle !51 2!32b32!3, as a$ended by "residential Cecree 969.
5
"ita v. Court o' ;ppeals, !/J-; "hil. 14 219J93.
1
<7"A8%:C ;C+ 900/ entitled ;# ;C+ C7F:#:#@ +,7 C<:&7 6F C,:%C "6<#6@<;",-, "<7SC<:8:#@
"7#;%+:7S +,7<7F6< ;#C F6< 6+,7< "A<"6S7S.
!
Sto. +o$as v. Salac, @.<. #o. 1/!64!, #ove$ber 1, !51!, 6J/ SC<; !4/, citin) "eople v. ?entura, 114 "hil. 16!,
160 2196!3.

Supra note 1, Section 42b3.


4
@.<. #o. !5450 28a)on) ;lyansan) &akabayan3, &7&6<;#CA&, pp. 4-0.
/
White 8u''alo ?entures, %%C v. Aniv. o' +e9. at ;ustin, !554 A.S. Cist. %7S:S 191/! 2W.C. +e9. &ar. !!, !5543.
6
Concurrin) 6pinion o' Chie' Justice <eynato S. "uno in "har$aceutical and ,ealth Care ;ssociation o' the
"hilippines v. CuDue :::, /61 "hil. J0, 449 2!5503.
0
Supra note !9, ;rticle 6!.
J
8or>al v. Court o' ;ppeals, 61 "hil. 1 219993= ?asDuez v. Court o' ;ppeals, 0 "hil. !J 219993.
9
/0 "hil. !0J 2!55J3.
45
?asDuez v. Court o' ;ppeals, supra note J.
41
%. 86;C6, C6&";C+ <7?:7W7< :# C<:&:#;% %;W 45-454 2!d ed. !5503.
4!
?asDuez v. Court o' ;ppeals, supra note J, citin) #e( -ork +i$es v. Sullivan, 06 A.S. !/4, 11 %.7d.!d 6J6
219643.
4
;nnette F. v. Sharon S., 119 Cal. ;pp. 4th 1146, 11/1 2Cal. ;pp. 4th Cist. !5543.
44
8or>al v. Court o' ;ppeals, supra note J, citin) Anited States v. 8ustos, 0 "hil. 01 2191J3.
4/
Supra note 41, at 45.
46
Supra note !9, ;rticle /4.
40
Co$$unication 1J1/B!55J.
4J
@eneral Co$$ent 4, :CC"<, par. 40.
49
:CC"<, ;rticle 192!3 and 23.
/5
Sandals <esorts :ntPl. %td. v. @oo)le, :nc., J6 ;.C.d ! 2#.-. ;pp. Civ. 1st CepPt !5113.
/1
6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral, &7&6<;#CA&, pp. 69-05.
/!
<7"A8%:C ;C+ 051, Section 1.
/
<7"A8%:C ;C+ 401!, Section /.
/4
%;86< C6C7, ;rticle !64.
//
@.<. #o. !5445 2Sta. &aria3, "7+:+:6#, p. !.
/6
http*BB(((.statisticbrain.co$Bsocial-net(orkin)-statisticsB 2last accessed January 14, !513.
/0
http*BBen.(ikipedia.or)B(ikiBSocialNnet(orkin)Nservice 2last accessed January 14, !513.
/J
http*BB(((.statisticbrain.co$Bsocial-net(orkin)-statisticsB 2last accessed January 14, !513.
/9
http*BBen.(ikipedia.or)B(ikiBFacebook 2last accessed January 14, !513.
65
@. < . #o. !50J 2;donis3 and @.<. #o. !591 2"alatino3, C6#S6%:C;+7C &7&6<;#CA&, p. 4.
61
/!1 A.S. J44 219903.
6!
@ris(old v. Connecticut, J1 A.S. 409 2196/3.
6
@.<. #o. !50J 2;donis3, First ;&7#C7C "7+:+:6#, pp. /-6.
64
Supra note //, at .
6/
/06 "hil. /0 2!55J3.
66
:d.
60
:d.
6J
; contention 'ound in 8ruce 8yars, +i$othy 6P.ee'e, and +ho$as Cle$ent E@oo)le, :nc.* "rocurer, "ossessor,
Cistributor, ;ider and ;bettor in Child "orno)raphy,E
http*BB'oru$onpublicpolicy.co$Barchivesprin)5JBbyars.pd' 2last accessed &ay !/, !513.
69
:d., citin) 40 A.S.C. !5.
05
8ianca 8osker, Facebook +o Share Asers1 ,o$e ;ddresses, "hone #u$bers With 79ternal Sites,
http*BB(((.hu''in)tonpost.co$B!511B5!B!JB'acebook-ho$e-addresses-phone-nu$bersNnNJ!94/9.ht$l 2last accessed
July 1J, !513.
01
@.<. #o. !5445 2Sta &aria3, &7&6<;#CA&, p. 14, citin) %uis 8. <eyes, +he <evised "enal Code* 8ook 1, 11J
210th ed. !55J3.
0!
Shiresee 8ell, &an "leads @uilty to ;tte$pted ASC Website ,ackin), 7$ail ;ccounts, http*BBcolu$bia-
sc.patch.co$B)roupsBpolice-and-'ireBpB$an-pleaded-)uilty-to-hackin)-usc-(ebsite-e$ail-accounts 2last accessed July
1J, !513= "eter <yan, ,ackers tar)et 8ureau o' Statistics data, http*BB(((.abc.net.auBne(sB!51-54-!6Babs-
tar)eted-by-hackersB46/!0/J 2last accessed July 1J, !513.
0
Supra note 4, at !.
04
Supra note /1, at 49, citin) "eople v. CoriDuez, 1 "hil. !9/ 2196J3.
0/
6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral, &7&6<;#CA&, p. 49.
06
Section !1, ;rticle :::, 19J0 C6#S+:+A+:6#* E#o person shall be t(ice put in >eopardy o' punish$ent 'or the sa$e
o''ense. :' an act is punished by a la( and an ordinance, conviction or acDuittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution 'or the sa$e act.E
00
8aylosis v. ,on. Chavez, Jr., !09 "hil. 44J 219913.
0J
"eople v. Cela Cruz, @.<. #o. 155J6, Cece$ber 11, 199!, !16 SC<; 406, citin) "eople v. &illora, !/! "hil. 15/
219J93.
09
Supra note 14, at 46-40.
J5
6ple v. +orres, /4 "hil. 94J, 904-90/ 2199J3.
J1
:n the &atter o' the "etition 'or ,abeas Corpus o' Capt. ;le>ano v. @en. Cabuay, /5/ "hil. !9J, !! 2!55/3=
@a$boa v. Chan, @.<. #o. 1966, July !4, !51!, 600 SC<; J/.
J!
S7C. !. Ceclaration o' "olicy. H +he State reco)nizes the vital role o' in'or$ation and co$$unications industries
such as content production, teleco$$unications, broadcastin) electronic co$$erce, and data processin), in the
nationPs overall social and econo$ic develop$ent. +he State also reco)nizes the i$portance o' providin) an
environ$ent conducive to the develop$ent, acceleration, and rational application and e9ploitation o' in'or$ation and
co$$unications technolo)y 2:C+3 to attain 'ree, easy, and intelli)ible access to e9chan)e andBor delivery o'
in'or$ation= and the need to protect and sa'e)uard the inte)rity o' co$puter, co$puter and co$$unications syste$s,
net(orks, and databases, and the con'identiality, inte)rity, and availability o' in'or$ation and data stored therein, 'ro$
all 'or$s o' $isuse, abuse, and ille)al access by $akin) punishable under the la( such conduct or conducts. :n this
li)ht, the State shall adopt su''icient po(ers to e''ectively prevent and co$bat such o''enses by 'acilitatin) their
detection, investi)ation, and prosecution at both the do$estic and international levels, and by providin)
arran)e$ents 'or 'ast and reliable international cooperation.
J
Convention on Cybercri$e, ;rt. !5, opened 'or si)nature #ove$ber !, !551, 7+S 1J/.
J4
Cybercri$e %a(, Section 42a3213,.
J/
:d., Section 42a323
J6
:d., Section 42c3213
J0
:d., Section 42c32!3
JJ
Supra note 14.
J9
:d. at 4-40.
95
4!9 A.S. /J9 219003.
91
:d. at /99.
9!
Supra note 1, at !56.
9
Jonathan Strickland, ,o( :" Conver)ence Works, http*BBco$puter.ho(stu''(orks.co$Bip-conver)ence!.ht$ 2last
accessed &ay 15, !513.
94
44! A.S. 0/ 219093.
9/
Supra note J5, at 9J.
96
Supra note 14, at 40, citin) 7$erson, #ine Justices in Search o' a Coctrine, 64 &ich. %a( <ev. !19, !!9 2196/3.
90
@.<. #o. !591 2"alatino v. 6choa3.
9J
8irao)o v. "hilippine +ruth Co$$ission, @.<. #os. 19!9/ and 1956, Cece$ber 0, !515, 60 SC<; 0J, 14=
;C&:#:S+<;+:?7 C6C7 o' 19J0, 8ook :, Chapter 9, Section 0, and 8ook ?::, Chapter 1, Section 1.
99
Co$puter data is de'ined by <.;. 1510/ as 'ollo(s*
ES7C. . Ce'inition o' +er$s. 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
2e3 Co$puter data re'ers to any representation o' 'acts, in'or$ation, or concepts in a 'or$ suitable 'or
processin) in a co$puter syste$ includin) a pro)ra$ suitable to cause a co$puter syste$ to per'or$ a
'unction and includes electronic docu$ents andBor electronic data $essa)es (hether stored in local
co$puter syste$s or online.E
155
"ita v. Court o' ;ppeals, supra note 5, at 1/1.
151
Chavez v. @onzales, /69 "hil. 1// 2!55J3.
15!
7ntitled "7#;%:R:#@ 68S+<AC+:6# 6F ;""<7,7#S:6# ;#C "<6S7CA+:6# 6F C<:&:#;% 6FF7#C7<S.
15
@erochi v. Cepart$ent o' 7ner)y, //4 "hil. /6 2!5503.
154
<7"A8%:C ;C+ 1510/, Section 2k3.
15/
Supra note 94.
156
@erochi v. Cepart$ent o' 7ner)y, supra note 15, at /J6, citin) <ubi v. "rovincial 8oard o' &indoro, 9 "hil. 665
219193.
+he %a(phil "ro>ect - ;rellano %a( Foundation



EN BANC


IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION G.R. No.
160792
FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
CAPT. GARY ALEJANO, PN (MARINES)
CAPT. NICANOR FAELON, PN (MARINES)
CAPT. GERARO GAMBALA, PA
LT. SG JAMES LAYUG, PN
CAPT. MILO MAESTRECAMPO, PA
LT. SG ANTONIO TRILLANES I!, PN
HOMOBONO ADAZA, and
ROBERTO RAFAEL (ROEL) PULIDO,
Petitioners,

Present:
Davide,
Jr., C.J.,
Puno,

Panganiban,

Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago,
"andova#!Gutierre$,
- versus - Carpio,
Austria-
Martinez,
Corona,
Carpio
Morales,
Calleo,
Sr.,
Az!una,
"inga,
C#i!o-
$azario, and
%ar!ia, JJ.
GEN. PERO CABUAY,
GEN. NARCISO ABAYA,
SEC. ANGELO REYES, and
Promulgated:
SEC. ROILO GOLEZ,
&espondents. August '(,
'))(

*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - *





DECISION


CARPIO, J."


T%e Ca&e

"#is petition +or revie,
-./
see0s to nulli+1 t#e De!ision
-'/
o+ t#e
Court o+ Appeals dated .2 September '))3 and &esolution dated
.3 $ovember '))3 in CA-%.&. SP $o. 24(5(. "#e Court o+
Appeals6 De!ision and &esolution dismissed t#e petition
+orhabeas corpus 7led b1 la,1ers 8omobono Adaza and &oberto
&a+ael Pulido 9:petitioners;< on be#al+ o+ t#eir detained !lients
Capt. %ar1 Aleano 9P$-Marines<, Capt. $i!anor =aeldon 9P$-
Marines<, Capt. %erardo %ambala 9PA<, >t. S% James >a1ug 9P$<,
Capt. Milo Maestre!ampo 9PA<, and >t. S% Antonio "rillanes ?@ 9P$<
9:detainees;<.

Petitioners named as respondent %en. Pedro Cabua1 9:%en.
Cabua1;<, C#ie+ o+ t#e ?ntelligen!e Servi!e o+ t#e Armed =or!es o+
t#e P#ilippines 9:?SA=P;<, ,#o #as !ustod1 o+ t#e detainees.
Petitioners impleaded %en. $ar!iso Aba1a 9:%en. Aba1a;<, Se!.
Angelo &e1es and &oilo %olez, ,#o are respe!tivel1 t#e C#ie+ o+
StaA o+ t#e Armed =or!es o+ t#e P#ilippines 9:A=P;<, Se!retar1 o+
$ational De+ense and $ational Se!urit1 Adviser, be!ause t#e1
#ave !ommand responsibilit1 over %en. Cabua1.

Anteedent Fat!



Barl1 morning o+ '2 Jul1 '))3, some 3'. armed soldiers,
led b1 t#e no, detained unior oC!ers, entered and too0 !ontrol
o+ t#e Da0,ood Premier >u*ur1 Apartments 9:Da0,ood;<, an
ups!ale apartment !omple*, lo!ated in t#e business distri!t o+
Ma0ati Cit1. "#e soldiers disarmed t#e se!urit1 oC!ers o+
Da0,ood and planted e*plosive devi!es in its immediate
surroundings. "#e unior oC!ers publi!l1 renoun!ed t#eir support
+or t#e administration and !alled +or t#e resignation o+ President
%loria Ma!apagal-Arro1o and several !abinet members.

Around 2:)) p.m. o+ t#e same date, t#e soldiers voluntaril1
surrendered to t#e aut#orities a+ter several negotiations ,it#
government emissaries. "#e soldiers later de+used t#e e*plosive
devi!es t#e1 #ad earlier planted. "#e soldiers t#en returned to
t#eir barra!0s.

Dn 3. Jul1 '))3, %en. Aba1a, as t#e C#ie+ o+ StaA o+ t#e
A=P, issued a dire!tive to all t#e Maor Servi!e Commanders to
turn over !ustod1 o+ ten unior oC!ers to t#e ?SA=P Detention
Center. "#e trans+er too0 pla!e ,#ile militar1 and !ivilian
aut#orities ,ere investigating t#e soldiers6 involvement in t#e
Da0,ood in!ident.

Dn . August '))3, government prose!utors 7led an
?n+ormation +or coup detat ,it# t#e &egional "rial Court o+ Ma0ati
Cit1, Eran!# F., against t#e soldiers involved in t#e '2 Jul1 '))3
Da0,ood in!ident. "#e government prose!utors a!!used t#e
soldiers o+coup detat as de7ned and penalized under Arti!le .35-
A o+ t#e &evised Penal Code o+ t#e P#ilippines, as amended. "#e
!ase ,as do!0eted as Criminal Case $o. )3-'245. "#e trial !ourt
later issued t#e Commitment Drders giving !ustod1 o+ unior
oC!ers >t. S% Antonio "rillanes ?@ 9:"rillanes;< and Capt. %erardo
%ambala to t#e Commanding DC!ers o+ ?SA=P.

@n . 'ugust .//3, Gen. 'ba6a issued a dire*tive to a## (a)or "ervi*e
%ommanders to ta3e into *ustod6 t,e mi#itar6 &ersonne# under t,eir *ommand 2,o
too3 &art in t,e @a32ood in*ident eG*e&t t,e detained )unior o11i*ers 2,o 2ere to
remain under t,e *ustod6 o1 ;"'=P.

Dn .. August '))3, petitioners 7led a petition +or habeas
corpus ,it# t#e Supreme Court. Dn .' August '))3, t#e Court
issued a &esolution, ,#i!# resolved to:

9a< ISSUE t#e "RIT OF HABEAS CORPUSG 9b< reHuire respondents to
ma0e a RETURN o+ t#e ,rit on Monda1, .4 August '))3, at .):)) a.m.
be+ore t#e Court o+ AppealsG 9!< re+er t#e !ase to t#e Court o+ Appeals
+or RAFFLE among t#e Justi!es t#ereo+ +or #earing, +urt#er
pro!eedings and de!ision t#ereon, a+ter ,#i!# a REPORT s#all be
made to t#is Court ,it#in ten 9.)< da1s +rom promulgation o+ t#e
de!ision.
-3/



+,us, t,e %ourt issued a >rit o1 1abeas Corpus dated 1. 'ugust .//3
dire*ting res&ondents to ma3e a return o1 t,e 2rit and to a&&ear and &rodu*e t,e
&ersons o1 t,e detainees be1ore t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s on t,e s*,edu#ed date 1or
,earing and 1urt,er &ro*eedings.

@n t,e same date, t,e detainees and t,eir ot,er *o!a**used 1i#ed 2it, t,e
Regiona# +ria# %ourt o1 (a3ati %it6 a (otion 1or Pre#iminar6 ;nvestigation, 2,i*,
t,e tria# *ourt granted.

@n 18 'ugust .//3, &ursuant to t,e dire*tives o1 t,e %ourt, res&ondents
submitted t,eir Return o1 t,e >rit and 'ns2er to t,e &etition and &rodu*ed t,e
detainees be1ore t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s during t,e s*,edu#ed ,earing. '1ter t,e
&arties 1i#ed t,eir memoranda on .8 'ugust .//3, t,e a&&e##ate *ourt *onsidered
t,e &etition submitted 1or de*ision.

Dn .2 September '))3, t#e Court o+ Appeals rendered its
de!ision dismissing t#e petition. $onet#eless, t#e appellate !ourt
ordered %en. Cabua1, ,#o ,as in !#arge o+ implementing t#e
regulations in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center, to up#old +ait#+ull1 t#e
rig#ts o+ t#e detainees in a!!ordan!e ,it# Standing Dperations
Pro!edure $o. )'F3-)5. "#e appellate !ourt dire!ted %en. Cabua1
to ad#ere to #is !ommitment made in !ourt regarding visiting
#ours and t#e detainees6 rig#t to e*er!ise +or t,o #ours a da1.

T#e R$%&n' () t#e C($*t () A++ea%!


"#e Court o+ Appeals +ound t#e petition bere+t o+ merit. "#e
appellate !ourt pointed out t#at t#e detainees are alread1
!#arged o+ coup detat be+ore t#e &egional "rial Court o+
Ma0ati. Habeas corpus is unavailing in t#is !ase as t#e
detainees6 !on7nement is under a valid indi!tment, t#e legalit1 o+
,#i!# t#e detainees and petitioners do not even Huestion.

"#e Court o+ Appeals re!ognized t#at habeas
corpus ma1 also be t#e appropriate remed1 to assail t#e legalit1
o+ detention i+ t#ere is a deprivation o+ a !onstitutional rig#t.
8o,ever, t#e appellate !ourt #eld t#at t#e !onstitutional rig#ts
alleged to #ave been violated in t#is !ase do not dire!tl1 aAe!t
t#e detainees6 libert1. "#e appellate !ourt ruled t#at t#e
regulation o+ t#e detainees6 rig#t to !on+er ,it# t#eir !ounsels is
reasonable under t#e !ir!umstan!es.

"#e appellate !ourt de!lared t#at ,#ile t#e opening and
reading o+ "rillanes6 letter is an ab#orrent violation o+ #is rig#t to
priva!1 o+ !ommuni!ation, t#is does not usti+1 t#e issuan!e o+ a
,rit o+ habeas corpus. "#e violation does not amount to illegal
restraint, ,#i!# is t#e proper sube!t o+ habeas
corpus pro!eedings.

"#e Court o+ Appeals t#us dismissed t#e petition and
ordered %en. Cabua1 to +ul7ll t#e promise #e made in open
!ourt to up#old t#e visiting #ours and t#e rig#t o+ t#e detainees to
e*er!ise +or t,o #ours a da1. "#e dispositive portion o+ t#e
appellate !ourt6s de!ision reads:

I8B&B=D&B, t#e +oregoing !onsidered, t#e instant petition is
#ereb1 D?SM?SSBD. &espondent Cabua1 is #ereb1 D&DB&BD to
+ait#+ull1 ad#ere to #is !ommitment to up#old t#e !onstitutional rig#ts
o+ t#e detainees in a!!ordan!e ,it# t#e Standing Dperations
Pro!edure $o. )'F3-)5 regarding visiting #ours and t#e rig#t o+ t#e
detainees to e*er!ise +or t,o 9'< #ours a da1.

SD D&DB&BD.
-5/


T#e I!!$e!

Petitioners raise t,e 1o##o2ing issues 1or reso#ution:

'. +:? %@BR+ @= 'PP?'7" ?RR?D ;N
R?<;?>;NG 'ND R?<?R";NG ' D?%;";@N @= +:?
"BPR?(? %@BR+H

I. +:? %@BR+ @= 'PP?'7" ?RR?D ;N N@+
'%NN@>7?DG;NG +:? 'PPR@PR;'+?N?"" @= +:?
R?(?D P?+;+;@N?R" "??NH and




%. +:? %@BR+ @= 'PP?'7" ?RR?D ;N '""?R+;NG +:?
7?G'7;+ @= +:? %@ND;+;@N" @= +:? D?+';N?D
JBN;@R @==;%?R"A D?+?N+;@N.
455



T#e R$%&n' () t#e C($*t


+,e &etition #a*3s merit.

Petitioners !laim t#at t#e Court6s .' August '))3 Drder
granted t#e petition and t#e Court remanded t#e !ase to t#e
Court o+ Appeals onl1 +or a +a!tual #earing. Petitioners t#us argue
t#at t#e Court6s Drder #ad alread1 +ore!losed an1 Huestion on t#e
propriet1 and merits o+ t#eir petition.

Petitioners6 !laim is baseless. A plain reading o+ t#e .'
August '))3 Drder s#o,s t#at t#e Court re+erred to t#e Court o+
Appeals t#e dut1 to inHuire into t#e !ause o+ t#e unior oC!ers6
detention. 8ad t#e Court ruled +or t#e detainees6 release, t#e
Court ,ould not #ave re+erred t#e #earing o+ t#e petition to t#e
Court o+ Appeals. "#e Court ,ould #ave +ort#,it# released t#e
detainees #ad t#e Court up#eld petitioners6 !ause.



?n a habeas corpus petition, t#e order to present an
individual be+ore t#e !ourt is a preliminar1 step in t#e #earing o+
t#e petition.
-F/
"#e respondent must produ!e t#e person and
e*plain t#e !ause o+ #is detention.
-2/
8o,ever, t#is order is not a
ruling on t#e propriet1 o+ t#e remed1 or on t#e substantive
matters !overed b1 t#e remed1. "#us, t#e Court6s order to t#e
Court o+ Appeals to !ondu!t a +a!tual #earing ,as not an
aCrmation o+ t#e propriet1 o+ t#e remed1 o+ habeas corpus.

=or obvious reasons, t#e dut1 to #ear t#e petition +or habeas
corpus ne!essaril1 in!ludes t#e determination o+ t#e propriet1 o+
t#e remed1. ?+ a !ourt 7nds t#e alleged !ause o+ t#e detention
unla,+ul, t#en it s#ould issue t#e ,rit and release t#e detainees.
?n t#e present !ase, a+ter #earing t#e !ase, t#e Court o+ Appeals
+ound t#at habeas corpus is inappli!able. A+ter a!tivel1
parti!ipating in t#e #earing be+ore t#e Court o+ Appeals,
petitioners are estopped +rom !laiming t#at t#e appellate !ourt
#ad no urisdi!tion to inHuire into t#e merits o+ t#eir petition.

"#e Court o+ Appeals !orre!tl1 ruled t#at t#e remed1
o+ habeas corpus is not t#e proper remed1 to address t#e
detainees6 !omplaint against t#e regulations and !onditions in t#e
?SA=P Detention Center. "#e remed1 o+ habeas corpus #as one
obe!tive: to inHuire into t#e !ause o+ detention o+ a person.
-4/

"#e purpose o+ t#e ,rit is to determine ,#et#er a person is being
illegall1 deprived o+ #is libert1.
-J/
?+ t#e inHuir1 reveals t#at t#e
detention is illegal, t#e !ourt orders t#e release o+ t#e person. ?+,
#o,ever, t#e detention is proven la,+ul, t#en t#e habeas
corpus pro!eedings terminate. "#e use o+ habeas corpus is t#us
ver1 limited. ?t is not a ,rit o+ error.
-.)/
$eit#er !an it substitute +or
an appeal.
-../

$onet#eless, !ase la, #as e*panded t#e ,rit6s appli!ation to
!ir!umstan!es ,#ere t#ere is deprivation o+ a person6s
!onstitutional rig#ts. "#e ,rit is available ,#ere a person
!ontinues to be unla,+ull1 denied o+ one or more o+ #is
!onstitutional +reedoms, ,#ere t#ere is denial o+ due pro!ess,
,#ere t#e restraints are not merel1 involuntar1 but are also
unne!essar1, and ,#ere a deprivation o+ +reedom originall1 valid
#as later be!ome arbitrar1.
-.'/

8o,ever, a mere allegation o+ a violation o+ one6s
!onstitutional rig#t is not suC!ient. "#e !ourts ,ill e*tend t#e
s!ope o+ t#e ,rit onl1 i+ an1 o+ t#e +ollo,ing !ir!umstan!es is
present: 9a< t#ere is a deprivation o+ a !onstitutional rig#t
resulting in t#e unla,+ul restraint o+ a personG 9b< t#e !ourt #ad no
urisdi!tion to impose t#e senten!eG or 9!< an e*!essive penalt1 is
imposed and su!# senten!e is void as to t#e e*!ess.
-.3/
I#atever
situation t#e petitioner invo0es, t#e t#res#old remains #ig#. "#e
violation o+ !onstitutional rig#t must be suC!ient to void t#e
entire pro!eedings.
-.5/

Petitioners admit t#at t#e1 do not Huestion t#e legalit1 o+ t#e
detention o+ t#e detainees. $eit#er do t#e1 dispute t#e la,+ul
indi!tment o+ t#e detainees +or !riminal and militar1 oAenses.
I#at petitioners be,ail is t#e regulation adopted b1 %en. Cabua1
in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center preventing petitioners as la,1ers
+rom seeing t#e detainees K t#eir !lients K an1 time o+ t#e da1 or
nig#t. "#e regulation allegedl1 !urtails t#e detainees6 rig#t to
!ounsel and violates &epubli! A!t $o. 2534 9:&A 2534;<.
-.(/

Petitioners !laim t#at t#e regulated visits made it diC!ult +or
t#em to prepare +or t#e important #earings be+ore t#e Senate and
t#e =eli!iano Commission.

Petitioners also point out t#at t#e oC!ials o+ t#e ?SA=P
Detention Center violated t#e detainees6 rig#t to priva!1 o+
!ommuni!ation ,#en t#e ?SA=P oC!ials opened and read t#e
personal letters o+ "rillanes and Capt. Milo Maestre!ampo
9:Maestre!ampo;<. Petitioners +urt#er !laim t#at t#e ?SA=P
oC!ials violated t#e detainees6 rig#t against !ruel and unusual
punis#ment ,#en t#e ?SA=P oC!ials prevented t#e detainees
+rom #aving !onta!t ,it# t#eir visitors. Moreover, t#e ?SA=P
oC!ials boarded up ,it# iron bars and pl1,ood slabs t#e iron
grills o+ t#e detention !ells, limiting t#e alread1 poor lig#t and
ventilation in t#e detainees6 !ells.

Pre-trial detainees do not +or+eit t#eir !onstitutional rig#ts
upon !on7nement.
-.F/
8o,ever, t#e +a!t t#at t#e detainees are
!on7ned ma0es t#eir rig#ts more limited t#an t#ose o+ t#e publi!.
-.2/
&A 2534, ,#i!# spe!i7es t#e rig#ts o+ detainees and t#e
duties o+ detention oC!ers, e*pressl1 re!ognizes t#e po,er o+ t#e
detention oC!er to adopt and implement reasonable measures to
se!ure t#e sa+et1 o+ t#e detainee and prevent #is es!ape.
Se!tion 59b< o+ &A 2534 provides:

Se!tion 5. Penalty Clause. K a< * * *

b9 'n6 &erson 2,o obstru*ts, &revents or &ro,ibits an6 #a26er, an6 member o1
t,e immediate 1ami#6 o1 a &erson arrested, detained or under *ustodia#
investigation, or an6 medi*a# do*tor or &riest or re#igious minister or b6 ,is
*ounse#, 1rom visiting and *on1erring &rivate#6 *,osen b6 ,im or b6 an6 member o1
,is immediate 1ami#6 2it, ,im, or 1rom eGamining and treating ,im, or 1rom
ministering to ,is s&iritua# needs, a# an' %+r $ #%e da' r, "n +r!en# ca&e&, $
#%e n"!%# s,a## su11er t,e &ena#t6 o1 im&risonment o1 not #ess t,an 1our 809 6ears
nor more t,an siG 869 6ears, and a 1ine o1 1our t,ousand &esos 8P0,///.//9.

+,e &rovisions o1 t,e above "e*tion not2it,standing, an6 se*urit6 o11i*er 2it,
*ustodia# res&onsibi#it6 over an6 detainee or &risoner ma6 +nder#aEe &+c%
rea&na-,e )ea&+re& a& )a' -e nece&&ar' # &ec+re %"& &a$e#' and (re*en# %"&
e&ca(e. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied9

+rue, "e*tion 08b9 o1 R' -038 ma3es it an o11ense to &ro,ibit a #a26er 1rom
visiting a detainee *#ient Kat an6 ,our o1 t,e da6 or, in urgent *ases, o1 t,e nig,t.L
:o2ever, t,e #ast &aragra&, o1 t,e same "e*tion 08b9 ma3es t,e eG&ress
Fua#i1i*ation t,at Kn#/"#%&#and"n!L t,e &rovisions o1 "e*tion 08b9, t,e detention
o11i*er ,as t,e &o2er to underta3e su*, reasonab#e measures as ma6 be ne*essar6
to se*ure t,e sa1et6 o1 t,e detainee and &revent ,is es*a&e.

+,e #ast &aragra&, o1 "e*tion 08b9 o1 R' -038 &res*ribes a *#ear standard.
+,e regu#ations governing a detaineeAs *on1inement must be Kreasonab#e measures
G G G to se*ure ,is sa1et6 and &revent ,is es*a&e.L +,us, t,e regu#ations must be
reasonab#6 *onne*ted to t,e governmentAs ob)e*tive o1 se*uring t,e sa1et6 and
&reventing t,e es*a&e o1 t,e detainee. +,e #a2 grants t,e detention o11i*er t,e
aut,orit6 to Kunderta3e su*, reasonab#e measuresL or regu#ations.

Petitioners !ontend t#at t#ere ,as an a!tual pro#ibition o+
t#e detainees6 rig#t to eAe!tive representation ,#en petitioners6
visits ,ere limited b1 t#e s!#edule o+ visiting #ours. Petitioners
assert t#at t#e violation o+ t#e detainees6 rig#ts entitle t#em to be
released +rom detention.

PetitionersA *ontention does not &ersuade us. +,e s*,edu#e o1 visiting ,ours
does not render void t,e detaineesA indi*tment 1or *rimina# and mi#itar6 o11enses to
2arrant t,e detaineesA re#ease 1rom detention. +,e ;"'=P o11i*ia#s did not den6,
but mere#6 regu#ated, t,e detaineesA rig,t to *ounse#. +,e &ur&ose o1 t,e regu#ation
is not to render ine11e*tive t,e rig,t to *ounse#, but to se*ure t,e sa1et6 and se*urit6
o1 a## detainees. 'meri*an *ases are instru*tive on t,e standards to determine
2,et,er regu#ations on &re!tria# *on1inement are &ermissib#e.

?n B#$$ %. &o$'(),
-.4/
t#e Lnited States 9L.S.< Supreme Court
#eld t#at regulations must be reasonabl1 related to maintaining
se!urit1 and must not be e*!essive in a!#ieving t#at purpose.
Courts ,ill stri0e do,n a restri!tion t#at is arbitrar1 and
purposeless.
-.J/
8o,ever, B#$$ %. &o$'() e*pressl1 dis!ouraged
!ourts +rom s0epti!all1 Huestioning !#allenged restri!tions in
detention and prison +a!ilities.
-')/
"#e L.S. Supreme Court
!ommanded t#e !ourts to aAord administrators :,ide-ranging
de+eren!e; in implementing poli!ies to maintain institutional
se!urit1.
-'./

?n our urisdi!tion, t#e last paragrap# o+ Se!tion 59b< o+ &A
2534 provides t#e standard to ma0e regulations in detention
!enters allo,able: :(*+) ,#-(o.-/$# 0#-(*,#( -( 0-1 /#
.#+#((-,1 2o (#+*,# 2)# 3#2-4.##5( (-6#21 -.3 7,#%#.2 )4(
#(+-7#.; ?n t#e present !ase, t#e visiting #ours a!!orded to t#e
la,1ers o+ t#e detainees are reasonabl1 !onne!ted to t#e
legitimate purpose o+ se!uring t#e sa+et1 and preventing t#e
es!ape o+ all detainees.

I#ile petitioners ma1 not visit t#e detainees an1 time t#e1
,ant, t#e +a!t t#at t#e detainees still #ave +a!e-to-+a!e meetings
,it# t#eir la,1ers on a da&%, -a!&! !learl1 s#o,s t#at t#ere is no
impairment o+ detainees6 rig#t to !ounsel. Petitioners as !ounsels
!ould visit t#eir !lients bet,een 4:)) a.m. and (:)) p.m. ,it# a
lun!# brea0 at .':)) p.m. "#e visiting #ours are regular business
#ours, t#e same #ours ,#en la,1ers normall1 entertain !lients in
t#eir la, oC!es. Clearl1, t#e visiting #ours pass t#e standard o+
reasonableness. Moreover, in urgent !ases, petitioners !ould
al,a1s see0 permission +rom t#e ?SA=P oC!ials to !on+er ,it#
t#eir !lients be1ond t#e visiting #ours.

"#e s!#eduled visiting #ours provide reasonable a!!ess to
t#e detainees, giving petitioners suC!ient time to !on+er ,it# t#e
detainees. "#e detainees6 rig#t to !ounsel is not undermined b1
t#e s!#eduled visits. Bven in t#e #earings be+ore t#e Senate and
t#e =eli!iano Commission,
-''/
petitioners ,ere given time to !on+er
,it# t#e detainees, a +a!t t#at petitioners t#emselves admit.
-'3/

"#us, at no point ,ere t#e detainees denied t#eir rig#t to !ounsel.

Petitioners +urt#er argue t#at t#e bars separating t#e
detainees +rom t#eir visitors and t#e boarding o+ t#e iron grills in
t#eir !ells ,it# pl1,ood amount to unusual and e*!essive
punis#ment. "#is argument +ails to impress us. B#$$ %. &o$'()
pointed out t#at ,#ile a detainee ma1 not be punis#ed prior to an
adudi!ation o+ guilt in a!!ordan!e ,it# due pro!ess o+ la,,
detention inevitabl1 inter+eres ,it# a detainee6s desire to live
!om+ortabl1.
-'5/
"#e +a!t t#at t#e restri!tions in#erent in detention
intrude into t#e detainees6 desire to live !om+ortabl1 does not
!onvert t#ose restri!tions into punis#ment.
-'(/
?t is ,#en t#e
restri!tions are arbitrar1 and purposeless t#at !ourts ,ill in+er
intent to punis#.
-'F/
Courts ,ill also in+er intent to punis# even i+
t#e restri!tion seems to be related rationall1 to t#e alternative
purpose i+ t#e restri!tion appears e*!essive in relation to t#at
purpose.
-'2/
Jail oC!ials are t#us not reHuired to use t#e least
restri!tive se!urit1 measure.
-'4/
"#e1 must onl1 re+rain +rom
implementing a restri!tion t#at appears e*!essive to t#e purpose
it serves.
-'J/

Ie Huote B#$$ %. &o$'():

Dne +urt#er point reHuires dis!ussion. "#e petitioners assert, and
respondents !on!ede, t#at t#e :essential obe!tive o+ pretrial
!on7nement is to insure t#e detainees6 presen!e at trial.; I#ile t#is
interest undoubtedl1 usti7es t#e original de!ision to !on7ne an
individual in some manner, ,e do not a!!ept respondents6 argument
t#at t#e %overnment6s interest in ensuring a detainee6s presen!e at
trial is t#e only obe!tive t#at ma1 usti+1 restraints and !onditions
on!e t#e de!ision is la,+ull1 made to !on7ne a person. :?+ t#e
government !ould !on7ne or ot#er,ise in+ringe t#e libert1 o+ detainees
onl1 to t#e e*tent ne!essar1 to ensure t#eir presen!e at trial, #ouse
arrest ,ould in t#e end be t#e onl1 !onstitutionall1 usti7ed +orm o+
detention.; "#e %overnment also #as legitimate interests t#at stem
+rom its need to manage t#e +a!ilit1 in ,#i!# t#e individual is detained.
"#ese legitimate operational !on!erns ma1 reHuire administrative
measures t#at go be1ond t#ose t#at are, stri!tl1 spea0ing, ne!essar1
to ensure t#at t#e detainee s#o,s up at trial. =or e*ample, t#e
%overnment must be able to ta0e steps to maintain se!urit1 and order
at t#e institution and ma0e !ertain no ,eapons or illi!it drugs rea!#
detainees. &estraints t#at are reasonabl1 related to t#e institution6s
interest in maintaining ail se!urit1 do not, ,it#out more, !onstitute
un!onstitutional punis#ment, even i+ t#e1 are dis!om+orting and are
restri!tions t#at t#e detainee ,ould not #ave e*perien!ed #ad #e been
released ,#ile a,aiting trial. Ie need not #ere attempt to detail t#e
pre!ise e*tent o+ t#e legitimate governmental interests t#at ma1 usti+1
!onditions or restri!tions o+ pretrial detention. ?t is enoug# simpl1 to
re!ognize t#at in addition to ensuring t#e detainees6 presen!e at trial,
t#e eAe!tive management o+ t#e detention +a!ilit1 on!e t#e individual
is !on7ned is a valid obe!tive t#at ma1 usti+1 imposition o+ !onditions
and restri!tions o+ pretrial detention and dispel an1 in+eren!e t#at su!#
restri!tions are intended as punis#ment.
-3)/


An a!tion !onstitutes a punis#ment ,#en 9.< t#at a!tion
!auses t#e inmate to suAer some #arm or :disabilit1,; and 9'< t#e
purpose o+ t#e a!tion is to punis# t#e inmate.
-3./
Punis#ment also
reHuires t#at t#e #arm or disabilit1 be signi7!antl1 greater t#an,
or be independent o+, t#e in#erent dis!om+orts o+ !on7nement.
-3'/


B$o+8 %. R*2)#,6o,3,
-33/
,#i!# reiterated B#$$ %. &o$'(),
up#eld t#e blan0et restri!tion on !onta!t visits as t#is pra!ti!e
,as reasonabl1 related to maintaining se!urit1. "#e sa+et1 o+
inno!ent individuals ,ill be eopardized i+ t#e1 are e*posed to
detainees ,#o ,#ile not 1et !onvi!ted are a,aiting trial +or
serious, violent oAenses and ma1 #ave prior !riminal !onvi!tion.
-35/
Conta!t visits ma0e it possible +or t#e detainees to #old visitors
and ail staA #ostage to eAe!t es!apes.
-3(/
Conta!t visits also leave
t#e ail vulnerable to visitors smuggling in ,eapons, drugs, and
ot#er !ontraband.
-3F/
"#e restri!tion on !onta!t visits ,as imposed
even on lo,-ris0 detainees as t#e1 !ould also potentiall1 be
enlisted to #elp obtain !ontraband and ,eapons.
-32/
"#e se!urit1
!onsideration in t#e imposition o+ blan0et restri!tion on !onta!t
visits ,as ruled to out,eig# t#e sentiments o+ t#e detainees.
-34/

B$o+8 %. R*2)#,6o,3 #eld t#at t#e pro#ibition o+ !onta!t
visits bore a rational !onne!tion to t#e legitimate goal o+ internal
se!urit1.
-3J/
"#is !ase reaCrmed t#e :#ands-oA; do!trine
enun!iated in B#$$ %. &o$'(), a +orm o+ udi!ial sel+-restraint,
based on t#e premise t#at !ourts s#ould de!line urisdi!tion over
prison matters in de+eren!e to administrative e*pertise.
-5)/

?n t#e present !ase, ,e !annot in+er punis#ment +rom t#e
separation o+ t#e detainees +rom t#eir visitors b1 iron bars, ,#i!#
is merel1 a limitation on !onta!t visits. "#e iron bars separating
t#e detainees +rom t#eir visitors prevent dire!t p#1si!al !onta!t
but still allo, t#e detainees to #ave visual, verbal, non-verbal and
limited p#1si!al !onta!t ,it# t#eir visitors. "#e arrangement is
not undul1 restri!tive. ?n +a!t, it is not even a stri!t non-!onta!t
visitation regulation li0e in B$o+8 %. R*2)#,6o,3. "#e limitation
on t#e detainees6 p#1si!al !onta!ts ,it# visitors is a reasonable,
non-punitive response to valid se!urit1 !on!erns.

"#e boarding o+ t#e iron grills is +or t#e +urt#eran!e o+
se!urit1 ,it#in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center. "#is measure intends
to +orti+1 t#e individual !ells and to prevent t#e detainees +rom
passing on !ontraband and ,eapons +rom one !ell to anot#er. "#e
boarded grills ensure se!urit1 and prevent disorder and !rime
,it#in t#e +a!ilit1. "#e diminis#ed illumination and ventilation are
but dis!om+orts in#erent in t#e +a!t o+ detention, and do not
!onstitute punis#ments on t#e detainees.

Ie a!!ord respe!t to t#e 7nding o+ t#e Court o+ Appeals t#at
t#e !onditions in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center are not in#uman,
degrading and !ruel. Ba!# detainee, e*!ept +or Capt. $i!anor
=aeldon and Capt. %erardo %ambala, is !on7ned in separate !ells,
unli0e ordinar1 !ramped detention !ells. "#e detainees are
treated ,ell and given regular meals. "#e Court o+ Appeals noted
t#at t#e !ells are relativel1 !lean and livable !ompared to t#e
!onditions no, prevailing in t#e !it1 and provin!ial ails, ,#i!# are
!ongested ,it# detainees. "#e Court o+ Appeals +ound t#e
assailed measures to be reasonable !onsidering t#at t#e ?SA=P
Detention Center is a #ig#-ris0 detention +a!ilit1. Apart +rom t#e
soldiers, a suspe!ted $e, People6s Arm1 9:$PA;< member and t,o
suspe!ted Abu Sa11a+ members are detained in t#e ?SA=P
Detention Center.

Ie no, pass upon petitioners6 argument t#at t#e oC!ials o+
t#e ?SA=P Detention Center violated t#e detainees6 rig#t to
priva!1 ,#en t#e ?SA=P oC!ials opened and read t#e letters
#anded b1 detainees "rillanes and Maestre!ampo to one o+ t#e
petitioners +or mailing. Petitioners point out t#at t#e letters ,ere
not in a sealed envelope but simpl1 +olded be!ause t#ere ,ere no
envelopes in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center. Petitioners !ontend
t#at t#e Constitution pro#ibits t#e in+ringement o+ a !itizen6s
priva!1 rig#ts unless aut#orized b1 la,. "#e Soli!itor %eneral
does not den1 t#at t#e ?SA=P oC!ials opened t#e letters.
Courts in t#e L.S. #ave generall1 permitted prison oC!ials to
open and read all in!oming and outgoing mail o+ !onvi!ted
prisoners to prevent t#e smuggling o+ !ontraband into t#e prison
+a!ilit1 and to avert !oordinated es!apes.
-5./
Bven in t#e absen!e
o+ statutes spe!i7!all1 allo,ing prison aut#orities +rom opening
and inspe!ting mail, su!# pra!ti!e ,as up#eld based on t#e
prin!iple o+ :!ivil deat#s.;
-5'/
?nmates ,ere deemed to #ave no
rig#t to !orrespond !on7dentiall1 ,it# an1one. "#e onl1
restri!tion pla!ed upon prison aut#orities ,as t#at t#e rig#t o+
inspe!tion s#ould not be used to dela1 unreasonabl1 t#e
!ommuni!ations bet,een t#e inmate and #is la,1er.
-53/


Bventuall1, t#e inmates6 outgoing mail to li!ensed attorne1s,
!ourts, and !ourt oC!ials re!eived respe!t.
-55/
"#e !on7dential
!orresponden!es !ould not be !ensored.
-5(/
"#e in+ringement o+
su!# privileged !ommuni!ation ,as #eld to be a violation o+ t#e
inmates6 =irst Amendment rig#ts.
-5F/
A prisoner #as a rig#t to
!onsult ,it# #is attorne1 in absolute priva!1, ,#i!# rig#t is not
abrogated b1 t#e legitimate interests o+ prison aut#orities in t#e
administration o+ t#e institution.
-52/
Moreover, t#e ris0 is small
t#at attorne1s ,ill !onspire in plots t#at t#reaten prison se!urit1.
-54/

Ameri!an urispruden!e initiall1 made a distin!tion bet,een
t#e priva!1 rig#ts eno1ed b1 !onvi!ted inmates and pre-trial
detainees. "#e !ase o+ P-$0494-.o %. T,-%4(o.o
-5J/
re!ognized
t#at pre-trial detainees, unli0e !onvi!ted prisoners, eno1 a limited
rig#t o+ priva!1 in !ommuni!ation. Censors#ip o+ pre-trial
detainees6 mail addressed to publi! oC!ials, !ourts and !ounsel
,as #eld impermissible. I#ile in!oming mail ma1 be inspe!ted
+or !ontraband and read in !ertain instan!es, outgoing mail o+
pre-trial detainees !ould not be inspe!ted or read at all.

?n t#e subseHuent !ase o+ &o$: %. M+o..#$$,
-()/
involving
!onvi!ted prisoners, t#e L.S. Supreme Court #eld t#at prison
oC!ials !ould open in t#e presen!e o+ t#e inmates in!oming mail
+rom attorne1s to inmates. 8o,ever, prison oC!ials !ould not
read su!# mail +rom attorne1s. B*plained t#e L.S. Supreme Court:

"#e issue o+ t#e e*tent to ,#i!# prison aut#orities !an open and inspe!t
in!oming mail +rom attorne1s to inmates, #as been !onsiderabl1
narro,ed in t#e !ourse o+ t#is litigation. "#e prison regulation under
!#allenge provided t#at M9a<ll in!oming and outgoing mail ,ill be read and
inspe!ted,6 and no e*!eption ,as made +or attorne1-prisoner mail. * * *


Petitioners no, !on!ede t#at t#e1 !annot open and read mail +rom
attorne1s to inmates, but !ontend t#at t#e1 ma1 open all letters +rom
attorne1s as long as it is done in t#e presen!e o+ t#e prisoners. "#e
narro, issue t#us presented is ,#et#er letters determined or +ound to be
+rom attorne1s ma1 be opened b1 prison aut#orities in t#e presen!e o+
t#e inmate or ,#et#er su!# mail must be delivered unopened i+ normal
dete!tion te!#niHues +ail to indi!ate !ontraband.

* * *

* * * ?+ prison oC!ials #ad to !#e!0 in ea!# !ase ,#et#er a
!ommuni!ation ,as +rom an attorne1 be+ore opening it +or inspe!tion, a
near impossible tas0 o+ administration ,ould be imposed. Ie t#in0 it
entirel1 appropriate t#at t#e State reHuire an1 su!# !ommuni!ations to
be spe!iall1 mar0ed as originating +rom an attorne1, ,it# #is name and
address being given, i+ t#e1 are to re!eive spe!ial treatment. ?t ,ould
also !ertainl1 be permissible t#at prison aut#orities reHuire t#at a la,1er
desiring to !orrespond ,it# a prisoner, 7rst identi+1 #imsel+ and #is !lient
to t#e prison oC!ials, to assure t#at t#e letters mar0ed privileged are
a!tuall1 +rom members o+ t#e bar. As to t#e abilit1 to open t#e mail in
t#e presen!e o+ inmates, t#is !ould in no ,a1 !onstitute !ensors#ip, sin!e
t#e mail ,ould not be read. $eit#er !ould it !#ill su!# !ommuni!ations,
sin!e t#e inmate6s presen!e insures t#at prison oC!ials ,ill not read t#e
mail. "#e possibilit1 t#at !ontraband ,ill be en!losed in letters, even
t#ose +rom apparent attorne1s, surel1 ,arrants prison oC!ials6 opening
t#e letters. Ie disagree ,it# t#e Court o+ Appeals t#at t#is s#ould onl1
be done in Mappropriate !ir!umstan!es.6 Sin!e a Ne*ible test, besides
being un,or0able, serves no arguable purpose in prote!ting an1 o+ t#e
possible !onstitutional rig#ts enumerated b1 respondent, ,e t#in0 t#at
petitioners, b1 a!!eding to a rule ,#ereb1 t#e inmate is present ,#en
mail +rom attorne1s is inspe!ted, #ave done all, and per#aps even more,
t#an t#e Constitution reHuires.
-(./


?n H*3(o. %. P-$0#,,
-('/
t#e L.S. Supreme Court ruled t#at
an inmate #as no reasonable e*pe!tation o+ priva!1 inside #is
!ell. "#e L.S. Supreme Court e*plained t#at prisoners ne!essaril1
lose man1 prote!tions o+ t#e Constitution, t#us:

8o,ever, ,#ile persons imprisoned +or !rime eno1 man1 prote!tions o+
t#e Constitution, it is also !lear t#at imprisonment !arries ,it# it t#e
!ir!ums!ription or loss o+ man1 signi7!ant rig#ts. "#ese !onstraints on
inmates, and in some !ases t#e !omplete ,it#dra,al o+ !ertain rig#ts, are
:usti7ed b1 t#e !onsiderations underl1ing our penal s1stem.; "#e
!urtailment o+ !ertain rig#ts is ne!essar1, as a pra!ti!al matter, to
a!!ommodate a m1riad o+ :institutional needs and obe!tives; o+ prison
+a!ilities, !#ie+ among ,#i!# is internal se!urit1. D+ !ourse, t#ese
restri!tions or retra!tions also serve, in!identall1, as reminders t#at,
under our s1stem o+ usti!e, deterren!e and retribution are +a!tors in
addition to !orre!tion.
-(3/


"#e later !ase o+ S2-2# %. *..,
-(5/
!iting H*3(o. %.
P-$0#,, abandoned P-$0494-.o %. T,-%4(o.o and made no
distin!tion as to t#e detainees6 limited rig#t to priva!1. S2-2# %.
*.. noted t#e !onsiderable urispruden!e in t#e Lnited States
#olding t#at inmate mail ma1 be !ensored +or t#e +urt#eran!e o+ a
substantial government interest su!# as se!urit1 or
dis!ipline. S2-2# %. *.. de!lared t#at i+ !omplete !ensors#ip is
permissible, t#en t#e lesser a!t o+ opening t#e mail and reading it
is also permissible. Ie Huote S2-2# %. *..:

-A/ rig#t o+ priva!1 in traditional =ourt# Amendment terms is
+undamentall1 in!ompatible ,it# t#e !lose and !ontinual surveillan!e
o+ inmates and t#eir !ells reHuired to ensure institutional se!urit1 and
internal order. Ie are satis7ed t#at so!iet1 ,ould insist t#at t#e
prisoner6s e*pe!tation o+ priva!1 al,a1s 1ield to ,#at must be
!onsidered a paramount interest in institutional se!urit1. Ie believe
t#at it is a!!epted b1 our so!iet1 t#at :-l/oss o+ +reedom o+ !#oi!e and
priva!1 are in#erent in!idents o+ !on7nement.;



"#e distin!tion bet,een t#e limited priva!1 rig#ts o+ a pre-
trial detainee and a !onvi!ted inmate #as been blurred as !ourts
in t#e L.S. ruled t#at pre-trial detainees mig#t o!!asionall1 pose
an even greater se!urit1 ris0 t#an !onvi!ted inmates. B#$$ %.
&o$'()reasoned t#at t#ose ,#o are detained prior to trial ma1 in
man1 !ases be individuals ,#o are !#arged ,it# serious !rimes or
,#o #ave prior re!ords and ma1 t#ere+ore pose a greater ris0 o+
es!ape t#an !onvi!ted inmates.
-((/
!-$#.+4- %.
&4994.(
-(F/
+urt#er #eld t#at :it is impra!ti!al to dra, a line
bet,een !onvi!ted prisoners and pre-trial detainees +or t#e
purpose o+ maintaining ail se!urit1.;

Ameri!an !ases re!ognize t#at t#e unmonitored use o+ pre-
trial detainees6 non-privileged mail poses a genuine t#reat to ail
se!urit1.
-(2/
8en!e, ,#en a detainee pla!es #is letter in an
envelope +or non-privileged mail, t#e detainee 0no,ingl1 e*poses
#is letter to possible inspe!tion b1 ail oC!ials.
-(4/
A pre-trial
detainee #as no reasonable e*pe!tation o+ priva!1 +or #is
in!oming mail.
-(J/
8o,ever, in!oming mail +rom la,1ers o+
inmates eno1s limited prote!tion su!# t#at prison oC!ials !an
open and inspe!t t#e mail +or !ontraband but !ould not read t#e
!ontents ,it#out violating t#e inmates6 rig#t to !orrespond ,it#
#is la,1er.
-F)/
"#e inspe!tion o+ privileged mail is limited to
p#1si!al !ontraband and not to verbal !ontraband.
-F./

"#us, ,e do not agree ,it# t#e Court o+ Appeals t#at t#e
opening and reading o+ t#e detainees6 letters in t#e present !ase
violated t#e detainees6 rig#t to priva!1 o+ !ommuni!ation. "#e
letters ,ere not in a sealed envelope. "#e inspe!tion o+ t#e
+olded letters is a valid measure as it serves t#e same purpose as
t#e opening o+ sealed letters +or t#e inspe!tion o+ !ontraband.

"#e letters alleged to #ave been read b1 t#e ?SA=P
aut#orities ,ere not !on7dential letters bet,een t#e detainees
and t#eir la,1ers. "#e petitioner ,#o re!eived t#e letters +rom
detainees "rillanes and Maestre!ampo ,as merel1 a!ting as t#e
detainees6 personal !ourier and not as t#eir !ounsel ,#en #e
re!eived t#e letters +or mailing. In t#e +*e!ent a!e, !&ne t#e
%ette*! .e*e n(t (n/dent&a% (00$n&at&(n -et.een t#e
deta&nee! and t#e&* %a.,e*!, t#e (1&a%! () t#e ISAFP
Detent&(n Cente* ($%d *ead t#e %ette*!. ?+ t#e letters are
mar0ed !on7dential !ommuni!ation bet,een t#e detainees and
t#eir la,1ers, t#e detention oC!ials s#ould not read t#e letters
but onl1 open t#e envelopes +or inspe!tion in t#e presen!e o+ t#e
detainees.

"#at a la, is reHuired be+ore an e*e!utive oC!er !ould
intrude on a !itizen6s priva!1 rig#ts
-F'/
is a guarantee t#at is
available onl1 to t#e publi! at large but not to persons ,#o are
detained or imprisoned. "#e rig#t to priva!1 o+ t#ose detained is
sube!t to Se!tion 5 o+ &A 2534, as ,ell as to t#e limitations
in#erent in la,+ul detention or imprisonment. E1 t#e ver1 +a!t o+
t#eir detention, pre-trial detainees and !onvi!ted prisoners #ave a
diminis#ed e*pe!tation o+ priva!1 rig#ts.

?n assessing t#e regulations imposed in detention and
prison +a!ilities t#at are alleged to in+ringe on t#e !onstitutional
rig#ts o+ t#e detainees and !onvi!ted prisoners, L.S. !ourts
:balan!e t#e guarantees o+ t#e Constitution ,it# t#e legitimate
!on!erns o+ prison administrators.;
-F3/
"#e de+erential revie, o+
su!# regulations stems +rom t#e prin!iple t#at:

-s/ube!ting t#e da1-to-da1 udgments o+ prison oC!ials to an
inNe*ible stri!t s!rutin1 anal1sis ,ould seriousl1 #amper t#eir abilit1 to
anti!ipate se!urit1 problems and to adopt innovative solutions to t#e
intra!table problems o+ prison administration.
-F5/


"#e detainees in t#e present !ase are unior oC!ers a!!used
o+ leading 3)) soldiers in !ommitting coup detat, a !rime
punis#able ,it# reclusion perpetua.
-F(/
"#e unior oC!ers are not
ordinar1 detainees but visible leaders o+ t#e Da0,ood in!ident
involving an armed ta0eover o+ a !ivilian building in t#e #eart o+
t#e 7nan!ial distri!t o+ t#e !ountr1. As members o+ t#e militar1
armed +or!es, t#e detainees are sube!t to t#e Arti!les o+ Iar.
-FF/


Moreover, t#e unior oC!ers are detained ,it# ot#er #ig#-
ris0 persons +rom t#e Abu Sa11a+ and t#e $PA. "#us, ,e must
give t#e militar1 !ustodian a ,ider range o+ de+eren!e in
implementing t#e regulations in t#e ?SA=P Detention Center. "#e
militar1 !ustodian is in a better position to 0no, t#e se!urit1 ris0s
involved in detaining t#e unior oC!ers, toget#er ,it# t#e
suspe!ted Abu Sa11a+ and $PA members. Sin!e t#e appropriate
regulations depend largel1 on t#e se!urit1 ris0s involved, ,e
s#ould de+er to t#e regulations adopted b1 t#e militar1 !ustodian
in t#e absen!e o+ patent arbitrariness.

"#e ruling in t#is !ase, #o,ever, does not +ore!lose t#e rig#t
o+ detainees and !onvi!ted prisoners +rom petitioning t#e !ourts
+or t#e redress o+ grievan!es. &egulations and !onditions in
detention and prison +a!ilities t#at violate t#e Constitutional rig#ts
o+ t#e detainees and prisoners ,ill be revie,ed b1 t#e !ourts on a
!ase-b1-!ase basis. "#e !ourts !ould aAord inun!tive relie+ or
damages to t#e detainees and prisoners sube!ted to arbitrar1
and in#umane !onditions. 8o,ever, habeas corpus is not t#e
proper mode to Huestion !onditions o+ !on7nement.
-F2/
"#e ,rit
o+ habeas corpus ,ill onl1 lie i+ ,#at is !#allenged is t#e +a!t or
duration o+ !on7nement.
-F4/

"HEREFORE, ,e DISMISS t#e petition. Ie AFFIRM t#e
De!ision o+ t#e Court o+ Appeals in CA-%.&. SP $o. 24(5(.

$o pronoun!ement as to !osts.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
'sso*iate Justi*e




3E CONC7R9




HILARIO G. DA2IDE, 3R.
%,ie1 Justi*e





REYNATO S. PUNO
Asso!iate Justi!e




ARTEMIO 2. PANGANIBAN
Asso!iate Justi!e




LEONARDO A.
4UISUMBING
Asso!iate Justi!e





CONSUELO YNARES-
SANTIAGO
Asso!iate Justi!e
ANGELINA SANDO2AL- MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-

GUTIERREZ
'sso*iate Justi*e


MARTINEZ
Asso!iate Justi!e





RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice





CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
'sso*iate Justi*e



ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Asso!iate Justi!e




A5OL4O S. ADC7NA
'sso*iate Justi*e


5ANTE O. TINGA
'sso*iate Justi*e



MINITA V. CHICO-NADARIO
'sso*iate Justi*e



CANCIO C. GARCIA
'sso*iate Justi*e



CERTI4ICATION


Pursuant to "e*tion 13, 'rti*#e <;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, it is ,ereb6 *erti1ied
t,at t,e *on*#usions in t,e above De*ision 2ere rea*,ed in *onsu#tation be1ore t,e
*ase 2as assigned to t,e 2riter o1 t,e o&inion o1 t,e %ourt.


HILARIO G. 5AVI5E, JR.
%,ie1 Justi*e












415
Bnder Ru#e 05 o1 t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
4.5
Penned b6 'sso*iate Justi*e Jose1ina Guevara!"a#onga, 2it, 'sso*iate Justi*es Romeo '. Ira2ner and 'rturo
D. Irion, *on*urring.
435
Ro##o, &. .0.
405
Ibid., &&. 5.!53.
455
Ibid.) &. .3.




465
See "e*tions 6!8, Ru#e 1/. o1 t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
4-5
"e*tion 6, Ru#e 1/. o1 t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
485
;n Re: Petition 1or :abeas %or&us o1 David %ru$ 6 Gon$aga, 3-9 P,i#. 558 8.///9.
495
"e*tion 1, Ru#e 1/. o1 t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
41/5
;n t,e (atter o1 Petition 1or t,e Privi#ege o1 t,e >rit o1 :abeas %or&us: Re: '$u*ena 7. Gar*ia, 393 P,i#. -18
8.///9.
4115
Ga#ve$ v. %ourt o1 '&&ea#s, G.R. No. 110/06, .0 @*tober 1990, .3- "%R' 685.
41.5
;#usorio v. Ii#dner, 38- P,i#. 915 8.///9H (on*u&a v. ?nri#e, ..5 P,i#. 191 819869.
4135
'nda# v. Peo&#e, 36- P,i#. 150 819999.
4105
%a#van v. %ourt o1 '&&ea#s, G.R. No. 10/8.3, 3 @*tober .///, 301 "%R' 8/6.
4155
'n '*t De1ining %ertain Rig,ts o1 t,e Person 'rrested, Detained or Bnder %ustodia# ;nvestigation, as 2e## as
t,e Duties o1 t,e 'rresting, Detaining, and ;nvestigating @11i*ers and Providing Pena#ties 1or <io#ations +,ereo1.

-.F/
=ord v. Cit1 o+ Eoston, .(5 =. Supp.'d .'3 9')).<.
-.2/
Ibid.



4185
001 B.". 5./ 819-99.
4195
Ibid.
4./5
Ibid.
4.15
Ibid.


4..5
Ro##o, &&. 16!18.


4.35
Ibid., &. 16.
4.05
Supra note 18.
4.55
Ibid.
4.65
Ibid.
4.-5
Ibid.
4.85
Ibid.
4.95
Ibid.


43/5
Ibid.
4315
Ibid.H =is*,er v. >inter, 560 =. "u&&. .81 819839.



43.5
Ibid.
4335
068 B.". 5-6 819809.
4305
Ibid.
4355
Ibid.
4365
Ibid.
43-5
Ibid.
4385
Ibid.
4395
Ibid.
40/5
Ibid.



-5./
?n re Jordan, Cr. .(235, .(2(( 9.J2'<.
40.5
Ibid.
-53/
Ibid.
-55/
Corpus Juris Se!undum, O .'), June '))(.
-5(/
Ibid. See also ?n re Jordan, supra note 5..
-5F/
Ibid.


-52/
?n re Jordan, supra note 5..
-54/
Ibid.
4095
31- =. "u&&. --6 819-/9.
45/5
018 B.". 539 819-09.

4515
%itations omitted.
45.5
068 B.". 51- 819809.
4535
%itations omitted.
4505
0-8 "o..d 659 87a.'&&. . %ir. 19859.




4555
Supra note 18.
4565
981 =..d 100/ 819939.
45-5
%or&us Juris "e*undum, supra note 00.
4585
Ibid.
4595
Ibid.



46/5
;n re Jordan, supra note 01.
4615
Ibid.
-F'/
Se!tion 3 o+ Arti!le ??? o+ t#e .J42 P#ilippine Constitution de!lares t#at:
"#e priva!1 o+ !ommuni!ation and !orresponden!e s#all be inviolable e*!ept
upon la,+ul order o+ t#e !ourt, o, ;)#. 7*/$4+ (-6#21 o, o,3#, ,#<*4,#(
o2)#,;4(# -( 7,#(+,4/#3 /1 $-;. 9Bmp#asis supplied<

-F3/
Iirs!#ing v. Colorado, 3F) =.3d ..J. 9'))5<.
-F5/
Ibid.
4655
'rti*#e 135 o1 t,e Revised Pena# %ode.
4665
%ommon2ea#t, '*t No. 0/8, as amended.

-F2/
Peterson v. Iard, 4'3 So. 'd ..5F 9'))'<.
-F4/
Ibid.



EN BANC

BRICCIO FR"cE'G A. POLLO,
Petitioner,





! versus !






CHAIRPERSON HARINA
CONSTANTINO-5AVI5,
5IRECTOR IV RAC87EL 5E
G7DMAN B7ENSALI5A,
5IRECTOR IV LY5IA A.
CASTILLO, 5IRECTOR III
G.R. N. :=:==:

Present:

%@R@N', C.J.,
%'RP;@,
<?7'"%@, JR.,
7?@N'RD@!D? %'"+R@,
IR;@N,
P?R'7+',
I?R"'(;N,
D?7 %'"+;77@,

'I'D,
<;77'R'(', JR.,
P?R?R,
(?ND@R',
"?R?N@,
R??", and
P?R7'"!I?RN'I?, JJ.
ENGELBERT ANTHONY 5. 7NITE Promu#gated:
AN5 THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Res&ondents.

@*tober 18, ./11
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

5ECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.9
+,is *ase invo#ves a sear*, o1 o11i*e *om&uter assigned to a government
em&#o6ee 2,o 2as *,arged administrative#6 and eventua##6 dismissed 1rom t,e
servi*e. +,e em&#o6eeAs &ersona# 1i#es stored in t,e *om&uter 2ere used b6 t,e
government em&#o6er as eviden*e o1 mis*ondu*t.
Ie1ore us is a &etition 1or revie2 on *ertiorari under Ru#e 05 2,i*, see3s to
reverse and set aside t,e De*ision
A:B
dated@*tober 11, .//- and
Reso#ution
A6B
dated =ebruar6 .9, .//8 o1 t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s 8%'9. +,e %'
dismissed t,e &etition 1or *ertiorari 8%'!G.R. "P No. 98..09 1i#ed b6 &etitioner
Iri**io KRi*36L '. Po##o to nu##i16 t,e &ro*eedings *ondu*ted b6 t,e %ivi# "ervi*e
%ommission 8%"%9 2,i*, 1ound ,im gui#t6 o1 dis,onest6, grave mis*ondu*t,
*ondu*t &re)udi*ia# to t,e best interest o1 t,e servi*e, and vio#ation o1 Re&ub#i* '*t
8R.'.9 No. 6-13 and &ena#i$ed ,im 2it, dismissa#.
+,e 1a*tua# ante*edents:
Petitioner is a 1ormer "u&ervising Personne# "&e*ia#ist o1 t,e %"% Regiona#
@11i*e No. ;< and a#so t,e @11i*er!in!%,arge o1 t,e Pub#i* 'ssistan*e and 7iaison
Division 8P'7D9 under t,e K*amamayan *una 1indi *amaya %aL &rogram o1
t,e %"%.
@n Januar6 3, .//- at around .:3/ &.m., an unsigned #etter!*om&#aint
addressed to res&ondent %"% %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David 2,i*, 2as
mar3ed K%on1identia#L and sent t,roug, a *ourier servi*e 87I%9 1rom a *ertain
K'#an "an Pas*ua#L o1 Iagong "i#ang, %a#oo*an %it6, 2as re*eived b6 t,e
;ntegrated Re*ords (anagement @11i*e 8;R(@9 at t,e %"% %entra# @11i*e.
=o##o2ing o11i*e &ra*ti*e in 2,i*, do*uments mar3ed K%on1identia#L are #e1t
uno&ened and instead sent to t,e addressee, t,e a1oresaid #etter 2as given dire*t#6
to %,air&erson David.
+,e #etter!*om&#aint reads:
+,e %,air2oman
%ivi# "ervi*e %ommission
Iatasan :i##s, Que$on %it6

Dear (adam %,air2oman,
Ie#ated (err6 %,ristmas and 'dvan*e :a&&6 Ne2 earP

's a *on*erned *iti$en o1 m6 be#oved *ountr6, ; 2ou#d #i3e to as3 1rom 6ou
&ersona##6 i1 it is )ust a#rig,t 1or an em&#o6ee o1 6our agen*6 to be a #a26er o1 an
a**used govAt em&#o6ee ,aving a &ending *ase in t,e *s*. ; ,onest#6 t,in3 t,is is
a vio#ation o1 #a2 and un1air to ot,ers and 6our o11i*e.
; ,ave 3no2n t,at a &erson ,ave been #a26ered b6 one o1 6our attorn6 in
t,e region 0 o11i*e. :e is t,e *,ie1 o1 t,e (amama6an muna ,indi mama6a na
division. :e ,ave been ,e#&ing man6 2,o ,ave &ending *ases in t,e %s*. +,e
)usti*e in our govt s6stem 2i## not be served i1 t,is 2i## *ontinue. P#ease
investigate t,is anoma#6 be*ause our &er*e&tion o1 6our *#ean and good o11i*e is
being tainted.

%on*erned Govt em&#o6ee
A1B

%,air&erson David immediate#6 1ormed a team o1 1our &ersonne# 2it,
ba*3ground in in1ormation te*,no#og6 8;+9, and issued a memo dire*ting t,em to
*ondu*t an investigation and s&e*i1i*a##6 Kto ba*3 u& a## t,e 1i#es in t,e *om&uters
1ound in t,e (amama6an (una 8P'7D9 and 7ega# divisions.L
A?B
'1ter some
brie1ing, t,e team &ro*eeded at on*e to t,e %"%!R@;< o11i*e at Pana6
'venue,Que$on %it6. B&on t,eir arriva# t,ereat around 5:3/ &.m., t,e team
in1ormed t,e o11i*ia#s o1 t,e %"%!R@;<, res&ondents Dire*tor ;< 76dia %asti##o
8Dire*tor %asti##o9 and Dire*tor ;;; ?nge#bert Bnite 8Dire*tor Bnite9 o1
%,air&erson DavidAs dire*tive.
+,e ba*3ing!u& o1 all 1i#es in t,e ,ard dis3 o1 *om&uters at t,e P'7D and
7ega# "ervi*es Division 87"D9 2as 2itnessed b6 severa# em&#o6ees, toget,er 2it,
Dire*tors %asti##o and Bnite 2,o *#ose#6 monitored said a*tivit6. 't around 6://
&.m., Dire*tor Bnite sent teGt messages to &etitioner and t,e ,ead o1 7"D, 2,o
2ere bot, out o1 t,e o11i*e at t,e time, in1orming t,em o1 t,e ongoing *o&6ing o1
*om&uter 1i#es in t,eir divisions u&on orders o1 t,e %"% %,air. +,e teGt messages
re*eived b6 &etitioner read:
+ud p.m. -his is ;tty. @nite /0I" Co people are going over the 9Cs o 9;L:
and LS: per instru!tion o the Chairman. I you !an make it here now it would be
better.
;ll 9Cs O 9;L: and LS: are being ba!ked up per memo o the !hair.
CO I- people arrived 'ust now or this purpose. &e were not also inormed
about this.
&e !anDt do anything about E it E itDs a dire!tive rom !hair.
*emo o the !hair was reerring to an anonymous !omplaintF ill send a !opy
o the memo via mms
A;B
Petitioner re&#ied a#so t,ru teGt message t,at ,e 2as #eaving t,e matter to
Dire*tor Bnite and t,at ,e 2i## )ust get a #a26er. 'not,er teGt message re*eived b6
&etitioner 1rom P'7D sta11 a#so re&orted t,e &resen*e o1 t,e team 1rom %"% main
o11i*e: KSir may mga taga C.O. daw sa kuarto natin.L
A>B
't around 1/:// &.m. o1
t,e same da6, t,e investigating team 1inis,ed t,eir tas3. +,e neGt da6, a## t,e
*om&uters in t,e P'7D 2ere sea#ed and se*ured 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 &reserving a##
t,e 1i#es stored t,erein. "evera# dis3ettes *ontaining t,e ba*3!u& 1i#es sour*ed 1rom
t,e ,ard dis3 o1 P'7D and 7"D *om&uters 2ere turned over to %,air&erson David.
+,e *ontents o1 t,e dis3ettes 2ere eGamined b6 t,e %"%As @11i*e 1or 7ega# '11airs
8@7'9. ;t 2as 1ound t,at most o1 t,e 1i#es in t,e 1- dis3ettes *ontaining 1i#es
*o&ied 1rom t,e *om&uter assigned to and being used b6 t,e &etitioner, numbering
about 0/ to 0. do*uments, 2ere dra1t &#eadings or #etters
A<B
in *onne*tion 2it,
administrative *ases in t,e %"% and ot,er tribuna#s. @n t,e basis o1 t,is 1inding,
%,air&erson David issued t,e ",o2!%ause @rder
A=B
dated Januar6 11, .//-,
reFuiring t,e &etitioner, 2,o ,ad gone on eGtended #eave, to submit ,is eG&#anation
or *ounter!a11idavit 2it,in 1ive da6s 1rom noti*e.
?va#uating t,e sub)e*t do*uments obtained 1rom &etitionerAs &ersona# 1i#es,
%,air&erson David made t,e 1o##o2ing observations:
(ost o1 t,e 1oregoing 1i#es are dra1ts o1 #ega# &#eadings or do*uments t,at
are re#ated to or *onne*ted 2it, administrative *ases t,at ma6 broad#6 be #um&ed
as &ending eit,er in t,e %"%R@ No. ;<, t,e %"%!N%R, t,e %"%!%entra# @11i*e
or ot,er tribuna#s. ;t is a#so o1 note t,at most o1 t,ese dra1t &#eadings are 1or and
on be,a#ves o1 &arties, 2,o are 1a*ing *,arges as res&ondents in administrative
*ases. +,is gives rise to t,e in1eren*e t,at t,e one 2,o &re&ared t,em 2as
3no2ing#6, de#iberate#6 and 2i##1u##6 aiding and advan*ing interests adverse and
inimi*a# to t,e interest o1 t,e %"% as t,e *entra# &ersonne# agen*6 o1 t,e
government tas3ed to dis*i&#ine mis1easan*e and ma#1easan*e in t,e government
servi*e. +,e number o1 &#eadings so &re&ared 1urt,er demonstrates t,at su*,
&erson is not mere#6 engaged in an iso#ated &ra*ti*e but &ursues it 2it, seeming
regu#arit6. ;t 2ou#d a#so be t,e ,eig,t o1 naivete or *redu#it6, and *ertain#6
against *ommon ,uman eG&erien*e, to be#ieve t,at t,e &erson *on*erned ,ad
engaged in t,is *ustomar6 &ra*ti*e 2it,out an6 *onsideration, and in 1a*t, one o1
t,e retrieved 1i#es 8item 13 above9 a&&ears to insinuate t,e *o##e*tion o1 1ees. +,at
t,ese dra1t &#eadings 2ere obtained 1rom t,e *om&uter assigned to Po##o
invariab#6 raises t,e &resum&tion t,at ,e 2as t,e one res&onsib#e or ,ad a ,and in
t,eir dra1ting or &re&aration sin*e t,e *om&uter o1 origin 2as 2it,in ,is dire*t
*ontro# and dis&osition.
ACB
Petitioner 1i#ed ,is %omment, den6ing t,at ,e is t,e &erson re1erred to in t,e
anon6mous #etter!*om&#aint 2,i*, ,ad no atta*,ments to it, be*ause ,e is not a
#a26er and neit,er is ,e K#a26eringL 1or &eo&#e 2it, *ases in t,e %"%. :e a**used
%"% o11i*ia#s o1 *ondu*ting a K1is,ing eG&editionL 2,en t,e6 un#a21u##6 *o&ied
and &rinted &ersona# 1i#es in ,is *om&uter, and subseFuent#6 as3ing ,im to submit
,is *omment 2,i*, vio#ated ,is rig,t against se#1!in*rimination. :e asserted t,at
,e ,ad &rotested t,e un#a21u# ta3ing o1 ,is *om&uter done 2,i#e ,e 2as on #eave,
*iting t,e #etter dated Januar6 8, .//- in 2,i*, ,e in1ormed Dire*tor %asti##o t,at
t,e 1i#es in ,is *om&uter 2ere ,is &ersona# 1i#es and t,ose o1 ,is sister, re#atives,
1riends and some asso*iates and t,at ,e is not aut,ori$ing t,eir sea#ing, *o&6ing,
du&#i*ating and &rinting as t,ese 2ou#d vio#ate ,is *onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6
and &rote*tion against se#1!in*rimination and 2arrant#ess sear*, and sei$ure. :e
&ointed out t,at t,oug, government &ro&ert6, t,e tem&orar6 use and o2ners,i& o1
t,e *om&uter issued under a (emorandum o1 Re*ei&t 8(R9 is *eded to t,e
em&#o6ee 2,o ma6 eGer*ise a## attributes o1 o2ners,i&, in*#uding its use 1or
&ersona# &ur&oses. 's to t,e anon6mous #etter, &etitioner argued t,at it is not
a*tionab#e as it 1ai#ed to *om&#6 2it, t,e reFuirements o1 a 1orma# *om&#aint under
t,e Bni1orm Ru#es on 'dministrative %ases in t,e %ivi# "ervi*e 8BR'%%9. ;n
vie2 o1 t,e i##ega# sear*,, t,e 1i#esEdo*uments *o&ied 1rom ,is *om&uter 2it,out
,is *onsent is t,us inadmissib#e as eviden*e, being K1ruits o1 a &oisonous tree.L
A:2B
@n =ebruar6 .6, .//-, t,e %"% issued Reso#ution No.
/-/38.
A::B
1inding prima a!ie *ase against t,e &etitioner and *,arging ,im 2it,
Dis,onest6, Grave (is*ondu*t, %ondu*t Pre)udi*ia# to t,e Iest ;nterest o1 t,e
"ervi*e and <io#ation o1 R.'. No. 6-13 8Code o Condu!t and ?thi!al Standards
or 9ubli! Oi!ials and ?mployees9. Petitioner 2as dire*ted to submit ,is ans2er
under oat, 2it,in 1ive da6s 1rom noti*e and indi*ate 2,et,er ,e e#e*ts a 1orma#
investigation. "in*e t,e *,arges 1a## under "e*tion 19 o1 t,e BR'%%, &etitioner
2as #i3e2ise &#a*ed under 9/ da6s &reventive sus&ension e11e*tive immediate#6
u&on re*ei&t o1 t,e reso#ution. Petitioner re*eived a *o&6 o1 Reso#ution No. /-/38.
on (ar*, 1, .//-.
Petitioner 1i#ed an @mnibus (otion 8=or Re*onsideration, to Dismiss andEor
to De1er9 assai#ing t,e 1orma# *,arge as 2it,out basis ,aving &ro*eeded 1rom an
i##ega# sear*, 2,i*, is be6ond t,e aut,orit6 o1 t,e %"% %,airman, su*, &o2er
&ertaining so#e#6 to t,e *ourt. Petitioner reiterated t,at ,e never aided an6 &eo&#e
2it, &ending *ases at t,e %"% and a##eged t,at t,ose 1i#es 1ound in ,is *om&uter
2ere &re&ared not b6 ,im but b6 *ertain &ersons 2,om ,e &ermitted, at one time or
anot,er, to ma3e use o1 ,is *om&uter out o1 *#ose asso*iation or 1riends,i&.
'tta*,ed to t,e motion 2ere t,e a11idavit o1 'tt6. Pon*iano R. "o#osa 2,o
entrusted ,is o2n 1i#es to be 3e&t at &etitionerAs %PB and 'tt6. ?ri* N. ?stre##ado,
t,e #atter being 'tt6. "o#osaAs *#ient 2,o attested t,at &etitioner ,ad not,ing to do
2it, t,e &#eadings or bi## 1or #ega# 1ees be*ause in trut, ,e o2ed #ega# 1ees to 'tt6.
"o#osa and not to &etitioner. Petitioner *ontended t,at t,e *ase s,ou#d be de1erred
in vie2 o1 t,e &re)udi*ia# Fuestion raised in t,e *rimina# *om&#aint ,e 1i#ed be1ore
t,e @mbudsman against Dire*tor Iuensa#ida, 2,om &etitioner be#ieves ,ad
instigated t,is administrative *ase. :e a#so &ra6ed 1or t,e #i1ting o1 t,e &reventive
sus&ension im&osed on ,im. ;n its Reso#ution No. /-/519
A:6B
dated (ar*, 19,
.//-, t,e %"% denied t,e omnibus motion. +,e %"% reso#ved to treat t,e said
motion as &etitionerAs ans2er.
@n (ar*, 10, .//-, &etitioner 1i#ed an Brgent Petition
A:1B
under Ru#e 65 o1
t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt, do*3eted as %'!G.R. "P No. 98..0, assai#ing bot, t,e Januar6
11, .//- ",o2!%ause @rder and Reso#ution No. /-/38. dated =ebruar6 .6, .//-
as ,aving been issued 2it, grave abuse o1 dis*retion amounting to eG*ess or tota#
absen*e o1 )urisdi*tion. Prior to t,is, ,o2ever, &etitioner #odged an
administrativeE*rimina# *om&#aint against res&ondents Dire*tors Ra*Fue# D.G.
Iuensa#ida 8%,ie1 o1 "ta11, @11i*e o1 t,e %"% %,airman9 and 76dia '. %asti##o
8%"%!R@ ;<9 be1ore t,e @11i*e o1 t,e @mbudsman, and a se&arate *om&#aint 1or
disbarment against Dire*tor Iuensa#ida.
A:?B
@n '&ri# 1-, .//-, &etitioner re*eived a noti*e o1 ,earing 1rom t,e %"%
setting t,e 1orma# investigation o1 t,e *ase on '&ri# 3/, .//-. @n '&ri# .5, .//-,
,e 1i#ed in t,e %' an Brgent (otion 1or t,e issuan*e o1 +R@ and &re#iminar6
in)un*tion.
4155
"in*e ,e 1ai#ed to attend t,e &re!,earing *on1eren*e s*,edu#ed
on '&ri# 3/, .//-, t,e %"% reset t,e same to (a6 1-, .//- 2it, 2arning t,at t,e
1ai#ure o1 &etitioner andEor ,is *ounse# to a&&ear in t,e said &re!,earing *on1eren*e
s,a## entit#e t,e &rose*ution to &ro*eed 2it, t,e 1orma# investigation e7$parte.
A:>B
Petitioner moved to de1er or to reset t,e &re!,earing *on1eren*e, *#aiming t,at
t,e investigation &ro*eedings s,ou#d be ,e#d in abe6an*e &ending t,e reso#ution o1
,is &etition b6 t,e %'. +,e %"% denied ,is reFuest and again s*,edu#ed t,e &re!
,earing *on1eren*e on (a6 18, .//- 2it, simi#ar 2arning on t,e *onseFuen*es o1
&etitioner andEor ,is *ounse#As non!a&&earan*e.
A:<B
+,is &rom&ted &etitioner to 1i#e
anot,er motion in t,e %', to *ite t,e res&ondents, in*#uding t,e ,earing o11i*er, in
indire*t *ontem&t.
A:=B

@n June 1., .//-, t,e %"% issued Reso#ution No. /-1130
A:CB
den6ing
&etitionerAs motion to set aside t,e denia# o1 ,is motion to de1er t,e &ro*eedings
and to in,ibit t,e designated ,earing o11i*er, 'tt6. Iernard G. Jimene$. +,e
,earing o11i*er 2as dire*ted to &ro*eed 2it, t,e investigation &ro&er 2it, dis&at*,.
;n vie2 o1 t,e absen*e o1 &etitioner and ,is *ounse#, and u&on t,e motion o1
t,e &rose*ution, &etitioner 2as deemed to ,ave 2aived ,is rig,t to t,e 1orma#
investigation 2,i*, t,en &ro*eeded e7 parte.
@n Ju#6 .0, .//-, t,e %"% issued Reso#ution No. /-10./,
A62B
t,e dis&ositive
&art o1 2,i*, reads:
>:?R?=@R?, 1oregoing &remises *onsidered, t,e %ommission ,ereb6
1inds Iri**io '. Po##o, a.k.a. Ri*36 '. Po##o GB;7+ o1 Dis,onest6, Grave
(is*ondu*t, %ondu*t Pre)udi*ia# to t,e Iest ;nterest o1 t,e "ervi*e and <io#ation
o1 Re&ub#i* '*t 6-13. :e is meted t,e &ena#t6 o1 D;"(;""'7 =R@( +:?
"?R<;%? 2it, a## its a**essor6 &ena#ties, name#6, disFua#i1i*ation to ,o#d &ub#i*
o11i*e, 1or1eiture o1 retirement bene1its, *an*e##ation o1 *ivi# servi*e e#igibi#ities
and bar 1rom ta3ing 1uture *ivi# servi*e eGaminations.
A6:B
@n t,e &aramount issue o1 t,e #ega#it6 o1 t,e sear*, *ondu*ted on
&etitionerAs *om&uter, t,e %"% noted t,e deart, o1 )uris&ruden*e re#evant to t,e
1a*tua# mi#ieu o1 t,is *ase 2,ere t,e government as em&#o6er invades t,e &rivate
1i#es o1 an em&#o6ee stored in t,e *om&uter assigned to ,im 1or ,is o11i*ia# use, in
t,e *ourse o1 initia# investigation o1 &ossib#e mis*ondu*t *ommitted b6 said
em&#o6ee and 2it,out t,e #atterAs *onsent or &arti*i&ation. +,e %"% t,us turned to
re#evant ru#ings o1 t,e Bnited "tates "u&reme %ourt, and *ited t,e #eading *ase
o1 ODConnor v. Ortega
A66B
as aut,orit6 1or t,e vie2 t,at government agen*ies, in
t,eir *a&a*it6 as em&#o6ers, rat,er t,an #a2 en1or*ers, *ou#d va#id#6 *ondu*t sear*,
and sei$ure in t,e governmenta# 2or3&#a*e 2it,out meeting t,e K&robab#e *auseL
or 2arrant reFuirement 1or sear*, and sei$ure. 'not,er ru#ing *ited b6 t,e %"% is
t,e more re*ent *ase o1 @nited States v. *ark L. Simons
A61B
2,i*, de*#ared t,at t,e
1edera# agen*6As *om&uter use &o#i*6 1ore*#osed an6 in1eren*e o1 reasonab#e
eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 on t,e &art o1 its em&#o6ees. +,oug, t,e %ourt t,erein
re*ogni$ed t,at su*, &o#i*6 did not, at t,e same time, erode t,e res&ondentAs
#egitimate eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e o11i*e in 2,i*, t,e *om&uter 2as insta##ed,
sti##, t,e 2arrant#ess sear*, o1 t,e em&#o6eeAs o11i*e 2as u&,e#d as va#id be*ause a
government em&#o6er is entit#ed to *ondu*t a 2arrant#ess sear*, &ursuant to an
investigation o1 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t &rovided t,e sear*, is reasonab#e in its
in*e&tion and s*o&e.
>it, t,e 1oregoing 'meri*an )uris&ruden*e as ben*,mar3, t,e %"% ,e#d t,at
&etitioner ,as no reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 2it, regard to t,e *om&uter ,e
2as using in t,e regiona# o11i*e in vie2 o1 t,e %"% *om&uter use &o#i*6 2,i*,
uneFuivo*a##6 de*#ared t,at a %"% em&#o6ee *annot assert an6 &riva*6 rig,t to a
*om&uter assigned to ,im. ?ven assuming t,at t,ere 2as no su*, administrative
&o#i*6, t,e %"% 2as o1 t,e vie2 t,at t,e sear*, o1 &etitionerAs *om&uter
su**ess1u##6 &assed t,e test o1 reasonab#eness 1or 2arrant#ess sear*,es in t,e
2or3&#a*e as enun*iated in t,e a1ore*ited aut,orities. +,e %"% stressed t,at it
&ursued t,e sear*, in its *a&a*it6 as government em&#o6er and t,at it 2as
underta3en in *onne*tion 2it, an investigation invo#ving 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t,
2,i*, eGem&ts it 1rom t,e 2arrant reFuirement under t,e %onstitution. >it, t,e
matter o1 admissibi#it6 o1 t,e eviden*e ,aving been reso#ved, t,e %"% t,en ru#ed
t,at t,e tota#it6 o1 eviden*e adeFuate#6 su&&orts t,e *,arges o1 grave mis*ondu*t,
dis,onest6, *ondu*t &re)udi*ia# to t,e best interest o1 t,e servi*e and vio#ation o1
R.'. No. 6-13 against t,e &etitioner. +,ese grave in1ra*tions )usti1ied &etitionerAs
dismissa# 1rom t,e servi*e 2it, a## its a**essor6 &ena#ties.
;n ,is (emorandum
A6?B
1i#ed in t,e %', &etitioner moved to in*or&orate t,e
above reso#ution dismissing ,im 1rom t,e servi*e in ,is main &etition, in #ieu o1 t,e
1i#ing o1 an a&&ea# via a Ru#e 03 &etition. ;n a subseFuent motion, ,e #i3e2ise
&ra6ed 1or t,e in*#usion o1 Reso#ution No. /-18//
A6;B
2,i*, denied ,is motion 1or
re*onsideration.
I6 De*ision dated @*tober 11, .//-, t,e %' dismissed t,e &etition 1or
*ertiorari a1ter 1inding no grave abuse o1 dis*retion *ommitted b6 res&ondents %"%
o11i*ia#s. +,e %' ,e#d t,at: 819 &etitioner 2as not *,arged on t,e basis o1 t,e
anon6mous #etter but 1rom t,e initiative o1 t,e %"% a1ter a 1a*t!1inding
investigation 2as *ondu*ted and t,e resu#ts t,ereo1 6ie#ded a prima a!ie *ase
against ,imH 8.9 it *ou#d not be said t,at in ordering t,e ba*3!u& o1 1i#es in
&etitionerAs *om&uter and #ater *on1is*ating t,e same, %,air&erson David ,ad
en*roa*,ed on t,e aut,orit6 o1 a )udge in vie2 o1 t,e %"% *om&uter &o#i*6
de*#aring t,e *om&uters as government &ro&ert6 and t,at em&#o6ee!users t,ereo1
,ave no reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in an6t,ing t,e6 *reate, store, send, or
re*eive on t,e *om&uter s6stemH and 839 t,ere is not,ing *ontem&tuous in %"%As
a*t o1 &ro*eeding 2it, t,e 1orma# investigation as t,ere 2as no restraining order or
in)un*tion issued b6 t,e %'.
:is motion 1or re*onsideration ,aving been denied b6 t,e %', &etitioner
broug,t t,is a&&ea# arguing t,at J
;
+:? :@N@R'I7? %@BR+ @= 'PP?'7" GR;?<@B"7 ?RR?D 'ND
%@((;++?D "?R;@B" ;RR?GB7'R;+ 'ND I7'+'N+ ?RR@R" ;N
7'> '(@BN+;NG +@ GR'<? 'IB"? @= D;"%R?+;@N >:?N ;+ RB7?D
+:'+ 'N@N(@B" %@(P7';N+ ;" '%+;@N'I7? BND?R ?.@.
.9. >:?N ;N +RB+: 'ND ;N ='%+ +:? %@N+R'R ;" ?CP7;%;+7
PR@<;D?D BND?R .
nd
P'R'GR'P: @= "?%+;@N 8 @= %"% R?"@7B+;@N
N@. 99!1936, >:;%: ;" 'N 4'(?ND(?N+5 +@ +:? @R;G;N'7 RB7?"
P?R %"% R?"@7B+;@N N@. 90!/5.1H
;;
+:? :@N@R'I7? %@BR+ GR;?<@B"7 ?RR?D 'ND %@((;++?D
P'7P'I7? ?RR@R" ;N 7'> '(@BN+;NG +@ GR'<? 'IB"? @=
D;"%R?+;@N >:?N ;+ RB7?D +:'+ P?+;+;@N?R %'NN@+ ;N<@N?
:;" R;G:+ +@ PR;<'%, +@ BNR?'"@N'I7? "?'R%: 'ND "?;RBR?,
'G';N"+ "?7=!;N%R;(;N'+;@N, I <;R+B? @= @==;%?
(?(@R'NDB( N@. 1/ ". .//., ' (?R? ;N+?RN'7 (?(@R'NDB(
";GN?D "@7?7 'ND ?C%7B";<?7 I R?"P@ND?N+ D'<;D 'ND
N@+ I +:? %@77?G;'7 %@((;"";@N %@N";D?R;NG +:'+ P@7;%
('++?R" ;N<@7<;NG "BI4"5+'N+;'7 R;G:+" %'NN@+ I? %@<?R?D
I 'N @==;%? (?(@R'NDB( >:;%: ;" 7;(;+?D +@ PR@%?DBR'7
'ND R@B+;N'R ;N"+RB%+;@NH
;;;
+:? :@N@R'I7? %@BR+ GR'<?7 ?RR?D 'ND %@((;++?D GR'<?
'IB"? @= D;"%R?+;@N >:?N ;+ RB7?D +:'+ (?(@ "?'R%: D'+?D
J'NB'R 3, .//- 'ND +:? +'N;NG @= D@%B(?N+" ;N +:? ?<?N;NG
+:?R?@= =R@( -:// +@ 1/:// P.(. ;" N@+ GR'<? 'IB"? @=
D;"%R?+;@N 7;(;+;NG +:? D?=;N;+;@N 4@=5 GR'<? 'IB"? @=
D;"%R?+;@N +@ @N? ;N<@7<;NG 'ND +';N+?D >;+: P?R"@N'7
:@"+;7;+. ;+ 7;N?>;"? ?RR?D ;N :@7D;NG +:'+ D'+' "+@R?D ;N
+:? G@<?RN(?N+ %@(PB+?R" 'R? G@<?RN(?N+ PR@P?R+;?"
;N%7BD;NG +:? P?R"@N'7 =;7?" >:?N +:? %@N+R'R ;"
PR@<;D?D BND?R "?%+;@N 10 @= @(. 1/ s. .//.. 'ND GR;?<@B"7
?RR?D "+;77 >:?N ;+ RB7?D +:'+ R?"P@ND?N+ D'<;D I <;R+B?
@= @.(. 1/ D;D N@+ ?N%R@'%: @N +:? DB+;?" 'ND =BN%+;@N" @=
' JBDG? PBR"B'N+ +@ 'R+;%7? ;;;, "?%+;@N . @= +:? 198-
P:;7;PP;N? %@N"+;+B+;@NH
;<
+:? :@N@R'I7? %@BR+ ?RR?D >:?N ;+ =';7?D +@ %@N";D?R '77
@+:?R N?> 'RGB(?N+", 'DD;+;@N'7 ?<;D?N%? :?R?BN+@
"BI(;++?D '" >?77 '" ;+" =';7BR? +@ ?<'7B'+? 'ND +'N?
'%+;@N @N +:? . (@+;@N" +@ 'D(;+ 'ND ;N%@RP@R'+? %"%
R?"@7B+;@N N@". /-!10./ D'+?D JB7 .0, .//- 'ND %"%
R?"@7B+;@N /-!18// D'+?D "?P+?(I?R 1/, .//-. ;+ D;D N@+ RB7?
7;N?>;"? @N +:? =@BR BRG?N+ (@+;@N +@ R?"@7<? 'N%;77'R
PR'?R =@R +R@.
A6>B
"Fuare#6 raised b6 t,e &etitioner is t,e #ega#it6 o1 t,e sear*, *ondu*ted on
,is o11i*e *om&uter and t,e *o&6ing o1 ,is &ersona# 1i#es 2it,out ,is 3no2#edge
and *onsent, a##eged as a transgression on ,is *onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6.
+,e rig,t to &riva*6 ,as been a**orded re*ognition in t,is )urisdi*tion as a
1a*et o1 t,e rig,t &rote*ted b6 t,e guarantee against unreasonab#e sear*, and
sei$ure under "e*tion ., 'rti*#e ;;; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution,
A6<B
2,i*, &rovides:
"?%. .. +,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses,
&a&ers, and e11e*ts against unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures o1 2,atever nature
and 1or an6 &ur&ose s,a## be invio#ab#e, and no sear*, 2arrant or 2arrant o1 arrest
s,a## issue eG*e&t u&on &robab#e *ause to be determined &ersona##6 b6 t,e )udge
a1ter eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e 2itnesses
,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6 des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed and t,e
&ersons or t,ings to be sei$ed.
+,e *onstitutiona# guarantee is not a &ro,ibition o1 a## sear*,es and sei$ures
but on#6 o1 Kunreasonab#eL sear*,es and sei$ures.
A6=B
Iut to 1u##6 understand t,is
*on*e&t and a&&#i*ation 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 reso#ving t,e issue at ,and, it is essentia#
t,at 2e eGamine t,e do*trine in t,e #ig,t o1 &ronoun*ements in anot,er
)urisdi*tion. 's t,e %ourt de*#ared in 9eople v. *arti
A6CB
:
@ur &resent *onstitutiona# &rovision on t,e guarantee against unreasonab#e
sear*, and sei$ure ,ad its origin in t,e 1935 %,arter 2,i*,, 2orded as 1o##o2s:
K+,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons,
,ouses, &a&ers and e11e*ts against unreasonab#e sear*,es and
sei$ures s,a## not be vio#ated, and no 2arrants s,a## issue but
u&on probable *ause, to be determined b6 t,e )udge a1ter
eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e
2itnesses ,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6 des*ribing t,e &#a*e to
be sear*,ed, and t,e &ersons or t,ings to be sei$ed.L 8"e*. 1435,
'rti*#e ;;;9
2as in turn derived a#most verbatim 1rom t,e =ourt, 'mendment to t,e Bnited
"tates %onstitution. 's su*,, t,e %ourt ma6 turn to t,e &ronoun*ements o1 t,e
Bnited "tates =edera# "u&reme %ourt and "tate '&&e##ate %ourts 2,i*, are
*onsidered do*trina# in t,is )urisdi*tion.
A12B
;n t,e 196- *ase o1 Gat( v. @nited States,
A1:B
t,e B" "u&reme %ourt ,e#d t,at
t,e a*t o1 =I; agents in e#e*troni*a##6 re*ording a *onversation made b6 &etitioner
in an en*#osed &ub#i* te#e&,one boot, vio#ated ,is rig,t to &riva*6 and *onstituted
a Ksear*, and sei$ureL. Ie*ause t,e &etitioner ,ad a reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 in using t,e en*#osed boot, to ma3e a &ersona# te#e&,one *a##, t,e
&rote*tion o1 t,e =ourt, 'mendment eGtends to su*, area. ;n t,e *on*urring
o&inion o1 (r. Justi*e :ar#an, it 2as 1urt,er noted t,at t,e eGisten*e o1 &riva*6
rig,t under &rior de*isions invo#ved a t2o!1o#d reFuirement: 1irst, t,at a &erson ,as
eG,ibited an a*tua# 8sub)e*tive9 eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6H and se*ond, t,at t,e
eG&e*tation be one t,at so*iet6 is &re&ared to re*ogni$e as reasonab#e 8ob)e*tive9.
A16B
;n *an!usi v. :e/orte
A11B
2,i*, addressed t,e reasonab#e eG&e*tations
o1 private em&#o6ees in t,e 2or3&#a*e, t,e B" "u&reme %ourt ,e#d t,at a union
em&#o6ee ,ad =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts 2it, regard to an o11i*e at union
,eadFuarters t,at ,e s,ared 2it, ot,er union o11i*ia#s, even as t,e #atter or t,eir
guests *ou#d enter t,e o11i*e. +,e %ourt t,us Kre*ogni$ed t,at em&#o6ees ma6
,ave a reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 against intrusions b6 &o#i*e.L
+,at t,e =ourt, 'mendment eFua##6 a&&#ies to a government 2or3&#a*e 2as
addressed in t,e 198- *ase o1 ODConnor v. Ortega
A1?B
2,ere a &,6si*ian, Dr. (agno
@rtega, 2,o 2as em&#o6ed b6 a state ,os&ita#, *#aimed a vio#ation o1 ,is =ourt,
'mendment rig,ts 2,en ,os&ita# o11i*ia#s investigating *,arges o1 mismanagement
o1 t,e &s6*,iatri* residen*6 &rogram, seGua# ,arassment o1 1ema#e ,os&ita#
em&#o6ees and ot,er irregu#arities invo#ving ,is &rivate &atients under t,e state
medi*a# aid &rogram, sear*,ed ,is o11i*e and sei$ed &ersona# items 1rom ,is des3
and 1i#ing *abinets. ;n t,at *ase, t,e %ourt *ategori*a##6 de*#ared t,at K4i5ndividua#s
do not #ose =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts mere#6 be*ause t,e6 2or3 1or t,e
government instead o1 a &rivate em&#o6er.L
A1;B
' &#ura#it6 o1 1our Justi*es
*on*urred t,at t,e *orre*t ana#6sis ,as t2o ste&s: 1irst, be*ause Ksome government
o11i*es ma6 be so o&en to 1e##o2 em&#o6ees or t,e &ub#i* t,at no eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 is reasonab#eL, a *ourt must *onsider K4t5,e o&erationa# rea#ities o1 t,e
2or3&#a*eL in order to determine 2,et,er an em&#o6eeAs =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts
are im&#i*atedH and neGt, 2,ere an em&#o6ee ,as a #egitimate &riva*6 eG&e*tation,
an em&#o6erAs intrusion on t,at eG&e*tation K1or noninvestigator6, 2or3!re#ated
&ur&oses, as 2e## as 1or investigations o1 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t, s,ou#d be
)udged b6 t,e standard o1 reasonab#eness under a## t,e *ir*umstan*es.L
A1>B
@n t,e matter o1 government em&#o6eesA reasonab#e eG&e*tations o1 &riva*6
in t,eir 2or3&#a*e, ODConnor tea*,es:
G G G Pub#i* em&#o6eesA eG&e*tations o1 &riva*6 in t,eir o11i*es, des3s, and
1i#e *abinets, #i3e simi#ar eG&e*tations o1 em&#o6ees in t,e &rivate se*tor, ma6 be
redu*ed b6 virtue o1 a*tua# o11i*e &ra*ti*es and &ro*edures, or b6 #egitimate
regu#ation. G G G +,e em&#o6eeAs eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 must be assessed in t,e
*onteGt o1 t,e em&#o6ment re#ation. 'n o11i*e is se#dom a &rivate en*#ave 1ree
1rom entr6 b6 su&ervisors, ot,er em&#o6ees, and business and &ersona#
invitees. ;nstead, in man6 *ases o11i*es are *ontinua##6 entered b6 1e##o2
em&#o6ees and ot,er visitors during t,e 2or3da6 1or *on1eren*es, *onsu#tations,
and ot,er 2or3!re#ated visits. "im&#6 &ut, it is t,e nature o1 government o11i*es
t,at ot,ers J su*, as 1e##o2 em&#o6ees, su&ervisors, *onsensua# visitors, and t,e
genera# &ub#i* J ma6 ,ave 1reFuent a**ess to an individua#As o11i*e. >e agree
2it, JB"+;%? "%'7;' t,at K4*5onstitutiona# &rote*tion against unreasonab#e
sear*,es b6 t,e government does not disa&&ear mere#6 be*ause t,e government
,as t,e rig,t to ma3e reasonab#e intrusions in its *a&a*it6 as em&#o6er,L G G G
but &)e !*ern)en# $$"ce& )a' -e & (en # $e,,/ e)(,'ee& r #%e
(+-,"c #%a# n ex(ec#a#"n $ (r"*ac' "& rea&na-,e. G G G G"*en #%e !rea#
*ar"e#' $ /rE en*"rn)en#& "n #%e (+-,"c &ec#r, #%e .+e&#"n $ /%e#%er an
e)(,'ee %a& a rea&na-,e ex(ec#a#"n $ (r"*ac' )+&# -e addre&&ed n a
ca&e--'-ca&e -a&"&.
A1<B
8%itations omittedH em&,asis su&&#ied.9
@n t,e basis o1 t,e estab#is,ed ru#e in &revious *ases, t,e B" "u&reme %ourt
de*#ared t,at Dr. @rtegaAs =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts are im&#i*ated on#6 i1 t,e
*ondu*t o1 t,e ,os&ita# o11i*ia#s in1ringed Kan eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 t,at so*iet6 is
&re&ared to *onsider as reasonab#e.L Given t,e undis&uted eviden*e t,at
res&ondent Dr. @rtega did not s,are ,is des3 or 1i#e *abinets 2it, an6 ot,er
em&#o6ees, 3e&t &ersona# *orres&onden*e and ot,er &rivate items in ,is o2n o11i*e
2,i#e t,ose 2or3!re#ated 1i#es 8on &,6si*ians in residen*6 training9 2ere stored
outside ,is o11i*e, and t,ere being no eviden*e t,at t,e ,os&ita# ,ad estab#is,ed an6
reasonab#e regu#ation or &o#i*6 dis*ouraging em&#o6ees 1rom storing &ersona#
&a&ers and e11e*ts in t,eir des3s or 1i#e *abinets 8a#t,oug, t,e absen*e o1 su*, a
&o#i*6 does not *reate an6 eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 2,ere it 2ou#d not ot,er2ise
eGist9, t,e %ourt *on*#uded t,at Dr. @rtega ,as a reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6
at #east in ,is des3 and 1i#e *abinets.
A1=B

Pro*eeding to t,e neGt inFuir6 as to 2,et,er t,e sear*, *ondu*ted b6
,os&ita# o11i*ia#s 2as reasonab#e, t,e ODConnor &#ura#it6 de*ision dis*ussed t,e
1o##o2ing &rin*i&#es:
:aving determined t,at Dr. @rtega ,ad a reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 in ,is o11i*e, t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s sim&#6 *on*#uded 2it,out dis*ussion
t,at t,e Ksear*,M2as not a reasonab#e sear*, under t,e 1ourt, amendment.L G G
G K4t5o ,o#d t,at t,e =ourt, 'mendment a&&#ies to sear*,es *ondu*ted b6 4&ub#i*
em&#o6ers5 is on#6 to begin t,e inFuir6 into t,e standards governing su*,
sear*,esM4>5,at is reasonab#e de&ends on t,e *onteGt 2it,in 2,i*, a sear*,
ta3es &#a*e. G G G +,us, 2e must determine t,e a&&ro&riate standard o1
reasonab#eness a&&#i*ab#e to t,e sear*,. ' determination o1 t,e standard o1
reasonab#eness a&&#i*ab#e to a &arti*u#ar *#ass o1 sear*,es reFuires Kba#an*4ing5
t,e nature and Fua#it6 o1 t,e intrusion on t,e individua#As =ourt, 'mendment
interests against t,e im&ortan*e o1 t,e governmenta# interests a##eged to
)usti16 t,e intrusion.L G G G In #%e ca&e $ &earc%e& cnd+c#ed -' a (+-,"c
e)(,'er, /e )+&# -a,ance #%e "n*a&"n $ #%e e)(,'ee&I ,e!"#")a#e
ex(ec#a#"n& $ (r"*ac' a!a"n&# #%e !*ern)en#I& need $r &+(er*"&"n,
cn#r,, and #%e e$$"c"en# (era#"n $ #%e /rE(,ace.
G G G G
;n our vie2, reFuiring an em&#o6er to obtain a 2arrant 2,enever t,e
em&#o6er 2is,ed to enter an em&#o6eeAs o11i*e, des3, or 1i#e *abinets 1or a 2or3!
re#ated &ur&ose 2ou#d serious#6 disru&t t,e routine *ondu*t o1 business and 2ou#d
be undu#6 burdensome. ;m&osing un2ie#d6 2arrant &ro*edures in su*, *ases
u&on su&ervisors, 2,o 2ou#d ot,er2ise ,ave no reason to be 1ami#iar 2it, su*,
&ro*edures, is sim&#6 unreasonab#e. ;n *ontrast to ot,er *ir*umstan*es in 2,i*,
2e ,ave reFuired 2arrants, su&ervisors in o11i*es su*, as at t,e :os&ita# are
,ard#6 in t,e business o1 investigating t,e vio#ation o1 *rimina# #a2s. Rat,er,
2or3!re#ated sear*,es are mere#6 in*ident to t,e &rimar6 business o1 t,e
agen*6. Bnder t,ese *ir*umstan*es, t,e im&osition o1 a 2arrant reFuirement
2ou#d *on1#i*t 2it, t,e K*ommon!sense rea#i$ation t,at government o11i*es *ou#d
not 1un*tion i1 ever6 em&#o6ment de*ision be*ame a *onstitutiona# matter.L G G G
G G G G
+,e governmenta# interest )usti16ing 2or3!re#ated intrusions b6 &ub#i*
em&#o6ers is t,e e11i*ient and &ro&er o&eration o1 t,e 2or3&#a*e. Government
agen*ies &rovide m6riad servi*es to t,e &ub#i*, and t,e 2or3 o1 t,ese agen*ies
2ou#d su11er i1 em&#o6ers 2ere reFuired to ,ave &robab#e *ause be1ore t,e6
entered an em&#o6eeAs des3 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 1inding a 1i#e or &ie*e o1 o11i*e
*orres&onden*e. ;ndeed, it is di11i*u#t to give t,e *on*e&t o1 &robab#e *ause,
rooted as it is in t,e *rimina# investigator6 *onteGt, mu*, meaning 2,en t,e
&ur&ose o1 a sear*, is to retrieve a 1i#e 1or 2or3!re#ated reasons. "imi#ar#6, t,e
*on*e&t o1 &robab#e *ause ,as #itt#e meaning 1or a routine inventor6 *ondu*ted b6
&ub#i* em&#o6ers 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 se*uring state &ro&ert6. G G G +o ensure t,e
e11i*ient and &ro&er o&eration o1 t,e agen*6, t,ere1ore, &ub#i* em&#o6ers must be
given 2ide #atitude to enter em&#o6ee o11i*es 1or 2or3!re#ated, noninvestigator6
reasons.
>e *ome to a simi#ar *on*#usion 1or sear*,es *ondu*ted &ursuant to an
investigation o1 2or3!re#ated em&#o6ee mis*ondu*t. ?ven 2,en em&#o6ers
*ondu*t an investigation, t,e6 ,ave an interest substantia##6 di11erent 1rom Kt,e
norma# need 1or #a2 en1or*ement.L G G G Pub#i* em&#o6ers ,ave an interest in
ensuring t,at t,eir agen*ies o&erate in an e11e*tive and e11i*ient manner, and t,e
2or3 o1 t,ese agen*ies inevitab#6 su11ers 1rom t,e ine11i*ien*6, in*om&eten*e,
mismanagement, or ot,er 2or3!re#ated mis1easan*e o1 its em&#o6ees. ;ndeed, in
man6 *ases, &ub#i* em&#o6ees are entrusted 2it, tremendous res&onsibi#it6, and
t,e *onseFuen*es o1 t,eir mis*ondu*t or in*om&eten*e to bot, t,e agen*6 and t,e
&ub#i* interest *an be severe. ;n *ontrast to #a2 en1or*ement o11i*ia#s, t,ere1ore,
&ub#i* em&#o6ers are not en1or*ers o1 t,e *rimina# #a2H instead, &ub#i* em&#o6ers
,ave a dire*t and overriding interest in ensuring t,at t,e 2or3 o1 t,e agen*6 is
*ondu*ted in a &ro&er and e11i*ient manner. ;n our vie2, t,ere1ore, a (r-a-,e
ca+&e re.+"re)en# $r &earc%e& $ #%e #'(e a# "&&+e %ere /+,d ")(&e
"n#,era-,e -+rden& n (+-,"c e)(,'er&. T%e de,a' "n crrec#"n! #%e
e)(,'ee )"&cnd+c# ca+&ed -' #%e need $r (r-a-,e ca+&e ra#%er #%an
rea&na-,e &+&("c"n /",, -e #ran&,a#ed "n# #an!"-,e and $#en "rre(ara-,e
da)a!e # #%e a!enc'I& /rE, and +,#")a#e,' # #%e (+-,"c "n#ere&#. G G G
G G G G
;n sum, 2e *on*#ude #%a# #%e F&(ec"a, need&, -e'nd #%e nr)a, need
$r ,a/ en$rce)en# )aEe #%eJ(r-a-,e-ca+&e re.+"re)en# ")(rac#"ca-,e,G
x x x $r ,e!"#")a#e, /rE-re,a#ed nn"n*e&#"!a#r' "n#r+&"n& a& /e,, a&
"n*e&#"!a#"n& $ /rE-re,a#ed )"&cnd+c#. ' standard o1 reasonab#eness 2i##
neit,er undu#6 burden t,e e11orts o1 government em&#o6ers to ensure t,e e11i*ient
and &ro&er o&eration o1 t,e 2or3&#a*e, nor aut,ori$e arbitrar6 intrusions u&on t,e
&riva*6 o1 &ub#i* em&#o6ees. >e ,o#d, t,ere1ore, t,at (+-,"c e)(,'er
"n#r+&"n& n #%e cn&#"#+#"na,,' (r#ec#ed (r"*ac' "n#ere&#& $ !*ern)en#
e)(,'ee& $r nn"n*e&#"!a#r', /rE-re,a#ed (+r(&e&, a& /e,, a&
$r "n*e&#"!a#"n& $ /rE-re,a#ed )"&cnd+c#, &%+,d -e 0+d!ed -'
#%e &#andard $ rea&na-,ene&& +nder a,, #%e c"rc+)&#ance&. Bnder t,is
reasonab#eness standard, -#% #%e "nce(#"n and #%e &c(e $ #%e "n#r+&"n
)+&# -e rea&na-,e9
KDetermining t,e reasonab#eness o1 an6 sear*, invo#ves a t2o1o#d
inFuir6: 1irst, one must *onsider T2,et,er t,eMa*tion 2as )usti1ied
at its in*e&tion,A G G G H se*ond, one must determine 2,et,er t,e
sear*, as a*tua##6 *ondu*ted T2as reasonab#6 re#ated in s*o&e to
t,e *ir*umstan*es 2,i*, )usti1ied t,e inter1eren*e in t,e 1irst
&#a*e,AL G G G
@rdinari#6, a &earc% $ an e)(,'eeI& $$"ce -' a &+(er*"&r /",, -e
F0+&#"$"ed a# "#& "nce(#"nG /%en #%ere are rea&na-,e !r+nd& $r &+&(ec#"n!
#%a# #%e &earc% /",, #+rn +( e*"dence #%a# #%e e)(,'ee "& !+",#' $ /rE-
re,a#ed )"&cnd+c#, r #%a# #%e &earc% "& nece&&ar' $r a nn"n*e&#"!a#r'
/rE-re,a#ed (+r(&e su*, as to retrieve a needed 1i#e. G G G T%e &earc% /",, -e
(er)"&&"-,e "n "#& &c(e /%en F#%e )ea&+re& ad(#ed are rea&na-,' re,a#ed
# #%e -0ec#"*e& $ #%e &earc% and n# exce&&"*e,' "n#r+&"*e "n ,"!%# $ J#%e
na#+re $ #%e A)"&cnd+c#5.L G G G
A1CB
8%itations omittedH em&,asis su&&#ied.9
"in*e t,e Distri*t %ourt granted summar6 )udgment 2it,out a ,earing on t,e
1a*tua# dis&ute as to t,e *,ara*ter o1 t,e sear*, and neit,er 2as t,ere an6 1inding
made as to t,e s*o&e o1 t,e sear*, t,at 2as underta3en, t,e *ase 2as remanded to
said *ourt 1or t,e determination o1 t,e )usti1i*ation 1or t,e sear*, and sei$ure, and
eva#uation o1 t,e reasonab#eness o1 bot, t,e in*e&tion o1 t,e sear*, and its s*o&e.
;n ODConnor t,e %ourt re*ogni$ed t,at Ks&e*ia# needsL aut,ori$e 2arrant#ess
sear*,es invo#ving &ub#i* em&#o6ees 1or 2or3!re#ated reasons. +,e %ourt t,us #aid
do2n a ba#an*ing test under 2,i*, government interests are 2eig,ed against t,e
em&#o6eeAs reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6. +,is reasonab#eness test im&#i*ates
neit,er &robab#e *ause nor t,e 2arrant reFuirement, 2,i*, are re#ated to #a2
en1or*ement.
A?2B

ODConnor 2as a&&#ied in subseFuent *ases raising issues on em&#o6eesA
&riva*6 rig,ts in t,e 2or3&#a*e. @ne o1 t,ese *ases invo#ved a government
em&#o6erAs sear*, o1 an o11i*e *om&uter, @nited States v. *ark L. Simons
A?:B
2,ere
t,e de1endant "imons, an em&#o6ee o1 a division o1 t,e %entra# ;nte##igen*e
'gen*6 8%;'9, 2as *onvi*ted o1 re*eiving and &ossessing materia#s *ontaining
*,i#d &ornogra&,6. "imons 2as &rovided 2it, an o11i*e 2,i*, ,e did not s,are
2it, an6one, and a *om&uter 2it, ;nternet a**ess. +,e agen*6 ,ad instituted a
&o#i*6 on *om&uter use stating t,at em&#o6ees 2ere to use t,e ;nternet 1or o11i*ia#
government business on#6 and t,at a**essing un#a21u# materia# 2as s&e*i1i*a##6
&ro,ibited. +,e &o#i*6 a#so stated t,at users s,a## understand t,at t,e agen*6 2i##
&eriodi*a##6 audit, ins&e*t, andEor monitor t,e userAs ;nternet a**ess as deemed
a&&ro&riate. %;' agents instru*ted its *ontra*tor 1or t,e management o1 t,e
agen*6As *om&uter net2or3, u&on initia# dis*over6 o1 &ro,ibited internet a*tivit6
originating 1rom "imonsA *om&uter, to *ondu*t a remote monitoring and
eGamination o1 "imonsA *om&uter. '1ter *on1irming t,at "imons ,ad indeed
do2n#oaded &i*tures t,at 2ere &ornogra&,i* in nature, a## t,e 1i#es on t,e ,ard
drive o1 "imonAs *om&uter 2ere *o&ied 1rom a remote 2or3 station. Da6s #ater,
t,e *ontra*torAs re&resentative 1ina##6 entered "imonAs o11i*e, removed t,e origina#
,ard drive on "imonAs *om&uter, re&#a*ed it 2it, a *o&6, and gave t,e origina# to
t,e agen*6 se*urit6 o11i*er. +,erea1ter, t,e agen*6 se*ured 2arrants and sear*,ed
"imonsA o11i*e in t,e evening 2,en "imons 2as not around. +,e sear*,
team !opied t,e *ontents o1 "imonsA *om&uterH *om&uter dis3ettes 1ound in
"imonsA des3 dra2erH *om&uter 1i#es stored on t,e $i& drive or on $i& drive
dis3ettesH videota&esH and various do*uments, in*#uding &ersona#
*orres&onden*e. 't ,is tria#, "imons moved to su&&ress t,ese eviden*e, arguing
t,at t,e sear*,es o1 ,is o11i*e and *om&uter vio#ated ,is =ourt, 'mendment
rig,ts. '1ter a ,earing, t,e distri*t *ourt denied t,e motion and "imons 2as 1ound
gui#t6 as *,arged.
"imons a&&ea#ed ,is *onvi*tions. +,e B" "u&reme %ourt ru#ed t,at t,e
sear*,es o1 "imonsA *om&uter and o11i*e did not vio#ate ,is =ourt, 'mendment
rig,ts and t,e 1irst sear*, 2arrant 2as va#id. ;t ,e#d t,at t,e sear*, remains va#id
under t,e ODConnoreG*e&tion to t,e 2arrant reFuirement be*ause eviden*e o1 t,e
*rime 2as dis*overed in t,e *ourse o1 an ot,er2ise &ro&er administrative
ins&e*tion. "imonsA vio#ation o1 t,e agen*6As ;nternet &o#i*6 ,a&&ened a#so to be a
vio#ation o1 *rimina# #a2H t,is does not mean t,at said em&#o6er #ost t,e *a&a*it6
and interests o1 an em&#o6er. +,e 2arrant#ess entr6 into "imonsA o11i*e 2as
reasonab#e under t,e =ourt, 'mendment standard announ*ed in ODConnor be*ause
at t,e in*e&tion o1 t,e sear*,, t,e em&#o6er ,ad Kreasonab#e grounds 1or
sus&e*tingL t,at t,e ,ard drive 2ou#d 6ie#d eviden*e o1 mis*ondu*t, as t,e
em&#o6er 2as a#read6 a2are t,at "imons ,ad misused ,is ;nternet a**ess to
do2n#oad over a t,ousand &ornogra&,i* images. +,e retrieva# o1 t,e ,ard drive
2as reasonab#6 re#ated to t,e ob)e*tive o1 t,e sear*,, and t,e sear*, 2as not
eG*essive#6 intrusive. +,us, 2,i#e "imons ,ad a reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6
in ,is o11i*e, ,e did not ,ave su*, #egitimate eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 2it, regard to
t,e 1i#es in ,is *om&uter.
G G G +o estab#is, a vio#ation o1 ,is rig,ts under t,e =ourt, 'mendment,
"imons must 1irst &rove t,at ,e ,ad a #egitimate eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e
&#a*e sear*,ed or t,e item sei$ed. G G G 'nd, in order to &rove a #egitimate
eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6, "imons must s,o2 t,at ,is sub)e*tive eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 is one t,at so*iet6 is &re&ared to a**e&t as ob)e*tive#6 reasonab#e. G G G
G G G G
G G G >e *on*#ude t,at t,e remote sear*,es o1 "imonsA *om&uter did not
vio#ate ,is =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts be*ause, in #ig,t o1 t,e ;nternet &o#i*6,
"imons #a*3ed a #egitimate eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e 1i#es do2n#oaded 1rom
t,e ;nternet. 'dditiona##6, 2e *on*#ude t,at "imonsA =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts
2ere not vio#ated b6 =I;"A retrieva# o1 "imonsA ,ard drive 1rom ,is o11i*e.
S")n& d"d n# %a*e a ,e!"#")a#e ex(ec#a#"n $ (r"*ac' /"#% re!ard #
#%e recrd r $r+"#& $ %"& In#erne# +&e "n ,"!%# $ #%e 4BIS In#erne#
(,"c'. T%e (,"c' c,ear,' &#a#ed #%a# 4BIS /+,d Fa+d"#, "n&(ec#, andKr
)n"#rG e)(,'ee&I +&e $ #%e In#erne#, "nc,+d"n! a,, $",e #ran&$er&, a,,
/e-&"#e& *"&"#ed, and a,, e-)a", )e&&a!e&, Fa& dee)ed a((r(r"a#e.G G G
G +,is &o#i*6 &#a*ed em&#o6ees on noti*e t,at t,e6 *ou#d not reasonab#6 eG&e*t
t,at t,eir ;nternet a*tivit6 2ou#d be &rivate. +,ere1ore, regard#ess o1 2,et,er
"imons sub)e*tive#6 be#ieved t,at t,e 1i#es ,e trans1erred 1rom t,e ;nternet 2ere
&rivate, su*, a be#ie1 2as not ob)e*tive#6 reasonab#e a1ter =I;" noti1ied ,im t,at
it 2ou#d be overseeing ,is ;nternet use. G G G '**ording#6, =I;"A a*tions in
remote#6 sear*,ing and sei$ing t,e *om&uter 1i#es "imons do2n#oaded 1rom t,e
;nternet did not vio#ate t,e =ourt, 'mendment.
G G G G
T%e -+rden "& n S")n& # (r*e #%a# %e %ad a ,e!"#")a#e ex(ec#a#"n
$ (r"*ac' "n %"& $$"ce. G G G :ere, "imons ,as s,o2n t,at ,e ,ad an o11i*e t,at
,e did not s,are. 's noted above, t,e o&erationa# rea#ities o1 "imonsA 2or3&#a*e
ma6 ,ave diminis,ed ,is #egitimate &riva*6 eG&e*tations. :o2ever, t,ere is no
eviden*e in t,e re*ord o1 an6 2or3&#a*e &ra*ti*es, &ro*edures, or regu#ations t,at
,ad su*, an e11e*t. >e t,ere1ore *on*#ude t,at, on t,is re*ord, S")n& (&&e&&ed
a ,e!"#")a#e ex(ec#a#"n $ (r"*ac' "n %"& $$"ce.
G G G G
;n t,e 1ina# ana#6sis, t,is *ase invo#ves an em&#o6eeAs su&ervisor entering
t,e em&#o6eeAs government o11i*e and retrieving a &ie*e o1 government
eFui&ment in 2,i*, t,e em&#o6ee ,ad abso#ute#6 no eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 J
eFui&ment t,at t,e em&#o6er 3ne2 *ontained eviden*e o1 *rimes *ommitted b6
t,e em&#o6ee in t,e em&#o6eeAs o11i*e. +,is situation ma6 be *ontrasted 2it, one
in 2,i*, t,e *rimina# a*ts o1 a government em&#o6ee 2ere unre#ated to ,is
em&#o6ment. :ere, t,ere 2as a *on)un*tion o1 t,e *ondu*t t,at vio#ated t,e
em&#o6erAs &o#i*6 and t,e *ondu*t t,at vio#ated t,e *rimina# #a2. >e *onsider
t,at =I;"A intrusion into "imonsA o11i*e to retrieve t,e ,ard drive is one in 2,i*, a
reasonab#e em&#o6er mig,t engage. G G G
A?6B
8%itations omittedH em&,asis
su&&#ied.9
+,is %ourt, in So!ial Justi!e So!iety 5SJS6 v. :angerous :rugs
2oard
A?1B
2,i*, invo#ved t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 a &rovision in R.'. No. 9165
reFuiring mandator6 drug testing o1 *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e, students o1
se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s, o11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and &rivate
o11i*es, and &ersons *,arged be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, *ertain o11enses,
,ave a#so re*ogni$ed t,e 1a*t t,at t,ere ma6 be su*, #egitimate intrusion o1 &riva*6
in t,e 2or3&#a*e.
+,e 1irst 1a*tor to *onsider in t,e matter o1 reasonab#eness is t,e nature o1
t,e &riva*6 interest u&on 2,i*, t,e drug testing, 2,i*, e11e*ts a sear*, 2it,in t,e
meaning o1 "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, intrudes. ;n t,is *ase, t,e o11i*e or
2or3&#a*e serves as t,e ba*3dro& 1or t,e ana#6sis o1 t,e &riva*6 eG&e*tation o1
t,e em&#o6ees and t,e reasonab#eness o1 drug testing reFuirement. T%e
e)(,'ee&I (r"*ac' "n#ere&# "n an $$"ce "& # a ,ar!e ex#en# c"rc+)&cr"-ed -'
#%e c)(an'I& /rE (,"c"e&, #%e c,,ec#"*e -ar!a"n"n! a!ree)en#, "$ an',
en#ered "n# -' )ana!e)en# and #%e -ar!a"n"n! +n"#, and #%e "n%eren# r"!%#
$ #%e e)(,'er # )a"n#a"n d"&c"(,"ne and e$$"c"enc' "n #%e /rE(,ace. +,eir
&riva*6 eG&e*tation in a regu#ated o11i*e environment is, in 1ine, redu*edH and a
degree o1 im&ingement u&on su*, &riva*6 ,as been u&,e#d. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied.9
'&&#6ing t,e ana#6sis and &rin*i&#es announ*ed in ODConnor and Simons to
t,e *ase at bar, 2e no2 address t,e 1o##o2ing Fuestions: 819 Did &etitioner ,ave a
reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in ,is o11i*e and *om&uter 1i#esQH and 8.9 >as t,e
sear*, aut,ori$ed b6 t,e %"% %,air, t,e *o&6ing o1 t,e *ontents o1 t,e ,ard drive
on &etitionerAs *om&uter reasonab#e in its in*e&tion and s*o&eQ
;n t,is inFuir6, t,e re#evant surrounding *ir*umstan*es to *onsider in*#ude
K819 t,e em&#o6eeAs re#ations,i& to t,e item sei$edH 8.9 2,et,er t,e item 2as in t,e
immediate *ontro# o1 t,e em&#o6ee 2,en it 2as sei$edH and 839 2,et,er t,e
em&#o6ee too3 a*tions to maintain ,is &riva*6 in t,e item.L +,ese 1a*tors are
re#evant to bot, t,e sub)e*tive and ob)e*tive &rongs o1 t,e reasonab#eness inFuir6,
and 2e *onsider t,e t2o Fuestions toget,er.
A??B
+,us, 2,ere t,e em&#o6ee used a
&ass2ord on ,is *om&uter, did not s,are ,is o11i*e 2it, *o!2or3ers and 3e&t t,e
same #o*3ed, ,e ,ad a #egitimate eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 and an6 sear*, o1 t,at
s&a*e and items #o*ated t,erein must *om&#6 2it, t,e =ourt, 'mendment.
A?;B
>e ans2er t,e 1irst in t,e negative. Petitioner 1ai#ed to &rove t,at ,e ,ad an
a*tua# 8sub)e*tive9 eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 eit,er in ,is o11i*e or government!issued
*om&uter 2,i*, *ontained ,is &ersona# 1i#es. Petitioner did not a##ege t,at ,e ,ad a
se&arate en*#osed o11i*e 2,i*, ,e did not s,are 2it, an6one, or t,at ,is o11i*e 2as
a#2a6s #o*3ed and not o&en to ot,er em&#o6ees or visitors. Neit,er did ,e a##ege
t,at ,e used &ass2ords or ado&ted an6 means to &revent ot,er em&#o6ees 1rom
a**essing ,is *om&uter 1i#es. @n t,e *ontrar6, ,e submits t,at being in t,e &ub#i*
assistan*e o11i*e o1 t,e %"%!R@;<, ,e norma##6 2ou#d ,ave visitors in ,is o11i*e
#i3e 1riends, asso*iates and even un3no2n &eo&#e, 2,om ,e even a##o2ed to use
,is *om&uter 2,i*, to ,im seemed a trivia# reFuest. :e des*ribed ,is o11i*e as
K1u## o1 &eo&#e, ,is 1riends, un3no2n &eo&#eL and t,at in t,e &ast .. 6ears ,e ,ad
been dis*,arging ,is 1un*tions at t,e P'7D, ,e is K&ersona##6 assisting in*oming
*#ients, re*eiving do*uments, dra1ting *ases on a&&ea#s, in *,arge o1
a**om&#is,ment re&ort, *amamayan *una Program, Pub#i* "e*tor Bnionism,
%orre*tion o1 name, a**reditation o1 servi*e, and ,ard#6 ,ad an6time 1or ,imse#1
a#one, t,at in 1a*t ,e sta6s in t,e o11i*e as a &a6ing *ustomer.L
A?>B
Bnder t,is
s*enario, it *an ,ard#6 be dedu*ed t,at &etitioner ,ad su*, eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6
t,at so*iet6 2ou#d re*ogni$e as reasonab#e.

(oreover, even assuming arguendo, in t,e absen*e o1 a##egation or &roo1 o1
t,e a1orementioned 1a*tua# *ir*umstan*es, t,at &etitioner ,ad at #east a sub)e*tive
eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in ,is *om&uter as ,e *#aims, su*, is negated b6 t,e
&resen*e o1 &o#i*6 regu#ating t,e use o1 o11i*e *om&uters, as in Simons.
@11i*e (emorandum No. 1/, ". .//. KComputer @se 9oli!y 5C@96L
eG&#i*it#6 &rovides:
POLICY
1. +,e Computer Resour!es are t,e &ro&ert6 o1 t,e %ivi# "ervi*e %ommission
and ma6 be used on#6 1or #egitimate business &ur&oses.

.. @sers s,a## be &ermitted a**ess to Computer Resour!es to assist t,em in t,e
&er1orman*e o1 t,eir res&e*tive )obs.

3. Bse o1 t,e Computer Resour!es is a &rivi#ege t,at ma6 be revo3ed at an6
given time.

G G G G
N Ex(ec#a#"n $ Pr"*ac'
0. %o e7pe!tation o priva!y. @sers eG*e&t t,e (embers o1 t,e %ommission
s,a## not ,ave an eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in an6t,ing t,e6 *reate, store, send,
or re*eive on t,e *om&uter s6stem.
+,e :ead o1 t,e @11i*e 1or Re*ruitment, ?Gamination and P#a*ement s,a##
se#e*t and assign @sers to ,and#e t,e *on1identia# eGamination data and
&ro*esses.
5. &aiver o priva!y rights. @sers eG&ress#6 2aive an6 rig,t to &riva*6
in an6t,ing t,e6 *reate, store, send, or re*eive on t,e *om&uter t,roug, t,e
;nternet or an6 ot,er *om&uter net2or3. @sers understand t,at t,e CSC
)a' +&e %+)an r a+#)a#ed )ean& # )n"#r #%e +&e $ "#& Coputer
)esources.
6. %on$e7!lusivity o Computer Resour!es. ' *om&uter resour*e is not a
&ersona# &ro&ert6 or 1or t,e eG*#usive use o1 a @ser to 2,om a
memorandum o1 re*ei&t 8(R9 ,as been issued. ;t *an be s,ared or o&erated
b6 ot,er users. :o2ever, ,e is a**ountab#e t,ere1or and must insure its *are
and maintenan*e.
G G G G
Pa&&/rd&
1.. Responsibility or passwords. @sers s,a## be res&onsib#e 1or sa1eguarding
t,eir &ass2ords 1or a**ess to t,e *om&uter s6stem. ;ndividua# &ass2ords
s,a## not be &rinted, stored on#ine, or given to ot,ers. @sers s,a## be
res&onsib#e 1or a## transa*tions made using t,eir &ass2ords.%o @ser may
a!!ess the !omputer system with another @serDs password or a!!ount.
13. 9asswords do not imply priva!y. Bse o1 &ass2ords to gain a**ess to t,e
*om&uter s6stem or to en*ode &arti*u#ar 1i#es or messages does not im&#6
t,at @sers ,ave an eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e materia# t,e6 *reate or
re*eive on t,e *om&uter s6stem. +,e %ivi# "ervi*e %ommission ,as g#oba#
&ass2ords t,at &ermit a**ess to a## materia#s stored on its net2or3ed
*om&uter s6stem regard#ess o1 2,et,er t,ose materia#s ,ave been en*oded
2it, a &arti*u#ar @serDs &ass2ord. @n#6 members o1 t,e %ommission s,a##
aut,ori$e t,e a&&#i*ation o1 t,e said g#oba# &ass2ords.
G G G G
A?<B
8?m&,asis su&&#ied.9
+,e %"% in t,is *ase ,ad im&#emented a &o#i*6 t,at &ut its em&#o6ees on
noti*e t,at t,e6 ,ave no eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 inan'#%"n! t,e6 *reate, store, send
or re*eive on t,e o11i*e *om&uters, and t,at t,e %"% ma6 monitor t,e use o1 t,e
*om&uter resour*es using bot, automated or ,uman means. +,is im&#ies t,at on!
t,e!s&ot ins&e*tions ma6 be done to ensure t,at t,e *om&uter resour*es 2ere used
on#6 1or su*, #egitimate business &ur&oses.
@ne o1 t,e 1a*tors stated in ODConnor 2,i*, are re#evant in determining
2,et,er an em&#o6eeAs eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e 2or3&#a*e is reasonab#e is t,e
eGisten*e o1 a 2or3&#a*e &riva*6 &o#i*6.
A?=B
;n one *ase, t,e B" %ourt o1 '&&ea#s
?ig,t, %ir*uit ,e#d t,at a state universit6 em&#o6ee ,as not s,o2n t,at ,e ,ad a
reasonab#e eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in ,is *om&uter 1i#es 2,ere t,e universit6As
*om&uter &o#i*6, t,e *om&uter user is in1ormed not to eG&e*t &riva*6 i1 t,e
universit6 ,as a #egitimate reason to *ondu*t a sear*,. +,e user is s&e*i1i*a##6 to#d
t,at *om&uter 1i#es, in*#uding e!mai#, *an be sear*,ed 2,en t,e universit6 is
res&onding to a dis*over6 reFuest in t,e *ourse o1 #itigation. Petitioner em&#o6ee
t,us *annot *#aim a vio#ation o1 =ourt, 'mendment rig,ts 2,en universit6 o11i*ia#s
*ondu*ted a 2arrant#ess sear*, o1 ,is *om&uter 1or 2or3!re#ated materia#s.
A?CB
's to t,e se*ond &oint o1 inFuir6 on t,e reasonab#eness o1 t,e sear*,
*ondu*ted on &etitionerAs *om&uter, 2e ans2er in t,e a11irmative.
+,e sear*, o1 &etitionerAs *om&uter 1i#es 2as *ondu*ted in *onne*tion 2it,
investigation o1 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t &rom&ted b6 an anon6mous #etter!
*om&#aint addressed to %,air&erson David regarding anoma#ies in t,e %"%!R@;<
2,ere t,e ,ead o1 t,e *amamayan *una 1indi *amaya %a division is
su&&osed#6 K#a26eringL 1or individua#s 2it, &ending *ases in t,e
%"%. %,air&erson David stated in ,er s2orn a11idavit:
8. +,at &rior to t,is, as ear#6 as .//6, t,e undersigned ,as re*eived severa#
teGt messages 1rom un3no2n sour*es adverting to *ertain anoma#ies in %ivi#
"ervi*e %ommission Regiona# @11i*e ;< 8%"%R@ ;<9 su*, as, sta11
2or3ing in anot,er government agen*6, Kse##ingL *ases and aiding &arties
2it, &ending *ases, a## done during o11i*e ,ours and invo#ved t,e use o1
government &ro&ertiesH
9. +,at said teGt messages 2ere not investigated 1or #a*3 o1 an6 veri1iab#e
#eads and detai#s su11i*ient to 2arrant an investigationH
1/. +,at t,e anon6mous #etter &rovided t,e #ead and detai#s as it &in&ointed t,e
&ersons and divisions invo#ved in t,e a##eged irregu#arities ,a&&ening in
%"%R@ ;<H
11. +,at in vie2 o1 t,e seriousness o1 t,e a##egations o1 irregu#arities ,a&&ening
in %"%R@ ;< and its e11e*t on t,e integrit6 o1 t,e %ommission, ; de*ided to
1orm a team o1 %entra# @11i*e sta11 to ba*3 u& t,e 1i#es in t,e *om&uters o1
t,e Pub#i* 'ssistan*e and 7iaison Division 8P'7D9 and 7ega# DivisionH
G G G G
A;2B
' sear*, b6 a government em&#o6er o1 an em&#o6eeAs o11i*e is )usti1ied at
in*e&tion 2,en t,ere are reasonab#e grounds 1or sus&e*ting t,at it 2i## turn u&
eviden*e t,at t,e em&#o6ee is gui#t6 o1 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t.
A;:B
+,us, in t,e
.//0 *ase de*ided b6 t,e B" %ourt o1 '&&ea#s ?ig,t, %ir*uit, it 2as ,e#d t,at
2,ere a government agen*6As *om&uter use &o#i*6 &ro,ibited e#e*troni* messages
2it, &ornogra&,i* *ontent and in addition eG&ress#6 &rovided t,at em&#o6ees do
not have any personal priva!y rights regarding their use o the agen!y inormation
systems and te!hnology, t,e government em&#o6ee ,ad no #egitimate eG&e*tation
o1 &riva*6 as to t,e use and *ontents o1 ,is o11i*e *om&uter, and t,ere1ore eviden*e
1ound during 2arrant#ess sear*, o1 t,e *om&uter 2as admissib#e in &rose*ution 1or
*,i#d &ornogra&,6. ;n t,at *ase, t,e de1endant em&#o6eeAs *om&uter ,ard drive
2as 1irst remote#6 eGamined b6 a *om&uter in1ormation te*,ni*ian a1ter ,is
su&ervisor re*eived *om&#aints t,at ,e 2as ina**essib#e and ,ad *o&ied and
distributed non!2or3!re#ated e!mai# messages t,roug,out t,e o11i*e. >,en t,e
su&ervisor *on1irmed t,at de1endant ,ad used ,is *om&uter to a**ess t,e &ro,ibited
2ebsites, in *ontravention o1 t,e eG&ress &o#i*6 o1 t,e agen*6, ,is *om&uter to2er
and 1#o&&6 dis3s 2ere ta3en and eGamined. ' 1orma# administrative investigation
ensued and #ater sear*, 2arrants 2ere se*ured b6 t,e &o#i*e de&artment. +,e
initia# remote sear*, o1 t,e ,ard drive o1 &etitionerAs *om&uter, as 2e## as t,e
subseFuent 2arrant#ess sear*,es 2as ,e#d as va#id under t,e ODConnor ru#ing t,at
a &ub#i* em&#o6er *an investigate 2or3!re#ated mis*ondu*t so #ong as an6 sear*, is
)usti1ied at in*e&tion and is reasonab#6 re#ated in s*o&e to t,e *ir*umstan*es t,at
)usti1ied it in t,e 1irst &#a*e.
A;6B
Bnder t,e 1a*ts obtaining, t,e sear*, *ondu*ted on &etitionerAs *om&uter 2as
)usti1ied at its in*e&tion and s*o&e. >e Fuote 2it, a&&rova# t,e %"%As dis*ussion
on t,e reasonab#eness o1 its a*tions, *onsistent as it 2ere 2it, t,e guide#ines
estab#is,ed b6ODConnor:
?ven *on*eding 1or a moment t,at t,ere is no su*, administrative &o#i*6,
t,ere is no doubt in t,e mind o1 t,e %ommission t,at t,e sear*, o1 Po##oAs
*om&uter ,as su**ess1u##6 &assed t,e test o1 reasonab#eness 1or 2arrant#ess
sear*,es in t,e 2or3&#a*e as enun*iated in t,e above!dis*ussed 'meri*an
aut,orities. ;t bears em&,asis #%a# #%e C))"&&"n (+r&+ed #%e &earc% "n "#&
ca(ac"#' a& a !*ern)en# e)(,'er and #%a# "# /a& +nder#aEen "n cnnec#"n
/"#% an "n*e&#"!a#"n "n*,*"n! a /rE-re,a#ed )"&cnd+c#, one o1 t,e
*ir*umstan*es eGem&ted 1rom t,e 2arrant reFuirement. 't t,e in*e&tion o1 t,e
sear*,, a *om&#aint 2as re*eived re*ounting t,at a *ertain division *,ie1 in t,e
%"%R@ No. ;< 2as K#a26eringL 1or &arties ,aving &ending *ases 2it, t,e said
regiona# o11i*e or in t,e %ommission. T%e na#+re $ #%e ")(+#a#"n /a&
&er"+&, a& "# /a& !r"e*+&,' d"&#+r-"n!. ;1, indeed, a %"% em&#o6ee 2as 1ound
to be 1urtive#6 engaged in t,e &ra*ti*e o1 K#a26eringL 1or &arties 2it, &ending
*ases be1ore t,e %ommission 2ou#d be a ,ig,#6 re&ugnant s*enario, t,en su*, a
*ase 2ou#d ,ave s,attering re&er*ussions. ;t 2ou#d undeniab#6 *ast *#ouds o1
doubt u&on t,e institutiona# integrit6 o1 t,e %ommission as a Fuasi!)udi*ia#
agen*6, and in t,e &ro*ess, render it #ess e11e*tive in 1u#1i##ing its mandate as an
im&artia# and ob)e*tive dis&enser o1 administrative )usti*e. ;t is sett#ed t,at a
*ourt or an administrative tribuna# must not on#6 be a*tua##6 im&artia# but must be
seen to be so, ot,er2ise t,e genera# &ub#i* 2ou#d not ,ave an6 trust and
*on1iden*e in it.
Cn&"der"n! #%e da)a!"n! na#+re $ #%e acc+&a#"n, #%e C))"&&"n
%ad # ac# $a&#, i1 on#6 to arrest or #imit an6 &ossib#e adverse *onseFuen*e or 1a##!
out. +,us, on t,e same date t,at t,e *om&#aint 2as re*eived, a sear*, 2as
1ort,2it, *ondu*ted invo#ving t,e *om&uter resour*es in t,e *on*erned regiona#
o11i*e. T%a# "# /a& #%e c)(+#er& #%a# /ere &+-0ec#ed # #%e &earc% /a&
0+&#"$"ed &"nce #%e&e $+rn"&%ed #%e ea&"e&# )ean& $r an e)(,'ee # encde
and &#re dc+)en#&. Indeed, #%e c)(+#er& /+,d -e a ,"Ee,' &#ar#"n! ("n#
"n $erre#"n! +# "ncr")"na#"n! e*"dence. Cnc)"#an#,', #%e e(%e)era, na#+re
$ c)(+#er $",e&, #%a# "&, #%e' c+,d ea&",' -e de&#r'ed a# a c,"cE $ a -+##n,
nece&&"#a#ed dra&#"c and "))ed"a#e ac#"n. Pointed#6, to im&ose t,e need to
*om&#6 2it, t,e &robab#e *ause reFuirement 2ou#d invariab#6 de1eat t,e &ur&ose
o1 t,e 2o3!re#ated investigation.
>ort,6 to mention, too, is t,e 1a*t t,at t,e %ommission e11e*ted t,e
2arrant#ess sear*, in an o&en and trans&arent manner. @11i*ia#s and some
em&#o6ees o1 t,e regiona# o11i*e, 2,o ,a&&ened to be in t,e vi*init6, 2ere on
,and to observe t,e &ro*ess unti# its *om&#etion. ;n addition, t,e res&ondent
,imse#1 2as du#6 noti1ied, t,roug, teGt messaging, o1 t,e sear*, and t,e
*on*omitant retrieva# o1 1i#es 1rom ,is *om&uter.
'## in a##, t,e %ommission is *onvin*ed t,at t,e 2arrant#ess sear*, done
on *om&uter assigned to Po##o 2as not, in an6 2a6, vitiated 2it,
un*onstitutiona#it6. ;t 2as a reasonab#e eGer*ise o1 t,e manageria# &rerogative o1
t,e %ommission as an em&#o6er aimed at ensuring its o&erationa# e11e*tiveness
and e11i*ien*6 b6 going a1ter t,e 2or3!re#ated mis1easan*e o1 its
em&#o6ees. %onseFuent#6, t,e eviden*e derived 1rom t,e Fuestioned sear*, are
deemed admissib#e.
A;1B
PetitionerAs *#aim o1 vio#ation o1 ,is *onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6 must
ne*essari#6 1ai#. :is ot,er argument invo3ing t,e &riva*6 o1 *ommuni*ation and
*orres&onden*e under "e*tion 3819, 'rti*#e ;;; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution is a#so
untenab#e *onsidering t,e re*ognition a**orded to *ertain #egitimate intrusions into
t,e &riva*6 o1 em&#o6ees in t,e government 2or3&#a*e under t,e a1ore*ited
aut,orities. >e #i3e2ise 1ind no merit in ,is *ontention
t,at ODConnor and Simons are not re#evant be*ause t,e &resent *ase does not
invo#ve a *rimina# o11ense #i3e *,i#d &ornogra&,6. 's a#read6 mentioned, t,e
sear*, o1 &etitionerAs *om&uter 2as )usti1ied t,ere being reasonab#e ground 1or
sus&e*ting t,at t,e 1i#es stored t,erein 2ou#d 6ie#d in*riminating eviden*e re#evant
to t,e investigation being *ondu*ted b6 %"% as government em&#o6er o1 su*,
mis*ondu*t sub)e*t o1 t,e anon6mous *om&#aint. +,is situation *#ear#6 1a##s under
t,e eG*e&tion to t,e 2arrant#ess reFuirement in administrative sear*,es de1ined
in ODConnor.
+,e %ourt is not una2are o1 our de*ision in ;nonymous Letter$Complaint
against ;tty. *iguel *orales) Clerk o Court) *etropolitan -rial Court o
*anila
A;?B
invo#ving a bran*, *#er3 8'tt6. (ora#es9 2,o 2as investigated on t,e
basis o1 an anon6mous #etter a##eging t,at ,e 2as *onsuming ,is 2or3ing ,ours
1i#ing and attending to &ersona# *ases, using o11i*e su&&#ies, eFui&ment and
uti#ities. +,e @%' *ondu*ted a s&ot investigation aided b6 NI; agents. +,e team
2as ab#e to a**ess 'tt6. (ora#esA &ersona# *om&uter and &rint t2o do*uments
stored in its ,ard drive, 2,i*, turned out to be t2o &#eadings, one 1i#ed in t,e %'
and anot,er in t,e R+% o1 (ani#a, bot, in t,e name o1 anot,er #a26er. 'tt6.
(ora#esA *om&uter 2as sei$ed and ta3en in *ustod6 o1 t,e @%' but 2as #ater
ordered re#eased on ,is motion, but 2it, order to t,e (;"@ to 1irst retrieve t,e 1i#es
stored t,erein. +,e @%' disagreed 2it, t,e re&ort o1 t,e ;nvestigating Judge t,at
t,ere 2as no eviden*e to su&&ort t,e *,arge against 'tt6. (ora#es as no one 1rom
t,e @%% &ersonne# 2,o 2ere intervie2ed 2ou#d give a *ategori*a# and &ositive
statement a11irming t,e *,arges against 'tt6. (ora#es, a#ong 2it, ot,er *ourt
&ersonne# a#so *,arged in t,e same *ase. +,e @%' re*ommended t,at 'tt6.
(ora#es s,ou#d be 1ound gui#t6 o1 gross mis*ondu*t. +,e %ourt ?n 2an! ,e#d t,at
2,i#e 'tt6. (ora#es ma6 ,ave 1a##en s,ort o1 t,e eGa*ting standards reFuired o1
ever6 *ourt em&#o6ee, t,e %ourt *annot use t,e eviden*e obtained 1rom
,is personal *om&uter against ,im 1or it vio#ated ,is *onstitutiona# rig,t against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures. +,e %ourt 1ound no eviden*e to su&&ort t,e
*#aim o1 @%' t,at t,e6 2ere ab#e to obtain t,e sub)e*t &#eadings 2it, t,e *onsent
o1 'tt6. (ora#es, as in 1a*t t,e #atter immediate#6 1i#ed an administrative *ase
against t,e &ersons 2,o *ondu*ted t,e s&ot investigation, Fuestioning t,e va#idit6
o1 t,e investigation and s&e*i1i*a##6 invo3ing ,is *onstitutiona# rig,t against
unreasonab#e sear*, and sei$ure. 'nd as t,ere is no ot,er eviden*e, a&art 1rom t,e
&#eadings, retrieved 1rom t,e undu#6 *on1is*ated &ersona# *om&uter o1 'tt6.
(ora#es, to ,o#d ,im administrative#6 #iab#e, t,e %ourt ,ad no *,oi*e but to
dismiss t,e *,arges against ,im 1or insu11i*ien*6 o1 eviden*e.
+,e above *ase is to be distinguis,ed 1rom t,e *ase at bar be*ause, un#i3e
t,e 1ormer 2,i*, invo#ved a personal *om&uter o1 a *ourt em&#o6ee, t,e *om&uter
1rom 2,i*, t,e &ersona# 1i#es o1 ,erein &etitioner 2ere retrieved is a government!
issued *om&uter, ,en*e government &ro&ert6 t,e use o1 2,i*, t,e %"% ,as
abso#ute rig,t to regu#ate and monitor. "u*, re#ations,i& o1 t,e &etitioner 2it, t,e
item sei$ed 8o11i*e *om&uter9 and ot,er re#evant 1a*tors and *ir*umstan*es under
'meri*an =ourt, 'mendment )uris&ruden*e, notab#6 t,e eGisten*e o1 %"% (@ 1/,
". .//- on %om&uter Bse Po#i*6, 1ai#ed to estab#is, t,at &etitioner ,ad a reasonab#e
eG&e*tation o1 &riva*6 in t,e o11i*e *om&uter assigned to ,im.
:aving determined t,at t,e &ersona# 1i#es *o&ied 1rom t,e o11i*e *om&uter o1
&etitioner are admissib#e in t,e administrative *ase against ,im, 2e no2 &ro*eed to
t,e issue o1 2,et,er t,e %"% 2as *orre*t in 1inding t,e &etitioner gui#t6 o1 t,e
*,arges and dismissing ,im 1rom t,e servi*e.
>e##!sett#ed is t,e ru#e t,at t,e 1indings o1 1a*t o1 Fuasi!)udi*ia# agen*ies,
#i3e t,e %"%, are a**orded not on#6 res&e*t but even 1ina#it6 i1 su*, 1indings are
su&&orted b6 substantia# eviden*e. "ubstantia# eviden*e is su*, amount o1 re#evant
eviden*e 2,i*, a reasonab#e mind mig,t a**e&t as adeFuate to su&&ort a
*on*#usion, even i1 ot,er eFua##6 reasonab#e minds mig,t *on*eivab#6 o&ine
ot,er2ise.
A;;B
+,e %"% based its 1indings on eviden*e *onsisting o1 a substantia# number
o1 dra1ts o1 #ega# &#eadings and do*uments stored in ,is o11i*e *om&uter, as 2e## as
t,e s2orn a11idavits and testimonies o1 t,e 2itnesses it &resented during t,e 1orma#
investigation. '**ording to t,e %"%, t,ese do*uments 2ere *on1irmed to be
simi#ar or eGa*t#6 t,e same *ontent!2ise 2it, t,ose on t,e *ase re*ords o1 some
*ases &ending eit,er 2it, %"%R@ No. ;<, %"%!N%R or t,e %ommission Pro&er.
+,ere 2ere a#so substantia##6 simi#ar *o&ies o1 t,ose &#eadings 1i#ed 2it, t,e %'
and du#6 1urnis,ed t,e %ommission. =urt,er, t,e %"% 1ound t,e eG&#anation
given b6 &etitioner, to t,e e11e*t t,at t,ose 1i#es retrieved 1rom ,is *om&uter ,ard
drive a*tua##6 be#onged to ,is #a26er 1riends ?stre##ado and "o#osa 2,om ,e
a##o2ed t,e use o1 ,is *om&uter 1or dra1ting t,eir &#eadings in t,e *ases t,e6
,and#e, as im&#ausib#e and doubt1u# under t,e *ir*umstan*es. >e ,o#d t,at
t,e %"%As 1a*tua# 1inding regarding t,e aut,ors,i& o1 t,e sub)e*t &#eadings and
misuse o1 t,e o11i*e *om&uter is 2e##!su&&orted b6 t,e eviden*e on re*ord, t,us:
;t is a#so stri3ing to note t,at some o1 t,ese do*uments 2ere in t,e nature
o1 &#eadings res&onding to t,e orders, de*isions or reso#utions o1 t,ese o11i*es or
dire*t#6 in o&&osition to t,em su*, as a &etition 1or *ertiorari or a motion 1or
re*onsideration o1 %"% Reso#ution. +,is indi*ates t,at t,e aut,or t,ereo1
3no2ing#6 and 2i##ing#6 &arti*i&ated in t,e &romotion or advan*ement o1 t,e
interests o1 &arties *ontrar6 or antagonisti* to t,e %ommission. >orse, t,e
a&&earan*e in one o1 t,e retrieved do*uments t,e &,rase, ?ri! %. ?str3e4llado)
?pal kulang ang bayad mo) #ends &#ausibi#it6 to an in1eren*e t,at t,e &re&aration
or dra1ting o1 t,e #ega# &#eadings 2as &ursued 2it, #ess t,an a #audab#e
motivation. >,oever 2as res&onsib#e 1or t,ese do*uments 2as sim&#6 doing t,e
same 1or t,e mone6 J a Klegal mer!enaryL se##ing or &urve6ing ,is eG&ertise to
t,e ,ig,est bidder, so to s&ea3.
;nevitab#6, #%e $ac# #%a# #%e&e dc+)en#& /ere re#r"e*ed $r) #%e
c)(+#er $ P,, ra"&e& #%e (re&+)(#"n #%a# %e /a& #%e a+#%r
#%ere$. T%"& "& -eca+&e %e %ad a cn#r, $ #%e &a"d c)(+#er. (ore
signi1i*ant#6, one o1 t,e 2itnesses, (argarita Re6es, *ategori*a##6 testi1ied seeing
a 2ritten *o&6 o1 one o1 t,e &#eadings 1ound in t,e *ase re*ords #6ing on t,e tab#e
o1 t,e res&ondent. +,is 2as t,e Petition 1or Revie2 in t,e *ase o1 ?stre##ado
addressed to t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s. +,e said *ir*umstan*es indubitab#6
demonstrate t,at Po##o 2as se*ret#6 undermining t,e interest o1 t,e %ommission,
,is ver6 o2n em&#o6er.
+o de1#e*t an6 *u#&abi#it6, Po##o 2ou#d, ,o2ever, 2ant t,e %ommission to
be#ieve t,at t,e do*uments 2ere t,e &ersona# 1i#es o1 some o1 ,is 1riends,
in*#uding one 'ttorne6 Pon*iano "o#osa, 2,o in*identa##6 served as ,is *ounse#
o1 re*ord during t,e 1orma# investigation o1 t,is *ase. ;n 1a*t, 'tt6. "o#osa ,imse#1
eGe*uted a s2orn a11idavit to t,is e11e*t. Bn1ortunate#6, t,is *ontention o1 t,e
res&ondent 2as dire*t#6 rebutted b6 t,e &rose*ution 2itness, Re6es, 2,o testi1ied
t,at during ,er entire sta6 in t,e P'7D, s,e never sa2 'tt6. "o#osa using t,e
*om&uter assigned to t,e res&ondent. Re6es more &arti*u#ar#6 stated t,at s,e
2or3ed in *#ose &roGimit6 2it, Po##o and 2ou#d ,ave 3no2n i1 'tt6. "o#osa,
2,om s,e &ersona##6 3no2s, 2as using t,e *om&uter in Fuestion. =urt,er, 'tt6.
"o#osa ,imse#1 2as never &resented during t,e 1orma# investigation to *on1irm ,is
s2orn statement su*, t,at t,e same *onstitutes se#1!serving eviden*e un2ort,6 o1
2eig,t and *reden*e. +,e same is true 2it, t,e ot,er su&&orting a11idavits, 2,i*,
Po##o submitted.
't an6 rate, even admitting 1or a moment t,e said *ontention o1 t,e
res&ondent, it evin*es t,e 1a*t t,at ,e 2as un#a21u##6 aut,ori$ing &rivate &ersons
to use t,e *om&uter assigned to ,im 1or o11i*ia# &ur&ose, not on#6 on*e but severa#
times gauging b6 t,e number o1 &#eadings, 1or ends not in *on1ormit6 2it, t,e
interests o1 t,e %ommission. :e 2as, in e11e*t, a*ting as a &rin*i&a# b6
indis&ensab#e *oo&erationM@r at t,e ver6 #east, ,e s,ou#d be res&onsib#e 1or
serious mis*ondu*t 1or re&eated#6 a##o2ing %"% resour*es, t,at is, t,e *om&uter
and t,e e#e*tri*it6, to be uti#i$ed 1or &ur&oses ot,er t,an 2,at t,e6 2ere o11i*ia##6
intended.
=urt,er, t,e %ommission *annot #end *reden*e to t,e &osturing o1 t,e
a&&e##ant t,at t,e #ine a&&earing in one o1 t,e do*uments, ?ri! %. ?strellado)
?pal kulang ang bayad mo,L 2as a &rivate )o3e bet2een t,e &erson a##uded to
t,erein, ?ri* N. ?stre##ado, and ,is *ounse#, 'tt6. "o#osa, and not indi*ative o1
an6t,ing more sinister. +,e same is too &re&osterous to be be#ieved. >,6 2ou#d
su*, a statement a&&ear in a #ega# &#eading stored in t,e *om&uter assigned to t,e
res&ondent, un#ess ,e ,ad somet,ing to do 2it, itQ
A;>B
Petitioner assai#s t,e %' in not ru#ing t,at t,e %"% s,ou#d not ,ave
entertained an anon6mous *om&#aint sin*e "e*tion 8 o1 %"% Reso#ution No. 99!
1936 8BR'%%9 reFuires a veri1ied *om&#aint:
Rule II H :is!iplinary Cases
"?%. 8. Complaint. ! ' *om&#aint against a *ivi# servi*e o11i*ia# or
em&#o6ee s,a## not be given due *ourse un#ess it is in 2riting and subs*ribed and
s2orn to b6 t,e *om&#ainant. :o2ever, "n ca&e& "n"#"a#ed -' #%e (r(er
d"&c"(,"n"n! a+#%r"#', t,e *om&#aint need not be under oat,.
No anon6mous *om&#aint s,a## be entertained un#ess #%ere "& -*"+&
#r+#% r )er"# # #%e a,,e!a#"n #%ere"n or su&&orted b6 do*umentar6 or dire*t
eviden*e, in 2,i*, *ase t,e &erson *om&#ained o1 ma6 be reFuired to *omment.
G G G G
>e need not be#abor t,is &oint raised b6 &etitioner. +,e administrative
*om&#aint is deemed to ,ave been initiated b6 t,e %"% itse#1 2,en %,air&erson
David, a1ter a s&ot ins&e*tion and sear*, o1 t,e 1i#es stored in t,e ,ard drive o1
*om&uters in t,e t2o divisions adverted to in t,e anon6mous #etter !! as &art o1 t,e
dis*i&#ining aut,orit6As o2n 1a*t!1inding investigation and in1ormation!gat,ering !!
1ound a prima a!ie *ase against t,e &etitioner 2,o 2as t,en dire*ted to 1i#e ,is
*omment. 's t,is %ourt ,e#d in Civil Servi!e Commission v. Court o
;ppeals
A;<B
!!
Bnder "e*tions 06 and 08 819, %,a&ter 6, "ubtit#e ', Ioo3 < o1 ?.@. No.
.9. and "e*tion 8, Ru#e ;; o1 Bni1orm Ru#es on 'dministrative %ases in t,e %ivi#
"ervi*e, a c)(,a"n# )a' -e "n"#"a#ed a!a"n&# a c"*", &er*"ce $$"cer r
e)(,'ee -' #%e a((r(r"a#e d"&c"(,"n"n! a+#%r"#', e*en /"#%+# -e"n!
&+-&cr"-ed and &/rn #. %onsidering t,at t,e %"%, as t,e dis*i&#ining aut,orit6
1or Dum#ao, 1i#ed t,e *om&#aint, )urisdi*tion over Dum#ao 2as va#id#6 a*Fuired.
8?m&,asis su&&#ied.9
's to &etitionerAs *,a##enge on t,e va#idit6 o1 %"% @( 1/, ". .//. 8%BP9,
t,e same deserves s*ant *onsideration. +,e a##eged in1irmit6 due to t,e said
memorandum order ,aving been issued so#e#6 b6 t,e %"% %,air and not t,e
%ommission as a *o##egia# bod6, u&on 2,i*, t,e dissent o1 %ommissioner
Iuena1#or is &art#6 an*,ored, 2as a#read6 eG&#ained b6 %,air&erson David in ,er
Re&#6 to t,e 'ddendum to %ommissioner Iuena1#orAs &revious memo eG&ressing
,is dissent to t,e a*tions and dis&osition o1 t,e %ommission in t,is
*ase. '**ording to %,air&erson David, said memorandum order 2as in 1a*t
eG,austive#6 dis*ussed, &rovision b6 &rovision in t,e Januar6 .3,
.//. %ommission (eeting, attended b6 ,er and 1ormer %ommissioners ?restain,
Jr. and <a#mores. :en*e, t,e %ommission ?n 2an! at t,e time sa2 no need to
issue a Reso#ution 1or t,e &ur&ose and 1urt,er be*ause t,e %BP being 1or interna#
use o1 t,e %ommission, t,e &ra*ti*e ,ad been to issue a memorandum order.
A;=B
(oreover, being an administrative ru#e t,at is mere#6 interna# in nature, or
2,i*, regu#ates on#6 t,e &ersonne# o1 t,e %"% and not t,e &ub#i*, t,e %BP need
not be &ub#is,ed &rior to its e11e*tivit6.
A;CB
;n 1ine, no error or grave abuse o1 dis*retion 2as *ommitted b6 t,e %' in
a11irming t,e %"%As ru#ing t,at &etitioner is gui#t6 o1 grave mis*ondu*t, dis,onest6,
*ondu*t &re)udi*ia# to t,e best interest o1 t,e servi*e, and vio#ation o1 R.'. No.
6-13. +,e gravit6 o1 t,ese o11enses )usti1ied t,e im&osition on &etitioner o1 t,e
u#timate &ena#t6 o1 dismissa# 2it, a## its a**essor6 &ena#ties, &ursuant to eGisting
ru#es and regu#ations.
3HERE4ORE, t,e &etition 1or revie2 on *ertiorari is 5ENIE5.
+,e De*ision

dated @*tober 11, .//- and Reso#utiondated =ebruar6 .9, .//8 o1
t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s in %'!G.R. "P No. 98..0 are A44IRME5.
>it, *osts against t,e &etitioner.
SO OR5ERE5.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
'sso*iate Justi*e

>? %@N%BR:
RENATO C. CORONA
%,ie1 Justi*e
See Se(ara#e Cnc+rr"n! O("n"n
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
'sso*iate Justi*e
I 0"n ("n"n $ J. Ber&a)"n
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
'sso*iate Justi*e
I 0"n #%e cnc+rr"n! and d"&&en#"n! ("n"n $
J+&#"ce Ber&a)"n
TERESITA J. LEONAR5O-5E CASTRO
'sso*iate Justi*e
ART7RO 5. BRION
'sso*iate Justi*e
5IOS5A5O M. PERALTA
'sso*iate Justi*e
P,ea&e &ee Cnc+rr"n! L 5"&&en#"n!
O("n"n
L7CAS P. BERSAMIN
'sso*iate Justi*e
(N Par#)
MARIANO C. 5EL CASTILLO
'sso*iate Justi*e
I 0"n J+&#"ce L. Ber&a)"nI&
cnc+rr"n! and d"&&en#"n! ("n"n
ROBERTO A. ABA5
'sso*iate Justi*e
JOSE PORT7GAL PERED JOSE CATRAL MEN5ODA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e
I cnc+r -+# &%are J. Car("I& cncern&
MARIA LO7R5ES P. A. SERENO
'sso*iate Justi*e
BIENVENI5O L. REYES
'sso*iate Justi*e
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
'sso*iate Justi*e



C E R T I 4 I C A T I O N
Pursuant to "e*tion 13, 'rti*#e <;;; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution, ; *erti16 t,at
t,e *on*#usions in t,e above De*ision ,ad been rea*,ed in *onsu#tation be1ore t,e
*ase 2as assigned to t,e 2riter o1 t,e o&inion o1 t,e %ourt.




RENATO C. CORONA
%,ie1 Justi*e

No &art.
415
Rollo) &&. 63!83. Penned b6 'sso*iate Justi*e Romeo =. Iar$a, 2it, 'sso*iate Justi*es (ariano %. De#
%asti##o 8no2 a (ember o1 t,is %ourt9 and 'r*ange#ita (. Romi##a!7onto3 *on*urring.
4.5
;d. at 85.
435
;d. at 3/6.
405
;d. at 3/5.
455
%' rollo) &. 56.
465
;d.
4-5
;d. at .1!.0.
485
;d. at ./!.5.
495
;d. at .5.
41/5
;d. at 55!6..
4115
;d. at .6!33. %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David and %ommissioner (ar6 'nn R. =ernande$!(endo$a
*on*urred in ru#ing t,at a prima a!ie *ase eGisted against &etitioner 2,i#e %ommissioner %esar D. Iuena1#or
dissented 4see (emorandum 8@%@(!% (emo No. 10, s. .//-, %' rollo, &&. 031!0309.
41.5
%"% re*ords, &&. -1!# to -1!n. %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David and %ommissioner (ar6 'nn R.
=ernande$!(endo$a *on*urred in t,e denia# o1 t,e omnibus motion 2,i#e %ommissioner %esar D. Iuena1#or
reiterated ,is dissent.
4135
%' rollo, &&. .!19.
4105
;d. at .88!.90, 3.1!3.5.
4155
;d. at 336!30/.
4165
;d. at 3-3.
41-5
;d. at 3-6!3-8.
4185
;d. at 388!39..
4195
;d. at 05-!063. %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David and %ommissioner (ar6 'nn R. =ernande$!(endo$a
*on*urred in den6ing t,e motion 2,i#e %ommissioner %esar D. Iuena1#or dissented stating t,at based on ,is
dissenting &osition, an6 subseFuent &ro*eedings in t,is *ase is o1 no moment sin*e t,e initiator6 &ro*eedings
2as in vio#ation o1 a &ersonAs 1undamenta# rig,ts ens,rined in t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts o1 t,e %onstitution. 8;d. at 065.9
4./5
;d. at 586!618. %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David and %ommissioner (ar6 'nn R. =ernande$!(endo$a
*on*urred in ru#ing t,at &etitioner is gui#t6 as *,arged 2,i#e %ommissioner %esar D. Iuena1#or maintained ,is
dissent.
4.15
;d. at 618.
4..5
08/ B.". -/9 8198-9.
4.35
./6 =.3d 39. 80
t,
%ir. .///9.
4.05
;d. at 56/!585.
4.55
;d. at -/-!-19. %,air&erson Narina %onstantino!David and %ommissioner (ar6 'nn R. =ernande$!(endo$a
*on*urred in t,e denia# o1 t,e motion 1or re*onsideration 2,i#e %ommissioner %esar D. Iuena1#or reiterated ,is
dissent under ,is K'ddendum to t,e Dissenting Position Bnder @%@(!% (emo No. 10, ". .//-L. 8;d. at -./.9
4.65
Rollo) &. 19.
4.-5
So!ial Justi!e So!iety 5SJS6 v. :angerous :rugs 2oard, G.R. Nos. 15-8-/, 158633 and 161658, November 3,
.//8, 5-/ "%R' 01/, 0.-, *iting Ople v. -orres) G.R. No. 1.-685, Ju#6 .3, 1998, .93 "%R' 101, 169.
4.85
JoaFuin Iernas, ".J., +:? %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R, .//3 ed., &. 16..
4.95
G.R. No. 81561, Januar6 18, 1991, 193 "%R' 5-.
43/5
;d. at 63.
4315
389 B.". 03- 8196-9.
43.5
;d.
4335
39. B.". 360, 88 ".%t. .1./, ./ 7.?d.d 1150 819689.
4305
"u&ra note ...
4355
;d. at -1-.
4365
City o Ontario) Cal. v. >uon) 13/ ".%t. .619, B.". ./1/, June 1-, ./1/.
43-5
"u&ra note .. at -1-!-18.
4385
;d. at -18!-19.
4395
;d. at -19, -..!-.5.
40/5
/ran!is v. +ia!omelli) 588 =.3d 186, %.'. 8(d9, De*ember ., .//9.
4015
"u&ra note .3.
40.5
;d.
4035
"u&ra note .- at 03.!033.
4005
@.S. v. 2arrows) 081 =.3d 1.06, %.'.1/ 8@3#a.9, '&ri# 3, .//-, *iting @nited States v. ;nderson) 150 =.3d 1..5,
1..9 81/
t,
%ir. 19989.
4055
@.S. v. Iiegler) 0-0 =.3d 1180 %.'.9 8(ont.9, Januar6 3/, .//-.
4065
%' rollo) &&. 0., 61.
40-5
;d. at 00/!003.
4085
2iby v. 2oard o Regents) o the @niversity o %ebraska at Lin!oln) 019 =.3d 805 %.'.8 8Neb9, 'ugust ..,
.//5.
4095
;d.
45/5
%' rollo, &. 639.
4515
@.S. v. -horn) 3-5 =.3d 6-9, %.'.8 8(o.9, Ju#6 13, .//0.
45.5
;d.
4535
%' rollo) &&. 611!61..
4505
'.(. Nos. P!/8!.519 and P!/8!.5./, November 19, .//8, 5-1 "%R' 361.
4555
,ertudes v. 2uenalor) G.R. No. 153166, De*ember 16, .//5, 0-8 "%R' .1/, .3/, *iting Rosario v. ,i!tory
Ri!emill) G.R. No. 10-5-., =ebruar6 19, .//3, 39- "%R' -6/, -66 and2agong 2ayan Corp.) Realty Investors
and :evelopers v. %LRC) G.R. No. 61.-., "e&tember .9, 1989, 1-8 "%R' 1/-.
4565
%' rollo) &&. 616!61-.
45-5
G.R. No. 10-//9, (ar*, 11, .//0, 0.5 "%R' 390, 0/1.
4585
Rollo) &. .99.
4595
"ee -aJada v. 1on. -uvera, .3/ P,i#. 5.8, 535 819869.
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. 90272 Jnu/, 29, 1990
6ABL$TO %. SAN$3A3, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMM$SS$ON ON ELECT$ONS, respondent.

ME3$AL3EA, J.:
+his is a petition 'or certiorari assailin) the constitutionality o' Section 19 o' Co$elec <esolution #o. !160 on the )round that it
violates the constitutional )uarantees o' the 'reedo$ o' e9pression and o' the press.
6n 6ctober !, 19J9, <epublic ;ct #o. 6066, entitled E;# ;C+ "<6?:C:#@ F6< ;# 6<@;#:C ;C+ F6< +,7 C6<C:%%7<;
;A+6#6&6AS <7@:6#E (as enacted into la(. "ursuant to said la(, the City o' 8a)uio and the Cordilleras (hich consist o' the
provinces o' 8en)uet, &ountain "rovince, :'u)ao, ;bra and .alin)a-;payao, all co$prisin) the Cordillera ;utono$ous <e)ion, shall
take part in a plebiscite 'or the rati'ication o' said 6r)anic ;ct ori)inally scheduled last Cece$ber !0, 19J9 (hich (as, ho(ever, reset
to January 5, 1995 by virtue o' Co$elec <esolution #o. !!!6 dated Cece$ber !0, 19J9.
+he Co$$ission on 7lections, by virtue o' the po(er vested by the 19J0 Constitution, the 6$nibus 7lection Code 28" JJ13, said
<.;. 6066 and other pertinent election la(s, pro$ul)ated <esolution #o. !160, to )overn the conduct o' the plebiscite on the said
6r)anic ;ct 'or the Cordillera ;utono$ous <e)ion.
:n a petition dated #ove$ber !5, 19J9, herein petitioner "ablito ?. Sanidad, (ho clai$s to be a ne(spaper colu$nist o' the
E6?7<?:7WE 'or the 8;@A:6 &:C%;#C C6A<:7<, a (eekly ne(spaper circulated in the City o' 8a)uio and the Cordilleras,
assailed the constitutionality o' Section 19 o' Co$elec <esolution #o. !160, (hich provides*
Section 19. 0rohibition on columnists- commentators or announcers. H Curin) the plebiscite ca$pai)n
period, on the day be'ore and on the plebiscite day, no $ass $edia colu$nist, co$$entator, announcer or
personality shall use his colu$n or radio or television ti$e to ca$pai)n 'or or a)ainst the plebiscite issues.
:t is alle)ed by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional )uarantees o' the
'reedo$ o' e9pression and o' the press enshrined in the Constitution.
Anlike a re)ular ne(s reporter or ne(s correspondent (ho $erely reports the ne(s, petitioner $aintains that as a colu$nist, his
colu$n obviously and necessarily contains and re'lects his opinions, vie(s and belie's on any issue or sub>ect about (hich he (rites.
"etitioner believes that said provision o' C6&7%7C <esolution #o. !160 constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-
)uaranteed 'reedo$ o' the press and 'urther i$poses subseDuent punish$ent 'or those (ho $ay violate it because it contains a
penal provision, as 'ollo(s*
;rticle S:::, Section 1!!, 7lection 6''enses and 8anned ;cts or ;ctivities. H 79cept to the e9tent that the
sa$e $ay not be applicable plebiscite. the banned actsBactivities and o''enses de'ined in and penalized by
the 6$nibus 7lection Code 21Sections !61, !6!, !6 and ;rticle1 SS::, 8.". 8l). JJ13 and the pertinent
provisions o' <.;. #o. 6646 shall be aplicable to the plebiscite )overned by this <esolution.
"etitioner like(ise $aintains that i' $edia practitioners (ere to e9press their vie(s, belie's and opinions on the issue sub$itted to a
plebiscite, it (ould in 'act help in the )overn$ent drive and desire to disse$inate in'or$ation, and hear, as (ell as ventilate, all sides
o' the issue.
6n #ove$ber !J, 19J9, We issued a te$porary restrainin) order en>oinin) respondent Co$$ission on 7lections 'ro$ en'orcin) and
i$ple$entin) Section 19 o' <esolution #o. !160. We also reDuired the respondent to co$$ent on the petition.
6n January 9, 1995, respondent Co$$ission on 7lections, throu)h the 6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral 'iled its Co$$ent.
<espondent Co$elec $aintains that the Duestioned provision o' Co$elec <esolution #o. !160 is not violative o' the constitutional
)uarantees o' the 'reedo$ o' e9pression and o' the press. <ather it is a valid i$ple$entation o' the po(er o' the Co$elec to
supervise and re)ulate $edia durin) election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in ;rticle :S-C, Section 4 o' the 19J0 Constitution o'
the <epublic o' the "hilippines.
:t is stated 'urther by respondent that <esolution !160 does not absolutely bar petitioner 'ro$ e9pressin) his vie(s andBor 'ro$
ca$pai)nin) 'or or a)ainst the 6r)anic ;ct. ,e $ay still e9press his vie(s or ca$pai)n 'or or a)ainst the act throu)h the Co$elec
space and airti$e. +his is provided under Sections 95 and 9! o' 8" JJ1*
Section 95. ,omelec Space. H Co$$ission shall procure space in at least one ne(spaper o' )eneral
circulation in every province or city* "rovided, ho(ever, +hat in the absence o' said ne(spaper, publication
shall be done in any other $a)azine or periodical in said province or city, (hich shall be kno(n as ECo$elec
SpaceE (herein candidates can announce their candidacy. Said space shall be allocated, 'ree o' char)e
eDually and i$partially (ithin the area in (hich the ne(spaper is circulated.
Section 9!. ,omelec 5ime. H +he Co$$ission shall procure radio and television ti$e to be kno(n as
ECo$elec +i$eE (hich shall be allocated eDually and i$partially a$on) the candidates (ithin the area o'
covera)e o' all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the 'ranchise o' all radio broadcastin) and
television stations are hereby a$ended so as to provide radio or television ti$e, 'ree o' char)e, durin) the
period o' the ca$pai)n.
<espondent Co$elec has relied $uch on ;rticle :S-C o' the 19J0 Constitution and Section 11 o' <.;. 6646 as the basis 'or the
pro$ul)ation o' the Duestioned Section 19 o' Co$elec <esolution !160.
;rticle :S-C o' the 19J0 Constitution provides*
+he Co$$ission $ay, durin) the election period, supervise or re)ulate the en>oy$ent or utilization o' all
'ranchises or per$its 'or the operation o' transportation and other public utilities, $edia o' co$$unication or
in'or$ation, all )rants, special privile)es, or concessions )ranted by the @overn$ent or any subdivision,
a)ency or instru$entality thereo', includin) any )overn$ent-o(ned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary.
Such supervision or re)ulation shall ai$ to ensure eDual opportunity, ti$e, and space, and the ri)ht to reply,
includin) reasonable, eDual rates there'or, 'or public in'or$ation ca$pai)ns and 'oru$s a$on) candidates in
connection (ith the ob>ective o' holdin) 'ree, orderly, honest, peace'ul and credible elections.
Si$ilarly, Section 11 o' <epublic ;ct #o. 6646 2+he 7lectoral <e'or$ %a( o' 19J03 like(ise provides*
0rohibited forms of election 0ropaganda. H :n addition to the 'or$s o' election propa)anda prohibited under
Section J/ o' 8atas "a$bansa 8l). JJ1, it shall be unla('ul* ...
2b3 'or any ne(spaper, radio, broadcastin) or television station, or other $ass $edia, or any person $akin)
use o' the $ass $edia to sell or to )ive 'ree o' char)e print space or air ti$e 'or ca$pai)n or other political
purposes e9cept to the Co$$ission as provided under Sections 95 and 9! o' 8atas "a$bansa 8l). JJ1. ;ny
$ass $edia colu$nist, co$$entator, announcer, or personality (ho is a candidate 'or any elective o''ice
shall take a leave o' absence 'ro$ his (ork as such durin) the ca$pai)n period. 27$phasis ours3
,o(ever, it is clear 'ro$ ;rt. :S-C o' the 19J0 Constitution that (hat (as )ranted to the Co$elec (as the po(er to supervise and
re)ulate the use and en>oy$ent o' franchises- permits or other grants issued 'or the operation o' transportation or other public
utilities, $edia o' co$$unication or in'or$ation to the end that eDual opportunity, ti$e and space, and the ri)ht to reply, includin)
reasonable, eDual rates there'or, 'or public in'or$ation ca$pai)ns and forums among candidates are ensured. +he evil sou)ht to be
prevented by this provision is the possibility that a 'ranchise holder $ay 'avor or )ive any undue advanta)e to a candidate in ter$s o'
advertisin) space or radio or television ti$e. +his is also the reason (hy a Ecolu$nist, co$$entator, announcer or personality, who
is acandidate for an' electi%e office is reDuired to take a leave o' absence 'ro$ his (ork durin) the ca$pai)n period 2!nd par.
Section 112b3 <.;. 66463. :t cannot be )ainsaid that a colu$nist or co$$entator (ho is also a candidate (ould be $ore e9posed to
the voters to the pre>udice o' other candidates unless reDuired to take a leave o' absence.
,o(ever, neither ;rticle :S-C o' the Constitution nor Section 11 2b3, !nd par. o' <.;. 6646 can be construed to $ean that the
Co$elec has also been )ranted the ri)ht to supervise and re)ulate the e9ercise by media practitioners themsel%es o' their ri)ht to
e9pression durin) plebiscite periods. &edia practitioners e9ercisin) their 'reedo$ o' e9pression durin) plebiscite periods are neither
the 'ranchise holders nor the candidates. :n 'act, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. +here'ore, Section 19 o' Co$elec
<esolution #o. !160 has no statutory basis.
:n the case o' 8adoy, Jr. v. Co$elec, %-!/46, 6ct. 16, 1905, (here the constitutionality o' the prohibition o' certain 'or$s o' election
propa)anda (as assailed, We ruled therein that the prohibition is a valid e9ercise o' the police po(er o' the state Eto prevent the
perversion and prostitution o' the electoral apparatus and o' the denial o' eDual protection o' the la(s.E +he evil sou)ht to be
prevented in an election (hich led to 6ur rulin) in that case does not obtain in a plebiscite. :n a plebiscite, votes are taken in an area
on so$e special political $atter unlike in an election (here votes are cast in 'avor o' speci'ic persons 'or so$e o''ice. :n other (ords,
the electorate is asked to vote 'or or a)ainst issues, not candidates in a plebiscite.
;nent respondent Co$elec1s ar)u$ent that Section 19 o' Co$elec <esolution !160 does not absolutely bar petitioner-colu$nist
'ro$ e9pressin) his vie(s andBor 'ro$ ca$pai)nin) 'or or a)ainst the or)anic act because he $ay do so throu)h the Co$elec space
andBor Co$elec radioBtelevision ti$e, the sa$e is not $eritorious. While the li$itation does not absolutely bar petitioner1s 'reedo$ o'
e9pression, it is still a restriction on his choice o' the 'oru$ (here he $ay e9press his vie(. #o reason (as advanced by respondent
to >usti'y such abrid)e$ent. We hold that this 'or$ o' re)ulation is tanta$ount to a restriction o' petitioner1s 'reedo$ o' e9pression 'or
no >usti'iable reason.
"lebiscite issues are $atters o' public concern and i$portance. +he people1s ri)ht to be in'or$ed and to be able to 'reely and
intelli)ently $ake a decision (ould be better served by access to an unabrid)ed discussion o' the issues, includin) the 'oru$. +he
people a''ected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the 'oru$ (here the ri)ht to
e9pression $ay be e9ercised. Co$elec spaces and Co$elec radio ti$e $ay provide a 'oru$ 'or e9pression but they do not
)uarantee 'ull disse$ination o' in'or$ation to the public concerned because they are li$ited to either speci'ic portions in ne(spapers
or to speci'ic radio or television ti$es.
;CC6<C:#@%-, the instant petition is @<;#+7C. Section 19 o' Co$elec <esolution #o. !160 is declared null and void and
unconstitutional. +he restrainin) order herein issued is hereby $ade per$anent.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan- ,...- 9ar%asa- Melencio-)errera- Gutierrez- .r.- ,ruz- 0aras- Feliciano- Ganca'co- 0adilla- /idin- Sarmiento- ,ortes- Gri#o-
A&uino and +egalado- ...- concur.
+he %a(phil "ro>ect - ;rellano %a( Foundation
?N I'N%
AG.R. N. :?<;<:. Ma' ;, 622:B
SOCIAL 3EATHER STATIONS, INCORPORATE5 and
HAMAHALAN P7BLISHING CORPORATION, d"n! -+&"ne&& a&
MANILA STAN5AR5, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.
5 E C I S I O N
MEN5ODA, J.9
Petitioner, "o*ia# >eat,er "tations, ;n*. 8">"9, is a &rivate non!sto*3, non!&ro1it so*ia#
resear*, institution *ondu*ting surve6s in various 1ie#ds, in*#uding e*onomi*s, &o#iti*s,
demogra&,6, and so*ia# deve#o&ment, and t,erea1ter &ro*essing, ana#6$ing, and &ub#i*#6
re&orting t,e resu#ts t,ereo1. @n t,e ot,er ,and, &etitioner Nama,a#an Pub#is,ing %or&oration
&ub#is,es t,e (ani#a "tandard, a ne2s&a&er o1 genera# *ir*u#ation, 2,i*, 1eatures ne2s2ort,6
items o1 in1ormation in*#uding e#e*tion surve6s.
Petitioners broug,t t,is a*tion 1or &ro,ibition to en)oin t,e %ommission on ?#e*tions 1rom
en1or*ing U5.0 o1 R.'. No. 9//6 8=air ?#e*tion '*t9, 2,i*, &rovides:
"urve6s a11e*ting nationa# *andidates s,a## not be &ub#is,ed 1i1teen 8159 da6s be1ore
an e#e*tion and surve6s a11e*ting #o*a# *andidates s,a## not be &ub#is,ed seven 8-9
da6s be1ore an e#e*tion.
+,e term Ke#e*tion surve6sL is de1ined in U5.1 o1 t,e #a2 as 1o##o2s:
?#e*tion surve6s re1er to t,e measurement o1 o&inions and &er*e&tions o1 t,e voters as
regards a *andidateAs &o&u#arit6, Fua#i1i*ations, &#at1orms or a matter o1 &ub#i*
dis*ussion in re#ation to t,e e#e*tion, in*#uding votersA &re1eren*e 1or *andidates or
&ub#i*#6 dis*ussed issues during t,e *am&aign &eriod 8,erea1ter re1erred to as
K"urve6L9.
+o im&#ement U5.0, Reso#ution 3636, U.08,9, dated (ar*, 1, .//1, o1 t,e %@(?7?% en)oins
"urve6s a11e*ting nationa# *andidates s,a## not be &ub#is,ed 1i1teen 8159 da6s be1ore
an e#e*tion and surve6s a11e*ting #o*a# *andidates s,a## not be &ub#is,ed seven 8-9
da6s be1ore an e#e*tion.
Petitioner ">" states t,at it 2is,es to *ondu*t an e#e*tion surve6 t,roug,out t,e &eriod o1
t,e e#e*tions bot, at t,e nationa# and #o*a# #eve#s and re#ease to t,e media t,e resu#ts o1 su*,
surve6 as 2e## as &ub#is, t,em dire*t#6. Petitioner Nama,a#an Pub#is,ing %or&oration, on t,e
ot,er ,and, states t,at it intends to &ub#is, e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts u& to t,e #ast da6 o1 t,e
e#e*tions on (a6 10, .//1.
Petitioners argue t,at t,e restri*tion on t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts *onstitutes
a &rior restraint on t,e eGer*ise o1 1reedom o1 s&ee*, 2it,out an6 *#ear and &resent danger to
)usti16 su*, restraint. +,e6 *#aim t,at ">" and ot,er &o##sters *ondu*ted and &ub#is,ed t,e
resu#ts o1 surve6s &rior to t,e 199., 1995, and 1998 e#e*tions u& to as *#ose as t2o da6s be1ore
t,e e#e*tion da6 2it,out *ausing *on1usion among t,e voters and t,at t,ere is neit,er em&iri*a#
nor ,istori*a# eviden*e to su&&ort t,e *on*#usion t,at t,ere is an immediate and inevitab#e danger
to t,e voting &ro*ess &osed b6 e#e*tion surve6s. +,e6 &oint out t,at no simi#ar restri*tion is
im&osed on &o#iti*ians 1rom eG&#aining t,eir o&inion or on ne2s&a&ers or broad*ast media 1rom
2riting and &ub#is,ing arti*#es *on*erning &o#iti*a# issues u& to t,e da6 o1 t,e e#e*tion.
%onseFuent#6, t,e6 *ontend t,at t,ere is no reason 1or ordinar6 voters to be denied a**ess to t,e
resu#ts o1 e#e*tion surve6s 2,i*, are re#ative#6 ob)e*tive.
Res&ondent %ommission on ?#e*tions )usti1ies t,e restri*tions in U5.0 o1 R.'. No. 9//6 as
ne*essar6 to &revent t,e mani&u#ation and *orru&tion o1 t,e e#e*tora# &ro*ess b6 uns*ru&u#ous
and erroneous surve6s )ust be1ore t,e e#e*tion. ;t *ontends t,at 819 t,e &ro,ibition on t,e
&ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts during t,e &eriod &ros*ribed b6 #a2 bears a rationa#
*onne*tion to t,e ob)e*tive o1 t,e #a2, i.e., t,e &revention o1 t,e debasement o1 t,e e#e*tora#
&ro*ess resu#ting 1rom mani&u#ated surve6s, band2agon e11e*t, and absen*e o1 re&#6H 8.9 it is
narro2#6 tai#ored to meet t,e Kevi#sL soug,t to be &reventedH and 839 t,e im&airment o1 1reedom
o1 eG&ression is minima#, t,e restri*tion being #imited bot, in duration, i.e., t,e #ast 15 da6s
be1ore t,e nationa# e#e*tion and t,e #ast - da6s be1ore a #o*a# e#e*tion, and in s*o&e as it does not
&ro,ibit e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts but on#6 reFuire time#iness. Res&ondent *#aims t,at in Nationa#
Press %#ub v. %@(?7?%,
415
a tota# ban on &o#iti*a# advertisements, 2it, *andidates being
mere#6 a##o*ated broad*ast time during t,e so!*a##ed %@(?7?% s&a*e or %@(?7?% ,our, 2as
u&,e#d b6 t,is %ourt. ;n *ontrast, a**ording to res&ondent, it states t,at t,e &ro,ibition in U5.0 o1
R.'. No. 9//6 is mu*, more #imited.
=or reasons ,ereunder given, 2e ,o#d t,at U5.0 o1 R.'. No. 9//6 *onstitutes an
un*onstitutiona# abridgment o1 1reedom o1 s&ee*,, eG&ression, and t,e &ress.
+o be sure, U5.0 #a6s a &rior restraint on 1reedom o1 s&ee*,, eG&ression, and t,e &ress b6
&ro,ibiting t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts a11e*ting *andidates 2it,in t,e &res*ribed
&eriods o1 1i1teen 8159 da6s immediate#6 &re*eding a nationa# e#e*tion and seven 8-9 da6s be1ore
a #o*a# e#e*tion. Ie*ause o1 t,e &re1erred status o1 t,e *onstitutiona# rig,ts o1 s&ee*,, eG&ression,
and t,e &ress, su*, a measure is vitiated b6 a 2eig,t6 &resum&tion o1 inva#idit6.
4.5
;ndeed, Kan6
s6stem o1 &rior restraints o1 eG&ression *omes to t,is %ourt bearing a ,eav6 &resum&tion against
its *onstitutiona# va#idit6. . . . +,e Government Tt,us *arries a ,eav6 burden o1 s,o2ing
)usti1i*ation 1or t,e en1or*ement o1 su*, restraint.AL
435
+,ere is t,us a reversa# o1 t,e norma#
&resum&tion o1 va#idit6 t,at in,eres in ever6 #egis#ation.
Nor ma6 it be argued t,at be*ause o1 'rt. ;C!%, U0 o1 t,e %onstitution, 2,i*, gives t,e
%@(?7?% su&ervisor6 &o2er to regu#ate t,e en)o6ment or uti#i$ation o1 1ran*,ise 1or t,e
o&eration o1 media o1 *ommuni*ation, no &resum&tion o1 inva#idit6 atta*,es to a measure #i3e
U5.0. =or as 2e ,ave &ointed out in sustaining t,e ban on media &o#iti*a# advertisements, t,e
grant o1 &o2er to t,e %@(?7?% under 'rt. ;C!%, U0 is #imited to ensuring KeFua# o&&ortunit6,
time, s&a*e, and t,e rig,t to re&#6L as 2e## as uni1orm and reasonab#e rates o1 *,arges 1or t,e use
o1 su*, media 1a*i#ities 1or K&ub#i* in1ormation *am&aigns and 1orums among *andidates.L
405
+,is
%ourt stated:
+,e te*,ni*a# e11e*t o1 'rti*#e ;C 8%9 809 o1 t,e %onstitution ma6 be seen to be t,at no
&resum&tion o1 inva#idit6 arises in res&e*t o1 eGer*ises o1 su&ervisor6 or regu#ator6
aut,orit6 on t,e &art o1 t,e %ome#e* 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 se*uring eFua# o&&ortunit6
among *andidates 1or &o#iti*a# o11i*e, a#t,oug, su*, su&ervision or regu#ation ma6
resu#t in some #imitation o1 t,e rig,ts o1 1ree s&ee*, and 1ree &ress.
455
(R. JB"+;%? N'PBN'N dissents. :e re)e*ts as ina&&ro&riate t,e test o1 *#ear and
&resent danger 1or determining t,e va#idit6 o1 U5.0. ;ndeed, as ,as been &ointed out in @smeOa v.
%@(?7?%,
465
t,is test 2as origina##6 1ormu#ated 1or t,e *rimina# #a2 and on#6 #ater a&&ro&riated
1or 1ree s&ee*, *ases. :en*e, 2,i#e it ma6 be use1u# 1or determining t,e va#idit6 o1 #a2s dea#ing
2it, in*iting to sedition or in*endiar6 s&ee*,, it ma6 not be adeFuate 1or su*, regu#ations as t,e
one in Fuestion. =or su*, a test is *on*erned 2it, Fuestions o1 t,e gravit6 and imminen*e o1 t,e
danger as basis 1or *urtai#ing 1ree s&ee*,, 2,i*, is not t,e *ase o1 U5.0 and simi#ar regu#ations.
;nstead, (R. JB"+;%? N'PBN'N &ur&orts to engage in a 1orm o1 ba#an*ing b6 K2eig,ing
and ba#an*ing t,e *ir*umstan*es to determine 2,et,er &ub#i* interest 4in 1ree, order#6, ,onest,
&ea*e1u# and *redib#e e#e*tions5 is served b6 t,e regu#ation o1 t,e 1ree en)o6ment o1 t,e rig,tsL
8&age -9. '1ter *anvassing t,e reasons 1or t,e &ro,ibition, i.e.) to &revent #ast!minute &ressure on
voters, t,e *reation o1 band2agon e11e*t to 1avor *andidates, misin1ormation, t,e K)un3ingL o1
2ea3 and K#osingL *andidates b6 t,eir &arties, and t,e 1orm o1 e#e*tion *,eating *a##ed Kdagdag!
ba2asL and invo3ing t,e "tateAs &o2er to su&ervise media o1 in1ormation during t,e e#e*tion
&eriod 8&ages 11!169, t,e dissenting o&inion sim&#6 *on*#udes:
<ie2ed in t,e #ig,t o1 t,e #egitimate and signi1i*ant ob)e*tives o1 "e*tion 5.0, it ma6
be seen t,at its #imiting im&a*t on t,e rig,ts o1 1ree s&ee*, and o1 t,e &ress is not
undu#6 re&ressive or unreasonab#e. ;ndeed, it is a mere restri*tion, not an abso#ute
&ro,ibition, on t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6s. ;t is #imited in durationH it a&&#ies
on#6 during t,e &eriod 2,en t,e voters are &resumab#6 *ontem&#ating 2,om t,e6
s,ou#d e#e*t and 2,en t,e6 are most sus*e&tib#e to su*, un2arranted &ersuasion.
+,ese surve6s ma6 be &ub#is,ed t,erea1ter. 8Pages 1-!189
+,e dissent does not, ,o2ever, s,o2 2,6, on ba#an*e, t,ese *onsiderations s,ou#d out2eig,
t,e va#ue o1 1reedom o1 eG&ression. ;nstead, re#ian*e is &#a*ed on 'rt. ;C!%, U0. 's a#read6
stated, t,e &ur&ose o1 'rt. ;C!%, U0 is to Kensure eFua# o&&ortunit6, time, and s&a*e and t,e rig,t
o1 re&#6, in*#uding reasonab#e, eFua# rates t,ere1or 1or &ub#i* in1ormation *am&aigns and 1orums
among *andidates.L :en*e t,e va#idit6 o1 t,e ban on media advertising. ;t is note2ort,6 t,at
R.'. No. 9//6, U10 ,as #i1ted t,e ban and no2 a##o2s *andidates to advertise t,eir *andida*ies
in &rint and broad*ast media. ;ndeed, to sustain t,e ban on t,e &ub#i*ation o1 surve6 resu#ts
2ou#d san*tion t,e *ensors,i& o1 a## s&ea3ing b6 *andidates in an e#e*tion on t,e ground t,at t,e
usua# bombasts and ,6&erbo#i* *#aims made during t,e *am&aigns *an *on1use voters and t,us
debase t,e e#e*tora# &ro*ess.
;n sum, t,e dissent ,as engaged on#6 in a ba#an*ing at t,e margin. +,is 1orm o1 ad ,o*
ba#an*ing &redi*tab#6 resu#ts in sustaining t,e *,a##enged #egis#ation and #eaves 1reedom o1
s&ee*,, eG&ression, and t,e &ress 2it, #itt#e &rote*tion. =or an6one 2,o *an bring a &#ausib#e
)usti1i*ation 1or2ard *an easi#6 s,o2 a rationa# *onne*tion bet2een t,e statute and a #egitimate
governmenta# &ur&ose. ;n *ontrast, t,e ba#an*ing o1 interest underta3en b6 t,en Justi*e %astro
in +on(ales v.CO*?L?C)
4-5
1rom 2,i*, t,e dissent in t,is *ase ta3es its *ue, 2as a strong one
resu#ting in ,is *on*#usion t,at U5/!I o1 R.'. No. 088/, 2,i*, #imited t,e &eriod o1 e#e*tion
*am&aign and &artisan &o#iti*a# a*tivit6, 2as an un*onstitutiona# abridgment o1 1reedom o1
eG&ression.
Nor *an t,e ban on e#e*tion surve6s be )usti1ied on t,e ground t,at t,ere are ot,er
*ountries -8, a**ording to t,e "o#i*itor Genera#, 2,i#e t,e dissent *ites .8 2,i*, simi#ar#6
im&ose restri*tions on t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6s. 't best t,is surve6 is in*on*#usive. ;t
is note2ort,6 t,at in t,e Bnited "tates no restri*tion on t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts
eGists. ;t *annot be argued t,at t,is is be*ause t,e Bnited "tates is a mature demo*ra*6. Neit,er
are t,ere #a2s im&osing an embargo on surve6 resu#ts, even 1or a #imited &eriod, in ot,er
*ountries. 's &ointed out b6 &etitioners, t,e Bnited Ningdom, 'ustria, Ie#gium, Denmar3,
?stonia, =in#and, ;*e#and, ;re#and, 7atvia, (a#ta, (a*edonia, t,e Net,er#ands, Nor2a6, "2eden,
and B3raine, some o1 2,i*, are no o#der nor more mature t,an t,e P,i#i&&ines in &o#iti*a#
deve#o&ment, do not restri*t t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts.
>,at test s,ou#d t,en be em&#o6ed to determine t,e *onstitutiona# va#idit6 o1 U5.0Q +,e
Bnited "tates "u&reme %ourt, t,roug, %,ie1 Justi*e >arren, ,e#d in@nited States v. OD2rien:
4'5 government regu#ation is su11i*ient#6 )usti1ied 415 i1 it is 2it,in t,e
*onstitutiona# &o2er o1 t,e GovernmentH 4.5 i1 it 1urt,ers an im&ortant or
substantia# governmenta# interestH 435 i1 t,e governmenta# interest is unre#ated to
t,e su&&ression o1 1ree eG&ressionH and 405 i1 t,e in*identa# restri*tion on a##eged
=irst 'mendment 1reedoms 4o1 s&ee*,, eG&ression and &ress5 is no greater t,an is
essentia# to t,e 1urt,eran*e o1 t,at interest.
485
+,is is so 1ar t,e most in1#uentia# test 1or distinguis,ing *ontent!based 1rom *ontent!neutra#
regu#ations and is said to ,ave Kbe*ome *anoni*a# in t,e revie2 o1 su*, #a2s.L
495
;t is note2ort,6
t,at t,e OD2rien test ,as been a&&#ied b6 t,is %ourt in at #east t2o *ases.
41/5
Bnder t,is test, even i1 a #a2 1urt,ers an im&ortant or substantia# governmenta# interest, it
s,ou#d be inva#idated i1 su*, governmenta# interest is Knot unre#ated to t,e su&&ression o1 1ree
eG&ression.L (oreover, even i1 t,e &ur&ose is unre#ated to t,e su&&ression o1 1ree s&ee*,, t,e #a2
s,ou#d nevert,e#ess be inva#idated i1 t,e restri*tion on 1reedom o1 eG&ression is greater t,an is
ne*essar6 to a*,ieve t,e governmenta# &ur&ose in Fuestion.
@ur inFuir6 s,ou#d a**ording#6 1o*us on t,ese t2o *onsiderations as a&&#ied to U5.0.
/irst. "e*. 5.0 1ai#s to meet *riterion 435 o1 t,e OD2rien test be*ause t,e *ausa# *onne*tion
o1 eG&ression to t,e asserted governmenta# interest ma3es su*, interest Knot unre#ated to t,e
su&&ression o1 1ree eG&ression.L I6 &ro,ibiting t,e &ub#i*ation o1 e#e*tion surve6 resu#ts be*ause
o1 t,e &ossibi#it6 t,at su*, &ub#i*ation mig,t undermine t,e integrit6 o1 t,e e#e*tion, U5.0
a*tua##6 su&&resses a 2,o#e *#ass o1 eG&ression, 2,i#e a##o2ing t,e eG&ression o1 o&inion
*on*erning t,e same sub)e*t matter b6 ne2s&a&er *o#umnists, radio and +< *ommentators,
arm*,air t,eorists, and ot,er o&inion ma3ers. ;n e11e*t, U5.0 s,o2s a bias 1or a &arti*u#ar sub)e*t
matter, i1 not vie2&oint, b6 &re1erring &ersona# o&inion to statisti*a# resu#ts. +,e *onstitutiona#
guarantee o1 1reedom o1 eG&ression means t,at Kt,e government ,as no &o2er to restri*t
eG&ression be*ause o1 its message, its ideas, its sub)e*t matter, or its *ontent.L
4115
+,e in,ibition o1
s&ee*, s,ou#d be u&,e#d on#6 i1 t,e eG&ression 1a##s 2it,in one o1 t,e 1e2 un&rote*ted *ategories
dea#t 2it, in Chaplinsky v. %ew 1ampshire,
41.5
t,us:
+,ere are *ertain 2e##!de1ined and narro2#6 #imited *#asses o1 s&ee*,, t,e &revention
and &unis,ment o1 2,i*, ,ave never been t,oug,t to raise an6 %onstitutiona#
&rob#em. +,ese in*#ude t,e #e2d and obs*ene, t,e &ro1ane, t,e #ibe#ous, and t,e
insu#ting or T1ig,tingA 2ords t,ose 2,i*, b6 t,eir ver6 utteran*e in1#i*t in)ur6 or
tend to in*ite an immediate brea*, o1 t,e &ea*e. 4"5u*, utteran*es are no essentia# &art
o1 an6 eG&osition o1 ideas, and are o1 su*, s#ig,t so*ia# va#ue as a ste& to trut, t,at an6
bene1it t,at ma6 be derived 1rom t,em is *#ear#6 out2eig,ed b6 t,e so*ia# interest in
order and mora#it6.
Nor is t,ere )usti1i*ation 1or t,e &rior restraint 2,i*, U5.0 #a6s on &rote*ted
s&ee*,. ;n %ear v. *innesota,
4135
it 2as ,e#d:
4+,e5 &rote*tion even as to &revious restraint is not abso#ute#6 un#imited. Iut t,e
#imitation ,as been re*ogni$ed on#6 in eG*e&tiona# *ases. . . . No one 2ou#d Fuestion
but t,at a government mig,t &revent a*tua# obstru*tion to its re*ruiting servi*e or t,e
&ub#i*ation o1 t,e sai#ing dates o1 trans&orts or t,e number and #o*ation o1 troo&s. @n
simi#ar grounds, t,e &rimar6 reFuirements o1 de*en*6 ma6 be en1or*ed against
obs*ene &ub#i*ations. +,e se*urit6 o1 t,e *ommunit6 #i1e ma6 be &rote*ted against
in*itements to a*ts o1 vio#en*e and t,e overt,ro2 b6 1or*e o1 order#6 government . . . .
+,us, *ontrar6 to t,e *#aim o1 t,e "o#i*itor Genera#, t,e &ro,ibition im&osed b6 U5.0 *annot
be )usti1ied on t,e ground t,at it is on#6 1or a #imited &eriod and is on#6 in*identa#. +,e
&ro,ibition ma6 be 1or a #imited time, but t,e *urtai#ment o1 t,e rig,t o1 eG&ression is dire*t,
abso#ute, and substantia#. ;t *onstitutes a tota# su&&ression o1 a *ategor6 o1 s&ee*, and is not
made #ess so be*ause it is on#6 1or a &eriod o1 1i1teen 8159 da6s immediate#6 be1ore a nationa#
e#e*tion and seven 8-9 da6s immediate#6 be1ore a #o*a# e#e*tion.
+,is su11i*ient#6 distinguis,es U5.0 1rom R.'. No. 6606, U118b9, 2,i*, t,is %ourt 1ound to
be va#id in %ational 9ress Club v. CO*?L?C
4105
and OsmeJa v.CO*?L?C.
4155
=or t,e ban im&osed
b6 R.'. No. 6606, U118b9 is not on#6 aut,ori$ed b6 a s&e*i1i* *onstitutiona# &rovision,
4165
but it
a#so &rovided an a#ternative so t,at, as t,is %ourt &ointed out in OsmeJa, t,ere 2as a*tua##6 no ban
but on#6 a substitution o1 media advertisements b6 t,e %@(?7?% s&a*e and %@(?7?% ,our.
Se!ond. ?ven i1 t,e governmenta# interest soug,t to be &romoted is unre#ated to t,e
su&&ression o1 s&ee*, and t,e resu#ting restri*tion o1 1ree eG&ression is on#6 in*identa#, U5.0
nonet,e#ess 1ai#s to meet *riterion 405 o1 t,e OD2rien test, name#6, t,at t,e restri*tion be not
greater t,an is ne*essar6 to 1urt,er t,e governmenta# interest. 's a#read6 stated, U5.0 aims at t,e
&revention o1 #ast!minute &ressure on voters, t,e *reation o1 band2agon e11e*t, K)un3ingL o1
2ea3 or K#osingL *andidates, and resort to t,e 1orm o1 e#e*tion *,eating *a##ed Kdagdag!
ba2as.L Praise2ort,6 as t,ese aims o1 t,e regu#ation mig,t be, t,e6 *annot be attained at t,e
sa*ri1i*e o1 t,e 1undamenta# rig,t o1 eG&ression, 2,en su*, aim *an be more narro2#6 &ursued
b6 &unis,ing un#a21u# a!ts, rat,er t,an spee!h be*ause o1 a&&re,ension t,at su*, s&ee*, *reates
t,e danger o1 su*, evi#s. +,us, under t,e 'dministrative %ode o1 198-,
41-5
t,e %@(?7?% is
given t,e &o2er:
+o sto& an6 i##ega# a*tivit6, or *on1is*ate, tear do2n, and sto& an6 un#a21u#,
#ibe#ous, mis#eading or 1a#se e#e*tion &ro&aganda, a1ter due noti*e and ,earing.
+,is is sure#6 a #ess restri*tive means t,an t,e &ro,ibition *ontained in U5.0. Pursuant to t,is
&o2er o1 t,e %@(?7?%, it *an *on1is*ate bogus surve6 resu#ts *a#*u#ated to mis#ead voters.
%andidates *an ,ave t,eir o2n surve6s *ondu*ted. No rig,t o1 re&#6 *an be invo3ed b6
ot,ers. No &rin*i&#e o1 eFua#it6 is invo#ved. ;t is a 1ree mar3et to 2,i*, ea*, *andidate brings
,is ideas. 's 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 t,e #a2 to &revent band2agon e11e*ts, it is doubt1u# 2,et,er t,e
Government *an dea# 2it, t,is natura#!enoug, tenden*6 o1 some voters. "ome voters 2ant to be
identi1ied 2it, t,e K2inners.L "ome are sus*e&tib#e to t,e ,erd menta#it6. %an t,ese be
#egitimate#6 &ro,ibited b6 su&&ressing t,e &ub#i*ation o1 surve6 resu#ts 2,i*, are a 1orm o1
eG&ressionQ ;t ,as been ,e#d t,at K4mere5 #egis#ative &re1eren*es or be#ie1s res&e*ting matters o1
&ub#i* *onvenien*e ma6 2e## su&&ort regu#ation dire*ted at ot,er &ersona# a*tivities, but be
insu11i*ient to )usti16 su*, as diminis,es t,e eGer*ise o1 rig,ts so vita# to t,e maintenan*e o1
demo*rati* institutions.L
4185
+o summari$e t,en, 2e ,o#d t,at U5.0 is inva#id be*ause 819 it im&oses a &rior restraint on
t,e 1reedom o1 eG&ression, 8.9 it is a dire*t and tota# su&&ression o1 a *ategor6 o1 eG&ression even
t,oug, su*, su&&ression is on#6 1or a #imited &eriod, and 839 t,e governmenta# interest soug,t to
be &romoted *an be a*,ieved b6 means ot,er t,an t,e su&&ression o1 1reedom o1 eG&ression.
@n t,e ot,er ,and, t,e %@(?7?% *ontends t,at under 'rt. ;C!', U- o1 t,e %onstitution, its
de*isions, orders, or reso#utions ma6 be revie2ed b6 t,is %ourt on#6 b6 *ertiorari. +,e 1#a2s in
t,is argument is t,at it assumes t,at its Reso#ution 3636, dated (ar*, 1, .//1 is a Kde*ision,
order, or reso#utionL 2it,in t,e meaning o1 'rt. ;C!', U-. ;ndeed, *ounse# 1or %@(?7?%
maintains t,at Reso#ution 3636 2as KrenderedL b6 t,e %ommission. :o2ever, t,e Reso#ution
does not &ur&ort to ad)udi*ate t,e rig,t o1 an6 &art6. ;t is not an eGer*ise b6 t,e %@(?7?% o1
its ad)udi*ator6 &o2er to sett#e t,e *#aims o1 &arties. +o t,e *ontrar6, Reso#ution 3636 *#ear#6
states t,at it is &romu#gated to im&#ement t,e &rovisions o1 R.'. No. 9//6. :en*e, t,ere is no
basis 1or t,e %@(?7?%As *#aim t,at t,is &etition 1or &ro,ibition is ina&&ro&riate. Pro,ibition
,as been 1ound a&&ro&riate 1or testing t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 various e#e*tion #a2s, ru#es, and
regu#ations.
4195
3HERE4ORE, t,e &etition 1or &ro,ibition is GR'N+?D and U5.0 o1 R.'. No. 9//6 and
U.08,9 o1 %@(?7?% Reso#ution 3636, dated (ar*, 1, .//1, are de*#ared un*onstitutiona#.
SO OR5ERE5.
:avide) Jr.) C.J.) ,itug) and +on(aga$Reyes) JJ.) *on*ur.
2ellosillo) 9ardo) 0nares$Santiago) and Sandoval$+utierre() JJ.) )oin t,e dissent o1 J.
Na&unan.
*elo) 9uno) and 9anganiban) JJ.) see *on*urring o&inion.
Gapunan) J.) see dissenting o&inion.
>uisumbing) 2uena) and :e Leon) Jr.) JJ.) on #eave.
415
./- "%R' 1 8199.9.
4.5
'6er Produ*tions Pt6. 7td. v. %a&u#ong, 16/ "%R' 861, 8-3 819889.
435
Ne2 or3 +imes v. Bnited "tates, 0/3 B.". -13, -10, .9 7.?d. .d 8.., 8.0 819-19.
405
Nationa# Press %#ub v. %@(?7?%, ./- "%R' 1 8199.9H @smeOa v. %@(?7?%, .88 "%R' 00- 819989.
455
Nationa# Press %#ub v. %@(?7?%, supra at 9.
465
.88 "%R' 00- 819989.
4-5
.- "%R' 835, 888 819699 8%astro, J., *on*urring and dissenting9.
485
391 B.". 36-, 3--, ./ 7.?d..d 6-., 68/ 819689 8bra*3eted numbers added9.
495
G. Gunt,er D N. "u##ivan, %onstitutiona# 7a2 1.1- 813t, ed. 199-9.
41/5
'diong v. %@(?7?%, ./- "%R' -1. 8199.9H @smeOa v. %@(?7?%, supra.
4115
Po#i*e De&t. v. (os,#e6, 0/8 B.". 9., 95, 33 7.?d..d .1., .16 819-.9.
41.5
315 B.". 568, 5-1!5-., 86 7.?d. 1/31, 1/35 8190.9. See Jo,n :art ?#6, /lag :ese!ration" ; Case Study in the
Roles o Categori(ation and 2alan!ing in /irst ;mendment ;nalysis) 88 :arv. 7. Rev. 108., 109- 819-59.
4135
.83 B.". 69-, -15!16, -5 7.?d. 135-, 136- 819319H See also Ne2 or3 +imes v. Bnited "tates, 0/3 B.". -!13, .9
7.?d..d 8.. 819-19.
4105
Supra.
4155
Supra.
4165
'rt. ;C!%, U0.
41-5
I3. <, +it. ;, "ubtit. %, %,. 1, U3 819 8em&,asis added9.
4185
"*,neider v. ;rvington, 3/8 B.". 10-, 161, 80 7.?d. 155 819399.
4195
See) e.g.) (utu* v. %@(?7?%, 36 "%R' ..8 819-/9H Gon$a#es v. %@(?7?%, .- "%R' 835 819699.
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. L-99329 Ju8, 19, 1929
EASTERN BROA3CAST$NG COR6ORAT$ON @3#REA petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. JOSE 6. 3ANS, JR., M$N$STER O" TRANS6ORTAT$ON N COMMUN$CAT$ONS, THE HON. CE"ER$NO S. CARREON,
COMM$SS$ONER, NAT$ONAL TELECOM., COMM$SS$ON, ET AL., respondents.
< 7 S 6 % A + : 6 #

GUT$ERRE1, JR., J.:
+his petition (as 'iled to co$pel the respondents to allo( the reopenin) o' <adio Station C-<7 (hich had been su$$arily closed
on )rounds o' national security.
+he petitioner contended that it (as denied due process (hen it (as closed on the $ere alle)ation that the radio station (as used to
incite people to sedition. it alle)ed that no hearin) (as held and not a bit o' proo' (as sub$itted to establish a 'actual basis 'or the
closure. +he petitioner (as not in'or$ed be'orehand (hy ad$inistrative action (hich closed the radio station (as taken a)ainst it.
#o action (as taken by the respondents to entertain a $otion seekin) the reconsideration o' the closure action. +he petitioner also
raised the issue o' 'reedo$ o' speech. :t appears 'ro$ the records that the respondents1 )eneral char)e o' Eincitin) people to co$$it
acts o' seditionE arose 'ro$ the petitioner1s shi't to(ards (hat it stated (as the covera)e o' public events and the airin) o' pro)ra$s
)eared to(ards public a''airs.
6n &arch !/, 19J/, be'ore the Court could pro$ul)ate a decision sDuarely passin) upon all the issues raised, the petitioner throu)h
its president, &r. <ene @. 7spina suddenly 'iled a $otion to (ithdra( or dis$iss the petition.
+he petitioner alle)ed*
1. "etitioner 7astern 8roadcastin) Corporation has already sold its radio broadcastin) station in 'avor o'
&anuel 8. "astrana as (ell as its ri)hts and interest in the radio station C-<7 in Cebu includin) its ri)ht to
operate and its eDuip$ent=
!. <espondent #ational +eleco$$unications Co$$ission has e9pressed its (illin)ness to )rant to the said
ne( o(ner &anuel 8. "astrana the reDuisite license and 'ranchise to operate the said radio station and to
approve the sale o' the radio trans$itter o' said station C-<7=
. :n vie( o' the 'ore)oin), petitioner has no lon)er any interest in said case, and the ne( o(ner, &anuel 8.
"astrana is like(ise not interested in pursuin) the case any 'urther.
+he case, there'ore, has beco$e $oot and acade$ic. ,o(ever, 'or the )uidance o' in'erior courts and ad$inistrative tribunals
e9ercisin) Duasi->udicial 'unctions, the Court issues the 'ollo(in) )uidelines*
213 +he cardinal pri$ary reDuire$ents in ad$inistrative proceedin)s laid do(n by this Court in Ang 5iba' %. ,ourt of 3ndustrial
+elations 269 "hil. 6/3 should be 'ollo(ed be'ore a broadcast station $ay be closed or its operations curtailed.
1
2!3 :t is necessary to reiterate that (hile there is no controllin) and precise de'inition o' due process, it 'urnishes
an una%oidable standard to (hich )overn$ent action $ust con'or$ in order that any deprivation o' li'e, liberty, or property, in each
appropriate case, $ay be valid 27r$ita-&alate ,otel and &otel 6perators ;ssociation v. City &ayor, !5 SC<; J493.
23 ;ll 'or$s o' $edia, (hether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection o' the 'reedo$ o' speech and e9pression
clause. +he test 'or li$itations on 'reedo$ o' e9pression continues to be the clear and present dan)er rule H that (ords are used in
such circu$stances and are o' such a nature as to create a clear and present dan)er that they (ill brin) about the substantive evils
that the la($aker has a ri)ht to prevent, :n his,onstitution of the 0hilippines 2!nd 7dition, pp. /69-/053 Chie' Justice 7nriDue &.
Fernando cites at least nine o' our decisions (hich apply the test H 20rimicias %. Fugoso FJ5 "hil. 01G, American /ible Societ' %. ,it'
of ManilaF151 "hil. J6G, ,abansag %. Fernandez F15! "hil. 1/!G, 6era %. Arca F!J SC<; /1G, 9a%arro %. 6illegas F1 SC<;
91G, 3mbong %. Ferrer F/ SC<; !JG, /ado' %. ,ommission on Elections F/ SC<; !J/G, 0eople %. Ferrer F4J SC<; J!G, and
the 0hilippine /looming Mills Emplo'ees Organization %. 0hilippine /looming Mills ,o.- 3nc. F/1 SC<; 1J9G. &ore recently, the clear
and present dan)er test (as applied in J.8.%. <eyes in behal' o' the Anti-/ases ,oalition %. /agatsing F1!/ SC<; //G.
243 +he clear and present dan)er test, ho(ever, does not lend itsel' to a si$plistic and all e$bracin) interpretation applicable to all
utterances in all 'oru$s.
8roadcastin) has to be licensed. ;ir(ave 'reDuencies have to be allocated a$on) Duali'ied users. ; broadcast corporation cannot
si$ply appropriate a certain 'reDuency (ithout re)ard 'or )overn$ent re)ulation or 'or the ri)hts o' others.
;ll 'or$s o' co$$unication are entitled to the broad protection o' the 'reedo$ o' e9pression clause. #ecessarily, ho(ever, the
'reedo$ o' television and radio broadcastin) is so$e(hat lesser in scope than the 'reedo$ accorded to ne(spaper and print $edia.
+he American ,ourt in Federal ,ommunications ,ommission %. 0acifica Foundation 24J A.S. 0!63, con'ronted (ith a patently
o''ensive and indecent re)ular radio pro)ra$, e9plained (hy radio broadcastin), $ore than other 'or$s o' co$$unications, receives
the $ost li$ited protection 'ro$ the 'ree e9pression clause. First, broadcast $edia have established a uniDuely pervasive presence
in the lives o' all citizens, &aterial presented over the air(aves con'ronts the citizen, not only in public, but in the privacy o' his ho$e.
Second, broadcastin) is uniDuely accessible to children. 8ookstores and $otion picture theaters $ay be prohibited 'ro$ $akin)
certain $aterial available to children, but the sa$e selectivity cannot be done in radio or television, (here the listener or vie(er is
constantly tunin) in and out.
Si$ilar considerations apply in the area o' national security.
+he broadcast $edia have also established a uniDuely pervasive presence in the lives o' all Filipinos, #e(spapers and current
books are 'ound only in $etropolitan areas and in the poblaciones o' $unicipalities accessible to 'ast and re)ular transportation.
7ven here, there are lo( inco$e $asses (ho 'ind the cost o' books, ne(spapers, and $a)azines beyond their hu$ble $eans.
8asic needs like 'ood and shelter per'orce en>oy hi)h priorities.
6n the other hand, the transistor radio is 'ound every(here. +he television set is also beco$in) universal. +heir $essa)e $ay be
si$ultaneously received by a national or re)ional audience o' listeners includin) the indi''erent or un(illin) (ho happen to be (ithin
reach o' a blarin) radio or television set. +he $aterials broadcast over the air(aves reach every person o' every a)e, persons o'
varyin) susceptibilities to persuasion, persons o' di''erent :.L.s and $ental capabilities, persons (hose reactions to in'la$$atory or
o''ensive speech (ould be di''icult to $onitor or predict. +he i$pact o' the vibrant speech is 'orce'ul and i$$ediate. Anlike readers
o' the printed (ork, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to co)itate analyze, and re>ect the utterance.
2/3 +he clear and present dan)er test, there'ore, $ust take the particular circu$stances o' broadcast $edia into account. +he
supervision o' radio stations-(hether by )overn$ent or throu)h sel'-re)ulation by the industry itsel' calls 'or thou)ht'ul, intelli)ent
and sophisticated handlin).
+he )overn$ent has a ri)ht to be protected a)ainst broadcasts (hich incite the listeners to violently overthro( it. <adio and
television $ay not be used to or)anize a rebellion or to si)nal the start o' (idespread uprisin). ;t the sa$e ti$e, the people have a
ri)ht to be in'or$ed. <adio and television (ould have little reason 'or e9istence i' broadcasts are li$ited to bland, obseDuious, or
pleasantly entertainin) utterances. Since they are the $ost convenient and popular $eans o' disse$inatin) varyin) vie(s on public
issues, they also deserve special protection.
263 +he 'reedo$ to co$$ent on public a''airs is essential to the vitality o' a representative de$ocracy. :n the 191J case o' ;nited
States %. /ustos 20 "hil. 013 this Court (as already stressin) that.
+he interest o' society and the $aintenance o' )ood )overn$ent de$and a 'ull discussion o' public a''airs.
Co$plete liberty to co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech. +he sharp
incision o' its probe relieves the abscesses o' o''icialdo$. &en in public li'e $ay su''er under a hostile and an
un>ust accusation= the (ound can be assua)ed (ith the bal$ o' a clear conscience. ; public o''icer $ust not
be too thin-skinned (ith re'erence to co$$ent upon his o''icial acts. 6nly thus can the intelli)ence and
di)nity o' the individual be e9alted.
203 8roadcast stations deserve the special protection )iven to all 'or$s o' $edia by the due process and 'reedo$ o' e9pression
clauses o' the Constitution.
W,7<7F6<7, the case havin) beco$e $oot and acade$ic, the petitioner1s $otion to (ithdra( or dis$iss the petition is hereby
@<;#+7C.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Melencio-)errera- 0lana- Escolin +elo%a- ,ue%as and Alampa'- ...- concur.
Ma(asiar- ,oncepcion- .r. and 4e la Fuente- ...- concur in the result Lthe case ha%ing become moot and academicM.
A&uino- ..- too( no part.


Se*/+e O*&n&on(

"ERNAN3O, C.J., concurrin)*
: concur in the ponencia o' Justice @utierrez, Jr., notable 'or its reiteration o' the clear and present dan)er principle as the standard
o' li$itation on 'ree speech and press, as decided by a unani$ous court in ../.L. +e'es %. /agatsing.
1
;s $ay be )leaned 'ro$ the votin) o' the Justices, the $a>ority 'avors the vie( that even i' a case (ere $oot and acade$ic, a
state$ent o' the )overnin) principle is appropriate in the resolution o' dis$issal 'or the )uidance not only o' the parties but o' others
si$ilarly situated. +here are three Justices, ho(ever, &akasiar, Concepcion, Jr. and de la Fuente, (ho (ould strictly adhere to the
concept that the case bein) $oot and acade$ic, the appropriate disposition is that o' si$ply dis$issin) the action. +hat is to abide
by the teachin) o' orthodo9 learnin). +he "hilippines, ho(ever, has deviated 'ro$ such a strict vie(. #or is this approach o' recent
vinta)e. ;s early as Ale2andrino %. 8uezon
2
decided in 19!4, this Court, not(ithstandin) the absence o' >urisdiction, e9pressed throu)h
Justice &alcol$ (hat principle o' la( should )overn. Si$ilarly in Osmena- .r. %. 0endatun,
3
not(ithstandin) (ell-'ounded doubts as to
>urisdiction and a 'indin) that the case should be dis$issed 'or bein) $oot and acade$ic, this Court, throu)h the then Justice, later Chie'
Justice 8en)zon, passed upon the le)al Duestion raised. :n that sense, the "hilippines has 'ollo(ed an approach distinct 'ro$ that o' the
Anited States, not(ithstandin) the in'luence o' ;$erican Constitutional la( on our le)al syste$.
;lso let $e state 'or the record that the ori)inal opinion prepared by Justice @utierrez, Jr. could not have been released in ;pril a'ter
the petitioner on &arch !/, 19J/ E'iled a $otion to (ithdra( or dis$iss the petition.E ;'ter that date, so$e $e$bers o' the Court
(anted the $atter discussed ane( as to its appropriate disposition. +hat is the e9planation (hy such an opinion (as never sent to
the 6''ice o' the Chie' Justice. #or is it to be 'or)otten that even i' a decision si)ned by all the other $e$bers (ere thus sub$itted.
the practice traditionally 'ollo(ed is 'or (hoever is Chie' Justice to take a 'e( days 'or the e9pression o' his vie(s i' $inded to do so.

TEEHAN;EE, J., concurrin)*
"re'atory State$ent* ;s stated in the resolution penned by &r. Justice @utierrez, the release in early ;pril o' this year o' the Court1s
decision declarin) null and void respondent co$$ission1s challen)ed su$$ary order 'or closure o' petitioner1s radio station
2Ede'initely attended by co$plete absence o' any hearin) be'ore or a'ter the closure itsel'E3 and )rantin) the petition 'or issuance o' a
(rit o' $andatory in>unction 'or the reopenin) o' the station, (as overtaken by petitioner1s Esuddenly 'iledE $otion to (ithdra( or
dis$iss the petition.
:nitially, &r. Justice @utierrez (as 'or applyin) the Salonga 'or$ula and releasin) nevertheless his si9teen-pa)e e9tended opinion and decision on the $erits. ,e
(as o' the vie(, 'ully shared by $e, 4 that E2+3he need 'or )uidin) principles on constitutionalis$ is particularly keen in critical ti$es and in periods o' transition. +here is then a tendency
to be i$pulsive in the e9ercise o' po(er. +he use o' ille)al shortcuts and the breakdo(n o' traditional restraints and discipline, un'ortunately, is $ost pronounced in troubled ti$es. :t
beco$es necessary 'or the Court to e$phasize the i$portance o' adherence to the $andates o' the Constitution. +he e''orts, no $atter ho( (ell $eanin), to Duell a rebellion or to stave
o'' econo$ic disaster cannot succeed i' they trans)ress basic ri)hts and, there'ore, alienate our people.E 8ut since such approach did not )ain the concurrence o' the $a>ority, he has
replaced his ori)inal ponencia (ith the abbreviated <esolution 2o' a little over 'our pa)es3 no( released, (hich carries the reDuired $a>ority and issues )uidelines E'or the )uidance o'
in'erior courts and ad$inistrative tribunals e9ercisin) Duasi->udicial 'unctions.E
While (ithdra(al o' the petition 'or loss o' interest on petitioner1s part $ay be )ranted, still the Court should uneDuivocally set 'orth
the )uidin) and controllin) precepts or doctrines in pursuance o' its sy$bolic 'unction o' educatin) bench and bar as in Salonga on
the protection and preservation o' basic constitutional ri)hts. ;s stated in $y separate concurrin) opinion, infra, public respondents1
su$$ary closure o' petitioner1s radio station 'ailed to observe the special protection )iven to all 'or$s o' $edia by the due process
and 'reedo$ o' press and $edia clauses o' the Constitution, as (ell as the basic clear and present dan)er test. ;s stated by the no(
Chie' Justice in 4e la ,amara %s. Enage,1 ) the 'act that the case has beco$e $oot Eshould not preclude this +ribunal 'ro$ settin) 'orth in lan)ua)e clear and
un$istakable ... 'or the )uidance o' lo(er court >ud)es Fand other public o''icersG the controllin) and authoritative doctrines that should be observed,E so that 'ull respect $ay be accorded
to basic constitutional ri)hts.
&y separate concurrin) opinion (hich 'ollo(s hereina'ter (as prepared and scheduled 'or pro$ul)ation on or about ;pril 9, 19J/
upon its return on said date to the ponente, &r. Justice @utierrez, 'or trans$ittal to the 6''ice o' the Chie' Justice 'or the purpose. 8ut
this (as overtaken by the 'ilin) o' petitioner1s $otion 'or (ithdra(al or dis$issal o' the petition. ,ence, $y said concurrin) opinion
should be read in such ti$e conte9t 2in the sa$e $anner as in the 1904 $artial la( cases o' A&uino- .r. and 4io(no %s. Enrile, /9
SC<; 1J, 59, Septe$ber 10, 1904, (herein the pro$ul)ation o' the decision and separate opinions ori)inally schedule 'or
Septe$ber 1!, 1904 (as de'erred to the 'ollo(in) (eek (ith the intervenin) release 'ro$ detention o' Senator Jose W Ciokno3.
999 999 999
+he $ain opinion rea''ir$s in lan)ua)e un$istakable that broadcast $edia 2radio and television3 (hile sub>ect to )overn$ent
licensin) 2'or allocation o' the use o' air(aves and 'reDuencies3 and re)ulation 2considerin) their pervasive presence and instant
i$pact3 are eDually protected by the pre'erred 'reedo$s o' speech and o' the press and by the rudi$entary reDuire$ents o' due
process a)ainst arbitrary deprivation o' li'e, liberty and property= that the basic standard 'or restrictin) or punishin) the e9ercise o'
these pre'erred 'reedo$s is the clear and present dan)er test H dan)er o' a serious and i$$inent evil sou)ht to be prevented= that
the su$$ary closure in 6ctober, 19J5 o' petitioner1s radio station 2Ede'initely attended by co$plete absence o' any hearin) be'ore or
a'ter the closure itsel' E3 violated its constitutional ri)hts and $ust there'ore be declared null and void, and conseDuently, the (rit o'
$andatory in>unction 'or the reopenin) o' the station, as prayed 'or, $ust issue.
Con)ratulations are due the ponente Justice ,u)o @utierrez, Jr. (ho secured the Court1s near-unani$ous concurrence in the recent
case o' Salonga %s. 0ano
1
(hich (ent back to the 'unda$entals and stressed, in dischar)e o' the Court1s Esy$bolic 'unction o' educatin)
bench and bar on the e9tent o' protection )iven by constitutional )uaranteesE that E2:3n'initely $ore i$portant than conventional adherence
to )eneral rules o' cri$inal procedure is respect 'or the citizen1s ri)ht to be 'ree not only 'ro$ arbitrary arrest and punish$ent but also 'ro$
un(arranted and ve9atious prosecution. +he inte)rity o' a de$ocratic society is corrupted i' a person is carelessly included in the trial o'
around 'orty persons (hen on the very 'ace o' the record no evidence linkin) hi$ to the alle)ed conspiracy e9ists,E that E ... i' there is any
principle o' the Constitution that $ore i$peratively calls 'or attach$ent than any other it is the principle o' 'ree thou)ht H not 'ree thou)ht
'or those (ho a)ree (ith us but 'reedo$ 'or the thou)ht that (e hate=E that E'reedo$ o' e9pression is a 1pre'erred1 ri)ht and there'ore stands
on a hi)her level than substantive econo$ic or other liberties,E that Ethis $ust be so because the lessons o' history, both political and le)al,
illustrate that 'reedo$ o' thou)ht and speech is the indispensable condition o' nearly every other 'or$ o' 'reedo$. "rotection is especially
$andated 'or political discussions. +his Court is particularly concerned (hen alle)ations are $ade that restraints have been i$posed upon
$ere criticis$s o' )overn$ent and public o''icials. "olitical discussion is essential to the ascertain$ent o' political truth. :t cannot be the
basis o' cri$inal indict$ents=E that there $ust be tolerance o' political hyperbole since Edebate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open and it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public
o''icials,E that Ethe constitutional )uarantees o' 'ree speech and 'ree press do not per$it a State to 'orbid or prescribe advocacy o' the use
o' 'orce or o' la( in violation e9cept (here such advocacy is directed to incitin) or producin) i$$inent la(less action and is likely to incite
or produce such action=E that Epolitical discussion even a$on) those opposed to the present ad$inistration is (ithin the protective clause o'
'reedo$ o' speech and e9pression. +he sa$e cannot be construed as subversive activities per se or as evidence o' $e$bership in a
subversive or)anizationE in the absence o' proo' that Esuch discussion (as in 'urtherance o' any plan to overthro( the )overn$ent throu)h
ille)al $eans=E that, Erespondent court should have taken these 'actors into consideration be'ore concludin) that a pri$a 'acie case e9ists
a)ainst the petitioner. 7vidence $ust not only proceed 'ro$ the $outh o' a credible (itness but it $ust be credible in itsel' such as the
co$$on e9perience and observation o' $ankind can approve as probable under the circu$stances=E and that E>ud)e or 'iscal, there'ore,
should not )o on (ith the prosecution in the hope that so$e credible evidence $i)ht later turn up durin) trial 'or this (ould be a 'la)rant
violation o' a basic ri)ht (hich the courts are created to uphold. :t bears repeatin) that the >udiciary lives up to its $ission by vitalizin) and
not deni)ratin) constitutional ri)hts. So it has been be'ore. :t should continue to be so.E
+he sa$e ponente has no( like(ise obtained the Court1s near-unani$ous approval o' the decision at bar,
2
(hich restates basic and
established constitutional principles under the <ule o' %a( that public o''icials do not possess absolute po(er to su$$arily close do(n a
broadcastin) station nor to arbitrarily deny its application 'or rene(al o' license= that their broad and pere$ptory re)ulatory po(ers E$ust be
e9ercised (ith punctilious re)ard 'or the due process clauseE (hich in the (ords o' the Chie' Justice si)ni'ies E'reedo$ 'ro$ arbitrariness
FandG is the e$bodi$ent o' the sportin) :dea o' 'air play=
3
that radio and television (hich E(ould have little reason 'or e9istence i'
broadcasts are li$ited to bland, obseDuious, or pleasantly entertainin) utterancesE deserve the special protection o' the pre'erred ri)ht o'
'ree press and speech= that co$$ent on and criticis$ o' public o''icials in the conduct o' public a''airs is not to be taken as Eincitin) to
sedition or subversive actsE H that to curb or to punish the e9ercise o' such pre'erred ri)ht o' co$$ent and criticis$ there $ust e9ist the
clear and present dan)er o' a substantive and )rave evil that the State has a clear ri)ht to prevent, and hence, there $ust be a clear
sho(in) to this e''ect o' Ethe (ords used and (hen and ho( they (ere used=E that since the 191J case o' ;.S. %s. /ustos,
5
the Court has
tau)ht that Ethe interest o' society and the $aintenance o' )ood )overn$ent de$and a 'ull discussion o' public a''airs. Co$plete liberty to
co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech. +he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abcesses o'
o''icialdo$= E that the )uarantee o' 'ree speech is a sa'ety valve Eallo(in) parties the opportunity to )ive vent to their vie(s, even i' contrary
to the prevailin) cli$ate o' opinionE (hich is )rounded on E'aith in the po(er o' an appeal to reason by all the peace'ul $eans 'or )ainin)
access to the $indE and Eserves to avert 'orce and e9plosions due to restrictions upon rational $odes o' co$$unication=E
9
and that throu)h
the ri)hts o' 'ree e9pression, 'ree asse$bly and petition, Ethe citizens can participate not $erely in the periodic establish$ent o' the
)overn$ent throu)h their su''ra)e but also in the ad$inistration o' public a''airs as (ell as in the discipline o' abusive public o''icersE and
that since Ethe threat o' sanctions $ay deter the e9ercise Fo' these 1delicate and vulnerable ... and supre$ely precious 'reedo$s1G al$ost as
potently as the actual application o' sanctions, they 1need breathin) space to survive1 per$ittin) )overn$ent re)ulation only 1(ith narro(
speci'icity.
6
+he late Justice Jose ;bad Santos, $artyr o' the Japanese occupation, le't us over hal' a century a)o the le)acy o' his dissent
a)ainst (hat he dee$ed (ere un>usti'ied Einvasions on the part o' the )overn$ent and its e$ployees o' the sanctities o' a $an1s
ho$e and the privacies o' li'eE in 0eople %s. +ubio
7
that the Eco$$endable zeal 2o' internal revenue a)ents3 i' allo(ed to override
constitutional li$itations (ould beco$e 1obno9ious to 'unda$ental principles o' liberty.1 ;nd i' (e are to be saved 'ro$ the sad e9periences
o' so$e countries (hich have constitutions only in na$e, (e $ust insist that )overn$ental authority be e9ercised (ithin constitutional
li$its= 'or, a'ter all, (hat $atters is not so $uch (hat the people (rite in their constitutions as the spirit in (hich they observe their
provisions.E
:n the sa$e vein, the late Chie' Justice <icardo "aras in the land$ark case o' 0rimicias %s. Fugoso
2
en>oined all to abide by the
teachin) o' the 1950 sedition case o' ;. S. %s. Apurado
9
that instances o' Edisorderly conduct by individual $e$bers o' a cro(d Fbe not
seizedG as an e9cuse to characterize the asse$bly as a seditious and tu$ultuous risin) a)ainst the authorities,E 'or Ei' the prosecution be
per$itted to seize upon every instance o' such disorderly conduct by individual $e$bers o' a cro(d as an e9cuse to characterize the
asse$bly as a seditious and tu$ultous risin) a)ainst the authorities, then the ri)ht to asse$ble and to petition 'or redress o' )rievances
(ould beco$e a delusion and snare and the atte$pt to e9ercise it on the $ost ri)hteous occasion and in the $ost peaceable $anner
(ould e9pose all those (ho took part therein to the severest and $ost un$erited punish$ent, i' the purposes (hich they sou)ht to attain
did not happen to be pleasin) to the prosecutin) authorities. :' instances o' disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the )uilty
individuals should be sou)ht out and punished there'or.E
:ndeed, as : stressed in $y dissentin) opinion in the recent case o' German %s. /arangan,
10
to reDuire the citizen at every step to
assert his ri)hts and to )o to court is to render illusory his ri)hts. ;ll concerned, the )overnors as (ell as the )overned, $ust observe (hat
they have (ritten in their constitution in their very spirit and intent, so that as (ritten by Justice &akasiar in the "8& case
11
Ethe 8ill o'
<i)hts F$i)ht not turn out to beG a useless atte$pt to li$it the po(er o' )overn$ent and cease to be an e''icacious shield a)ainst the
tyranny o' o''icials, o' $a>orities, o' the in'luential and po(er'ul, and o' oli)archs H political, econo$ic or other(ise.E
+he Court1s decision $akes short shri't o' respondents1 procedural ar)u$ents that non-rene(al o' petitioner1s license has $ade the
petition E$oot and acade$icE 2brushed aside as Ean a'terthou)ht or substitute 'or the respondents1 ori)inal position that the closure
(as due to national securityE3 and that $anda$us (ould not lie to co$pel the reopenin) o' the radio station brou)ht about by their
inaction on petitioner1s ti$ely application 'or rene(al o' the license. :t serves notice that in the e9ercise o' the >udicial po(er vested in
it by the Constitution, it (ill issue the eDuitable (rits o' certiorari and $anda$us to do substantial >ustice and restore the status Duo.
:n this case, the su$$ary closure o' petitioner1s radio station in 19J5 havin) been declared null and void and no valid )round 'or
non-rene(al o' its license havin) been sho(n, it is as i' the said license has been duly e9tended up to the end o' the current ter$ or
year. :t is e9pected that respondents (ill 'orth(ith return the crystal o' the trans$itter and place no 'urther obstacle to the pro$pt
reopenin) o' the radio station so that petitioner $ay pick up the broken pieces and ri)ht'ully resu$e its operations 2a'ter al$ost 'ive
years o' closure3 in accordance (ith the >ud)$ent at bar.

ABA3 SANTOS, J., concurrin)*
+he petitioner has 'iled a $otion to (ithdra( its petition 'or the reasons stated in its $otion. +he Court has )ranted the $otion but
this circu$stance should not deter the Court 'ro$ educatin) those (ho (ield po(er (hich i' e9ercised arbitrarily (ill $ake a $ockery
o' the 8ill o' <i)hts.
+he closure o' the petitioner1s radio station on )rounds o' national security (ithout elaboration o' the )rounds and (ithout hearin)
deserves to be conde$ned in no uncertain ter$s 'or it is $ani'est that due process (as not observed. :' there is an :dea (hich
should be i$pressed in the $inds o' those (ho (ield po(er it is that po(er $ust be used in a reasonable $anner. ;rbitrariness $ust
be esche(ed. +he $ain opinion, that o' Justice +eehankee and the case o' Ang 5iba' %s. ,ourt of 3ndustrial +elations, 69 "hil. 6/
F1945G, should be $ade reDuired readin) $aterials 'or public o''icials (ho hu'' and pu'' (ith po(er $akin) the$selves not $erely
obno9ious but dan)erous as (ell.

Se*/+e O*&n&on(
"ERNAN3O, C.J., concurrin)*
: concur in the ponencia o' Justice @utierrez, Jr., notable 'or its reiteration o' the clear and present dan)er principle as the standard
o' li$itation on 'ree speech and press, as decided by a unani$ous court in J.8.%. <eyes v. 8a)atsin).
1
;s $ay be )leaned 'ro$ the votin) o' the Justices, the $a>ority 'avors the vie( that even i' a case (ere $oot and acade$ic, a
state$ent o' the )overnin) principle is appropriate in the resolution o' dis$issal 'or the )uidance not only o' the parties but o' others
si$ilarly situated. +here are three Justices, ho(ever, &akasiar, Concepcion, Jr. and de la Fuente, (ho (ould strictly adhere to the
concept that the case bein) $oot and acade$ic, the appropriate disposition is that o' si$ply dis$issin) the action. +hat is to abide
by the teachin) o' orthodo9 learnin). +he "hilippines, ho(ever, has deviated 'ro$ such a strict vie(. #or is this approach o' recent
vinta)e. ;s early as Ale2andrino %. 8uezon
2
decided in 19!4, this Court, not(ithstandin) the absence o' >urisdiction, e9pressed throu)h
Justice &alcol$ (hat principle o' la( should )overn. Si$ilarly in Osmena- .r. %. 0endatun,
3
not(ithstandin) (ell-'ounded doubts as to
>urisdiction and a 'indin) that the case should be dis$issed 'or bein) $oot and acade$ic, this Court, throu)h the then Justice, later Chie'
Justice 8en)zon, passed upon the le)al Duestion raised. :n that sense, the "hilippines has 'ollo(ed an approach distinct 'ro$ that o' the
Anited States, not(ithstandin) the in'luence o' ;$erican Constitutional la( on our le)al syste$.
;lso let $e state 'or the record that the ori)inal opinion prepared by Justice @utierrez, Jr. could not have been released in ;pril a'ter
the petitioner on &arch !/, 19J/ E'iled a $otion to (ithdra( or dis$iss the petition.E ;'ter that date, so$e $e$bers o' the Court
(anted the $atter discussed ane( as to its appropriate disposition. +hat is the e9planation (hy such an opinion (as never sent to
the 6''ice o' the Chie' Justice. #or is it to be 'or)otten that even i' a decision si)ned by all the other $e$bers (ere thus sub$itted.
the practice traditionally 'ollo(ed is 'or (hoever is Chie' Justice to take a 'e( days 'or the e9pression o' his vie(s i' $inded to do so.

TEEHAN;EE, J., concurrin)*
"re'atory State$ent* ;s stated in the resolution penned by &r. Justice @utierrez, the release in early ;pril o' this year o' the Court1s
decision declarin) null and void respondent co$$ission1s challen)ed su$$ary order 'or closure o' petitioner1s radio station
2Ede'initely attended by co$plete absence o' any hearin) be'ore or a'ter the closure itsel'E3 and )rantin) the petition 'or issuance o' a
(rit o' $andatory in>unction 'or the reopenin) o' the station, (as overtaken by petitioner1s Esuddenly 'iledE $otion to (ithdra( or
dis$iss the petition.
:nitially, &r. Justice @utierrez (as 'or applyin) the Salonga 'or$ula and releasin) nevertheless his si9teen-pa)e e9tended opinion and decision on the $erits. ,e
(as o' the vie(, 'ully shared by $e, 4 that E2+3he need 'or )uidin) principles on constitutionalis$ is particularly keen in critical ti$es and in periods o' transition. +here is then a tendency
to be i$pulsive in the e9ercise o' po(er. +he use o' ille)al shortcuts and the breakdo(n o' traditional restraints and discipline, un'ortunately, is $ost pronounced in troubled ti$es. :t
beco$es necessary 'or the Court to e$phasize the i$portance o' adherence to the $andates o' the Constitution. +he e''orts, no $atter ho( (ell $eanin), to Duell a rebellion or to stave
o'' econo$ic disaster cannot succeed i' they trans)ress basic ri)hts and, there'ore, alienate our people.E 8ut since such approach did not )ain the concurrence o' the $a>ority, he has
replaced his ori)inal ponencia (ith the abbreviated <esolution 2o' a little over 'our pa)es3 no( released, (hich carries the reDuired $a>ority and issues )uidelines E'or the )uidance o'
in'erior courts and ad$inistrative tribunals e9ercisin) Duasi->udicial 'unctions.E
While (ithdra(al o' the petition 'or loss o' interest on petitioner1s part $ay be )ranted, still the Court should uneDuivocally set 'orth
the )uidin) and controllin) precepts or doctrines in pursuance o' its sy$bolic 'unction o' educatin) bench and bar as in Salonga on
the protection and preservation o' basic constitutional ri)hts. ;s stated in $y separate concurrin) opinion, infra, public respondents1
su$$ary closure o' petitioner1s radio station 'ailed to observe the special protection )iven to all 'or$s o' $edia by the due process
and 'reedo$ o' press and $edia clauses o' the Constitution, as (ell as the basic clear and present dan)er test. ;s stated by the no(
Chie' Justice in 4e la ,amara %s. Enage,1 ) the 'act that the case has beco$e $oot Eshould not preclude this +ribunal 'ro$ settin) 'orth in lan)ua)e clear and
un$istakable ... 'or the )uidance o' lo(er court >ud)es Fand other public o''icersG the controllin) and authoritative doctrines that should be observed,E so that 'ull respect $ay be accorded
to basic constitutional ri)hts.
&y separate concurrin) opinion (hich 'ollo(s hereina'ter (as prepared and scheduled 'or pro$ul)ation on or about ;pril 9, 19J/
upon its return on said date to the ponente, &r. Justice @utierrez, 'or trans$ittal to the 6''ice o' the Chie' Justice 'or the purpose. 8ut
this (as overtaken by the 'ilin) o' petitioner1s $otion 'or (ithdra(al or dis$issal o' the petition. ,ence, $y said concurrin) opinion
should be read in such ti$e conte9t 2in the sa$e $anner as in the 1904 $artial la( cases o' A&uino- .r. and 4io(no %s. Enrile, /9
SC<; 1J, 59, Septe$ber 10, 1904, (herein the pro$ul)ation o' the decision and separate opinions ori)inally schedule 'or
Septe$ber 1!, 1904 (as de'erred to the 'ollo(in) (eek (ith the intervenin) release 'ro$ detention o' Senator Jose W Ciokno3.
999 999 999
+he $ain opinion rea''ir$s in lan)ua)e un$istakable that broadcast $edia 2radio and television3 (hile sub>ect to )overn$ent
licensin) 2'or allocation o' the use o' air(aves and 'reDuencies3 and re)ulation 2considerin) their pervasive presence and instant
i$pact3 are eDually protected by the pre'erred 'reedo$s o' speech and o' the press and by the rudi$entary reDuire$ents o' due
process a)ainst arbitrary deprivation o' li'e, liberty and property= that the basic standard 'or restrictin) or punishin) the e9ercise o'
these pre'erred 'reedo$s is the clear and present dan)er test H dan)er o' a serious and i$$inent evil sou)ht to be prevented= that
the su$$ary closure in 6ctober, 19J5 o' petitioner1s radio station 2Ede'initely attended by co$plete absence o' any hearin) be'ore or
a'ter the closure itsel' E3 violated its constitutional ri)hts and $ust there'ore be declared null and void, and conseDuently, the (rit o'
$andatory in>unction 'or the reopenin) o' the station, as prayed 'or, $ust issue.
Con)ratulations are due the ponente Justice ,u)o @utierrez, Jr. (ho secured the Court1s near-unani$ous concurrence in the recent
case o' Salonga %s. 0ano
1
(hich (ent back to the 'unda$entals and stressed, in dischar)e o' the Court1s Esy$bolic 'unction o' educatin)
bench and bar on the e9tent o' protection )iven by constitutional )uaranteesE that E2:3n'initely $ore i$portant than conventional adherence
to )eneral rules o' cri$inal procedure is respect 'or the citizen1s ri)ht to be 'ree not only 'ro$ arbitrary arrest and punish$ent but also 'ro$
un(arranted and ve9atious prosecution. +he inte)rity o' a de$ocratic society is corrupted i' a person is carelessly included in the trial o'
around 'orty persons (hen on the very 'ace o' the record no evidence linkin) hi$ to the alle)ed conspiracy e9ists,E that E ... i' there is any
principle o' the Constitution that $ore i$peratively calls 'or attach$ent than any other it is the principle o' 'ree thou)ht H not 'ree thou)ht
'or those (ho a)ree (ith us but 'reedo$ 'or the thou)ht that (e hate=E that E'reedo$ o' e9pression is a 1pre'erred1 ri)ht and there'ore stands
on a hi)her level than substantive econo$ic or other liberties,E that Ethis $ust be so because the lessons o' history, both political and le)al,
illustrate that 'reedo$ o' thou)ht and speech is the indispensable condition o' nearly every other 'or$ o' 'reedo$. "rotection is especially
$andated 'or political discussions. +his Court is particularly concerned (hen alle)ations are $ade that restraints have been i$posed upon
$ere criticis$s o' )overn$ent and public o''icials. "olitical discussion is essential to the ascertain$ent o' political truth. :t cannot be the
basis o' cri$inal indict$ents=E that there $ust be tolerance o' political hyperbole since Edebate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open and it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public
o''icials,E that Ethe constitutional )uarantees o' 'ree speech and 'ree press do not per$it a State to 'orbid or prescribe advocacy o' the use
o' 'orce or o' la( in violation e9cept (here such advocacy is directed to incitin) or producin) i$$inent la(less action and is likely to incite
or produce such action=E that Epolitical discussion even a$on) those opposed to the present ad$inistration is (ithin the protective clause o'
'reedo$ o' speech and e9pression. +he sa$e cannot be construed as subversive activities per se or as evidence o' $e$bership in a
subversive or)anizationE in the absence o' proo' that Esuch discussion (as in 'urtherance o' any plan to overthro( the )overn$ent throu)h
ille)al $eans=E that, Erespondent court should have taken these 'actors into consideration be'ore concludin) that a pri$a 'acie case e9ists
a)ainst the petitioner. 7vidence $ust not only proceed 'ro$ the $outh o' a credible (itness but it $ust be credible in itsel' such as the
co$$on e9perience and observation o' $ankind can approve as probable under the circu$stances=E and that E>ud)e or 'iscal, there'ore,
should not )o on (ith the prosecution in the hope that so$e credible evidence $i)ht later turn up durin) trial 'or this (ould be a 'la)rant
violation o' a basic ri)ht (hich the courts are created to uphold. :t bears repeatin) that the >udiciary lives up to its $ission by vitalizin) and
not deni)ratin) constitutional ri)hts. So it has been be'ore. :t should continue to be so.E
+he sa$e ponente has no( like(ise obtained the Court1s near-unani$ous approval o' the decision at bar,
2
(hich restates basic and
established constitutional principles under the <ule o' %a( that public o''icials do not possess absolute po(er to su$$arily close do(n a
broadcastin) station nor to arbitrarily deny its application 'or rene(al o' license= that their broad and pere$ptory re)ulatory po(ers E$ust be
e9ercised (ith punctilious re)ard 'or the due process clauseE (hich in the (ords o' the Chie' Justice si)ni'ies E'reedo$ 'ro$ arbitrariness
FandG is the e$bodi$ent o' the sportin) :dea o' 'air play=
3
that radio and television (hich E(ould have little reason 'or e9istence i'
broadcasts are li$ited to bland, obseDuious, or pleasantly entertainin) utterancesE deserve the special protection o' the pre'erred ri)ht o'
'ree press and speech= that co$$ent on and criticis$ o' public o''icials in the conduct o' public a''airs is not to be taken as Eincitin) to
sedition or subversive actsE H that to curb or to punish the e9ercise o' such pre'erred ri)ht o' co$$ent and criticis$ there $ust e9ist the
clear and present dan)er o' a substantive and )rave evil that the State has a clear ri)ht to prevent, and hence, there $ust be a clear
sho(in) to this e''ect o' Ethe (ords used and (hen and ho( they (ere used=E that since the 191J case o' ;.S. %s. /ustos,
5
the Court has
tau)ht that Ethe interest o' society and the $aintenance o' )ood )overn$ent de$and a 'ull discussion o' public a''airs. Co$plete liberty to
co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech. +he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abcesses o'
o''icialdo$= E that the )uarantee o' 'ree speech is a sa'ety valve Eallo(in) parties the opportunity to )ive vent to their vie(s, even i' contrary
to the prevailin) cli$ate o' opinionE (hich is )rounded on E'aith in the po(er o' an appeal to reason by all the peace'ul $eans 'or )ainin)
access to the $indE and Eserves to avert 'orce and e9plosions due to restrictions upon rational $odes o' co$$unication= E
9
and that
throu)h the ri)hts o' 'ree e9pression, 'ree asse$bly and petition, Ethe citizens can participate not $erely in the periodic establish$ent o' the
)overn$ent throu)h their su''ra)e but also in the ad$inistration o' public a''airs as (ell as in the discipline o' abusive public o''icersE and
that since Ethe threat o' sanctions $ay deter the e9ercise Fo' these 1delicate and vulnerable ... and supre$ely precious 'reedo$s1G al$ost as
potently as the actual application o' sanctions, they 1need breathin) space to survive1 per$ittin) )overn$ent re)ulation only 1(ith narro(
speci'icity.
6
+he late Justice Jose ;bad Santos, $artyr o' the Japanese occupation, le't us over hal' a century a)o the le)acy o' his dissent
a)ainst (hat he dee$ed (ere un>usti'ied Einvasions on the part o' the )overn$ent and its e$ployees o' the sanctities o' a $an1s
ho$e and the privacies o' li'eE in 0eople %s. +ubio
7
that the Eco$$endable zeal 2o' internal revenue a)ents3 i' allo(ed to override
constitutional li$itations (ould beco$e 1obno9ious to 'unda$ental principles o' liberty.1 ;nd i' (e are to be saved 'ro$ the sad e9periences
o' so$e countries (hich have constitutions only in na$e, (e $ust insist that )overn$ental authority be e9ercised (ithin constitutional
li$its= 'or, a'ter all, (hat $atters is not so $uch (hat the people (rite in their constitutions as the spirit in (hich they observe their
provisions.E
:n the sa$e vein, the late Chie' Justice <icardo "aras in the land$ark case o' 0rimicias %s. Fugoso
2
en>oined all to abide by the
teachin) o' the 1950 sedition case o' ;. S. %s. Apurado
9
that instances o' Edisorderly conduct by individual $e$bers o' a cro(d Fbe not
seizedG as an e9cuse to characterize the asse$bly as a seditious and tu$ultuous risin) a)ainst the authorities,E 'or Ei' the prosecution be
per$itted to seize upon every instance o' such disorderly conduct by individual $e$bers o' a cro(d as an e9cuse to characterize the
asse$bly as a seditious and tu$ultous risin) a)ainst the authorities, then the ri)ht to asse$ble and to petition 'or redress o' )rievances
(ould beco$e a delusion and snare and the atte$pt to e9ercise it on the $ost ri)hteous occasion and in the $ost peaceable $anner
(ould e9pose all those (ho took part therein to the severest and $ost un$erited punish$ent, i' the purposes (hich they sou)ht to attain
did not happen to be pleasin) to the prosecutin) authorities. :' instances o' disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the )uilty
individuals should be sou)ht out and punished there'or.E
:ndeed, as : stressed in $y dissentin) opinion in the recent case o' German %s. /arangan,
10
to reDuire the citizen at every step to
assert his ri)hts and to )o to court is to render illusory his ri)hts. ;ll concerned, the )overnors as (ell as the )overned, $ust observe (hat
they have (ritten in their constitution in their very spirit and intent, so that as (ritten by Justice &akasiar in the "8& case
11
Ethe 8ill o'
<i)hts F$i)ht not turn out to beG a useless atte$pt to li$it the po(er o' )overn$ent and cease to be an e''icacious shield a)ainst the
tyranny o' o''icials, o' $a>orities, o' the in'luential and po(er'ul, and o' oli)archs H political, econo$ic or other(ise.E
+he Court1s decision $akes short shri't o' respondents1 procedural ar)u$ents that non-rene(al o' petitioner1s license has $ade the
petition E$oot and acade$icE 2brushed aside as Ean a'terthou)ht or substitute 'or the respondents1 ori)inal position that the closure
(as due to national securityE3 and that $anda$us (ould not lie to co$pel the reopenin) o' the radio station brou)ht about by their
inaction on petitioner1s ti$ely application 'or rene(al o' the license. :t serves notice that in the e9ercise o' the >udicial po(er vested in
it by the Constitution, it (ill issue the eDuitable (rits o' certiorari and $anda$us to do substantial >ustice and restore the status Duo.
:n this case, the su$$ary closure o' petitioner1s radio station in 19J5 havin) been declared null and void and no valid )round 'or
non-rene(al o' its license havin) been sho(n, it is as i' the said license has been duly e9tended up to the end o' the current ter$ or
year. :t is e9pected that respondents (ill 'orth(ith return the crystal o' the trans$itter and place no 'urther obstacle to the pro$pt
reopenin) o' the radio station so that petitioner $ay pick up the broken pieces and ri)ht'ully resu$e its operations 2a'ter al$ost 'ive
years o' closure3 in accordance (ith the >ud)$ent at bar.

ABA3 SANTOS, J., concurrin)*
+he petitioner has 'iled a $otion to (ithdra( its petition 'or the reasons stated in its $otion. +he Court has )ranted the $otion but
this circu$stance should not deter the Court 'ro$ educatin) those (ho (ield po(er (hich i' e9ercised arbitrarily (ill $ake a $ockery
o' the 8ill o' <i)hts.
+he closure o' the petitioner1s radio station on )rounds o' national security (ithout elaboration o' the )rounds and (ithout hearin)
deserves to be conde$ned in no uncertain ter$s 'or it is $ani'est that due process (as not observed. :' there is an :dea (hich
should be i$pressed in the $inds o' those (ho (ield po(er it is that po(er $ust be used in a reasonable $anner. ;rbitrariness $ust
be esche(ed. +he $ain opinion, that o' Justice +eehankee and the case o' Ang 5iba' %s. ,ourt of 3ndustrial +elations, 69 "hil. 6/
F1945G, should be $ade reDuired readin) $aterials 'or public o''icials (ho hu'' and pu'' (ith po(er $akin) the$selves not $erely
obno9ious but dan)erous as (ell.
"oo+no+e(
1 +he reDuire$ents are* 213 the ri)ht to a hearin), (hich includes the ri)ht to present one1s case and sub$it
evidence in support thereo'= 2!3 the tribunal $ust consider the evidence presented= 23 the decision $ust
have so$ethin) to support itsel'= 243 the evidence $ust be substantial. Substantial evidence $eans such
reasonable evidence as a reasonable $ind $i)ht accept as adeDuate to support a conclusion= 2/3 the
decision $ust be based on the evidence presented at the hearin), or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties a''ected= 263 the tribunal or body or any o' its >ud)es $ust act on its or his o(n
independent consideration o' the la( and 'acts o' the controversy and not si$ply accept the vie(s o' a
subordinate= 203 the board or body should, in all controversial Duestions, render its decision in such a $anner
that the parties to the proceedin) can kno( the various issues involved, and the reasons 'or the decision
rendered.
F7<#;#C6, C.J.
1 @.<.#o.6/66, #ove$ber 9,19J,1!/ SC<; //.
! 46 "hil. J.
159 "hil. J6 219653.
+77,;#.77, J.
a :n Salon)a vs. "atio, @.<. #o. /9/!4, February 1J, 19J/, (hile the prosecutors had secured the dis$issal
by the trial court o' the Duestioned cri$inal char)es a)ainst petitioner Jovito Salon)a be'ore our decision
orderin) such dis$issal could be pro$ul)ated, the Court nevertheless issued the decision rulin) sDuarely on
the $erits Eco)nizant o' the need to educate prosecutors and >ud)es that they $ust be zealously concerned
'or the ri)hts o' the accused be'ore a cri$inal prosecution is initiated.E
b See $y separate opinions in Caliete, @.<. #o. 6006, pro$ul)ated ;u)ust 16, 19J4, and Sar$iento, @.<.
#o. 6!119, pro$ul)ated ;u)ust !0, 19J4, (here on the issue o' the e''ect o' a decision o' acDuittal upon a
"C6 : dissented 'ro$ the per'unctory $a>ority resolution dis$issin) the case as $oot because the acDuitted
de'endants (ere 'inally released several a)onizin) $onths a'ter their acDuittal, on the )round that such
Edecisive and 'unda$ental issue o' public interest and i$portance a''ectin) the very liberties o' the people . . .
de$ands to be resolved, rather than e$asculated (ith a dis$issal o' the case as $oot, 'or the )uidance o'
public respondents and all concerned. E
c 41 SC<; 1, 4 219013= see also ";CA vs. Secretary o' 7ducation, 90 "hil. J56= @onzales vs. &arcos, 6/
SC<; 6!4= and ;Duino vs. 7nrile, /9 SC<; 1J.
1 @.<. #o. /9/!4, Feb. 1J, 19J/. 7leven $e$bers concurred (ith abstentions o' Justices ;Duino, Ce la
Fuente and ;la$pay.
! +(elve $e$bers concurred, (ith abstentions o' Justices ;Duino and Concepcion, Jr.
7r$ita-&alate ,otel M &otel 6perators1 ;ss1n. vs. City &ayor, !5 SC<; J49.
4 0 "hil. 01.
/ J.8.%. <eyes vs. 8a)atsin), 1!/ SC<; // 219J3, per Fernando, C.J.
6 "8& 7$ployees 6r)anization vs. "8& Co., :nc., /1 SC<; 1J9, per &akasiar, J.
0 /0 "hil. J4 219!3.
J J5 "hil. 01 2194J3.
9 0 "hil. 4!!, 4!6, per Carson, J.
15 @.<. #o. 6JJ!J, pro$. $arch !0,19J/.
11 Supra, see 'n. 6.
+he %a(phil "ro>ect - ;rellano %a( Foundation
Jump to navigation
Sear!# Cornell
Sear!#
Search all o' %::.

@6O
ABOUT L$$ J GET THE LAW J LAW#ER 3$RECTOR# J GET LEGAL "ORMS J LEGAL
ENC#CLO6E3$A J HEL6 OUT



Supreme Court
ABOUT
SEARCH
LIIBULLETIN
SUBSCRIBE
PRE2IE"S
NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN
567 U.S. 89:
Ne. Y(*; T&0e! C(. <. S$%%&<an (N(. 5=)
A*'$ed> 3an$a*, 7, ?=7:
De&ded> Ma*# =, ?=7:
865 A%a. 797, ?:: S(.8d 89, *e<e*!ed and *e0anded.
S,%%a-$!
O+&n&(n , Erennan
C(n$**ene , Ela!0
C(n$**ene , %oldberg
S,%%a-$!
&espondent, an ele!ted oC!ial in Montgomer1, Alabama, broug#t suit in a state !ourt
alleging t#at #e #ad been libeled b1 an advertisement in !orporate petitionerPs
ne,spaper, t#e te*t o+ ,#i!# appeared over t#e names o+ t#e +our individual petitioners
and man1 ot#ers. "#e advertisement in!luded statements, some o+ ,#i!# ,ere +alse,
about poli!e a!tion allegedl1 dire!ted against students ,#o parti!ipated in a !ivil rig#ts
demonstration and against a leader o+ t#e !ivil rig#ts movementG respondent !laimed
t#e statements re+erred to #im be!ause #is duties in!luded supervision o+ t#e poli!e
department. "#e trial udge instru!ted t#e ur1 t#at su!# statements ,ere Qlibelous per
se,Q legal inur1 being implied ,it#out proo+ o+ a!tual damages, and t#at, +or t#e
purpose o+ !ompensator1 damages, mali!e ,as presumed, so t#at su!# damages !ould
be a,arded against petitioners i+ t#e statements ,ere +ound to #ave been publis#ed b1
t#em and to #ave related to respondent. As to punitive damages, t#e udge instru!ted
t#at mere negligen!e ,as not eviden!e o+ a!tual mali!e, and ,ould not usti+1 an a,ard
o+ punitive damagesG #e re+used to instru!t t#at a!tual intent to #arm or re!0lessness
#ad to be +ound be+ore punitive damages !ould be a,arded, or t#at a verdi!t +or
respondent s#ould diAerentiate bet,een !ompensator1 and punitive damages. "#e ur1
+ound +or respondent, and t#e State Supreme Court aCrmed.
Held: A State !annot, under t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments, a,ard damages to a
publi! oC!ial +or de+amator1 +alse#ood relating to #is oC!ial !ondu!t unless #e proves
Qa!tual mali!eQ -- t#at t#e statement ,as made ,it# 0no,ledge o+ its +alsit1 or ,it#
re!0less disregard o+ ,#et#er it ,as true or +alse. Pp. 'F(-'J'.
9a< Appli!ation b1 state !ourts o+ a rule o+ la,, ,#et#er statutor1 or not, to a,ard a
udgment in a !ivil a!tion, is Qstate a!tionQ under t#e =ourteent# Amendment. P. 'F(.
9b< B*pression does not lose !onstitutional prote!tion to ,#i!# it ,ould ot#er,ise be
entitled be!ause it appears in t#e +orm o+ a paid advertisement. Pp. 'F(-'FF. @+899A
9!< =a!tual error, !ontent de+amator1 o+ oC!ial reputation, or bot#, are insuC!ient to
,arrant an a,ard o+ damages +or +alse statements unless Qa!tual mali!eQ -- 0no,ledge
t#at statements are +alse or in re!0less disregard o+ t#e trut# -- is alleged and proved.
Pp. '2J-'43.
9d< State !ourt udgment entered upon a general verdi!t ,#i!# does not diAerentiate
bet,een punitive damages, as to ,#i!#, under state la,, a!tual mali!e must be proved,
and general damages, as to ,#i!# it is Qpresumed,Q pre!ludes an1 determination as to
t#e basis o+ t#e verdi!t, and reHuires reversal, ,#ere presumption o+ mali!e is
in!onsistent ,it# +ederal !onstitutional reHuirements. P. '45.
9e< "#e eviden!e ,as !onstitutionall1 insuC!ient to support t#e udgment +or
respondent, sin!e it +ailed to support a 7nding t#at t#e statements ,ere made ,it#
a!tual mali!e or t#at t#e1 related to respondent. Pp. '4(-'J'.
@+897A
TOP
O+&n&(n
E&B$$A$, J., Dpinion o+ t#e Court
M&. JLS"?CB E&B$$A$ delivered t#e opinion o+ t#e Court.
Ie are reHuired in t#is !ase to determine +or t#e 7rst time t#e e*tent to ,#i!# t#e
!onstitutional prote!tions +or spee!# and press limit a StatePs po,er to a,ard damages
in a libel a!tion broug#t b1 a publi! oC!ial against !riti!s o+ #is oC!ial !ondu!t.
&espondent >. E. Sullivan is one o+ t#e t#ree ele!ted Commissioners o+ t#e Cit1 o+
Montgomer1, Alabama. 8e testi7ed t#at #e ,as
Commissioner o+ Publi! AAairs, and t#e duties are supervision o+ t#e Poli!e Department,
=ire Department, Department o+ Cemeter1 and Department o+ S!ales.
8e broug#t t#is !ivil libel a!tion against t#e +our individual petitioners, ,#o are $egroes
and Alabama !lerg1men, and against petitioner t#e $e, Yor0 "imes Compan1, a $e,
Yor0 !orporation ,#i!# publis#es t#e $e, Yor0 "imes, a dail1 ne,spaper. A ur1 in t#e
Cir!uit Court o+ Montgomer1 Count1 a,arded #im damages o+ R()),))), t#e +ull amount
!laimed, against all t#e petitioners, and t#e Supreme Court o+ Alabama aCrmed. '23
Ala. F(F, .55 So.'d '(.
&espondentPs !omplaint alleged t#at #e #ad been libeled b1 statements in a +ull-page
advertisement t#at ,as !arried in t#e $e, Yor0 "imes on Mar!# 'J, .JF).
@n?A
Bntitled
Q8eed "#eir &ising @oi!es,Q t#e advertisement began b1 stating t#at,
As t#e ,#ole ,orld 0no,s b1 no,, t#ousands o+ Sout#ern $egro students are engaged
in ,idespread nonviolent demonstrations in positive aCrmation o+ t#e rig#t to live in
#uman dignit1 as guaranteed b1 t#e L.S. Constitution and t#e Eill o+ &ig#ts.
?t ,ent on to !#arge t#at,
in t#eir eAorts to up#old t#ese guarantees, t#e1 are being met b1 an unpre!edented
,ave o+ terror b1 t#ose ,#o ,ould den1 and negate t#at do!ument ,#i!# t#e ,#ole
,orld loo0s upon as setting t#e pattern +or modern +reedom. . . .
Su!!eeding @+896A paragrap#s purported to illustrate t#e Q,ave o+ terrorQ b1 des!ribing
!ertain alleged events. "#e te*t !on!luded ,it# an appeal +or +unds +or t#ree purposes:
support o+ t#e student movement, Qt#e struggle +or t#e rig#t to vote,Q and t#e legal
de+ense o+ Dr. Martin >ut#er Sing, Jr., leader o+ t#e movement, against a perur1
indi!tment t#en pending in Montgomer1.
"#e te*t appeared over t#e names o+ F5 persons, man1 ,idel1 0no,n +or t#eir a!tivities
in publi! aAairs, religion, trade unions, and t#e per+orming arts. Eelo, t#ese names, and
under a line reading QIe in t#e sout# ,#o are struggling dail1 +or dignit1 and +reedom
,arml1 endorse t#is appeal,Q appeared t#e names o+ t#e +our individual petitioners and
o+ .F ot#er persons, all but t,o o+ ,#om ,ere identi7ed as !lerg1men in various
Sout#ern !ities. "#e advertisement ,as signed at t#e bottom o+ t#e page b1 t#e
QCommittee to De+end Martin >ut#er Sing and t#e Struggle +or =reedom in t#e Sout#,Q
and t#e oC!ers o+ t#e Committee ,ere listed.
D+ t#e .) paragrap#s o+ te*t in t#e advertisement, t#e t#ird and a portion o+ t#e si*t#
,ere t#e basis o+ respondentPs !laim o+ libel. "#e1 read as +ollo,s:
"#ird paragrap#:
?n Montgomer1, Alabama, a+ter students sang QM1 Countr1, P"is o+ "#eeQ on t#e State
Capitol steps, t#eir leaders ,ere e*pelled +rom s!#ool, and tru!0loads o+ poli!e armed
,it# s#otguns and tear-gas ringed t#e Alabama State College Campus. I#en t#e entire
student bod1 protested to state aut#orities b1 re+using to reregister, t#eir dining #all
,as padlo!0ed in an attempt to starve t#em into submission.
Si*t# paragrap#:
Again and again, t#e Sout#ern violators #ave ans,ered Dr. SingPs pea!e+ul protests ,it#
intimidation and violen!e. "#e1 #ave bombed #is #ome, almost 0illing #is ,i+e and !#ild.
"#e1 #ave @+89BA assaulted #is person. "#e1 #ave arrested #im seven times -- +or
Qspeeding,Q QloiteringQ and similar QoAenses.Q And no, t#e1 #ave !#arged #im ,it#
Qperur1Q -- a felony under ,#i!# t#e1 !ould imprison #im +or ten years. . . .
Alt#oug# neit#er o+ t#ese statements mentions respondent b1 name, #e !ontended t#at
t#e ,ord Qpoli!eQ in t#e t#ird paragrap# re+erred to #im as t#e Montgomer1
Commissioner ,#o supervised t#e Poli!e Department, so t#at #e ,as being a!!used o+
QringingQ t#e !ampus ,it# poli!e. 8e +urt#er !laimed t#at t#e paragrap# ,ould be read
as imputing to t#e poli!e, and #en!e to #im, t#e padlo!0ing o+ t#e dining #all in order to
starve t#e students into submission.
@n8A
As to t#e si*t# paragrap#, #e !ontended t#at,
sin!e arrests are ordinaril1 made b1 t#e poli!e, t#e statement Q"#e1 #ave arrested -Dr.
Sing/ seven timesQ ,ould be read as re+erring to #imG #e +urt#er !ontended t#at t#e
Q"#e1Q ,#o did t#e arresting ,ould be eHuated ,it# t#e Q"#e1Q ,#o !ommitted t#e
ot#er des!ribed a!ts and ,it# t#e QSout#ern violators.Q "#us, #e argued, t#e paragrap#
,ould be read as a!!using t#e Montgomer1 poli!e, and #en!e #im, o+ ans,ering Dr.
SingPs protests ,it# Qintimidation and violen!e,Q bombing #is #ome, assaulting #is
person, and !#arging #im ,it# perur1. &espondent and si* ot#er Montgomer1 residents
testi7ed t#at t#e1 read some or all o+ t#e statements as re+erring to #im in #is !apa!it1
as Commissioner.
?t is un!ontroverted t#at some o+ t#e statements !ontained in t#e t,o paragrap#s ,ere
not a!!urate des!riptions o+ events ,#i!# o!!urred in Montgomer1. Alt#oug# $egro
students staged a demonstration on t#e State Capitol steps, t#e1 sang t#e $ational
Ant#em and not QM1 @+89=A Countr1, P"is o+ "#ee.Q Alt#oug# nine students ,ere
e*pelled b1 t#e State Eoard o+ Bdu!ation, t#is ,as not +or leading t#e demonstration at
t#e Capitol, but +or demanding servi!e at a lun!# !ounter in t#e Montgomer1 Count1
Court#ouse on anot#er da1. $ot t#e entire student bod1, but most o+ it, #ad protested
t#e e*pulsion, not b1 re+using to register, but b1 bo1!otting !lasses on a single da1G
virtuall1 all t#e students did register +or t#e ensuing semester. "#e !ampus dining #all
,as not padlo!0ed on an1 o!!asion, and t#e onl1 students ,#o ma1 #ave been barred
+rom eating t#ere ,ere t#e +e, ,#o #ad neit#er signed a preregistration appli!ation nor
reHuested temporar1 meal ti!0ets. Alt#oug# t#e poli!e ,ere deplo1ed near t#e !ampus
in large numbers on t#ree o!!asions, t#e1 did not at an1 time QringQ t#e !ampus, and
t#e1 ,ere not !alled to t#e !ampus in !onne!tion ,it# t#e demonstration on t#e State
Capitol steps, as t#e t#ird paragrap# implied. Dr. Sing #ad not been arrested seven
times, but onl1 +our, and alt#oug# #e !laimed to #ave been assaulted some 1ears
earlier in !onne!tion ,it# #is arrest +or loitering outside a !ourtroom, one o+ t#e oC!ers
,#o made t#e arrest denied t#at t#ere ,as su!# an assault.
Dn t#e premise t#at t#e !#arges in t#e si*t# paragrap# !ould be read as re+erring to
#im, respondent ,as allo,ed to prove t#at #e #ad not parti!ipated in t#e events
des!ribed. Alt#oug# Dr. SingPs #ome #ad, in +a!t, been bombed t,i!e ,#en #is ,i+e and
!#ild ,ere t#ere, bot# o+ t#ese o!!asions antedated respondentPs tenure as
Commissioner, and t#e poli!e ,ere not onl1 not impli!ated in t#e bombings, but #ad
made ever1 eAort to appre#end t#ose ,#o ,ere. "#ree o+ Dr. SingPs +our arrests too0
pla!e be+ore respondent be!ame Commissioner. Alt#oug# Dr. Sing #ad, in +a!t, been
indi!ted 9#e ,as subseHuentl1 a!Huitted< on t,o !ounts o+ perur1, ea!# o+ ,#i!#
!arried a possible 7ve-1ear senten!e, respondent #ad not#ing to do ,it# pro!uring t#e
indi!tment. @+87CA
&espondent made no eAort to prove t#at #e suAered a!tual pe!uniar1 loss as a result o+
t#e alleged libel.
@n5A
Dne o+ #is ,itnesses, a +ormer emplo1er, testi7ed t#at, i+ #e #ad
believed t#e statements, #e doubted ,#et#er #e Q,ould ,ant to be asso!iated ,it#
an1bod1 ,#o ,ould be a part1 to su!# t#ings t#at are stated in t#at ad,Q and t#at #e
,ould not reemplo1 respondent i+ #e believed Qt#at #e allo,ed t#e Poli!e Department to
do t#e t#ings t#at t#e paper sa1 #e did.Q Eut neit#er t#is ,itness nor an1 o+ t#e ot#ers
testi7ed t#at #e #ad a!tuall1 believed t#e statements in t#eir supposed re+eren!e to
respondent. "#e !ost o+ t#e advertisement ,as appro*imatel1 R54)), and it ,as
publis#ed b1 t#e "imes upon an order +rom a $e, Yor0 advertising agen!1 a!ting +or t#e
signator1 Committee. "#e agen!1 submitted t#e advertisement ,it# a letter +rom A.
P#ilip &andolp#, C#airman o+ t#e Committee, !erti+1ing t#at t#e persons ,#ose names
appeared on t#e advertisement #ad given t#eir permission. Mr. &andolp# ,as 0no,n to
t#e "imesP Advertising A!!eptabilit1 Department as a responsible person, and, in
a!!epting t#e letter as suC!ient proo+ o+ aut#orization, it +ollo,ed its establis#ed
pra!ti!e. "#ere ,as testimon1 t#at t#e !op1 o+ t#e advertisement ,#i!# a!!ompanied
t#e letter listed onl1 t#e F5 names appearing under t#e te*t, and t#at t#e statement,
QIe in t#e sout# . . . ,arml1 endorse t#is appeal,Q and t#e list o+ names t#ereunder,
,#i!# in!luded t#ose o+ t#e individual petitioners, ,ere subseHuentl1 added ,#en t#e
7rst proo+ o+ t#e advertisement ,as re!eived. Ba!# o+ t#e individual petitioners testi7ed
t#at #e #ad not aut#orized t#e use o+ #is name, and t#at #e #ad been una,are o+ its
use until re!eipt o+ respondentPs demand +or a retra!tion. "#e manager o+ t#e
Advertising A!!eptabilit1 @+87?A Department testi7ed t#at #e #ad approved t#e
advertisement +or publi!ation be!ause #e 0ne, not#ing to !ause #im to believe t#at
an1t#ing in it ,as +alse, and be!ause it bore t#e endorsement o+ Qa number o+ people
,#o are ,ell 0no,n and ,#ose reputationQ #e Q#ad no reason to Huestion.Q $eit#er #e
nor an1one else at t#e "imes made an eAort to !on7rm t#e a!!ura!1 o+ t#e
advertisement, eit#er b1 !#e!0ing it against re!ent "imes ne,s stories relating to some
o+ t#e des!ribed events or b1 an1 ot#er means.
Alabama la, denies a publi! oC!er re!over1 o+ punitive damages in a libel a!tion
broug#t on a!!ount o+ a publi!ation !on!erning #is oC!ial !ondu!t unless #e 7rst ma0es
a ,ritten demand +or a publi! retra!tion and t#e de+endant +ails or re+uses to !ompl1.
Alabama Code, "it. 2, O J.5. &espondent served su!# a demand upon ea!# o+ t#e
petitioners. $one o+ t#e individual petitioners responded to t#e demand, primaril1
be!ause ea!# too0 t#e position t#at #e #ad not aut#orized t#e use o+ #is name on t#e
advertisement, and t#ere+ore #ad not publis#ed t#e statements t#at respondent alleged
#ad libeled #im. "#e "imes did not publis# a retra!tion in response to t#e demand, but
,rote respondent a letter stating, among ot#er t#ings, t#at Q,e . . . are some,#at
puzzled as to #o, 1ou t#in0 t#e statements in an1 ,a1 reNe!t on 1ou,Q and Q1ou mig#t,
i+ 1ou desire, let us 0no, in ,#at respe!t 1ou !laim t#at t#e statements in t#e
advertisement reNe!t on 1ou.Q &espondent 7led t#is suit a +e, da1s later ,it#out
ans,ering t#e letter. "#e "imes did, #o,ever, subseHuentl1 publis# a retra!tion o+ t#e
advertisement upon t#e demand o+ %overnor Jo#n Patterson o+ Alabama, ,#o asserted
t#at t#e publi!ation !#arged #im ,it#
grave mis!ondu!t and . . . improper a!tions and omissions as %overnor o+ Alabama and
B*-DC!io C#airman o+ t#e State Eoard o+ Bdu!ation o+ Alabama.
I#en as0ed to e*plain ,#1 t#ere #ad been a retra!tion +or t#e %overnor but not +or
respondent, t#e @+878A Se!retar1 o+ t#e "imes testi7ed:
Ie did t#at be!ause ,e didnPt ,ant an1t#ing t#at ,as publis#ed b1 "#e "imes to be a
reNe!tion on t#e State o+ Alabama, and t#e %overnor ,as, as +ar as ,e !ould see, t#e
embodiment o+ t#e State o+ Alabama and t#e proper representative o+ t#e State, and,
+urt#ermore, ,e #ad b1 t#at time learned more o+ t#e a!tual +a!ts ,#i!# t#e and
purported to re!ite and, 7nall1, t#e ad did re+er to t#e a!tion o+ t#e State aut#orities and
t#e Eoard o+ Bdu!ation, presumabl1 o+ ,#i!# t#e %overnor is t#e e*-oC!io
!#airman. . . .
Dn t#e ot#er #and, #e testi7ed t#at #e did not t#in0 t#at Qan1 o+ t#e language in t#ere
re+erred to Mr. Sullivan.Q
"#e trial udge submitted t#e !ase to t#e ur1 under instru!tions t#at t#e statements in
t#e advertisement ,ere Qlibelous per se,Q and ,ere not privileged, so t#at petitioners
mig#t be #eld liable i+ t#e ur1 +ound t#at t#e1 #ad publis#ed t#e advertisement and
t#at t#e statements ,ere made Qo+ and !on!erningQ respondent. "#e ur1 ,as instru!ted
t#at, be!ause t#e statements ,ere libelous per se, Qt#e la, . . . implies legal inur1 +rom
t#e bare +a!t o+ publi!ation itsel+,Q Q+alsit1 and mali!e are presumed,Q Qgeneral damages
need not be alleged or proved, but are presumed,Q and Qpunitive damages ma1 be
a,arded b1 t#e ur1 even t#oug# t#e amount o+ a!tual damages is neit#er +ound nor
s#o,n.Q An a,ard o+ punitive damages -- as distinguis#ed +rom QgeneralQ damages,
,#i!# are !ompensator1 in nature -- apparentl1 reHuires proo+ o+ a!tual mali!e under
Alabama la,, and t#e udge !#arged t#at
mere negligen!e or !arelessness is not eviden!e o+ a!tual mali!e or mali!e in +a!t, and
does not usti+1 an a,ard o+ e*emplar1 or punitive damages.
8e re+used to !#arge, #o,ever, t#at t#e ur1 must be Q!onvin!edQ o+ mali!e, in t#e
sense o+ Qa!tual intentQ to #arm or Qgross negligen!e and re!0lessness,Q to ma0e su!#
an a,ard, and #e also re+used to reHuire t#at a verdi!t +or respondent diAerentiate
bet,een !ompensator1 and punitive damages. "#e udge ree!ted petitionersP
!ontention @+875At#at #is rulings abridged t#e +reedoms o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press
t#at are guaranteed b1 t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments.
?n aCrming t#e udgment, t#e Supreme Court o+ Alabama sustained t#e trial udgePs
rulings and instru!tions in all respe!ts. '23 Ala. F(F, .55 So.'d '(. ?t #eld t#at,
,#ere t#e ,ords publis#ed tend to inure a person libeled b1 t#em in #is reputation,
pro+ession, trade or business, or !#arge #im ,it# an indi!table oAense, or tend to bring
t#e individual into publi! !ontempt,
t#e1 are Qlibelous per seQG t#at Qt#e matter !omplained o+ is, under t#e above do!trine,
libelous per se, i+ it ,as publis#ed o+ and !on!erning t#e plaintiAQ, and t#at it ,as
a!tionable ,it#out Qproo+ o+ pe!uniar1 inur1 . . . . su!# inur1 being implied.Q Id. at F23,
F2F, .55 So.'d at 32, 5.. ?t approved t#e trial !ourtPs ruling t#at t#e ur1 !ould 7nd t#e
statements to #ave been made Qo+ and !on!erningQ respondent, stating:
Ie t#in0 it !ommon 0no,ledge t#at t#e average person 0no,s t#at muni!ipal agents,
su!# as poli!e and 7remen, and ot#ers, are under t#e !ontrol and dire!tion o+ t#e !it1
governing bod1, and, more parti!ularl1, under t#e dire!tion and !ontrol o+ a single
!ommissioner. ?n measuring t#e per+orman!e or de7!ien!ies o+ su!# groups, praise or
!riti!ism is usuall1 atta!#ed to t#e oC!ial in !omplete !ontrol o+ t#e bod1.
Id. at F25-F2(, .55 So.'d at 3J. ?n sustaining t#e trial !ourtPs determination t#at t#e
verdi!t ,as not e*!essive, t#e !ourt said t#at mali!e !ould be in+erred +rom t#e "imesP
Qirresponsibilit1Q in printing t#e advertisement ,#ile
t#e "imes, in its o,n 7les, #ad arti!les alread1 publis#ed ,#i!# ,ould #ave
demonstrated t#e +alsit1 o+ t#e allegations in t#e advertisementG
+rom t#e "imesP +ailure to retra!t +or respondent ,#ile retra!ting +or t#e %overnor,
,#ereas t#e +alsit1 o+ some o+ t#e allegations ,as t#en 0no,n to t#e "imes and Qt#e
matter !ontained in t#e advertisement ,as eHuall1 +alse as to bot# partiesQ, and +rom
t#e testimon1 o+ t#e "imesP Se!retar1 t#at, @+87:A apart +rom t#e statement t#at t#e
dining #all ,as padlo!0ed, #e t#oug#t t#e t,o paragrap#s ,ere Qsubstantiall1
!orre!t.Q Id. at F4F-F42, .55 So.'d at ()-(.. "#e !ourt reaCrmed a statement in an
earlier opinion t#at Q"#ere is no legal measure o+ damages in !ases o+ t#is
!#ara!ter.Q Id. at F4F, .55 So.'d at (). ?t ree!ted petitionersP !onstitutional !ontentions
,it# t#e brie+ statements t#at Q"#e =irst Amendment o+ t#e L.S. Constitution does not
prote!t libelous publi!ations,Q and Q"#e =ourteent# Amendment is dire!ted against State
a!tion, and not private a!tion.Q Id. at F2F, .55 So.'d at 5).
Ee!ause o+ t#e importan!e o+ t#e !onstitutional issues involved, ,e granted t#e
separate petitions +or !ertiorari o+ t#e individual petitioners and o+ t#e "imes. 32. L.S.
J5F. Ie reverse t#e udgment. Ie #old t#at t#e rule o+ la, applied b1 t#e Alabama
!ourts is !onstitutionall1 de7!ient +or +ailure to provide t#e sa+eguards +or +reedom o+
spee!# and o+ t#e press t#at are reHuired b1 t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments in a
libel a!tion broug#t b1 a publi! oC!ial against !riti!s o+ #is oC!ial
!ondu!t.
@n:A
Ie @+879A +urt#er #old t#at, under t#e proper sa+eguards, t#e eviden!e
presented in t#is !ase is !onstitutionall1 insuC!ient to support t#e udgment +or
respondent.
?.
Ie ma1 dispose at t#e outset o+ t,o grounds asserted to insulate t#e udgment o+ t#e
Alabama !ourts +rom !onstitutional s!rutin1. "#e 7rst is t#e proposition relied on b1 t#e
State Supreme Court -- t#at Q"#e =ourteent# Amendment is dire!ted against State
a!tion, and not private a!tion.Q "#at proposition #as no appli!ation to t#is !ase.
Alt#oug# t#is is a !ivil la,suit bet,een private parties, t#e Alabama !ourts #ave applied
a state rule o+ la, ,#i!# petitioners !laim to impose invalid restri!tions on t#eir
!onstitutional +reedoms o+ spee!# and press. ?t matters not t#at t#at la, #as been
applied in a !ivil a!tion and t#at it is !ommon la, onl1, t#oug# supplemented b1
statute. See, e.g., Alabama Code, "it. 2, OO J)4-J.2. "#e test is not t#e +orm in ,#i!#
state po,er #as been applied but, ,#atever t#e +orm, ,#et#er su!# po,er #as, in +a!t,
been e*er!ised. See E parte !irginia, .)) L.S. 33J, 35F-352G A"erican #ederation of
$abor %. S&ing. 3.' L.S. 3'..
"#e se!ond !ontention is t#at t#e !onstitutional guarantees o+ +reedom o+ spee!# and o+
t#e press are inappli!able #ere, at least so +ar as t#e "imes is !on!erned, be!ause t#e
allegedl1 libelous statements ,ere publis#ed as part o+ a paid, Q!ommer!ialQ
advertisement. "#e argument relies on !alentine %. Chrestensen, 3.F L.S. (', ,#ere t#e
Court #eld t#at a !it1 ordinan!e +orbidding street distribution o+ !ommer!ial and
business advertising matter did not abridge t#e =irst Amendment +reedoms, even as
applied to a #andbill #aving a !ommer!ial message on one side but a protest against
!ertain oC!ial a!tion, on t#e ot#er. "#e relian!e is ,#oll1 mispla!ed. "#e Court
in ChrestensenreaCrmed t#e !onstitutional prote!tion +or Qt#e +reedom o+
!ommuni!ating @+877Ain+ormation and disseminating opinionQG its #olding ,as based
upon t#e +a!tual !on!lusions t#at t#e #andbill ,as Qpurel1 !ommer!ial advertisingQ and
t#at t#e protest against oC!ial a!tion #ad been added onl1 to evade t#e ordinan!e.
"#e publi!ation #ere ,as not a Q!ommer!ialQ advertisement in t#e sense in ,#i!# t#e
,ord ,as used in Chrestensen. ?t !ommuni!ated in+ormation, e*pressed opinion, re!ited
grievan!es, protested !laimed abuses, and soug#t 7nan!ial support on be#al+ o+ a
movement ,#ose e*isten!e and obe!tives are matters o+ t#e #ig#est publi! interest
and !on!ern. See 'AACP %. (utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 53(. "#at t#e "imes ,as paid +or
publis#ing t#e advertisement is as immaterial in t#is !onne!tion as is t#e +a!t t#at
ne,spapers and boo0s are sold. S"ith %. California, 3F. L.S. .52, .()G cf. (anta"
(oo)s, Inc., %. Sulli%an,32' L.S. (4, F5, n. F. An1 ot#er !on!lusion ,ould dis!ourage
ne,spapers +rom !arr1ing Qeditorial advertisementsQ o+ t#is t1pe, and so mig#t s#ut oA
an important outlet +or t#e promulgation o+ in+ormation and ideas b1 persons ,#o do
not t#emselves #ave a!!ess to publis#ing +a!ilities -- ,#o ,is# to e*er!ise t#eir +reedom
o+ spee!# even t#oug# t#e1 are not members o+ t#e press. Cf. $o%ell %. *ri+n, 3)3 L.S.
555, 5('G Schneider %. State, 3)4 L.S. .52, .F5. "#e eAe!t ,ould be to s#a!0le t#e =irst
Amendment in its attempt to se!ure Qt#e ,idest possible dissemination o+ in+ormation
+rom diverse and antagonisti! sour!es.QAssociated Press %. ,nited States, 3'F L.S. .,
'). "o avoid pla!ing su!# a #andi!ap upon t#e +reedoms o+ e*pression, ,e #old t#at, i+
t#e allegedl1 libelous statements ,ould ot#er,ise be !onstitutionall1 prote!ted +rom t#e
present udgment, t#e1 do not +or+eit t#at prote!tion be!ause t#e1 ,ere publis#ed in
t#e +orm o+ a paid advertisement.
@n9A
@+876A
??
Lnder Alabama la,, as applied in t#is !ase, a publi!ation is Qlibelous per seQ i+ t#e ,ords
Qtend to inure a person . . . in #is reputationQ or to Qbring -#im/ into publi! !ontemptQG
t#e trial !ourt stated t#at t#e standard ,as met i+ t#e ,ords are su!# as to Qinure #im
in #is publi! oC!e, or impute mis!ondu!t to #im in #is oC!e, or ,ant o+ oC!ial integrit1,
or ,ant o+ 7delit1 to a publi! trust. . . .Q "#e ur1 must 7nd t#at t#e ,ords ,ere
publis#ed Qo+ and !on!erningQ t#e plaintiA, but, ,#ere t#e plaintiA is a publi! oC!ial, #is
pla!e in t#e governmental #ierar!#1 is suC!ient eviden!e to support a 7nding t#at #is
reputation #as been aAe!ted b1 statements t#at reNe!t upon t#e agen!1 o+ ,#i!# #e is
in !#arge. Dn!e Qlibel per seQ #as been establis#ed, t#e de+endant #as no de+ense as to
stated +a!ts unless #e !an persuade t#e ur1 t#at t#e1 ,ere true in all t#eir
parti!ulars. Alaba"a -ide Co. %. !ance, '3( Ala. 'F3, .24 So. 534 9.J34<G Johnson
Publishing Co. %. .a%is, '2. Ala. 525, 5J5 5J(, .'5 So.'d 55., 5(2-5(4 9.JF)<. 8is
privilege o+ Q+air !ommentQ +or e*pressions o+ opinion depends on t#e trut# o+ t#e +a!ts
upon ,#i!# t#e !omment is based. Parsons %. Age/Herald Publishing Co., .4. Ala. 53J,
5(), F. So. 35(, 3() 9.J.3<. Lnless #e !an dis!#arge t#e burden o+ proving trut#,
general damages are presumed, and ma1 be a,arded ,it#out proo+ o+ pe!uniar1 inur1.
A s#o,ing o+ a!tual mali!e is apparentl1 a prereHuisite to re!over1 o+ punitive damages,
and t#e de+endant ma1, in an1 event, +orestall a punitive a,ard b1 a retra!tion meeting
t#e statutor1 reHuirements. %ood motives and belie+ in trut# do not negate an in+eren!e
o+ mali!e, but are relevant onl1 in mitigation o+ punitive damages i+ t#e ur1 !#ooses to
a!!ord t#em ,eig#t. Johnson Publishing Co. %. .a%is, supra, '2. Ala., at 5J(, .'5 So.'d
at 5(4. @+87BA
"#e Huestion be+ore us is ,#et#er t#is rule o+ liabilit1, as applied to an a!tion broug#t b1
a publi! oC!ial against !riti!s o+ #is oC!ial !ondu!t, abridges t#e +reedom o+ spee!#
and o+ t#e press t#at is guaranteed b1 t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments.
&espondent relies #eavil1, as did t#e Alabama !ourts, on statements o+ t#is Court to t#e
eAe!t t#at t#e Constitution does not prote!t libelous publi!ations.
@n7A
"#ose statements
do not +ore!lose our inHuir1 #ere. $one o+ t#e !ases sustained t#e use o+ libel la,s to
impose san!tions upon e*pression !riti!al o+ t#e oC!ial !ondu!t o+ publi! oC!ials. "#e
di!tum in Penne)a"p %. #lorida, 3'4 L.S. 33., 354-35J, t#at Q,#en t#e statements
amount to de+amation, a udge #as su!# remed1 in damages +or libel as do ot#er publi!
servants,Q implied no vie, as to ,#at remed1 mig#t !onstitutionall1 be aAorded to
publi! oC!ials. ?n (eauharnais %. Illinois, 353 L.S. '(), t#e Court sustained an ?llinois
!riminal libel statute as applied to a publi!ation #eld to be bot# de+amator1 o+ a ra!ial
group and Qliable to !ause violen!e and disorder.Q Eut t#e Court ,as !are+ul to note t#at
it Qretains and e*er!ises aut#orit1 to nulli+1 a!tion ,#i!# en!roa!#es on +reedom o+
utteran!e under t#e guise o+ punis#ing libelQG +or Qpubli! men are, as it ,ere, publi!
propert1,Q and Qdis!ussion !annot be denied, and t#e rig#t, as ,ell as t#e dut1, o+
!riti!ism must not be stiNed.Q Id. at 'F3-'F5, and n. .4. ?n t#e onl1 previous !ase t#at
did present t#e Huestion o+ !onstitutional limitations upon t#e po,er to a,ard damages
+or libel o+ a publi! oC!ial, t#e Court ,as eHuall1 divided and t#e Huestion ,as not
de!ided. Schenectady ,nion Pub. Co. %. S&eeney, 3.F L.S. F5'. @+87=A ?n de!iding t#e
Huestion no,, ,e are !ompelled b1 neit#er pre!edent nor poli!1 to give an1 more
,eig#t to t#e epit#et QlibelQ t#an ,e #ave to ot#er Qmere labelsQ o+ state la,. 'AACP %.
(utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 5'J. >i0e insurre!tion,
@n6A
!ontempt,
@nBA
advo!a!1 o+ unla,+ul
a!ts,
@n=A
brea!# o+ t#e pea!e,
@n?CA
obs!enit1,
@n??A
soli!itation o+ legal business,
@n?8A
and t#e
various ot#er +ormulae +or t#e repression o+ e*pression t#at #ave been !#allenged in
t#is Court, libel !an !laim no talismani! immunit1 +rom !onstitutional limitations. ?t must
be measured b1 standards t#at satis+1 t#e =irst Amendment.
"#e general proposition t#at +reedom o+ e*pression upon publi! Huestions is se!ured b1
t#e =irst Amendment #as long been settled b1 our de!isions. "#e !onstitutional
sa+eguard, ,e #ave said, Q,as +as#ioned to assure un+ettered inter!#ange o+ ideas +or
t#e bringing about o+ politi!al and so!ial !#anges desired b1 t#e people.Q -oth %. ,nited
States, 3(5 L.S. 52F, 545.
"#e maintenan!e o+ t#e opportunit1 +or +ree politi!al dis!ussion to t#e end t#at
government ma1 be responsive to t#e ,ill o+ t#e people and t#at !#anges ma1 be
obtained b1 la,+ul means, an opportunit1 essential to t#e se!urit1 o+ t#e &epubli!, is a
+undamental prin!iple o+ our !onstitutional s1stem.
Stro"berg %. California, '43 L.S. 3(J, 3FJ. Q-?/t is a prized Ameri!an privilege to spea0
onePs mind, alt#oug# not al,a1s ,it# per+e!t good taste, on all publi!
institutions,Q (ridges %. California, 3.5 L.S. '(', '2), and t#is opportunit1 is to be
aAorded +or Qvigorous advo!a!1Q no less t#an Qabstra!t dis!ussion.Q 'AACP %.
(utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 5'J. @+86CA"#e =irst Amendment, said Judge >earned 8and,
presupposes t#at rig#t !on!lusions are more li0el1 to be gat#ered out o+ a multitude o+
tongues t#an t#roug# an1 0ind o+ aut#oritative sele!tion. "o man1, t#is is, and al,a1s
,ill be, +oll1, but ,e #ave sta0ed upon it our all.
,nited States %. Associated Press, (' =.Supp. 3F', 32' 9D.C.S.D.$.Y..J53<. Mr. Justi!e
Erandeis, in #is !on!urring opinion in 0hitney %. California, '25 L.S. 3(2, 32(-32F, gave
t#e prin!iple its !lassi! +ormulation:
"#ose ,#o ,on our independen!e believed . . . t#at publi! dis!ussion is a politi!al dut1,
and t#at t#is s#ould be a +undamental prin!iple o+ t#e Ameri!an government. "#e1
re!ognized t#e ris0s to ,#i!# all #uman institutions are sube!t. Eut t#e1 0ne, t#at
order !annot be se!ured merel1 t#roug# +ear o+ punis#ment +or its in+ra!tionG t#at it is
#azardous to dis!ourage t#oug#t, #ope and imaginationG t#at +ear breeds repressionG
t#at repression breeds #ateG t#at #ate mena!es stable governmentG t#at t#e pat# o+
sa+et1 lies in t#e opportunit1 to dis!uss +reel1 supposed grievan!es and proposed
remedies, and t#at t#e 7tting remed1 +or evil !ounsels is good ones. Eelieving in t#e
po,er o+ reason as applied t#roug# publi! dis!ussion, t#e1 es!#e,ed silen!e !oer!ed b1
la, -- t#e argument o+ +or!e in its ,orst +orm. &e!ognizing t#e o!!asional t1rannies o+
governing maorities, t#e1 amended t#e Constitution so t#at +ree spee!# and assembl1
s#ould be guaranteed.
"#us, ,e !onsider t#is !ase against t#e ba!0ground o+ a pro+ound national !ommitment
to t#e prin!iple t#at debate on publi! issues s#ould be unin#ibited, robust, and ,ide-
open, and t#at it ma1 ,ell in!lude ve#ement, !austi!, and sometimes unpleasantl1
s#arp atta!0s on government and publi! oC!ials. See 1er"iniello %. Chicago, 332 L.S. .,
5G .e Jonge %. 2regon, 'JJ L.S. 3(3, @+86?A 3F(. "#e present advertisement, as an
e*pression o+ grievan!e and protest on one o+ t#e maor publi! issues o+ our time, ,ould
seem !learl1 to Huali+1 +or t#e !onstitutional prote!tion. "#e Huestion is ,#et#er it
+or+eits t#at prote!tion b1 t#e +alsit1 o+ some o+ its +a!tual statements and b1 its alleged
de+amation o+ respondent.
Aut#oritative interpretations o+ t#e =irst Amendment guarantees #ave !onsistentl1
re+used to re!ognize an e*!eption +or an1 test o+ trut# -- ,#et#er administered b1
udges, uries, or administrative oC!ials -- and espe!iall1 one t#at puts t#e burden o+
proving trut# on t#e spea0er. Cf. Speiser %. -andall, 3(2 L.S. (.3, ('(-('F. "#e
!onstitutional prote!tion does not turn upon Qt#e trut#, popularit1, or so!ial utilit1 o+ t#e
ideas and belie+s ,#i!# are oAered.Q 'AACP %. (utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 55(. As Madison
said, QSome degree o+ abuse is inseparable +rom t#e proper use o+ ever1 t#ing, and in
no instan!e is t#is more true t#an in t#at o+ t#e press.Q 5 BlliotPs Debates on t#e =ederal
Constitution 9.42F<, p. (2.. ?nCant&ell %. Connecticut, 3.) L.S. 'JF, 3.), t#e Court
de!lared:
?n t#e realm o+ religious +ait#, and in t#at o+ politi!al belie+, s#arp diAeren!es arise. ?n
bot# 7elds, t#e tenets o+ one man ma1 seem t#e ran0est error to #is neig#bor. "o
persuade ot#ers to #is o,n point o+ vie,, t#e pleader, as ,e 0no,, at times resorts to
e*aggeration, to vili7!ation o+ men ,#o #ave been, or are, prominent in !#ur!# or state,
and even to +alse statement. Eut t#e people o+ t#is nation #ave ordained, in t#e lig#t o+
#istor1, t#at, in spite o+ t#e probabilit1 o+ e*!esses and abuses, t#ese liberties are, in
t#e long vie,, essential to enlig#tened opinion and rig#t !ondu!t on t#e part o+ t#e
!itizens o+ a demo!ra!1.
"#at erroneous statement is inevitable in +ree debate, and t#at it must be prote!ted i+
t#e +reedoms o+ e*pression @+868A are to #ave t#e Qbreat#ing spa!eQ t#at t#e1 Qneed . .
. to survive,Q 'AACP %. (utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 533, ,as also re!ognized b1 t#e Court o+
Appeals +or t#e Distri!t o+ Columbia Cir!uit in S&eeney %. Patterson, 2F L.S.App.D.C. '3,
'5, .'4 =.'d 5(2, 5(4 9.J5'<, cert. denied, 3.2 L.S. F24. Judge Bdgerton spo0e +or a
unanimous !ourt ,#i!# aCrmed t#e dismissal o+ a CongressmanPs libel suit based upon
a ne,spaper arti!le !#arging #im ,it# anti-Semitism in opposing a udi!ial appointment.
8e said:
Cases ,#i!# impose liabilit1 +or erroneous reports o+ t#e politi!al !ondu!t o+ oC!ials
reNe!t t#e obsolete do!trine t#at t#e governed must not !riti!ize t#eir governors. . . .
"#e interest o+ t#e publi! #ere out,eig#s t#e interest o+ appellant or an1 ot#er
individual. "#e prote!tion o+ t#e publi! reHuires not merel1 dis!ussion, but in+ormation.
Politi!al !ondu!t and vie,s ,#i!# some respe!table people approve, and ot#ers
!ondemn, are !onstantl1 imputed to Congressmen. Brrors o+ +a!t, parti!ularl1 in regard
to a manPs mental states and pro!esses, are inevitable. . . . I#atever is added to t#e
7eld o+ libel is ta0en +rom t#e 7eld o+ +ree debate.
@n?5A
?nur1 to oC!ial reputation aAords no more ,arrant +or repressing spee!# t#at ,ould
ot#er,ise be +ree t#an does +a!tual error. I#ere udi!ial oC!ers are involved, t#is Court
#as #eld t#at !on!ern +or t#e dignit1 and @+865A reputation o+ t#e !ourts does not
usti+1 t#e punis#ment as !riminal !ontempt o+ !riti!ism o+ t#e udge or #is
de!ision. (ridges %. California, 3.5 L.S. '('. "#is is true even t#oug# t#e utteran!e
!ontains Q#al+-trut#sQ and Qmisin+ormation.Q Penne)a"p %. #lorida, 3'4 L.S. 33., 35',
353, n. (, 35(. Su!# repression !an be usti7ed, i+ at all, onl1 b1 a !lear and present
danger o+ t#e obstru!tion o+ usti!e. See also Craig %. Harney, 33. L.S. 3F2G 0ood %.
*eorgia, 32) L.S. 32(. ?+ udges are to be treated as Qmen o+ +ortitude, able to t#rive in
a #ard1 !limate,Q Craig %. Harney, supra, 33. L.S. at 32F, surel1 t#e same must be true
o+ ot#er government oC!ials, su!# as ele!ted !it1 !ommissioners.
@n?:A
Criti!ism o+ t#eir
oC!ial !ondu!t does not lose its !onstitutional prote!tion merel1 be!ause it is eAe!tive
!riti!ism, and #en!e diminis#es t#eir oC!ial reputations.
?+ neit#er +a!tual error nor de+amator1 !ontent suC!es to remove t#e !onstitutional
s#ield +rom !riti!ism o+ oC!ial !ondu!t, t#e !ombination o+ t#e t,o elements is no less
inadeHuate. "#is is t#e lesson to be dra,n +rom t#e great !ontrovers1 over t#e Sedition
A!t o+ .2J4, . Stat. (JF, ,#i!# 7rst !r1stallized a national a,areness o+ t#e !entral
meaning o+ t#e =irst Amendment. See >ev1, >ega!1 o+ Suppression 9.JF)<, at '(4 et
se3.4Smit#, =reedomPs =etters 9.J(F<, at 5'F, 53., and passi". "#at statute made it a
!rime, punis#able b1 a R(,))) 7ne and 7ve 1ears in prison,
i+ an1 person s#all ,rite, print, utter or publis# . . . an1 +alse, s!andalous and
mali!ious@+86:A ,riting or ,ritings against t#e government o+ t#e Lnited States, or
eit#er #ouse o+ t#e Congress . . . or t#e President . . . ,it# intent to de+ame . . . or to
bring t#em, or eit#er o+ t#em, into !ontempt or disreputeG or to e*!ite against t#em, or
eit#er or an1 o+ t#em, t#e #atred o+ t#e good people o+ t#e Lnited States.
"#e A!t allo,ed t#e de+endant t#e de+ense o+ trut#, and provided t#at t#e ur1 ,ere to
be udges bot# o+ t#e la, and t#e +a!ts. Despite t#ese Huali7!ations, t#e A!t ,as
vigorousl1 !ondemned as un!onstitutional in an atta!0 oined in b1 JeAerson and
Madison. ?n t#e +amous @irginia &esolutions o+ .2J4, t#e %eneral Assembl1 o+ @irginia
resolved t#at it
dot# parti!ularl1 protest against t#e palpable and alarming in+ra!tions o+ t#e
Constitution in t#e t,o late !ases o+ t#e QAlien and Sedition A!ts,Q passed at t#e last
session o+ Congress. . . . -"#e Sedition A!t/ e*er!ises . . . a po,er not delegated b1 t#e
Constitution, but, on t#e !ontrar1, e*pressl1 and positivel1 +orbidden b1 one o+ t#e
amendments t#ereto -- a po,er ,#i!#, more t#an an1 ot#er, oug#t to produ!e universal
alarm be!ause it is leveled against t#e rig#t o+ +reel1 e*amining publi! !#ara!ters and
measures, and o+ +ree !ommuni!ation among t#e people t#ereon, ,#i!# #as ever been
ustl1 deemed t#e onl1 eAe!tual guardian o+ ever1 ot#er rig#t.
5 BlliotPs Debates, supra, pp. ((3-((5. Madison prepared t#e &eport in support o+ t#e
protest. 8is premise ,as t#at t#e Constitution !reated a +orm o+ government under
,#i!# Q"#e people, not t#e government, possess t#e absolute sovereignt1.Q "#e
stru!ture o+ t#e government dispersed po,er in reNe!tion o+ t#e peoplePs distrust o+
!on!entrated po,er, and o+ po,er itsel+ at all levels. "#is +orm o+ government ,as
Qaltoget#er diAerentQ +rom t#e Eritis# +orm, under ,#i!# t#e Cro,n ,as sovereign and
t#e people ,ere sube!ts. Q?s@+869A it not natural and ne!essar1, under su!# diAerent
!ir!umstan!es,Q #e as0ed, Qt#at a diAerent degree o+ +reedom in t#e use o+ t#e press
s#ould be !ontemplatedTQ Id., pp. (FJ-(2). Barlier, in a debate in t#e 8ouse o+
&epresentatives, Madison #ad said:
?+ ,e advert to t#e nature o+ &epubli!an %overnment, ,e s#all 7nd t#at t#e !ensorial
po,er is in t#e people over t#e %overnment, and not in t#e %overnment over t#e
people.
5 Annals o+ Congress, p. J35 9.2J5<. D+ t#e e*er!ise o+ t#at po,er b1 t#e press, #is
&eport said:
?n ever1 state, probabl1, in t#e Lnion, t#e press #as e*erted a +reedom in !anvassing
t#e merits and measures o+ publi! men, o+ ever1 des!ription, ,#i!# #as not been
!on7ned to t#e stri!t limits o+ t#e !ommon la,. Dn t#is +ooting, t#e +reedom o+ t#e press
#as stoodG on t#is +oundation it 1et stands. . . .
5 BlliotPs Debates, supra, p. (2). "#e rig#t o+ +ree publi! dis!ussion o+ t#e ste,ards#ip o+
publi! oC!ials ,as t#us, in MadisonPs vie,, a +undamental prin!iple o+ t#e Ameri!an
+orm o+ government.
@n?9A
@+867A
Alt#oug# t#e Sedition A!t ,as never tested in t#is Court,
@n?7A
t#e atta!0 upon its validit1
#as !arried t#e da1 in t#e !ourt o+ #istor1. =ines levied in its prose!ution ,ere repaid b1
A!t o+ Congress on t#e ground t#at it ,as un!onstitutional. See, e.g., A!t o+ Jul1 5, .45),
!. 5(, F Stat. 4)', a!!ompanied b1 8.&.&ep. $o. 4F, 'Ft# Cong., .st Sess. 9.45)<.
Cal#oun, reporting to t#e Senate on =ebruar1 5, .43F, assumed t#at its invalidit1 ,as a
matter Q,#i!# no one no, doubts.Q &eport ,it# Senate bill $o. .'', '5t# Cong., .st
Sess., p. 3. JeAerson, as President, pardoned t#ose ,#o #ad been !onvi!ted and
senten!ed under t#e A!t and remitted t#eir 7nes, stating:
? dis!#arged ever1 person under punis#ment or prose!ution under t#e sedition la,
be!ause ? !onsidered, and no, !onsider, t#at la, to be a nullit1, as absolute and as
palpable as i+ Congress #ad ordered us to +all do,n and ,ors#ip a golden image.
>etter to Mrs. Adams, Jul1 '', .4)5, 5 JeAersonPs Ior0s 9Ias#ington ed.<, pp. (((, ((F.
"#e invalidit1 o+ t#e A!t #as also been assumed b1 Justi!es o+ t#is Court. See 8olmes, J.,
dissenting and oined b1 Erandeis, J., in Abra"s %. ,nited States, '() L.S. F.F, F3)G
Ja!0son, J., dissenting in (eauharnais %. Illinois, 353 L.S. '(), '44-'4JG Douglas, "#e
&ig#t o+ t#e People 9.J(4<, p. 52. See also Coole1, Constitutional >imitations 94t# ed.,
Carrington, .J'2<, pp. 4JJ-J))G C#a+ee, =ree Spee!# in t#e Lnited States 9.J5'<, pp.
'2-'4. "#ese vie,s reNe!t a broad !onsensus t#at t#e A!t, be!ause o+ t#e restraint it
imposed upon !riti!ism o+ government and publi! oC!ials, ,as in!onsistent ,it# t#e
=irst Amendment.
"#ere is no +or!e in respondentPs argument t#at t#e !onstitutional limitations impli!it in
t#e #istor1 o+ t#e Sedition A!t appl1 onl1 to Congress, and not to t#e States. ?t is true
t#at t#e =irst Amendment ,as originall1 addressed onl1 to a!tion b1 t#e =ederal
%overnment, and @+866A t#at JeAerson, +or one, ,#ile den1ing t#e po,er o+ Congress
Qto !ontroul t#e +reedom o+ t#e press,Q re!ognized su!# a po,er in t#e States. See t#e
.4)5 >etter to Abigail Adams Huoted in .ennis %. ,nited States, 35. L.S. 5J5, ('', n. 5
9!on!urring opinion<. Eut t#is distin!tion ,as eliminated ,it# t#e adoption o+ t#e
=ourteent# Amendment and t#e appli!ation to t#e States o+ t#e =irst AmendmentPs
restri!tions. See, e.g., *itlo& %. 'e& 5or), 'F4 L.S. F(', FFFG Schneider %. State, 3)4
L.S. .52, .F)G (ridges %. California, 3.5 L.S. '(', 'F4G Ed&ards %. South Carolina, 32'
L.S. ''J, '3(.
I#at a State ma1 not !onstitutionall1 bring about b1 means o+ a !riminal statute is
li0e,ise be1ond t#e rea!# o+ its !ivil la, o+ libel.
@n?6A
"#e +ear o+ damage a,ards under a
rule su!# as t#at invo0ed b1 t#e Alabama !ourts #ere ma1 be mar0edl1 more in#ibiting
t#an t#e +ear o+ prose!ution under a !riminal statute. See City of Chicago %. 1ribune
Co., 3)2 ?ll. (J(, F)2, .3J $.B. 4F, J) 9.J'3<. Alabama, +or e*ample, #as a !riminal libel
la, ,#i!# sube!ts to prose!ution Qan1 person ,#o spea0s, ,rites, or prints o+ and
!on!erning anot#er an1 a!!usation +alsel1 and mali!iousl1 importing t#e !ommission b1
su!# person o+ a +elon1, or an1 ot#er indi!table oAense involving moral turpitude,Q and
,#i!# allo,s as punis#ment upon !onvi!tion a 7ne not e*!eeding R()) and a prison
senten!e o+ si* mont#s. Alabama Code, "it. .5, O 3(). Presumabl1, a person !#arged
,it# violation o+ t#is statute eno1s ordinar1 !riminal la, sa+eguards su!# as t#e
reHuirements o+ an indi!tment and o+ proo+ be1ond a reasonable doubt. "#ese
sa+eguards are not available to t#e de+endant in a !ivil a!tion. "#e udgment a,arded in
t#is !ase -- ,it#out t#e need +or an1 proo+ o+ a!tual pe!uniar1 loss -- ,as one t#ousand
times greater t#an t#e ma*imum 7ne provided b1 t#e Alabama !riminal statute, and
one #undred times greater t#an t#at provided b1 t#e Sedition A!t. @+86BA And sin!e
t#ere is no double eopard1 limitation appli!able to !ivil la,suits, t#is is not t#e onl1
udgment t#at ma1 be a,arded against petitioners +or t#e same
publi!ation.
@n?BA
I#et#er or not a ne,spaper !an survive a su!!ession o+ su!#
udgments, t#e pall o+ +ear and timidit1 imposed upon t#ose ,#o ,ould give voi!e to
publi! !riti!ism is an atmosp#ere in ,#i!# t#e =irst Amendment +reedoms !annot
survive. Plainl1 t#e Alabama la, o+ !ivil libel is
a +orm o+ regulation t#at !reates #azards to prote!ted +reedoms mar0edl1 greater t#an
t#ose t#at attend relian!e upon t#e !riminal la,.
(anta" (oo)s, Inc. %. Sulli%an, 32' L.S. (4, 2).
"#e state rule o+ la, is not saved b1 its allo,an!e o+ t#e de+ense o+ trut#. A de+ense +or
erroneous statements #onestl1 made is no less essential #ere t#an ,as t#e reHuirement
o+ proo+ o+ guilt1 0no,ledge ,#i!#, in S"ith %. California, 3F. L.S. .52, ,e #eld
indispensable to a valid !onvi!tion o+ a boo0seller +or possessing obs!ene ,ritings +or
sale. Ie said:
=or, i+ t#e boo0seller is !riminall1 liable ,it#out 0no,ledge o+ t#e !ontents, . . . 8e ,ill
tend to restri!t t#e boo0s #e sells to t#ose #e #as inspe!ted, and t#us t#e State ,ill
#ave imposed a restri!tion upon t#e distribution o+ !onstitutionall1 prote!ted, as ,ell as
obs!ene, literature. . . . And t#e boo0sellerPs burden ,ould be!ome t#e publi!Ps burden,
+or, b1 restri!ting #im, t#e publi!Ps a!!ess to reading matter ,ould be restri!ted. . . .
-8/is timidit1 in t#e +a!e o+ #is absolute !riminal liabilit1 t#us ,ould tend to restri!t t#e
publi!Ps a!!ess to +orms o+ t#e printed ,ord ,#i!# t#e State !ould not
!onstitutionall1 @+86=Asuppress dire!tl1. "#e boo0sellerPs sel+-!ensors#ip, !ompelled b1
t#e State, ,ould be a !ensors#ip aAe!ting t#e ,#ole publi!, #ardl1 less virulent +or
being privatel1 administered. "#roug# it, t#e distribution o+ all boo0s, bot# obs!ene and
not obs!ene, ,ould be impeded.
9 3F. L.S. .52, .(3-.(5.< A rule !ompelling t#e !riti! o+ oC!ial !ondu!t to guarantee t#e
trut# o+ all #is +a!tual assertions -- and to do so on pain o+ libel udgments virtuall1
unlimited in amount -- leads to a !omparable Qsel+-!ensors#ip.Q Allo,an!e o+ t#e
de+ense o+ trut#, ,it# t#e burden o+ proving it on t#e de+endant, does not mean t#at
onl1 +alse spee!# ,ill be deterred.
@n?=A
Bven !ourts a!!epting t#is de+ense as an
adeHuate sa+eguard #ave re!ognized t#e diC!ulties o+ addu!ing legal proo+s t#at t#e
alleged libel ,as true in all its +a!tual parti!ulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. %.
Halla", (J =. (3), (5) 9C.A. Ft# Cir. .4J3<G see also $oel, De+amation o+ Publi! DC!ers
and Candidates, 5J Col.>.&ev. 42(, 4J' 9.J5J<. Lnder su!# a rule, ,ould-be !riti!s o+
oC!ial !ondu!t ma1 be deterred +rom voi!ing t#eir !riti!ism, even t#oug# it is believed
to be true and even t#oug# it is, in +a!t, true, be!ause o+ doubt ,#et#er it !an be
proved in !ourt or +ear o+ t#e e*pense o+ #aving to do so. "#e1 tend to ma0e onl1
statements ,#i!# Qsteer +ar ,ider o+ t#e unla,+ul zone.Q Speiser %. -andall, supra, 3(2
L.S. at ('F. "#e rule t#us dampens t#e vigor and limits t#e variet1 o+ publi! debate. ?t is
in!onsistent ,it# t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments. "#e !onstitutional guarantees
reHuire, ,e t#in0, a +ederal rule t#at pro#ibits a publi! oC!ial +rom re!overing damages
+or a de+amator1 +alse#ood relating to #is oC!ial !ondu!t unless #e proves t#at t#e
statement ,as made @+8BCA ,it# Qa!tual mali!eQ -- t#at is, ,it# 0no,ledge t#at it ,as
+alse or ,it# re!0less disregard o+ ,#et#er it ,as +alse or not. An o+t-!ited statement o+
a li0e rule, ,#i!# #as been adopted b1 a number o+ state !ourts,
@n8CA
is +ound in t#e
Sansas !ase o+ Cole"an %. 6ac$ennan, 24 San. 2.., J4 P. '4. 9.J)4<. "#e State
Attorne1 %eneral, a !andidate +or reele!tion and a member o+ t#e !ommission !#arged
,it# t#e management and !ontrol o+ t#e state s!#ool +und, sued a ne,spaper publis#er
+or alleged libel in an arti!le purporting to state +a!ts relating to #is oC!ial !ondu!t in
!onne!tion ,it# a s!#ool-+und transa!tion. "#e de+endant pleaded privilege and t#e trial
udge, over t#e plaintiAPs obe!tion, instru!ted t#e ur1 t#at
,#ere an arti!le is publis#ed and !ir!ulated among voters +or t#e sole purpose o+ giving
,#at t#e de+endant @+8B?A believes to be trut#+ul in+ormation !on!erning a !andidate
+or publi! oC!e and +or t#e purpose o+ enabling su!# voters to !ast t#eir ballot more
intelligentl1, and t#e ,#ole t#ing is done in good +ait# and ,it#out mali!e, t#e arti!le is
privileged, alt#oug# t#e prin!ipal matters !ontained in t#e arti!le ma1 be untrue, in
+a!t, and derogator1 to t#e !#ara!ter o+ t#e plaintiA, and in su!# a !ase t#e burden is on
t#e plaintiA to s#o, a!tual mali!e in t#e publi!ation o+ t#e arti!le.
?n ans,er to a spe!ial Huestion, t#e ur1 +ound t#at t#e plaintiA #ad not proved a!tual
mali!e, and a general verdi!t ,as returned +or t#e de+endant. Dn appeal, t#e Supreme
Court o+ Sansas, in an opinion b1 Justi!e Eur!#, reasoned as +ollo,s 924 San., at 2'5, J4
P. at '4F<:
?t is o+ t#e utmost !onseHuen!e t#at t#e people s#ould dis!uss t#e !#ara!ter and
Huali7!ations o+ !andidates +or t#eir suArages. "#e importan!e to t#e state and to
so!iet1 o+ su!# dis!ussions is so vast, and t#e advantages derived are so great, t#at
t#e1 more t#an !ounterbalan!e t#e in!onvenien!e o+ private persons ,#ose !ondu!t
ma1 be involved, and o!!asional inur1 to t#e reputations o+ individuals must 1ield to
t#e publi! ,el+are, alt#oug# at times su!# inur1 ma1 be great. "#e publi! bene7t +rom
publi!it1 is so great, and t#e !#an!e o+ inur1 to private !#ara!ter so small, t#at su!#
dis!ussion must be privileged.
"#e !ourt t#us sustained t#e trial !ourtPs instru!tion as a !orre!t statement o+ t#e la,,
sa1ing:
?n su!# a !ase t#e o!!asion gives rise to a privilege, Huali7ed to t#is e*tent: an1 one
!laiming to be de+amed b1 t#e !ommuni!ation must s#o, a!tual mali!e or go
remediless. "#is privilege e*tends to a great variet1 o+ sube!ts, and in!ludes matters
o+ @+8B8A publi! !on!ern, publi! men, and !andidates +or oC!e.
24 San. at 2'3, J4 P. at '4(.
Su!# a privilege +or !riti!ism o+ oC!ial !ondu!t
@n8?A
is appropriatel1 analogous to t#e
prote!tion a!!orded a publi! oC!ial ,#en #e is sued +or libel b1 a private !itizen. ?n (arr
%. 6atteo, 3F) L.S. (F5, (2(, t#is Court #eld t#e utteran!e o+ a +ederal oC!ial to be
absolutel1 privileged i+ made Q,it#in t#e outer perimeterQ o+ #is duties. "#e States
a!!ord t#e same immunit1 to statements o+ t#eir #ig#est oC!ers, alt#oug# some
diAerentiate t#eir lesser oC!ials and Huali+1 t#e privilege t#e1 eno1.
@n88A
Eut all #old
t#at all oC!ials are prote!ted unless a!tual mali!e !an be proved. "#e reason +or t#e
oC!ial privilege is said to be t#at t#e t#reat o+ damage suits ,ould ot#er,ise Qin#ibit
t#e +earless, vigorous, and eAe!tive administration o+ poli!ies o+ governmentQ and
Qdampen t#e ardor o+ all but t#e most resolute, or t#e most irresponsible, in t#e
unNin!#ing dis!#arge o+ t#eir duties.Q(arr %. 6atteo, supra, 3F) L.S. at (2.. Analogous
!onsiderations support t#e privilege +or t#e !itizen-!riti! o+ government. ?t is as mu!#
#is dut1 to !riti!ize as it is t#e oC!ialPs dut1 to administer. See 0hitney %.
California, '25 L.S. 3(2, 32( 9!on!urring opinion o+ Mr. Justi!e Erandeis<,
Huoted supra, p. '2). As Madison said, see supra p. '2(, Qt#e !ensorial po,er is in t#e
people over t#e %overnment, and not in t#e %overnment over t#e people.Q ?t ,ould give
publi! servants an unusti7ed pre+eren!e over t#e publi! t#e1 serve, i+ !riti!s o+ oC!ial
!ondu!t @+8B5A did not #ave a +air eHuivalent o+ t#e immunit1 granted to t#e oC!ials
t#emselves.
Ie !on!lude t#at su!# a privilege is reHuired b1 t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments.
???
Ie #old toda1 t#at t#e Constitution delimits a StatePs po,er to a,ard damages +or libel
in a!tions broug#t b1 publi! oC!ials against !riti!s o+ t#eir oC!ial !ondu!t. Sin!e t#is is
su!# an a!tion,
@n85A
t#e rule reHuiring proo+ o+ a!tual mali!e is appli!able. I#ile Alabama
la, apparentl1 reHuires proo+ o+ a!tual mali!e +or an a,ard o+ punitive
damages,
@n8:A
,#ere general damages are !on!erned mali!e is Qpresumed.Q Su!# a
presumption is in!onsistent@+8B:A ,it# t#e +ederal rule. Q"#e po,er to !reate
presumptions is not a means o+ es!ape +rom !onstitutional restri!tions,Q (ailey %.
Alaba"a, '.J L.S. '.J, '3J, Qt#e s#o,ing o+ mali!e reHuired +or t#e +or+eiture o+ t#e
privilege is not presumed but is a matter +or proo+ b1 t#e plaintiA. . . .Q $a&rence %.
#o, 3(2 Mi!#. .35, .5F, J2 $.I.'d 2.J, 2'( 9.J(J<.
@n89A
Sin!e t#e trial udge did not
instru!t t#e ur1 to diAerentiate bet,een general and punitive damages, it ma1 be t#at
t#e verdi!t ,as ,#oll1 an a,ard o+ one or t#e ot#er. Eut it is impossible to 0no,, in vie,
o+ t#e general verdi!t returned. Ee!ause o+ t#is un!ertaint1, t#e udgment must be
reversed and t#e !ase remanded. Stro"berg %. California, '43 L.S. 3(J, 3F2-
3F4G 0illia"s %. 'orth Carolina, 3.2 L.S. '42, 'J.-'J'G see 5ates %. ,nited States, 3(5
L.S. 'J4, 3..-3.'G Cra"er %. ,nited States, 3'( L.S. ., 3F, n. 5(.
Sin!e respondent ma1 see0 a ne, trial, ,e deem t#at !onsiderations o+ eAe!tive udi!ial
administration reHuire us to revie, t#e eviden!e in t#e present re!ord to
determine@+8B9A ,#et#er it !ould !onstitutionall1 support a udgment +or respondent.
"#is CourtPs dut1 is not limited to t#e elaboration o+ !onstitutional prin!iplesG ,e must
also in proper !ases revie, t#e eviden!e to ma0e !ertain t#at t#ose prin!iples #ave
been !onstitutionall1 applied. "#is is su!# a !ase, parti!ularl1 sin!e t#e Huestion is one
o+ alleged trespass a!ross Qt#e line bet,een spee!# un!onditionall1 guaranteed and
spee!# ,#i!# ma1 legitimatel1 be regulated.Q Speiser %. -andall, 3(2 L.S. (.3, ('(. ?n
!ases ,#ere t#at line must be dra,n, t#e rule is t#at ,e
e*amine +or ourselves t#e statements in issue and t#e !ir!umstan!es under ,#i!# t#e1
,ere made to see . . . ,#et#er t#e1 are o+ a !#ara!ter ,#i!# t#e prin!iples o+ t#e =irst
Amendment, as adopted b1 t#e Due Pro!ess Clause o+ t#e =ourteent# Amendment,
prote!t.
Penne)a"p %. #lorida, 3'4 L.S. 33., 33(G see also 2ne, Inc., %. 2lesen, 3(( L.S.
32.GSunshine (oo) Co. %. Su""er7eld, 3(( L.S. 32'. Ie must Qma0e an independent
e*amination o+ t#e ,#ole re!ord,Q Ed&ards %. South Carolina, 32' L.S. ''J, '3(, so as
to assure ourselves t#at t#e udgment does not !onstitute a +orbidden intrusion on t#e
7eld o+ +ree e*pression.
@n87A
Appl1ing t#ese standards, ,e !onsider t#at t#e proo+ presented to s#o, a!tual mali!e
la!0s t#e !onvin!ing @+8B7A !larit1 ,#i!# t#e !onstitutional standard demands, and
#en!e t#at it ,ould not !onstitutionall1 sustain t#e udgment +or respondent under t#e
proper rule o+ la,. "#e !ase o+ t#e individual petitioners reHuires little dis!ussion. Bven
assuming t#at t#e1 !ould !onstitutionall1 be +ound to #ave aut#orized t#e use o+ t#eir
names on t#e advertisement, t#ere ,as no eviden!e ,#atever t#at t#e1 ,ere a,are o+
an1 erroneous statements or ,ere in an1 ,a1 re!0less in t#at regard. "#e udgment
against t#em is t#us ,it#out !onstitutional support.
As to t#e "imes, ,e similarl1 !on!lude t#at t#e +a!ts do not support a 7nding o+ a!tual
mali!e. "#e statement b1 t#e "imesP Se!retar1 t#at, apart +rom t#e padlo!0ing
allegation, #e t#oug#t t#e advertisement ,as Qsubstantiall1 !orre!t,Q aAords no
!onstitutional ,arrant +or t#e Alabama Supreme CourtPs !on!lusion t#at it ,as a
!avalier ignoring o+ t#e +alsit1 o+ t#e advertisement -+rom ,#i!#/ t#e ur1 !ould not #ave
but been impressed ,it# t#e bad +ait# o+ "#e "imes, and its mali!iousness in+erable
t#ere+rom.
"#e statement does not indi!ate mali!e at t#e time o+ t#e publi!ationG even i+ t#e
advertisement ,as not Qsubstantiall1 !orre!tQ -- alt#oug# respondentPs o,n proo+s tend
to s#o, t#at it ,as -- t#at opinion ,as at least a reasonable one, and t#ere ,as no
eviden!e to impea!# t#e ,itnessP good +ait# in #olding it. "#e "imesP +ailure to retra!t
upon respondentPs demand, alt#oug# it later retra!ted upon t#e demand o+ %overnor
Patterson, is li0e,ise not adeHuate eviden!e o+ mali!e +or !onstitutional purposes.
I#et#er or not a +ailure to retra!t ma1 ever !onstitute su!# eviden!e, t#ere are t,o
reasons ,#1 it does not #ere. =irst, t#e letter ,ritten b1 t#e "imes reNe!ted a
reasonable doubt on its part as to ,#et#er t#e advertisement !ould reasonabl1 be ta0en
to re+er to respondent at all. Se!ond, it ,as not a 7nal re+usal, sin!e it as0ed +or an
e*planation on t#is point -- a reHuest t#at respondent !#ose to ignore. $or does t#e
retra!tion upon t#e demand o+ t#e %overnor suppl1 t#e @+8B6A ne!essar1 proo+. ?t ma1
be doubted t#at a +ailure to retra!t, ,#i!# is not itsel+ eviden!e o+ mali!e, !an
retroa!tivel1 be!ome su!# b1 virtue o+ a retra!tion subseHuentl1 made to anot#er part1.
Eut, in an1 event, t#at did not #appen #ere, sin!e t#e e*planation given b1 t#e "imesP
Se!retar1 +or t#e distin!tion dra,n bet,een respondent and t#e %overnor ,as a
reasonable one, t#e good +ait# o+ ,#i!# ,as not impea!#ed.
=inall1, t#ere is eviden!e t#at t#e "imes publis#ed t#e advertisement ,it#out !#e!0ing
its a!!ura!1 against t#e ne,s stories in t#e "imesP o,n 7les. "#e mere presen!e o+ t#e
stories in t#e 7les does not, o+ !ourse, establis# t#at t#e "imes Q0ne,Q t#e
advertisement ,as +alse, sin!e t#e state o+ mind reHuired +or a!tual mali!e ,ould #ave
to be broug#t #ome to t#e persons in t#e "imesP organization #aving responsibilit1 +or
t#e publi!ation o+ t#e advertisement. Iit# respe!t to t#e +ailure o+ t#ose persons to
ma0e t#e !#e!0, t#e re!ord s#o,s t#at t#e1 relied upon t#eir 0no,ledge o+ t#e good
reputation o+ man1 o+ t#ose ,#ose names ,ere listed as sponsors o+ t#e advertisement,
and upon t#e letter +rom A. P#ilip &andolp#, 0no,n to t#em as a responsible individual,
!erti+1ing t#at t#e use o+ t#e names ,as aut#orized. "#ere ,as testimon1 t#at t#e
persons #andling t#e advertisement sa, not#ing in it t#at ,ould render it una!!eptable
under t#e "imesP poli!1 o+ ree!ting advertisements !ontaining Qatta!0s o+ a personal
!#ara!terQG
@n86A
t#eir +ailure to ree!t it on t#is ground ,as not unreasonable. Ie
t#in0 @+8BBA t#e eviden!e against t#e "imes supports, at most, a 7nding o+ negligen!e
in +ailing to dis!over t#e misstatements, and is !onstitutionall1 insuC!ient to s#o, t#e
re!0lessness t#at is reHuired +or a 7nding o+ a!tual mali!e. Cf. Charles Par)er Co. %.
Sil%er City Crystal Co., .5' Conn. F)(, F.4, ..F A.'d 55), 55F 9.J((<G Phoeni
'e&spapers, Inc., %. Choisser, 4' Ariz. '2., '22-'24, 3.' P.'d .(), .(5-.(( 9.J(2<.
Ie also t#in0 t#e eviden!e ,as !onstitutionall1 de+e!tive in anot#er respe!t: it ,as
in!apable o+ supporting t#e ur1Ps 7nding t#at t#e allegedl1 libelous statements ,ere
made Qo+ and !on!erningQ respondent. &espondent relies on t#e ,ords o+ t#e
advertisement and t#e testimon1 o+ si* ,itnesses to establis# a !onne!tion bet,een it
and #imsel+. "#us, in #is brie+ to t#is Court, #e states:
"#e re+eren!e to respondent as poli!e !ommissioner is !lear +rom t#e ad. ?n addition,
t#e ur1 #eard t#e testimon1 o+ a ne,spaper editor . . . G a real estate and insuran!e
man . . . G t#e sales manager o+ a menPs !lot#ing store . . . G a +ood eHuipment man . . . G
a servi!e station operator . . . , and t#e operator o+ a tru!0 line +or ,#om respondent
#ad +ormerl1 ,or0ed. . . . Ba!# o+ t#ese ,itnesses stated t#at #e asso!iated t#e
statements ,it# respondent. . . .
9Citations to re!ord omitted.< "#ere ,as no re+eren!e to respondent in t#e
advertisement, eit#er b1 name or oC!ial position. A number o+ t#e allegedl1 libelous
statements -- t#e !#arges t#at t#e dining #all ,as padlo!0ed and t#at Dr. SingPs #ome
,as bombed, #is person assaulted, and a perur1 prose!ution instituted against #im --
did not even !on!ern t#e poli!eG despite t#e ingenuit1 o+ t#e arguments ,#i!# ,ould
atta!# t#is signi7!an!e to t#e ,ord Q"#e1,Q it is plain t#at t#ese statements !ould not
reasonabl1 be read as a!!using respondent o+ personal involvement in t#e
a!ts @+8B=A in Huestion. "#e statements upon ,#i!# respondent prin!ipall1 relies as
re+erring to #im are t#e t,o allegations t#at did !on!ern t#e poli!e or poli!e +un!tions:
t#at Qtru!0loads o+ poli!e . . . ringed t#e Alabama State College CampusQ a+ter t#e
demonstration on t#e State Capitol steps, and t#at Dr. Sing #ad been Qarrested . . .
seven times.Q "#ese statements ,ere +alse onl1 in t#at t#e poli!e #ad been Qdeplo1ed
nearQ t#e !ampus, but #ad not a!tuall1 QringedQ it, and #ad not gone t#ere in
!onne!tion ,it# t#e State Capitol demonstration, and in t#at Dr. Sing #ad been arrested
onl1 +our times. "#e ruling t#at t#ese dis!repan!ies bet,een ,#at ,as true and ,#at
,as asserted ,ere suC!ient to inure respondentPs reputation ma1 itsel+ raise
!onstitutional problems, but ,e need not !onsider t#em #ere. Alt#oug# t#e statements
ma1 be ta0en as re+erring to t#e poli!e, t#e1 did not, on t#eir +a!e, ma0e even an
obliHue re+eren!e to respondent as an individual. Support +or t#e asserted re+eren!e
must, t#ere+ore, be soug#t in t#e testimon1 o+ respondentPs ,itnesses. Eut none o+
t#em suggested an1 basis +or t#e belie+ t#at respondent #imsel+ ,as atta!0ed in t#e
advertisement be1ond t#e bare +a!t t#at #e ,as in overall !#arge o+ t#e Poli!e
Department and t#us bore oC!ial responsibilit1 +or poli!e !ondu!tG to t#e e*tent t#at
some o+ t#e ,itnesses t#oug#t respondent to #ave been !#arged ,it# ordering or
approving t#e !ondu!t or ot#er,ise being personall1 involved in it, t#e1 based t#is
notion not on an1 statements in t#e advertisement, and not on an1 eviden!e t#at #e
#ad, in +a!t, been so involved, but solel1 on t#e unsupported assumption t#at, be!ause
o+ #is oC!ial position, #e must #ave been.
@n8BA
"#is relian!e on t#e bare @+8=CA +a!t o+
respondentPs oC!ial position
@n8=A
,as made e*pli!it b1 t#e Supreme Court o+ Alabama.
"#at !ourt, in #olding t#at t#e trial !ourt Qdid not err in overruling t#e demurrer -o+ t#e
"imes/ in t#e aspe!t t#at t#e libelous @+8=?A matter ,as not o+ and !on!erning t#e
-plaintiA,/Q based its ruling on t#e proposition t#at:
Ie t#in0 it !ommon 0no,ledge t#at t#e average person 0no,s t#at muni!ipal agents,
su!# as poli!e and 7remen, and ot#ers, are under t#e !ontrol and dire!tion o+ t#e !it1
governing bod1, and more parti!ularl1 under t#e dire!tion and !ontrol o+ a single
!ommissioner. ?n measuring t#e per+orman!e or de7!ien!ies o+ su!# groups, praise or
!riti!ism is usuall1 atta!#ed to t#e oC!ial in !omplete !ontrol o+ t#e bod1.
'23 Ala., at F25-F2(, .55 So.'d at 3J.
"#is proposition #as disHuieting impli!ations +or !riti!ism o+ governmental !ondu!t. =or
good reason,
no !ourt o+ last resort in t#is !ountr1 #as ever #eld, or even suggested, t#at
prose!utions +or libel on government #ave an1 pla!e in t#e Ameri!an s1stem o+
urispruden!e.
City of Chicago %. 1ribune Co., 3)2 ?ll. (J(, F)., .3J $.B. @+8=8A 4F, 44 9.J'3<. "#e
present proposition ,ould sidestep t#is obsta!le b1 transmuting !riti!ism o+
government, #o,ever impersonal it ma1 seem on its +a!e, into personal !riti!ism, and
#en!e potential libel, o+ t#e oC!ials o+ ,#om t#e government is !omposed. "#ere is no
legal al!#em1 b1 ,#i!# a State ma1 t#us !reate t#e !ause o+ a!tion t#at ,ould
ot#er,ise be denied +or a publi!ation ,#i!#, as respondent #imsel+ said o+ t#e
advertisement, QreNe!ts not onl1 on me but on t#e ot#er Commissioners and t#e
!ommunit1.Q &aising as it does t#e possibilit1 t#at a good +ait# !riti! o+ government ,ill
be penalized +or #is !riti!ism, t#e proposition relied on b1 t#e Alabama !ourts stri0es at
t#e ver1 !enter o+ t#e !onstitutionall1 prote!ted area o+ +ree e*pression.
@n5CA
Ie #old
t#at su!# a proposition ma1 not !onstitutionall1 be utilized to establis# t#at an
ot#er,ise impersonal atta!0 on governmental operations ,as a libel o+ an oC!ial
responsible +or t#ose operations. Sin!e it ,as relied on e*!lusivel1 #ere, and t#ere ,as
no ot#er eviden!e to !onne!t t#e statements ,it# respondent, t#e eviden!e ,as
!onstitutionall1 insuC!ient to support a 7nding t#at t#e statements re+erred to
respondent.
"#e udgment o+ t#e Supreme Court o+ Alabama is reversed, and t#e !ase is remanded
to t#at !ourt +or +urt#er pro!eedings not in!onsistent ,it# t#is opinion.
-e%ersed and re"anded. @+8=5A
*
"oget#er ,it# $o. 5), Abernathy et al. %. Sulli%an, also on !ertiorari to t#e same !ourt,
argued Januar1 2, .JF5.
1.
A !op1 o+ t#e advertisement is printed in t#e Appendi* -omitted/.
2.
&espondent did not !onsider t#e !#arge o+ e*pelling t#e students to be appli!able to
#im, sin!e Qt#at responsibilit1 rests ,it# t#e State Department o+ Bdu!ation.Q
3.
Appro*imatel1 3J5 !opies o+ t#e edition o+ t#e "imes !ontaining t#e advertisement ,ere
!ir!ulated in Alabama. D+ t#ese, about 3( !opies ,ere distributed in Montgomer1
Count1. "#e total !ir!ulation o+ t#e "imes +or t#at da1 ,as appro*imatel1 F(),)))
!opies.
4.
Sin!e ,e sustain t#e !ontentions o+ all t#e petitioners under t#e =irst AmendmentPs
guarantees o+ +reedom o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press as applied to t#e States b1 t#e
=ourteent# Amendment, ,e do not de!ide t#e Huestions presented b1 t#e ot#er !laims
o+ violation o+ t#e =ourteent# Amendment. "#e individual petitioners !ontend t#at t#e
udgment against t#em oAends t#e Due Pro!ess Clause be!ause t#ere ,as no eviden!e
to s#o, t#at t#e1 #ad publis#ed or aut#orized t#e publi!ation o+ t#e alleged libel, and
t#at t#e Due Pro!ess and BHual Prote!tion Clauses ,ere violated b1 ra!ial segregation
and ra!ial bias in t#e !ourtroom. "#e "imes !ontends t#at t#e assumption o+ urisdi!tion
over its !orporate person b1 t#e Alabama !ourts overrea!#es t#e territorial limits o+ t#e
Due Pro!ess Clause. "#e latter !laim is +ore!losed +rom our revie, b1 t#e ruling o+ t#e
Alabama !ourts t#at t#e "imes entered a general appearan!e in t#e a!tion, and t#us
,aived its urisdi!tional obe!tionG ,e !annot sa1 t#at t#is ruling la!0s Q+air or
substantial supportQ in prior Alabama de!isions. See 1ho"pson %. 0ilson, ''5 Ala. 'JJ,
.5) So. 53J 9.J3'<Gco"pare 'AACP %. Alaba"a, 3(2 L.S. 55J, 5(5-5(4.
5.
See Ameri!an >a, ?nstitute, &estatement o+ "orts, O (J3, Comment b 9.J34<.
6.
8onigsberg %. State (ar of California, 3FF L.S. 3F, 5J, and n. .)G 1i"es #il" Corp. %. City
of Chicago, 3F( L.S. 53, 54G -oth %. ,nited States, 3(5 L.S. 52F, 54F-542G (eauharnais
%. Illinois, 353 L.S. '(), 'FFG Penne)a"p %. #lorida, 3'4 L.S. 33., 354-35JG Chaplins)y
%. 'e& Ha"pshire, 3.( L.S. (F4, (2'G 'ear %. 6innesota, '43 L.S. FJ2, 2.(.
7.
Herndon %. $o&ry, 3). L.S. '5'.
8.
(ridges %. California, 3.5 L.S. '('G Penne)a"p %. #lorida, 3'4 L.S. 33..
9.
.e Jonge %. 2regon, 'JJ L.S. 3(3.
10.
Ed&ards %. South Carolina, 32' L.S. ''J.
11.
-oth %. ,nited States, 3(5 L.S. 52F.
12.
'AACP %. (utton, 32. L.S. 5.(.
13.
See also Mill, Dn >ibert1 9D*+ord: Ela!0,ell, .J52<, at 52:
. . . -"/o argue sop#isti!all1, to suppress +a!ts or arguments, to misstate t#e elements o+
t#e !ase, or misrepresent t#e opposite opinion . . . , all t#is, even to t#e most
aggravated degree, is so !ontinuall1 done in per+e!t good +ait# b1 persons ,#o are not
!onsidered, and in man1 ot#er respe!ts ma1 not deserve to be !onsidered, ignorant or
in!ompetent t#at it is rarel1 possible, on adeHuate grounds, !ons!ientiousl1 to stamp
t#e misrepresentation as morall1 !ulpable, and still less !ould la, presume to inter+ere
,it# t#is 0ind o+ !ontroversial mis!ondu!t.
14.
"#e !limate in ,#i!# publi! oC!ials operate, espe!iall1 during a politi!al !ampaign, #as
been des!ribed b1 one !ommentator in t#e +ollo,ing terms:
C#arges o+ gross in!ompeten!e, disregard o+ t#e publi! interest, !ommunist s1mpat#ies,
and t#e li0e usuall1 #ave 7lled t#e air, and #ints o+ briber1, embezzlement, and ot#er
!riminal !ondu!t are not in+reHuent.
$oel, De+amation o+ Publi! DC!ers and Candidates, 5J Col.>.&ev. 42( 9.J5J<.
=or a similar des!ription ,ritten F) 1ears earlier, see C#ase, Criti!ism o+ Publi! DC!ers
and Candidates +or DC!e, '3 Am.>.&ev. 35F 9.44J<.
15.
"#e &eport on t#e @irginia &esolutions +urt#er stated:
-?/t is mani+estl1 impossible to punis# t#e intent to bring t#ose ,#o administer t#e
government into disrepute or !ontempt, ,it#out stri0ing at t#e rig#t o+ +reel1 dis!ussing
publi! !#ara!ters and measures, . . . ,#i!#, again, is eHuivalent to a prote!tion o+ t#ose
,#o administer t#e government, i+ t#e1 s#ould at an1 time deserve t#e !ontempt or
#atred o+ t#e people, against being e*posed to it b1 +ree animadversions on t#eir
!#ara!ters and !ondu!t. $or !an t#ere be a doubt . . . t#at a government t#us
entren!#ed in penal statutes against t#e ust and natural eAe!ts o+ a !ulpable
administration ,ill easil1 evade t#e responsibilit1 ,#i!# is essential to a +ait#+ul
dis!#arge o+ its dut1.
>et it be re!olle!ted, lastl1, t#at t#e rig#t o+ ele!ting t#e members o+ t#e government
!onstitutes more parti!ularl1 t#e essen!e o+ a +ree and responsible government. "#e
value and eC!a!1 o+ t#is rig#t depends on t#e 0no,ledge o+ t#e !omparative merits
and demerits o+ t#e !andidates +or publi! trust, and on t#e eHual +reedom,
!onseHuentl1, o+ e*amining and dis!ussing t#ese merits and demerits o+ t#e !andidates
respe!tivel1.
5 BlliotPs Debates, supra, p. (2(.
16.
"#e A!t e*pired, b1 its terms, in .4)..
17.
Cf. #ar"ers ,nion %. 0.A5, 3F) L.S. ('(, (3(.
18.
"#e "imes states t#at +our ot#er libel suits based on t#e advertisement #ave been 7led
against it b1 ot#ers ,#o #ave served as Montgomer1 Cit1 Commissioners and b1 t#e
%overnor o+ AlabamaG t#at anot#er R()),))) verdi!t #as been a,arded in t#e onl1 one
o+ t#ese !ases t#at #as 1et gone to trial, and t#at t#e damages soug#t in t#e ot#er
t#ree total R',))),))).
19.
Bven a +alse statement ma1 be deemed to ma0e a valuable !ontribution to publi!
debate, sin!e it brings about Qt#e !learer per!eption and livelier impression o+ trut#,
produ!ed b1 its !ollision ,it# error.Q Mill, Dn >ibert1 9D*+ord: Ela!0,ell, .J52<, at
.(G see also Milton, Areopagitia, in Prose Ior0s 9Yale, .J(J<, @ol. ??, at (F..
20.
E.g., Ponder %. Cobb, '(2 $.C. '4., 'JJ, .'F S.B.'d F2, 4) 9.JF'<G $a&rence %. #o, 3(2
Mi!#. .35, .5F, J2 $.I.'d 2.J, 2'( 9.J(J<G Stice %. (eacon 'e&spaper Corp., .4( San.
F., F(-F2, 35) P.'d 3JF, 5))-5). 9.J(J<G (ailey %. Charleston 6ail Assn., .'F I.@a. 'J',
3)2, '2 S.B.'d 432, 455 9.J53<G Salinger %. Co&les, .J( ?o,a 423, 44J, .J. $.I. .F2,
.25 9.J''<G Sni%ely %. -ecord Publishing Co., .4( Cal. (F(, (2.-(2F, .J4 P. .
9.J'.<G 6c$ean %. 6erri"an, 5' S.D. 3J5, .2( $.I. 424 9.J')<. Appl1ing t#e same rule
to !andidates +or publi! oC!e, see, e.g., Phoeni 'e&spapers %. Choisser, 4' Ariz. '2.,
'2F-'22, 3.' P.'d .(), .(5 9.J(2<G #riedell %. (la)ely Printing Co., .F3 Minn. ''F, '3),
')3 $.I. J25, J2( 9.J'(<. And see Chagnon %. ,nion/$eader Corp., .)3 $.8. 5'F, 534,
.25 A.'d 4'(, 433 9.JF.<, cert. denied, 3FJ L.S. 43).
"#e !onsensus o+ s!#olarl1 opinion apparentl1 +avors t#e rule t#at is #ere
adopted. E.g.,8arper and James, "orts, O (.'F, at 55J-5() 9.J(F<G $oel, De+amation o+
Publi! DC!ers and Candidates, 5J Col.>.&ev. 42(, 4J.-4J(, 4J2, J)3 9.J5J<G 8allen, =air
Comment, 4 "e*.>.&ev. 5., F. 9.J'J<G Smit#, C#arges Against Candidates, .4
Mi!#.>.&ev. ., ..( 9.J.J<G C#ase, Criti!ism o+ Publi! DC!ers and Candidates +or DC!e,
'3 Am.>.&ev. 35F, 3F2-32. 9.44J<G Coole1, Constitutional >imitations 92t# ed., >ane,
.J)3<, at F)5, F.F-F'4. (ut see, e.g., Ameri!an >a, ?nstitute, &estatement o+ "orts,
O (J4, Comment a 9.J34< 9reversing t#e position ta0en in "entative Dra+t .3, O .)5.9'<
9.J3F<<G @eeder, =reedom o+ Publi! Dis!ussion, '3 8arv.>.&ev. 5.3, 5.J 9.J.)<.
21.
"#e privilege immunizing #onest misstatements o+ +a!t is o+ten re+erred to as a
Q!onditionalQ privilege, to distinguis# it +rom t#e QabsoluteQ privilege re!ognized in
udi!ial, legislative, administrative and e*e!utive pro!eedings. See, e.g., Prosser, "orts
9'd ed., .J((<, O J(.
22.
See . 8arper and James, "orts, O (.'3, at 5'J-53) 9.J(F<G Prosser, "orts 9'd ed., .J((<,
at F.'-F.3G Ameri!an >a, ?nstitute, &estatement o+ "orts 9.J34<, O (J..
23.
Ie #ave no o!!asion #ere to determine #o, +ar do,n into t#e lo,er ran0s o+
government emplo1ees t#e Qpubli! oC!ialQ designation ,ould e*tend +or purposes o+
t#is rule, or ot#er,ise to spe!i+1 !ategories o+ persons ,#o ,ould or ,ould not be
in!luded. Cf. (arr %. 6atteo, 3F) L.S. (F5, (23-(2(. $or need ,e #ere determine t#e
boundaries o+ t#e QoC!ial !ondu!tQ !on!ept. ?t is enoug# +or t#e present !ase t#at
respondentPs position as an ele!ted !it1 !ommissioner !learl1 made #im a publi! oC!ial,
and t#at t#e allegations in t#e advertisement !on!erned ,#at ,as allegedl1 #is oC!ial
!ondu!t as Commissioner in !#arge o+ t#e Poli!e Department. As to t#e statements
alleging t#e assaulting o+ Dr. Sing and t#e bombing o+ #is #ome, it is immaterial t#at
t#e1 mig#t not be !onsidered to involve respondentPs oC!ial !ondu!t i+ #e #imsel+ #ad
been a!!used o+ perpetrating t#e assault and t#e bombing. &espondent does not !laim
t#at t#e statements !#arged #im personall1 ,it# t#ese a!tsG #is !ontention is t#at t#e
advertisement !onne!ts #im ,it# t#em onl1 in #is oC!ial !apa!it1 as t#e Commissioner
supervising t#e poli!e, on t#e t#eor1 t#at t#e poli!e mig#t be eHuated ,it# t#e Q"#e1Q
,#o did t#e bombing and assaulting. "#us, i+ t#ese allegations !an be read as re+erring
to respondent at all, t#e1 must be read as des!ribing #is per+orman!e o+ #is oC!ial
duties.
24.
Johnson Publishing Co. %. .a%is, '2. Ala. 525, 542, .'5 So.'d 55., 5() 9.JF)<. "#us, t#e
trial udge #ere instru!ted t#e ur1 t#at
mere negligen!e or !arelessness is not eviden!e o+ a!tual mali!e or mali!e, in +a!t, and
does not usti+1 an a,ard o+ e*emplar1 or punitive damages in an a!tion +or libel.
"#e !ourt re+used, #o,ever, to give t#e +ollo,ing instru!tion ,#i!# #ad been reHuested
b1 t#e "imes:
? !#arge 1ou . . . t#at punitive damages, as t#e name indi!ates, are designed to punis#
t#e de+endant, t#e $e, Yor0 "imes Compan1, a !orporation, and t#e ot#er de+endants
in t#is !ase, . . . and ? +urt#er !#arge 1ou t#at su!# punitive damages ma1 be a,arded
onl1 in t#e event t#at 1ou, t#e ur1, are !onvin!ed b1 a +air preponderan!e o+ t#e
eviden!e t#at t#e de+endant . . . ,as motivated b1 personal ill ,ill, t#at is a!tual intent
to do t#e plaintiA #arm, or t#at t#e de+endant . . . ,as guilt1 o+ gross negligen!e and
re!0lessness, and not o+ ust ordinar1 negligen!e or !arelessness in publis#ing t#e
matter !omplained o+ so as to indi!ate a ,anton disregard o+ plaintiAPs rig#ts.
"#e trial !ourtPs error in +ailing to reHuire an1 7nding o+ a!tual mali!e +or an a,ard o+
general damages ma0es it unne!essar1 +or us to !onsider t#e suC!ien!1 under t#e
+ederal standard o+ t#e instru!tions regarding a!tual mali!e t#at ,ere given as to
punitive damages.
25.
Accord, Cole"an %. 6ac$ennan, supra, 24 San., at 25., J4 P. at 'J'G *ough %. 1ribune/
Journal Co., 2( ?da#o ()', (.), '2( P.'d FF3, FF4 9.J(5<.
26.
"#e Sevent# Amendment does not, as respondent !ontends, pre!lude su!# an
e*amination b1 t#is Court. "#at Amendment, providing t#at Qno +a!t tried b1 a ur1 s#all
be ot#er,ise ree*amined in an1 Court o+ t#e Lnited States t#an a!!ording to t#e rules
o+ t#e !ommon la,,Q is appli!able to state !ases !oming #ere. Chicago, (. 9 :. -. Co. %.
Chicago, .FF L.S. ''F, '5'-'53G cf. 1he Justices %. 6urray, J Iall. '25. Eut its ban on
ree*amination o+ +a!ts does not pre!lude us +rom determining ,#et#er governing rules
o+ +ederal la, #ave been properl1 applied to t#e +a!ts.
-"/#is Court ,ill revie, t#e 7nding o+ +a!ts b1 a State !ourt . . . ,#ere a !on!lusion o+
la, as to a =ederal rig#t and a 7nding o+ +a!t are so intermingled as to ma0e it
ne!essar1, in order to pass upon t#e =ederal Huestion, to anal1ze t#e +a!ts.
#is)e %. 8ansas, '25 L.S. 34), 34(-34F. See also Haynes %. 0ashington, 323 L.S. ()3,
(.(-(.F.
27.
"#e "imes #as set +ort# in a boo0let its QAdvertising A!!eptabilit1 Standards.Q >isted
among t#e !lasses o+ advertising t#at t#e ne,spaper does not a!!ept are
advertisements t#at are Q+raudulent or de!eptive,Q t#at are Qambiguous in ,ording and .
. . ma1 mislead,Q and t#at !ontain Qatta!0s o+ a personal !#ara!ter.Q ?n repl1ing to
respondentPs interrogatories be+ore t#e trial, t#e Se!retar1 o+ t#e "imes stated t#at,
as t#e advertisement made no atta!0s o+ a personal !#ara!ter upon an1 individual and
ot#er,ise met t#e advertising a!!eptabilit1 standards promulgated,
it #ad been approved +or publi!ation.
28.
&espondentPs o,n testimon1 ,as t#at,
as Commissioner o+ Publi! AAairs, it is part o+ m1 dut1 to supervise t#e Poli!e
Department, and ? !ertainl1 +eel li0e it -a statement/ is asso!iated ,it# me ,#en it
des!ribes poli!e a!tivities.
8e t#oug#t t#at, Qb1 virtue o+ being Poli!e Commissioner and Commissioner o+ Publi!
AAairs,Q #e ,as !#arged ,it# Qan1 a!tivit1 on t#e part o+ t#e Poli!e Department.Q QI#en
it des!ribes poli!e a!tion, !ertainl1 ? +eel it reNe!ts on me as an individual.Q 8e added
t#at Q-i/t is m1 +eeling t#at it reNe!ts not onl1 on me, but on t#e ot#er Commissioners
and t#e !ommunit1.Q
%rover C. 8all testi7ed t#at, to #im, t#e t#ird paragrap# o+ t#e advertisement !alled to
mind Qt#e Cit1 government -- t#e Commissioners,Q and t#at,
no, t#at 1ou as0 it, ? ,ould naturall1 t#in0 a little more about t#e poli!e Commissioner,
be!ause #is responsibilit1 is e*!lusivel1 ,it# t#e !onstabular1.
?t ,as Qt#e p#rase about starvationQ t#at led to t#e asso!iationG Qt#e ot#er didnPt #it me
,it# an1 parti!ular +or!e.Q
Arnold D. Ela!0,ell testi7ed t#at t#e t#ird paragrap# ,as asso!iated in #is mind ,it#
Qt#e Poli!e Commissioner and t#e poli!e +or!e. "#e people on t#e poli!e +or!e.Q ?+ #e #ad
believed t#e statement about t#e padlo!0ing o+ t#e dining #all, #e ,ould #ave t#oug#t
t#at t#e people on our poli!e +or!e or t#e #eads o+ our poli!e +or!e ,ere a!ting ,it#out
t#eir urisdi!tion, and ,ould not be !ompetent +or t#e position.
Q? ,ould assume t#at t#e Commissioner #ad ordered t#e poli!e +or!e to do t#at, and
t#ere+ore it ,ould be #is responsibilit1.Q
8arr1 I. Samins01 asso!iated t#e statement about Qtru!0loads o+ poli!eQ ,it#
respondent, Qbe!ause #e is t#e Poli!e Commissioner.Q 8e t#oug#t t#at t#e re+eren!e to
arrests in t#e si*t# paragrap#
impli!ates t#e Poli!e Department, ? t#in0, or t#e aut#orities t#at ,ould do t#at -- arrest
+ol0s +or speeding and loitering and su!# as t#at.
As0ed ,#et#er #e ,ould asso!iate ,it# respondent a ne,spaper report t#at t#e poli!e
#ad Qbeat somebod1 up or assaulted t#em on t#e streets o+ Montgomer1,Q #e replied:
? still sa1 #e is t#e Poli!e Commissioner and t#ose men are ,or0ing dire!tl1 under #im,
and t#ere+ore ? ,ould t#in0 t#at #e ,ould #ave somet#ing to do ,it# it.
?n general, #e said, Q? loo0 at Mr. Sullivan ,#en ? see t#e Poli!e Department.Q
8. M. Pri!e, Sr., testi7ed t#at #e asso!iated t#e 7rst senten!e o+ t#e t#ird paragrap# ,it#
respondent be!ause:
? ,ould ust automati!all1 !onsider t#at t#e Poli!e Commissioner in Montgomer1 ,ould
#ave to put #is approval on t#ose 0ind o+ t#ings as an individual.
Iilliam M. Par0er, Jr., testi7ed t#at #e asso!iated t#e statements in t#e t,o paragrap#s
,it# Qt#e Commissioners o+ t#e Cit1 o+ Montgomer1,Q and, sin!e respondent Q,as t#e
Poli!e Commissioner,Q #e Qt#oug#t o+ #im 7rst.Q 8e told t#e e*amining !ounsel: Q? t#in0,
i+ 1ou ,ere t#e Poli!e Commissioner, ? ,ould #ave t#oug#t it ,as spea0ing o+ 1ou.Q
8ora!e I. I#ite, respondentPs +ormer emplo1er, testi7ed t#at t#e statement about
Qtru!0loads o+ poli!eQ made #im t#in0 o+ respondent Qas being t#e #ead o+ t#e Poli!e
Department.Q As0ed ,#et#er #e read t#e statement as !#arging respondent #imsel+
,it# ringing t#e !ampus or #aving s#otguns and tear gas, #e replied: QIell, ? t#oug#t o+
#is department being !#arged ,it# it, 1es, sir. 8e is t#e #ead o+ t#e Poli!e Department,
as ? understand it.Q 8e +urt#er said t#at t#e reason #e ,ould #ave been un,illing to
reemplo1 respondent i+ #e #ad believed t#e advertisement ,as Qt#e +a!t t#at #e allo,ed
t#e Poli!e Department to do t#e t#ings t#at t#e paper sa1 #e did.Q
29.
Co"pare Ponder %. Cobb, '(2 $.C. '4., .'F S.B.'d F2 9.JF'<.
30.
?nso+ar as t#e proposition means onl1 t#at t#e statements about poli!e !ondu!t libeled
respondent b1 impli!itl1 !riti!izing #is abilit1 to run t#e Poli!e Department, re!over1 is
also pre!luded in t#is !ase b1 t#e do!trine o+ +air !omment. See Ameri!an >a, ?nstitute,
&estatement o+ "orts 9.J34<, O F)2. Sin!e t#e =ourteent# Amendment reHuires
re!ognition o+ t#e !onditional privilege +or #onest misstatements o+ +a!t, it +ollo,s t#at a
de+ense o+ +air !omment must be aAorded +or #onest e*pression o+ opinion based upon
privileged, as ,ell as true, statements o+ +a!t. Eot# de+enses are, o+ !ourse, de+easible i+
t#e publi! oC!ial proves a!tual mali!e, as ,as not done #ere.
TOP
C(n$**ene
E>ACS, J., Con!urring Dpinion
M&. JLS"?CB E>ACS, ,it# ,#om M&. JLS"?CB DDL%>AS oins, !on!urring.
? !on!ur in reversing t#is #al+-million-dollar udgment against t#e $e, Yor0 "imes
Compan1 and t#e +our individual de+endants. ?n reversing, t#e Court #olds t#at
t#e Constitution delimits a StatePs po,er to a,ard damages +or libel in a!tions broug#t
b1 publi! oC!ials against !riti!s o+ t#eir oC!ial !ondu!t.
Ante, p. '43. ? base m1 vote to reverse on t#e belie+ t#at t#e =irst and =ourteent#
Amendments not merel1 QdelimitQ a StatePs po,er to a,ard damages to Qpubli! oC!ials
against !riti!s o+ t#eir oC!ial !ondu!t,Q but !ompletel1 pro#ibit a State +rom e*er!ising
su!# a po,er. "#e Court goes on to #old t#at a State !an sube!t su!# !riti!s to
damages i+ Qa!tual mali!eQ !an be proved against t#em. QMali!e,Q even as de7ned b1
t#e Court, is an elusive, abstra!t !on!ept, #ard to prove and #ard to disprove. "#e
reHuirement t#at mali!e be proved provides, at best, an evanes!ent prote!tion +or t#e
rig#t !riti!all1 to dis!uss publi! aAairs, and !ertainl1 does not measure up to t#e sturd1
sa+eguard embodied in t#e =irst Amendment. Lnli0e t#e Court, t#ere+ore, ? vote to
reverse e*!lusivel1 on t#e ground t#at t#e "imes and t#e individual de+endants #ad an
absolute, un!onditional !onstitutional rig#t to publis# in t#e "imes advertisement t#eir
!riti!isms o+ t#e Montgomer1 agen!ies and oC!ials. ? do not base m1 vote to reverse on
an1 +ailure to prove t#at t#ese individual de+endants signed t#e advertisement or t#at
t#eir !riti!ism o+ t#e Poli!e Department ,as aimed at t#e plaintiA Sullivan, ,#o ,as
t#en t#e Montgomer1 Cit1 Commissioner #aving supervision o+ t#e !it1Ps poli!eG +or
present purposes, ? assume t#ese t#ings ,ere proved. $or is m1 reason +or reversal t#e
size o+ t#e #al+-million-dollar udgment, large as it is. ?+ Alabama #as !onstitutional
po,er to use its !ivil libel la, to impose damages on t#e press +or !riti!izing t#e ,a1
publi! oC!ials per+orm or +ail @+8=:Ato per+orm t#eir duties, ? 0no, o+ no provision in
t#e =ederal Constitution ,#i!# eit#er e*pressl1 or impliedl1 bars t#e State +rom 7*ing
t#e amount o+ damages.
"#e #al+-million-dollar verdi!t does give dramati! proo+, #o,ever, t#at state libel la,s
t#reaten t#e ver1 e*isten!e o+ an Ameri!an press virile enoug# to publis# unpopular
vie,s on publi! aAairs and bold enoug# to !riti!ize t#e !ondu!t o+ publi! oC!ials. "#e
+a!tual ba!0ground o+ t#is !ase emp#asizes t#e imminen!e and enormit1 o+ t#at t#reat.
Dne o+ t#e a!ute and #ig#l1 emotional issues in t#is !ountr1 arises out o+ eAorts o+
man1 people, even in!luding some publi! oC!ials, to !ontinue state-!ommanded
segregation o+ ra!es in t#e publi! s!#ools and ot#er publi! pla!es despite our several
#oldings t#at su!# a state pra!ti!e is +orbidden b1 t#e =ourteent# Amendment.
Montgomer1 is one o+ t#e lo!alities in ,#i!# ,idespread #ostilit1 to desegregation #as
been mani+ested. "#is #ostilit1 #as sometimes e*tended itsel+ to persons ,#o +avor
desegregation, parti!ularl1 to so-!alled Qoutside agitators,Q a term ,#i!# !an be made
to 7t papers li0e t#e "imes, ,#i!# is publis#ed in $e, Yor0. "#e s!ar!it1 o+ testimon1 to
s#o, t#at Commissioner Sullivan suAered an1 a!tual damages at all suggests t#at
t#ese +eelings o+ #ostilit1 #ad at least as mu!# to do ,it# rendition o+ t#is #al+-million-
dollar verdi!t as did an appraisal o+ damages. @ie,ed realisti!all1, t#is re!ord lends
support to an in+eren!e t#at, instead o+ being damaged, Commissioner SullivanPs
politi!al, so!ial, and 7nan!ial prestige #as li0el1 been en#an!ed b1 t#e "imesP
publi!ation. Moreover, a se!ond #al+-million-dollar libel verdi!t against t#e "imes based
on t#e same advertisement #as alread1 been a,arded to anot#er Commissioner. "#ere,
a ur1 again gave t#e +ull amount !laimed. "#ere is no reason to believe t#at t#ere are
not more su!# #uge verdi!ts lur0ing ust around t#e !orner +or t#e "imes or an1 ot#er
ne,spaper or broad!aster ,#i!# @+8=9A mig#t dare to !riti!ize publi! oC!ials. ?n +a!t,
brie+s be+ore us s#o, t#at, in Alabama, t#ere are no, pending eleven libel suits b1 lo!al
and state oC!ials against t#e "imes see0ing R(,F)),))), and 7ve su!# suits against t#e
Columbia Eroad!asting S1stem see0ing R.,2)),))). Moreover, t#is te!#niHue +or
#arassing and punis#ing a +ree press -- no, t#at it #as been s#o,n to be possible -- is
b1 no means limited to !ases ,it# ra!ial overtonesG it !an be used in ot#er 7elds ,#ere
publi! +eelings ma1 ma0e, lo!al as ,ell as out-o+-state, ne,spapers eas1 pre1 +or libel
verdi!t see0ers.
?n m1 opinion, t#e =ederal Constitution #as dealt ,it# t#is deadl1 danger to t#e press in
t#e onl1 ,a1 possible ,it#out leaving t#e +ree press open to destru!tion -- b1 granting
t#e press an absolute immunit1 +or !riti!ism o+ t#e ,a1 publi! oC!ials do t#eir publi!
dut1.Co"pare (arr %. 6atteo, 3F) L.S. (F5. Stopgap measures li0e t#ose t#e Court
adopts are, in m1 udgment, not enoug#. "#is re!ord !ertainl1 does not indi!ate t#at
an1 diAerent verdi!t ,ould #ave been rendered #ere ,#atever t#e Court #ad !#arged
t#e ur1 about Qmali!e,Q Qtrut#,Q Qgood motives,Q Qusti7able ends,Q or an1 ot#er legal
+ormulas ,#i!#, in t#eor1, ,ould prote!t t#e press. $or does t#e re!ord indi!ate t#at
an1 o+ t#ese legalisti! ,ords ,ould #ave !aused t#e !ourts belo, to set aside or to
redu!e t#e #al+-million-dollar verdi!t in an1 amount.
? agree ,it# t#e Court t#at t#e =ourteent# Amendment made t#e =irst appli!able to t#e
States.
@n?A
"#is means to me t#at, sin!e t#e adoption o+ t#e =ourteent# Amendment, a
State #as no more po,er t#an t#e =ederal %overnment to use a !ivil libel la, or an1
ot#er la, to impose damages +or merel1 dis!ussing publi! aAairs and !riti!izing publi!
oC!ials. "#e po,er o+ t#e Lnited @+8=7A States to do t#at is, in m1 udgment, pre!isel1
nil. Su!# ,as t#e general vie, #eld ,#en t#e =irst Amendment ,as adopted, and ever
sin!e.
@n8A
Congress never #as soug#t to !#allenge t#is vie,point b1 passing an1 !ivil
libel la,. ?t did pass t#e Sedition A!t in .2J4,
@n5A
,#i!# made it a !rime -- Qseditious
libelQ -- to !riti!ize +ederal oC!ials or t#e =ederal %overnment. As t#e CourtPs opinion
!orre!tl1 points out, #o,ever, ante, pp. '23-'2F, t#at A!t !ame to an ignominious end
and, b1 !ommon !onsent, #as generall1 been treated as #aving been a ,#oll1
unusti7able and mu!# to be regretted violation o+ t#e =irst Amendment. Sin!e t#e =irst
Amendment is no, made appli!able to t#e States b1 t#e =ourteent#, it no more permits
t#e States to impose damages +or libel t#an it does t#e =ederal %overnment.
Ie ,ould, ? t#in0, more +ait#+ull1 interpret t#e =irst Amendment b1 #olding t#at, at t#e
ver1 least, it leaves t#e people and t#e press +ree to !riti!ize oC!ials and dis!uss publi!
aAairs ,it# impunit1. "#is $ation o+ ours ele!ts man1 o+ its important oC!ialsG so do t#e
States, t#e muni!ipalities, t#e !ounties, and even man1 pre!in!ts. "#ese oC!ials are
responsible to t#e people +or t#e ,a1 t#e1 per+orm t#eir duties. I#ile our Court #as
#eld t#at some 0inds o+ spee!# and ,ritings, su!# as Qobs!enit1,Q -oth %. ,nited
States, 3(5 L.S. 52F, and Q7g#ting ,ords,Q Chaplins)y %. 'e& Ha"pshire, 3.( L.S. (F4,
are not e*pression ,it#in t#e prote!tion o+ t#e =irst Amendment,
@n:A
+reedom to dis!uss
publi! aAairs and publi! oC!ials @+8=6A is unHuestionabl1, as t#e Court toda1 #olds, t#e
0ind o+ spee!# t#e =irst Amendment ,as primaril1 designed to 0eep ,it#in t#e area o+
+ree dis!ussion. "o punis# t#e e*er!ise o+ t#is rig#t to dis!uss publi! aAairs or to penalize
it t#roug# libel udgments is to abridge or s#ut oA dis!ussion o+ t#e ver1 0ind most
needed. "#is $ation, ? suspe!t, !an live in pea!e ,it#out libel suits based on publi!
dis!ussions o+ publi! aAairs and publi! oC!ials. Eut ? doubt t#at a !ountr1 !an live in
+reedom ,#ere its people !an be made to suAer p#1si!all1 or 7nan!iall1 +or !riti!izing
t#eir government, its a!tions, or its oC!ials.
=or a representative demo!ra!1 !eases to e*ist t#e moment t#at t#e publi!
+un!tionaries are b1 an1 means absolved +rom t#eir responsibilit1 to t#eir !onstituents,
and t#is #appens ,#enever t#e !onstituent !an be restrained in an1 manner +rom
spea0ing, ,riting, or publis#ing #is opinions upon an1 publi! measure, or upon t#e
!ondu!t o+ t#ose ,#o ma1 advise or e*e!ute it.
@n9A
An un!onditional rig#t to sa1 ,#at one pleases about publi! aAairs is ,#at ? !onsider to
be t#e minimum guarantee o+ t#e =irst Amendment.
@n7A
? regret t#at t#e Court #as stopped s#ort o+ t#is #olding indispensable to preserve our
+ree press +rom destru!tion.
.. See !ases !olle!ted in Speiser %. -andall, 3(2 L.S. (.3, (3) 9!on!urring opinion<.
'. See, e.g., . "u!0er, Ela!0stonePs Commentaries 9.4)3<, 'J2-'JJ 9editorPs appendi*<.
St. %eorge "u!0er, a distinguis#ed @irginia urist, too0 part in t#e Annapolis Convention
o+ .24F, sat on bot# state and +ederal !ourts, and ,as ,idel1 0no,n +or #is ,ritings on
udi!ial and !onstitutional sube!ts.
3. A!t o+ Jul1 .5, .2J4, . Stat. (JF.
5. (ut see S"ith %. California, 3F. L.S. .52, .(( 9!on!urring opinion<G -oth %. ,nited
States, 3(5 L.S. 52F, ()4 9dissenting opinion<.
(. . "u!0er, Ela!0stonePs Commentaries 9.4)3<, 'J2 9editorPs appendi*<G cf. Erant,
Seditious >ibel: M1t# and &ealit1, 3J $.Y.L.>.&ev. ..
F. Cf. Mei0leo#n, =ree Spee!# and ?ts &elation to Sel+-%overnment 9.J54<.
TOP
C(n$**ene
%D>DEB&%, J., Con!urring in t#e &esult
M&. JLS"?CB %D>DEB&%, ,it# ,#om M&. JLS"?CB DDL%>AS oins, !on!urring in t#e
result.
"#e Court toda1 announ!es a !onstitutional standard ,#i!# pro#ibits
a publi! oC!ial +rom re!overing damages +or a de+amator1 +alse#ood relating to #is
oC!ial !ondu!t unless #e proves t#at t#e statement ,as made ,it# @+8=BA Qa!tual
mali!eQ -- t#at is, ,it# 0no,ledge t#at it ,as +alse or ,it# re!0less disregard o+ ,#et#er
it ,as +alse or not.
Ante at '2J-'4). "#e Court t#us rules t#at t#e Constitution gives !itizens and
ne,spapers a Q!onditional privilegeQ immunizing nonmali!ious misstatements o+ +a!t
regarding t#e oC!ial !ondu!t o+ a government oC!er. "#e impressive arra1 o+
#istor1
@n?A
and pre!edent mars#aled b1 t#e Court, #o,ever, !on7rms m1 belie+ t#at t#e
Constitution aAords greater prote!tion t#an t#at provided b1 t#e CourtPs standard to
!itizen and press in e*er!ising t#e rig#t o+ publi! !riti!ism.
?n m1 vie,, t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments to t#e Constitution aAord to t#e
!itizen and to t#e press an absolute, un!onditional privilege to !riti!ize oC!ial !ondu!t
despite t#e #arm ,#i!# ma1 No, +rom e*!esses and abuses. "#e prized Ameri!an rig#t
Qto spea0 onePs mind,Q cf. (ridges % California, 3.5 L.S. '(', '2), about publi! oC!ials
and aAairs needs Qbreat#ing spa!e to survive,Q 'AACP %. (utton, 32. L.S. 5.(, 533. "#e
rig#t s#ould not depend upon a probing b1 t#e ur1 o+ t#e motivation
@n8A
o+ t#e !itizen or
press. "#e t#eor1 @+8==A o+ our Constitution is t#at ever1 !itizen ma1 spea0 #is mind
and ever1 ne,spaper e*press its vie, on matters o+ publi! !on!ern, and ma1 not be
barred +rom spea0ing or publis#ing be!ause t#ose in !ontrol o+ government t#in0 t#at
,#at is said or ,ritten is un,ise, un+air, +alse, or mali!ious. ?n a demo!rati! so!iet1, one
,#o assumes to a!t +or t#e !itizens in an e*e!utive, legislative, or udi!ial !apa!it1 must
e*pe!t t#at #is oC!ial a!ts ,ill be !ommented upon and !riti!ized. Su!# !riti!ism
!annot, in m1 opinion, be muzzled or deterred b1 t#e !ourts at t#e instan!e o+ publi!
oC!ials under t#e label o+ libel.
?t #as been re!ognized t#at Qprose!utions +or libel on government #ave -no/ pla!e in t#e
Ameri!an s1stem o+ urispruden!e.Q City of Chicago %. 1ribune Co., 3)2 ?ll. (J(, F)., .3J
$.B. 4F, 44. ? +ull1 agree. %overnment, #o,ever, is not an abstra!tionG it is made up o+
individuals -- o+ governors responsible to t#e governed. ?n a demo!rati! so!iet1, ,#ere
men are +ree b1 ballots to remove t#ose in po,er, an1 statement !riti!al o+
governmental a!tion is ne!essaril1 Qo+ and !on!erningQ t#e governors, and an1
statement !riti!al o+ t#e governorsP oC!ial !ondu!t is ne!essaril1 Qo+ and !on!erningQ
t#e government. ?+ t#e rule t#at libel on government #as no pla!e in our Constitution is
to #ave real meaning, t#en libel on t#e oC!ial !ondu!t o+ t#e governors li0e,ise !an
#ave no pla!e in our Constitution.
Ie must re!ognize t#at ,e are ,riting upon a !lean slate.
@n5A
As t#e Court notes,
alt#oug# t#ere #ave been @+5CCA
statements o+ t#is Court to t#e eAe!t t#at t#e Constitution does not prote!t libelous
publi!ations . . . , -n/one o+ t#e !ases sustained t#e use o+ libel la,s to impose san!tions
upon e*pression !riti!al o+ t#e oC!ial !ondu!t o+ publi! oC!ials.
Ante at 'F4. Ie s#ould be parti!ularl1 !are+ul, t#ere+ore, adeHuatel1 to prote!t t#e
liberties ,#i!# are embodied in t#e =irst and =ourteent# Amendments. ?t ma1 be urged
t#at deliberatel1 and mali!iousl1 +alse statements #ave no !on!eivable value as +ree
spee!#. "#at argument, #o,ever, is not responsive to t#e real issue presented b1 t#is
!ase, ,#i!# is ,#et#er t#at +reedom o+ spee!# ,#i!# all agree is !onstitutionall1
prote!ted !an be eAe!tivel1 sa+eguarded b1 a rule allo,ing t#e imposition o+ liabilit1
upon a ur1Ps evaluation o+ t#e spea0erPs state o+ mind. ?+ individual !itizens ma1 be #eld
liable in damages +or strong ,ords, ,#i!# a ur1 7nds +alse and mali!iousl1 motivated,
t#ere !an be little doubt t#at publi! debate and advo!a!1 ,ill be !onstrained. And i+
ne,spapers, publis#ing advertisements dealing ,it# publi! issues, t#ereb1 ris0 liabilit1,
t#ere !an also be little doubt t#at t#e abilit1 o+ minorit1 groups to se!ure publi!ation o+
t#eir vie,s on publi! aAairs and to see0 support +or t#eir !auses ,ill be greatl1
diminis#ed. Cf. #ar"ers Educational 9 Coop. ,nion %. 0.A5, Inc., 3F) L.S. ('(, (3). "#e
opinion o+ t#e Court !on!lusivel1 demonstrates t#e !#illing eAe!t o+ t#e Alabama libel
la,s on =irst Amendment +reedoms @+5C?A in t#e area o+ ra!e relations. "#e Ameri!an
Colonists ,ere not ,illing, nor s#ould ,e be, to ta0e t#e ris0 t#at Q-m/en ,#o inure and
oppress t#e people under t#eir administration -and/ provo0e t#em to !r1 out and
!omplainQ ,ill also be empo,ered to Qma0e t#at ver1 !omplaint t#e +oundation +or ne,
oppressions and prose!utions.Q "#e "rial o+ Jo#n Peter Uenger, .2 8o,ellPs St. "r. F2(,
2'.-2'' 9.23(< 9argument o+ !ounsel to t#e ur1<. "o impose liabilit1 +or !riti!al, albeit
erroneous or even mali!ious, !omments on oC!ial !ondu!t ,ould eAe!tivel1 resurre!t
Qt#e obsolete do!trine t#at t#e governed must not !riti!ize t#eir governors.Q Cf.
S&eeney %. Patterson, 2F L.S.App.D.C. '3, '5, .'4 =.'d 5(2, 5(4.
Dur national e*perien!e tea!#es t#at repressions breed #ate, and Qt#at #ate mena!es
stable government.Q 0hitney %. California, '25 L.S. 3(2, 32( 9Erandeis, J., !on!urring<.
Ie s#ould be ever mind+ul o+ t#e ,ise !ounsel o+ C#ie+ Justi!e 8ug#es:
-?/mperative is t#e need to preserve inviolate t#e !onstitutional rig#ts o+ +ree spee!#,
+ree press and +ree assembl1 in order to maintain t#e opportunit1 +or +ree politi!al
dis!ussion, to t#e end t#at government ma1 be responsive to t#e ,ill o+ t#e people and
t#at !#anges, i+ desired, ma1 be obtained b1 pea!e+ul means. "#erein lies t#e se!urit1
o+ t#e &epubli!, t#e ver1 +oundation o+ !onstitutional government.
.e Jonge %. 2regon, 'JJ L.S. 3(3, 3F(.
"#is is not to sa1 t#at t#e Constitution prote!ts de+amator1 statements dire!ted against
t#e private !ondu!t o+ a publi! oC!ial or private !itizen. =reedom o+ press and o+ spee!#
insures t#at government ,ill respond to t#e ,ill o+ t#e people, and t#at !#anges ma1 be
obtained b1 pea!e+ul means. Purel1 private de+amation #as little to do ,it# t#e politi!al
ends o+ a sel+-governing so!iet1. "#e imposition o+ liabilit1 +or private de+amation does
not @+5C8A abridge t#e +reedom o+ publi! spee!# or an1 ot#er +reedom prote!ted b1 t#e
=irst Amendment.
@n:A
"#is, o+ !ourse, !annot be said
,#ere publi! oC!ials are !on!erned, or ,#ere publi! matters are involved. . . . -D/ne
main +un!tion o+ t#e =irst Amendment is to ensure ample opportunit1 +or t#e people to
determine and resolve publi! issues. I#ere publi! matters are involved, t#e doubts
s#ould be resolved in +avor o+ +reedom o+ e*pression, rat#er t#an against it.
Douglas, "#e &ig#t o+ t#e People 9.J(4<, p. 5..
?n man1 urisdi!tions, legislators, udges and e*e!utive oC!ers are !lot#ed ,it# absolute
immunit1 against liabilit1 +or de+amator1 ,ords uttered in t#e dis!#arge o+ t#eir publi!
duties. See, e.g., (arr %. 6atteo, 3F) L.S. (F5G City of Chicago %. 1ribune Co., 3)2 ?ll., at
F.), .3J $.B. at J.. Judge >earned 8and abl1 summarized t#e poli!ies underl1ing t#e
rule:
?t does indeed go ,it#out sa1ing t#at an oC!ial ,#o is, in +a!t, guilt1 o+ using #is
po,ers to vent #is spleen upon ot#ers, or +or an1 ot#er personal motive not !onne!ted
,it# t#e publi! good, s#ould not es!ape liabilit1 +or t#e inuries #e ma1 so !auseG and, i+
it ,ere possible in pra!ti!e to !on7ne su!# !omplaints to t#e guilt1, it ,ould be
monstrous to den1 re!over1. "#e usti7!ation +or doing so is t#at it is impossible to 0no,
,#et#er t#e !laim is ,ell +ounded until t#e @+5C5A !ase #as been tried, and t#at to
submit all oC!ials, t#e inno!ent as ,ell as t#e guilt1, to t#e burden o+ a trial and to t#e
inevitable danger o+ its out!ome ,ould dampen t#e ardor o+ all but t#e most resolute, or
t#e most irresponsible, in t#e unNin!#ing dis!#arge o+ t#eir duties. Again and again, t#e
publi! interest !alls +or a!tion ,#i!# ma1 turn out to be +ounded on a mista0e, in t#e
+a!e o+ ,#i!# an oC!ial ma1 later 7nd #imsel+ #ard put to it to satis+1 a ur1 o+ #is good
+ait#. "#ere must indeed be means o+ punis#ing publi! oC!ers ,#o #ave been truant to
t#eir dutiesG but t#at is Huite anot#er matter +rom e*posing su!# as #ave been #onestl1
mista0en to suit b1 an1one ,#o #as suAered +rom t#eir errors. As is so o+ten t#e !ase,
t#e ans,er must be +ound in a balan!e bet,een t#e evils inevitable in eit#er
alternative. ?n t#is instan!e, it #as been t#oug#t in t#e end better to leave unredressed
t#e ,rongs done b1 dis#onest oC!ers t#an to sube!t t#ose ,#o tr1 to do t#eir dut1 to
t#e !onstant dread o+ retaliation. . . .
"#e de!isions #ave, indeed, al,a1s imposed as a limitation upon t#e immunit1 t#at t#e
oC!ialPs a!t must #ave been ,it#in t#e s!ope o+ #is po,ers, and it !an be argued t#at
oC!ial po,ers, sin!e t#e1 e*ist onl1 +or t#e publi! good, never !over o!!asions ,#ere
t#e publi! good is not t#eir aim, and #en!e t#at to e*er!ise a po,er dis#onestl1 is
ne!essaril1 to overstep its bounds. A momentPs reNe!tion s#o,s, #o,ever, t#at t#at
!annot be t#e meaning o+ t#e limitation ,it#out de+eating t#e ,#ole do!trine. I#at is
meant b1 sa1ing t#at t#e oC!er must be a!ting ,it#in #is po,er !annot be more t#an
t#at t#e o!!asion must be su!# as ,ould #ave usti7ed t#e a!t, i+ #e #ad been using #is
po,er +or an1 o+ t#e purposes on ,#ose a!!ount it ,as vested in #im. . . .
*regoire %. (iddle, .22 =.'d (2J, (4.. @+5C:A
?+ t#e government oC!ial s#ould be immune +rom libel a!tions, so t#at #is ardor to serve
t#e publi! ,ill not be dampened and Q+earless, vigorous, and eAe!tive administration o+
poli!ies o+ governmentQ not be in#ibited, (arr %. 6atteo, supra, at (2., t#en t#e !itizen
and t#e press s#ould li0e,ise be immune +rom libel a!tions +or t#eir !riti!ism o+ oC!ial
!ondu!t. "#eir ardor as !itizens ,ill t#us not be dampened, and t#e1 ,ill be +ree Qto
applaud or to !riti!ize t#e ,a1 publi! emplo1ees do t#eir obs, +rom t#e least to t#e
most important.Q
@n9A
?+ liabilit1 !an atta!# to politi!al !riti!ism be!ause it damages t#e
reputation o+ a publi! oC!ial as a publi! oC!ial, t#en no !riti!al !itizen !an sa+el1 utter
an1t#ing but +aint praise about t#e government or its oC!ials. "#e vigorous !riti!ism b1
press and !itizen o+ t#e !ondu!t o+ t#e government o+ t#e da1 b1 t#e oC!ials o+ t#e da1
,ill soon 1ield to silen!e i+ oC!ials in !ontrol o+ government agen!ies, instead o+
ans,ering !riti!isms, !an resort to +riendl1 uries to +orestall !riti!ism o+ t#eir oC!ial
!ondu!t. -nF/
"#e !on!lusion t#at t#e Constitution aAords t#e !itizen and t#e press an absolute
privilege +or !riti!ism o+ oC!ial !ondu!t does not leave t#e publi! oC!ial ,it#out
de+enses against unsubstantiated opinions or deliberate misstatements.
Lnder our s1stem o+ government, !ounterargument and edu!ation are t#e ,eapons
available to e*pose t#ese matters, not abridgment . . . o+ +ree spee!#. . . .
0ood %. *eorgia, 32) L.S. 32(, 34J. "#e publi! @+5C9A oC!ial !ertainl1 #as eHual, i+ not
greater, a!!ess t#an most private !itizens to media o+ !ommuni!ation. ?n an1 event,
despite t#e possibilit1 t#at some e*!esses and abuses ma1 go unremedied, ,e must
re!ognize t#at
t#e people o+ t#is nation #ave ordained, in t#e lig#t o+ #istor1, t#at, in spite o+ t#e
probabilit1 o+ e*!esses and abuses, -!ertain/ liberties are, in t#e long vie,, essential to
enlig#tened opinion and rig#t !ondu!t on t#e part o+ t#e !itizens o+ a demo!ra!1.
Cant&ell %. Connecticut, 3.) L.S. 'JF, 3.). As Mr. Justi!e Erandeis !orre!tl1 observed,
Qsunlig#t is t#e most po,er+ul o+ all disin+e!tants.Q -n2/
=or t#ese reasons, ? strongl1 believe t#at t#e Constitution a!!ords !itizens and press an
un!onditional +reedom to !riti!ize oC!ial !ondu!t. ?t ne!essaril1 +ollo,s t#at, in a !ase
su!# as t#is, ,#ere all agree t#at t#e allegedl1 de+amator1 statements related to oC!ial
!ondu!t, t#e udgments +or libel !annot !onstitutionall1 be sustained.
.. ? +ull1 agree ,it# t#e Court t#at t#e atta!0 upon t#e validit1 o+ t#e Sedition A!t o+
.2J4, . Stat. (JF, Q#as !arried t#e da1 in t#e !ourt o+ #istor1,Q ante at '2F, and t#at t#e
A!t ,ould toda1 be de!lared un!onstitutional. ?t s#ould be pointed out, #o,ever, t#at
t#e Sedition A!t pros!ribed ,ritings ,#i!# ,ere Q+alse, s!andalous and "alicious.Q
9Bmp#asis added.< =or prose!utions under t#e Sedition A!t !#arging mali!e, see,
e.g., "rial o+ Matt#e, >1on 9.2J4<, in I#arton, State "rials o+ t#e Lnited States 9.45J<,
p. 333G "rial o+ "#omas Cooper 9.4))<, in id. at F(JG "rial o+ Ant#on1 8as,ell 9.4))<,
in id. at F45G "rial o+ James "#ompson Callender 9.4))<, in id. at F44.
'. "#e reHuirement o+ proving a!tual mali!e or re!0less disregard ma1, in t#e mind o+
t#e ur1, add little to t#e reHuirement o+ proving +alsit1, a reHuirement ,#i!# t#e Court
re!ognizes not to be an adeHuate sa+eguard. "#e t#oug#t suggested b1 Mr. Justi!e
Ja!0son in ,nited States %. (allard, 3'' L.S. 24, J'-J3, is relevant #ere:
-A/s a matter o+ eit#er pra!ti!e or p#ilosop#1, ? do not see #o, ,e !an separate an
issue as to ,#at is believed +rom !onsiderations as to ,#at is believable. "#e most
!onvin!ing proo+ t#at one believes #is statements is to s#o, t#at t#e1 #ave been true in
#is e*perien!e. >i0e,ise, t#at one 0no,ingl1 +alsi7ed is best proved b1 s#o,ing t#at
,#at #e said #appened never did #appen.
See note 5, infra.
3. ?t ,as not until *itlo& %. 'e& 5or), 'F4 L.S. F(', de!ided in .J'(, t#at it ,as
intimated t#at t#e +reedom o+ spee!# guaranteed b1 t#e =irst Amendment ,as
appli!able to t#e States b1 reason o+ t#e =ourteent# Amendment. Dt#er intimations
+ollo,ed. See 0hitney %. California, '25 L.S. 3(2G #is)e %. 8ansas, '25 L.S. 34). ?n .J3.,
C#ie+ Justi!e 8ug#es, spea0ing +or t#e Court in Stro"berg %. California, '43 L.S. 3(J,
3F4, de!lared:
?t #as been determined t#at t#e !on!eption o+ libert1 under t#e due pro!ess !lause o+
t#e =ourteent# Amendment embra!es t#e rig#t o+ +ree spee!#.
"#us, ,e deal ,it# a !onstitutional prin!iple enun!iated less t#an +our de!ades ago, and
!onsider +or t#e 7rst time t#e appli!ation o+ t#at prin!iple to issues arising in libel !ases
broug#t b1 state oC!ials.
5. ?n most !ases, as in t#e !ase at bar, t#ere ,ill be little diC!ult1 in distinguis#ing
de+amator1 spee!# relating to private !ondu!t +rom t#at relating to oC!ial !ondu!t. ?
re!ognize, o+ !ourse, t#at t#ere ,ill be a gra1 area. "#e diC!ulties o+ appl1ing a publi!-
private standard are, #o,ever, !ertainl1 o+ a diAerent genre +rom t#ose attending t#e
diAerentiation bet,een a mali!ious and nonmali!ious state o+ mind. ?+ t#e !onstitutional
standard is to be s#aped b1 a !on!ept o+ mali!e, t#e spea0er ta0es t#e ris0 not onl1 t#at
t#e ur1 ,ill ina!!uratel1 determine #is state o+ mind, but also t#at t#e ur1 ,ill +ail
properl1 to appl1 t#e !onstitutional standard set b1 t#e elusive !on!ept o+
mali!e. See note ', supra.
(. M&. JLS"?CB E>ACS, !on!urring in (arr %. 6atteo, 3F) L.S. (F5, (22, observed t#at:
"#e eAe!tive +un!tioning o+ a +ree government li0e ours depends largel1 on t#e +or!e o+
an in+ormed publi! opinion. "#is !alls +or t#e ,idest possible understanding o+ t#e
Hualit1 o+ government servi!e rendered b1 all ele!tive or appointed publi! oC!ials or
emplo1ees. Su!# an in+ormed understanding depends, o+ !ourse, on t#e +reedom people
#ave to applaud or to !riti!ize t#e ,a1 publi! emplo1ees do t#eir obs, +rom t#e least to
t#e most important.
F. See notes ', 5, supra.
2. See =reund, "#e Supreme Court o+ t#e Lnited States 9.J5J<, p. F..
SUPREME COURT TOOLBO
Ar!#ive o+ !ases
S#are on email S#are on +a!eboo0 S#are on t,itter
More S#aring Servi!es
Donations !over onl1 ')V o+ our !osts
STAY INVOLVE!
>?? Announ!e Elog
>?? Supreme Court Eulletin
MASB A DD$A"?D$
CD$"&?EL"B CD$"B$"
EBCDMB A SPD$SD&
%?@B =BBDEACS
"IN! A LAWYER
All la,1ers
ABOUT LII
CONTACT US
AD2ERTISE HERE
HELP
TERMS OF USE
PRI2ACY
Re&ub#i* o1 t,e P,i#i&&ines
"BPR?(? %@BR+
(ani#a


?N I'N%


ELISEO 4. SORIANO,
Petitioner,

! versus !

MA. CONSOLIDA P.
LAG7AR5IA, "n %er ca(ac"#' a&
C%a"r(er&n $ #%e M*"e and
Te,e*"&"n Re*"e/ and
C,a&&"$"ca#"n Bard, MOVIE AN5
TELEVISION REVIE3 AN5
CLASSI4ICATION BOAR5,
JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL
M. 5ELA CR7D, MAN7EL M.
HERNAN5ED, JOSE L. LOPED,
CRISANTO SORIANO,
BERNABE S. YARIA, JR.,
MICHAEL M. SAN5OVAL, and
ROL5AN A. GAVINO,
Res&ondents.
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
ELISEO 4. SORIANO,
Petitioner,

! versus !

G.R. N. :>?<=;

Present:

PBN@, C.J.,
QB;"B(I;NG,
N'R?"!"'N+;'G@,
%'RP;@,
'B"+R;'!('R+;N?R,
%@R@N',
%'RP;@ (@R'7?",
+;NG',
%:;%@!N'R'R;@,
<?7'"%@, JR.,
N'%:BR',
7?@N'RD@!D? %'"+R@,
IR;@N,
P?R'7+', and
I?R"'(;N, JJ.

G.R. N. :>;>1>




MOVIE AN5 TELEVISION
REVIE3 AN5 CLASSI4ICATION
BOAR5, DOSIMO G. ALEGRE,
JACHIE A87INO-
GAVINO, NOEL R. 5EL PRA5O,
EMMAN7ELBORLADA, JOSE E.
ROMERO IV, and 4LORIMON5O
C. RO7S,"n #%e"r ca(ac"#' a&
)e)-er& $ #%e Hear"n! and
Ad0+d"ca#"n C))"##ee $ #%e
MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON,
ANABEL M. 5ELA CR7D,
MAN7EL M. HERNAN5ED,
JOSE L. LOPED, CRISANTO
SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA,
JR., MICHAEL M. SAN5OVAL,
and ROL5AN A. GAVINO, "n #%e"r
ca(ac"#' a& c)(,a"nan#& -e$re
#%e MTRCB,
Res&ondents.

















Promu#gated:

'&ri# .9, .//9

G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G

5 E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.9

;n t,ese t2o &etitions 1or *ertiorari and &ro,ibition under Ru#e 65, &etitioner
?#iseo =. "oriano see3s to nu##i16 and set aside an order and a de*ision o1 t,e
(ovie and +e#evision Revie2 and %#assi1i*ation Ioard 8(+R%I9 in *onne*tion
2it, *ertain utteran*es ,e made in ,is te#evision s,o2, ;ng :ating :aan.

4ac#& $ #%e Ca&e

@n 'ugust 1/, .//0, at around 1/:// &.m., &etitioner, as ,ost o1 t,e
&rogram ;ng :ating :aan, aired on BN+< 3-, made t,e 1o##o2ing remar3s:

Lehitimong anak ng demonyoF sinungalingF

+ago ka talaga *i!hael) masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. 0ung putang
babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba) 3dito4 kay *i!hael ang gumagana
ang itaas) o di ba. O) masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol
pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.
415
G
G G

+2o da6s a1ter, be1ore t,e (+R%I, se&arate but a#most identi*a# a11idavit!
*om&#aints 2ere #odged b6 Jessie 7. Ga#a&on and seven ot,er &rivate res&ondents,
a## members o1 t,e ;g#esia ni %risto 8;N%9,
4.5
against &etitioner in *onne*tion 2it,
t,e above broad*ast. Res&ondent (i*,ae# (. "andova#, 2,o 1e#t dire*t#6 a##uded to
in &etitionerAs remar3, 2as t,en a minister o1 ;N% and a regu#ar ,ost o1 t,e +<
&rogram ;ng -amang :aan.
435
=ort,2it,, t,e (+R%I sent &etitioner a noti*e o1
t,e ,earing on 'ugust 16, .//0 in re#ation to t,e a##eged use o1 some *uss 2ords in
t,e 'ugust 1/, .//0 e&isode o1 ;ng :ating :aan.
405


'1ter a &re#iminar6 *on1eren*e in 2,i*, &etitioner a&&eared, t,e (+R%I,
b6 @rder o1 'ugust 16, .//0, &reventive#6 sus&ended t,e s,o2ing o1 ;ng :ating
:aan &rogram 1or ./ da6s, in a**ordan*e 2it, "e*tion 38d9 o1 Presidentia# De*ree
No. 8PD9 1986, *reating t,e (+R%I, in re#ation to "e*. 3, %,a&ter C;;; o1 t,e
.//0 ;m&#ementing Ru#es and Regu#ations 8;RR9 o1 PD 1986 and "e*. -, Ru#e <;;
o1 t,e (+R%I Ru#es o1 Pro*edure.
455
+,e same order a#so set t,e *ase 1or
&re#iminar6 investigation.

+,e 1o##o2ing da6, &etitioner soug,t re*onsideration o1 t,e &reventive
sus&ension order, &ra6ing t,at %,air&erson %onso#i$a P. 7aguardia and t2o ot,er
members o1 t,e ad)udi*ation board re*use t,emse#ves 1rom ,earing t,e *ase.
465
+2o da6s a1ter, ,o2ever, &etitioner soug,t to 2it,dra2
4-5
,is motion 1or
re*onsideration, 1o##o2ed b6 t,e 1i#ing 2it, t,is %ourt o1 a &etition 1or *ertiorari
and &ro,ibition,
485
do*3eted as G.R. No. 160-85, to nu##i16 t,e &reventive
sus&ension order t,us issued.

@n "e&tember .-, .//0, in 'dm. %ase No. /1!/0, t,e (+R%I issued a
de*ision, dis&osing as 1o##o2s:

>:?R?=@R?, in vie2 o1 a## t,e 1oregoing, a De*ision is ,ereb6
rendered, 1inding res&ondent "oriano #iab#e 1or ,is utteran*es and t,ereb6
im&osing on ,im a &ena#t6 o1 t,ree 839 mont,s sus&ension 1rom ,is &rogram,
K'ng Dating DaanL.

%o!res&ondents Jose#ito (a##ari, 7u$viminda %ru$ and BN+< %,anne# 3-
and its o2ner, PI%, are ,ereb6 eGonerated 1or #a*3 o1 eviden*e.

"@ @RD?R?D.
495

Petitioner t,en 1i#ed t,is &etition 1or *ertiorari and &ro,ibition 2it, &ra6er
1or in)un*tive re#ie1, do*3eted as G.R. No. 165636.

;n a Reso#ution dated '&ri# 0, .//5, t,e %ourt *onso#idated G.R. No. 160-85
2it, G.R. No. 165636.

;n G.R. No. 160-85, &etitioner raises t,e 1o##o2ing issues:

+:? @RD?R @= PR?<?N+;<? "B"P?N";@N PR@(B7G'+?D I
R?"P@ND?N+ 4(+R%I5 D'+?D 16 'BGB"+ .//0 'G';N"+ +:?
+?7?<;";@N PR@GR'( ;%+ :;-I%+ :;;% G G G ;" NB77 'ND
<@;D =@R I?;NG ;""B?D >;+: GR'<? 'IB"? @= D;"%R?+;@N
'(@BN+;NG +@ 7'%N @R ?C%?"" @= JBR;"D;%+;@N

8'9 I R?'"@N +:'+ +:? 4;RR5 ;" ;N<'7;D ;N"@='R '" ;+
PR@<;D?" =@R +:? ;""B'N%? @= PR?<?N+;<? "B"P?N";@N
@RD?R"H
8I9 I R?'"@N @= 7'%N @= DB? :?'R;NG ;N +:? %'"? '+ I?N%:H
8%9 =@R I?;NG <;@7'+;<? @= ?QB'7 PR@+?%+;@N BND?R +:?
7'>H
8D9 =@R I?;NG <;@7'+;<? @= =R??D@( @= R?7;G;@NH 'ND
8?9 =@R I?;NG <;@7'+;<? @= =R??D@( @= "P??%: 'ND
?CPR?"";@N.
41/5

;n G.R. No. 165636, &etitioner re#ies on t,e 1o##o2ing grounds:

"?%+;@N 38%9 @= 4PD5 1986, ;" P'+?N+7 BN%@N"+;+B+;@N'7 'ND
?N'%+?D >;+:@B+ @R ;N ?C%?"" @= JBR;"D;%+;@N G G G
%@N";D?R;NG +:'+:

;

"?%+;@N 38%9 @= 4PD5 1986, '" 'PP7;?D +@ P?+;+;@N?R, BNDB7
;N=R;NG?" @N +:? %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 GB'R'N+?? @= =R??D@( @=
R?7;G;@N, "P??%:, 'ND ?CPR?"";@N '" ;+ P'R+'N?" @= +:?
N'+BR? @= ' "BI"?QB?N+ PBN;":(?N+ %BR+';7;NG +:? "'(?H
%@N"?QB?N+7, +:? ;(P7?(?N+;NG RB7?" 'ND R?GB7'+;@N",
RB7?" @= PR@%?DBR?, 'ND @==;%;'7 '%+" @= +:? (+R%I
PBR"B'N+ +:?R?+@, ;.?. D?%;";@N D'+?D .- "?P+?(I?R .//0 'ND
@RD?R D'+?D 19 @%+@I?R .//0, 'R? 7;N?>;"? %@N"+;+B+;@N'77
;N=;R( '" 'PP7;?D ;N +:? %'"? '+ I?N%:H



;;

"?%+;@N 38%9 @= 4PD5 1986, '" 'PP7;?D +@ P?+;+;@N?R, BNDB7
;N=R;NG?" @N +:? %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 GB'R'N+?? @= DB? PR@%?""
@= 7'> 'ND ?QB'7 PR@+?%+;@N BND?R +:? 7'>H %@N"?QB?N+7,
+:? 4;RR5, RB7?" @= PR@%?DBR?, 'ND @==;%;'7 '%+" @= +:?
(+R%I PBR"B'N+ +:?R?+@, ;.?., D?%;";@N D'+?D .- "?P+?(I?R
.//0 'ND @RD?R D'+?D 19 @%+@I?R .//0, 'R? 7;N?>;"?
%@N"+;+B+;@N'77 ;N=;R( '" 'PP7;?D ;N +:? %'"? '+ I?N%:H
'ND

;;;

4PD5 1986 ;" N@+ %@(P7?+? ;N ;+"?7= 'ND D@?" N@+ PR@<;D? =@R
' "B==;%;?N+ "+'ND'RD =@R ;+" ;(P7?(?N+'+;@N +:?R?I
R?"B7+;NG ;N 'N BNDB? D?7?G'+;@N @= 7?G;"7'+;<? P@>?R I
R?'"@N +:'+ ;+ D@?" N@+ PR@<;D? =@R +:? P?N'7+;?" =@R
<;@7'+;@N" @= ;+" PR@<;";@N". %@N"?QB?N+7, +:? 4;RR5, RB7?"
@= PR@%?DBR?, 'ND @==;%;'7 '%+" @= +:? (+R%I PBR"B'N+
+:?R?+@, ;.?. D?%;";@N D'+?D .- "?P+?(I?R .//0 'ND @RD?R
D'+?D 19 @%+@I?R .//0, 'R? 7;N?>;"? %@N"+;+B+;@N'77 ;N=;R(
'" 'PP7;?D ;N +:? %'"? '+ I?N%:
4115

G.R. N. :>?<=;

>e s,a## 1irst dis&ose o1 t,e issues in G.R. No. 160-85, regarding t,e
assai#ed order o1 &reventive sus&ension, a#t,oug, its im&#ementabi#it6 ,ad a#read6
been overta3en and veritab#6 been rendered moot b6 t,e eFua##6 assai#ed
"e&tember .-, .//0 de*ision.

;t is &etitionerAs t,res,o#d &osture t,at t,e &reventive sus&ension im&osed
against ,im and t,e re#evant ;RR &rovision aut,ori$ing it are inva#id inasmu*, as
PD 1986 does not eG&ress#6 aut,ori$e t,e (+R%I to issue &reventive sus&ension.

PetitionerAs *ontention is untenab#e.

'dministrative agen*ies ,ave &o2ers and 1un*tions 2,i*, ma6 be
administrative, investigator6, regu#ator6, Fuasi!#egis#ative, or Fuasi!)udi*ia#, or a
miG o1 t,e 1ive, as ma6 be *on1erred b6 t,e %onstitution or b6 statute.
41.5
+,e6 ,ave
in 1ine on#6 su*, &o2ers or aut,orit6 as are granted or de#egated, eG&ress#6 or
im&#ied#6, b6 #a2.
4135
'nd in determining 2,et,er an agen*6 ,as *ertain &o2ers,
t,e inFuir6 s,ou#d be 1rom t,e #a2 itse#1. Iut on*e as*ertained as eGisting, t,e
aut,orit6 given s,ou#d be #ibera##6 *onstrued.
4105

' &erusa# o1 t,e (+R%IAs basi* mandate under PD 1986 revea#s t,e
&ossession b6 t,e agen*6 o1 t,e aut,orit6, a#beit im&#ied#6, to issue t,e *,a##enged
order o1 &reventive sus&ension. 'nd t,is aut,orit6 stems natura##6 1rom, and is
ne*essar6 1or t,e eGer*ise o1, its &o2er o1 regu#ation and su&ervision.

"e*. 3 o1 PD 1986 &ertinent#6 &rovides t,e 1o##o2ing:

"e*tion 3. Po2ers and =un*tions.S+,e I@'RD s,a## ,ave t,e
1o##o2ing 1un*tions, &o2ers and duties:

G G G G
*9 +o a&&rove or disa&&rove, de#ete ob)e*tionab#e &ortions 1rom andEor &ro,ibit
t,e G G G &rodu*tion, G G G eG,ibition andEor te#evision broad*ast o1 t,e motion
&i*tures, te#evision &rograms and &ub#i*it6 materia#s sub)e*t o1 t,e &re*eding
&aragra&,, 2,i*,, in t,e )udgment o1 t,e board a&&#6ing *ontem&orar6 =i#i&ino
*u#tura# va#ues as standard, are ob)e*tionab#e 1or being immora#, inde*ent,
*ontrar6 to #a2 andEor good *ustoms, in)urious to t,e &restige o1 t,e Re&ub#i* o1
t,e P,i#i&&ines or its &eo&#e, or 2it, a dangerous tenden*6 to en*ourage t,e
*ommission o1 vio#en*e or o1 2rong or *rime su*, as but not #imited to:

G G G G
vi9 +,ose 2,i*, are #ibe#ous or de1amator6 to t,e good name and re&utation o1
an6 &erson, 2,et,er #iving or deadH

G G G G
8d9 +o &+(er*"&e, re!+,a#e, and grant, den6 or *an*e#, &ermits 1or t,e G G G
&rodu*tion, *o&6ing, distribution, sa#e, #ease, ex%"-"#"n, andKr #e,e*"&"n
-radca&# o1 a## motion &i*tures, te#evision &rograms and &ub#i*it6 materia#s, #
#%e end #%a# n &+c% ("c#+re&, (r!ra)& and )a#er"a,& as are determined b6
t,e I@'RD to be ob)e*tionab#e in a**ordan*e 2it, &aragra&, 8*9 ,ereo1 s,a## be
G G G &rodu*ed, *o&ied, re&rodu*ed, distributed, so#d, #eased, ex%"-"#ed andKr
-radca&# -' #e,e*"&"nH
G G G G
39 +o eGer*ise su*, &o2ers and 1un*tions as ma6 be ne*essar6 or in*identa# to
t,e attainment o1 t,e &ur&oses and ob)e*tives o1 t,is '*t G G G. 8?m&,asis added.9

+,e issuan*e o1 a &reventive sus&ension *omes 2e## 2it,in t,e s*o&e o1 t,e
(+R%IAs aut,orit6 and 1un*tions eG&ress#6 set 1ort, in PD 1986, more
&arti*u#ar#6 under its "e*. 38d9, as Fuoted above, 2,i*, em&o2ers t,e (+R%I to
Ksu&ervise, regu#ate, and grant, den6 or *an*e#, &ermits 1or t,e G G G eG,ibition,
andEor te#evision broad*ast o1 a## motion &i*tures, te#evision &rograms and
&ub#i*it6 materia#s, to t,e end t,at no su*, &i*tures, &rograms and materia#s as are
determined b6 t,e I@'RD to be ob)e*tionab#e in a**ordan*e 2it, &aragra&, 8*9
,ereo1 s,a## be G G G eG,ibited andEor broad*ast b6 te#evision.L

"ure#6, t,e &o2er to issue &reventive sus&ension 1orms &art o1 t,e (+R%IAs
eG&ress regu#ator6 and su&ervisor6 statutor6 mandate and its investigator6 and
dis*i&#inar6 aut,orit6 subsumed in or im&#ied 1rom su*, mandate. 'n6 ot,er
*onstrua# 2ou#d render its &o2er to regu#ate, su&ervise, or dis*i&#ine i##usor6.

Preventive sus&ension, it oug,t to be noted, is not a &ena#t6 b6 itse#1, being
mere#6 a &re#iminar6 ste& in an administrative investigation.
4155
'nd t,e &o2er to
dis*i&#ine and im&ose &ena#ties, i1 granted, *arries 2it, it t,e &o2er to investigate
administrative *om&#aints and, during su*, investigation, to &reventive#6 sus&end
t,e &erson sub)e*t o1 t,e *om&#aint.
4165

+o reiterate, &reventive sus&ension aut,orit6 o1 t,e (+R%I s&rings 1rom its
&o2ers *on1erred under PD 1986. +,e (+R%I did not, as &etitioner insinuates,
em&o2er itse#1 to im&ose &reventive sus&ension t,roug, t,e medium o1 t,e ;RR o1
PD 1986. ;t is true t,at t,e matter o1 im&osing &reventive sus&ension is embodied
on#6 in t,e ;RR o1 PD 1986. "e*. 3, %,a&ter C;;; o1 t,e ;RR &rovides:

"e*. 3. PR?<?N+;@N "B"P?N";@N @RD?R.JJ'n6 time during t,e
&enden*6 o1 t,e *ase, and in order to &revent or sto& 1urt,er vio#ations or 1or t,e
interest and 2e#1are o1 t,e &ub#i*, t,e %,airman o1 t,e Ioard ma6 issue a
Preventive "us&ension @rder mandating t,e &reventive G G G sus&ension o1 t,e
&ermitE&ermits invo#ved, andEor *#osure o1 t,e G G G te#evision net2or3, *ab#e +<
station G G G &rovided t,at t,e tem&orar6E&reventive order t,us issued s,a## ,ave a
#i1e o1 not more t,an t2ent6 8./9 da6s 1rom t,e date o1 issuan*e.

Iut t,e mere absen*e o1 a &rovision on &reventive sus&ension in PD 1986,
2it,out more, 2ou#d not 2or3 to de&rive t,e (+R%I a basi* dis*i&#inar6 too#,
su*, as &reventive sus&ension. Re*a## t,at t,e (+R%I is eG&ress#6 em&o2ered b6
statute to regu#ate and su&ervise te#evision &rograms to obviate t,e eG,ibition or
broad*ast o1, among ot,ers, inde*ent or immora# materia#s and to im&ose san*tions
1or vio#ations and, *oro##ari#6, to &revent 1urt,er vio#ations as it investigates.
%ontrar6 to &etitionerAs assertion, t,e a1oreFuoted "e*. 3 o1 t,e ;RR neit,er
amended PD 1986 nor eGtended t,e e11e*t o1 t,e #a2. Neit,er did t,e (+R%I, b6
im&osing t,e assai#ed &reventive sus&ension, outrun its aut,orit6 under t,e #a2. =ar
1rom it. +,e &reventive sus&ension 2as a*tua##6 done in 1urt,eran*e o1 t,e #a2,
im&osed &ursuant, to re&eat, to t,e (+R%IAs dut6 o1 regu#ating or su&ervising
te#evision &rograms, &ending a determination o1 2,et,er or not t,ere ,as a*tua##6
been a vio#ation. ;n t,e 1ina# ana#6sis, "e*. 3, %,a&ter C;;; o1 t,e .//0 ;RR mere#6
1orma#i$ed a &o2er 2,i*, PD 1986 besto2ed, a#beit im&#ied#6, on (+R%I.

"e*. 38*9 and 8d9 o1 PD 1986 1inds a&&#i*ation to t,e &resent *ase, su11i*ient
to aut,ori$e t,e (+R%IAs assai#ed a*tion. PetitionerAs restri*tive reading o1 PD
1986, #imiting t,e (+R%I to 1un*tions 2it,in t,e #itera# *on1ines o1 t,e #a2,
2ou#d give t,e agen*6 #itt#e #ee2a6 to o&erate, sti1#ing and rendering it inuti#e,
2,en "e*. 3839 o1 PD 1986 *#ear#6 intends to grant t,e (+R%I a 2ide room 1or
1#eGibi#it6 in its o&eration. "e*. 3839, 2e reiterate, &rovides, K+o eGer*ise su*,
&o2ers and 1un*tions as ma6 be ne*essar6 or in*identa# to t,e attainment o1 t,e
&ur&oses and ob)e*tives o1 t,is '*t G G G.L ;ndeed, t,e &o2er to im&ose &reventive
sus&ension is one o1 t,e im&#ied &o2ers o1 (+R%I. 's distinguis,ed 1rom eG&ress
&o2ers, im&#ied &o2ers are t,ose t,at *an be in1erred or areim&#i*it in t,e
2ordings or *on1erred b6 ne*essar6 or 1air im&#i*ation o1 t,e enab#ing a*t.
41-5
's
2e ,e#d in ;ngara v. ?le!toral Commission, 2,en a genera# grant o1 &o2er is
*on1erred or a dut6 en)oined, ever6 &arti*u#ar &o2er ne*essar6 1or t,e eGer*ise o1
one or t,e &er1orman*e o1 t,e ot,er is a#so *on1erred b6 ne*essar6 im&#i*ation.
4185
%#ear#6, t,e &o2er to im&ose &reventive sus&ension &ending investigation is one
o1 t,e im&#ied or in,erent &o2ers o1 (+R%I.

>e *annot agree 2it, &etitionerAs assertion t,at t,e a1oreFuoted ;RR
&rovision on &reventive sus&ension is a&&#i*ab#e on#6 to motion &i*tures and
&ub#i*it6 materia#s. +,e s*o&e o1 t,e (+R%IAs aut,orit6 eGtends be6ond motion
&i*tures. >,at t,e a*ron6m (+R%I stands 1or 2ou#d suggest as mu*,. 'nd
2,i#e t,e #a2 ma3es s&e*i1i* re1eren*e to t,e *#osure o1 a te#evision net2or3, t,e
sus&ension o1 a te#evision &rogram is a 1ar #ess &unitive measure t,at *an be
underta3en, 2it, t,e &ur&ose o1 sto&&ing 1urt,er vio#ations o1 PD 1986. 'gain, t,e
(+R%I 2ou#d regret1u##6 be rendered ine11e*tive s,ou#d it be sub)e*t to t,e
restri*tions &etitioner envisages.

Just as untenab#e is &etitionerAs argument on t,e nu##it6 o1 t,e &reventive
sus&ension order on t,e ground o1 #a*3 o1 ,earing. 's it 2ere, t,e (+R%I ,anded
out t,e assai#ed order a1ter &etitioner, in res&onse to a 2ritten noti*e, a&&eared
be1ore t,at Ioard 1or a ,earing on &rivate res&ondentsA *om&#aint. No #ess t,an
&etitioner admitted t,at t,e order 2as issued a1ter t,e ad)ournment o1 t,e ,earing,
4195
&roving t,at ,e ,ad a#read6 a&&eared be1ore t,e (+R%I. Bnder "e*. 3, %,a&ter
C;;; o1 t,e ;RR o1 PD 1986, &reventive sus&ension s,a## issue K4a5n6 time during
t,e &enden*6 o1 t,e *ase.L ;n t,is &arti*u#ar *ase, it 2as done a1ter (+R%I du#6
a&&rised &etitioner o1 ,is ,aving &ossib#6 vio#ated PD 1986
4./5
and o1
administrative *om&#aints t,at ,ad been 1i#ed against ,im 1or su*, vio#ation.
4.15


't an6 event, t,at &reventive sus&ension *an va#id#6 be meted out even
2it,out a ,earing.
4..5


Petitioner neGt 1au#ts t,e (+R%I 1or den6ing ,im ,is rig,t to t,e eFua#
&rote*tion o1 t,e #a2, arguing t,at, o2ing to t,e &reventive sus&ension order, ,e
2as unab#e to ans2er t,e *riti*isms *oming 1rom t,e ;N% ministers.

PetitionerAs &osition does not &ersuade. +,e eFua# &rote*tion *#ause demands
t,at Ka## &ersons sub)e*t to #egis#ation s,ou#d be treated a#i3e, under #i3e
*ir*umstan*es and *onditions bot, in t,e &rivi#eges *on1erred and #iabi#ities
im&osed.L
4.35
;t guards against undue 1avor and individua# &rivi#ege as 2e## as
,osti#e dis*rimination.
4.05
"ure#6, &etitioner *annot, under t,e &remises, &#a*e
,imse#1 in t,e same s,oes as t,e ;N% ministers, 2,o, 1or one, are not 1a*ing
administrative *om&#aints be1ore t,e (+R%I. =or anot,er, ,e o11ers no &roo1 t,at
t,e said ministers, in t,eir +< &rograms, use #anguage simi#ar to t,at 2,i*, ,e used
in ,is o2n, ne*essitating t,e (+R%IAs dis*i&#inar6 a*tion. ;1 t,e immediate resu#t
o1 t,e &reventive sus&ension order is t,at &etitioner remains tem&orari#6 gagged
and is unab#e to ans2er ,is *riti*s, t,is does not be*ome a de&rivation o1 t,e eFua#
&rote*tion guarantee. +,e %ourt need not be#abor t,e 1a*t t,at t,e *ir*umstan*es o1
&etitioner, as ,ost o1 ;ng :ating :aan, on one ,and, and t,e ;N% ministers, as
,osts o1 ;ng -amang :aan, on t,e ot,er, are, 2it,in t,e &urvie2 o1 t,is *ase,
sim&#6 too di11erent to even *onsider 2,et,er or not t,ere is aprima
a!ie indi*ation o1 o&&ressive ineFua#it6.

Petitioner neGt in)e*ts t,e notion o1 re#igious 1reedom, submitting t,at 2,at
,e uttered 2as re#igious s&ee*,, adding t,at 2ords #i3e Kputang babaeL 2ere said
in eGer*ise o1 ,is re#igious 1reedom.

+,e argument ,as no merit.

+,e %ourt is at a #oss to understand ,o2 &etitionerAs utteran*es in Fuestion
*an *ome 2it,in t,e &a#e o1 "e*. 5, 'rti*#e ;;; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution on re#igious
1reedom. +,e se*tion reads as 1o##o2s:

No #a2 s,a## be made res&e*ting t,e estab#is,ment o1 a re#igion, or
&ro,ibiting t,e 1ree eGer*ise t,ereo1. +,e 1ree eGer*ise and en)o6ment o1 re#igious
&ro1ession and 2ors,i&, 2it,out dis*rimination or &re1eren*e, s,a## 1orever be
a##o2ed. No re#igious test s,a## be reFuired 1or t,e eGer*ise o1 *ivi# or &o#iti*a#
rig,ts.

+,ere is not,ing in &etitionerAs statements sub)e*t o1 t,e *om&#aints
eG&ressing an6 &arti*u#ar re#igious be#ie1, not,ing 1urt,ering ,is avo2ed
evange#i*a# mission. +,e 1a*t t,at ,e *ame out 2it, ,is statements in a te#evised
bib#e eG&osition &rogram does not automati*a##6 a**ord t,em t,e *,ara*ter o1 a
re#igious dis*ourse. P#ain and sim&#e insu#ts dire*ted at anot,er &erson *annot be
e#evated to t,e status o1 re#igious s&ee*,. ?ven &etitionerAs attem&ts to &#a*e ,is
2ords in *onteGt s,o2 t,at ,e 2as moved b6 anger and t,e need to see3
retribution, not b6 an6 re#igious *onvi*tion. :is *#aim, assuming its vera*it6, t,at
some ;N% ministers distorted ,is statements res&e*ting amounts ;ng :ating
:aan o2ed to a +< station does not *onvert t,e 1ou# #anguage used in reta#iation as
re#igious s&ee*,. >e *annot a**e&t t,at &etitioner made ,is statements in de1ense
o1 ,is re&utation and re#igion, as t,e6 *onstitute no inte##igib#e de1ense or re1utation
o1 t,e a##eged #ies being s&read b6 a riva# re#igious grou&. +,e6 sim&#6 i##ustrate
t,at &etitioner ,ad des*ended to t,e #eve# o1 name!*a##ing and 1ou#!#anguage
dis*ourse. Petitioner *ou#d ,ave *,osen to *ontradi*t and dis&rove ,is detra*tors,
but o&ted 1or t,e #o2 road.

Petitioner, as a 1ina# &oint in G.R. No. 160-85, 2ou#d ,ave t,e %ourt nu##i16
t,e ./!da6 &reventive sus&ension order, being, as insisted, an un*onstitutiona#
abridgement o1 t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, and eG&ression and an im&ermissib#e &rior
restraint. +,e main issue tendered res&e*ting t,e adverted vio#ation and t,e
arguments ,o#ding su*, issue dovetai#s 2it, t,ose *,a##enging t,e t,ree!mont,
sus&ension im&osed under t,e assai#ed "e&tember .-, .//0 (+R%I de*ision
sub)e*t o1 revie2 under G.R. No. 165636. Iot, over#a&&ing issues and arguments
s,a## be )oint#6 addressed.

G.R. N. :>;>1>

Petitioner urges t,e stri3ing do2n o1 t,e de*ision sus&ending ,im 1rom
,osting ;ng :ating :aan 1or t,ree mont,s on t,e main ground t,at t,e de*ision
vio#ates, a&art 1rom ,is re#igious 1reedom, ,is 1reedom o1 s&ee*, and eG&ression
guaranteed under "e*. 0, 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, 2,i*, reads:

No #a2 s,a## be &assed abridging t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*,, o1 eG&ression, or
o1 t,e &ress, or t,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e &ea*eab#6 to assemb#e and &etition t,e
government 1or redress o1 grievan*e.


:e 2ou#d a#so ,ave t,e %ourt de*#are PD 1986, its "e*. 38*9 in &arti*u#ar,
un*onstitutiona# 1or reasons arti*u#ated in t,is &etition.

>e are not &ersuaded as s,a## be eG&#ained s,ort#6. Iut 1irst, 2e restate
*ertain genera# *on*e&ts and &rin*i&#es under#6ing t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, and
eG&ression.

;t is sett#ed t,at eG&ressions b6 means o1 ne2s&a&ers, radio, te#evision, and
motion &i*tures *ome 2it,in t,e broad &rote*tion o1 t,e 1ree s&ee*, and eG&ression
*#ause.
4.55
?a*, met,od t,oug,, be*ause o1 its dissimi#ar &resen*e in t,e #ives o1
&eo&#e and a**essibi#it6 to *,i#dren, tends to &resent its o2n &rob#ems in t,e area
o1 1ree s&ee*, &rote*tion, 2it, broad*ast media, o1 a## 1orms o1 *ommuni*ation,
en)o6ing a #esser degree o1 &rote*tion.
4.65
Just as sett#ed is t,e ru#e t,at restri*tions,
be it in t,e 1orm o1 &rior restraint, e.g., )udi*ia# in)un*tion against &ub#i*ation or
t,reat o1 *an*e##ation o1 #i*enseE1ran*,ise, or subseFuent #iabi#it6, 2,et,er in #ibe#
and damage suits, &rose*ution 1or sedition, or *ontem&t &ro*eedings, are anat,ema
to t,e 1reedom o1 eG&ression. Pr"r re&#ra"n# means o11i*ia# government
restri*tions on t,e &ress or ot,er 1orms o1 eG&ression in advan*e o1 a*tua#
&ub#i*ation or dissemination.
4.-5
+,e 1reedom o1 eG&ression, as 2it, t,e ot,er
1reedoms en*ased in t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts, is, ,o2ever, not abso#ute. ;t ma6 be
regu#ated to some eGtent to serve im&ortant &ub#i* interests, some 1orms o1 s&ee*,
not being &rote*ted. 's ,as been ,e#d, t,e #imits o1 t,e 1reedom o1 eG&ression are
rea*,ed 2,en t,e eG&ression tou*,es u&on matters o1 essentia##6 &rivate *on*ern.
4.85
;n t,e o1t!Fuoted eG&ression o1 Justi*e :o#mes, t,e *onstitutiona# guarantee
Kobvious#6 2as not intended to give immunit6 1or ever6 &ossib#e use o1
#anguage.L
4.95
=rom Lu!as v. Royo *omes t,is #ine: K4+5,e 1reedom to eG&ress oneAs
sentiments and be#ie1 does not grant one t,e #i*ense to vi#i16 in &ub#i* t,e ,onor
and integrit6 o1 anot,er. 'n6 sentiments must be eG&ressed 2it,in t,e &ro&er
1orum and 2it, &ro&er regard 1or t,e rig,ts o1 ot,ers.L
43/5

;ndeed, as noted in Chaplinsky v. State o %ew 1ampshire,
4315
Kt,ere are
*ertain 2e##!de1ined and narro2#6 #imited *#asses o1 s&ee*, t,at are ,arm1u#, t,e
&revention and &unis,ment o1 2,i*, ,as never been t,oug,t to raise an6
%onstitutiona# &rob#ems.L ;n net e11e*t, some 1orms o1 s&ee*, are not &rote*ted b6
t,e %onstitution, meaning t,at restri*tions on un&rote*ted s&ee*, ma6 be de*reed
2it,out running a1ou# o1 t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, *#ause.
43.5
' s&ee*, 2ou#d 1a##
under t,e un&rote*ted t6&e i1 t,e utteran*es invo#ved are Kno essentia# &art o1 an6
eG&osition o1 ideas, and are o1 su*, s#ig,t so*ia# va#ue as a ste& o1 trut, t,at an6
bene1it t,at ma6 be derived 1rom t,em is *#ear#6 out2eig,ed b6 t,e so*ia# interest
in order and mora#it6.L
4335
Ieing o1 #itt#e or no va#ue, t,ere is, in dea#ing 2it, or
regu#ating t,em, no im&erative *a## 1or t,e a&&#i*ation o1 t,e *#ear and &resent
danger ru#e or t,e ba#an*ing!o1!interest test, t,e6 being essentia##6 modes o1
2eig,ing *om&eting va#ues,
4305
or, 2it, #i3e e11e*t, determining 2,i*, o1 t,e
*#as,ing interests s,ou#d be advan*ed.

Petitioner asserts t,at ,is utteran*e in Fuestion is a &rote*ted 1orm o1 s&ee*,.

+,e %ourt ru#es ot,er2ise. ;t ,as been estab#is,ed in t,is )urisdi*tion t,at
un&rote*ted s&ee*, or #o2!va#ue eG&ression re1ers to #ibe#ous statements, obs*enit6
or &ornogra&,6, 1a#se or mis#eading advertisement, insu#ting or K1ig,ting
2ordsL, i.e., t,ose 2,i*, b6 t,eir ver6 utteran*e in1#i*t in)ur6 or tend to in*ite an
immediate brea*, o1 &ea*e and eG&ression endangering nationa# se*urit6.

+,e %ourt 1inds t,at &etitionerAs statement *an be treated as obs*ene, at #east
2it, res&e*t to t,e average *,i#d. :en*e, it is, in t,at *onteGt, un&rote*ted s&ee*,.
;n /ernando v. Court o ;ppeals, t,e %ourt eG&ressed di11i*u#t6 in 1ormu#ating a
de1inition o1-&cen"#' t,at 2ou#d a&&#6 to a## *ases, but nonet,e#ess stated t,e
ensuing observations on t,e matter:

+,ere is no &er1e*t de1inition o1 Kobs*enit6L but t,e #atest 2ord is t,at
o1 *iller v. Caliornia 2,i*, estab#is,ed basi* guide#ines, to 2it: 8a9 2,et,er to
t,e average &erson, a&&#6ing *ontem&orar6 standards 2ou#d 1ind t,e 2or3, ta3en
as a 2,o#e, a&&ea#s to t,e &rurient interestH 8b9 2,et,er t,e 2or3 de&i*ts or
des*ribes, in a &atent#6 o11ensive 2a6, seGua# *ondu*t s&e*i1i*a##6 de1ined b6 t,e
a&&#i*ab#e state #a2H and 8*9 2,et,er t,e 2or3, ta3en as a 2,o#e, #a*3s serious
#iterar6, artisti*, &o#iti*a#, or s*ienti1i* va#ue. Iut, it 2ou#d be a serious
misreading o1 *iller to *on*#ude t,at t,e trier o1 1a*ts ,as t,e unbrid#ed dis*retion
in determining 2,at is K&atent#6 o11ensive.L G G G >,at remains *#ear is t,at
obs*enit6 is an issue &ro&er 1or )udi*ia# determination and s,ou#d be treated on a
*ase to *ase basis and on t,e )udgeAs sound dis*retion.
4355


=o##o2ing t,e *onteGtua# #essons o1 t,e *ited *ase o1 *iller v. Caliornia,
4365
a &atent#6 o11ensive utteran*e 2ou#d *ome 2it,in t,e &a#e o1 t,e
term obs!enity s,ou#d it a&&ea# to t,e &rurient interest o1 an average #istener
a&&#6ing *ontem&orar6 standards.

' *ursor6 eGamination o1 t,e utteran*es *om&#ained o1 and t,e
*ir*umstan*es o1 t,e *ase revea# t,at to an average adu#t, t,e utteran*es K+ago ka
talaga 7 7 7) masahol ka pa sa putang babae 7 7 7. 0ung putang babae ang
gumagana lang doon yung ibaba) 3dito4 kay *i!hael ang gumagana ang itaas) o
di ba.L ma6 not *onstitute obs*ene but mere#6 inde*ent utteran*es. +,e6 *an be
vie2ed as 1igures o1 s&ee*, or mere#6 a &#a6 on 2ords. ;n t,e *onteGt t,e6 2ere
used, t,e6 ma6 not a&&ea# to t,e &rurient interests o1 an adu#t. +,e &rob#em 2it,
t,e *,a##enged statements is t,at t,e6 2ere uttered in a +< &rogram t,at is rated
KGL or 1or genera# vie2ers,i&, and in a time s#ot t,at 2ou#d #i3e#6 rea*, even t,e
e6es and ears o1 *,i#dren.

>,i#e adu#ts ma6 ,ave understood t,at t,e terms t,us used 2ere not to be
ta3en #itera##6, *,i#dren *ou#d ,ard#6 be eG&e*ted to ,ave t,e same
dis*ernment. >it,out &arenta# guidan*e, t,e unbrid#ed use o1 su*, #anguage as
t,at o1 &etitioner in a te#evision broad*ast *ou#d *orru&t im&ressionab#e 6oung
minds. +,e term Kputang babaeL means Ka 1ema#e &rostitute,L a term 2,o##6
ina&&ro&riate 1or *,i#dren, 2,o *ou#d #oo3 it u& in a di*tionar6 and )ust get t,e
#itera# meaning, missing t,e *onteGt 2it,in 2,i*, it 2as used. Petitioner 1urt,er
used t,e terms, Kang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba,L ma3ing re1eren*e to t,e
1ema#e seGua# organ and ,o2 a 1ema#e &rostitute uses it in ,er trade, t,en stating
t,at "andova# 2as 2orse t,an t,at b6 using ,is mout, in a simi#ar
manner. %,i#dren *ou#d be motivated b6 *uriosit6 and as3 t,e meaning o1 2,at
&etitioner said, a#so 2it,out &#a*ing t,e &,rase in *onteGt. +,e6 ma6 be inFuisitive
as to 2,6 "andova# is di11erent 1rom a 1ema#e &rostitute and t,e reasons 1or t,e
dissimi#arit6. 'nd u&on #earning t,e meanings o1 t,e 2ords used, 6oung minds,
2it,out t,e guidan*e o1 an adu#t, ma6, 1rom t,eir end, vie2 t,is 3ind o1 inde*ent
s&ee*, as obs*ene, i1 t,e6 ta3e t,ese 2ords #itera##6 and use t,em in t,eir o2n
s&ee*, or 1orm t,eir o2n ideas on t,e matter. ;n t,is &arti*u#ar *ase, 2,ere
*,i#dren ,ad t,e o&&ortunit6 to ,ear &etitionerAs 2ords, 2,en s&ea3ing o1 t,e
average &erson in t,e test 1or obs*enit6, 2e are s&ea3ing o1 t,e average *,i#d, not
t,e average adu#t. +,e average *,i#d ma6 not ,ave t,e adu#tAs gras& o1 1igures o1
s&ee*,, and ma6 #a*3 t,e understanding t,at #anguage ma6 be *o#or1u#, and 2ords
ma6 *onve6 more t,an t,e #itera# meaning. Bndeniab#6 t,e sub)e*t s&ee*, is ver6
suggestive o1 a 1ema#e seGua# organ and its 1un*tion as su*,. ;n t,is sense, 2e 1ind
&etitionerAs utteran*es obs*ene and not entit#ed to &rote*tion under t,e umbre##a o1
1reedom o1 s&ee*,.

?ven i1 2e *on*ede t,at &etitionerAs remar3s are not obs*ene but mere#6
inde*ent s&ee*,, sti## t,e %ourt ru#es t,at &etitioner *annot avai# ,imse#1 o1 t,e
*onstitutiona# &rote*tion o1 1ree s&ee*,. "aid statements 2ere made in a medium
easi#6 a**essib#e to *,i#dren. >it, res&e*t to t,e 6oung minds, said utteran*es are
to be treated as un&rote*ted s&ee*,.

No doubt 2,at &etitioner said *onstitutes inde*ent or o11ensive
utteran*es. Iut 2,i#e a )uris&rudentia# &attern invo#ving *ertain o11ensive
utteran*es *onve6ed in di11erent mediums ,as emerged, t,is *ase is veritab#6 one
o1 1irst im&ression, it being t,e 1irst time t,at inde*ent s&ee*,
*ommuni*ated via te#evision and t,e a&&#i*ab#e norm 1or its regu#ation are, in t,is
)urisdi*tion, made t,e 1o*a# &oint. /ederal Communi!ations
Commission 8/CC9 v. 9a!ii!a /oundation,
43-5
a 19-8 'meri*an #andmar3 *ase
*ited in ?astern 2road!asting Corporation v. :ans) Jr.
4385
and Chave( v. +on(ales,
4395
is a ri*, sour*e o1 &ersuasive #essons. =oremost o1 t,ese re#ates to inde*ent
s&ee*, 2it,out &rurient a&&ea# *om&onent *oming under t,e *ategor6 o1 &rote*ted
s&ee*, de&ending on t,e *onteGt 2it,in 2,i*, it 2as made, irresistib#6 suggesting
t,at, 2it,in a &arti*u#ar *onteGt, su*, inde*ent s&ee*, ma6 va#id#6 be *ategori$ed
as un&rote*ted, ergo, sus*e&tib#e to restri*tion.

;n /CC, seven o1 2,at 2ere *onsidered K1i#t,6L 2ords
40/5
ear#ier re*orded in
a mono#ogue b6 a satiri* ,umorist #ater aired in t,e a1ternoon over a radio station
o2ned b6 Pa*i1i*a =oundation. B&on t,e *om&#aint o1 a man 2,o ,eard t,e &re!
re*orded mono#ogue 2,i#e driving 2it, ,is son, =%% de*#ared t,e #anguage used
as K(a#en#,' $$en&"*eL and K"ndecen#L under a &ro,ibiting #a2, t,oug, not
ne*essari#6 obs*ene. =%% added, ,o2ever, t,at its de*#arator6 order 2as issued in a
Ks&e*ia# 1a*tua# *onteGt,L re1erring, in gist, to an a1ternoon radio broad*ast 2,en
*,i#dren 2ere undoubted#6 in t,e audien*e. '*ting on t,e Fuestion o1 2,et,er t,e
=%% *ou#d regu#ate t,e sub)e*t utteran*e, t,e B" "u&reme %ourt ru#ed in t,e
a11irmative, o2ing to t2o s&e*ia# 1eatures o1 t,e broad*ast medium, to 2it: 819
radio is a &ervasive medium and 8.9 broad*asting is uniFue#6 a**essib#e to
*,i#dren. +,e B" %ourt, ,o2ever, ,astened to add t,at t,e mono#ogue 2ou#d be
&rote*ted s&ee*, in ot,er *onteGts, a#beit it did not eG&ound and identi16 a
*om&e##ing state interest in &utting =%%As *ontent!based regu#ator6 a*tion under
s*rutin6.

+,e %ourt in Chave(
4015
e#u*idated on t,e distin*tion bet2een regu#ation or
restri*tion o1 &rote*ted s&ee*, t,at is *ontent!based and t,at 2,i*, is *ontent!
neutra#. ' *ontent!based restraint is aimed at t,e *ontents or idea o1 t,e eG&ression,
2,ereas a *ontent!neutra# restraint intends to regu#ate t,e time, &#a*e, and manner
o1 t,e eG&ression under 2e##!de1ined standards tai#ored to serve a *om&e##ing state
interest, 2it,out restraint on t,e message o1 t,e eG&ression. %ourts sub)e*t *ontent!
based restraint to stri*t s*rutin6.

>it, t,e vie2 2e ta3e o1 t,e *ase, t,e sus&ension (+R%I im&osed under
t,e &remises 2as, in one &ers&e*tive, &ermissib#e restri*tion. >e ma3e t,is
dis&osition against t,e ba*3dro& o1 t,e 1o##o2ing inter&#a6ing 1a*tors: /irst, t,e
inde*ent s&ee*, 2as made via te#evision, a &ervasive medium t,at, to borro2
1rom +on(ales v. Galaw Gatigbak,
40.5
easi#6 Krea*,es ever6 ,ome 2,ere t,ere is a
set 4and 2,ere5 4*5,i#dren 2i## #i3e#6 be among t,e avid vie2ers o1 t,e &rograms
t,erein s,o2nLH se!ond, t,e broad*ast 2as aired at t,e time o1 t,e da6 2,en t,ere
2as a reasonab#e ris3 t,at *,i#dren mig,t be in t,e audien*eH and third, &etitioner
uttered ,is s&ee*, on a KGL or K1or genera# &atronageL rated &rogram. Bnder "e*.
.8'9 o1 %,a&ter ;< o1 t,e ;RR o1 t,e (+R%I, a s,o2 1or genera# &atronage is
K4s5uitab#e 1or a## ages,L meaning t,at t,e Kmateria# 1or te#evision G G G in t,e
)udgment o1 t,e I@'RD, does not *ontain an6t,ing unsuitab#e 1or *,i#dren and
minors, and ma6 be vie2ed 2it,out adu#t guidan*e or su&ervision.L +,e 2ords
&etitioner used 2ere, b6 an6 *ivi#i$ed norm, *#ear#6 not suitab#e 1or
*,i#dren. >,ere a #anguage is *ategori$ed as inde*ent, as in &etitionerAs utteran*es
on a genera#!&atronage rated +< &rogram, it ma6 be readi#6 &ros*ribed as
un&rote*ted s&ee*,.

' vie2 ,as been advan*ed t,at un&rote*ted s&ee*, re1ers on#6 to
&ornogra&,6,
4035
1a#se or mis#eading advertisement,
4005
advo*a*6 o1 imminent #a2#ess
a*tion, and eG&ression endangering nationa# se*urit6. Iut t,is #ist is not, as some
members o1 t,e %ourt 2ou#d submit, eG*#usive or *arved in stone. >it,out going
into s&e*i1i*s, it ma6 be stated 2it,out 1ear o1 *ontradi*tion t,atB" de*isiona# #a2
goes be6ond t,e a1oresaid genera# eG*e&tions. 's t,e %ourt ,as been im&e##ed to
re*ogni$e eG*e&tions to t,e ru#e against *ensors,i& in t,e &ast, t,is &arti*u#ar *ase
*onstitutes 6et anot,er eG*e&tion, anot,er instan*e o1 un&rote*ted s&ee*,, *reated
b6 t,e ne*essit6 o1 &rote*ting t,e 2e#1are o1 our *,i#dren. 's un&rote*ted s&ee*,,
&etitionerAs utteran*es *an be sub)e*ted to restraint or regu#ation.

Des&ite t,e sett#ed ru#ing in /CC 2,i*, ,as remained undisturbed sin*e
19-8, &etitioner asserts t,at ,is utteran*es must &resent a *#ear and &resent danger
o1 bringing about a substantive evi# t,e "tate ,as a rig,t and dut6 to &revent and
su*, danger must be grave and imminent.
4055


PetitionerAs invo*ation o1 t,e *#ear and &resent danger do*trine, arguab#6 t,e
most &ermissive o1 s&ee*, tests, 2ou#d not avai# ,im an6 re#ie1, 1or t,e a&&#i*ation
o1 said test is un*a##ed 1or under t,e &remises. +,e do*trine, 1irst 1ormu#ated b6
Justi*e :o#mes, a**ords &rote*tion 1or utteran*es so t,at t,e &rinted or s&o3en
2ords ma6 not be sub)e*t to &rior restraint or subseFuent &unis,ment un#ess its
eG&ression *reates a *#ear and &resent danger o1 bringing about a substantia# evi#
2,i*, t,e government ,as t,e &o2er to &ro,ibit.
4065
Bnder t,e do*trine, 1reedom o1
s&ee*, and o1 &ress is sus*e&tib#e o1 restri*tion 2,en and on#6 2,en ne*essar6 to
&revent grave and immediate danger to interests 2,i*, t,e government ma6
#a21u##6 &rote*t. 's it 2ere, said do*trine evo#ved in t,e *onteGt o1 &rose*utions
1or rebe##ion and ot,er *rimes invo#ving t,e overt,ro2 o1 government.
40-5
;t 2as
origina##6 designed to determine t,e #atitude 2,i*, s,ou#d be given to s&ee*, t,at
es&ouses anti!government a*tion, or to ,ave serious and substantia# de#eterious
*onseFuen*es on t,e se*urit6 and &ub#i* order o1 t,e *ommunit6.
4085
+,e *#ear and
&resent danger ru#e ,as been a&&#ied to t,is )urisdi*tion.
4095
's a standard o1
#imitation on 1ree s&ee*, and &ress, ,o2ever, t,e *#ear and &resent danger test is
not a magi* in*antation t,at 2i&es out a## &rob#ems and does a2a6 2it, ana#6sis
and )udgment in t,e testing o1 t,e #egitima*6 o1 *#aims to 1ree s&ee*, and 2,i*,
*om&e#s a *ourt to re#ease a de1endant 1rom #iabi#it6 t,e moment t,e do*trine is
invo3ed, absent &roo1 o1 imminent *atastro&,i* disaster.
45/5
's 2e observed
in ?astern 2road!asting Corporation, t,e *#ear and &resent danger test Kdoes not
#end itse#1 to a sim&#isti* and a## embra*ing inter&retation a&&#i*ab#e to a##
utteran*es in a## 1orums.L
4515

+o be sure, t,e *#ear and &resent danger do*trine is not t,e on#6 test 2,i*,
,as been a&&#ied b6 t,e *ourts. Genera##6, said do*trine is a&&#ied to *ases
invo#ving t,e overt,ro2 o1 t,e government and even ot,er evi#s 2,i*, do not
*#ear#6 undermine nationa# se*urit6. "in*e not a## evi#s *an be measured in terms o1
K&roGimit6 and degreeL t,e %ourt, ,o2ever, in severa# *asesS;yer 9rodu!tions v.
Capulong
45.5
and +on(ales v. CO*?L?C,
4535
a&&#ied t,e ba#an*ing o1 interests
test. =ormer %,ie1 Justi*e =red Rui$ %astro, in +on(ales v. CO*?L?C, e#u*idated
in ,is "e&arate @&inion t,at K2,ere t,e #egis#ation under *onstitutiona# atta*3
inter1eres 2it, t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, and assemb#6 in a more genera#i$ed 2a6 and
2,ere t,e e11e*t o1 t,e s&ee*, and assemb#6 in terms o1 t,e &robabi#it6 o1
rea#i$ation o1 a s&e*i1i* danger is not sus*e&tib#e even o1 im&ressionisti*
*a#*u#ation,L
4505
t,en t,e Kba#an*ing o1 interestsL test *an be a&&#ied.

+,e %ourt eG&#ained a#so in +on(ales v. CO*?L?C t,e Kba#an*ing o1
interestsL test:

>,en &arti*u#ar *ondu*t is regu#ated in t,e interest o1 &ub#i* order, and
t,e regu#ation resu#ts in an indire*t, *onditiona#, &artia# abridgment o1 s&ee*,,
t,e dut6 o1 t,e *ourts is to determine 2,i*, o1 t,e t2o *on1#i*ting interests
demands t,e greater &rote*tion under t,e &arti*u#ar *ir*umstan*es &resented. G
G G >e must, t,ere1ore, underta3e t,e Kde#i*ate and di11i*u#t tas3 G G G to
2eig, t,e *ir*umstan*es and to a&&raise t,e substantia#it6 o1 t,e reasons
advan*ed in su&&ort o1 t,e regu#ation o1 t,e 1ree en)o6ment o1 rig,ts G G G.

;n enun*iating standard &remised on a )udi*ia# ba#an*ing o1 t,e
*on1#i*ting so*ia# va#ues and individua# interests *om&eting 1or as*endan*6 in
#egis#ation 2,i*, restri*ts eG&ression, t,e *ourt in :ouds #aid t,e basis 1or
2,at ,as been *a##ed t,e Kba#an*ing!o1!interestsL test 2,i*, ,as 1ound
a&&#i*ation in more re*ent de*isions o1 t,e B.". "u&reme %ourt. Irie1#6
stated, t,e Kba#an*ingL test reFuires a *ourt to ta3e *ons*ious and detai#ed
*onsideration o1 t,e inter&#a6 o1 interests observab#e in a given situation or
t6&e o1 situation.

G G G G

'#t,oug, t,e urgen*6 o1 t,e &ub#i* interest soug,t to be se*ured b6
%ongressiona# &o2er restri*ting t,e individua#As 1reedom, and t,e so*ia#
im&ortan*e and va#ue o1 t,e 1reedom so restri*ted, Kare to be )udged in t,e
*on*rete, not on t,e basis o1 abstra*tions,L a 2ide range o1 1a*tors are
ne*essari#6 re#evant in as*ertaining t,e &oint or #ine o1 eFui#ibrium. 'mong
t,ese are 8a9 t,e so*ia# va#ue and im&ortan*e o1 t,e s&e*i1i* as&e*t o1 t,e
&arti*u#ar 1reedom restri*ted b6 t,e #egis#ationH 8b9 t,e s&e*i1i* t,rust o1 t,e
restri*tion, i.e., 2,et,er t,e restri*tion is dire*t or indire*t, 2,et,er or not t,e
&ersons a11e*ted are 1e2H 8*9 t,e va#ue and im&ortan*e o1 t,e &ub#i* interest
soug,t to be se*ured b6 t,e #egis#ationJJt,e re1eren*e ,ere is to t,e nature and
gravit6 o1 t,e evi# 2,i*, %ongress see3s to &reventH 8d9 2,et,er t,e s&e*i1i*
restri*tion de*reed b6 %ongress is reasonab#6 a&&ro&riate and ne*essar6 1or
t,e &rote*tion o1 su*, &ub#i* interestH and 8e9 2,et,er t,e ne*essar6
sa1eguarding o1 t,e &ub#i* interest invo#ved ma6 be a*,ieved b6 some ot,er
measure #ess restri*tive o1 t,e &rote*ted 1reedom.
4555



+,is ba#an*ing o1 interest test, to borro2 1rom Pro1essor Nau&er,
4565
rests on
t,e t,eor6 t,at it is t,e *ourtAs 1un*tion in a *ase be1ore it 2,en it 1inds &ub#i*
interests served b6 #egis#ation, on t,e one ,and, and t,e 1ree eG&ression *#ause
a11e*ted b6 it, on t,e ot,er, to ba#an*e one against t,e ot,er and arrive at a
)udgment 2,ere t,e greater 2eig,t s,a## be &#a*ed. ;1, on ba#an*e, it a&&ears t,at
t,e &ub#i* interest served b6 restri*tive #egis#ation is o1 su*, nature t,at it
out2eig,s t,e abridgment o1 1reedom, t,en t,e *ourt 2i## 1ind t,e #egis#ation
va#id. ;n s,ort, t,e ba#an*e!o1!interests t,eor6 rests on t,e basis t,at *onstitutiona#
1reedoms are not abso#ute, not even t,ose stated in t,e 1ree s&ee*, and eG&ression
*#ause, and t,at t,e6 ma6 be abridged to some eGtent to serve a&&ro&riate and
im&ortant interests.
45-5
+o t,e mind o1 t,e %ourt, t,e ba#an*ing o1 interest do*trine
is t,e more a&&ro&riate test to 1o##o2.
;n t,e *ase at bar, &etitioner used inde*ent and obs*ene #anguage and a t,ree
839!mont, sus&ension 2as s#a&&ed on ,im 1or brea*, o1 (+R%I ru#es. ;n t,is
setting, t,e assertion b6 &etitioner o1 ,is en)o6ment o1 ,is 1reedom o1 s&ee*, is
ranged against t,e dut6 o1 t,e government to &rote*t and &romote t,e deve#o&ment
and 2e#1are o1 t,e 6out,.

'1ter a *are1u# eGamination o1 t,e 1a*tua# mi#ieu and t,e arguments raised b6
&etitioner in su&&ort o1 ,is *#aim to 1ree s&ee*,, t,e %ourt ru#es t,at t,e
governmentAs interest to &rote*t and &romote t,e interests and 2e#1are o1 t,e
*,i#dren adeFuate#6 buttresses t,e reasonab#e *urtai#ment and va#id restraint on
&etitionerAs &ra6er to *ontinue as &rogram ,ost o1 ;ng :ating :aan during t,e
sus&ension &eriod.

No doubt, one o1 t,e 1undamenta# and most vita# rig,ts granted to *iti$ens o1
a "tate is t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, or eG&ression, 1or 2it,out t,e en)o6ment o1 su*,
rig,t, a 1ree, stab#e, e11e*tive, and &rogressive demo*rati* state 2ou#d be di11i*u#t
to attain. 'rra6ed against t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, is t,e rig,t o1 t,e 6out, to t,eir
mora#, s&iritua#, inte##e*tua#, and so*ia# being 2,i*, t,e "tate is *onstitutiona##6
tas3ed to &romote and &rote*t. (oreover, t,e "tate is a#so mandated to re*ogni$e
and su&&ort t,e vita# ro#e o1 t,e 6out, in nation bui#ding as #aid do2n in "e*. 13,
'rt. ;; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution.

+,e %onstitution ,as, t,ere1ore, im&osed t,e sa*red ob#igation and
res&onsibi#it6 on t,e "tate to &rovide &rote*tion to t,e 6out, against i##ega# or
im&ro&er a*tivities 2,i*, ma6 &re)udi*e t,eir genera# 2e##!being. +,e 'rti*#e on
6out,, a&&roved on se*ond reading b6 t,e %onstitutiona# %ommission, eG&#ained
t,at t,e "tate s,a## KeGtend so*ia# &rote*tion to minors against a## 1orms o1 neg#e*t,
*rue#t6, eG&#oitation, "))ra,"#', and &ra*ti*es 2,i*, ma6 1oster ra*ia#, re#igious
or ot,er 1orms o1 dis*rimination.L
4585


;ndis&utab#6, t,e "tate ,as a *om&e##ing interest in eGtending so*ia#
&rote*tion to minors against a## 1orms o1 neg#e*t, eG&#oitation, and immora#it6
2,i*, ma6 &o##ute inno*ent minds. ;t ,as a *om&e##ing interest in ,e#&ing &arents,
t,roug, regu#ator6 me*,anisms, &rote*t t,eir *,i#drenAs minds 1rom eG&osure to
undesirab#e materia#s and *orru&ting eG&erien*es. +,e %onstitution, no #ess, in 1a*t
en)oins t,e "tate, as ear#ier indi*ated, to &romote and &rote*t t,e &,6si*a#, mora#,
s&iritua#, inte##e*tua#, and so*ia# 2e##!being o1 t,e 6out, to better &re&are t,em
1u#1i## t,eir ro#e in t,e 1ie#d o1 nation!bui#ding.
4595
;n t,e same 2a6, t,e "tate is
mandated to su&&ort &arents in t,e rearing o1 t,e 6out, 1or *ivi* e11i*ien*6 and t,e
deve#o&ment o1 mora# *,ara*ter.
46/5

PetitionerAs o11ensive and obs*ene #anguage uttered in a te#evision broad*ast,
2it,out doubt, 2as easi#6 a**essib#e to t,e *,i#dren. :is statements *ou#d ,ave
eG&osed *,i#dren to a #anguage t,at is una**e&tab#e in ever6da6 use. 's su*,, t,e
2e#1are o1 *,i#dren and t,e "tateAs mandate to &rote*t and *are 1or t,em, as parens
patriae,
4615
*onstitute a substantia# and *om&e##ing government interest in
regu#ating &etitionerAs utteran*es in +< broad*ast as &rovided in PD 1986.

/CC eG&#ains t,e dut6 o1 t,e government to a*t as parens patriae to &rote*t
t,e *,i#dren 2,o, be*ause o1 age or interest *a&a*it6, are sus*e&tib#e o1 being
*orru&ted or &re)udi*ed b6 o11ensive #anguage, t,us:

4I5road*asting is uniFue#6 a**essib#e to *,i#dren, even t,ose too 6oung to
read. '#t,oug, %o,enAs 2ritten message, 4K=u*3 t,e Dra1tL5, mig,t ,ave been
in*om&re,ensib#e to a 1irst grader, Pa*i1i*aAs broad*ast *ou#d ,ave en#arged a
*,i#dAs vo*abu#ar6 in an instant. @t,er 1orms o1 o11ensive eG&ression ma6 be
2it,,e#d 1rom t,e 6oung 2it,out restri*ting t,e eG&ression at its
sour*e. Ioo3stores and motion &i*ture t,eaters, 1or eGam&#e, ma6 be &ro,ibited
1rom ma3ing inde*ent materia# avai#ab#e to *,i#dren. >e ,e#d in +insberg v. %ew
0ork t,at t,e governmentAs interest in t,e K2e##!being o1 its 6out,L and in
su&&orting K&arentsA *#aim to aut,orit6 in t,eir o2n ,ouse,o#dL )usti1ied t,e
regu#ation o1 ot,er2ise &rote*ted eG&ression. +,e ease 2it, 2,i*, *,i#dren ma6
obtain a**ess to broad*ast materia#, *ou&#ed 2it, t,e *on*erns re*ogni$ed
in +insberg, am&#6 )usti16 s&e*ia# treatment o1 inde*ent broad*asting.


(oreover, +on(ales v. Galaw Gatigbak #i3e2ise stressed t,e dut6 o1 t,e
"tate to attend to t,e 2e#1are o1 t,e 6oung:

G G G ;t is t,e *onsensus o1 t,is %ourt t,at 2,ere te#evision is *on*erned, a
#ess #ibera# a&&roa*, *a##s 1or observan*e. +,is is so be*ause un#i3e motion
&i*tures 2,ere t,e &atrons ,ave to &a6 t,eir 2a6, te#evision rea*,es ever6 ,ome
2,ere t,ere is a set. %,i#dren t,en 2i## #i3e#6 2i## be among t,e avid vie2ers o1
t,e &rograms t,erein s,o2n. 's 2as observed b6 %ir*uit %ourt o1 '&&ea#s Judge
Jerome =ran3, it is ,ard#6 t,e *on*ern o1 t,e #a2 to dea# 2it, t,e seGua# 1antasies
o1 t,e adu#t &o&u#ation. ;t *annot be denied t,oug, t,at t,e "tate as parens
patriae is *a##ed u&on to mani1est an attitude o1 *aring 1or t,e 2e#1are o1 t,e
6oung.
46.5


+,e *om&e##ing need to &rote*t t,e 6oung im&e#s us to sustain t,e regu#ator6
a*tion (+R%I too3 in t,e narro2 *on1ines o1 t,e *ase. +o reiterate, /CC )usti1ied
t,e restraint on t,e +< broad*ast grounded on t,e 1o##o2ing *onsiderations: 819 t,e
use o1 te#evision 2it, its uniFue a**essibi#it6 to *,i#dren, as a medium o1 broad*ast
o1 a &atent#6 o11ensive s&ee*,H 8.9 t,e time o1 broad*astH and 839 t,e KGL rating o1
t,e ;ng :ating :aan &rogram. 'nd in agreeing 2it, (+R%I, t,e *ourt ta3es
sto*3 o1 and *ites 2it, a&&rova# t,e 1o##o2ing eG*er&ts 1rom /CC:

;t is a&&ro&riate, in *on*#usion, to em&,asi$e t,e narro2ness o1 our
,o#ding. +,is *ase does not invo#ve a t2o!2a6 radio *onversation bet2een a *ab
driver and a dis&at*,er, or a te#e*ast o1 an ?#i$abet,an *omed6. >e ,ave not
de*ided t,at an o**asiona# eG&#etive in eit,er setting 2ou#d )usti16 an6 san*tion. G
G G +,e 4==%As5 de*ision rested entire#6 on a nuisan*e rationa#e under 2,i*,
*onteGt is a## im&ortant. +,e *on*e&t reFuires *onsideration o1 a ,ost o1 variab#es.
+,e time o1 da6 2as em&,asi$ed b6 t,e 4==%5. +,e *ontent o1 t,e &rogram in
2,i*, t,e #anguage is used 2i## a11e*t t,e *om&osition o1 t,e audien*e G G G. 's
(r. Justi*e "ut,er#and 2rote a Tnuisan*e ma6 be mere#6 a rig,t t,ing in t,e 2rong
&#a*e, #i3e a &ig in t,e &ar#or instead o1 t,e barn6ard.A >e sim&#6 ,o#d t,at 2,en
t,e 4=%%5 1inds t,at a &ig ,as entered t,e &ar#or, t,e eGer*ise o1 its regu#ator6
&o2er does not de&end on &roo1 t,at t,e &ig is obs*ene. 8%itation omitted.9

+,ere *an be no Fuibb#ing t,at t,e remar3s in Fuestion &etitioner uttered on
&rime!time te#evision are b#atant#6 inde*ent i1 not outrig,t obs*ene. ;t is t,e 3ind
o1 s&ee*, t,at PD 1986 &ros*ribes ne*essitating t,e eGer*ise b6 (+R%I o1
statutor6 dis*i&#inar6 &o2ers. ;t is t,e 3ind o1 s&ee*, t,at t,e "tate ,as t,e
in,erent &rerogative, na6 dut6, to regu#ate and &revent s,ou#d su*, a*tion served
and 1urt,er *om&e##ing state interests. @ne 2,o utters inde*ent, insu#ting, or
o11ensive 2ords on te#evision 2,en unsus&e*ting *,i#dren are in t,e audien*e is, in
t,e gra&,i* #anguage o1 /CC, a K&ig in t,e &ar#or.L Pub#i* interest 2ou#d be served
i1 t,e K&igL is reasonab#6 restrained or even removed 1rom t,e K&ar#or.L

?rgo, &etitionerAs o11ensive and inde*ent #anguage *an be sub)e*ted to &rior
restraint.

Petitioner t,eori$es t,at t,e t,ree 839!mont, sus&ension is eit,er &rior
restraint or subseFuent &unis,ment t,at, ,o2ever, in*#udes &rior restraint, a#beit
indire*t#6.

'1ter a revie2 o1 t,e 1a*ts, t,e %ourt 1inds t,at 2,at (+R%I im&osed on
&etitioner is an administrative san*tion or subseFuent &unis,ment 1or ,is o11ensive
and obs*ene #anguage in ;ng :ating :aan.

+o *#ari16, statutes im&osing &rior restraints on s&ee*, are genera##6 i##ega#
and &resumed un*onstitutiona# brea*,es o1 t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*,. +,e eG*e&tions
to &rior restraint are movies, te#evision, and radio broad*ast *ensors,i& in vie2 o1
its a**ess to numerous &eo&#e, in*#uding t,e 6oung 2,o must be insu#ated 1rom t,e
&re)udi*ia# e11e*ts o1 un&rote*ted s&ee*,. PD 1986 2as &assed *reating t,e Ioard
o1 Revie2 1or (otion Pi*tures and +e#evision 8no2 (+R%I9 and 2,i*, reFuires
&rior &ermit or #i*ense be1ore s,o2ing a motion &i*ture or broad*asting a +<
&rogram. +,e Ioard *an *#assi16 movies and te#evision &rograms and *an *an*e#
&ermits 1or eG,ibition o1 1i#ms or te#evision broad*ast.

+,e &o2er o1 (+R%I to regu#ate and even im&ose some &rior restraint on
radio and te#evision s,o2s, even re#igious &rograms, 2as u&,e#d in Iglesia %i
Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals. "&ea3ing t,roug, %,ie1 Justi*e Re6nato ". Puno, t,e
%ourt 2rote:

>e t,us re)e*t &etitionerAs &ostu#ate t,at its re#igious &rogram is per
se be6ond revie2 b6 t,e res&ondent Ioard. ;ts &ub#i* broad*ast on +< o1 its
re#igious &rogram brings it out o1 t,e bosom o1 interna# be#ie1. +e#evision is a
medium t,at rea*,es even t,e e6es and ears o1 *,i#dren. +,e %ourt iterates t,e
ru#e t,at t,e eGer*ise o1 re#igious 1reedom *an be regu#ated b6 t,e "tate 2,en it
2i## bring about t,e *#ear and &resent danger o1 some substantive evi# 2,i*, t,e
"tate is dut6 bound to &revent, i.e., serious detriment to t,e more overriding
interest o1 &ub#i* ,ea#t,, &ub#i* mora#s, or &ub#i* 2e#1are. G G G

G G G G

>,i#e t,e t,esis ,as a #ot to *ommend itse#1, 2e are not read6 to ,o#d t,at
4PD 19865 is un*onstitutiona# 1or %ongress to grant an administrative bod6 Fuasi!
)udi*ia# &o2er to &revie2 and *#assi16 +< &rograms and en1or*e its de*ision
sub)e*t to revie2 b6 our *ourts. 's 1ar ba*3 as 19.1, 2e u&,e#d t,is setu&
in Sotto vs. Rui(, vi$:

K+,e use o1 t,e mai#s b6 &rivate &ersons is in t,e nature o1 a
&rivi#ege 2,i*, *an be regu#ated in order to avoid its abuse. Persons
&ossess no abso#ute rig,t to &ut into t,e mai# an6t,ing t,e6 &#ease,
regard#ess o1 its *,ara*ter.L
4635

Iernas adds:

Bnder t,e de*ree a movie *#assi1i*ation board is made t,e arbiter o1 2,at
movies and te#evision &rograms or &arts o1 eit,er are 1it 1or &ub#i*
*onsum&tion. ;t de*ides 2,at movies are Kimmora#, inde*ent, *ontrar6 to #a2
andEor good *ustoms, in)urious to t,e &restige o1 t,e Re&ub#i* o1 t,eP,i#i&&ines or
its &eo&#e,L and 2,at Ktend to in*ite subversion, insurre*tion, rebe##ion or
sedition,L or Ktend to undermine t,e 1ait, and *on1iden*e o1 t,e &eo&#e in t,eir
government andEor du#6 *onstituted aut,orities,L et*. (oreover, its de*isions are
eGe*utor6 un#ess sto&&ed b6 a *ourt.
4605


(oreover, in *-RC2 v. ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corporation,
4655
it 2as ,e#d
t,at t,e &o2er o1 revie2 and &rior a&&rova# o1 (+R%I eGtends to a## te#evision
&rograms and is va#id des&ite t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, guaranteed b6 t,e
%onstitution. +,us, a## broad*ast net2or3s are regu#ated b6 t,e (+R%I sin*e t,e6
are reFuired to get a &ermit be1ore t,e6 air t,eir te#evision &rograms. %onseFuent#6,
t,eir rig,t to en)o6 t,eir 1reedom o1 s&ee*, is sub)e*t to t,at reFuirement. 's
#u*id#6 eG&#ained b6 Justi*e Dante @. +inga, government regu#ations t,roug, t,e
(+R%I be*ame Ka ne*essar6 evi#L 2it, t,e government ta3ing t,e ro#e o1
assigning band2idt, to individua# broad*asters. +,e stations eG&#i*it#6 agreed to
t,is regu#ator6 s*,emeH ot,er2ise, *,aos 2ou#d resu#t in t,e te#evision broad*ast
industr6 as *om&eting broad*asters 2i## inter1ere or *o!o&t ea*, ot,erAs signa#s. ;n
t,is s*,eme, station o2ners and broad*asters in e11e*t 2aived t,eir rig,t to t,e 1u##
en)o6ment o1 t,eir rig,t to 1reedom o1 s&ee*, in radio and te#evision &rograms and
im&#ied#6 agreed t,at said rig,t ma6 be sub)e*t to &rior restraintSdenia# o1 &ermit
or subseFuent &unis,ment, #i3e sus&ension or *an*e##ation o1 &ermit, among
ot,ers.

+,e t,ree 839 mont,s sus&ension in t,is *ase is not a &rior restraint on t,e
rig,t o1 &etitioner to *ontinue 2it, t,e broad*ast o1;ng :ating :aan as a &ermit
2as a#read6 issued to ,im b6 (+R%I 1or su*, broad*ast. Rat,er, t,e sus&ension
is in t,e 1orm o1 &ermissib#e administrative san*tion or subseFuent &unis,ment 1or
t,e o11ensive and obs*ene remar3s ,e uttered on t,e evening o1 'ugust 1/, .//0 in
,is te#evision &rogram, ;ng :ating :aan. ;t is a san*tion t,at t,e (+R%I ma6
va#id#6 im&ose under its *,arter 2it,out running a1ou# o1 t,e 1ree s&ee*,
*#ause. 'nd t,e im&osition is se&arate and distin*t 1rom t,e *rimina# a*tion t,e
Ioard ma6 ta3e &ursuant to "e*. 38i9 o1 PD 1986 and t,e remedies t,at ma6 be
avai#ed o1 b6 t,e aggrieved &rivate &art6 under t,e &rovisions on #ibe# or tort, i1
a&&#i*ab#e. 's /CC tea*,es, t,e im&osition o1 san*tions on broad*asters 2,o
indu#ge in &ro1ane or inde*ent broad*asting does not *onstitute 1orbidden
*ensors,i&. 7est it be over#oo3ed, t,e san*tion im&osed is not per se 1or
&etitionerAs eGer*ise o1 ,is 1reedom o1 s&ee*, via te#evision, but 1or t,e inde*ent
*ontents o1 ,is utteran*es in a KGL rated +< &rogram.

(ore im&ortant#6, &etitioner is deemed to ,ave 6ie#ded ,is rig,t to ,is 1u##
en)o6ment o1 ,is 1reedom o1 s&ee*, to regu#ation under PD 1986 and its ;RR as
te#evision station o2ners, &rogram &rodu*ers, and ,osts ,ave im&#ied#6 a**e&ted
t,e &o2er o1 (+R%I to regu#ate t,e broad*ast industr6.
Neit,er *an &etitionerAs virtua# inabi#it6 to s&ea3 in ,is &rogram during t,e
&eriod o1 sus&ension be &#ausib#6 treated as &rior restraint on 1uture s&ee*,. =or
vie2ed in its &ro&er &ers&e*tive, t,e sus&ension is in t,e nature o1 an intermediate
&ena#t6 1or uttering an un&rote*ted 1orm o1 s&ee*,. ;t is de1inite#6 a #esser
&unis,ment t,an t,e &ermissib#e *an*e##ation o1 eG,ibition or broad*ast &ermit or
#i*ense. ;n 1ine, t,e sus&ension meted 2as sim&#6 &art o1 t,e duties o1 t,e (+R%I
in t,e en1or*ement and administration o1 t,e #a2 2,i*, it is tas3ed to
im&#ement. <ie2ed in its &ro&er *onteGt, t,e sus&ension soug,t to &ena#i$e &ast
s&ee*, made on &rime!time KGL rated +< &rogramH it does not bar 1uture s&ee*, o1
&etitioner in ot,er te#evision &rogramsH it is a &ermissib#e subseFuent
administrative san*tionH it s,ou#d not be *on1used 2it, a &rior restraint on
s&ee*,. >,i#e not on a## 1ours, t,e %ourt, in *-RC2,
4665
sustained t,e &o2er o1 t,e
(+R%I to &ena#i$e a broad*ast *om&an6 1or eG,ibitingEairing a &re!ta&ed +<
e&isode 2it,out Ioard aut,ori$ation in vio#ation o1 "e*. - o1 PD 1986.

'n6 sim&#isti* suggestion, ,o2ever, t,at t,e (+R%I 2ou#d be *rossing t,e
#imits o1 its aut,orit6 2ere it to regu#ate and even restrain t,e &rime!time te#evision
broad*ast o1 inde*ent or obs*ene s&ee*, in a KGL rated &rogram is not
a**e&tab#e. 's made *#ear in ?astern 2road!asting Corporation, Kt,e 1reedom o1
te#evision and radio broad*asting is some2,at #esser in s*o&e t,an t,e 1reedom
a**orded to ne2s&a&er and &rint media.L +,e (+R%I, as a regu#ator6 agen*6,
must ,ave t,e 2,ere2it,a# to en1or*e its mandate, 2,i*, 2ou#d not be e11e*tive i1
its &unitive a*tions 2ou#d be #imited to mere 1ines. +e#evision broad*asts s,ou#d
be sub)e*t to some 1orm o1 regu#ation, *onsidering t,e ease 2it, 2,i*, t,e6 *an be
a**essed, and vio#ations o1 t,e regu#ations must be met 2it, a&&ro&riate and
&ro&ortiona# dis*i&#inar6 a*tion. +,e sus&ension o1 a vio#ating te#evision &rogram
2ou#d be a su11i*ient &unis,ment and serve as a deterrent 1or t,ose
res&onsib#e. +,e &revention o1 t,e broad*ast o1 &etitionerAs te#evision &rogram is
)usti1ied, and does not *onstitute &ro,ibited &rior restraint. ;t be,ooves t,e %ourt
to res&ond to t,e needs o1 t,e *,anging times, and *ra1t )uris&ruden*e to re1#e*t
t,ese times.

Petitioner, in Fuestioning t,e t,ree!mont, sus&ension, a#so tags as
un*onstitutiona# t,e ver6 #a2 *reating t,e (+R%I, arguing t,at PD 1986, as
a&&#ied to ,im, in1ringes a#so u&on ,is 1reedom o1 re#igion. +,e %ourt ,as ear#ier
adeFuate#6 eG&#ained 2,6 &etitionerAs undue re#ian*e on t,e re#igious 1reedom
*annot #end )usti1i*ation, #et a#one an eGem&ting dimension to ,is #i*entious
utteran*es in ,is &rogram. +,e %ourt sees no need to address ane2 t,e re&etitive
arguments on re#igious 1reedom. 's ear#ier dis*ussed in t,e dis&osition o1 t,e
&etition in G.R. No. 160-85, 2,at 2as uttered 2as in no 2a6 a re#igious
s&ee*,. Parent,eti*a##6, &etitionerAs attem&t to *,ara*teri$e ,is s&ee*, as a
#egitimate de1ense o1 ,is re#igion 1ai#s miserab#6. :e tries to &#a*e ,is 2ords in
&ers&e*tive, arguing evident#6 as an a1tert,oug,t t,at t,is 2as ,is met,od o1
re1uting t,e a##eged distortion o1 ,is statements b6 t,e ;N% ,osts o1 ;ng -amang
:aan. Iut on t,e nig,t ,e uttered t,em in ,is te#evision &rogram, t,e 2ord sim&#6
*ame out as &ro1ane #anguage, 2it,out an6 2arning or guidan*e 1or undis*erning
ears.

's to &etitionerAs ot,er argument about ,aving been denied due &ro*ess and
eFua# &rote*tion o1 t,e #a2, su11i*e it to state t,at 2e ,ave at #engt, debun3ed
simi#ar arguments in G.R. No. 160-85. +,ere is no need to 1urt,er de#ve into t,e
1a*t t,at &etitioner 2as a11orded due &ro*ess 2,en ,e attended t,e ,earing o1 t,e
(+R%I, and t,at ,e 2as unab#e to demonstrate t,at ,e 2as un)ust#6 dis*riminated
against in t,e (+R%I &ro*eedings.

=ina##6, &etitioner argues t,at t,ere ,as been undue de#egation o1 #egis#ative
&o2er, as PD 1986 does not &rovide 1or t,e range o1 im&osab#e &ena#ties t,at ma6
be a&&#ied 2it, res&e*t to vio#ations o1 t,e &rovisions o1 t,e #a2.

+,e argument is 2it,out merit.

;n ?du v. ?ri!ta, t,e %ourt dis*ussed t,e matter o1 undue de#egation o1
#egis#ative &o2er in t,e 1o##o2ing 2ise:

;t is a 1undamenta# &rin*i&#e 1#o2ing 1rom t,e do*trine o1 se&aration o1
&o2ers t,at %ongress ma6 not de#egate its #egis#ative &o2er to t,e t2o ot,er
bran*,es o1 t,e government, sub)e*t to t,e eG*e&tion t,at #o*a# governments ma6
over #o*a# a11airs &arti*i&ate in its eGer*ise. >,at *annot be de#egated is t,e
aut,orit6 under t,e %onstitution to ma3e #a2s and to a#ter and re&ea# t,emH t,e
test is t,e *om&#eteness o1 t,e statute in a## its term and &rovisions 2,en it #eaves
t,e ,ands o1 t,e #egis#ature. +o determine 2,et,er or not t,ere is an undue
de#egation o1 #egis#ative &o2er, t,e inFuir6 must be dire*ted to t,e s*o&e and
de1initeness o1 t,e measure ena*ted. +,e #egis#ature does not abdi*ate its
1un*tions 2,en it des*ribes 2,at )ob must be done, 2,o is to do it, and 2,at is t,e
s*o&e o1 ,is aut,orit6. =or a *om&#eG e*onom6, t,at ma6 indeed be t,e on#6 2a6
in 2,i*, t,e #egis#ative &ro*ess *an go 1or2ard. ' distin*tion ,as rig,t1u##6 been
made bet2een de#egation o1 &o2er to ma3e #a2s 2,i*, ne*essari#6 invo#ves a
dis*retion as to 2,at it s,a## be, 2,i*, *onstitutiona##6 ma6 not be done, and
de#egation o1 aut,orit6 or dis*retion as to its eGe*ution to be eGer*ised under and
in &ursuan*e o1 t,e #a2, to 2,i*, no va#id ob)e*tion *an be made. +,e
%onstitution is t,us not to be regarded as den6ing t,e #egis#ature t,e ne*essar6
resour*es o1 1#eGibi#it6 and &ra*ti*abi#it6.

+o avoid t,e taint o1 un#a21u# de#egation, t,ere must be a standard, 2,i*,
im&#ies at t,e ver6 #east t,at t,e #egis#ature itse#1 determines matters o1 &rin*i&#e
and #a6s do2n 1undamenta# &o#i*6. @t,er2ise, t,e *,arge o1 *om&#ete abdi*ation
ma6 be ,ard to re&e#. ' standard t,us de1ines #egis#ative &o#i*6, mar3s its #imits,
ma&s out its boundaries and s&e*i1ies t,e &ub#i* agen*6 to a&&#6 it. ;t indi*ates
t,e *ir*umstan*es under 2,i*, t,e #egis#ative *ommand is to be e11e*ted. ;t is t,e
*riterion b6 2,i*, #egis#ative &ur&ose ma6 be *arried out. +,erea1ter, t,e
eGe*utive or administrative o11i*e designated ma6 in &ursuan*e o1 t,e above
guide#ines &romu#gate su&&#ementa# ru#es and regu#ations.
46-5


Iased on t,e 1oregoing &ronoun*ements and ana#6$ing t,e #a2 in Fuestion,
&etitionerAs &rotestation about undue de#egation o1 #egis#ative &o2er 1or t,e so#e
reason t,at PD 1986 does not &rovide 1or a range o1 &ena#ties 1or vio#ation o1 t,e
#a2 is untenab#e. :is t,esis is t,at (+R%I, in &romu#gating t,e ;RR o1 PD 1986,
&res*ribing a s*,edu#e o1 &ena#ties 1or vio#ation o1 t,e &rovisions o1 t,e de*ree,
2ent be6ond t,e terms o1 t,e #a2.

PetitionerAs &osture is 1#a2ed b6 t,e erroneous assum&tions ,o#ding it
toget,er, t,e 1irst assum&tion being t,at PD 1986 does not &res*ribe t,e im&osition
o1, or aut,ori$e t,e (+R%I to im&ose, &ena#ties 1or vio#ators o1 PD 1986. 's
ear#ier indi*ated, ,o2ever, t,e (+R%I, b6 eG&ress and dire*t *on1erment o1
&o2er and 1un*tions, is *,arged 2it, su&ervising and regu#ating, granting, den6ing,
or *an*e#ing &ermits 1or t,e eG,ibition andEor te#evision broad*ast o1 a## motion
&i*tures, te#evision &rograms, and &ub#i*it6 materia#s to t,e end t,at no su*,
ob)e*tionab#e &i*tures, &rograms, and materia#s s,a## be eG,ibited andEor broad*ast
b6 te#evision. %om&#ementing t,is &rovision is "e*. 3839 o1 t,e de*ree aut,ori$ing
t,e (+R%I Kto eGer*ise su*, &o2ers and 1un*tions as ma6 be ne*essar6 or
in*identa# to t,e attainment o1 t,e &ur&ose and ob)e*tives o1 4t,e #a25.L 's ear#ier
eG&#ained, t,e investiture o1 su&ervisor6, regu#ator6, and dis*i&#inar6 &o2er 2ou#d
sure#6 be a meaning#ess grant i1 it did not *arr6 2it, it t,e &o2er to &ena#i$e t,e
su&ervised or t,e regu#ated as ma6 be &ro&ortionate to t,e o11ense *ommitted,
*,arged, and &roved. 's t,e %ourt said inChave( v. %ational 1ousing ;uthority:

G G G 4>5,en a genera# grant o1 &o2er is *on1erred or dut6 en)oined, ever6
&arti*u#ar &o2er ne*essar6 1or t,e eGer*ise o1 t,e one or t,e &er1orman*e o1 t,e
ot,er is a#so *on1erred. G G G 4>5,en t,e statute does not s&e*i16 t,e &arti*u#ar
met,od to be 1o##o2ed or used b6 a government agen*6 in t,e eGer*ise o1 t,e
&o2er vested in it b6 #a2, said agen*6 ,as t,e aut,orit6 to ado&t an6 reasonab#e
met,od to *arr6 out its 1un*tion.
4685


Given t,e 1oregoing &ers&e*tive, it stands to reason t,at t,e &o2er o1 t,e
(+R%I to regu#ate and su&ervise t,e eG,ibition o1 +< &rograms *arries 2it, it or
ne*essari#6 im&#ies t,e aut,orit6 to ta3e e11e*tive &unitive a*tion 1or vio#ation o1
t,e #a2 soug,t to be en1or*ed. 'nd 2ou#d it not be #ogi*a# too to sa6 t,at t,e
&o2er to den6 or *an*e# a &ermit 1or t,e eG,ibition o1 a +< &rogram or broad*ast
ne*essari#6 in*#udes t,e #esser &o2er to sus&endQ

+,e (+R%I &romu#gated t,e ;RR o1 PD 1986 in a**ordan*e 2it, "e*. 38a9
2,i*,, 1or re1eren*e, &rovides t,at agen*6 2it, t,e &o2er K4to5 &romu#gate su*,
ru#es and regu#ations as are ne*essar6 or &ro&er 1or t,e im&#ementation o1 t,is '*t,
and t,e a**om&#is,ment o1 its &ur&oses and ob)e*tives G G G.L 'nd %,a&ter C;;;,
"e*. 1 o1 t,e ;RR &roviding:
"e*tion 1. <;@7'+;@N" 'ND 'D(;N;"+R'+;<? "'N%+;@N".JJ
>it,out &re)udi*e to t,e immediate 1i#ing o1 t,e a&&ro&riate *rimina# a*tion and
t,e immediate sei$ure o1 t,e &ertinent arti*#es &ursuant to "e*tion 13, an'
*",a#"n $ P5 :C=> and "#& I)(,e)en#"n! R+,e& and Re!+,a#"n& !*ern"n!
)#"n ("c#+re&, #e,e*"&"n (r!ra)&, and re,a#ed (r)#"na, )a#er"a,& &%a,,
-e (ena,"@ed /"#% &+&(en&"n r cance,,a#"n $ (er)"#& andKr ,"cen&e& "&&+ed
-' #%e Bard andEor 2it, t,e im&osition o1 1ines and ot,er administrative
&ena#t6E&ena#ties. +,e Ioard re*ogni$es t,e eGisting +ab#e o1 'dministrative
Pena#ties atta*,ed 2it,out &re)udi*e to t,e &o2er o1 t,e Ioard to amend it 2,en
t,e need arises. ;n t,e meantime t,e eGisting revised +ab#e o1 'dministrative
Pena#ties s,a## be en1or*ed. 8?m&,asis added.9


+,is is, in t,e 1ina# ana#6sis, no more t,an a measure to s&e*i1i*a##6
im&#ement t,e a1oreFuoted &rovisions o1 "e*. 38d9 and 839. %ontrar6 to 2,at
&etitioner im&#ies, t,e ;RR does not eG&and t,e mandate o1 t,e (+R%I under t,e
#a2 or &arta3e o1 t,e nature o1 an unaut,ori$ed administrative #egis#ation. +,e
(+R%I *annot s,ir3 its res&onsibi#it6 to regu#ate t,e &ub#i* air2aves and em&#o6
su*, means as it *an as a guardian o1 t,e &ub#i*.

;n "e*. 38*9, one *an a#read6 1ind t,e &ermissib#e a*tions o1 t,e (+R%I,
a#ong 2it, t,e standards to be a&&#ied to determine 2,et,er t,ere ,ave been
statutor6 brea*,es. +,e (+R%I ma6 eva#uate motion &i*tures, te#evision
&rograms, and &ub#i*it6 materia#s Ka&&#6ing *ontem&orar6 =i#i&ino *u#tura# va#ues
as standard,L and, 1rom t,ere, determine 2,et,er t,ese audio and video materia#s
Kare ob)e*tionab#e 1or being immora#, inde*ent, *ontrar6 to #a2 andEor good
*ustoms, 4et*.5 G G GL and a&&#6 t,e san*tions it deems &ro&er. +,e #a2ma3ing
bod6 *annot &ossib#6 &rovide 1or a## t,e detai#s in t,e en1or*ement o1 a &arti*u#ar
statute.
4695
+,e grant o1 t,e ru#e!ma3ing &o2er to administrative agen*ies is a
re#aGation o1 t,e &rin*i&#e o1 se&aration o1 &o2ers and is an eG*e&tion to t,e non!
de#egation o1 #egis#ative &o2ers.
4-/5
'dministrative regu#ations or Ksubordinate
#egis#ationL *a#*u#ated to &romote t,e &ub#i* interest are ne*essar6 be*ause o1 Kt,e
gro2ing *om&#eGit6 o1 modern #i1e, t,e mu#ti&#i*ation o1 t,e sub)e*ts o1
governmenta# regu#ations, and t,e in*reased di11i*u#t6 o1 administering t,e
#a2.L
4-15
'##o2ing t,e (+R%I some reasonab#e e#bo2!room in its o&erations and,
in t,e eGer*ise o1 its statutor6 dis*i&#inar6 1un*tions, a**ording it am&#e #atitude in
1iGing, b6 2a6 o1 an a&&ro&riate issuan*e, administrative &ena#ties 2it, due regard
1or t,e severit6 o1 t,e o11ense and attending mitigating or aggravating
*ir*umstan*es, as t,e *ase ma6 be, 2ou#d be *onsistent 2it, its mandate to
e11e*tive#6 and e11i*ient#6 regu#ate t,e movie and te#evision industr6.

Iut even as 2e u&,o#d t,e &o2er o1 t,e (+R%I to revie2 and im&ose
san*tions 1or vio#ations o1 PD 1986, its de*ision to sus&end &etitioner must be
modi1ied, 1or no2,ere in t,at issuan*e, &arti*u#ar#6 t,e &o2er!de1ining "e*. 3 nor
in t,e (+R%I "*,edu#e o1 'dministrative Pena#ties e11e*tive Januar6 1, 1999 is
t,e Ioard em&o2ered to sus&end t,e &rogram ,ost or even to &revent *ertain
&eo&#e 1rom a&&earing in te#evision &rograms. +,e (+R%I, to be sure, ma6
&ro,ibit t,e broad*ast o1 su*, te#evision &rograms or *an*e# &ermits 1or eG,ibition,
but it ma6 not sus&end te#evision &ersona#ities, 1or su*, 2ou#d be be6ond its
)urisdi*tion. +,e (+R%I *annot eGtend its eGer*ise o1 regu#ation be6ond 2,at t,e
#a2 &rovides. @n#6 &ersons, o11enses, and &ena#ties *#ear#6 1a##ing *#ear#6 2it,in
t,e #etter and s&irit o1 PD 1986 2i## be *onsidered to be 2it,in t,e de*reeAs &ena#
or dis*i&#inar6 o&eration. 'nd 2,en it eGists, t,e reasonab#e doubt must be
reso#ved in 1avor o1 t,e &erson *,arged 2it, vio#ating t,e statute and 1or 2,om t,e
&ena#t6 is soug,t. +,us, t,e (+R%IAs de*ision in 'dministrative %ase No. /1!/0
dated "e&tember .-, .//0 and t,e subseFuent order issued &ursuant to said
de*ision must be modi1ied. +,e sus&ension s,ou#d *over on#6 t,e te#evision
&rogram on 2,i*, &etitioner a&&eared and uttered t,e o11ensive and obs*ene
#anguage, 2,i*, san*tion is 2,at t,e #a2 and t,e 1a*ts obtaining *a## 1or.

;n ending, 2,at &etitioner obvious#6 advo*ates is an unrestri*ted s&ee*,
&aradigm in 2,i*, abso#ute &ermissiveness is t,e norm. PetitionerAs 1#a2ed be#ie1
t,at ,e ma6 sim&#6 utter gutter &ro1anit6 on te#evision 2it,out adverse
*onseFuen*es, under t,e guise o1 1ree s&ee*,, does not #end itse#1 to a**e&tan*e in
t,is )urisdi*tion. >e re&eat: 1reedoms o1 s&ee*, and eG&ression are not abso#ute
1reedoms. +o sa6 Kan6 a*t t,at restrains s&ee*, s,ou#d be greeted 2it, 1urro2ed
bro2sL is not to sa6 t,at an6 a*t t,at restrains or regu#ates s&ee*, or eG&ression
is per se inva#id. +,is on#6 re*ogni$es t,e im&ortan*e o1 1reedoms o1 s&ee*, and
eG&ression, and indi*ates t,e ne*essit6 to *are1u##6 s*rutini$e a*ts t,at ma6 restrain
or regu#ate s&ee*,.

3HERE4ORE, t,e de*ision o1 t,e (+R%I in 'dm. %ase No. /1!/0 dated
"e&tember .-, .//0 is ,ereb6 A44IRME52it, t,e MO5I4ICATION o1 #imiting
t,e sus&ension to t,e &rogram ;ng :ating :aan. 's t,us modi1ied, t,e allo o1 t,e
(+R%I s,a## read as 1o##o2s:

>:?R?=@R?, in vie2 o1 a## t,e 1oregoing, a De*ision is ,ereb6
rendered, im&osing a &ena#t6 o1 THREE (1) MONTHS S7SPENSION n #%e
#e,e*"&"n (r!ra), An* Datin* Daan, sub)e*t o1 t,e instant &etition.

%o!res&ondents Jose#ito (a##ari, 7u$viminda %ru$, and BN+< %,anne#
3- and its o2ner, PI%, are ,ereb6 eGonerated 1or #a*3 o1 eviden*e.


%osts against &etitioner.

SO OR5ERE5.



PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
'sso*iate Justi*e










>? %@N%BR:


REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e




LEONAR5O A. 87IS7MBING CONS7ELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA A7STRIA-MARTINED
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




5ANTE O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO-NADARIO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate
Justi*e



ANTONIO E57AR5O B. NACH7RA TERESITA J. LEONAR5O-5E
'sso*iate Justi*e CASTRO
'sso*iate Justi*e



ART7RO 5. BRION 5IOS5A5O M.
PERALTA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




L7CAS P. BERSAMIN
'sso*iate Justi*e






C E R T I 4 I C A T I O N


Pursuant to "e*tion 13, 'rti*#e <;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, it is ,ereb6 *erti1ied
t,at t,e *on*#usions in t,e above De*ision 2ere rea*,ed in *onsu#tation be1ore t,e
*ase 2as assigned to t,e 2riter o1 t,e o&inion o1 t,e %ourt.



REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e





415
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1656369, &. 3-5.

4.5
;d. at 9.3.

435
;d. at 9.0, Private Res&ondentsA (emorandum.

405
;d. at 11/.

455
;d. at 11.!113, Ru#es o1 Pro*edure in t,e %ondu*t o1 :earing 1or <io#ations o1 PD 1986 and t,e ;RR.

465
;d. at 101!151.

4-5
;d. at 15.!150.

485
;d. at 166!.5..

495
;d. at 3-8.

41/5
;d. at 18..

4115
;d. at 06.

41.5
;(ar!on v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116/33, =ebruar6 .6, 199-, .68 "%R' -0-.

4135
9imentel v. CO*?L?C, Nos. 7!53581!83, De*ember 19, 198/, 1/1 "%R' -69.

4105
'g&a#o, 'D(;N;"+R'+;<? 7'> 8.//59H *iting *atien(on v. ;bellera, G.R. No. --63., June 8,
1988, 16. "%R' 1.

4155
Lastimoso v. ,as#ue(, G.R. No. 1168/1, '&ri# 6, 1995, .03 "%R' 09-.

4165
;lon(o v. Capulong, G.R. No. 11/59/, (a6 1/, 1995, .00 "%R' 8/H 2e'a v. Court o ;ppeals, G.R.
No. 9-109, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' 689.

41-5
Chave( v. %ational 1ousing ;uthority, G.R. No. 1605.-, 'ugust 15, .//-, 53/ "%R' .35, .95!.96H
*iting ;(ar!on, su&ra note 1., at -61H Radio Communi!ations o the 9hilippines) In!. v. Santiago, Nos. 7!.9.36 D
.9.0-, 'ugust .1, 19-0, 58 "%R' 093, 09-.

4185
63 P,i#. 139, 1-- 819369.

4195
Rollo 8G.R. No. 160-859, &. 1..

4./5
;d. at 90.

4.15
;d. at 95.

4..5
2e'a, su&ra note 16H ?spiritu v. *elgar, G.R. No. 1//8-0, =ebruar6 13, 199., ./6 "%R' .56.

4.35
1 De 7eon, P:;7;PP;N? %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> .-0 8.//39.

4.05
-iu v. +uingona, G.R. No. 1.-01/, Januar6 ./, 1999, 3/1 "%R' .-8H *iting I!hong v. 1ernande(, 1/1
P,i#. 1155 8195-9 and ot,er *ases.
4.55
@S v. 9aramount 9i!tures, 330 B.". 131H ?astern 2road!asting Corporation v. :ans, Jr., No. 7!593.9,
Ju#6 19, 1985, 13- "%R' 6.8.

4.65
?astern 2road!asting Corporation v. :ans) Jr., su&ra note .5H *iting /CC v. 9a!ii!a /oundation,
038 B.". -.6H +on(ales v. Galaw Gatigbak, No. 7!695//, Ju#6 .., 1985, 13- "%R' -1-.

4.-5
J.G. Iernas, ".J., +:? %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R ./5 819969.

4.85
Lagunsad v. Soto vda. :e +on(ales, No. 7!3./66, 'ugust 6, 19-9, 9. "%R' 0-6.

4.95
-rohwerk v. @nited States) .09 B.". ./0 819199H *ited in Iernas, su&ra at .18.

43/5
G.R. No. 136185, @*tober 3/, .///, 300 "%R' 081, 09/.
4315
315 B.". 568 8190.9.
43.5
'g&a#o, P:;7;PP;N? %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> 358 8.//69.
4335
Chaplinsky, su&ra note 31H *ited in Iernas, su&ra note .-, at .08.
4305
Iernas, su&ra note .-, at .08.

4355
G.R. No. 159-51, De*ember 6, .//6, 51/ "%R' 351, 36/!361.

4365
013 B.". 15.

43-5
038 B.". -.6.

4385
"u&ra note .5.

4395
G.R. No. 168338, =ebruar6 15, .//8, 505 "%R' 001.

40/5
K",it, &iss, 1u*3, tits, et*.L

4015
"u&ra note 39.

40.5
"u&ra note .6.
4035
+on(ales v. Galaw Gatigbak, su&ra.
4005
9harma!euti!al and 1ealth Care ;sso!iation o the 9hilippines v. 1ealth Se!retary /ran!is!o -. :u#ue
III, G.R. No. 1-3/30, @*tober 9, .//-, 535 "%R' .65.

4055
2ayan v. ?rmita, G.R. No. 169838, '&ri# .5, .//6, 088 "%R' ..6.
4065
16' 'm Jur. .d %onstitutiona# 7a2 "e*. 093H S!hen!k v. @nited States, .09 B.". 0-.
40-5
Iernas, su&ra note .-, at .19!../.
4085
+on(ales v. CO*?L?C, No. 7!.-833, '&ri# 18, 1969, .- "%R' 835.
4095
;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 133086, Januar6 .8, .///, 3.3 "%R'
811H ;diong v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1..
45/5
Ialdivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. -969/!-/- D 8/5-8, =ebruar6 1, 1989, 1-/ "%R' 1.
4515
"u&ra note .5, at 635.
45.5
No. 7!8.38/, '&ri# .9, 1988, 16/ "%R' 861.

4535
"u&ra note 08.

4505
"u&ra at 898.
4555
"u&ra at 899!9//.
4565
Nau&er, %;<;7 7;I?R+;?" 'ND +:? %@N"+;+B+;@N 113 819669H *ited in +on(ales v. CO*?L?C,
su&ra note 08H a#so *ited in J.G. Iernas, ".J., +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:?
P:;7;PP;N?": ' %@((?N+'R 8.//39.

45-5
;d.

4585
Iernas, su&ra note .-, at 81.

4595
%@N"+;+B+;@N, 'rt. ;;, "e*. 13.

46/5
;d., id., "e*. 1..

4615
;d.

46.5
"u&ra note .6, at -.9.

4635
G.R. No. 1196-3, Ju#6 .6, 1996, .59 "%R' 5.9, 500, 55..

4605
"u&ra note 56, at .35.

4655
G.R. No. 155.8., Januar6 1-, .//5, 008 "%R' 5-5.

4665
"u&ra note 65.

46-5
No. 7!3./96, @*tober .0, 19-/, 35 "%R' 081, 096!09-.

4685
"u&ra note 1-H *iting ;ngara v. ?le!toral Commission, 63 P,i#. 139 819369H 9rovident -ree /arms) In!.
v. 2atario) Jr., G.R. No. 9..85, (ar*, .8, 1990, .31 "%R' 063.

4695
9eople v. *a!eren, No. 7!3.166, @*tober 18, 19--, -9 "%R' 05/, 058.

4-/5
;d.

4-15
;d.
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 173035 O)+o4e/ 9, 2007
6HARMACEUT$CAL AN3 HEALTH CARE ASSOC$AT$ON O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, petitioner,
vs.
HEALTH SECRETAR# "RANC$SCO T. 3U<UE $$$I HEALTH UN3ER SECRETAR$ES 3R. ETHEL#N 6. N$ETO, 3R. MARGAR$TA
M. GALON, ATT#. ALE7AN3ER A. 6A3$LLA, N 3R. JA3E ". 3EL MUN3OI n! ASS$STANT SECRETAR$ES 3R. MAR$O C.
%$LLA%ER3E, 3R. 3A%$3 J. LO1A3A, AN3 3R. NEMES$O T. GA;O,respondents.
3 E C $ S $ O N
AUSTR$A-MART$NE1, J.>
+he Court and all parties involved are in a)ree$ent that the best nourish$ent 'or an in'ant is $other1s $ilk. +here is nothin) )reater
than 'or a $other to nurture her beloved child strai)ht 'ro$ her boso$. +he ideal is, o' course, 'or each and every Filipino child to
en>oy the uneDualed bene'its o' breast$ilk. 8ut ho( should this end be attainedI
8e'ore the Court is a petition 'or certiorari under <ule 6/ o' the <ules o' Court, seekin) to nulli'y ;d$inistrative 6rder 2;.6.3 #o.
!556-551! entitled, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of !ecutive "rder #o. $%, "ther&ise 'no&n as The ()il*
Code,( Relevant International +greements, ,enali-ing .iolations Thereof, and for "ther ,urposes 2<:<<3. "etitioner posits
that the <:<< is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and )o beyond the la( it is supposed to i$ple$ent.
#a$ed as respondents are the ,ealth Secretary, Andersecretaries, and ;ssistant Secretaries o' the Cepart$ent o' ,ealth 2C6,3.
For purposes o' herein petition, the C6, is dee$ed i$pleaded as a co-respondent since respondents issued the Duestioned <:<<
in their capacity as o''icials o' said e9ecutive a)ency.
1
79ecutive 6rder #o. /1 2&ilk Code3 (as issued by "resident Corazon ;Duino on 6ctober !J, 19J6 by virtue o' the le)islative po(ers
)ranted to the president under the Freedo$ Constitution. 6ne o' the prea$bular clauses o' the &ilk Code states that the la( seeks
to )ive e''ect to ;rticle 11
!
o' the :nternational Code o' &arketin) o' 8reast$ilk Substitutes 2:C&8S3, a code adopted by the World
,ealth ;sse$bly 2W,;3 in 19J1. Fro$ 19J! to !556, the W,; adopted several <esolutions to the e''ect that breast'eedin) should
be supported, pro$oted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health clai$s are not per$itted 'or breast$ilk
substitutes.
:n 1995, the "hilippines rati'ied the :nternational Convention on the <i)hts o' the Child. ;rticle !4 o' said instru$ent provides that
State "arties should take appropriate $easures to di$inish in'ant and child $ortality, and ensure that all se)$ents o' society,
specially parents and children, are in'or$ed o' the advanta)es o' breast'eedin).
6n &ay 1/, !556, the C6, issued herein assailed <:<< (hich (as to take e''ect on July 0, !556.
,o(ever, on June !J, !556, petitioner, representin) its $e$bers that are $anu'acturers o' breast$ilk substitutes, 'iled the present
"etition 'or ,ertiorari and "rohibition (ith "rayer 'or the :ssuance o' a +e$porary <estrainin) 6rder 2+<63 or Writ o' "reli$inary
:n>unction.
+he $ain issue raised in the petition is (hether respondents o''icers o' the C6, acted (ithout or in e9cess o' >urisdiction, or (ith
)rave abuse o' discretion a$ountin) to lack or e9cess o' >urisdiction, and in violation o' the provisions o' the Constitution in
pro$ul)atin) the <:<<.

6n ;u)ust 1/, !556, the Court issued a <esolution )rantin) a +<6 en>oinin) respondents 'ro$ i$ple$entin) the Duestioned <:<<.
;'ter the Co$$ent and <eply had been 'iled, the Court set the case 'or oral ar)u$ents on June 19, !550. +he Court issued an
;dvisory 2@uidance 'or 6ral ;r)u$ents3 dated June /, !550, to (it*
+he Court hereby sets the 'ollo(in) issues*
1. Whether or not petitioner is a real party-in-interest=
!. Whether ;d$inistrative 6rder #o. !556-551! or the <evised :$ple$entin) <ules and <e)ulations 2<:<<3 issued
by the Cepart$ent o' ,ealth 2C6,3 is not constitutional=
!.1 Whether the <:<< is in accord (ith the provisions o' 79ecutive 6rder #o. /1 2&ilk Code3=
!.! Whether pertinent international a)ree$ents
1
entered into by the "hilippines are part o' the la( o' the land and
$ay be i$ple$ented by the C6, throu)h the <:<<= :' in the a''ir$ative, (hether the <:<< is in accord (ith the
international a)ree$ents=
!. Whether Sections 4, /2(3, !!, !, 40, and /! o' the <:<< violate the due process clause and are in restraint o'
trade= and
!.4 Whether Section 1 o' the <:<< on +otal 7''ect provides su''icient standards.
NNNNNNNNNNNNN
1 213 Anited #ations Convention on the <i)hts o' the Child= 2!3 the W,6 and Anice' E!55! @lobal Strate)y on :n'ant
and -oun) Child Feedin)=E and 23 various World ,ealth ;sse$bly 2W,;3 <esolutions.
+he parties 'iled their respective $e$oranda.
+he petition is partly i$bued (ith $erit.
On the issue of petitionerIs standing
With re)ard to the issue o' (hether petitioner $ay prosecute this case as the real party-in-interest, the Court adopts the vie(
enunciated in 79ecutive Secretary v. Court o' ;ppeals,
4
to (it*
+he $odern vie( is that an association has standin) to co$plain o' in>uries to its $e$bers. +his vie( 'uses the le)al
identity o' an association (ith that o' its $e$bers. An ((o)&+&on '( (+n!&n- +o 0&8e (u&+ 0o/ &+( Bo/De/( !e(*&+e
&+( 8)D o0 !&/e)+ &n+e/e(+ &0 &+( .e.4e/( /e 00e)+e! 4, +'e )+&on. An o/-n&H+&on '( (+n!&n- +o ((e/+ +'e
)on)e/n( o0 &+( )on(+&+uen+(.
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 We note that, under its ;rticles o' :ncorporation, the respondent (as or)anized 9 9 9 to act as the representative
o' any individual, co$pany, entity or association on $atters related to the $anpo(er recruit$ent industry, and to
per'or$ other acts and activities necessary to acco$plish the purposes e$bodied therein. +he /e(*on!en+ &(, +'u(,
+'e **/o*/&+e */+, +o ((e/+ +'e /&-'+( o0 &+( .e.4e/(, 4e)u(e &+ n! &+( .e.4e/( /e &n e:e/, */)+&)8
(en(e &!en+&)8. 9 9 9 T'e /e(*on!en+ F((o)&+&onG &( 4u+ +'e .e!&u. +'/ou-' B'&)' &+( &n!&:&!u8 .e.4e/(
(eeD +o .De .o/e e00e)+&:e +'e eL*/e((&on o0 +'e&/ :o&)e( n! +'e /e!/e(( o0 +'e&/ -/&e:n)e(.
/
27$phasis
supplied3
(hich (as reasserted in 0uro( /agong Silang Association- 3nc. %. Quipco,
6
(here the Court ruled that an association has the le)al
personality to represent its $e$bers because the results o' the case (ill a''ect their vital interests.
0
,erein petitioner1s ;$ended ;rticles o' :ncorporation contains a si$ilar provision >ust like in 79ecutive Secretary, that the association
is 'or$ed Eto represent directly or throu)h approved representatives the phar$aceutical and health care industry be'ore the
"hilippine @overn$ent and any o' its a)encies, the $edical pro'essions and the )eneral public.E
J
+hus, as an or)anization, petitioner
de'initely has an interest in 'ul'illin) its avo(ed purpose o' representin) $e$bers (ho are part o' the phar$aceutical and health care
industry. "etitioner is duly authorized
9
to take the appropriate course o' action to brin) to the attention o' )overn$ent a)encies and
the courts any )rievance su''ered by its $e$bers (hich are directly a''ected by the <:<<. "etitioner, (hich is $andated by its
;$ended ;rticles o' :ncorporation to represent the entire industry, (ould be re$iss in its duties i' it 'ails to act on )overn$ental
action that (ould a''ect any o' its industry $e$bers, no $atter ho( 'e( or nu$erous they are. ,ence, petitioner, (hose le)al identity
is dee$ed 'used (ith its $e$bers, should be considered as a real party-in-interest (hich stands to be bene'ited or in>ured by any
>ud)$ent in the present action.
On the constitutionalit' of the pro%isions of the +3++
"&/(+, the Court (ill deter$ine i' pertinent international instru$ents adverted to by respondents are part o' the la( o' the land.
"etitioner assails the <:<< 'or alle)edly )oin) beyond the provisions o' the &ilk Code, thereby a$endin) and e9pandin) the
covera)e o' said la(. +he de'ense o' the C6, is that the <:<< i$ple$ents not only the &ilk Code but also various international
instru$ents
15
re)ardin) in'ant and youn) child nutrition. :t is respondents1 position that said international instru$ents are dee$ed part
o' the la( o' the land and there'ore the C6, $ay i$ple$ent the$ throu)h the <:<<.
+he Court notes that the 'ollo(in) international instru$ents invoked by respondents, na$ely* 213 +he Anited #ations Convention on
the <i)hts o' the Child= 2!3 +he :nternational Covenant on 7cono$ic, Social and Cultural <i)hts= and 23 the Convention on the
7li$ination o' ;ll For$s o' Ciscri$ination ;)ainst Wo$en, only provide in )eneral ter$s that steps $ust be taken by State "arties to
di$inish in'ant and child $ortality and in'or$ society o' the advanta)es o' breast'eedin), ensure the health and (ell-bein) o'
'a$ilies, and ensure that (o$en are provided (ith services and nutrition in connection (ith pre)nancy and lactation. Said
instru$ents do not contain speci'ic provisions re)ardin) the use or $arketin) o' breast$ilk substitutes.
+he international instru$ents that do have speci'ic provisions re)ardin) breast$ilk substitutes are the :C&8S and various W,;
<esolutions.
Ander the 19J0 Constitution, international la( can beco$e part o' the sphere o' do$estic la( either
by+/n(0o/.+&on or &n)o/*o/+&on.
11
+he trans'or$ation $ethod reDuires that an international la( be trans'or$ed into a do$estic
la( throu)h a constitutional $echanis$ such as local le)islation. +he incorporation $ethod applies (hen, by $ere constitutional
declaration, international la( is dee$ed to have the 'orce o' do$estic la(.
1!
+reaties beco$e part o' the la( o' the land throu)h +/n(0o/.+&on pursuant to ;rticle ?::, Section !1 o' the Constitution (hich
provides that EFnGo treaty or international a)ree$ent shall be valid and e''ective unless concurred in by at least t(o-thirds o' all the
$e$bers o' the Senate.E +hus, treaties or conventional international la( $ust )o throu)h a process prescribed by the Constitution
'or it to be trans'or$ed into $unicipal la( that can be applied to do$estic con'licts.
1
+he :C&8S and W,; <esolutions are not treaties as they have not been concurred in by at least t(o-thirds o' all $e$bers o' the
Senate as reDuired under Section !1, ;rticle ?:: o' the 19J0 Constitution.
,o(ever, the :C&8S (hich (as adopted by the W,; in 19J1 had been trans'or$ed into do$estic la( throu)h local le)islation, the
&ilk Code. ConseDuently, it is the &ilk Code that has the 'orce and e''ect o' la( in this >urisdiction and not the :C&8S per se.
+he &ilk Code is al$ost a verbati$ reproduction o' the :C&8S, but it is (ell to e$phasize at this point that the Code did not adopt
the provision in the $CMBS 4(o8u+e8, */o'&4&+&n- !:e/+&(&n- or other 'or$s o' pro$otion to the )eneral public o' products (ithin
the scope o' the :C&8S. :nstead, +'e M&8D Co!e eL*/e((8, */o:&!e( +'+ !:e/+&(&n-, */o.o+&on, o/ o+'e/ ./De+&n- .+e/&8(
., 4e 88oBe! &0 (u)' .+e/&8( /e !u8, u+'o/&He! n! **/o:e! 4, +'e $n+e/-A-en), Co..&++ee @$ACA.
6n the other hand, Section !, ;rticle :: o' the 19J0 Constitution, to (it*
S7C+:6# !. +he "hilippines renounces (ar as an instru$ent o' national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international la& as part of the la& of the land and adheres to the policy o' peace, eDuality, >ustice,
'reedo$, cooperation and a$ity (ith all nations. 27$phasis supplied3
e$bodies the &n)o/*o/+&on $ethod.
14
:n Mi2ares %. +anada,
1/
the Court held thus*
F@Generally accepted principles o' international la(, by virtue o' the incorporation clause o' the Constitution, 'or$ part
o' the la(s o' the land even i' they do not derive 'ro$ treaty obli)ations. +he classical 'or$ulation in international la(
sees those custo$ary rules accepted as bindin) result 'ro$ the co$bination Fo'G t(o ele$ents* the established,
(idespread, and consistent practice on the part o' States= and a psycholo)ical ele$ent kno(n as the opinion
>uris (&:e ne)e((&++e( 2opinion as to la( or necessity3. :$plicit in the latter ele$ent is a belie' that the practice in
Duestion is rendered obli)atory by the e9istence o' a rule o' la( reDuirin) it.
16
27$phasis supplied3
E@enerally accepted principles o' international la(E re'ers to nor$s o' )eneral or custo$ary international la( (hich are bindin) on all
states,
10
i.e., renunciation o' (ar as an instru$ent o' national policy, the principle o' soverei)n i$$unity,
1J
a person1s ri)ht to li'e,
liberty and due process,
19
and pacta sunt ser%anda-
!5
a$on) others. +he concept o' E)enerally accepted principles o' la(E has also
been depicted in this (ise*
So$e le)al scholars and >ud)es look upon certain E)eneral principles o' la(E as a pri$ary source o' international la( because +'e,
':e +'e E)'/)+e/ o0 Mu( /+&on8eE n! /e E:8&! +'/ou-' 88 D&n!( o0 'u.n (o)&e+&e(.E 2Jud)e +anaka in his dissentin)
opinion in the 1966 South West ;'rica Case, 1966 :.C.J. !963. 61Connell holds that certain priniciples are part o' international la(
because +'e, /e E4(&) +o 8e-8 (,(+e.( -ene/88,E n! 'en)e */+ o0 +'e Mu( -en+&u.. +hese principles, he believes, are
established by a process o' reasonin) based on the co$$on identity o' all le)al syste$s. :' there should be doubt or disa)ree$ent,
one $ust look to state practice and deter$ine (hether the $unicipal la( principle provides a >ust and acceptable solution. 9 9
9
!1
27$phasis supplied3
Fr. JoaDuin @. 8ernas de'ines custo$ary international la( as 'ollo(s*
Custo$ or custo$ary international la( $eans Ea )eneral and consistent practice o' states 'ollo(ed by the$ 'ro$ a
sense o' le)al obli)ation Fopinio 2urisG.E 2<estate$ent3 T'&( (++e.en+ )on+&n( +'e +Bo 4(&) e8e.en+( o0
)u(+o.> +'e material factor, that &(, 'oB (++e( 4e':e, n! +'e *(,)'o8o-&)8 o/su/0ective factor, +'+ &(,
B', +'e, 4e':e +'e B, +'e, !o.
9 9 9 9
+he initial 'actor 'or deter$inin) the e9istence o' custo$ is the actual behavior o' states. +his includes several
ele$ents* duration, consistency, and )enerality o' the practice o' states.
+he reDuired duration can be either short or lon). 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
Curation there'ore is not the $ost i$portant ele$ent. &ore i$portant is the consistency and the )enerality o' the
practice. 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
6nce the e9istence o' state practice has been established, it beco$es necessary to deter$ine (hy states behave
the (ay they do. Co states behave the (ay they do because +'e, )on(&!e/ &+ o48&-+o/, to behave thus or !o +'e,
!o &+ on8, ( .++e/ o0 )ou/+e(,I "pinio 0uris, o/ +'e 4e8&e0 +'+ )e/+&n 0o/. o0 4e':&o/ &( o48&-+o/,, &(
B'+ .De( */)+&)e n &n+e/n+&on8 /u8e. Without it, practice is not la(.
!!
2Anderscorin) and 7$phasis supplied3
Clearly, custo$ary international la( is dee$ed incorporated into our do$estic syste$.
!
W,; <esolutions have not been e$bodied in any local le)islation. ,ave they attained the status o' custo$ary la( and should they
then be dee$ed incorporated as part o' the la( o' the landI
+he World ,ealth 6r)anization 2W,63 is one o' the international specialized a)encies allied (ith the Anited #ations 2A#3 by virtue
o' ;rticle /0,
!4
in relation to ;rticle 6
!/
o' the A# Charter. Ander the 1946 W,6 Constitution, it is the W,; (hich deter$ines the
policies o' the W,6,
!6
and has the po(er to adopt re)ulations concernin) Eadvertisin) and labelin) o' biolo)ical, phar$aceutical and
si$ilar products $ovin) in international co$$erce,E
!0
and to E$ake reco$$endations to $e$bers (ith respect to any $atter (ithin
the co$petence o' the 6r)anization.E
!J
+he le)al e''ect o' its re)ulations, as opposed to reco$$endations, is Duite di''erent.
<e)ulations, alon) (ith conventions and a)ree$ents, duly adopted by the W,; 4&n! .e.4e/ (++e( thus*
;rticle 19. +he ,ealth ;sse$bly shall have authority to adopt conventions or a)ree$ents (ith respect to any $atter
(ithin the co$petence o' the 6r)anization. ; t(o-thirds vote o' the ,ealth ;sse$bly shall be reDuired 'or the
adoption o' such )on:en+&on( o/ -/ee.en+(, (hich ('88 )o.e &n+o 0o/)e 0o/ e)' Me.4e/ B'en ))e*+e! 4,
&+ &n ))o/!n)e B&+' &+( )on(+&+u+&on8 */o)e((e(.
;rticle !5. E)' Me.4e/ un!e/+De( +'+ &+ B&88, (ithin ei)hteen $onths a'ter the adoption by the ,ealth ;sse$bly
o' a convention or a)ree$ent, +De )+&on /e8+&:e +o +'e ))e*+n)e o0 (u)' )on:en+&on o/ -/ee.en+. 7ach
&e$ber shall noti'y the Cirector-@eneral o' the action taken, and i' it does not accept such convention or a)ree$ent
(ithin the ti$e li$it, it (ill 'urnish a state$ent o' the reasons 'or non-acceptance. :n case o' acceptance, each
&e$ber a)rees to $ake an annual report to the Cirector-@eneral in accordance (ith Chapter S:?.
;rticle !1. +he ,ealth ;sse$bly shall have authority to adopt re)ulations concernin)* 2a3 sanitary and Duarantine
reDuire$ents and other procedures desi)ned to prevent the international spread o' disease= 2b3 no$enclatures (ith
respect to diseases, causes o' death and public health practices= 2c3 standards (ith respect to dia)nostic procedures
'or international use= 2d3 standards (ith respect to the sa'ety, purity and potency o' biolo)ical, phar$aceutical and
si$ilar products $ovin) in international co$$erce= 2e3 advertisin) and labelin) o' biolo)ical, phar$aceutical and
si$ilar products $ovin) in international co$$erce.
;rticle !!. +egulations adopted pursuant to Article = shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been
gi%en of their adoption b' the )ealth Assembl' e:cept for such Members as ma' notif' the 4irector-General of
re2ection or reser%ations within the period stated in the notice. 27$phasis supplied3
6n the other hand, un!e/ A/+&)8e 23, /e)o..en!+&on( o0 +'e WHA !o no+ )o.e &n+o 0o/)e 0o/ .e.4e/(,in the sa$e (ay that
conventions or a)ree$ents under ;rticle 19 and /e-u8+&on( un!e/ A/+&)8e 21 co$e into 'orce. ;rticle ! o' the W,6 Constitution
reads*
;rticle !. +he ,ealth ;sse$bly shall have authority to ma*e recommendations to &e$bers (ith respect to any
$atter (ithin the co$petence o' the 6r)anization. 27$phasis supplied3
+he absence o' a provision in ;rticle ! o' any $echanis$ by (hich the reco$$endation (ould co$e into 'orce 'or $e$ber states is
conspicuous.
+he 'or$er Senior %e)al 6''icer o' W,6, Sa$i Shubber, stated that W,; reco$$endations are )enerally not bindin), but they
Ecarry $oral and political (ei)ht, as they constitute the >ud)$ent on a health issue o' the collective $e$bership o' the hi)hest
international body in the 'ield o' health.E
!9
7ven the :C&8S itsel' (as adopted as a $ere reco$$endation, as W,; <esolution #o.
4.!! states*
E+he +hirty-Fourth World ,ealth ;sse$bly 9 9 9 adopts, &n +'e (en(e o0 A/+&)8e 23 o0 +'e Con(+&+u+&on, the
:nternational Code o' &arketin) o' 8reast$ilk Substitutes anne9ed to the present resolution.E 27$phasis supplied3
+he :ntroduction to the :C&8S also reads as 'ollo(s*
:n January 19J1, the 79ecutive 8oard o' the World ,ealth 6r)anization at its si9ty-seventh session, considered the
'ourth dra't o' the code, endorsed it, and unani$ously reco$$ended to the +hirty-'ourth World ,ealth ;sse$bly the
te9t o' a resolution by (hich &+ Bou8! !o*+ +'e )o!e &n +'e 0o/. o0 /e)o..en!+&on /+'e/ +'n /e-u8+&on.
9 9 9 27$phasis supplied3
+he le)al value o' W,; <esolutions as reco$$endations is su$$arized in ;rticle 6! o' the W,6 Constitution, to (it*
;rt. 6!. 7ach $e$ber shall report annually on the action taken (ith respect to reco$$endations $ade to it by the
6r)anization, and (ith respect to conventions, a)ree$ents and re)ulations.
;pparently, the W,; <esolution adoptin) the :C&8S and subseDuent W,; <esolutions ur)in) $e$ber states to i$ple$ent the
:C&8S are $erely reco$$endatory and le)ally non-bindin). T'u(, un8&De B'+ '( 4een !one B&+' +'e $CMBS B'e/e4, +'e
8e-&(8+u/e en)+e! .o(+ o0 +'e */o:&(&on( &n+o 8B B'&)' &( +'e M&8D Co!e, +'e (u4(eKuen+ WHA Re(o8u+&on(,
5
(*e)&0&)88,
*/o:&!&n- 0o/ eL)8u(&:e 4/e(+0ee!&n- 0/o. 0-6 .on+'(, )on+&nue! 4/e(+0ee!&n- u* +o 25 .on+'(, n! 4(o8u+e8,
*/o'&4&+&n- !:e/+&(e.en+( n! */o.o+&on( o0 4/e(+.&8D (u4(+&+u+e(, ':e no+ 4een !o*+e! ( !o.e(+&) 8B.
:t is propounded that W,; <esolutions $ay constitute Eso't la(E or non-bindin) nor$s, principles and practices that in'luence state
behavior.
1
ESo't la(E does not 'all into any o' the cate)ories o' international la( set 'orth in ;rticle J, Chapter ::: o' the 1946 Statute o' the
:nternational Court o' Justice.
!
:t is, ho(ever, an e9pression o' non-bindin) nor$s, principles, and practices that in'luence state
behavior.

Certain declarations and resolutions o' the A# @eneral ;sse$bly 'all under this cate)ory.
4
+he $ost notable is the A#
Ceclaration o' ,u$an <i)hts, (hich this Court has en'orced in various cases, speci'ically, Go%ernment of )ong(ong Special
Administrati%e +egion %. Olalia,
/
Me2off %. 4irector of 0risons,
6
Mi2ares %. +a#ada
0
and Shangri-la 3nternational )otel Management-
Ltd. %. 4e%elopers Group of ,ompanies- 3nc..
J
+he World :ntellectual "roperty 6r)anization 2W:"63, a specialized a)ency attached to the A# (ith the $andate to pro$ote and
protect intellectual property (orld(ide, has resorted to so't la( as a rapid $eans o' nor$ creation, in order Eto re'lect and respond to
the chan)in) needs and de$ands o' its constituents.E
9
6ther international or)anizations (hich have resorted to so't la( include the
:nternational %abor 6r)anization and the Food and ;)riculture 6r)anization 2in the 'or$ o' the ,ode: Alimentarius3.
45
W,6 has resorted to so't la(. +his (as $ost evident at the ti$e o' the Severe ;cute <espiratory Syndro$e 2S;<S3 and ;vian 'lu
outbreaks.
+lthough the I1R Resolution does not create ne& international la& /inding on 21" mem/er states, it
provides an e!cellent e!ample of the po&er of (soft la&( in international relations. International la&yers
typically distinguish /inding rules of international la&-(hard la&(-from non-/inding norms, principles, and
practices that influence state /ehavior-(soft la&.( 21" has during its e!istence generated many soft la&
norms, creating a (soft la& regime( in international governance for pu/lic health.
+he Eso't la(E S;<S and :,< <esolutions represent si)ni'icant steps in layin) the political )round(ork 'or i$proved
international cooperation on in'ectious diseases. +hese resolutions clearly de'ine W,6 $e$ber states1 nor$ative
duty to cooperate 'ully (ith other countries and (ith W,6 in connection (ith in'ectious disease surveillance and
response to outbreaks.
This duty is neither /inding nor enforcea/le, /ut, in the &a*e of the S+RS epidemic, the duty is po&erful
politically 'or t(o reasons. First, the S;<S outbreak has tau)ht the lesson that participatin) in, and enhancin),
international cooperation on in'ectious disease controls is in a country1s sel'-interest 9 9 9 i' this (arnin) is heeded,
the Eso't la(E in the S;<S and :,< <esolution could in'or$ the develop$ent o' )eneral and consistent state practice
on in'ectious disease surveillance and outbreak response, perhaps crystallizin) eventually into custo$ary
international la( on in'ectious disease prevention and control.
41
:n the "hilippines, the e9ecutive depart$ent i$ple$ented certain $easures reco$$ended by W,6 to address the outbreaks o'
S;<S and ;vian 'lu by issuin) 79ecutive 6rder 27.6.3 #o. !51 on ;pril !6, !55 and 7.6. #o. !J5 on February !, !554, dele)atin)
to various depart$ents broad po(ers to close do(n schoolsBestablish$ents, conduct health surveillance and $onitorin), and ban
i$portation o' poultry and a)ricultural products.
:t $ust be e$phasized that even under such an international e$er)ency, the duty o' a state to i$ple$ent the :,< <esolution (as
still considered not bindin) or en'orceable, althou)h said resolutions had )reat political in'luence.
;s previously discussed, 'or an international rule to be considered as custo$ary la(, it $ust be established that such rule is bein)
'ollo(ed by states because they )on(&!e/ &+ o48&-+o/, to co$ply (ith such rules 2opinio 2uris3. <espondents have not presented
any evidence to prove that the W,; <esolutions, althou)h si)ned by $ost o' the $e$ber states, (ere in 'act en'orced or practiced
by at least a $a>ority o' the $e$ber states= neither have respondents proven that any co$pliance by $e$ber states (ith said W,;
<esolutions (as obli)atory in nature.
<espondents 'ailed to establish that the provisions o' pertinent W,; <esolutions are custo$ary international la( that $ay be
dee$ed part o' the la( o' the land.
ConseDuently, le)islation is necessary to trans'or$ the provisions o' the W,; <esolutions into do$estic la(. T'e */o:&(&on( o0 +'e
WHA Re(o8u+&on( )nno+ 4e )on(&!e/e! ( */+ o0 +'e 8B o0 +'e 8n! +'+ )n 4e &.*8e.en+e! 4, eLe)u+&:e -en)&e(
B&+'ou+ +'e nee! o0 8B en)+e! 4, +'e 8e-&(8+u/e.
Se)on!, the Court (ill deter$ine (hether the C6, $ay i$ple$ent the provisions o' the W,; <esolutions by virtue o' its po(ers
and 'unctions under the <evised ;d$inistrative Code even in the absence o' a do$estic la(.
Section , Chapter 1, +itle :S o' the <evised ;d$inistrative Code o' 19J0 provides that the C6, shall !e0&ne +'e n+&on8 'e8+'
*o8&), and i$ple$ent a national health plan (ithin the 'ra$e(ork o' the )overn$ent1s )eneral policies and plans, and &((ue o/!e/(
n! /e-u8+&on( )on)e/n&n- +'e &.*8e.en++&on o0 e(+48&('e! 'e8+' *o8&)&e(.
:t is crucial to ascertain (hether the absolute prohibition on advertisin) and other 'or$s o' pro$otion o' breast$ilk substitutes
provided in so$e W,; <esolutions has been adopted as part o' the national health policy.
<espondents sub$it that the national policy on in'ant and youn) child 'eedin) is e$bodied in ;.6. #o. !55/-5514, dated &ay !,
!55/. 8asically, the ;d$inistrative 6rder declared the 'ollo(in) policy )uidelines* 213 ideal breast'eedin) practices, such as early
initiation o' breast'eedin), e9clusive breast'eedin) 'or the 'irst si9 $onths, e9tended breast'eedin) up to t(o years and beyond= 2!3
appropriate co$ple$entary 'eedin), (hich is to start at a)e si9 $onths= 23 $icronutrient supple$entation= 243 universal salt
iodization= 2/3 the e9ercise o' other 'eedin) options= and 263 'eedin) in e9ceptionally di''icult circu$stances. :ndeed, the pri$acy o'
breast'eedin) 'or children is e$phasized as a national health policy. HoBe:e/, noB'e/e &n A.O. No. 2009-0015 &( &+ !e)8/e! +'+
( */+ o0 (u)' 'e8+' *o8&),, +'e !:e/+&(e.en+ o/ */o.o+&on o0 4/e(+.&8D (u4(+&+u+e( ('ou8! 4e 4(o8u+e8, */o'&4&+e!.
+he national policy o' protection, pro$otion and support o' breast'eedin) cannot auto$atically be eDuated (ith a total ban on
advertisin) 'or breast$ilk substitutes.
:n vie( o' the enact$ent o' the &ilk Code (hich does not contain a total ban on the advertisin) and pro$otion o' breast$ilk
substitutes, but instead, speci'ically creates an :;C (hich (ill re)ulate said advertisin) and pro$otion, it 'ollo(s that a total ban
policy could be i$ple$ented only *u/(un+ +o 8B a$endin) the &ilk Code passed by the constitutionally authorized branch o'
)overn$ent, the le)islature.
+hus, only the provisions o' the &ilk Code, but no+ +'o(e o0 (u4(eKuen+ WHA Re(o8u+&on(, can be validly i$ple$ented by the
C6, throu)h the sub>ect <:<<.
T'&/!, the Court (ill no( deter$ine (hether the provisions o' the <:<< are in accordance (ith those o' the &ilk Code.
:n support o' its clai$ that the <:<< is inconsistent (ith the &ilk Code, petitioner alle)es the 'ollo(in)*
1. +he &ilk Code li$its its covera)e to children 5-1! $onths old, but the <:<< e9tended its covera)e to Eyoun)
childrenE or those 'ro$ a)es t(o years old and beyond*
M$L; CO3E R$RR
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that sa'e and
adeDuate nutrition 'or in'ants is provided, there
is a need to protect and pro$ote breast'eedin)
and to in'or$ the public about the proper use o'
breast$ilk substitutes and supple$ents and
related products throu)h adeDuate, consistent
and ob>ective in'or$ation and appropriate
re)ulation o' the $arketin) and distribution o'
the said substitutes, supple$ents and related
products=
SECT$ON 5@eA. E:n'antE $eans a person 'allin)
(ithin the a)e bracket o' 5-1! $onths.
Se)+&on 2. 6u/*o(e O +hese <evised <ules
and <e)ulations are hereby pro$ul)ated to
ensure the provision o' sa'e and adeDuate
nutrition 'or in'ants and youn) children by the
pro$otion, protection and support o'
breast'eedin) and by ensurin) the proper use
o' breast$ilk substitutes, breast$ilk
supple$ents and related products (hen these
are $edically indicated and only (hen
necessary, on the basis o' adeDuate
in'or$ation and throu)h appropriate $arketin)
and distribution.
Se)+&on 9@00A. E-oun) ChildE $eans a person
'ro$ the a)e o' $ore than t(elve 21!3 $onths
up to the a)e o' three 23 years 26 $onths3.
!. +he &ilk Code reco)nizes that in'ant 'or$ula $ay be a proper and possible substitute 'or breast$ilk in certain
instances= but the <:<< provides Ee9clusive breast'eedin) 'or in'ants 'ro$ 5-6 $onthsE and declares that Ethere is no
substitute nor replace$ent 'or breast$ilkE*
M$L; CO3E R$RR
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that sa'e and
adeDuate nutrition 'or in'ants is provided, there
is a need to protect and pro$ote breast'eedin)
and to in'or$ the public about the proper use o'
breast$ilk substitutes and supple$ents and
related products throu)h adeDuate, consistent
and ob>ective in'or$ation and appropriate
re)ulation o' the $arketin) and distribution o'
the said substitutes, supple$ents and related
products=
Se)+&on 5. 3e)8/+&on o0 6/&n)&*8e( O +he
'ollo(in) are the underlyin) principles 'ro$
(hich the revised rules and re)ulations are
pre$ised upon*
a. 79clusive breast'eedin) is 'or in'ants 'ro$ 5
to si9 263 $onths.
b. +here is no substitute or replace$ent 'or
breast$ilk.
. +he &ilk Code only re)ulates and does not i$pose unreasonable reDuire$ents 'or advertisin) and pro$otion=
<:<< i$poses an absolute ban on such activities 'or breast$ilk substitutes intended 'or in'ants 'ro$ 5-!4 $onths old
or beyond, and 'orbids the use o' health and nutritional clai$s. Section 1 o' the <:<<, (hich provides 'or a Etotal
e''ectE in the pro$otion o' products (ithin the scope o' the Code, is va)ue*
M$L; CO3E R$RR
SECT$ON 6. T'e Gene/8 6u48&) n!
Mo+'e/(. O
2a3 #o advertisin), pro$otion or other
$arketin) $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio or
visual, 'or products (ithin the scope o' this
Code shall be printed, published, distributed,
e9hibited and broadcast unless such $aterials
are duly authorized and approved by an inter-
a)ency co$$ittee created herein pursuant to
the applicable standards provided 'or in this
Code.
Se)+&on 5. 3e)8/+&on o0 6/&n)&*8e( O +he
'ollo(in) are the underlyin) principles 'ro$
(hich the revised rules and re)ulations are
pre$ised upon*
9 9 9 9
'. ;dvertisin), pro$otions, or sponsor-ships o'
in'ant 'or$ula, breast$ilk substitutes and other
related products are prohibited.
Se)+&on 11. 6/o'&4&+&on O #o advertisin),
pro$otions, sponsorships, or $arketin)
$aterials and activities 'or breast$ilk
substitutes intended 'or in'ants and youn)
children up to t(enty-'our 2!43 $onths, shall be
allo(ed, because they tend to convey or )ive
subli$inal $essa)es or i$pressions that
under$ine breast$ilk and breast'eedin) or
other(ise e9a))erate breast$ilk substitutes
andBor replace$ents, as (ell as related
products covered (ithin the scope o' this Code.
Se)+&on 13. ETo+8 E00e)+E - "ro$otion o'
products (ithin the scope o' this Code $ust be
ob>ective and should not eDuate or $ake the
product appear to be as )ood or eDual to
breast$ilk or breast'eedin) in the advertisin)
concept. :t $ust not in any case under$ine
breast$ilk or breast'eedin). +he Etotal e''ectE
should not directly or indirectly su))est that
buyin) their product (ould produce better
individuals, or resultin) in )reater love,
intelli)ence, ability, har$ony or in any $anner
brin) better health to the baby or other such
e9a))erated and unsubstantiated clai$.
Se)+&on 19. Con+en+ o0 M+e/&8(. - +he
'ollo(in) shall not be included in advertisin),
pro$otional and $arketin) $aterials*
a. +e9ts, pictures, illustrations or in'or$ation
(hich discoura)e or tend to under$ine the
bene'its or superiority o' breast'eedin) or (hich
idealize the use o' breast$ilk substitutes and
$ilk supple$ents. :n this connection, no
pictures o' babies and children to)ether (ith
their $others, 'athers, siblin)s, )randparents,
other relatives or care)ivers 2or yayas3 shall be
used in any advertise$ents 'or in'ant 'or$ula
and breast$ilk supple$ents=
b. +he ter$ Ehu$anized,E E$aternalized,E
Eclose to $other1s $ilkE or si$ilar (ords in
describin) breast$ilk substitutes or $ilk
supple$ents=
c. "ictures or te9ts that idealize the use o'
in'ant and $ilk 'or$ula.
Se)+&on 16. ;ll health and nutrition clai$s 'or
products (ithin the scope o' the Code are
absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, any
phrase or (ords that connotes to increase
e$otional, intellectual abilities o' the in'ant and
youn) child and other like phrases shall not be
allo(ed.
4. +he <:<< i$poses additional labelin) reDuire$ents not 'ound in the &ilk Code*
M$L; CO3E R$RR
SECT$ON 10. Con+&ne/(JL4e8. O
2a3 Containers andBor labels shall be desi)ned
to provide the necessary in'or$ation about the
appropriate use o' the products, and in such a
(ay as not to discoura)e breast'eedin).
2b3 7ach container shall have a clear,
conspicuous and easily readable and
understandable $essa)e in "ilipino or 7n)lish
printed on it, or on a label, (hich $essa)e can
not readily beco$e separated 'ro$ it, and
(hich shall include the 'ollo(in) points*
2i3 the (ords E:$portant #oticeE or their
eDuivalent=
2ii3 a state$ent o' the superiority o'
breast'eedin)=
2iii3 a state$ent that the product shall be used
only on the advice o' a health (orker as to the
need 'or its use and the proper $ethods o' use=
and
2iv3 instructions 'or appropriate preparation,
and a (arnin) a)ainst the health hazards o'
inappropriate preparation.
Se)+&on 26. Con+en+ O 7ach containerBlabel
shall contain such $essa)e, in both Filipino
and 7n)lish lan)ua)es, and (hich $essa)e
cannot be readily separated there'ro$, relative
the 'ollo(in) points*
2a3 +he (ords or phrase E:$portant #oticeE or
E@overn$ent Warnin)E or their eDuivalent=
2b3 ; state$ent o' the superiority o'
breast'eedin)=
2c3 ; state$ent that there is no substitute 'or
breast$ilk=
2d3 ; state$ent that the product shall be used
only on the advice o' a health (orker as to the
need 'or its use and the proper $ethods o' use=
2e3 :nstructions 'or appropriate prepara-tion,
and a (arnin) a)ainst the health hazards o'
inappropriate preparation= and
2'3 +he health hazards o' unnecessary or
i$proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula and other
related products includin) in'or$ation that
po(dered in'ant 'or$ula $ay contain
patho)enic $icroor)anis$s and $ust be
prepared and used appropriately.
/. +he &ilk Code allo(s disse$ination o' in'or$ation on in'ant 'or$ula to health pro'essionals= the <:<< totally
prohibits such activity*
M$L; CO3E R$RR
SECT$ON 7. He8+' C/e S,(+e.. O
2b3 #o 'acility o' the health care syste$ shall
be used 'or the purpose o' pro$otin) in'ant
'or$ula or other products (ithin the scope o'
this Code. +his Code does not, ho(ever,
preclude the disse$ination o' in'or$ation to
health pro'essionals as provided in Section
Se)+&on 22. #o $anu'acturer, distributor, or
representatives o' products covered by the
Code shall be allo(ed to conduct or be
involved in any activity on breast'eedin)
pro$otion, education and production o'
:n'or$ation, 7ducation and Co$$unication
2:7C3 $aterials on breast'eedin), holdin) o' or
participatin) as speakers in classes or
J2b3.
SECT$ON 2. He8+' Wo/De/(. -
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and
distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin)
products (ithin the scope o' this Code shall be
restricted to scienti'ic and 'actual $atters and
such in'or$ation shall not i$ply or create a
belie' that bottle-'eedin) is eDuivalent or
superior to breast'eedin). :t shall also include
the in'or$ation speci'ied in Section /2b3.
se$inars 'or (o$en and children activities and
to avoid the use o' these venues to $arket
their brands or co$pany na$es.
SECT$ON 16. ;ll health and nutrition clai$s 'or
products (ithin the scope o' the Code are
absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, any
phrase or (ords that connotes to increase
e$otional, intellectual abilities o' the in'ant and
youn) child and other like phrases shall not be
allo(ed.
6. +he &ilk Code per$its $ilk $anu'acturers and distributors to e9tend assistance in research and continuin)
education o' health pro'essionals= <:<< absolutely 'orbids the sa$e.
0. +he &ilk Code re)ulates the )ivin) o' donations= <:<< absolutely prohibits it.
M$L; CO3E R$RR
SECT$ON 6. T'e Gene/8 6u48&) n!
Mo+'e/(. O
2'3 #othin) herein contained shall prevent
donations 'ro$ $anu'acturers and distributors
o' products (ithin the scope o' this Code upon
reDuest by or (ith the approval o' the &inistry
o' ,ealth.
Se)+&on 91. 3on+&on( W&+'&n +'e S)o*e o0
T'&( Co!e - Conations o' products, $aterials,
de'ined and covered under the &ilk Code and
these i$ple$entin) rules and re)ulations, shall
be strictly prohibited.
Se)+&on 92. O+'e/ 3on+&on( B, M&8D
Co.*n&e( No+ Co:e/e! 4, +'&( Co!e. -
Conations o' products, eDuip$ents, and the
like, not other(ise 'allin) (ithin the scope o'
this Code or these <ules, )iven by $ilk
co$panies and their a)ents, representatives,
(hether in kind or in cash, $ay only be
coursed throu)h the :nter ;)ency Co$$ittee
2:;C3, (hich shall deter$ine (hether such
donation be accepted or other(ise.
J. +he <:<< provides 'or ad$inistrative sanctions not i$posed by the &ilk Code.
M$L; CO3E R$RR
Se)+&on 56. A!.&n&(+/+&:e Sn)+&on(. O+he
'ollo(in) ad$inistrative sanctions shall be
i$posed upon any person, >uridical or natural,
'ound to have violated the provisions o' the
Code and its i$ple$entin) <ules and
<e)ulations*
a3 1
st
violation Q Warnin)=
b3 !
nd
violation Q ;d$inistrative 'ine o' a
$ini$u$ o' +en +housand 2"15,555.553 to
Fi'ty +housand 2"/5,555.553 "esos, dependin)
on the )ravity and e9tent o' the violation,
includin) the recall o' the o''endin) product=
c3
rd
violation Q ;d$inistrative Fine o' a
$ini$u$ o' Si9ty +housand 2"65,555.553 to
6ne ,undred Fi'ty +housand 2"1/5,555.553
"esos, dependin) on the )ravity and e9tent o'
the violation, and in addition thereto, the recall
o' the o''endin) product, and suspension o' the
Certi'icate o' "roduct <e)istration 2C"<3=
d3 4
th
violation Q;d$inistrative Fine o' a
$ini$u$ o' +(o ,undred +housand
2"!55,555.553 to Five ,undred 2"/55,555.553
+housand "esos, dependin) on the )ravity and
e9tent o' the violation= and in addition thereto,
the recall o' the product, revocation o' the
C"<, suspension o' the %icense to 6perate
2%+63 'or one year=
e3 /
th
and succeedin) repeated violations Q
;d$inistrative Fine o' 6ne &illion
2"1,555,555.553 "esos, the recall o' the
o''endin) product, cancellation o' the C"<,
revocation o' the %icense to 6perate 2%+63 o'
the co$pany concerned, includin) the
blacklistin) o' the co$pany to be 'urnished the
Cepart$ent o' 8ud)et and &ana)e$ent
2C8&3 and the Cepart$ent o' +rade and
:ndustry 2C+:3=
'3 ;n additional penalty o' +(o +hou-sand Five
,undred 2"!,/55.553 "esos per day shall be
$ade 'or every day the violation continues
a'ter havin) received the order 'ro$ the :;C or
other such appropriate body, noti'yin) and
penalizin) the co$pany 'or the in'raction.
For purposes o' deter$inin) (hether or not
there is ErepeatedE violation, each product
violation belon)in) or o(ned by a co$pany,
includin) those o' their subsidiaries, are
dee$ed to be violations o' the concerned $ilk
co$pany and shall not be based on the
speci'ic violatin) product alone.
9. +he <:<< provides 'or repeal o' e9istin) la(s to the contrary.
+he Court shall resolve the $erits o' the alle)ations o' petitioner seriatim.
1. "etitioner is $istaken in its clai$ that the &ilk Code1s covera)e is li$ited only to children 5-1! $onths old. Section o' the &ilk
Code states*
S7C+:6# . Scope of the ,ode Q +he Code applies to the $arketin), and practices related thereto, o' the 'ollo(in)
products* breast$ilk substitutes, includin) in'ant 'or$ula= other $ilk products, 'oods and bevera)es, includin) bottle-
'ed co$ple$entary 'oods, (hen $arketed or other(ise represented to be suitable, (ith or (ithout $odi'ication, 'or
use as a partial or total replace$ent o' breast$ilk= 'eedin) bottles and teats. :t also applies to their Duality and
availability, and to in'or$ation concernin) their use.
Clearly, the covera)e o' the &ilk Code is not dependent on the a)e o' the child but on the D&n! o0 */o!u)+ bein) $arketed to the
public. +he la( treats in'ant 'or$ula, bottle-'ed co$ple$entary 'ood, and breast$ilk substitute as separate and distinct product
cate)ories.
Section 42h3 o' the &ilk Code de'ines in'ant 'or$ula as Ea breast$ilk substitute 9 9 9 to satis'y the nor$al nutritional reDuire$ents o'
in'ants up to bet(een 'our to si9 $onths o' a)e, and adapted to their physiolo)ical characteristicsE= (hile under Section 42b3, bottle-
'ed co$ple$entary 'ood re'ers to Eany 'ood, (hether $anu'actured or locally prepared, suitable as a co$ple$ent to breast$ilk or
in'ant 'or$ula, (hen either beco$es insu''icient to satis'y the nutritional reDuire$ents o' the in'ant.E ;n in'ant under Section 42e3 is a
person 'allin) (ithin the a)e bracket 5-1! $onths. :t is the nourish$ent o' this )roup o' in'ants or children a)ed 5-1! $onths that is
sou)ht to be pro$oted and protected by the &ilk Code.
8ut there is another tar)et )roup. 8reast$ilk substitute is de'ined under Section 42a3 as Eany 'ood bein) $arketed or other(ise
presented as a partial or total replace$ent 'or breast$ilk, (hether or not suitable 'or that purpose.ET'&( (e)+&on )on(*&)uou(8,
8)D( /e0e/en)e +o n, */+&)u8/ -e--/ou* o0 )'&8!/en. Hen)e, +'e */o:&(&on o0 +'e M&8D Co!e )nno+ 4e )on(&!e/e!
eL)8u(&:e 0o/ )'&8!/en -e! 0-12 .on+'(. :n other (ords, breast$ilk substitutes $ay also be intended 'or youn) children $ore
than 1! $onths o' a)e. +here'ore, by re)ulatin) breast$ilk substitutes, the &ilk Code also intends to protect and pro$ote the
nourish$ent o' children $ore than 1! $onths old.
7vidently, as lon) as (hat is bein) $arketed 'alls (ithin the scope o' the &ilk Code as provided in Section , then it can be sub>ect to
re)ulation pursuant to said la(, even i' the product is to be used by children a)ed over 1! $onths.
+here is, there'ore, nothin) ob>ectionable (ith Sections !
4!
and /2''3
4
o' the <:<<.
!. :t is also incorrect 'or petitioner to say that the <:<<, unlike the &ilk Code, does not reco)nize that breast$ilk substitutes $ay be
a proper and possible substitute 'or breast$ilk.
+he entirety o' the <:<<, not $erely truncated portions thereo', $ust be considered and construed to)ether. ;s held in 4e Luna %.
0ascual,
44
EFtGhe particular (ords, clauses and phrases in the <ule should not be studied as detached and isolated e9pressions, but
the (hole and every part thereo' $ust be considered in 'i9in) the $eanin) o' any o' its parts and in order to produce a har$onious
(hole.E
Section 0 o' the <:<< provides that E(hen $edically indicated and only (hen necessary, +'e u(e o0 4/e(+.&8D (u4(+&+u+e( &(
*/o*e/ i' based on co$plete and updated in'or$ation.E Section J o' the <:<< also states that in'or$ation and educational $aterials
should include in'or$ation on the proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula (hen the use thereo' is needed.
,ence, +'e R$RR, Mu(+ 8&De +'e M&8D Co!e, 8(o /e)o-n&He( +'+ &n )e/+&n )(e(, +'e u(e o0 4/e(+.&8D (u4(+&+u+e( ., 4e
*/o*e/.
. +he Court shall ascertain the $erits o' alle)ations
4/
and 4
46
to)ether as they are interlinked (ith each other.
+o resolve the Duestion o' (hether the labelin) reDuire$ents and advertisin) re)ulations under the <:<< are valid, it is i$portant to
deal 'irst (ith the nature, purpose, and depth o' the re)ulatory po(ers o' the C6,, as de'ined in )eneral under the 19J0
;d$inistrative Code,
40
and as dele)ated in particular under the &ilk Code.
,ealth is a le)iti$ate sub>ect $atter 'or re)ulation by the C6, 2and certain other ad$inistrative a)encies3 in e9ercise o' police
po(ers dele)ated to it. +he sheer span o' >urisprudence on that $atter precludes the need to 'urther discuss it.
.4J
,o(ever, health
in'or$ation, particularly advertisin) $aterials on apparently non-to9ic products like breast$ilk substitutes and supple$ents, is a
relatively ne( area 'or re)ulation by the C6,.
49
;s early as the 1910 <evised ;d$inistrative Code o' the "hilippine :slands,
/5
health in'or$ation (as already (ithin the a$bit o' the
re)ulatory po(ers o' the predecessor o' C6,.
/1
Section 9J thereo' char)ed it (ith the duty to protect the health o' the people, and
vested it (ith such po(ers as E2)3 the disse$ination o' hy)ienic in'or$ation a$on) the people and especially the inculcation of
*no&ledge as to the proper care of infants and the $ethods o' preventin) and co$batin) dan)erous co$$unicable diseases.E
Seventy years later, the 19J0 ;d$inistrative Code tasked respondent C6, to carry out the state policy pronounced under Section
1/, ;rticle :: o' the 19J0 Constitution, (hich is Eto protect and pro$ote the ri)ht to health o' the people and instill health
consciousness a$on) the$.E
/!
+o that end, it (as )ranted under Section o' the ;d$inistrative Code the po(er to E263 propa)ate
health in'or$ation and educate the population on i$portant health, $edical and environ$ental $atters (hich have health
i$plications.E
/
When it co$es to in'or$ation re)ardin) nutrition o' in'ants and youn) children, ho(ever, the &ilk Code speci'ically dele)ated to the
&inistry o' ,ealth 2hereina'ter re'erred to as C6,3 the po(er to ensure that there is adeDuate, consistent and ob>ective in'or$ation
on breast'eedin) and use o' breast$ilk substitutes, supple$ents and related products= and the po(er to )on+/o8 such in'or$ation.
+hese are e9pressly provided 'or in Sections 1! and /2a3, to (it*
S7C+:6# 1!. 3mplementation and Monitoring Q
9 9 9 9
2b3 +he &inistry o' ,ealth shall be principally responsible 'or the i$ple$entation and en'orce$ent o' the provisions o'
this Code. For this purpose, the &inistry o' ,ealth shall have the 'ollo(in) po(ers and 'unctions*
213 +o pro$ul)ate such rules and re)ulations as are necessary or proper 'or the i$ple$entation o' this Code
and the acco$plish$ent o' its purposes and ob>ectives.
9 9 9 9
243 +o e9ercise such other po(ers and 'unctions as $ay be necessary 'or or incidental to the attain$ent o'
the purposes and ob>ectives o' this Code.
S7C+:6# /. 3nformation and Education Q
2a3 +he )overn$ent shall ensure that o4Me)+&:e n! )on(&(+en+ in'or$ation is provided on in'ant 'eedin), 'or use by
'a$ilies and those involved in the 'ield o' in'ant nutrition. +his responsibility shall cover the plannin), provision, desi)n
and disse$ination o' in'or$ation, and the control thereo', on in'ant nutrition. 27$phasis supplied3
Further, C6, is authorized by the &ilk Code to )on+/o8 the content o' any in'or$ation on breast$ilk %is-F-%isbreast$ilk substitutes,
supple$ent and related products, in the 'ollo(in) $anner*
S7C+:6# /. 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ational and educational $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio, or visual, dealin) (ith the 'eedin) o' in'ants and
intended to reach pre)nant (o$en and $others o' in'ants, shall include clear in'or$ation on all the 'ollo(in) points*
213 the bene'its and superiority o' breast'eedin)= 2!3 $aternal nutrition, and the preparation 'or and $aintenance o'
breast'eedin)= 23 the ne)ative e''ect on breast'eedin) o' introducin) partial bottle'eedin)= 243 the di''iculty o'
reversin) the decision not to breast'eed= and 2/3 (here needed, the proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula, (hether
$anu'actured industrially or ho$e-prepared. 2hen such materials contain information a/out the use of infant
formula, they shall include the social and financial implications of its use3 the health ha-ards of
inappropriate foods or feeding methods3 and, in particular, the health ha-ards of unnecessary or improper
use of infant formula and other /reastmil* su/stitutes. Such materials shall not use any picture or te!t &hich
may ideali-e the use of /reastmil* su/stitutes.
SE,53O9 <. )ealth *or(ers Z
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin) products (ithin the
scope o' this Code ('88 4e /e(+/&)+e! +o ()&en+&0&) n! 0)+u8 .++e/(, n! (u)' &n0o/.+&on ('88 no+ &.*8, o/
)/e+e 4e8&e0 +'+ 4o++8e0ee!&n- &( eKu&:8en+ o/ (u*e/&o/ +o 4/e(+0ee!&n-. $+ ('88 8(o &n)8u!e +'e
&n0o/.+&on (*e)&0&e! &n Se)+&on 9@4A.
SE,53O9 V. ,ontainers[Label Z
2a3 Containers andBor labels shall be desi)ned to provide the necessary in'or$ation about the appropriate use o' the
products, and &n (u)' B, ( no+ +o !&()ou/-e 4/e(+0ee!&n-.
9 9 9 9
2d3 +he ter$ Ehu$anized,E E$aternalizedE or si$ilar ter$s shall not be used. 27$phasis supplied3
+he C6, is also authorized to control the purpose o' the in'or$ation and to (ho$ such in'or$ation $ay be disse$inated under
Sections 6 throu)h 9 o' the &ilk Code
/4
to ensure that the in'or$ation that (ould reach pre)nant (o$en, $others o' in'ants, and
health pro'essionals and (orkers in the health care syste$ is restricted to scienti'ic and 'actual $atters and shall no+ i$ply or create
a belie' that bottle'eedin) is eDuivalent or superior to breast'eedin).
:t bears e$phasis, ho(ever, that the C6,1s po(er under the &ilk Code to )on+/o8 in'or$ation re)ardin) breast$ilk %is-a-
%is breast$ilk substitutes &( no+ 4(o8u+e as the po(er to control does not enco$pass the po(er to absolutely prohibit the
advertisin), $arketin), and pro$otion o' breast$ilk substitutes.
+he 'ollo(in) are the provisions o' the &ilk Code that uneDuivocally indicate that the control over in'or$ation )iven to the C6, is not
absolute and that absolute prohibition is not conte$plated by the Code*
a3 Section ! (hich reDuires adeDuate in'or$ation and appropriate $arketin) and distribution o' breast$ilk
substitutes, to (it*
S7C+:6# !. Aim of the ,ode Z +he ai$ o' the Code is to contribute to the provision o' sa'e and adeDuate
nutrition 'or in'ants by the protection and pro$otion o' breast'eedin) and by ensurin) the proper use o'
breast$ilk substitutes and breast$ilk supple$ents (hen these are necessary, on the basis o' adeDuate
in'or$ation and throu)h appropriate $arketin) and distribution.
b3 Section (hich speci'ically states that the Code applies to the $arketin) o' and practices related to breast$ilk
substitutes, includin) in'ant 'or$ula, and to in'or$ation concernin) their use=
c3 Section /2a3 (hich provides that the )overn$ent shall ensure that ob>ective and consistent in'or$ation is provided
on in'ant 'eedin)=
d3 Section /2b3 (hich provides that (ritten, audio or visual in'or$ational and educational $aterials shall not use any
picture or te9t (hich $ay idealize the use o' breast$ilk substitutes and should include in'or$ation on the health
hazards o' unnecessary or i$proper use o' said product=
e3 Section 62a3 in relation to Section 1!2a3 (hich creates and e$po(ers the :;C to revie( and e9a$ine advertisin),
pro$otion, and other $arketin) $aterials=
'3 Section J2b3 (hich states that $ilk co$panies $ay provide in'or$ation to health pro'essionals but such in'or$ation
should be restricted to 'actual and scienti'ic $atters and shall not i$ply or create a belie' that bottle'eedin) is
eDuivalent or superior to breast'eedin)= and
)3 Section 15 (hich provides that containers or labels should not contain in'or$ation that (ould discoura)e
breast'eedin) and idealize the use o' in'ant 'or$ula.
:t is in this conte9t that the Court no( e9a$ines the assailed provisions o' the <:<< re)ardin) labelin) and advertisin).
Sections 1
//
on Etotal e''ectE and !6
/6
o' <ule ?:: o' the <:<< contain so$e labelin) reDuire$ents, speci'ically* a3 that there be a
state$ent that there is no substitute to breast$ilk= and b3 that there be a state$ent that po(dered in'ant 'or$ula $ay contain
patho)enic $icroor)anis$s and $ust be prepared and used appropriately. Section 16
/0
o' the <:<< prohibits all health and nutrition
clai$s 'or products (ithin the scope o' the &ilk Code, such as clai$s o' increased e$otional and intellectual abilities o' the in'ant
and youn) child.
+hese reDuire$ents and li$itations are consistent (ith the provisions o' Section J o' the &ilk Code, to (it*
S7C+:6# J. )ealth wor(ers -
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin) products (ithin the
scope o' this Code shall be /e(+/&)+e! +o ()&en+&0&) n! 0)+u8 .++e/(, and such in'or$ation ('88 no+ i$ply or
create a belie' that bottle'eedin) is e4uivalent or (u*e/&o/ to breast'eedin). :t shall also include the in'or$ation
speci'ied in Section /.
/J
27$phasis supplied3
and Section 152d3
/9
(hich bars the use on containers and labels o' the ter$s Ehu$anized,E E$aternalized,E or si$ilar ter$s.
+hese provisions o' the &ilk Code e9pressly 'orbid in'or$ation that (ould i$ply or create a belie' that there is any $ilk product
eDuivalent to breast$ilk or (hich is hu$anized or $aternalized, as such in'or$ation (ould be inconsistent (ith the superiority o'
breast'eedin).
:t $ay be ar)ued that Section J o' the &ilk Code re'ers only to in'or$ation )iven to health (orkers re)ardin) breast$ilk substitutes,
not to containers and labels thereo'. ,o(ever, such restrictive application o' Section J2b3 (ill result in the absurd situation in (hich
$ilk co$panies and distributors are 'orbidden to clai$ to health (orkers that their products are substitutes or eDuivalents o'
breast$ilk, and yet be allo(ed to display on the containers and labels o' their products the e9act opposite $essa)e. +hat aske(ed
interpretation o' the &ilk Code is precisely (hat Section /2a3 thereo' seeks to avoid by $andatin) that all in'or$ation re)ardin)
breast$ilk %is-a-%is breast$ilk substitutes be consistent, at the sa$e ti$e )ivin) the )overn$ent control over plannin), provision,
desi)n, and disse$ination o' in'or$ation on in'ant 'eedin).
+hus, Section !62c3 o' the <:<< (hich reDuires containers and labels to state that the product o''ered is not a substitute 'or
breast$ilk, is a reasonable $eans o' en'orcin) Section J2b3 o' the &ilk Code and deterrin) circu$vention o' the protection and
pro$otion o' breast'eedin) as e$bodied in Section !
65
o' the &ilk Code.
Section !62'3
61
o' the <:<< is an eDually reasonable labelin) reDuire$ent. :t i$ple$ents Section /2b3 o' the &ilk Code (hich reads*
S7C+:6# /. 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ational and educational $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio, or visual, dealin) (ith the 'eedin) o' in'ants and
intended to reach pre)nant (o$en and $others o' in'ants, shall include clear in'or$ation on all the 'ollo(in) points* 9
9 9 2/3 (here needed, the proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula, (hether $anu'actured industrially or ho$e-prepared. When
such $aterials contain in'or$ation about the use o' in'ant 'or$ula, they shall include the social and 'inancial
i$plications o' its use= the health ha-ards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods3 and, in particular, the
health ha-ards of unnecessary or improper use of infant formula and other /reastmil* su/stitutes. Such
$aterials shall not use any picture or te9t (hich $ay idealize the use o' breast$ilk substitutes. 27$phasis supplied3
+he label o' a product contains &n0o/.+&on about said product intended 'or the buyers thereo'. +he buyers o' breast$ilk substitutes
are $others o' in'ants, and Section !6 o' the <:<< $erely adds a 'air (arnin) about the likelihood o' patho)enic $icroor)anis$s
bein) present in in'ant 'or$ula and other related products (hen these are prepared and used inappropriately.
"etitionerPs counsel has ad$itted durin) the hearin) on June 19, !550 that 'or$ula $ilk is prone to conta$inations and there is as
yet no technolo)y that allo(s production o' po(dered in'ant 'or$ula that eli$inates all 'or$s o' conta$ination.
6!
:neluctably, the reDuire$ent under Section !62'3 o' the <:<< 'or the label to contain the $essa)e re)ardin) health hazards includin)
the possibility o' conta$ination (ith patho)enic $icroor)anis$s is in accordance (ith Section /2b3 o' the &ilk Code.
+he authority o' C6, to control in'or$ation re)ardin) breast$ilk %is-a-%is breast$ilk substitutes and supple$ents and related
products cannot be Duestioned. :t is its intervention into the area o' advertisin), pro$otion, and $arketin) that is bein) assailed by
petitioner.
:n 'urtherance o' Section 62a3 o' the &ilk Code, to (it*
S7C+:6# 6. 5he General 0ublic and Mothers. Q
2a3 #o advertisin), pro$otion or other $arketin) $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio or visual, 'or products (ithin the
scope o' this Code shall be printed, published, distributed, e9hibited and broadcast unless such $aterials are duly
authorized and approved by an inter-a)ency co$$ittee created herein pursuant to the applicable standards provided
'or in this Code.
the &ilk Code invested re)ulatory authority over advertisin), pro$otional and $arketin) $aterials to an :;C, thus*
S7C+:6# 1!. 3mplementation and Monitoring -
2a3 For purposes o' Section 62a3 o' this Code, an inter-a)ency co$$ittee co$posed o' the 'ollo(in) $e$bers is
hereby created*
&inister o' ,ealth ------------------- Chair$an
&inister o' +rade and :ndustry ------------------- &e$ber
&inister o' Justice ------------------- &e$ber
&inister o' Social Services and Cevelop$ent ------------------- &e$ber
+he $e$bers $ay desi)nate their duly authorized representative to every $eetin) o' the Co$$ittee.
+he Co$$ittee shall have the 'ollo(in) po(ers and 'unctions*
213 +o revie( and e9a$ine all advertisin). pro$otion or other $arketin) $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio or
visual, on products (ithin the scope o' this Code=
2!3 +o approve or disapprove, delete ob>ectionable portions 'ro$ and prohibit the printin), publication,
distribution, e9hibition and broadcast o', all advertisin) pro$otion or other $arketin) $aterials, (hether
(ritten, audio or visual, on products (ithin the scope o' this Code=
23 +o prescribe the internal and operational procedure 'or the e9ercise o' its po(ers and 'unctions as (ell as
the per'or$ance o' its duties and responsibilities= and
243 To */o.u8-+e (u)' /u8e( n! /e-u8+&on( ( /e ne)e((/, o/ */o*e/ 0o/ +'e &.*8e.en++&on o0
Se)+&on 6@A o0 +'&( Co!e. 9 9 9 27$phasis supplied3
,o(ever, Section 11 o' the <:<<, to (it*
S7C+:6# 11. 0rohibition O #o advertisin), pro$otions, sponsorships, or $arketin) $aterials and activities 'or
breast$ilk substitutes intended 'or in'ants and youn) children up to t(enty-'our 2!43 $onths, shall be allo(ed,
because they tend to convey or )ive subli$inal $essa)es or i$pressions that under$ine breast$ilk and
breast'eedin) or other(ise e9a))erate breast$ilk substitutes andBor replace$ents, as (ell as related products
covered (ithin the scope o' this Code.
prohibits advertisin), pro$otions, sponsorships or $arketin) $aterials and activities 'or breast$ilk substitutes in line (ith the <:<<Ps
declaration o' principle under Section 42'3, to (it*
S7C+:6# 4. 4eclaration of 0rinciples Z
9 9 9 9
2'3 ;dvertisin), pro$otions, or sponsorships o' in'ant 'or$ula, breast$ilk substitutes and other related products are
prohibited.
+he C6,, throu)h its co-respondents, evidently arro)ated to itsel' not only the re)ulatory authority )iven to the :;C but also i$posed
absolute prohibition on advertisin), pro$otion, and $arketin).
-et, oddly enou)h, Section 1! o' the <:<< reiterated the reDuire$ent o' the &ilk Code in Section 6 thereo' 'or prior approval by :;C
o' all advertisin), $arketin) and pro$otional $aterials prior to disse$ination.
7ven respondents, throu)h the 6S@, ackno(led)ed the authority o' :;C, and repeatedly insisted, durin) the oral ar)u$ents on June
19, !550, that the prohibition under Section 11 is not actually operational, %iz*
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 #o(, the cru9 o' the $atter that is bein) Duestioned by "etitioner is (hether or not there is an absolute
prohibition on advertisin) $akin) ;6 !556-1! unconstitutional. We $aintained that (hat ;6 !556-1! provides is not
an absolute prohibition because Section 11 (hile it states and it is entitled prohibition it states that no advertisin),
pro$otion, sponsorship or $arketin) $aterials and activities 'or breast $ilk substitutes intended 'or in'ants and
youn) children up to !4 $onths shall be allo(ed because this is the standard they tend to convey or )ive subli$inal
$essa)es or i$pression under$ine that breast$ilk or breast'eedin) 9 9 9.
We have to read Section 11 to)ether (ith the other Sections because the other Section, Section 1!, provides 'or the
inter a)ency co$$ittee that is e$po(ered to process and evaluate all the advertisin) and pro$otion $aterials.
9 9 9 9
What ;6 !556-1!, (hat it does, it does not prohibit the sale and $anu'acture, it si$ply re)ulates the advertise$ent
and the pro$otions o' breast'eedin) $ilk substitutes.
9 9 9 9
#o(, the prohibition on advertisin), -our ,onor, $ust be taken to)ether (ith the provision on the :nter-;)ency
Co$$ittee that processes and evaluates because there $ay be so$e in'or$ation disse$ination that are strai)ht
'or(ard in'or$ation disse$ination. What the ;6 !556 is tryin) to prevent is any $aterial that (ill under$ine the
practice o' breast'eedin), -our ,onor.
9 9 9 9
;SS6C:;+7 JAS+:C7 S;#+:;@6*
&ada$ Solicitor @eneral, under the &ilk Code, (hich body has authority or po(er to pro$ul)ate <ules and
<e)ulations re)ardin) the ;dvertisin), "ro$otion and &arketin) o' 8reast$ilk SubstitutesI
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
-our ,onor, please, it is provided that the :nter-;)ency Co$$ittee, -our ,onor.
9 9 9 9
;SS6C:;+7 JAS+:C7 S;#+:;@6*
9 9 9 Con1t you think that the Cepart$ent o' ,ealth overstepped its rule $akin) authority (hen it totally banned
advertisin) and pro$otion under Section 11 prescribed the total e''ect rule as (ell as the content o' $aterials under
Section 1 and 1/ o' the rules and re)ulationsI
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
-our ,onor, please, 'irst (e (ould like to stress that there is no total absolute ban. Second, the :nter-;)ency
Co$$ittee is under the Cepart$ent o' ,ealth, -our ,onor.
9 9 9 9
;SS6C:;+7 JAS+:C7 #;R;<:6*
9 9 9 Cid : hear you correctly, &ada$ Solicitor, that there is no absolute ban on advertisin) o' breast$ilk substitutes
in the <evised <ulesI
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
-es, your ,onor.
;SS6C:;+7 JAS+:C7 #;R;<:6*
8ut, (ould you nevertheless a)ree that there is an absolute ban on advertisin) o' breast$ilk substitutes intended 'or
children t(o 2!3 years old and youn)erI
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
:t1s not an absolute ban, -our ,onor, because (e have the :nter-;)ency Co$$ittee that can evaluate so$e
advertisin) and pro$otional $aterials, sub>ect to the standards that (e have stated earlier, (hich are- they should
not under$ine breast'eedin), -our ,onor.
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 Section 11, (hile it is titled "rohibition, it $ust be taken in relation (ith the other Sections, particularly 1! and 1
and 1/, -our ,onor, because it is reco)nized that the :nter-;)ency Co$$ittee has that po(er to evaluate
pro$otional $aterials, -our ,onor.
;SS6C:;+7 JAS+:C7 #;R;<:6*
So in short, (ill you please clari'y there1s no absolute ban on advertise$ent re)ardin) $ilk substitute re)ardin)
in'ants t(o 2!3 years belo(I
S6%:C:+6< @7#7<;% C7?;#;C7<;*
We can proudly say that the )eneral rule is that there is a prohibition, ho(ever, (e take e9ceptions and standards
have been set. 6ne o' (hich is that, the :nter-;)ency Co$$ittee can allo( i' the advertisin) and pro$otions (ill not
under$ine breast$ilk and breast'eedin), -our ,onor.
6
Sections 11 and 42'3 o' the <:<< are clearly violative o' the &ilk Code.
,o(ever, althou)h it is the :;C (hich is authorized to pro$ul)ate rules and re)ulations 'or the approval or re>ection o' advertisin),
pro$otional, or other $arketin) $aterials under Section 1!2a3 o' the &ilk Code, said provision $ust be related to Section 6 thereo'
(hich in turn provides that the rules and re)ulations $ust be Epursuant to the applicable standards provided 'or in this Code.E Said
standards are set 'orth in Sections /2b3, J2b3, and 15 o' the Code, (hich, at the risk o' bein) repetitious, and 'or easy re'erence, are
Duoted hereunder*
S7C+:6# /. 3nformation and Education Z
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ational and educational $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio, or visual, dealin) (ith the 'eedin) o' in'ants and
intended to reach pre)nant (o$en and $others o' in'ants, shall include clear in'or$ation on all the 'ollo(in) points*
213 the bene'its and superiority o' breast'eedin)= 2!3 $aternal nutrition, and the preparation 'or and $aintenance o'
breast'eedin)= 23 the ne)ative e''ect on breast'eedin) o' introducin) partial bottle'eedin)= 243 the di''iculty o'
reversin) the decision not to breast'eed= and 2/3 (here needed, the proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula, (hether
$anu'actured industrially or ho$e-prepared. When such $aterials contain in'or$ation about the use o' in'ant
'or$ula, they shall include the social and 'inancial i$plications o' its use= the health hazards o' inappropriate 'oods o'
'eedin) $ethods= and, in particular, the health hazards o' unnecessary or i$proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula and other
breast$ilk substitutes. Such $aterials shall not use any picture or te9t (hich $ay idealize the use o' breast$ilk
substitutes.
9 9 9 9
S7C+:6# J. )ealth *or(ers. Q
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin) products (ithin the
scope o' this Code shall be restricted to scienti'ic and 'actual $atters and such in'or$ation shall not i$ply or create a
belie' that bottle 'eedin) is eDuivalent or superior to breast'eedin). :t shall also include the in'or$ation speci'ied in
Section /2b3.
9 9 9 9
S7C+:6# 15. ,ontainers[Label 5
2a3 Containers andBor labels shall be desi)ned to provide the necessary in'or$ation about the appropriate use o' the
products, and in such a (ay as not to discoura)e breast'eedin).
2b3 7ach container shall have a clear, conspicuous and easily readable and understandable $essa)e in "ilipino or
7n)lish printed on it, or on a label, (hich $essa)e can not readily beco$e separated 'ro$ it, and (hich shall include
the 'ollo(in) points*
2i3 the (ords E:$portant #oticeE or their eDuivalent=
2ii3 a state$ent o' the superiority o' breast'eedin)=
2iii3 a state$ent that the product shall be used only on the advice o' a health (orker as to the need 'or its use
and the proper $ethods o' use= and
2iv3 instructions 'or appropriate preparation, and a (arnin) a)ainst the health hazards o' inappropriate
preparation.
Section 1!2b3 o' the &ilk Code desi)nates the C6, as the principal i$ple$entin) a)ency 'or the en'orce$ent o' the provisions o' the
Code. :n relation to such responsibility o' the C6,, Section /2a3 o' the &ilk Code states that*
S7C+:6# /. 3nformation and Education Z
2a3 +he )overn$ent shall ensure that o4Me)+&:e n! )on(&(+en+ in'or$ation is provided on in'ant 'eedin), 'or use by
'a$ilies and those involved in the 'ield o' in'ant nutrition. +his responsibility shall cover the plannin), provision, desi)n
and disse$ination o' in'or$ation, and the control thereo', on in'ant nutrition. 27$phasis supplied3
+hus, +'e 3OH '( +'e (&-n&0&)n+ /e(*on(&4&8&+, +o +/n(8+e &n+o o*e/+&on8 +e/.( +'e (+n!/!( (e+ 0o/+' &n Se)+&on( 9, 2,
n! 10 o0 +'e M&8D Co!e, 4, B'&)' +'e $AC ('88 ()/een !:e/+&(&n-, */o.o+&on8, o/ o+'e/ ./De+&n- .+e/&8(.
:t is pursuant to such responsibility that the C6, correctly provided 'or Section 1 in the <:<< (hich reads as 'ollo(s*
S7C+:6# 1. E5otal EffectE - "ro$otion o' products (ithin the scope o' this Code $ust be ob>ective and should not
eDuate or $ake the product appear to be as )ood or eDual to breast$ilk or breast'eedin) in the advertisin) concept.
:t $ust not in any case under$ine breast$ilk or breast'eedin). +he Etotal e''ectE should not directly or indirectly
su))est that buyin) their product (ould produce better individuals, or resultin) in )reater love, intelli)ence, ability,
har$ony or in any $anner brin) better health to the baby or other such e9a))erated and unsubstantiated clai$.
Such standards bind the :;C in 'or$ulatin) its rules and re)ulations on advertisin), pro$otion, and $arketin). +hrou)h that sin)le
provision, the C6, e9ercises control over the in'or$ation content o' advertisin), pro$otional and $arketin) $aterials on
breast$ilk %is-a-%is breast$ilk substitutes, supple$ents and other related products. :t also sets a viable standard a)ainst (hich the
:;C $ay screen such $aterials be'ore they are $ade public.
:n E&ui-Asia 0lacement- 3nc. %s. 4epartment of Foreign Affairs,
64
the Court held*
9 9 9 F+Ghis Court had, in the past, accepted as su''icient standards the 'ollo(in)* Epublic interest,E E>ustice and eDuity,E
Epublic convenience and (el'are,E and Esi$plicity, econo$y and (el'are.E
6/
:n this case, correct in'or$ation as to in'ant 'eedin) and nutrition is in'used (ith public interest and (el'are.
4. With re)ard to activities 'or disse$ination o' in'or$ation to health pro'essionals, the Court also 'inds that there is no inconsistency
bet(een the provisions o' the &ilk Code and the <:<<. Section 02b3
66
o' the &ilk Code, in relation to Section J2b3
60
o' the sa$e Code,
allo(s disse$ination o' in'or$ation to health pro'essionals but such&n0o/.+&on &( /e(+/&)+e! +o ()&en+&0&) n! 0)+u8 .++e/(.
Contrary to petitioner1s clai$, Section !! o' the <:<< does not prohibit the -&:&n- o0 &n0o/.+&on +o 'e8+' */o0e((&on8( on
()&en+&0&) n! 0)+u8 .++e/(. What it prohibits is the involve$ent o' the $anu'acturer and distributor o' the products covered by
the Code in activities 'or the pro$otion, education and production o' :n'or$ation, 7ducation and Co$$unication 2:7C3 $aterials
re)ardin) breast'eedin) that are &n+en!e! 0o/Bo.en n! )'&8!/en. Said provision cannot be construed to enco$pass even
the !&((e.&n+&on o0 &n0o/.+&on +o 'e8+' */o0e((&on8(, ( /e(+/&)+e! by the &ilk Code.
/. #e9t, petitioner alle)es that Section J2e3
6J
o' the &ilk Code per$its $ilk $anu'acturers and distributors to e9tend assistance in
research and in the continuin) education o' health pro'essionals, (hile Sections !! and ! o' the <:<< absolutely 'orbid the sa$e.
"etitioner also assails Section 42i3
69
o' the <:<< prohibitin) $ilk $anu'acturers1 and distributors1 participation in any policy$akin)
body in relation to the advance$ent o' breast'eedin).
Section 42i3 o' the <:<< provides that $ilk co$panies and their representatives should not 'or$ part o' any policy$akin) body or
entity in relation to the advance$ent o' breast'eedin). +he Court 'inds nothin) in said provisions (hich contravenes the &ilk Code.
#ote that under Section 1!2b3 o' the &ilk Code, it is +'e 3OH B'&)' ('88 4e */&n)&*88, /e(*on(&48e 'or the i$ple$entation and
en'orce$ent o' the provisions o' said Code. :t is entirely up to the C6, to decide (hich entities to call upon or allo( to be part o'
policy$akin) bodies on breast'eedin). +here'ore, the <:<<1s prohibition on $ilk co$paniesP participation in any policy$akin) body
in relation to the advance$ent o' breast'eedin) is in accord (ith the &ilk Code.
"etitioner is also $istaken in ar)uin) that Section !! o' the <:<< prohibits $ilk co$panies 'ro$ )ivin) reasearch assistance and
continuin) education to health pro'essionals. Se)+&on 22
05
o0 +'e R$RR !oe( no+ *e/+&n +o /e(e/)' ((&(+n)e +o o/ +'e
)on+&nu&n- e!u)+&on o0 'e8+' */o0e((&on8(= rather, it deals (ith breast'eedin) pro$otion and e!u)+&on 0o/ Bo.en n!
)'&8!/en. #othin) in Section !! o' the <:<< prohibits $ilk co$panies 'ro$ )ivin) assistance 'or research or continuin) education to
health pro'essionals= hence, petitioner1s ar)u$ent a)ainst this particular provision $ust be struck do(n.
:t is Sections 9
01
and 15
0!
o' the <:<< (hich )overn research assistance. Said sections o' the <:<< provide that/e(e/)'
((&(+n)e 0o/ 'e8+' Bo/De/( n! /e(e/)'e/( ., 4e 88oBe! u*on **/o:8 o0 n e+'&)( )o..&++ee, n! B&+' )e/+&n
!&()8o(u/e /eKu&/e.en+( &.*o(e! on +'e .&8D )o.*n, n! on +'e /e)&*&en+ o0 +'e /e(e/)' B/!.
+he &ilk Code endo(s the C6, (ith the po(er to deter$ine ho( such research or educational assistance $ay be )iven by $ilk
co$panies or under (hat conditions health (orkers $ay accept the assistance. +hus, Sections 9 and 15 o' the <:<< i$posin)
li$itations on the kind o' research done or e9tent o' assistance )iven by $ilk co$panies are co$pletely in accord (ith the &ilk Code.
"etitioner co$plains that Section !
0
o' the <:<< prohibits $ilk co$panies 'ro$ )ivin) assistance, support, lo)istics or trainin) to
health (orkers. +his provision is (ithin the prero)ative )iven to the C6, under Section J2e3
04
o' the &ilk Code, (hich provides that
$anu'acturers and distributors o' breast$ilk substitutes $ay assist in researches, scholarships and the continuin) education, o'
health pro'essionals in accordance (ith the rules and re)ulations pro$ul)ated by the &inistry o' ,ealth, no( C6,.
6. ;s to the <:<<1s prohibition on donations, said provisions are also consistent (ith the &ilk Code. Section 62'3 o' the &ilk Code
provides that donations ., be $ade by $anu'acturers and distributors o' breast$ilk substitutesu*on +'e /eKue(+ o/ B&+' +'e
**/o:8 o0 +'e 3OH. +he la( does not proscribe the re'usal o' donations. +he &ilk Code leaves it purely to the discretion o' the
C6, (hether to reDuest or accept such donations. +he C6, then appropriately e9ercised its discretion throu)h Section /1
0/
o' the
<:<< (hich sets 'orth its policy not to reDuest or approve donations 'ro$ $anu'acturers and distributors o' breast$ilk substitutes.
:t (as (ithin the discretion o' the C6, (hen it provided in Section /! o' the <:<< that any donation 'ro$ $ilk co$panies not
covered by the Code should be coursed throu)h the :;C (hich shall deter$ine (hether such donation should be accepted or
re'used. ;s reasoned out by respondents, the C6, is not $andated by the &ilk Code to accept donations. For that $atter, no
person or entity can be 'orced to accept a donation. +here is, there'ore, no real inconsistency bet(een the <:<< and the la(
because the &ilk Code does not prohibit the C6, 'ro$ re'usin) donations.
0. With re)ard to Section 46 o' the <:<< providin) 'or ad$inistrative sanctions that are not 'ound in the &ilk Code, the Court upholds
petitioner1s ob>ection thereto.
<espondent1s reliance on ,i%il Aeronautics /oard %. 0hilippine Air Lines- 3nc.
06
is $isplaced. +he )larin) di''erence in said case and
the present case be'ore the Court is that, in the ,i%il Aeronautics /oard, the Civil ;eronautics ;d$inistration 2C;;3 (as eL*/e((8,
-/n+e! 4, +'e 8B @R.A. No. 776A +'e *oBe/ to i$pose 'ines and civil penalties, (hile the Civil ;eronautics 8oard 2C;83 (as
)ranted by the sa$e la( the po(er to revie( on appeal the order or decision o' the C;; and to deter$ine (hether to i$pose, re$it,
$iti)ate, increase or co$pro$ise such 'ine and civil penalties. +hus, the Court upheld the C;81s <esolution i$posin) ad$inistrative
'ines.
:n a $ore recent case, 0erez %. L0G +efillers Association of the 0hilippines- 3nc.,
00
the Court upheld the Cepart$ent o' 7ner)y 2C673
Circular #o. !555-56-15 i$ple$entin) /atas 0ambansa 28.".3 /lg. . +he circular provided 'or 'ines 'or the co$$ission o'
prohibited acts. +he Court 'ound that nothin) in the circular contravened the la( because the C67 (as e9pressly authorized by
8.". /lg. and <.;. #o. 06J to i$pose 'ines or penalties.
:n the present case, neither the &ilk Code nor the <evised ;d$inistrative Code )rants the C6, the authority to 'i9 or i$pose
ad$inistrative 'ines. +hus, (ithout any e9press )rant o' po(er to 'i9 or i$pose such 'ines, the C6, cannot provide 'or those 'ines in
the <:<<. :n this re)ard, the C6, a)ain e9ceeded its authority by providin) 'or such 'ines or sanctions in Section 46 o' the <:<<.
Said provision is, there'ore, null and void.
+he C6, is not le't (ithout any $eans to en'orce its rules and re)ulations. Section 1!2b3 23 o' the &ilk Code authorizes the C6, to
Ecause the prosecution o' the violators o' this Code and other pertinent la(s on products covered by this Code.E Section 1 o' the
&ilk Code provides 'or the penalties to be i$posed on violators o' the provision o' the &ilk Code or the rules and re)ulations issued
pursuant to it, to (it*
S7C+:6# 1. Sanctions Z
2a3 ;ny person (ho violates the provisions o' this Code o/ +'e /u8e( n! /e-u8+&on( &((ue! *u/(un+ +o +'&(
Co!e shall, upon conviction, be punished by a penalty o' t(o 2!3 $onths to one 213 year i$prison$ent or a 'ine o' not
less than 6ne +housand "esos 2"1,555.553 nor $ore than +hirty +housand "esos 2"5,555.553 or both. Should the
o''ense be co$$itted by a >uridical person, the chair$an o' the 8oard o' Cirectors, the president, )eneral $ana)er,
or the partners andBor the persons directly responsible there'or, shall be penalized.
2b3 ;ny license, per$it or authority issued by any )overn$ent a)ency to any health (orker, distributor, $anu'acturer,
or $arketin) 'ir$ or personnel 'or the practice o' their pro'ession or occupation, or 'or the pursuit o' their business,
$ay, upon reco$$endation o' the &inistry o' ,ealth, be suspended or revoked in the event o' repeated violations o'
this Code, or o' the rules and re)ulations issued pursuant to this Code. 27$phasis supplied3
J. "etitionerPs clai$ that Section /0 o' the <:<< repeals e9istin) la(s that are contrary to the <:<< is 'rivolous.
Section /0 reads*
S7C+:6# /0. +epealing ,lause - ;ll orders, issuances, and rules and re)ulations or parts thereo' inconsistent (ith
these revised rules and i$ple$entin) re)ulations are hereby repealed or $odi'ied accordin)ly.
Section /0 o' the <:<< does not provide 'or the repeal o' la(s but only orders, issuances and rules and re)ulations. +hus, said
provision is valid as it is (ithin the C6,1s rule-$akin) po(er.
;n ad$inistrative a)ency like respondent possesses Duasi-le)islative or rule-$akin) po(er or the po(er to $ake rules and
re)ulations (hich results in dele)ated le)islation that is (ithin the con'ines o' the )rantin) statute and the Constitution, and sub>ect to
the doctrine o' non-dele)ability and separability o' po(ers.
0J
Such e9press )rant o' rule-$akin) po(er necessarily includes the po(er
to a$end, revise, alter, or repeal the sa$e.
09
+his is to allo( ad$inistrative a)encies 'le9ibility in 'or$ulatin) and ad>ustin) the details
and $anner by (hich they are to i$ple$ent the provisions o' a la(,
J5
in order to $ake it $ore responsive to the ti$es. ,ence, it is a
standard provision in ad$inistrative rules that prior issuances o' ad$inistrative a)encies that are inconsistent there(ith are declared
repealed or $odi'ied.
:n 'ine, only Sections 42'3, 11 and 46 are ultra %ires, beyond the authority o' the C6, to pro$ul)ate and in contravention o' the &ilk
Code and, there'ore, null and void. +he rest o' the provisions o' the <:<< are in consonance (ith the &ilk Code.
%astly, petitioner $akes a Ecatch-allE alle)ation that*
9 9 9 F+Ghe Duestioned <:<< sou)ht to be i$ple$ented by the <espondents is unne)e((/, n! o**/e((&:e, n! &(
o00en(&:e +o +'e !ue */o)e(( )8u(e o0 +'e Con(+&+u+&on, &n(o0/ ( +'e (.e &( &n /e(+/&n+ o0 +/!e and
because a provision therein is inadeDuate to provide the public (ith a co$prehensible basis to deter$ine (hether or
not they have co$$itted a violation.
J1
27$phasis supplied3
"etitioner re'ers to Sections 42'3,
J!
42i3,
J
/2(3,
J4
11,
J/
!!,
J6
!,
J0
46,
JJ
and /!
J9
as the provisions that suppress the trade o' $ilk and,
thus, violate the due process clause o' the Constitution.
+he 'ra$ers o' the constitution (ere (ell a(are that trade $ust be sub>ected to so$e 'or$ o' re)ulation 'or the public )ood. "ublic
interest $ust be upheld over business interests.
95
:n 0est Management Association of the 0hilippines %. Fertilizer and 0esticide
Authorit',
91
it (as held thus*
9 9 9 Further$ore, as held in ;ssociation o' "hilippine Coconut Cesiccators v. "hilippine Coconut ;uthority,!e(*&+e
+'e 0)+ +'+ Eou/ */e(en+ Con(+&+u+&on en('/&ne( 0/ee en+e/*/&(e ( *o8&),, &+ none+'e8e(( /e(e/:e( +o +'e
-o:e/n.en+ +'e *oBe/ +o &n+e/:ene B'ene:e/ ne)e((/, +o */o.o+e +'e -ene/8 Be80/e.E +here can be no
Duestion that the unre)ulated use or proli'eration o' pesticides (ould be hazardous to our environ$ent. +hus, in the
a'orecited case, the Court declared that E0/ee en+e/*/&(e !oe( no+ )88 0o/ /e.o:8 o0 P*/o+e)+&:e /e-u8+&on(Q.E 9 9
9 $+ .u(+ 4e )8e/8, eL*8&ne! n! */o:en 4, )o.*e+en+ e:&!en)e Mu(+ eL)+8, 'oB (u)' */o+e)+&:e /e-u8+&on
Bou8! /e(u8+ &n +'e /e(+/&n+ o0 +/!e. F7$phasis and underscorin) suppliedG
:n this case, petitioner 'ailed to sho( that the proscription o' $ilk $anu'acturersP participation in any policy$akin) body 2Section 42i33,
classes and se$inars 'or (o$en and children 2Section !!3= the )ivin) o' assistance, support and lo)istics or trainin) 2Section !3=
and the )ivin) o' donations 2Section /!3 (ould unreasonably ha$per the trade o' breast$ilk substitutes. "etitioner has not
established that the proscribed activities are indispensable to the trade o' breast$ilk substitutes. "etitioner 'ailed to de$onstrate that
the a'ore$entioned provisions o' the <:<< are unreasonable and oppressive 'or bein) in restraint o' trade.
"etitioner also 'ailed to convince the Court that Section /2(3 o' the <:<< is unreasonable and oppressive. Said section provides 'or
the de'inition o' the ter$ E$ilk co$pany,E to (it*
S7C+:6# / 9 9 9. 2(3 E&ilk Co$panyE shall re'er to the o(ner, $anu'acturer, distributor o' in'ant 'or$ula, 'ollo(-up
$ilk, $ilk 'or$ula, $ilk supple$ent, breast$ilk substitute or replace$ent, or by any other description o' such nature,
includin) their representatives (ho pro$ote or other(ise advance their co$$ercial interests in $arketin) those
products=
6n the other hand, Section 4 o' the &ilk Code provides*
2d3 ECistributorE $eans a person, corporation or any other entity in the public or private sector en)a)ed in the
business 2(hether directly or indirectly3 o' $arketin) at the (holesale or retail level a product (ithin the scope o' this
Code. ; Epri$ary distributorE is a $anu'acturer1s sales a)ent, representative, national distributor or broker.
9 9 9 9
2>3 E&anu'acturerE $eans a corporation or other entity in the public or private sector en)a)ed in the business or
'unction 2(hether directly or indirectly or throu)h an a)ent or and entity controlled by or under contract (ith it3 o'
$anu'acturin) a products (ithin the scope o' this Code.
#otably, the de'inition in the <:<< $erely $er)ed to)ether under the ter$ E$ilk co$panyE the entities de'ined separately under the
&ilk Code as EdistributorE and E$anu'acturer.E +he <:<< also enu$erated in Section /2(3 the products $anu'actured or distributed
by an entity that (ould Duali'y it as a E$ilk co$pany,E (hereas in the &ilk Code, (hat is used is the phrase Eproducts (ithin the
scope o' this Code.E +hose are the only di''erences bet(een the de'initions )iven in the &ilk Code and the de'inition as re-stated in
the <:<<.
Since all the re)ulatory provisions under the &ilk Code apply eDually to both $anu'acturers and distributors, the Court sees no har$
in the <:<< providin) 'or >ust one ter$ to enco$pass both entities. +he de'inition o' E$ilk co$panyE in the <:<< and the de'initions
o' EdistributorE and E$anu'acturerE provided 'or under the &ilk Code are practically the sa$e.
+he Court is not convinced that the de'inition o' E$ilk co$panyE provided in the <:<< (ould brin) about any chan)e in the treat$ent
or re)ulation o' EdistributorsE and E$anu'acturersE o' breast$ilk substitutes, as de'ined under the &ilk Code.
79cept Sections 42'3, 11 and 46, the rest o' the provisions o' the <:<< are in consonance (ith the ob>ective, purpose and intent o'
the &ilk Code, constitutin) reasonable re)ulation o' an industry (hich a''ects public health and (el'are and, as such, the rest o' the
<:<< do not constitute ille)al restraint o' trade nor are they violative o' the due process clause o' the Constitution.
WHERE"ORE, the petition is 6ART$ALL# GRANTE3. Sections 42'3, 11 and 46 o' ;d$inistrative 6rder #o. !556-551! dated &ay
1!, !556 are declared NULL and %O$3 'or bein) ultra %ires. +he Cepart$ent o' ,ealth and respondents are 6ROH$B$TE3 'ro$
i$ple$entin) said provisions.
+he +e$porary <estrainin) 6rder issued on ;u)ust 1/, !556 is L$"TE3 inso'ar as the rest o' the provisions o' ;d$inistrative 6rder
#o. !556-551! is concerned.
SO OR3ERE3.
0uno- L,hief .usticeM- 8uisumbing- Qnares-Santiago- Sando%al-Gutierrez- ,arpio- ,orona- ,arpio-Morales- Azcuna- 5inga- ,hico-
9azario- Garcia- 6elasco- .r.- 9achura- +e'es- ...- concur.
"oo+no+e(
1
Section 11, <ule , 1990 <ules o' Civil "rocedure (hich provides*
Se)+&on 11. Mis2oinder and non-2oinder of parties. - #either $is>oinder nor non->oinder o' parties is )round 'or
dis$issal o' an action. 6/+&e( ., 4e !/o**e! o/ !!e! 4, o/!e/ o0 +'e )ou/+ on $otion o' any party
or on &+( oBn &n&+&+&:e + n, (+-e o0 +'e )+&on and on such ter$s as are >ust. 9 9 9 27$phasis supplied3
!
;rticle 11. :$ple$entation and $onitorin)
11.1 @overn$ents should take action to )ive e''ect to the principles and ai$ o' this Code, as appropriate to
their social and le)islative 'ra$e(ork, includin) the adoption o' national le)islation, re)ulations or other
suitable $easures. For this purpose, )overn$ents should seek, (hen necessary, the cooperation o' W,6,
A#:C7F and other a)encies o' the Anited #ations syste$. #ational policies and $easures, includin) la(s
and re)ulations, (hich are adopted to )ive e''ect to the principles and ai$ o' this Code should be publicly
stated, and should apply on the sa$e basis to all those involved in the $anu'acture and $arketin) o'
products (ithin the scope o' this Code.
9 9 9 9

"etition, rollo, p. 1!.


4
@.<. #o. 11019, &ay !/, !554, 4!9 SC<; J1.
/
:d. at 96-90.
6
@.<. #o. 1/59!, &ay 4, !556, 4J9 SC<; J!.
0
:d. at 96.
J
;nne9 E@E, "etitioner1s &e$orandu$ dated July 19, !550.
9
;nne9es E,E, E:E, and EJE o' "etitioner1s &e$orandu$ e9ecuted by Wyeth "hilippines, :nc., 8ristol &yers SDuibb
2"hil.3, :nc., and ;bbott %aboratories, :nc., respectively.
15
a3 +he A# Convention on the <i)hts o' the Child 2C<C3= b3 the :nternational Code o' &arketin) 8reast$ilk
Substitutes 2:C&8S3=

c3 the :nternational Covenant on 7cono$ic, Social and Cultural <i)hts 2CSC<3= d3 the
Convention on the 7li$ination o' ;ll For$s o' Ciscri$ination ;)ainst Wo$en 2C7C;W3= e3 the @lobal Strate)y 'or
:n'ant and -oun) Child #utrition 2@lobal Strate)y3= and '3 various resolutions adopted by the World ,ealth ;sse$bly.
11
JoaDuin @. 8ernas, S.J., Constitutional Structure and "o(ers o' @overn$ent 2#otes and Cases3 "art : 2 !55/3.
1!
:d.
1
JoaDuin @. 8ernas, S.J., ;n :ntroduction to "ublic :nternational %a(, !55! 7d., p. /0.
14
;ccordin) to Fr. 8ernas, the ;ustrian Constitution 2;rt. 93 and the Constitution o' the Federal <epublic o' @er$any
2;rt. !/3 also use the incorporation $ethod.
1/
@.<. #o. 19!/, ;pril 1!, !55/, 4// SC<; 90.
16
:d. at 4!1.
10
&erlin &. &a)allona, Funda$entals o' "ublic :nternational %a(, !55/ 7d., p. /!6.
1J
:d. at /!/.
19
Go%ernment of )ong Hong Special Administrati%e +egion %. Olalia , @.<. #o. 1/60/, ;pril 19, !550.
!5
5a#ada %. Angara, J "hil. /46, /9! 219903.
!1
%ouis ,enkin, <ichard C. "u)h, 6scar Schachter, ,ans S$it, :nternational %a(, Cases and &aterials, !
nd
7d., p. 96.
!!
Supra note 1, at 15-1.
!
Minucher %. ,ourt of Appeals- TT> 0hil. =>V- =SA L=VV@M.
!4
;rticle /0. +he various specialized a)encies, established by inter)overn$ental a)ree$ent and havin) (ide
international responsibilities, as de'ined in their basic instru$ents, in econo$ic, social, cultural, educational, health,
and related 'ields, shall be brou)ht into relationship (ith the Anited #ations in accordance (ith the provisions o'
;rticle 6.
Such a)encies thus brou)ht into relationship (ith the Anited #ations are hereina'ter re'erred to as specialized
a)encies.
!/
;rticle 6. +he 7cono$ic and Social Council $ay enter into a)ree$ents (ith any o' the a)encies re'erred to in
;rticle /0, de'inin) the ter$s on (hich the a)ency concerned shall be brou)ht into relationship (ith the Anited
#ations. Such a)ree$ents shall be sub>ect to approval by the @eneral ;sse$bly.
:t $ay coordinate the activities o' the specialized a)encies throu)h consultation (ith and reco$$endations to such
a)encies and throu)h reco$$endations to the @eneral ;sse$bly and to the &e$bers o' the Anited #ations.
!6
;rticle 1J. +he functions o' the ,ealth ;sse$bly shall be* 2a3 to determine the policies of the "rgani-ation 9 9
9. 27$phasis supplied3
!0
;rticle !1. +he ,ealth ;sse$bly shall have authority to adopt re)ulations concernin)* 9 9 9 2e3 advertisin) and
labelin) o' biolo)ical, phar$aceutical and si$ilar products $ovin) in international co$$erce. 27$phasis supplied3
!J
;rticle !. +he ,ealth ;sse$bly shall have authority to ma*e recommendations to &e$bers (ith respect to any
$atter (ithin the co$petence o' the 6r)anization. 27$phasis supplied3
!9
See Cavid Fidler, Cevelop$ents :nvolvin) S;<S, :nternational %a(, and :n'ectious Cisease Control at the Fi'ty-
Si9th &eetin) o' the World ,ealth ;sse$bly, June !55, ;S:%.
5
:n Re(o8u+&on No. 35.22 2&ay !1, 19J13, the W,;, actin) under ;rticle ! o' the W,6 Constitution, adopted the
:C8&S.
2a3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 39.26 2&ay 19J!3, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to i$ple$ent the :C8&S as a
E$ini$u$ reDuire$entE.
2b3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 39.22 2&ay 16, 19J63, the W,; reDuested the W,6 Cirector @eneral to direct the
attention o' $e$ber states to the 'act that any 'ood or drink )iven be'ore co$ple$entary 'eedin) is
nutritionally reDuired $ay inter'ere (ith the initiation or $aintenance o' breast'eedin) and there'ore should
neither be pro$oted nor encoura)ed 'or us by in'ants durin) this period.
2c3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 53.3 2&ay 14, 19953, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to protect and pro$ote
breast'eedin) as an essential co$ponent o' nutrition policies so as to enable in'ants to be e9clusively
breast'ed durin) the 'irst 'our to si9 $onths o' li'e.
2d3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 59.35 2&ay 14, 199!3, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to i$ple$ent the tar)ets o' the
:nnocenti Ceclaration speci'ically, to )ive e''ect to the :C&8S.
2e3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 56.7 2&ay 15, 1993, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to strive to eli$inate under-
nutrition, $alnutrition and nutritional de'iciency a$on) children.
2'3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 57.9 2&ay 9, 19943, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to ensure that there are no
donations o' supplies o' breast$ilk substitutes and other products covered by the :C&8S in any part o' the
health care syste$.
2)3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 59.19 2&ay !/, 19963, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to ensure that co$ple$entary
'oods are not $arketed 'or or used in (ays that under$ine e9clusive and sustained breast'eedin).
2h3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 95.2 2&ay !55!3, the W,;, notin) that Edespite the 'act that the :nternational Code o'
&arketin) o' 8reast$ilk Substitutes and relevant subseDuent World ,ealth ;sse$bly resolutions state
that there should be no advertisin) or other 'or$s o' pro$otion o' products (ithin its scope, ne( $odern
co$$unication $ethods includin) electronic $eans, are currently increasin)ly bein) used to pro$ote such
products= and conscious o' the need 'or the Code9 ;li$entarius Co$$ission to take the :nternational Code
and subseDuent relevant ,ealth ;sse$bly resolutions into consideration in dealin) (ith health clai$s in the
develop$ent o' 'ood standards and )uidelines 9 9 9,E ur)ed $e$ber states to develop ne( approaches to
protect, pro$ote and support e9clusive breast'eedin) 'or si9 $onths as a )lobal public health
reco$$endation.
2i3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 99.29 2&ay 1/, !55!3, the W,; reDuested the Code9 ;li$entarius Co$$ission to
ensure that labellin) o' processed 'oods 'or in'ants and youn) children be consistent (ith the W,6 policy
under the :C8&S.
2>3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 92.32 2&ay !/, !55/3, the W,; ur)ed $e$ber states to continue to protect and
pro$ote e9clusive breast'eedin) 'or si9 $onths.
2k3 :n Re(o8u+&on No. 99.21 2&ay !0, !5563, the W,; reiterated its support 'or the @obal strate)y 'or :n'ant
and -oun) Child Feedin).
1
Cavid Fidler, supra note !9.
!
;rticle J. 1. +he Court, (hose 'unction is to decide in accordance (ith international la( such disputes as are
sub$itted to it, shall apply* a3 international conventions, (hether )eneral or particular, establishin) rules e9pressly
reco)nized by the contestin) states= b3 international custo$, as evidence o' a )eneral practice accepted as la(= c3
the )eneral principles o' la( reco)nized by civilized nations= d3 sub>ect to the provisions o' ;rticle /9, >udicial
decisions and the teachin)s o' the $ost hi)hly Duali'ied publicists o' the various nations, as subsidiary $eans 'or the
deter$ination o' rules o' la(.

Supra note !9.


4
%ouis ,enkin, et al., :nternational %a(, Cases and &aterials, !
nd
7d., supra note !1, at 114-16.
/
Supra note 19.
6
95 "hil. 05 219/13.
0
Supra note 1/.
J
@.<. #o. 1/99J, &arch 1, !556, 4J6 SC<; 45/.
9
7d(ard .(ak(a, So$e Co$$ents on <ule$akin) at the World :ntellectual "roperty
6r)anization,(((.la(.duke.eduBshellBcite= Septe$ber 1, !550, 1!*, citin) the 1999 W:"6 <esolution Concernin)
"rovisions on the "rotection o' Well-.no(n &arks, !555 W:"6 <eco$$endation Concernin) +rade$ark %icenses,
and !551 W:"6 <eco$$endation Concernin) "rovisions on the "rotection o' &arks and other :ndustrial "roperty
<i)hts in Si)ns on the :nternet.
45
:d.
41
Supra note !9.
4!
Section !. 0urpose O +hese <evised <ules and <e)ulations are hereby pro$ul)ated to ensure the provision o'
sa'e and adeDuate nutrition 'or in'ants and youn) children by the pro$otion, protection and support o' breast'eedin)
and by ensurin) the proper use o' breast$ilk substitutes, breast$ilk supple$ents and related products (hen these
are $edically indicated and only (hen necessary, on the basis o' adeDuate in'or$ation and throu)h appropriate
$arketin) and distribution. 2Anderscorin) supplied3
4
Section /2''3. E-oun) ChildE $eans a person 'ro$ the a)e o' $ore than t(elve 21!3 $onths up to the a)e o' three
23 years 26 $onths3. 2Anderscorin) supplied3
44
@.<. #o. 144!1J, July 14, !556, 49/ SC<; 4!, //.
4/
See pp. 19-!1.
46
See p. !1.
40
79ecutive 6rder #o. !9!, $ade e''ective on #ove$ber !, 19J9 by "rocla$ation #o. 49/.
4J
.acobson %. Massachusetts, 190 AS 11 2195/3= /eltran %. Secretar' of )ealth @.<. #o. 1645, #ove$ber !/,
!55/, 406 SC<; 16J, 196= St. Lu(es\s Medical ,enter Emplo'ees Association- AF* %.9ational Labor +elations
,ommission, @.<. #o. 16!5/, &arch 0, !550= 5ablarin %. Gutierrez- G.+. 9o. %-0J164, July 1, 19J0, 1/! SC<;
05, 041= 0ollution Ad2udication /oard %. ,ourt of Appeals, @.<. #o. 9J91, &arch 11, 1991, 19/ SC<; 11!, 1!-
1!4= +i%era %. ,ampbell- @T 0hil. @T<- @>@-@>T LASMJ Lorenzo %. 4irector of )ealth- >V 0hil. >A>- >A? LA=?M.
49
;s early as 0eople %. 0omar, 46 "hil. 445, 44/ 219!43, (e already noted that Eadvancing civili-ation is /ringing
&ithin the scope of police po&er of the state today things &hich &ere not thought of as /eing &ith in such
po&er yesterday. +he develop$ent o' civilization, the rapidly increasin) population, the )ro(th o' public opinion,
(ith Fan increasin)G desire on the part o' the $asses and o' the )overn$ent to look a'ter and care 'or the interests o'
the individuals o' the state, have brou)ht (ithin the police po(er o' the state $any Duestions 'or re)ulation (hich
'or$erly (ere not so considered.E
/5
;ct #o. !011, approved on &arch 15, 1910.
/1
.no(n then as "ublic ,ealth Service
/!
Section 1, Chapter :, +itle :S, 79ecutive 6rder #o. !9!.
/
:d. at Section .
/4
S7C+:6# 6. 5he General 0ublic and Mothers Q
2a3 #o advertisin), pro$otion or other $arketin) $aterials, (hether (ritten, audio or visual, 'or products
(ithin the scope o' this Code shall be printed, published, distributed, e9hibited and broadcast unless such
$aterials are duly authorized and approved by an inter-a)ency co$$ittee created herein pursuant to the
applicable standards provided 'or in this Code.
2b3 &anu'acturers and distributors shall not be per$itted to )ive, directly or indirectly, sa$ples and supplies o'
products (ithin the scope o' this Code or )i'ts o' any sort to any $e$ber o' the )eneral public, includin)
$e$bers o' their 'a$ilies, to hospitals and other health institutions, as (ell as to personnel (ithin the health
care syste$, save as other(ise provided in this Code.
2c3 +here shall be no point-o'-sale advertisin), )ivin) o' sa$ples or any other pro$otion devices to induce
sales directly to the consu$ers at the retail level, such as special displays, discount coupons, pre$iu$s,
special sales, bonus and tie-in sales 'or the products (ithin the scope o' this Code. +his provision shall not
restrict the establish$ent o' pricin) policies and practices intended to provide products at lo(er prices on a
lon)-ter$ basis.
2d3 &anu'actures and distributors shall not distribute to pre)nant (o$en or $others o' in'ants any )i'ts or
articles or utensils (hich $ay pro$ote the use o' breast$ilk substitutes or bottle'eedin), nor shall any other
)roups, institutions or individuals distribute such )i'ts, utensils or products to the )eneral public and $others.
2e3 &arketin) personnel shall be prohibited 'ro$ advertisin) or pro$otin) in any other $anner the products
covered by this Code, either directly or indirectly, to pre)nant (o$en or (ith $other o' in'ants, e9cept as
other(ise provided by this Code.
2'3 #othin) herein contained shall prevent donations 'ro$ $anu'acturers and distributors or products (ithin
the scope o' this Code upon reDuest by or (ith the approval o' the &inistry o' ,ealth.
S7C+:6# 0. )ealth ,are S'stem Z
2a3 +he &inistry o' ,ealth shall take appropriate $easures to encoura)e and pro$ote breast'eedin). :t shall
provide ob>ective and consistent in'or$ation, trainin) and advice to health (orkers on in'ant nutrition, and on
their obli)ations under this Code.
2b3 #o 'acility o' the health care syste$ shall be used 'or the purpose o' pro$otin) in'ant 'or$ula or other
products (ithin the scope o' this Code. +his Code does not, ho(ever, preclude the disse$ination o'
in'or$ation to health pro'essionals as provided in Section J2b3.
2c3 Facilities o' the health care syste$ shall not be used 'or the display o' products (ithin the scope o' this
Code, or 'or placards or posters concernin) such products.
2d3 +he use by the health care syste$ o' Epro'essional serviceE representatives, E$othercra't nursesE or
si$ilar personnel, provided or paid 'or by $anu'acturers or distributors, shall not be per$itted.
2e3 :n health education classes 'or $others and the )eneral public, health (orkers and co$$unity (orkers
shall e$phasize the hazards and risks o' the i$proper use o' breast$ilk substitutes particularly in'ant
'or$ula. Feedin) (ith in'ant 'or$ula shall be de$onstrated only to $others (ho $ay not be able to
breast'eed 'or $edical or other le)iti$ate reasons.
S7C+:6# J. )ealth *or(ers Z
2a3 ,ealth (orkers shall encoura)e and pro$ote breast'eedin) and shall $ake the$selves 'a$iliar (ith
ob>ectives and consistent in'or$ation on $aternal and in'ant nutrition, and (ith their responsibilities under this
Code.
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin) products (ithin
the scope o' this Code shall be restricted to scienti'ic and 'actual $atters and such in'or$ation shall not i$ply
or create a belie' that bottle'eedin) is eDuivalent or superior to breast'eedin). :t shall also include the
in'or$ation speci'ied in Section /2b3.
2c3 #o 'inancial or $aterial induce$ents to pro$ote products (ithin the scope o' this Code shall be o''ered by
$anu'acturers or distributors to health (orkers or $e$bers o' their 'a$ilies, nor shall these be accepted by
the health (orkers or $e$bers o' their 'a$ilies, e9cept as other(ise provided in Section J2e3.
2d3 Sa$ples o' in'ant 'or$ula or other products (ithin the scope o' this Code, or o' eDuip$ent or utensils 'or
their preparation or use, shall not be provided to health (orkers e9cept (hen necessary 'or the purpose o'
pro'essional evaluation or research in accordance (ith the rules and re)ulations pro$ul)ated by the &inistry
o' ,ealth. #o health (orkers shall )ive sa$ples o' in'ant 'or$ula to pre)nant (o$en and $others o' in'ants
or $e$bers o' their 'a$ilies.
2e3 &anu'acturers and distributors o' products (ithin the scope o' this Code $ay assist in the research,
scholarships and continuin) education, o' health pro'essionals, in accordance (ith the rules and re)ulations
pro$ul)ated by the &inistry o' ,ealth.
S7C+:6# 9. 0ersons emplo'ed b' Manufacturers and 4istributors Q "ersonnel e$ployed in $arketin) products
(ithin the scope o' this Code shall not, as part o' their >ob responsibilities, per'or$ educational 'unctions in relation to
pre)nant (o$en or $others o' in'ants.
//
See p. !5.
/6
See p. !1.
/0
S7C+:6# 16. ;ll health and nutrition clai$s 'or products (ithin the scope o' the Code are absolutely prohibited. For
this purpose, any phrase or (ords that connotes to increase e$otional, intellectual abilities o' the in'ant and youn)
child and other like phrases shall not be allo(ed.
/J
See p. 5.
/9
S7C+:6# 15. ,ontainers[Label Z
9 9 9 9
2d3 +he ter$ Ehu$anizedE, E$aternalizedE or si$ilar ter$s shall not be used.
65
S7C+:6# !. Aim of the ,ode Z +he ai$ o' the Code is to contribute to the provision o' sa'e and adeDuate nutrition
'or in'ants by the protection and pro$otion o' breast'eedin) and by ensurin) the proper use o' breast$ilk substitutes
and breast$ilk supple$ents (hen these are necessary, on the basis o' adeDuate in'or$ation and throu)h
appropriate $arketin) and distribution.
61
S7C+:6# !6. ,ontent O 7ach containerBlabel shall contain such $essa)e, in both Filipino and 7n)lish lan)ua)es,
and (hich $essa)e cannot be readily separated there'ro$, relative the 'ollo(in) points*
9 9 9 9
2'3 +he health hazards o' unnecessary or i$proper use o' in'ant 'or$ula and other related products includin)
in'or$ation that po(dered in'ant 'or$ula $ay contain patho)enic $icroor)anis$s and $ust be prepared and
used appropriately.
6!
+S# o' the hearin) o' June 19, !550, pp. 114-1!5.
6
+S# o' June 19, !550 hearin), pp. 19-194, 19J, !1, !0-!45, !9/-55.
64
@.<. #o. 1/!!14, Septe$ber 19, !556, /5! SC<; !9/.
6/
:d. at 14.
66
S7C+:6# 0. )ealth ,are S'stem Z
9 9 9 9
2b3 #o 'acility o' the health care syste$ shall be used 'or the purpose o' pro$otin) in'ant 'or$ula or other
products (ithin the scope o' this Code. +his Code does not, ho(ever, preclude the disse$ination o'
in'or$ation to health pro'essionals as provided in Section J2b3.
60
S7C+:6# J. )ealth *or(ers. -
9 9 9 9
2b3 :n'or$ation provided by $anu'acturers and distributors to health pro'essionals re)ardin) products (ithin
the scope o' this Code shall be restricted to scienti'ic and 'actual $atters and such in'or$ation shall not i$ply
or create a belie' that bottle'eedin) is eDuivalent or superior to breast'eedin). :t shall also include the
in'or$ation speci'ied in Section /2b3.
6J
S7C+:6# J. )ealth *or(ers -
9 9 9 9
2e3 &anu'acturers and distributors o' products (ithin the scope o' this Code $ay assist in the research,
scholarships and continuin) education, o' health pro'essionals, in accordance (ith the rules and re)ulations
pro$ul)ated by the &inistry o' ,ealth.
69
S7C+:6# 4. 4eclaration of 0rinciples O +he 'ollo(in) are the underlyin) principles 'ro$ (hich the revised rules and
re)ulations are pre$ised upon*
9 9 9 9
2i3 &ilk co$panies, and their representatives, should not 'or$ part o' any policy$akin) body or entity in
relation to the advance$ent o' breast'eedin).
05
S7C+:6# !!. #o $anu'acturer, distributor, or representatives o' products covered by the Code shall be allo(ed to
conduct or be involved in any activity on breast'eedin) pro$otion, education and production o' :n'or$ation,
7ducation and Co$$unication 2:7C3 $aterials on breast'eedin), holdin) o' or participatin) as speakers in classes or
se$inars 'or (o$en and children activities and to avoid the use o' these venues to $arket their brands or co$pany
na$es.
01
S7C+:6# 9. +esearch- Ethics ,ommittee- 0urpose - +he C6, shall ensure that research conducted 'or public
policy purposes, relatin) to in'ant and youn) child 'eedin) should, at all ti$es, be 'ree 'or$ any co$$ercial
in'luenceBbias= accordin)ly, the health (orker or researcher involved in such $ust disclose any actual or potential
con'lict o' interest (ith the co$panyBperson 'undin) the research. :n any event, such research and its 'indin)s shall
be sub>ected to independent peer revie(. 9 9 9.
0!
S7C+:6# 15. 0ublic 4isclosure Q For transparency purposes, a disclosure andBor disclai$er o' the sponsorin)
co$pany should be done by the co$pany itsel', health (orker, researcher involved throu)h verbal declaration durin)
the public presentation o' the research and in print upon publication.
0
S7C+:6# !. 0rimar' +esponsibilit' of )ealth *or(ers Z :t is the pri$ary responsibility o' the health (orkers to
pro$ote, protect and support breast'eedin) and appropriate in'ant and youn) child 'eedin). "art o' this responsibility
is to continuously update their kno(led)e and skills on breast'eedin). #o assistance, support, lo)istics or trainin)
'ro$ $ilk co$panies shall be per$itted.
04
Supra note 6J.
0/
S7C+:6# /1. 4onations *ithin the Scope of 5his ,ode - Conations o' products, $aterials, de'ined and covered
under the &ilk Code and these i$ple$entin) rules and re)ulations, shall be strictly prohibited.
06
1/9-; "hil. 14! 2190/3.
00
@.<. #o. 1/9149, June !6, !556, 49! SC<; 6J.
0J
Smart ,ommunications- 3nc. %. 9ational 5elecommunications ,ommission, 4/6 "hil. 14/, 1//-1/6 2!553.
09
Qaza(i 5orres Manufacturing- 3nc. %. ,ourt of Appeals , @.<. #o. 15/J4, June !0, !556, 49 SC<; J6, 90.
J5
Supra note 0J, at 1/6.
J1
"etitioner1s &e$orandu$.
J!
S7C+:6# 4. 4eclaration of 0rinciples O +he 'ollo(in) are the underlyin) principles 'ro$ (hich the revised rules and
re)ulations are pre$ised upon*
9 9 9 9
2'3 ;dvertisin), pro$otions, or sponsorships o' in'ant 'or$ula, breast$ilk substitutes and other related
products are prohibited.
J
S7C+:6# 4. 4eclaration of 0rinciples O 9 9 9
2i3 &ilk co$panies, and their representatives, should not 'or$ part o' any policy$akin) body or entity in
relation to the advance$ent o' breast'eedin).
J4
S7C+:6# /. 9 9 9 9 2(3 E&ilk Co$panyE shall re'er to the o(ner, $anu'acturer, distributor, o' in'ant 'or$ula, 'ollo(-
up $ilk, $ilk 'or$ula, $ilk supple$ent, breast$ilk substitute or replace$ent, or by any other description o' such
nature, includin) their representatives (ho pro$ote or other(ise advance their co$$ercial interests in $arketin)
those products= 9 9 9.
J/
S7C+:6# 11. 0rohibition O #o advertisin), pro$otions, sponsorships, or $arketin) $aterials and activities 'or
breast$ilk substitutes intended 'or in'ants and youn) children up to t(enty-'our 2!43 $onths, shall be allo(ed,
because they tend to convey or )ive subli$inal $essa)es or i$pressions that under$ine breast$ilk and
breast'eedin) or other(ise e9a))erate breast$ilk substitutes andBor replace$ents, as (ell as related products
covered (ithin the scope o' this Code.
J6
Supra note 05.
J0
Supra note 0.
JJ
S7C+:6# 46. Administrati%e Sanctions. O +he 'ollo(in) ad$inistrative sanctions shall be i$posed upon any
person, >uridical or natural, 'ound to have violated the provisions o' the Code and its i$ple$entin) <ules and
<e)ulations*
2a3 1
st
violation Q Warnin)=
2b3 !
nd
violation Q ;d$inistrative 'ine o' a $ini$u$ o' +en +housand 2"15,555.553 to Fi'ty +housand
2"/5,555.553 "esos, dependin) on the )ravity and e9tent o' the violation, includin) the recall o' the o''endin)
product=
2c3
rd
violation Q ;d$inistrative Fine o' a $ini$u$ o' Si9ty +housand 2"65,555.553 to 6ne ,undred Fi'ty
+housand 2"1/5,555.553 "esos, dependin) on the )ravity and e9tent o' the violation, and in addition thereto,
the recall o' the o''endin) product, and suspension o' the Certi'icate o' "roduct <e)istration 2C"<3=
2d3 4
th
violation Q;d$inistrative Fine o' a $ini$u$ o' +(o ,undred +housand 2"!55,555.553 to Five ,undred
2"/55,555.553 +housand "esos, dependin) on the )ravity and e9tent o' the violation= and in addition thereto,
the recall o' the product, revocation o' the C"<, suspension o' the %icense to 6perate 2%+63 'or one year=
2e3 /
th
and succeedin) repeated violations Q ;d$inistrative Fine o' 6ne &illion 2"1,555,555.553 "esos, the
recall o' the o''endin) product, cancellation o' the C"<, revocation o' the %icense to 6perate 2%+63 o' the
co$pany concerned, includin) the blacklistin) o' the co$pany to be 'urnished the Cepart$ent o' 8ud)et and
&ana)e$ent 2C8&3 and the Cepart$ent o' +rade and :ndustry 2C+:3=
2'3 ;n additional penalty o' +(o +hou-sand Five ,undred 2"!,/55.553 "esos per day shall be $ade 'or every
day the violation continues a'ter havin) received the order 'ro$ the :;C or other such appropriate body,
noti'yin) and penalizin) the co$pany 'or the in'raction.
For purposes o' deter$inin) (hether or not there is ErepeatedE violation, each product violation belon)in) or
o(ned by a co$pany, includin) those o' their subsidiaries, are dee$ed to be violations o' the concerned $ilk
co$pany and shall not be based on the speci'ic violatin) product alone.
J9
S7C+:6# /!. Other 4onations /' Mil( ,ompanies 9ot ,o%ered b' this ,ode - Conations o' products, eDuip$ents,
and the like, not other(ise 'allin) (ithin the scope o' this Code or these <ules, )iven by $ilk co$panies and their
a)ents, representatives, (hether in kind or in cash, $ay only be coursed throu)h the :nter ;)ency Co$$ittee 2:;C3,
(hich shall deter$ine (hether such donation be accepted or other(ise.
95
Eastern Assurance R Suret' ,orporation %. Land 5ransportation Franchising and +egulator' /oard, 4/9 "hil. 9/,
99 2!553.
91
@.<. #o. 1/6541, February !1, !550.
+he %a(phil "ro>ect - ;rellano %a( Foundation
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. L-69900 Ju8, 22, 1929
JOSE ANTON$O U. GON1ALE1 &n 4e'80 o0 MALA#A "$LMS, L$NO BROC;A, JOSE ". LACABA, n! 3ULCE <.
SAGU$SAG, petitioners,
vs.
CHA$RMAN MAR$A ;ALAW ;AT$GBA;, GENERAL W$L"RE3O C. ESTRA3A @Re+.A, n! THE BOAR3 O" RE%$EW "OR
MOT$ON 6$CTURES AN3 TELE%$S$ON @BRM6TA, respondents.
3rene +. ,ortes- 0erfecto 6. Fernandez- )a'dee Qorac and .o(er 0. Arro'o for petitioners.
5he Solicitor General for respondents.

"ERNAN3O, C.J.:
:n this case o' 'irst i$pression, a certiorari proceedin) 'iled on January 15, 19J/, there is a persuasive rin) to the invocation o' the
constitutional ri)ht to 'reedo$ o' e9pression
1
o' an artistHand 'or that $atter a $an o' letters tooHas the basis 'or a rulin) on the scope
o' the po(er o' respondent 8oard o' <evie( 'or &otion "ictures and +elevision and ho( it should be e9ercised. +he dispute bet(een the
parties has been narro(ed do(n. +he $otion picture in Duestion, Hapit sa 0atalim (as classi'ied EFor ;dults 6nly.E +here is the 'urther
issue then, also one o' 'irst i$pression, as to the proper test o' (hat constitutes obscenity in vie( o' the ob>ections raised. +hus the
relevance o' this constitutional co$$and* E;rts and letters shall be under the patrona)e o' the State.
2
+he principal petitioner is Jose ;ntonio A. @onzalez,
3
"resident o' the &alaya Fil$s, a $ovie production out'it duly re)istered as a sin)le
proprietorship (ith the 8ureau o' Co$estic +rade. +he respondent is the 8oard o' <evie( 'or &otion "ictures and +elevision, (ith &aria
.ala( .ati)bak as its Chair$an and 8ri). @en. Wil'redo C. 7strada as its ?ice-Chair$an, also na$ed respondents.
:n a resolution o' a sub-co$$ittee o' respondent 8oard o' 6ctober !, 19J4, a per$it to e9hibit the 'il$ .apit sa "atali$ under the
classi'ication EFor ;dults 6nly,E (ith certain chan)es and deletions enu$erated (as )ranted. ; $otion 'or reconsideration (as 'iled
by petitioners statin) that the classi'ication o' the 'il$ EFor ;dults 6nlyE (as (ithout basis.
5
+hen on #ove$ber 1!, 19J4, respondent
8oard released its decision* E;ctin) on the applicant1s &otion 'or <econsideration dated !9 6ctober 19J4, the 8oard, a'ter a revie( o' the
resolution o' the sub-co$$ittee and an e9a$ination o' the 'il$, <esolves to a''ir$ in toto the rulin) o' the sub-co$$ittee. Considerin),
ho(ever, certain vital de'iciencies in the application, the 8oard 'urther <esolves to direct the Chair$an o' the 8oard to Withheld the
issuance o' the "er$it to e9hibit until these de'iciencies are supplied.
9
,ence this petition.
+his Court, in a resolution o' January 1!, 19J/, reDuired respondent to ans(er. :n such pleadin) sub$itted on January !1, 19J/, as
one o' its special and a''ir$ative de'enses, it (as alle)ed that the petition is $oot as Erespondent 8oard has revoked its Duestioned
resolution, replacin) it (ith one i$$ediately )rantin) petitioner co$pany a per$it to e9hibit the 'il$ .apit (ithout any deletion or cut
Fthus anG ad>udication o' the Duestions presented above (ould be acade$ic on the case.E
6
Further* E+he $odi'ied resolution o' the
8oard, o' course, classi'ies .apit as 'or-adults-only, but the petition does not raise any issue as to the validity o' this classi'ication. ;ll that
petitioners assail as arbitrary on the part o' the 8oard1s action are the deletions ordered in the 'il$.
7
+he prayer (as 'or the dis$issal o' the
petition.
;n a$ended petition (as then 'iled on January !/, 19J/. +he $ain ob>ection (as the classi'ication o' the 'il$ as EFor ;dults 6nly.E
For petitioners, such classi'ication Eis (ithout le)al and 'actual basis and is e9ercised as i$per$issible restraint o' artistic e9pression.
+he 'il$ is an inte)ral (hole and all its portions, includin) those to (hich the 8oard no( o''ers belated ob>ection, are essential 'or the
inte)rity o' the 'il$. ?ie(ed as a (hole, there is no basis even 'or the va)ue speculations advanced by the 8oard as basis 'or its
classi'ication.
2
+here (as an ans(er to the a$ended petition 'iled on February 1J, 19J/. :t (as therein asserted that the issue presented
as to the previous deletions ordered by the 8oard as (ell as the statutory provisions 'or revie( o' 'il$s and as to the reDuire$ent to sub$it
the $aster ne)ative have been all rendered $oot. :t (as also sub$itted that the standard o' the la( 'or classi'yin) 'il$s a''ord a practical
and deter$inative yardstick 'or the e9ercise o' >ud)$ent. For respondents, the Duestion o' the su''iciency o' the standards re$ains the only
Duestion at issue.
:t (ould be unduly restrictive under the circu$stances to li$it the issue to one o' the su''iciency o' standards to )uide respondent
8oard in the e9ercise o' its po(er. 7ven i' such (ere the case, there is >usti'ication 'or an inDuiry into the controllin) standard to
(arrant the classi'ication o' EFor ;dults 6nly.E +his is especially so, (hen obscenity is the basis 'or any alle)ed invasion o' the ri)ht
to the 'reedo$ o' artistic and literary e9pression e$braced in the 'ree speech and 'ree press )uarantees o' the Constitution.
1. &otion pictures are i$portant both as a $ediu$ 'or the co$$unication o' :deas and the e9pression o' the artistic i$pulse. +heir
e''ects on the perception by our people o' issues and public o''icials or public 'i)ures as (ell as the prevailin) cultural traits is
considerable. #or as pointed out in /urst'n %. *ilson
9
is the Ei$portance o' $otion pictures as an or)an o' public opinion lessened by
the 'act that they are desi)ned to entertain as (ell as to in'or$.
10
+here is no clear dividin) line bet(een (hat involves kno(led)e and (hat
a''ords pleasure. :' such a distinction (ere sustained, there is a di$inution o' the basic ri)ht to 'ree e9pression. 6ur recent decision
in +e'es %. /agatsing
11
cautions a)ainst such a $ove. "ress 'reedo$, as stated in the opinion o' the Court, E$ay be :denti'ied (ith the
liberty to discuss publicly and truth'ully any $atter o' public concern (ithout censorship or punish$ent.
12
+his is not to say that such
'reedo$, as is the 'reedo$ o' speech, absolute. :t can be li$ited i' Ethere be a 1clear and present dan)er o' a substantive evil that Fthe StateG
has a ri)ht to prevent.
13
!. Censorship or previous restraint certainly is not all there is to 'ree speech or 'ree press. :' it (ere so, then such basic ri)hts are
e$asculated. :t is ho(ever, e9cept in e9ceptional circu$stances a sine &ua non 'or the $eanin)'ul e9ercise o' such ri)ht. +his is not
to deny that eDually basic is the other i$portant aspect o' 'reedo$ 'ro$ liability. #onetheless, 'or the purposes o' this liti)ation, the
e$phasis should ri)htly be on 'reedo$ 'ro$ censorship. :t is, beyond Duestion, a (ell-settled principle in our >urisdiction. ;s early as
1959, in the case o' ;nited States %. Sedano-
15
a prosecution 'or libel, the Supre$e Court o' the "hilippines already $ade clear that
'reedo$ o' the press consists in the ri)ht to print (hat one chooses (ithout any previous license. +here is rea''ir$ation o' such a vie(
in Mutuc %. ,ommission on Elections,
19
(here an order o' respondent Co$$ission on 7lections )ivin) due course to the certi'icate o'
candidacy o' petitioner but prohibitin) hi$ 'ro$ usin) >in)les in his $obile units eDuipped (ith sound syste$s and loud speakers (as
considered an abrid)$ent o' the ri)ht o' the 'reedo$ o' e9pression a$ountin) as it does to censorship. :t is the opinion o' this Court,
there'ore, that to avoid an unconstitutional taint on its creation, the po(er o' respondent 8oard is li$ited to the classi'ication o' 'il$s. :t can,
to sa'e)uard other constitutional ob>ections, deter$ine (hat $otion pictures are 'or )eneral patrona)e and (hat $ay reDuire either parental
)uidance or be li$ited to adults only. +hat is to abide by the principle that 'reedo$ o' e9pression is the rule and restrictions the e9e$ption.
+he po(er to e9ercise prior restraint is not to be presu$ed, rather the presu$ption is a)ainst its validity.
16
. +he test, to repeat, to deter$ine (hether 'reedo$ o' e9cession $ay be li$ited is the clear and present dan)er o' an evil o' a
substantive character that the State has a ri)ht to prevent. Such dan)er $ust not only be clear but also present. +here should be no
doubt that (hat is 'eared $ay be traced to the e9pression co$plained o'. +he causal connection $ust be evident. ;lso, there $ust
be reasonable apprehension about its i$$inence. +he ti$e ele$ent cannot be i)nored. #or does it su''ice i' such dan)er be only
probable. +here is the reDuire o' its bein) (ell-ni)h inevitable. +he basic postulate, (here'ore, as noted earlier, is that (here the
$ovies, theatrical productions radio scripts, television pro)ra$s, and other such $edia o' e9pression are concerned H included as
they are in 'reedo$ o' e9pression H censorship, especially so i' an entire production is banned, is allo(able only under the clearest
proo' o' a clear and present dan)er o' a substantive evil to public public $orals, public health or any other le)iti$ate public
interest.
17
+here is $erit to the observation o' Justice Cou)las that Eevery (riter, actor, or producer, no $atter (hat $ediu$ o' e9pression
he $ay use, should be 'reed 'ro$ the censor.
12
4. +he la(, ho(ever, 'ro(ns on obscenity and ri)htly so. ;s cate)orically stated by .ustice /rennan in +oth %. ;nited
States
19
speakin) o' the 'ree speech and press )uarantee o' the Anited States Constitution* E;ll :deas havin) even the sli)htest redee$in)
social i$portance H unorthodo9 :deas, controversial :deas, even :deas hate'ul to the prevailin) cli$ate o' opinion H have the 'ull
protection o' the )uaranties, unless e9cludable because they encroach upon the li$ited area o' the First ;$end$ent is the re>ection o'
obscenity as utterly (ithout redee$in) social i$portance.
20
Such a vie( co$$ends itsel' 'or approval.
/. +here is, ho(ever, so$e di''iculty in deter$inin) (hat is obscene. +here is persuasiveness to the approach 'ollo(ed in <oth* E+he
early leadin) standard o' obscenity allo(ed $aterial to be >ud)ed $erely by the e''ect o' an isolated e9cerpt upon particularly
susceptible persons. +egina %. )ic(lin F1J6JG %< L8 65. So$e ;$erican courts adopted this standard but later decisions have
re>ected it and substituted this test* (hether to the avera)e person, applyin) conte$porary co$$unity standards, the do$inant
the$e o' the $aterial taken as a (hole appeals to prurient interest. +he ,icklin test, >ud)in) obscenity by the e''ect o' isolated
passa)es upon the $ost susceptible persons, $i)ht (ell enco$pass $aterial le)iti$ately treatin) (ith se9, and so it $ust be
re>ected as unconstitutionally restrictive o' the 'reedo$s o' speech and press. 6n the other hand, the substituted standard provides
sa'e)uards adeDuate to (ithstand the char)e o' constitutional in'ir$ity.
21
6. +he above e9cerpt (hich i$poses on the >udiciary the duty to be ever on )uard a)ainst any i$per$issible in'rin)e$ent on the
'reedo$ o' artistic e9pression calls to $ind the land$ark ponencia o' Justice &alcol$ in ;nited States %. /ustos,
22
decided in 191J.
While reco)nizin) the principle that libel is beyond the pale o' constitutional protection, it le't no doubt that in deter$inin) (hat constitutes
such an o''ense, a court should ever be $ind'ul that no violation o' the ri)ht to 'reedo$ o' e9pression is allo(able. :t is a $atter o' pride 'or
the "hilippines that it (as not until 19J4 in 9ew Qor( 5imer %. Sulli%an-
23
thirty-years later, that the Anited States Supre$e Court enunciated
a si$ilar doctrine.
0. :t is Duite understandable then (hy in the <oth opinion, Justice 8rennan took pains to e$phasize that Ese9 and obscenity are not
synony$ous.
25
Further* E6bscene $aterial is $aterial (hich deals (ith se9 in a $anner appealin) to prurient interest. +he portrayal o' se9,
e.)., in art, literature and scienti'ic (orks, is not itsel' su''icient reason to deny $aterial the constitutional protection o' 'reedo$ o' speech
and press. Se9, a )reat and $ysterious $otive 'orce in hu$an li'e has indisputably been a sub>ect o' absorbin) interest to $ankind throu)h
the a)es= it is one o' the vital proble$s o' hu$an interest and public concern.
29
J. :n the applicable la(, 79ecutive 6rder #o. J06, re'erence (as $ade to respondent 8oard Eapplyin) conte$porary Filipino cultural
values as standard,
26
(ords (hich can be construed in an analo)ous $anner. &oreover, as 'ar as the Duestion o' se9 and obscenity are
concerned, it cannot be stressed stron)ly that the arts and letters Eshall be under the patrona)e o' the State.
27
+hat is a constitutional
$andate. :t (ill be less than true to its 'unction i' any )overn$ent o''ice or a)ency (ould invade the sphere o' autono$y that an artist
en>oys. +here is no orthodo9y in (hat passes 'or beauty or 'or reality. :t is 'or the artist to deter$ine (hat 'or hi$ is a true representation. :t
is not to be 'or)otten that art and belleslettres deal pri$arily (ith i$a)ination, not so $uch (ith ideas in a strict sense. What is seen or
perceived by an artist is entitled to respect, unless there is a sho(in) that the product o' his talent ri)ht'ully $ay be considered obscene. ;s
so (en put by Justice Frank'urter in a concurrin) opinion, Ethe (idest scope o' 'reedo$ is to be )iven to the adventurous and i$a)inative
e9ercise o' the hu$an spiritE
22
in this sensitive area o' a $an1s personality. 6n the Duestion o' obscenity, there'ore, and in the li)ht o' the
'acts o' this case, such standard set 'orth in 79ecutive 6rder #o. J0J is to be construed in such a 'ashion to avoid any taint o'
unconstitutionality. +o repeat, (hat (as stated in a recent decision
29
citin) the lan)ua)e o' Justice &alcol$ in Qu ,ong Eng %. 5rinidad,
30
it
is Ean ele$entary, a 'unda$ental, and a universal role o' construction, applied (hen considerin) constitutional Duestions, that (hen a la( is
susceptible o' t(o constructions1 one o' (hich (ill $aintain and the other destroy it, the courts (ill al(ays adopt the 'or$er.
31
;s thus
construed, there can be no valid ob>ection to the su''iciency o' the controllin) standard and its con'or$ity to (hat the Constitution ordains.
9. +his bein) a certiorari petition, the Duestion be'ore the Court is (hether or not there (as a )rave abuse o' discretion. +hat there
(as an abuse o' discretion by respondent 8oard is evident in the li)ht o' the di''iculty and travail under)one by petitioners
be'ore Hapit sa 0atalim (as classi'ied as EFor ;dults 6nly,E (ithout any deletion or cut. &oreover its perception o' (hat constitutes
obscenity appears to be unduly restrictive. +his Court concludes then that there (as an abuse o' discretion. #onetheless, there are
not enou)h votes to $aintain that such an abuse can be considered )rave. ;ccordin)ly, certiorari does not lie. +his conclusion 'inds
support in this e9planation o' respondents in its ;ns(er to the a$ended petition* E+he adult classi'ication )iven the 'il$ serves as a
Sear!#
3$!t&a.(0

F&nd a La.,e*

Le'a% An!.e*!

La.

M(*e
S&'n In
/ustia P G& >aw P G& Case >aw P G& &upreme Court P 8olume 7<= P #CC '. Pacifica #oundation +
7<= G.&. -*; P Case
NE? + Re3e0+e ,u250a@2 FREE 'a08y NeA28e55er2 o7 40%0o% )u66ar0e2 for the G&
&upreme Court, all G& #ederal @ppellate Courts & the 0. G& &tate &upreme Courts and
(ee$ly Practice @rea 6pinion &ummaries )ewsletters. )ub23r0be NoA
FCC +. "a30703a Fou%&a50o% - 43B -.). 72C !197B$
&yllabus
Case
U.S. Supreme Court
FCC +. "a30703a Fou%&a50o%, 43B -.). 72C !197B$
Fe&era8 Co66u%03a50o%2 Co660220o% +. "a30703a Fou%&a50o%
No. 77-D2B
Ar<ue& A4r08 1B, 19, 197B
'e30&e& ,u8y 3, 197B
43B -.). 72C
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllab!
@ radio station of respondent Pacifica #oundation (hereinafter respondent made an
afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled C#ilthy (ords,C which listed and
repeated a 'ariety of collo:uial uses of Cwords you couldnQt say on the public airwa'es.C
@ father who heard the broadcast while dri'ing with his young son complained to the
#ederal Communications Commission (#CC, which, after forwarding the complaint for
comment to and recei'ing a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order
granting the complaint. (hile not imposing formal sanctions, the #CC stated that the
order would be
Cassociated with the stationQs license file, and, in the e'ent subse:uent complaints are
recei'ed, the Commission will then decide whether it should utili!e any of the a'ailable
sanctions it has been granted by Congress.C
In its memorandum opinion, the #CC stated that it intended to Cclarify the standards
which will be utili!ed in consideringC the growing number of complaints about indecent
radio broadcasts, and it ad'anced se'eral reasons for treating that type of speech
differently from other forms of e"pression. The #CC found a power to regulate indecent
broadcasting, i"ter alia# in 1= G.&.C. R 17;7 (12-; ed., which forbids the use of Cany
obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications.C The #CC
characteri!ed the language of the monologue as Cpatently offensi'e,C though not
necessarily obscene, and e"pressed the opinion that it should be regulated by principles
analogous to the law of nuisance, where the Claw generally spea$s to channeling
beha'ior, rather than actually prohibiting it.C The #CC found that certain words in the
monologue depicted se"ual and e"cretory acti'ities in a particularly offensi'e manner,
noted that they were broadcast in the early afternoon, Cwhen children are undoubtedly
in the audience,C and concluded that the language, as broadcast, was indecent and
prohibited by R 17;7. @ three+judge panel of the Court of @ppeals re'ersed, one judge
concluding that the #CCQs action was in'alid either on the ground that the order
constituted censorship, which was e"pressly forbidden by R <*; of the Communications
@ct of 12<7, or on the ground that the #CCQs opinion was the functional e:ui'alent of
Page 7<= G. &. -*-
a rule, and, as such, was Co'erbroad.C @nother judge, who felt that R <*;Qs censorship
pro'ision did not apply to broadcasts forbidden by R 17;7, concluded that R 17;7,
construed narrowly as it has to be, co'ers only language that is obscene or otherwise
unprotected by the #irst @mendment. The third judge, dissenting, concluded that the
#CC had correctly condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent. 9espondent contends
that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute because of the
absence of prurient appeal.
Hel$% The judgment is re'ersed. Pp. 7<= G. &. -<7+-713 7<= G. &. -7=+-0.3 7<= G. &.
-;1+-;*.
1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. 1<*, 00; #.*d 2, re'ersed.
,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)& deli'ered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I+III and
I8+C, finding5
1. The #CCQs order was an adjudication under 0 G.&.C. R 007(e (12-; ed., the
character of which was not changed by the general statements in the memorandum
opinion3 nor did the #CCQs action constitute rulema$ing or the promulgation of
regulations. Hence, the CourtQs re'iew must focus on the #CCQs determination that the
monologue was indecent as broadcast. Pp. 7<= G. &. -<7+-<0.
*. &ection <*; does not limit the #CCQs authority to sanction licensees who engage in
obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes
editing proposed broadcasts in ad'ance, the ban does not deny the #CC the power to
re'iew the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 7<= G. &. -<0+-<=.
<. The #CC was warranted in concluding that indecent language within the meaning of R
17;7 was used in the challenged broadcast. The words Cobscene, indecent, or profaneC
are in the disjuncti'e, implying that each has a separate meaning. Though prurient
appeal is an element of Cobscene,C it is not an element of Cindecent,C which merely
refers to conconformance with accepted standards of morality. Contrary to respondentQs
argument, this Court, in Ha&li"' (. U"ite$ State!# 71= G. &. =-, has not foreclosed a
reading of R 17;7 that authori!es a proscription of CindecentC language that is not
obscene, for the statute in'ol'ed in that case, unli$e R 17;7, focused upon the prurient,
and dealt primarily with printed matter in sealed en'elopes mailed from one indi'idual
to another, whereas R 17;7 deals with the content of public broadcasts. Pp.7<= G. &.
-<=+-71.
7. 6f all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited #irst @mendment
protection. @mong the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the
uni:uely per'asi'e presence that medium of e"pression occupies in the li'es of our
people. Broadcasts e"tend into the pri'acy of the home, and it is impossible completely
to a'oid
Page 7<= G. &. -*=
those that are patently offensi'e. Broadcasting, moreo'er, is uni:uely accessible to
children. Pp. 7<= G. &. -7-+-0..
,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)&, joined by TH% CHI%# /G&TIC% and ,9. /G&TIC% 9%H)IGI&T,
concluded in Part I8+@ and I8+B5
1. The #CCQs authority to proscribe this particular broadcast is not in'alidated by the
possibility that its construction of the statute may deter certain hypothetically protected
broadcasts containing patently offensi'e references to se"ual and e"cretory
acti'ities.C). Re$ Lio" Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. FCC# <20 G. &. <;-. Pp. 7<= G. &. -7*+-7<.
*. The #irst @mendment does not prohibit all go'ernmental regulation that depends on
the content of speech. Sc*e"c+ (. U"ite$ State!# *72 G. &. 7-, *72 G. &. 0*. The
content of respondentQs broadcast, which was C'ulgar,C Coffensi'e,C and Cshoc$ing,C is
not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all conte"ts3 it is therefore
necessary to e'aluate the #CCQs action in light of the content of that broadcast. Pp. 7<=
G. &. -77+-7=.
,9. /G&TIC% P6(%>>, joined by ,9. /G&TIC% B>@CN,G), concluded that the #CCQs
holding does not 'iolate the #irst @mendment, though, being of the 'iew that ,embers
of this Court are not free generally to decide on the basis of its content which speech
protected by the #irst @mendment is most 'aluable and therefore deser'ing of #irst
@mendment protection, and which is less C'aluableC and hence less deser'ing of
protection, he is unable to join Part I8+B (or I8+@ of the opinion. Pp. 7<= G. &. -;1+
-;*.
&T%8%)&, /., announced the CourtQs judgment and deli'ered an opinion of the Court
with respect to Parts I+III and I8+C, in which BG9B%9, C./., and 9%H)IGI&T, /., joined,
and in all but Parts I8+@ and I8+B of which B>@CN,G) and P6(%>>, //., joined, and an
opinion as to Parts I8+@ and I8+B, in which BG9B%9, C./., and 9%H)IGI&T, /., joined.
P6(%>>, /., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which
B>@CN,G), /., joined, ,o!t# p. 7<= G. &. -00. B9%))@), /., filed a dissenting opinion,
in which ,@9&H@>>, /., joined, ,o!t# p. 7<= G. &. -;*. &T%(@9T, /., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which B9%))@), (HIT%, and ,@9&H@>>, //., joined, ,o!t# p. 7<= G. &. ---.
Page 7<= G. &. -*2
,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)& deli'ered the opinion of the Court (Parts I, II, III, and I8+C and
an opinion in which TH% CHI%# /G&TIC% and ,9. /G&TIC% 9%H)IGI&T joined (Parts I8+
@ and I8+B.
This case re:uires that we decide whether the #ederal Communications Commission has
any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene.
@ satiric humorist named Beorge Carlin recorded a 1*+minute monologue entitled
C#ilthy (ordsC before a li'e audience in a California theater. He began by referring to his
thoughts about Cthe words you couldnQt say on the public, ah, airwa'es, um, the ones
you definitely wouldnQt say, e'er.C He proceeded to list those words and repeat them
o'er and o'er again in a 'ariety of collo:uialisms. The transcript of the recording, which
is appended to this opinion, indicates fre:uent laughter from the audience.
@t about * oQcloc$ in the afternoon on Tuesday, 6ctober <., 12-<, a )ew Jor$ radio
station, owned by respondent Pacifica
Page 7<= G. &. -<.
#oundation, broadcast the C#ilthy (ordsC monologue. @ few wee$s later a man, who
stated that he had heard the broadcast while dri'ing with his young son, wrote a letter
complaining to the Commission. He stated that, although he could perhaps understand
the CrecordQs being sold for pri'ate use, I certainly cannot understand the broadcast of
same o'er the air that, supposedly, you control.C
The complaint was forwarded to the station for comment. I n its response, Pacifica
e"plained that the monologue had been played during a program about contemporary
societyQs attitude toward language, and that, immediately before its broadcast, listeners
had been ad'ised that it included Csensiti'e language which might be regarded as
offensi'e to some.C Pacifica characteri!ed Beorge Carlin as Ca significant social satiristC
who,
Cli$e Twain and &ahl before him, e"amines the language of ordinary people. . . . Carlin
is not mouthing obscenities, he is merely using words to satiri!e as harmless and
essentially silly our attitudes towards those words.C
Pacifica stated that it was not aware of any other complaints about the broadcast.
6n #ebruary *1, 12-0, the Commission issued a declaratory order granting the
complaint and holding that Pacifica Ccould ha'e been the subject of administrati'e
sanctions.C 0; #.C.C.*d 27, 22. The Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it
did state that the order would be
Cassociated with the stationQs license file, and, in the e'ent that subse:uent complaints
are recei'ed, the Commission will then decide whether it should utili!e any of the
a'ailable sanctions it has been granted by Congress. K#ootnote 1L C
Page 7<= G. &. -<1
In its memorandum opinion, the Commission stated that it intended to Cclarify the
standards which will be utili!ed in consideringC the growing number of complaints about
indecent speech on the airwa'es. I$. at 27. @d'ancing se'eral reasons for treating
broadcast speech differently from other forms of e"pression, K#ootnote *L the
Commission found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes5 1= G.&.C.
R 17;7 (12-; ed., which forbids the use of Cany obscene, indecent, or profane
language by means of radio communications,C K#ootnote <L and 7- G.&.C. R <.<(g,
which re:uires the Commission to Cencourage the larger and more effecti'e use of radio
in the public interest.C K#ootnote 7L
The Commission characteri!ed the language used in the Carlin monologue as Cpatently
offensi'e,C though not necessarily obscene, and e"pressed the opinion that it should be
regulated by principles analogous to those found in the law of nuisance, where the
Claw generally spea$s to c*a""eli"' beha'ior more than actually prohibiting it. . . .
KTLhe concept
Page 7<= G. &. -<*
of QindecentQ is intimately connected with the e"posure of children to language that
describes, in terms patently offensi'e as measured by contemporary community
standards for the broadcast medium, se"ual or e"cretory acti'ities and organs, at times
of the day when there is a reasonable ris$ that children may be in the audience.C
0; #.C.C.*d at 2=. K#ootnote 0L
@pplying these considerations to the language used in the monologue as broadcast by
respondent, the Commission concluded that certain words depicted se"ual and
e"cretory acti'ities in a patently offensi'e manner, noted that they Cwere broadcast at a
time when children were undoubtedly in the audience (i.e.# in the early afternoon,C and
that the prerecorded language, with these offensi'e words Crepeated o'er and o'er,C
was Cdeliberately broadcast.C I$. at 22. In summary, the Commission stated5 C(e
therefore hold that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited by 1= G.&.C.
KRL 17;7. K#ootnote ;LC Ibi$.
@fter the order issued, the Commission was as$ed to clarify its opinion by ruling that
the broadcast of indecent words as part of a li'e newscast would not be prohibited. The
Commission issued another opinion in which it pointed out that
Page 7<= G. &. -<<
it
Cne'er intended to place an absolute prohibition on the broadcast of this type of
language, but rather sought to channel it to times of day when children most li$ely
would not be e"posed to it.C
02 #.C.C.*d =2* (12-;. The Commission noted that its Cdeclaratory order was issued in
a specific factual conte"t,C and declined to comment on 'arious hypothetical situations
presented by the petition. K#ootnote -L I$. at =2<. It relied on its
Clong+standing policy of refusing to issue interpreti'e rulings or ad'isory opinions when
the critical facts are not e"plicitly stated or there is a possibility that subse:uent e'ents
will alter them.C
Ibi$.
The Gnited &tates Court of @ppeals for the ?istrict of Columbia Circuit re'ersed, with
each of the three judges on the panel writing separately. 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. 1<*, 00;
#.*d 2. /udge Tamm concluded that the order represented censorship and was e"pressly
prohibited by R <*; of the Communications @ct. K#ootnote =L @lternati'ely, /udge Tamm
read the Commission opinion as the functional e:ui'alent of a rule, and concluded that
it was Co'erbroad.C 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. at 171, 00; #.*d at 1=. Chief /udge Ba!elonQs
concurrence rested on the Constitution. He was persuaded that R <*;Qs prohibition
against censorship is inapplicable to broadcasts forbidden by R 17;7. Howe'er, he
concluded that R 17;7
Page 7<= G. &. -<7
must be narrowly construed to co'er only language that is obscene or otherwise
unprotected by the #irst @mendment. 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. at 17.+10<, 00; #.*d at *7+<..
/udge >e'enthal, in dissent, stated that the only issue was whether the Commission
could regulate the language Cas broadcast.C I$. at 107, 00; #.*d at <1. %mphasi!ing the
interest in protecting children not only from e"posure to indecent language, but also
from e"posure to the idea that such language has official appro'al, i$. at 1;., and n.
1=, 00; #.*d at <-, and n. 1=, he concluded that the Commission had correctly
condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent.
Ha'ing granted the CommissionQs petition for certiorari, 7<7 G.&. 1..=, we must
decide5 (1 whether the scope of judicial re'iew encompasses more than the
CommissionQs determination that the monologue was indecent Cas broadcastC3 (*
whether the CommissionQs order was a form of censorship forbidden by R <*;3 (<
whether the broadcast was indecent within the meaning of R 17;73 and (7 whether the
order 'iolates the #irst @mendment of the Gnited &tates Constitution.
#
The general statements in the CommissionQs memorandum opinion do not change the
character of its order. Its action was an adjudication under 0 G.&.C. R 007(e (12-;
ed.3 it did not purport to engage in formal rulema$ing or in the promulgation of any
regulations. The order Cwas issued in a specific factual conte"tC3 :uestions concerning
possible action in other conte"ts were e"pressly reser'ed for the future. The specific
holding was carefully confined to the monologue Cas broadcast.C
CThis Court . . . re'iews judgments, not statements in opinions.C Blac+ (. Ctter
Laboratorie!# <01 G. &. *2*, <01 G. &. *2-. That admonition has special force when the
statements raise constitutional :uestions, for it is our settled practice to a'oid the
unnecessary decision of such issues. Re!ce Ar&y (. M"ici,al Cort# <<1 G. &.
072,<<1 G. &. 0;= 0;2. Howe'er appropriate
Page 7<= G. &. -<0
it may be for an administrati'e agency to write broadly in an adjudicatory proceeding,
federal courts ha'e ne'er been empowered to issue ad'isory opinions. See Herb (.
Pitcair"# <*7 G. &. 11-, <*7 G. &. 1*;. @ccordingly, the focus of our re'iew must be on
the CommissionQs determination that the Carlin monologue was indecent as broadcast.
##
The rele'ant statutory :uestions are whether the CommissionQs action is forbidden
CcensorshipC within the meaning of 7- G.&.C. R <*; and whether speech that
concededly is not obscene may be restricted as CindecentC under the authority of 1=
G.&.C. R 17;7 (12-; ed.. The :uestions are not unrelated, for the two statutory
pro'isions ha'e a common origin. )e'ertheless, we analy!e them separately.
&ection *2 of the 9adio @ct of 12*- pro'ided5
C)othing in this @ct shall be understood or construed to gi'e the licensing authority the
power of censorship o'er the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio
station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fi"ed by the licensing
authority which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio
communications. )o person within the jurisdiction of the Gnited &tates shall utter any
obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.C
77 &tat. 11-*.
The prohibition against censorship une:ui'ocally denies the Commission any power to
edit proposed broadcasts in ad'ance and to e"cise material considered inappropriate for
the airwa'es. The prohibition, howe'er, has ne'er been construed to deny the
Commission the power to re'iew the content of completed broadcasts in the
performance of its regulatory duties. K#ootnote 2L
Page 7<= G. &. -<;
?uring the period between the original enactment of the pro'ision in 12*- and its
reenactment in the Communications @ct of 12<7, the courts and the #ederal 9adio
Commission held that the section depri'ed the Commission of the power to subject
Cbroadcasting matter to scrutiny prior to its release,C but they concluded that the
CommissionQs Cundoubted rightC to ta$e note of past program content when considering
a licenseeQs renewal application Cis not censorship.C K#ootnote 1.L
Page 7<= G. &. -<-
)ot only did the #ederal 9adio Commission so construe the statute prior to 12<73 its
successor, the #ederal Communications Commission, has consistently interpreted the
pro'ision in the same way e'er since. See )ote, 9egulation of Program Content by the
#CC, -- Har'.>.9e'. -.1 (12;7. @nd, until this case, the Court of @ppeals for the
?istrict of Columbia Circuit has consistently agreed with this construction. K#ootnote 11L
Thus, for e"ample, in his opinion in A"ti-De)a&atio" Lea'e o) B."ai B.rit* (. FCC#1<1
G.&.@pp.?.C. 17;, 7.< #.*d 1;2 (12;=, cert. $e"ie$# <27 G.&. 2<., /udge (right
forcefully pointed out that the Commission is not pre'ented from canceling the license
of a broadcaster who persists in a course of improper programming. He e"plained5
CThis would not be prohibited QcensorshipQ . . . any more than would the CommissionQs
considering on a license renewal application whether a broadcaster allowed Qcoarse,
'ulgar, suggesti'e, double+meaningQ programming3 programs containing such material
are grounds for denial of a license renewal.C
1<1 G.&.@pp.?.C. at 10.+101, n. <, 7.< #.*d at 1-<+1-7, n. <. See al!o O))ice o)
Co&&"icatio" o) U"ite$ C*rc* o) C*ri!t (. FCC# 1*< G.&.@pp.?.C. <*=, <02 #.*d 227
(12;;.
%ntirely apart from the fact that the subse:uent re'iew of program content is not the
sort of censorship at which the statute was directed, its history ma$es it perfectly clear
that it was not intended to limit the CommissionQs power to regulate the broadcast of
obscene, indecent, or profane language. @ single section of the 12*- @ct is the source
of both
Page 7<= G. &. -<=
the anti+censorship pro'ision and the CommissionQs authority to impose sanctions for
the broadcast of indecent or obscene language. Iuite plainly, Congress intended to gi'e
meaning to both pro'isions. 9espect for that intent re:uires that the censorship
language be read as inapplicable to the prohibition on broadcasting obscene, indecent,
or profane language.
There is nothing in the legislati'e history to contradict this conclusion. The pro'ision
was discussed only in generalities when it was first enacted. K#ootnote 1*L In 12<7, the
anti+censorship pro'ision and the prohibition against indecent broadcasts were
reenacted in the same section, just as in the 12*- @ct. In 127=, when the Criminal
Code was re'ised to include pro'isions that had pre'iously been located in other Titles
of the Gnited &tates Code, the prohibition against obscene, indecent, and profane
broadcasts was remo'ed from the Communications @ct and reenacted as R 17;7 of Title
1=. ;* &tat. -;2 and =;;. That rearrangement of the Code cannot reasonably be
interpreted as ha'ing been intended to change the meaning of the anti+censorship
pro'ision. H.9.9ep. )o. <.7, =.th Cong., 1st &ess., @1.; (127-. C). Ti$e/ater Oil Co.
(. U"ite$ State!# 7.2 G. &. 101, 7.2 G. &. 1;*.
(e conclude, therefore, that R <*; does not limit the CommissionQs authority to impose
sanctions on licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting.
###
The only other statutory :uestion presented by this case is whether the afternoon
broadcast of the C#ilthy (ordsC
Page 7<= G. &. -<2
monologue was indecent within the meaning of R 17;7. K#ootnote 1<L %'en that
:uestion is narrowly confined by the arguments of the parties.
The Commission identified se'eral words that referred to e"cretory or se"ual acti'ities
or organs, stated that the repetiti'e, deliberate use of those words in an afternoon
broadcast when children are in the audience was patently offensi'e, and held that the
broadcast was indecent. Pacifica ta$es issue with the CommissionQs definition of
indecency, but does not dispute the CommissionQs preliminary determination that each
of the components of its definition was present. &pecifically, Pacifica does not :uarrel
with the conclusion that this afternoon broadcast was patently offensi'e. PacificaQs claim
that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute rests entirely on
the absence of prurient appeal.
The plain language of the statute does not support PacificaQs argument. The words
Cobscene, indecent, or profaneC are
Page 7<= G. &. -7.
written in the disjuncti'e, implying that each has a separate meaning. Prurient appeal is
an element of the obscene, but the normal definition of CindecentC merely refers to
nonconformance with accepted standards of morality. K#ootnote 17L
Pacifica argues, howe'er, that this Court has construed the term CindecentC in related
statutes to mean Cobscene,C as that term was defined in Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &.
10. Pacifica relies most hea'ily on the construction this Court ga'e to 1= G.&.C. R 17;1
in Ha&li"' (. U"ite$ State!# 71= G. &. =-. See al!o U"ite$ State! (. 01 122-)t. Reel! o)
Fil&# 71< G. &. 1*<, 71< G. &. 1<. n. - (1= G.&.C. R 17;* (dicta. Ha&li"' rejected a
'agueness attac$ on R 17;1, which forbids the mailing of Cobscene, lewd, lasci'ious,
indecent, filthy or 'ileC material. In holding that the statuteQs co'erage is limited to
obscenity, the Court followed the lead of ,r. /ustice Harlan in Ma"al E"ter,ri!e!# I"c.
(. Day# <-. G. &. 7-=. In that case, ,r. /ustice Harlan recogni!ed that R 17;1 contained
a 'ariety of words with many shades of meaning. K#ootnote 10L )onetheless, he
thought that the phrase Cobscene, lewd, lasci'ious, indecent, filthy or 'ile,C ta$en as a
whole, was clearly limited to the obscene, a reading well grounded in prior judicial
constructions5 CKTLhe statute, since its inception, has always been ta$en as aimed at
obno"iously debasing portrayals of se".C <-. G.&. at <-. G. &. 7=<. In Ha&li"'# the
Court agreed with ,r. /ustice Harlan that R 17;1 was meant only to regulate obscenity
in the mails3 by reading into it the limits set by Miller (. Cali)or"ia# !,ra# the Court
adopted a construction which assured the statuteQs constitutionality.
Page 7<= G. &. -71
The reasons supporting Ha&li"'.! construction of R 17;1 do not apply to R 17;7.
@lthough the history of the former re'ealed primary concern with the prurient, the
Commission has long interpreted R 17;7 as encompassing more than the obscene.
K#ootnote 1;L The former statute deals primarily with printed matter enclosed in sealed
en'elopes mailed from one indi'idual to another3 the latter deals with the content of
public broadcasts. It is unrealistic to assume that Congress intended to impose
precisely the same limitations on the dissemination of patently offensi'e matter by such
different means. K#ootnote 1-L
Because neither our prior decisions nor the language or history of R 17;7 supports the
conclusion that prurient appeal is an essential component of indecent language, we
reject PacificaQs construction of the statute. (hen that construction is put to one side,
there is no basis for disagreeing with the CommissionQs conclusion that indecent
language was used in this broadcast.
Page 7<= G. &. -7*
#.
Pacifica ma$es two constitutional attac$s on the CommissionQs order. #irst, it argues
that the CommissionQs construction of the statutory language broadly encompasses so
much constitutionally protected speech that re'ersal is re:uired e'en if PacificaQs
broadcast of the C#ilthy (ordsC monologue is not itself protected by the #irst
@mendment. &econd, Pacifica argues that, inasmuch as the recording is not obscene,
the Constitution forbids any abridgment of the right to broadcast it on the radio.
A
The first argument fails because our re'iew is limited to the :uestion whether the
Commission has the authority to proscribe this particular broadcast. @s the Commission
itself emphasi!ed, its order was Cissued in a specific factual conte"t.C 02 #.C.C.*d at
=2<. That approach is appropriate for courts as well as the Commission when regulation
of indecency is at sta$e, for indecency is largely a function of conte"t ++ it cannot be
ade:uately judged in the abstract.
The approach is also consistent with Re$ Lio" Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. FCC# <20 G. &. <;-.
In that case, the Court rejected an argument that the CommissionQs regulations
defining the fairness doctrine were so 'ague that they would ine'itably abridge the
broadcastersQ freedom of speech. The Court of @ppeals had in'alidated the regulations
because their 'agueness might lead to self+censorship of contro'ersial program
Page 7<= G. &. -7<
content. Ra$io Tele(i!io" Ne/! Director! A!!". (. U"ite$ State!# 7.. #.*d 1..*, 1.1;
(C@- 12;=. This Court re'ersed. @fter noting that the Commission had indicated, as it
has in this case, that it would not impose sanctions without warning in cases in which
the applicability of the law was unclear, the Court stated5
C(e need not appro'e e'ery aspect of the fairness doctrine to decide these cases, and
we will not now pass upon the constitutionality of these regulations by en'isioning the
most e"treme applications concei'able, U"ite$ State! (. Slli(a"# <<* G. &. ;=2, <<* G.
&. ;27 (127=, but will deal with those problems if and when they arise.C
<20 G.&. at <20 G. &. <2;.
It is true that the CommissionQs order may lead some broadcasters to censor
themsel'es. @t most, howe'er, the CommissionQs definition of indecency will deter only
the broadcasting of patently offensi'e references to e"cretory and se"ual organs and
acti'ities. K#ootnote 1=L (hile some of these references may be protected, they surely
lie at the periphery of #irst @mendment concern. C). Bate! (. State Bar o) Ari3o"a# 7<<
G. &. <0., 7<< G. &. <=.+<=1. 4o"' (. A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!# I"c.# 7*- G. &. 0.,7*-
G. &. ;1. The danger dismissed so summarily in Re$ Lio"# in contrast, was that
broadcasters would respond to the 'agueness of the regulations by refusing to present
programs dealing with important social and political contro'ersies. In'alidating any rule
on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is Cstrong
medicine,C to be applied Csparingly and only as a last resort.C Broa$ric+ (.
O+la*o&a#71< G. &. ;.1, 71< G. &. ;1<. (e decline to administer that medicine to
preser'e the 'igor of patently offensi'e se"ual and e"cretory speech.
Page 7<= G. &. -77
B
(hen the issue is narrowed to the facts of this case, the :uestion is whether the #irst
@mendment denies go'ernment any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent
language in any circumstances. K#ootnote 12L #or if the go'ernment has any such
power, this was an appropriate occasion for its e"ercise.
The words of the Carlin monologue are un:uestionably CspeechC within the meaning of
the #irst @mendment. It is e:ually clear that the CommissionQs objections to the
broadcast were based in part on its content. The order must therefore fall if, as Pacifica
argues, the #irst @mendment prohibits all go'ernmental regulation that depends on the
content of speech. 6ur past cases demonstrate, howe'er, that no such absolute rule is
mandated by the Constitution.
The classic e"position of the proposition that both the content and the conte"t of
speech are critical elements of #irst @mendment analysis is ,r. /ustice HolmesQ
statement for the Court in Sc*e"c+ (. U"ite$ State!# *72 G. &. 7-, *72 G. &. 0*5
C(e admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that
was said in the circular, would ha'e been within their constitutional rights. But the
character of e'ery act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The
most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire
in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not e'en protect a man from an injunction
against uttering words
Page 7<= G. &. -70
that may ha'e all the effect of force. . . . The :uestion in e'ery case is whether the
words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substanti'e e'ils that Congress
has a right to pre'ent.C
6ther distinctions based on content ha'e been appro'ed in the years since Sc*e"c+.The
go'ernment may forbid speech calculated to pro'o$e a fight. See C*a,li"!+y (. Ne/
Ha&,!*ire# <10 G. &. 0;=. It may pay heed to the Cco&&o" !e"!e $i))ere"ce!.
bet/ee" co&&ercial !,eec* a"$ ot*er (arietie!.5 Bate! (. State Bar o) Ari3o"a#
!,raat 677 U. S. 780. It &ay treat libel! a'ai"!t ,ri(ate citi3e"! &ore !e(erely t*a"
libel! a'ai"!t ,blic o))icial!. See 9ert3 (. Robert :elc*# I"c.# 608 U. S. 717. Ob!ce"ity
&ay be /*olly ,ro*ibite$. Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 607 U. S. 0;. A"$# o"ly t/o Ter&! a'o#
/e re)!e$ to *ol$ t*at a 5!tattory cla!!i)icatio" i! "co"!tittio"al beca!e it i! ba!e$
o" t*e co"te"t o) co&&"icatio" ,rotecte$ by t*e Fir!t A&e"$&e"t.5 4o"' (.
A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!# I"c.# !,ra# at 61< U. S. ;1.
The :uestion in this case is whether a broadcast of patently offensi'e words dealing
with se" and e"cretion may be regulated because of its content. K#ootnote *.L 6bscene
materials ha'e been denied the protection of the #irst @mendment because their
content is so offensi'e to contemporary moral standards. Rot* (. U"ite$ State!# <07 G.
&. 7-;. But the fact that society may find speech offensi'e is not a sufficient reason for
suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the spea$erQs opinion that gi'es offense, that
conse:uence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. #or it is a central
tenet of the #irst @mendment that the go'ernment must remain neutral in the
mar$etplace of
Page 7<= G. &. -7;
ideas. K#ootnote *1L If there were any reason to belie'e that the CommissionQs
characteri!ation of the Carlin monologue as offensi'e could be traced to its political
content ++ or e'en to the fact that it satiri!ed contemporary attitudes about four+letter
words K#ootnote **L ++ #irst @mendment protection might be re:uired. But that is
simply not this case. These words offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends.
K#ootnote *<L Their place in the hierarchy of #irst @mendment 'alues was aptly
s$etched by ,r. /ustice ,urphy when he said5
CK&Luch utterances are no essential part of any e"position of ideas, and are of such
slight social 'alue as a step to truth that any benefit that may be deri'ed from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.C
C*a,li"!+i (. Ne/ Ha&,!*ire# <10 G.&. at <10 G. &. 0-*.
@lthough these words ordinarily lac$ literary, political, or scientific 'alue, they are not
entirely outside the protection of the #irst @mendment. &ome uses of e'en the most
offensi'e words are un:uestionably protected. See# e.'.# He!! (. I"$ia"a# 717 G. &.
1.0. Indeed, we may assume, ar'e"$o# that this monologue would be protected in
other conte"ts. )onetheless,
Page 7<= G. &. -7-
the constitutional protection accorded to a communication containing such patently
offensi'e se"ual and e"cretory language need not be the same in e'ery conte"t.
K#ootnote *7L It is a characteristic of speech such as this that both its capacity to offend
and its Csocial 'alue,C to use ,r. /ustice ,urphyQs term, 'ary with the circumstances.
(ords that are commonplace in one setting are shoc$ing in another. To paraphrase ,r.
/ustice Harlan, one occasionQs lyric is anotherQs 'ulgarity. C). Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 7.< G.
&. 10, 7.< G. &. *0. K#ootnote *0L
In this case, it is undisputed that the content of PacificaQs broadcast was C'ulgar,C
Coffensi'e,C and Cshoc$ing.C Because content of that character is not entitled to
absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances, we must consider its
Page 7<= G. &. -7=
conte"t in order to determine whether the CommissionQs action was constitutionally
permissible.
C
(e ha'e long recogni!ed that each medium of e"pression presents special #irst
@mendment problems. Jo!e,* Br!ty"# I"c. (. :il!o"# <7< G. &. 720, <7< G. &. 0.*+
0.<. @nd of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has recei'ed the most
limited #irst @mendment protection. Thus, although other spea$ers cannot be licensed
e"cept under laws that carefully define and narrow official discretion, a broadcaster may
be depri'ed of his license and his forum if the Commission decides that such an action
would ser'e Cthe public interest, con'enience, and necessity.C K#ootnote *;L &imilarly,
although the #irst @mendment protects newspaper publishers from being re:uired to
print the replies of those whom they critici!e, Mia&i Heral$ Pbli!*i"' Co. (.
Tor"illo# 71= G. &. *71, it affords no such protection to broadcasters3 on the contrary,
they must gi'e free time to the 'ictims of their criticism. Re$ Lio" Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (.
FCC# <20 G. &. <;-.
The reasons for these distinctions are comple", but two ha'e rele'ance to the present
case. #irst, the broadcast media ha'e established a uni:uely per'asi'e presence in the
li'es of all @mericans. Patently offensi'e, indecent material presented o'er the airwa'es
confronts the citi!en not only in public, but also in the pri'acy of the home, where the
indi'idualQs right to be left alone plainly outweighs the #irst @mendment rights of an
intruder. Ro/a" (. Po!t O))ice De,t.# <2- G. &. -*. Because the broadcast audience is
constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or
'iewer from une"pected program content. To say that one may a'oid further offense by
turning off the radio when he
Page 7<= G. &. -72
hears indecent language is li$e saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away
after the first blow. 6ne may hang up on an indecent phone call, but that option does
not gi'e the caller a constitutional immunity or a'oid a harm that has already ta$en
place. K#ootnote *-L
&econd, broadcasting is uni:uely accessible to children, e'en those too young to read.
@lthough CohenQs written message might ha'e been incomprehensible to a first grader,
PacificaQs broadcast could ha'e enlarged a childQs 'ocabulary in an instant. 6ther forms
of offensi'e e"pression may be withheld from the young without restricting the
e"pression at its source. Boo$stores and motion picture theaters, for e"ample, may be
prohibited from ma$ing indecent material a'ailable to children. (e held in 9i"!ber' (.
Ne/ 4or+# <2. G. &. ;*2, that the go'ernmentQs interest in the Cwellbeing of its youthC
and in supporting CparentsQ claim to authority in their own householdC justified the
regulation of otherwise protected e"pression.
Page 7<= G. &. -0.
I$. at <2. G. &. ;7. and <2. G. &. ;<2. K#ootnote *=L The ease with which children
may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recogni!ed
in9i"!ber'# amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.
It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasi!e the narrowness of our holding. This case
does not in'ol'e a two+way radio con'ersation between a cab dri'er and a dispatcher,
or a telecast of an %li!abethan comedy. (e ha'e not decided that an occasional
e"pleti'e in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast
would justify a criminal prosecution. The CommissionQs decision rested entirely on a
nuisance rationale under which conte"t is all+important. The concept re:uires
consideration of a host of 'ariables. The time of day was emphasi!ed by the
Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect
the composition of the audience, K#ootnote *2L and differences between radio,
tele'ision, and perhaps closed+circuit transmissions, may also be rele'ant. @s ,r.
/ustice &utherland wrote, a Cnuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place,
++ li$e a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.C Ecli$ (. A&bler Realty Co.# *-* G.
&. <;0, *-* G. &. <=<. (e simply hold that, when the Commission finds that a pig has
entered the parlor, the e"ercise
Page 7<= G. &. -01
of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.
The judgment of the Court of @ppeals is re'ersed.
It i! !o or$ere$.
S7<= G.&. -*;appS
APPENDI= TO OPINION OF THE COURT
The following is a 'erbatim transcript of C#ilthy (ordsC prepared by the #ederal
Communications Commission.
@ruba+du, ruba+tu, ruba+tu. I was thin$ing about the curse words and the swear words,
the cuss words and the words that you canQt say, that youQre not supposed to say all the
time, KQLcause words or people into words want to hear your words. &ome guys li$e to
record your words and sell them bac$ to you if they can, (laughter listen in on the
telephone, write down what words you say. @ guy who used to be in (ashington $new
that his phone was tapped, used to answer, #uc$ Hoo'er, yes, go ahead. (laughter
6$ay, I was thin$ing one night about the words you couldnQt say on the public, ah,
airwa'es, um, the ones you definitely wouldnQt say, e'er, KQLcause I heard a lady say
bitch one night on tele'ision, and it was cool li$e she was tal$ing about, you $now, ah,
well, the bitch is the first one to notice that in the litter /ohnie right. (murmur 9ight.
@nd, uh, bastard you can say, and hell and damn, so I ha'e to figure out which ones
you couldnQt and e'er and it came down to se'en but the list is open to amendment,
and in fact, has been changed, uh, by now, ha, a lot of people pointed things out to me,
and I noticed some myself. The original se'en words were shit, piss, fuc$, cunt,
coc$suc$er, motherfuc$er, and tits. Those are the ones that will cur'e your spine, grow
hair on your hands and (laughter maybe, e'en bring us, Bod help us, peace without
honor (laughter um, and a bourbon. (laughter @nd now the first thing that we noticed
was that word fuc$ was really repeated in there because the word motherfuc$er is a
compound word and itQs another form of the word fuc$. (laughter Jou want to be a
purist it
Page 7<= G. &. -0*
doesnQt really, it canQt be on the list of basic words. @lso, coc$suc$er is a compound
word and neither half of that is really dirty. The word ++ the half suc$er thatQs merely
suggesti'e (laughter and the word coc$ is a half+way dirty word, 0.T dirty ++ dirty half
the time, depending on what you mean by it. (laughter Gh, remember when you first
heard it, li$e in ;th grade, you used to giggle. @nd the coc$ crowed three times, heh
(laughter the coc$ ++ three times. ItQs in the Bible, coc$ in the Bible. (laughter @nd the
first time you heard about a coc$+fight, remember ++ (hatF HuhF naw. It ainQt that, are
you stupidF man. (laughter, clapping ItQs chic$ens, you $now, (laughter Then you ha'e
the four letter words from the old @nglo+&a"on fame. Gh, shit and fuc$. The word shit,
uh, is an interesting $ind of word in that the middle class has ne'er really accepted it
and appro'ed it. They use it li$e, cra!y but itQs not really o$ay. ItQs still a rude, dirty, old
$ind of gushy word. (laughter They donQt li$e that, but they say it, li$e, they say it li$e,
a lady now in a middle+class home, youQll hear most of the time she says it as an
e"pleti'e, you $now, itQs out of her mouth before she $nows. &he says, 6h shit oh shit,
(laughter oh shit. If she drops something, 6h, the shit hurt the broccoli. &hit. Than$
you. (footsteps fading away (papers ruffling
9ead itU (from audience
&hitU (laughter I won the Brammy, man, for the comedy album. IsnQt that groo'yF
(clapping, whistling (murmur ThatQs true. Than$ you. Than$ you man. Jeah.
(murmur (continuous clapping Than$ you man. Than$ you. Than$ you 'ery much,
man. Than$, no, (end of continuous clapping for that and for the Brammy, man,
KQLcause (laughter thatQs based on people li$ing it man, yeh, thatQs ah, thatQs o$ay
man. (laughter >etQs let that go, man. I got my Brammy. I can let my hair hang down
now, shit. (laughter HaU &oU )ow the word shit is o$ay for the man. @t wor$ you can
say it li$e cra!y. ,ostly figurati'ely, Bet that shit out of here,
Page 7<= G. &. -0<
will yaF I donQt want to see that shit anymore. I canQt colt that shit, buddy. IQ'e had that
shit up to here. I thin$ youQre full of shit myself (laughter He donQt $now shit from
&hinola. (laughter you $now thatF (laughter @lways wondered how the &hinola people
felt about that (laughter Hi, IQm the new man from &hinola. (laughter Hi, how are yaF
)ice to see ya. (laughter How are yaF (laughter Boy, I donQt $now whether to shit or
wind my watch. (laughter Buess, IQll shit on my watch. (laughter 6h, t*e shit is going
to hit $e fan. (laughter Built li$e a bric$ shit+house. (laughter Gp, heQs up shitQs cree$.
(laughter HeQs had it. (laughter He hit me, IQm sorry. (laughter Hot shit, holy shit,
tough shit, eat shit, (laughter shit+eating grin. Gh, whoe'er thought of that was ill.
(murmur laughter He had a shit+eating grinU He had a whatF (laughter &hit on a stic$.
(laughter &hit in a handbag. I always li$e that. He ainQt worth shit in a handbag.
(laughter &hitty. He acted real shitty. (laughter Jou $now what I meanF (laughter I
got the money bac$, but a real shitty attitude. Heh, he had a shit+fit. (laughter (owU
&hit+fit. (hewU Blad I wasnQt there. (murmur, laughter @ll the animals ++ Bull shit,
horse shit, cow shit, rat shit, bat shit. (laughter #irst time I heard bat shit, I really
came apart. @ guy in 6$lahoma, Boggs, said it, man. @wU Bat shit. (laughter 8era
reminded me of that last night, ah (murmur. &na$e shit, slic$er than owl shit.
(laughter Bet your shit together. &hit or get off the pot. (laughter I got a shit+1oad
full of them. (laughter I got a shit+pot full, all right. &hit+head, shit+heel, shit in your
heart, shit for brains, (laughter shit+face, heh (laughter I always try to thin$ how that
could ha'e originated3 the first guy that said that. &omebody got drun$ and fell in some
shit, you $now. (laughter Hey, IQm shit+face. (laughter &hitface, to$ay. (laughter
@nyway, enough of that shit. (laughter The big one, the word fuc$ thatQs the one that
hangs them up the most. KQLCause in a lot of cases thatQs the 'ery act that
Page 7<= G. &. -07
hangs them up the most. &o, itQs natural that the word would, uh, ha'e the same effect.
ItQs a great word, fuc$, nice word, easy word, cute word, $ind of. %asy word to say. 6ne
syllable, short u. (laughter #uc$. (,urmur Jou $now, itQs easy. &tarts with a nice soft
sound ++ fuh ++ ends with a $h. 9ightF (laughter @ little something for e'eryone. #uc$
(laughter Bood word. Nind of a proud word, too. (ho are youF I am #GCN. (laughter
#GCN 6# TH% ,6G)T@I). (laughter Tune in again ne"t wee$ to #GCN 6# TH%
,6G)T@I). (laughter ItQs an interesting word too, KQLcause itQs got a double $ind of a
life ++ personality ++ dual, you $now, whate'er the right phrase is. It leads a double life,
the word fuc$. #irst of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuc$. (hat does it
meanF It means to ma$e lo'e. 9ightF (eQre going to ma$e lo'e, yeh, weQre going to
fuc$, yeh, weQre going to fuc$, yeh, weQre going to ma$e lo'e. (laughter weQre really
going to fuc$, yeh, weQre going to ma$e lo'e. 9ightF @nd it also means the beginning of
life, itQs the act that begins life, so thereQs the word hanging around with words li$e
lo'e, and life, and yet, on the other hand, itQs also a word that we really use to hurt
each other with, man. ItQs a hea'y. ItQs one that you ha'e toward the end of the
argument. (laughter 9ightF (laughter Jou finally canQt ma$e out. 6h, fuc$ you man. I
said, fuc$ you. (laughter, murmur &tupid fuc$. (laughter #uc$ you and e'erybody that
loo$s li$e you, (laughter man. It would be nice to change the mo'ies that we already
ha'e and substitute the word fuc$ for the word $ill, where'er we could, and some of
those mo'ie cliches would change a little bit. ,adfuc$ers still on the loose. &top me
before I fuc$ again. #uc$ the ump, fuc$ the ump, fuc$ the ump, fuc$ the ump, fuc$ the
ump. %asy on the clutch Bill, youQll fuc$ that engine again. (laughter The other shit one
was, I donQt gi'e a shit. >i$e itQs worth something, you $nowF (laughter I donQt gi'e a
shit. Hey, well, I donQt ta$e no shit, (laughter you $now what I meanF Jou $now why I
donQt ta$e no shitF (laughter
Page 7<= G. &. -00
KQLCause I donQt gi'e a shit. (laughter If I gi'e a shit, I would ha'e to pac$ shit.
(laughter But I donQt pac$ no shit cause I donQt gi'e a shit. (laughter Jou wouldnQt shit
me, would youF (laughter ThatQs a jo$e when youQre a $id with a worm loo$ing out the
birdQs ass. Jou wouldnQt shit me, would youF (laughter ItQs an eight+year+old jo$e but a
good one. (laughter The additions to the list. I found three more words that had to be
put on the list of words you could ne'er say on tele'ision, and they were fart, turd and
twat, those three. (laughter #art, we tal$ed about, itQs harmless. ItQs li$e tits, itQs a
cutie word, no problem. Turd, you canQt say, but who wants to, you $nowF (laughter
The subject ne'er comes up on the panel, so IQm not worried about that one. )ow the
word twat is an interesting word. TwatU Jeh, right in the twat. (laughter Twat is an
interesting word because itQs the only one I $now of, the only slang word applying to
the, a part of the se"ual anatomy that doesnQt ha'e another meaning to it. >i$e, ah,
snatch, bo" and pussy all ha'e other meanings, man. %'en in a (alt ?isney mo'ie, you
can say, (eQre going to snatch that pussy and put him in a bo" and bring him on the
airplane. (murmur, laughter %'erybody lo'es it. The twat stands alone, man, as it
should. @nd two+way words. @h, ass is o$ay pro'iding youQre riding into town on a
religious feast day. (laughter Jou canQt say, up your ass. (laughter Jou can say, stuff
itU (murmur There are certain things you can say ++ its weird, but you can just come so
close. Before I cut, I, uh, want to, ah, than$ you for listening to my words, man, fellow,
uh space tra'elers. Than$ you man for tonight and than$ you also. (clapping whistling
K#ootnote 1L
0; #.C.C.*d at 22. The Commission noted5
CCongress has specifically empowered the #CC to (1 re'o$e a stationQs license (* issue
a cease and desist order, or (< impose a monetary forfeiture for a 'iolation of &ection
17;7, 7- G.&.C. KRRL <1*(a, <1*(b, 0.<(b(1 (%. The #CC can also (7 deny license
renewal or (0 grant a short term renewal, 7- G.&.C. KRRL <.-, <.=.C
I$. at 2; n. <.
K#ootnote *L
CBroadcasting re:uires special treatment because of four important considerations5 (1
children ha'e access to radios and in many cases are unsuper'ised by parents3 (*
radio recei'ers are in the home, a place where peopleQs pri'acy interest is entitled to
e"tra deference, !ee Ro/a" (. Po!t O))ice De,t.# <2- G. &. -*= (12-.3 (<
unconsenting adults may tune in a station without any warning that offensi'e language
is being or will be broadcast3 and (7 there is a scarcity of spectrum space, the use of
which the go'ernment must therefore license in the public interest. 6f special concern
to the Commission, as well as parents, is the first point regarding the use of radio by
children.C
I$. at 2-.
K#ootnote <L
Title 1= G.&.C. R 17;7 (12-; ed. pro'ides5
C(hoe'er utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio
communication shall be fined not more than V1.,... or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.C
K#ootnote 7L
&ection <.<(g of the Communications @ct of 12<7, 7= &tat. 1.=*, as amended, as set
forth in 7- G.&.C. R <.<(g, in rele'ant part, pro'ides5
C%"cept as otherwise pro'ided in this chapter, the Commission from time to time, as
public con'enience, interest, or necessity re:uires, shall ++ C
C> > > >5
C(g . . . generally encourage the larger and more effecti'e use of radio in the public
interest.C
K#ootnote 0L
Thus, the Commission suggested, if an offensi'e broadcast had literary, artistic,
political, or scientific 'alue, and were preceded by warnings, it might not be indecent in
the late e'ening, but would be so during the day, when children are in the audience. 0;
#.C.C.*d at 2=.
K#ootnote ;L
Chairman (iley concurred in the result without joining the opinion. Commissioners 9eid
and Iuello filed separate statements e"pressing the opinion that the language was
inappropriate for broadcast at any time. I$. at 1.*+1.<. Commissioner 9obinson, joined
by Commissioner Hoo$s, filed a concurring statement e"pressing the opinion5
CK(Le can regulate offensi'e speech to the e"tent it constitutes a public nuisance. . . .
The go'erning idea is that QindecencyQ is not an inherent attribute of words themsel'es3
it is, rather, a matter of conte"t and conduct. . . . If I were called on to do so, I would
find that CarlinQs monologue, if it were broadcast at an appropriate hour and
accompanied by suitable warning, was distinguished by sufficient literary 'alue to a'oid
being QindecentQ within the meaning of the statute.C
I$. at 1.-+1.=, and n. 2.
K#ootnote -L
The Commission did, howe'er, comment5
CQKILn some cases, public e'ents li$ely to produce offensi'e speech are co'ered li'e, and
there is no opportunity for journalistic editing.Q Gnder these circumstances, we belie'e
that it would be ine:uitable for us to hold a licensee responsible for indecent
language. . . . (e trust that, under such circumstances, a licensee will e"ercise
judgment, responsibility, and sensiti'ity to the communityQs needs, interests and
tastes.C
02 #.C.C.*d at =2< n. 1.
K#ootnote =L
C)othing in this @ct shall be understood or construed to gi'e the Commission the power
of censorship o'er the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio
station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fi"ed by the Commission
which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.C
7= &tat. 1.21, 7- G.&.C. R <*;.
K#ootnote 2L
Oechariah Chafee, defending the CommissionQs authority to ta$e into account program
ser'ice in granting licenses, interpreted the restriction on CcensorshipC narrowly5
CThis means, I feel sure, the sort of censorship which went on in the se'enteenth
century in %ngland ++ the deletion of specific items and dictation as to what should go
into particular programs.C
* O. Chafee, Bo'ernment and ,ass Communications ;71 (127-.
K#ootnote 1.L
In ?F?B Broa$ca!ti"' A!!". (. Fe$eral Ra$io Co&&."# ;. @pp.?.C. -2, 7- #.*d ;-.
(12<1, a doctor who controlled a radio station as well as a pharmaceutical association
made fre:uent broadcasts in which he answered the medical :uestions of listeners. He
often prescribed mi"tures prepared by his pharmaceutical association. The Commission
determined that renewal of the stationQs license would not be in the public interest,
con'enience, or necessity because many of the broadcasts ser'ed the doctorQs pri'ate
interests. In response to the claim that this was censorship in 'iolation of R *2 of the
12*- @ct, the Court held5
CThis contention is without merit. There has been no attempt on the part of the
commission to subject any part of appellantQs broadcasting matter to scrutiny prior to
its release. In considering the :uestion whether the public interest, con'enience, or
necessity will be ser'ed by a renewal of appellantQs license, the commission has merely
e"ercised its undoubted right to ta$e note of appellantQs past conduct, which is not
censorship.C
;. @pp.?.C. at =1, 7- #.*d at ;-*. In Tri"ity Met*o$i!t C*rc*# Sot* (. Fe$eral Ra$io
Co&&."# ;1 @pp.?.C. <11, ;* #.*d =0. (12<*, cert. $e"ie$# *== G.&. 022, the station
was controlled by a minister whose broadcasts contained fre:uent references to
CpimpsC and CprostitutesC as well as bitter attac$s on the 9oman Catholic Church. The
Commission refused to renew the license, citing the nature of the broadcasts. The Court
of @ppeals affirmed, concluding that #irst @mendment concerns did not pre'ent the
Commission from regulating broadcasts that
Coffend the religious susceptibilities of thousands . . . or offend youth and innocence by
the free use of words suggesti'e of se"ual immorality.C
;1 @pp.?.C. at <17, ;* #.*d at =0<. The court recogni!ed that the licensee had a right
to broadcast this material free of prior restraint, but
Cthis does not mean that the go'ernment, through agencies established by Congress,
may not refuse a renewal of license to one who has abused it.C
I$. at <1*, ;* #.*d at =01.
K#ootnote 11L
See# e.'.# Bay State Beaco"# I"c. (. FCC# =7 G.&.@pp.?.C. *1;, 1-1 #.*d =*;
(127=3I$a*o Micro/a(e# I"c. (. FCC# 1** G.&.@pp.?.C. *0<, <0* #.*d -*2
(12;03 Natio"al A!!". o) T*eatre O/"er! (. FCC# 1<; G.&.@pp.?.C. <0*, 7*. #.*d 127
(12;2, cert. $e"ie$# <2- G.&. 2**.
K#ootnote 1*L
See# e.'.# ;- Cong.9ec. 1*;10 (12*; (remar$s of &en. ?ill3 i$. at 07=. (remar$s of
9ep. (hite3 ;= Cong.9ec. *0;- (12*- (remar$s of 9ep. &cott3 Hearings on &. 1 and
&. 1-07 before the &enate Committee on Interstate Commerce, ;2th Cong., 1st &ess.,
1*1 (12*;3 Hearings on H.9. 00=2 before the House Committee on the ,erchant
,arine and #isheries, ;2th Cong., 1st &ess., *; and 7. (12*;. See al!o Hearings on
H.9. ==*0 before the House Committee on the ,erchant ,arine and #isheries, -.th
Cong., 1st &ess., ,a!!i& (12*=.
K#ootnote 1<L
In addition to R 17;7, the Commission also relied on its power to regulate in the public
interest under 7- G.&.C. R <.<(g. (e do not need to consider whether R <.< may ha'e
independent significance in a case such as this. The statutes authori!ing ci'il penalties
incorporate R 17;7, a criminal statute. See 7- G.&.C. RR <1*(a(;, <1*(b(*, and
0.<(b(1(% (12-. ed. and &upp. 8. But the 'alidity of the ci'il sanctions is not lin$ed
to the 'alidity of the criminal penalty. The legislati'e history of the pro'isions
establishes their independence. @s enacted in 12*- and 12<7, the prohibition on
indecent speech was separate from the pro'isions imposing ci'il and criminal penalties
for 'iolating the prohibition. 9adio @ct of 12*-, RR 17, *2, and <<, 77 &tat. 11;= and
11-<3 Communications @ct of 12<7, RR <1*, <*;, and 0.1, 7= &tat. 1.=;, 1.21, and
11.., 7- G.&.C. RR <1*, <*;, and 0.1 (12-. ed. and &upp. 8. The 12*- and 12<7
@cts indicated in the strongest possible language that any in'alid pro'ision was
separable from the rest of the @ct. 9adio @ct of 12*-, R <=, 77 &tat. 11-73
Communications @ct of 12<7, R ;.=, 7= &tat. 11.0, 7- G.&.C. R ;.=. @lthough the
127= codification of the criminal laws and the addition of new ci'il penalties changes
the statutory structure, no substanti'e change was apparently intended. C). Ti$e/ater
Oil Co. (. U"ite$ State!# 7.2 G. &. 101, 7.2 G. &. 1;*. @ccordingly, we need not
consider any :uestion relating to the possible application of R 17;7 as a criminal
statute.
K#ootnote 17L
(ebster defines the term as
Ca5 altogether unbecoming5 contrary to what the nature of things or what
circumstances would dictate as right or e"pected or appropriate5 hardly suitable5
G)&%%,>J . . . b5 not conforming to generally accepted standards of morality5 . . . .C
(ebsterQs Third )ew International ?ictionary (12;;.
K#ootnote 10L
Indeed, at one point, he used CindecencyC as a shorthand term for Cpatent
offensi'eness,C <-. G.&. at <-. G. &. 7=*, a usage stri$ingly similar to the
CommissionQs definition in this case. 0; #.C.C.*d at 2=.
K#ootnote 1;L
CQK(Lhile a nudist maga!ine may be within the protection of the #irst @mendment . . . ,
the tele'ising of nudes might well raise a serious :uestion of programming contrary to
1= G.&.C. R 17;7. . . . &imilarly, regardless of whether the Q7+letter wordsQ and se"ual
description, set forth in QLa$y C*atterly.! Lo(er#Q (when considered in the conte"t of the
whole boo$ ma$e the boo$ obscene for mailability purposes, the utterance of such
words or the depiction of such se"ual acti'ity on radio or T8 would raise similar public
interest and section 17;7 :uestions.QC
E"ba"c Pro'ra&&i"' I"@iry# 77 #.C.C. *<.<, *<.- (12;.. See al!o I" re :UH4-
FM#*7 #.C.C.*d 7.=, 71* (12-.3 I" re So"$erli" Broa$ca!ti"' Cor,.# *- 9.9.*d *=0, on
reconsideration, 71 #.C.C.*d --- (12-<, a)).$ o" ot*er 'ro"$! !b "o&. Illi"oi!
Citi3e"! Co&&ittee )or Broa$ca!ti"' (. FCC# 1;2 G.&.@pp.?.C. 1;;, 010 #.*d <2-
(12-73 I" re Mile Hi'* Statio"!# I"c.# *= #.C.C. -20 (12;.3 I" re Pal&etto
Broa$ca!ti"' Co.# << #.C.C. *0. (12;*, reco"!i$eratio" $e"ie$# <7 #.C.C. 1.1
(12;<,a)).$ o" ot*er 'ro"$! !b "o&. Robi"!o" (. FCC# 11= G.&.@pp.?.C. 177, <<7
#.*d 0<7 (12;7, cert. $e"ie$# <-2 G.&. =7<.
K#ootnote 1-L
This conclusion is reinforced by noting the different constitutional limits on CongressQ
power to regulate the two different subjects. Gse of the postal power to regulate
material that is not fraudulent or obscene raises Cgra'e constitutional
:uestions.CHa""e'a" (. E!@ire# I"c.# <*- G. &. 17;, <*- G. &. 10;. But it is well
settled that the #irst @mendment has a special meaning in the broadcasting
conte"t. See# e.'.# FCC (. Natio"al Citi3e"! Co&&ittee )or Broa$ca!ti"'# 7<; G. &.
--03 Re$ Lio" Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. FCC# <20 G. &. <;-3 Col&bia Broa$ca!ti"' Sy!te&#
I"c. (. De&ocratic Natio"al Co&&ittee# 71* G. &. 27. #or this reason, the presumption
that Congress ne'er intends to e"ceed constitutional limits, which
supported Ha&li"'.! narrow reading of R 17;1, does not support a comparable reading
of R 17;7.
K#ootnote 1=L
@ re:uirement that indecent language be a'oided will ha'e its primary effect on the
form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any,
thoughts that cannot be e"pressed by the use of less offensi'e language.
K#ootnote 12L
PacificaQs position would, of course, depri'e the Commission of any power to regulate
erotic telecasts unless they were obscene under Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &. 10.
@nything that could be sold at a newsstand for pri'ate e"amination could be publicly
displayed on tele'ision.
(e are assured by Pacifica that the free play of mar$et forces will discourage indecent
programming. C&mut may,C as /udge >e'enthal put it, Cdri'e itself from the mar$et and
confound Bresham,C 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. at 10=, 00; #.*d at <03 the prosperity of those
who traffic in pornographic literature and films would appear to justify s$epticism.
K#ootnote *.L
@lthough neither ,9. /G&TIC% P6(%>> nor ,9. /G&TIC% B9%))@) directly confronts
this :uestion, both ha'e answered it affirmati'ely, the latter e"plicitly, ,o!t at 7<= G. &.
-;= n. <, and the former implicitly by concurring in a judgment that could not otherwise
stand.
K#ootnote *1L
See# e.'.# Ma$i!o" Sc*ool Di!trict (. :i!co"!i" E&,loy&e"t Relatio"! Co&&."# 7*2 G.
&. 1;-, 7*2 G. &. 1-0+1-;3 Fir!t Natio"al Ba"+ o) Bo!to" (. Bellotti# 7<0 G. &. -;0.
K#ootnote **L
The monologue does present a point of 'iew3 it attempts to show that the words it uses
are Charmless,C and that our attitudes toward them are Cessentially silly.C See
!,ra at 7<= G. &. -<.. The Commission objects not to this point of 'iew, but to the
way in which it is e"pressed. The belief that these words are harmless does not
necessarily confer a #irst @mendment pri'ilege to use them while proselyti!ing, just as
the con'iction that obscenity is harmless does not license one to communicate that
con'iction by the indiscriminate distribution of an obscene leaflet.
K#ootnote *<L
The Commission stated5
C6bno"ious, gutter language describing these matters has the effect of debasing and
brutali!ing human beings by reducing them to their mere bodily functions. . . .C
0; #.C.C.*d at 2=. 6ur society has a tradition of performing certain bodily functions in
pri'ate, and of se'erely limiting the public e"posure or discussion of such matters.
8erbal or physical acts e"posing those intimacies are offensi'e irrespecti'e of any
message that may accompany the e"posure.
K#ootnote *7L
(ith respect to other types of speech, the Court has tailored its protection to both the
abuses and the uses to which it might be put. See# e.'.# Ne/ 4or+ Ti&e! Co. (.
Slli(a"# <-; G. &. *07 (special !cie"ter rules in libel suits brought by public
officials3Bate! (. State Bar o) Ari3o"a# 7<< G. &. <0. (go'ernment may strictly
regulate truthfulness in commercial speech. See al!o 4o"' (. A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!#
I"c.#7*- G. &. 0., 7*- G. &. =* n. ; (P6(%>>, /., concurring.
K#ootnote *0L
The importance of conte"t is illustrated by the Co*e" case. That case arose when Paul
Cohen entered a >os @ngeles courthouse wearing a jac$et embla!oned with the words
C#uc$ the ?raft.C @fter entering the courtroom, he too$ the jac$et off and folded it. 7.<
G.&. at 7.< G. &. 12 n. <. &o far as the e'idence showed, no one in the courthouse was
offended by his jac$et. )onetheless, when he left the courtroom, Cohen was arrested,
con'icted of disturbing the peace, and sentenced to <. days in prison.
In holding that criminal sanctions could not be imposed on Cohen for his political
statement in a public place, the Court rejected the argument that his speech would
offend unwilling 'iewers3 it noted that Cthere was no e'idence that persons powerless
to a'oid KhisL conduct did in fact object to it.C I$. at 7.< G. &. **. In contrast, in this
case, the Commission was responding to a listenerQs strenuous complaint, and Pacifica
does not :uestion its determination that this afternoon broadcast was li$ely to offend
listeners. It should be noted that the Commission imposed a far more moderate penalty
on Pacifica than the state court imposed on Cohen. %'en the strongest ci'il penalty at
the CommissionQs command does not include criminal prosecution. See n 1, !,ra.
K#ootnote *;L
7- G.&.C. RR <.2(a, <1*(a(*3 FCC (. :O?O# I"c.# <*2 G. &. **<, <*2 G. &. **2. C).
S*ttle!/ort* (. Bir&i"'*a&# <27 G. &. 17-3 Stab (. Baxley# <00 G. &. <1<.
K#ootnote *-L
6utside the home, the balance between the offensi'e spea$er and the unwilling
audience may sometimes tip in fa'or of the spea$er, re:uiring the offended listener to
turn away. See Er3"o3"i+ (. Jac+!o"(ille# 7** G. &. *.0. @s we noted in Co*e" (.
Cali)or"ia%
C(hile this Court has recogni!ed that go'ernment may properly act in many situations
to prohibit intrusion into the pri'acy of the home of unwelcome 'iews and ideas which
cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue . . . , we ha'e at the same time
consistently stressed that Cwe are often ca,ti(e!. ot!i$e t*e !a"ctary o) t*e *o&e#
a"$ !bAect to obAectio"able !,eec*.55
7.< G.&. at 7.< G. &. *1. The problem of harassing phone calls is hardly hypothetical.
Congress has recently found it necessary to prohibit debt collectors from CplacKingL
telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the callerQs identityC3 from Cengaging
any person in telephone con'ersation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy,
abuse, or harass any person at the called numberC3 and from CusKingL obscene or
profane language or language the natural conse:uence of which is to abuse the hearer
or reader.C Consumer Credit Protection @ct @mendments, 21 &tat. =--, 10 G.&.C. R
1;2*d (12-; ed., &upp. II.
K#ootnote *=L
The CommissionQs action does not by any means reduce adults to hearing only what is
fit for children. C). Btler (. Mic*i'a"# <0* G. &. <=., <0* G. &. <=<. @dults who feel the
need may purchase tapes and records or go to theaters and nightclubs to hear these
words. In fact, the Commission has not une:ui'ocally closed e'en broadcasting to
speech of this sort3 whether broadcast audiences in the late e'ening contain so few
children that playing this monologue would be permissible is an issue neither the
Commission nor this Court has decided.
K#ootnote *2L
%'en a prime time recitation of Beoffrey ChaucerQs ,illerQs Tale would not be li$ely to
command the attention of many children who are both old enough to understand and
young enough to be ad'ersely affected by passages such as5 C@nd pri'ely he caughte
hire by the :ueynte.C The Canterbury Tales, ChaucerQs Complete (or$s (Cambridge
ed.12<<, p. 0=, l. <*-;.
,9. /G&TIC% P6(%>>, with whom ,9. /G&TIC% B>@CN,G) joins, concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I, II, III, and I8+C of ,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)&Q opinion. The Court today
re'iews only the CommissionQs holding that CarlinQs monologue was indecent Cas
broadcastC
Page 7<= G. &. -0;
at two oQcloc$ in the afternoon, and not the broad sweep of the CommissionQs
opinion.A"te at 7<= G. &. -<7+-<0. In addition to being consistent with our settled
practice of not deciding constitutional issues unnecessarily, !ee a"te at 7<= G. &.
-<73 A!*/a"$er (. TBA# *2- G. &. *==, *2- G. &. <70+<7= (12<; (Brandeis, /.,
concurring, this narrow focus also is conduci'e to the orderly de'elopment of this
relati'ely new and difficult area of law, in the first instance by the Commission, and
then by the re'iewing courts. See 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. 1<*, 10=+1;., 00; #.*d 2, <0+<-
(12-- (>e'enthal, /., dissenting.
I also agree with much that is said in 7<= G. &. /G&TIC% &T%8%)&Q opinion, and with its
conclusion that the CommissionQs holding in this case does not 'iolate the #irst
@mendment. Because I do not subscribe to all that is said in Part I8, howe'er, I state
my 'iews separately.
#
It is conceded that the monologue at issue here is not obscene in the constitutional
sense. See 0; #.C.C.*d 27, 2= (12-03 Brief for Petitioner 1=. )or, in this conte"t, does
its language constitute Cfighting wordsC within the meaning of C*a,li"!+y (. Ne/
Ha&,!*ire# <10 G. &. 0;= (127*. &ome of the words used ha'e been held protected by
the #irst @mendment in other cases and conte"ts. E.'.# Le/i! (. Ne/ Orlea"!# 710 G. &.
1<. (12-73 He!! (. I"$ia"a# 717 G. &. 1.0 (12-<3 Pa,i!* (. U"i(er!ity o) Mi!!ori
Crator!# 71. G. &. ;;- (12-<3 Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 7.< G. &. 10 (12-13 !ee al!o
Eato" (. Tl!a# 710 G. &. ;2- (12-7. I do not thin$ Carlin, consistently with the #irst
@mendment, could be punished for deli'ering the same monologue to a li'e audience
composed of adults who, $nowing what to e"pect, chose to attend his
performance. See Bro/" (. O+la*o&a# 7.= G. &. 217 (12-* (P6(%>>, /., concurring in
result. @nd I would assume that an adult could not constitutionally be prohibited from
purchasing a recording or transcript of the monologue
Page 7<= G. &. -0-
and playing or reading it in the pri'acy of his own home. C). Sta"ley (. 9eor'ia# <27 G.
&. 00- (12;2.
But it also is true that the language employed is, to most people, 'ulgar and offensi'e.
It was chosen specifically for this :uality, and it was repeated o'er and o'er as a sort of
'erbal shoc$ treatment. The Commission did not err in characteri!ing the narrow
category of language used here as Cpatently offensi'eC to most people regardless of
age.
The issue, howe'er, is whether the Commission may impose ci'il sanctions on a
licensee radio station for broadcasting the monologue at two oQcloc$ in the afternoon.
The CommissionQs primary concern was to pre'ent the broadcast from reaching the ears
of unsuper'ised children who were li$ely to be in the audience at that hour. In essence,
the Commission sought to CchannelC the monologue to hours when the fewest
unsuper'ised children would be e"posed to it. See 0; #.C.C.*d at 2=. In my 'iew, this
consideration pro'ides strong support for the CommissionQs holding. K#ootnote *41L
The Court has recogni!ed societyQs right to Cadopt more stringent controls on
communicati'e materials a'ailable to youths than on those a'ailable to
adults.CEr3"o3"i+ (. Jac+!o"(ille# 7** G. &. *.0, 7** G. &. *1* (12-03 !ee al!o# e.'.#
Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &. 10, 71< G. &. <; n. 1- (12-<3 9i"!ber' (. Ne/ 4or+# <2.
G. &. ;*2, <2. G. &. ;<;+;71 (12;=3 Jacobelli! (. O*io# <-= G. &. 1=7, <-= G. &.
120(12;7 (opinion of B9%))@), /.. This recognition stems in large part from the fact
that Ca child . . . is not possessed of that full capacity for indi'idual choice which is the
presupposition of #irst @mendment guarantees.C 9i"!ber' (. Ne/ 4or+# !,ra at <2. G.
&. ;72+;0. (&T%(@9T, /., concurring in result. Thus, children may not be able to
protect themsel'es from speech which, although shoc$ing to most adults, generally
may be a'oided by the unwilling
Page 7<= G. &. -0=
through the e"ercise of choice. @t the same time, such speech may ha'e a deeper and
more lasting negati'e effect on a child than on an adult. #or these reasons, society may
pre'ent the general dissemination of such speech to children, lea'ing to parents the
decision as to what speech of this $ind their children shall hear and repeat5
CKCLonstitutional interpretation has consistently recogni!ed that the parentsQ claim to
authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the
structure of our society.C
CIt is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the
parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply nor hinder.C
CPri"ce (. Ma!!ac*!ett!# K<*1 G.&. 10=, <*1 G. &. 1;; (1277L. The legislature could
properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for e"ample, who ha'e this primary
responsibility for childrenQs wellbeing are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid
discharge of that responsibility.C
I$. at <2. G. &. ;<2. The Commission properly held that the speech from which society
may attempt to shield its children is not limited to that which appeals to the youthful
prurient interest. The language in'ol'ed in this case is as potentially degrading and
harmful to children as representations of many erotic acts.
In most instances, the dissemination of this $ind of speech to children may be limited
without also limiting willing adultsQ access to it. &ellers of printed and recorded matter
and e"hibitors of motion pictures and li'e performances may be re:uired to shut their
doors to children, but such a re:uirement has no effect on adultsQ access. See i$. at<2.
G. &. ;<7+;<0. The difficulty is that such a physical separation of the audience cannot
be accomplished in the broadcast media. ?uring most of the broadcast hours, both
adults and unsuper'ised children are li$ely to be in the broadcast audience, and the
broadcaster cannot reach willing adults without also reaching
Page 7<= G. &. -02
children. This, as the Court emphasi!es, is one of the distinctions between the
broadcast and other media to which we often ha'e ad'erted as justifying a different
treatment of the broadcast media for #irst @mendment purposes. See Bate! (. State
Bar o) Ari3o"a# 7<< G. &. <0., 7<< G. &. <=7 (12--3 Col&bia Broa$ca!ti"' Sy!te&#
I"c. (. De&ocratic Natio"al Co&&ittee# 71* G. &. 27, 71* G. &. 1.1 (12-<3 Re$ Lio"
Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. FCC# <20 G. &. <;-, <20 G. &. <=;+<=- (12;23 Ca,ital
Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. Mitc*ell# <<< #.&upp. 0=* (?C 12-1, a)).$ !b "o&. Ca,ital
Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. Acti"' Attor"ey 9e"eral# 7.0 G.&. 1... (12-*3 !ee 'e"erally
Jo!e,* Br!ty"# I"c. (. :il!o"# <7< G. &. 720, <7< G. &. 0.*+0.< (120*. In my 'iew,
the Commission was entitled to gi'e substantial weight to this difference in reaching its
decision in this case.
@ second difference, not without rele'ance, is that broadcasting ++ unli$e most other
forms of communication ++ comes directly into the home, the one place where people
ordinarily ha'e the right not to be assaulted by unin'ited and offensi'e sights and
sounds. Er3"o3"i+ (. Jac+!o"(ille# !,ra at 7** G. &. *.23 Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 7.< G.&.
at 7.< G. &. *13 Ro/a" (. Po!t O))ice De,t.# <2- G. &. -*= (12-.. @lthough the #irst
@mendment may re:uire unwilling adults to absorb the first blow of offensi'e but
protected speech when they are in public before they turn away, !ee# e.'.# Er3"o3"i+#
!,ra at 7** G. &. *1.+*11, bt c). Ro!e")el$ (. Ne/ Jer!ey# 7.= G. &. 2.1, 2.<+2.2
(12-* (P6(%>>, /., dissenting, a different order of 'alues obtains in the home.
CThat we are often Qcapti'esQ outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to
objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be capti'es
e'erywhere.C
Ro/a" (. Po!t O))ice De,t.# !,ra at <2- G. &. -<=. The Commission also was entitled
to gi'e this factor appropriate weight in the circumstances of the instant case. This is
not to say, howe'er, that the Commission has an unrestricted license to decide what
speech, protected in other media, may be banned from the airwa'es in order to protect
Page 7<= G. &. -;.
unwilling adults from momentary e"posure to it in their homes. K#ootnote *4*L ,a$ing
the sensiti'e judgments re:uired in these cases is not easy. But this responsibility has
been reposed initially in the Commission, and its judgment is entitled to respect.
It is argued that, despite societyQs right to protect its children from this $ind of speech,
and despite e'eryoneQs interest in not being assaulted by offensi'e speech in the home,
the CommissionQs holding in this case is impermissible because it pre'ents willing adults
from listening to CarlinQs monologue o'er the radio in the early afternoon hours. It is
said that this ruling will ha'e the effect of CreducKingL the adult population . . . to
KhearingL only what is fit for children.C Btler (. Mic*i'a"# <0* G. &. <=., <0* G. &.
<=<(120-. This argument is not without force. The Commission certainly should
consider it as it de'elops standards in this area. But it is not sufficiently strong to lea'e
the Commission powerless to act in circumstances such as those in this case.
The CommissionQs holding does not pre'ent willing adults from purchasing CarlinQs
record, from attending his performances, or, indeed, from reading the transcript
reprinted as an appendi" to the CourtQs opinion. 6n its face, it does not pre'ent
respondent Pacifica #oundation from broadcasting the monologue during late e'ening
hours, when fewer children are li$ely to be in the audience, nor from broadcasting
discussions of the contemporary use of language at any time during the day. The
CommissionQs holding, and certainly the CourtQs holding today, does not spea$ to cases
in'ol'ing the isolated
Page 7<= G. &. -;1
use of a potentially offensi'e word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished
from the 'erbal shoc$ treatment administered by respondent here. In short, I agree
that, on the facts of this case, the CommissionQs order did not 'iolate respondentQs #irst
@mendment rights.
##
@s the foregoing demonstrates, my 'iews are generally in accord with what is said in
Part I8+C of ,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)&Q opinion. See a"te at 7<= G. &. -7=+-0.. I therefore
join that portion of his opinion. I do not join Part I8+B, howe'er, because I do not
subscribe to the theory that the /ustices of this Court are free generally to decide on
the basis of its content which speech protected by the #irst @mendment is most
C'aluable,C and hence deser'ing of the most protection, and which is less C'aluableC
and hence deser'ing of less protection. Co&,are a"te at 7<= G. &. -77+-7=3 4o"' (.
A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!# I"c.# 7*- G. &. 0., 7*- G. &. ;<+-< (12-; (opinion of
&T%8%)&, /., /it* i$. at 7*- G. &. -< n. 1 (P6(%>>, /., concurring. K#ootnote *4<L In
my 'iew, the result in this case does not turn on whether CarlinQs monologue, 'iewed as
a whole, or the words that constitute it, ha'e more or less C'alueC than a candidateQs
campaign speech. This is a judgment for each person to ma$e, not one for the judges
to impose upon him. K#ootnote *47L
Page 7<= G. &. -;*
The result turns instead on the uni:ue characteristics of the broadcast media, combined
with societyQs right to protect its children from speech generally agreed to be
inappropriate for their years, and with the interest of unwilling adults in not being
assaulted by such offensi'e speech in their homes. ,oreo'er, I doubt whether todayQs
decision will pre'ent any adult who wishes to recei'e CarlinQs message in CarlinQs own
words from doing so, and from ma$ing for himself a 'alue judgment as to the merit of
the message and words. C). i$. at 7*- G. &. --+-2 (P6(%>>, /., concurring. These are
the grounds upon which I join the judgment of the Court as to Part I8.
K#ootnote *41L
See 'e"erally /udge >e'enthalQs thoughtful opinion in the Court of @ppeals. 1=1
G.&.@pp.?.C. 1<*, 100+10=, 00; #.*d 2, <*+<0 (12-- (dissenting opinion.
K#ootnote *4*L
It is true that the radio listener :uic$ly may tune out speech that is offensi'e to him. In
addition, broadcasters may preface potentially offensi'e programs with warnings. But
such warnings do not help the unsuspecting listener who tunes in at the middle of a
program. In this respect, too, broadcasting appears to differ from boo$s and records,
which may carry warnings on their face, and from motion pictures and li'e
performances, which may carry warnings on their mar:uees.
K#ootnote *4<L
The Court has, howe'er, created a limited e"ception to this rule in order to bring
commercial speech within the protection of the #irst @mendment. See O*rali+ (. O*io
State Bar A!!".# 7<; G. &. 77-, 7<; G. &. 700+70; (12-=.
K#ootnote *47L
#or much the same reason, I also do not join Part I8+@. I had not thought that the
application (el "o" of o'erbreadth analysis should depend on the CourtQs judgment as
to the 'alue of the protected speech that might be deterred. C). a"te at 7<= G. &. -7<.
%"cept in the conte"t of commercial speech, !ee Bate! (. State Bar o) Ari3o"a# 7<< G.
&. <0., 7<< G. &. <=.+<=1 (12--, it has not in the past. See# e.'.# Le/i! (. Ne/
Orlea"!# 710 G. &. 1<. (12-73 9oo$i"' (. :il!o"# 7.0 G. &. 01= (12-*.
@s ,9. /G&TIC% &T%8%)& points out, howe'er, a"te at 7<= G. &. -<7, the CommissionQs
order was limited to the facts of this case3 Cit did not purport to engage in formal
rulema$ing or in the promulgation of any regulations.C In addition, since the
Commission may be e"pected to proceed cautiously, as it has in the past, c). Brief for
Petitioner 7*+7<, and n. <1, I do not foresee an undue CchillingC effect on broadcastersQ
e"ercise of their rights. I agree, therefore, that respondentQs o'erbreadth challenge is
meritless.
,%. /G&TIC% B9%))@), with whom ,9. /G&TIC% ,@9&H@>> joins, dissenting.
I agree with ,9. /G&TIC% &T%(@9T that, under Ha&li"' (. U"ite$ State!# 71= G. &.
=-(12-7, and U"ite$ State! (. 01 122-)t. Reel! o) Fil&# 71< G. &. 1*< (12-<, the
word CindecentC in 1= G.&.C. R 17;7 (12-; ed. must be construed to prohibit only
obscene speech. I would, therefore, normally refrain from e"pressing my 'iews on any
constitutional issues implicated in this case. Howe'er, I find the CourtQs misapplication
of fundamental #irst @mendment principles so patent, and its attempt to impose its
notions of propriety on the whole of the @merican people so misguided, that I am
unable to remain silent.
#
#or the second time in two years, !ee 4o"' (. A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!# I"c.# 7*- G. &.
0. (12-;, the Court refuses to embrace the notion, completely antithetical to basic
#irst @mendment 'alues, that the degree of protection the #irst
Page 7<= G. &. -;<
@mendment affords protected speech 'aries with the social 'alue ascribed to that
speech by fi'e ,embers of this Court. See opinion of ,9. /G&TIC% P6(%>>, a"te at 7<=
G. &. -;1+-;*. ,oreo'er as do all parties, all ,embers of the Court agree that the
Carlin monologue aired by &tation (B@I does not fall within one of the categories of
speech, such as Cfighting words,C C*a,li"!+y (. Ne/ Ha&,!*ire# <10 G. &. 0;= (127*,
or obscenity, Rot* (. U"ite$ State!# <07 G. &. 7-; (120-, that is totally without #irst
@mendment protection. This conclusion, of course, is compelled by our cases e"pressly
holding that communications containing some of the words found condemnable here
are fully protected by the #irst @mendment in other conte"ts. See Eato" (. Tl!a# 710
G. &. ;2- (12-73 Pa,i!* (. U"i(er!ity o) Mi!!ori Crator!# 71. G. &.
;;- (12-<3 Bro/" (. O+la*o&a# 7.= G. &. 217 (12-*3 Le/i! (. Ne/ Orlea"!# 7.= G.
&. 21< (12-*3Ro!e")el$ (. Ne/ Jer!ey# 7.= G. &. 2.1 (12-*3 Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 7.<
G. &. 10(12-1. Jet despite t.he CourtQs refusal to create a sliding scale of #irst
@mendment protection calibrated to this CourtQs perception of the worth of a
communicationQs content, and despite our unanimous agreement that the Carlin
monologue is protected speech, a majority of the Court K#ootnote <41L ne'ertheless
finds that, on the facts of this case, the #CC is not constitutionally barred from imposing
sanctions on Pacifica for its airing of the Carlin monologue. This majority apparently
belie'es that the #CCQs disappro'al of PacificaQs afternoon broadcast of CarlinQs C?irty
(ordsC recording is a permissible time, place, and manner regulation. ?o(ac! (.
Coo,er# <<; G. &. -- (1272. Both the opinion of my Brother &T%8%)& and the opinion
of my Brother P6(%>> rely principally on two factors in reaching this conclusion5 (1
the capacity of a radio broadcast to intrude into the unwilling listenerQs home,
Page 7<= G. &. -;7
and (* the presence of children in the listening audience. ?ispassionate analysis,
remo'ed from indi'idual notions as to what is proper and what is not, star$ly re'eals
that these justifications, whether indi'idually or together, simply do not support e'en
the professedly moderate degree of go'ernmental homogeni!ation of radio
communications ++ if, indeed, such homogeni!ation can e'er be moderate gi'en the
preeminent status of the right of free speech in our constitutional scheme that the
Court today permits.
A
(ithout :uestion, the pri'acy interests of an indi'idual in his home are substantial, and
deser'ing of significant protection. In finding these interests sufficient to justify the
content regulation of protected speech, howe'er, the Court commits two errors. #irst, it
misconcei'es the nature of the pri'acy interests in'ol'ed where an indi'idual 'oluntarily
chooses to admit radio communications into his home. &econd, it ignores the
constitutionally protected interests of both those who wish to transmit and those who
desire to recei'e broadcasts that many ++ including the #CC and this Court ++ might find
offensi'e.
CThe ability of go'ernment, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely
to protect others from hearing it is . . . dependent upon a showing that substantial
pri'acy interests are being in'aded in an essentially intolerable manner. @ny broader
'iew of this authority would effecti'ely empower a majority to silence dissidents simply
as a matter of personal predilections.C
Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# !,ra# at 7.< G. &. *1. I am in wholehearted agreement with my
Brethren that an indi'idualQs right Cto be let aloneC when engaged in pri'ate acti'ity
within the confines of his own home is encompassed within the Csubstantial pri'acy
interestsC to which ,r. /ustice Harlan referred in Co*e"# and is entitled to the greatest
solicitude. Sta"ley (. 9eor'ia# <27 G. &. 00- (12;2. Howe'er, I belie'e that an
indi'idualQs actions in switching on
Page 7<= G. &. -;0
and listening to communications transmitted o'er the public airways and directed to the
public at large do not implicate fundamental pri'acy interests, e'en when engaged in
within the home. Instead, because the radio is undeniably a public medium, these
actions are more properly 'iewed as a decision to ta$e part, if only as a listener, in an
ongoing public discourse. See )ote, #ilthy (ords, the #CC, and the #irst @mendment5
9egulating Broadcast 6bscenity, ;1 8a.>.9e'. 0-2, ;1= (12-0. @lthough an indi'idualQs
decision to allow public radio communications into his home undoubtedly does not
abrogate all of his pri'acy interests, the residual pri'acy interests he retains (i!-a-
(i!the communication he 'oluntarily admits into his home are surely no greater than
those of the people present in the corridor of the >os @ngeles courthouse in Co*e" who
bore witness to the words C#uc$ the ?raftC embla!oned across CohenQs jac$et. Their
pri'acy interests were held insufficient to justify punishing Cohen for his offensi'e
communication.
%'en if an indi'idual who 'oluntarily opens his home to radio communications retains
pri'acy interests of sufficient moment to justify a ban on protected speech if those
interests are Cin'aded in an essentially intolerable manner,C Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia#
!,ra at7.< G. &. *1, the 'ery fact that those interests are threatened only by a radio
broadcast precludes any intolerable in'asion of pri'acy3 for unli$e other intrusi'e modes
of communication, such as sound truc$s, CKtLhe radio can be turned off,C Le*&a" (.
S*a+er Hei'*t!# 71= G. &. *2=, 71= G. &. <.* (12-7 ++ and with a minimum of effort.
@s Chief /udge Ba!elon aptly obser'ed below,
Cha'ing elected to recei'e public air wa'es, the scanner who stumbles onto an offensi'e
program is in the same position as the unsuspecting passers+by in Co*e" andEr3"o3"i+
C(. Jac+!o"(ille# 7** G. &. *.0 (12-0L3 he can a'ert his attention by changing
channels or turning off the set.C
1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. 1<*, 172, 00; #.*d 2, *; (12--. (hate'er the minimal discomfort
suffered by a
Page 7<= G. &. -;;
listener who inad'ertently tunes into a program he finds offensi'e during the brief
inter'al before he can simply e"tend his arm and switch stations or flic$ the CoffC
button, it is surely worth the candle to preser'e the broadcasterQs right to send, and the
right of those interested to recei'e, a message entitled to full #irst @mendment
protection. To reach a contrary balance, as does the Court, is clearly to follow ,9.
/G&TIC% &T%8%)&Q reliance on animal metaphors, a"te at 7<= G. &. -0.+-01, Cto burn
the house to roast the pig.C Btler (. Mic*i'a"# <0* G. &. <=., <0* G. &. <=< (120-.
The CourtQs balance, of necessity, fails to accord proper weight to the interests of
listeners who wish to hear broadcasts the #CC deems offensi'e. It permits majoritarian
tastes completely to preclude a protected message from entering the homes of a
recepti'e, unoffended minority. )o decision of this Court supports such a result. (here
the indi'iduals constituting the offended majority may freely choose to reject the
material being offered, we ha'e ne'er found their pri'acy interests of such moment to
warrant the suppression of speech on pri'acy grounds. C). Le*&a" (. S*a+er Hei'*t!#
!,ra. Ro/a" (. Po!t O))ice De,t.# <2- G. &. -*= (12-., relied on by the #CC and by
the opinions of my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)&, confirms, rather than belies, this
conclusion. In Ro/a"# the Court upheld a statute, <2 G.&.C. R 7..2 (12;7 ed., &upp.
I8, permitting householders to re:uire that mail ad'ertisers stop sending them lewd or
offensi'e materials and remo'e their names from mailing lists. Gnli$e the situation
here, householders who wished to recei'e the senderQs communications were not
pre'ented from doing so. %:ually important, the determination of offensi'eness (el
"o" under the statute in'ol'ed in Ro/a" was completely within the hands of the
indi'idual householder3 no go'ernmental e'aluation of the worth of the mailQs content
stood between the mailer and the householder. In contrast, the 'isage of the censor is
all too discernible here.
Page 7<= G. &. -;-
B
,ost parents will undoubtedly find understandable, as well as commendable, the
CourtQs sympathy with the #CCQs desire to pre'ent offensi'e broadcasts from reaching
the ears of unsuper'ised children. Gnfortunately, the facial appeal of this justification
for radio censorship mas$s its constitutional insufficiency. @lthough the go'ernment
un:uestionably has a special interest in the wellbeing of children, and conse:uently
Ccan adopt more stringent controls on communicati'e materials a'ailable to youths than
on those a'ailable to adults,C Er3"o3"i+ (. Jac+!o"(ille# 7** G. &. *.0, 7** G. &.
*1*(12-03 !ee Pari! A$lt T*eatre I (. Slato"# 71< G. &. 72, 71< G. &. 1.;+1.- (12-<
(B9%))@), /., dissenting, the Court has accounted for this societal interest by
adopting a C'ariable obscenityC standard that permits the prurient appeal of material
a'ailable to children to be assessed in terms of the se"ual interests of minors. 9i"!ber'
(. Ne/ 4or+# <2. G. &. ;*2 (12;=. It is true that the obscenity standard
the 9i"!ber'Court adopted for such materials was based on the then+applicable
obscenity standard of Rot* (. U"ite$ State!# <07 G. &. 7-; (120-, and Me&oir! (.
Ma!!ac*!ett!# <=< G. &. 71< (12;;, and that CKwLe ha'e not had occasion to decide
what effect Miller C(. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &. 10 (12-<L will ha'e on
the 9i"!ber' formulation.C Er3"o3"i+ (. Jac+!o"(ille# !,ra at 7** G. &. *1< n. 1..
)e'ertheless, we ha'e made it abundantly clear that, Cunder any test of obscenity as to
minors . . . , to be obscene, !c* ex,re!!io" &!t be# i" !o&e !i'"i)ica"t /ay# erotic..5
611 U.S. at 611 U. S. 107 ". 02# @oti"' Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 627 U.S. at 627 U. S. 12.
Because the Carlin monologue is ob'iously not an erotic appeal to the prurient interests
of children, the Court, for the first time, allows the go'ernment to pre'ent minors from
gaining access to materials that are not obscene, and are therefore protected, as to
them. K#ootnote <4*L It thus ignores our recent admonition
Page 7<= G. &. -;=
that
CKsLpeech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate
proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that
a legislati'e body thin$s unsuitable for them.C
7** G.&. at 7** G. &. *1<+*17. K#ootnote <4<L The CourtQs refusal to follow its own
pronouncements is especially lamentable, since it has the anomalous subsidiary effect,
at least in the radio conte"t at issue here, of ma$ing completely una'ailable to adults
material which may not constitutionally be $ept e'en from children. This result 'iolates
in spades the principle of Btler (. Mic*i'a"# !,ra. Btler in'ol'ed a challenge to a
,ichigan statute that forbade the publication, sale, or distribution of printed material
Ctending to incite minors to 'iolent or depra'ed or immoral acts, manifestly tending to
the corruption of the morals of youth.C <0* G.&. at <0* G. &. <=1. @lthough Rot* (.
U"ite$ State!# !,ra# had not yet been decided, it is at least arguable that the material
the statute in Btler was designed to suppress could ha'e been constitutionally denied
to children. )e'ertheless, this Court
Page 7<= G. &. -;2
found the statute unconstitutional. &pea$ing for the Court, ,r. /ustice #ran$furter
reasoned5
CThe incidence of this enactment is to reduce the adult population of ,ichigan to
reading only what is fit for children. It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties
of the indi'idual, now enshrined in the ?ue Process Clause of the #ourteenth
@mendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the
maintenance and progress of a free society.C
<0* G.&. at <0* G. &. <=<+<=7. (here, as here, the go'ernment may not pre'ent the
e"posure of minors to the suppressed material, the principle of Btler applies a
)ortiori.The opinion of my Brother P6(%>> ac$nowledges that there lur$s in todayQs
decision a potential for Cre$cCi"'D t*e a$lt ,o,latio" . . . to C*eari"'D o"ly /*at i! )it
)or c*il$re"#.5 a"te at 678 U. S. <E2# bt ex,re!!e! )ait* t*at t*e FCC /ill (i'ila"tly
,re(e"t t*i! ,ote"tial )ro& e(er beco&i"' a reality. I a& )ar le!! certai" t*a" &y
Brot*er PO:ELL t*at !c* )ait* i" t*e Co&&i!!io" i! /arra"te$# !ee Illi"oi! Citi3e"!
Co&&ittee )or Broa$ca!ti"' (. FCC# 0EF U.S.A,,.D.C. 0EE# 08<-0F2# ;0; F.1$ 7F<#
608-610 G0F<;H G!tate&e"t o) Ba3elo"# C.J.# a! to /*y *e (ote$ to 'ra"t re*eari"' e"
ba"cHI a"$ e(e" i) I !*are$ it# I col$ "ot !o ea!ily !*ir+ t*e re!,o"!ibility a!!&e$ by
eac* Me&ber o) t*i! Cort Aealo!ly to 'ar$ a'ai"!t e"croac*&e"t! o" Fir!t
A&e"$&e"t )ree$o&!.
In concluding that the presence of children in the listening audience pro'ides an
ade:uate basis for the #CC to impose sanctions for PacificaQs broadcast of the Carlin
monologue, the opinions of my Brother P6(%>>, a"te at 7<= G. &. -0-+-0=, and my
Brother &T%8%)&, a"te at 7<= G. &. -72+-0., both stress the time+honored right of a
parent to raise his child as he sees fit ++ a right this Court has consistently been 'igilant
to protect. See :i!co"!i" (. 4o$er# 7.; G. &. *.0 (12-*3 Pierce (. Society o)
Si!ter!#*;= G. &. 01. (12*0. Jet this principle supports a
Page 7<= G. &. --.
result directly contrary to that reached by the Court. 4o$er and Pierce hold that
parents, not the go'ernment, ha'e the right to ma$e certain decisions regarding the
upbringing of their children. @s surprising as it may be to indi'idual ,embers of this
Court, some parents may actually find ,r. CarlinQs unabashed attitude towards the
se'en Cdirty wordsC healthy, and deem it desirable to e"pose their children to the
manner in which ,r. Carlin defuses the taboo surrounding the words. &uch parents may
constitute a minority of the @merican public, but the absence of great numbers willing
to e"ercise the right to raise their children in this fashion does not alter the rightQs
nature or its e"istence. 6nly the CourtQs regrettable decision does that. K#ootnote <47L
C
@s demonstrated abo'e, neither of the factors relied on by both the opinion of my
Brother P6(%>> and the opinion of my Brother &T%8%)& ++ the intrusi'e nature of radio
and the presence of children in the listening audience ++ can, when ta$en on its own
terms, support the #CCQs disappro'al of the Carlin monologue. These two asserted
justifications are further plagued by a common failing5 the lac$ of principled limits on
their use as a basis for #CC censorship. )o such limits come readily to mind, and
neither of the opinions constituting the Court ser'es to clarify the e"tent to which the
#CC may assert the pri'acy and Cchildren in the audienceC rationales as justification for
e"punging from the airways protected communications the Commission finds offensi'e.
Ta$en to their logical e"treme, these rationales would support the cleansing of public
Page 7<= G. &. --1
radio of any Cfour+letter wordsC whatsoe'er, regardless of their conte"t. The rationales
could justify the banning from radio of a myriad of literary wor$s, no'els, poems, and
plays by the li$es of &ha$espeare, /oyce, Hemingway, Ben /onson, Henry #ielding,
9obert Burns, and Chaucer3 they could support the suppression of a good deal of
political speech, such as the )i"on tapes3 and they could e'en pro'ide the basis for
imposing sanctions for the broadcast of certain portions of the Bible. K#ootnote <40L
In order to dispel the specter of the possibility of so unpalatable a degree of censorship,
and to defuse PacificaQs o'erbreadth challenge, the #CC insists that it desires only the
authority to reprimand a broadcaster on facts analogous to those present in this case,
which it describes as in'ol'ing
Cbroadcasting for nearly twel'e minutes a record which repeated o'er and o'er words
which depict se"ual or e"cretory acti'ities and organs in a manner patently offensi'e by
its communityQs contemporary standards in the early afternoon when children were in
the audience.C
Brief for Petitioner 70. The opinions of both my Brother P6(%>> and my Brother
&T%8%)& ta$e the #CC at its word, and conse:uently do no more than permit the
Commission to censor the afternoon broadcast of the Csort of 'erbal shoc$ treatment,C
opinion of ,9. /G&TIC% P6(%>>, a"te at 7<= G. &. -0-, in'ol'ed here. To insure that
the #CCQs regulation of protected speech does not e"ceed these bounds, my Brother
P6(%>> is content to rely upon the judgment of the
Page 7<= G. &. --*
Commission while my Brother &T%8%)& deems it prudent to rely on this CourtQs ability
accurately to assess the worth of 'arious $inds of speech. K#ootnote <4;L #or my own
part, e'en accepting that this case is limited to its facts, K#ootnote <4-L I would place
the responsibility and the right to weed worthless and offensi'e communications from
the public airways where it belongs and where, until today, it resided5 in a public free to
choose those communications worthy of its attention from a mar$etplace unsullied by
the censorQs hand.
##
The absence of any hesitancy in the opinions of my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)& to
appro'e the #CCQs censorship of the Carlin monologue on the basis of two demonstrably
inade:uate grounds is a function of their perception that the decision will result in little,
if any, curtailment of communicati'e e"changes protected by the #irst @mendment.
@lthough the e"tent to
Page 7<= G. &. --<
which the Court stands ready to countenance #CC censorship of protected speech is
unclear from todayQs decision, I find the reasoning by which my Brethren conclude that
the #CC censorship they appro'e will not significantly infringe on #irst @mendment
'alues both disingenuous as to reality and wrong as a matter of law.
,y Brother &T%8%)&, in reaching a result apologetically described as
narrow, a"te at7<= G. &. -0., ta$es comfort in his obser'ation that CKaL re:uirement
that indecent language be a'oided will ha'e its primary effect on the form, rather than
the content, of serious communication,C a"te at 7<= G. &. -7< n. 1=, and finds solace in
his con'iction that CKtLhere are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be e"pressed by the
use of less offensi'e language.C Ibi$. The idea that the content of a message and its
potential impact on any who might recei'e it can be di'orced from the words that are
the 'ehicle for its e"pression is transparently fallacious. @ gi'en word may ha'e a
uni:ue capacity to capsule an idea, e'o$e an emotion, or conjure up an image. Indeed,
for those of us who place an appropriately high 'alue on our cherished #irst
@mendment rights, the word CcensorC is such a word. ,r. /ustice Harlan, spea$ing for
the Court, recogni!ed the truism that a spea$erQs choice of words cannot surgically be
separated from the ideas he desires to e"press when he warned that
Cwe cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without
also running a substantial ris$ of suppressing ideas in the process.C
Co*e" (. Cali)or"ia# 7.< G.&. at 7.< G. &. *;. ,oreo'er, e'en if an alternati'e phrasing
may communicate a spea$erQs abstract ideas as effecti'ely as those words he is
forbidden to use, it is doubtful that the sterili!ed message will con'ey the emotion that
is an essential part of so many communications. This, too, was apparent to ,r. /ustice
Harlan and the Court in Co*e".
CK(Le cannot o'erloo$ the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode in'ol'ed
here, that much linguistic e"pression ser'es a dual communicati'e function5 it con'eys
Page 7<= G. &. --7
not only ideas capable of relati'ely precise, detached e"plication, but otherwise
ine"pressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their
emoti'e as their cogniti'e force. (e cannot sanction the 'iew that the Constitution,
while solicitous of the cogniti'e content of indi'idual speech, has little or no regard for
that emoti'e function which, practically spea$ing, may often be the more important
element of the o'erall message sought to be communicated.C
I$. at 7.< G. &. *0+*;.
,y Brother &T%8%)& also finds rele'ant to his #irst @mendment analysis the fact that
CKaLdults who feel the need may purchase tapes and records or go to theaters and
nightclubs to hear Kthe tabooedL words.C A"te at 7<= G. &. -0. n. *=. ,y Brother
P6(%>> agrees5
CThe CommissionQs holding does not pre'ent willing adults from purchasing CarlinQs
record, from attending his performances, or, indeed, from reading the transcript
reprinted as an appendi" to the CourtQs opinion.C
A"te at 7<= G. &. -;.. The opinions of my Brethren display both a sad insensiti'ity to
the fact that these alternati'es in'ol'e the e"penditure of money, time, and effort that
many of those wishing to hear ,r. CarlinQs message may not be able to afford, and a
nai'e innocence of the reality that, in many cases, the medium may well be the
message.
The Court apparently belie'es that the #CCQs actions here can be analogi!ed to the
!oning ordinances upheld in 4o"' (. A&erica" Mi"i T*eatre!# I"c.# 7*- G. &. 0.(12-;.
#or two reasons, it is wrong. #irst, the !oning ordinances found to pass constitutional
muster in 4o"' had 'alid goals other than the channeling of protected
speech. I$. at 7*- G. &. -1 n. <7 (opinion of &T%8%)&, /.3 i$. at 7*- G. &. =.(P6(%>>,
/., concurring. )o such goals are present here. &econd, and crucial to the opinions of
my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)& in 4o"' ++ opinions, which, as they do in this case,
supply the bare fi'e+person majority of the Court ++ the ordinances did not restrict the
access of distributors or e"hibitors to the mar$et or impair
Page 7<= G. &. --0
the 'iewing publicQs access to the regulated material. I$. at 7*- G. &. ;*, 7*- G. &.
-1n. <0 (opinion of &T%8%)&, /.3 i$. at 7*- G. &. -- (P6(%>>, /., concurring. @gain,
this is not the situation here. Both those desiring to recei'e CarlinQs message o'er the
radio and those wishing to send it to them are pre'ented from doing so by the
CommissionQs actions. @lthough, as my Brethren point out, CarlinQs message may be
disseminated or recei'ed by other means, this is of little consolation to those
broadcasters and listeners who, for a host of reasons, not least among them financial,
do not ha'e access to, or cannot ta$e ad'antage of, these other means.
,oreo'er, it is doubtful that e'en those frustrated listeners in a position to follow my
Brother P6(%>>Qs gratuitous ad'ice and attend one of CarlinQs performances or
purchase one of his records would recei'e precisely the same message PacificaQs radio
station sent its audience. The airways are capable not only of carrying a message, but
also of transforming it. @ satiristQs monologue may be most potent when deli'ered to a
li'e audience3 yet the choice whether this will in fact be the manner in which the
message is deli'ered and recei'ed is one the #irst @mendment prohibits the
go'ernment from ma$ing.
###
It is :uite e'ident that I find the CourtQs attempt to unstitch the warp and woof of #irst
@mendment law in an effort to reshape its fabric to co'er the patently wrong result the
Court reaches in this case dangerous, as well as lamentable. Jet there runs throughout
the opinions of my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)& another 'ein I find e:ually
disturbing5 a depressing inability to appreciate that, in our land of cultural pluralism,
there are many who thin$, act, and tal$ differently from the ,embers of this Court, and
who do not share their fragile sensibilities. It is only an acute ethnocentric myopia that
enables the Court to appro'e the censorship of communications solely because of the
words they contain.
Page 7<= G. &. --;
C@ word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the s$in of a li'ing thought,
and may 'ary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time
in which it is used.C
To/"e (. Ei!"er# *70 G. &. 71=, *70 G. &. 7*0 (121= (Holmes, /.. The words that the
Court and the Commission find so unpalatable may be the stuff of e'eryday
con'ersations in some, if not many, of the innumerable subcultures that compose this
)ation. @cademic research indicates that this is indeed the case. See B. /ac$son, CBet
Jour @ss in the (ater and &wim >i$e ,eC (12-73 /. ?illard, Blac$ %nglish (12-*3 (.
>abo', >anguage in the Inner City5 &tudies in the Blac$ %nglish 8ernacular (12-*. @s
one researcher concluded,
CKwLords generally considered obscene, li$e QbullshitQ and Qfuc$Q are considered neither
obscene nor derogatory in the Kblac$L 'ernacular e"cept in particular conte"tual
situations and when used with certain intonations.C
C. Bins, CToward an %thnography of Contemporary @frican @merican 6ral Poetry,C
>anguage and >inguistics (or$ing Papers )o. 0, p. =* (Beorgetown Gni'. Press
12-*.C). ?ee)e (. 9ea"a+o!# 71= #.*d <02, <;1 (C@1 12;2 (finding the use of the
word Cmotherfuc$erC commonplace among young radicals and protesters.
TodayQs decision will thus ha'e its greatest impact on broadcasters desiring to reach,
and listening audiences composed of, persons who do not share the CourtQs 'iew as to
which words or e"pressions are acceptable and who, for a 'ariety of reasons, including
a conscious desire to flout majoritarian con'entions, e"press themsel'es using words
that may be regarded as offensi'e by those from different socio+economic bac$grounds.
K#ootnote <4=L
Page 7<= G. &. ---
In this conte"t, the CourtQs decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspecti'e,
it really is5 another of the dominant cultureQs ine'itable efforts to force those groups
who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thin$ing, acting, and spea$ing. See
Moore (. Ea!t Cle(ela"$# 7<1 G. &. 727, 7<1 G. &. 0.;+011 (12-- (B9%))@), /.,
concurring.
Pacifica, in response to an #CC in:uiry about its broadcast of CarlinQs satire on Ct*e
/or$! yo col$".t !ay o" t*e ,blic . . . air/ay!#.5 ex,lai"e$ t*at 5Carli" i! "ot
&ot*i"' ob!ce"itie!# *e i! &erely !i"' /or$! to !atiri3e a! *ar&le!! a"$ e!!e"tially
!illy or attit$e! to/ar$! t*o!e /or$!.5 ;E F.C.C.1$ at F;# FE. I" co")ir&i"' Carli".!
,re!cie"ce a! a !ocial co&&e"tator by t*e re!lt it reac*e! to$ay# t*e Cort e(i"ce! a"
attit$e to/ar$ t*e 5!e(e" $irty /or$!5 t*at &a"y ot*er! be!i$e! Mr. Carli" a"$
Paci)ica &i'*t $e!cribe a! 5!illy.5 :*et*er to$ay.! $eci!io" /ill !i&ilarly ,ro(e
5*ar&le!!5 re&ai"! to be !ee". O"e ca" o"ly *o,e t*at it /ill.
K#ootnote <41L
(here I refer without differentiation to the actions of Cthe Court,C my reference is to
this majority, which consists of my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)& and those ,embers
of the Court joining their separate opinions.
K#ootnote <4*L
%'en if the monologue appealed to the prurient interest of minors, it would not be
obscene as to them unless, as to them, Cthe wor$, ta$en as a whole, lac$s serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific 'alue.C Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &. 10, 71< G. &.
*7 (12-<.
K#ootnote <4<L
It may be that a narrowly drawn regulation prohibiting the use of offensi'e language on
broadcasts directed specifically at younger children constitutes one of the Cother
legitimate proscriptionKsLC alluded to in Er3"o3"i+. This is so both because of the
difficulties inherent in adapting the Miller formulation to communications recei'ed by
young children, and because such children are Cnot possessed of that full capacity for
indi'idual choice which is the presupposition of the #irst @mendment
guarantees.C9i"!ber' (. Ne/ 4or+# <2. G. &. ;*2, <2. G. &. ;72+;0. (12;=
(&T%(@9T, /., concurring. I doubt, as my Brother &T%8%)& suggests, a"te at 7<= G. &.
-70 n. *., that such a limited regulation amounts to a regulation of speech based on its
content, since, by hypothesis, the only persons at whom the regulated communication
is directed are incapable of e'aluating its content. To the e"tent that such a regulation
is 'iewed as a regulation based on content, it mar$s the outermost limits to which
content regulation is permissible.
K#ootnote <47L
The opinions of my Brothers P6(%>> and &T%8%)& rightly refrain from relying on the
notion of Cspectrum scarcityC to support their result. @s Chief /udge Ba!elon noted
below, Calthough scarcity has justified i"crea!i"' the di'ersity of spea$ers and speech,
it has ne'er been held to justify censorship.C 1=1 G.&.@pp.?.C. at 10*, 00; #.*d at *2
(emphasis in original. See Re$ Lio" Broa$ca!ti"' Co. (. FCC# <20 G. &. <;-, <20 G. &.
<2; (12;2.
K#ootnote <40L
See# e.'.# I &amuel *05**5 C&o and more also do Bod unto the enemies of ?a'id, if I
lea'e of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wallC3
II Nings 1=5*- and Isaiah <;51*5 CKHLath he not sent me to the men which sit on the
wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drin$ their own piss with youFC3 %!e$iel
*<5<5 C@nd they committed whoredoms in %gypt3 they committed whoredoms in their
youth3 there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their
'irginity.C3 %!e$iel *<5*15 CThus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy
youth, in bruising thy teats by the %gyptians for the paps of thy youth.C The Holy Bible
(Ning /ames 8ersion (6"ford 1=2-.
K#ootnote <4;L
@lthough ultimately dependent upon the outcome of re'iew in this Court, the approach
ta$en by my Brother &T%8%)& would not appear to tolerate the #CCQs suppression of
any speech, such as political speech, falling within the core area of #irst @mendment
concern. The same, howe'er, cannot be said of the approach ta$en by my Brother
P6(%>>, which, on its face, permits the Commission to censor e'en political speech if it
is sufficiently offensi'e to community standards. @ result more contrary to rudimentary
#irst @mendment principles is difficult to imagine.
K#ootnote <4-L
Ha'ing insisted that it see$s to impose sanctions on radio communications only in the
limited circumstances present here, I belie'e that the #CC is estopped from using either
this decision or its own orders in this case, 0; #.C.C.*d 27 (12-0 and 02 #.C.C.*d =2*
(12-;, as a basis for imposing sanctions on any public radio broadcast other than one
aired during the daytime or early e'ening and containing the relentless repetition, for
longer than a brief inter'al, of
Clanguage that describes, in term patently offensi'e as measured by contemporary
community standards for the broadcast medium, se"ual or e"cretory acti'ities and
organs.C
0; #.C.C.*d at 2=. #or surely broadcasters are not now on notice that the Commission
desires to regulate any offensi'e broadcast other than the type of C'erbal shoc$
treatmentC condemned here, or e'en this Cshoc$ treatmentC type of offensi'e broadcast
during the late e'ening.
K#ootnote <4=L
Gnder the approach ta$en by my Brother P6(%>>, the a'ailability of broadcasts about
groups whose members constitute such audiences might also be affected. Both news
broadcasts about acti'ities in'ol'ing these groups and public affairs broadcasts about
their concerns are apt to contain inter'iews, statements, or remar$s by group leaders
and members which may contain offensi'e language to an e"tent my Brother P6(%>>
finds unacceptable.
,9. /G&TIC% &T%(@9T, with whom ,9. /G&TIC% B9%))@), ,9. /G&TIC% (HIT%, and
,9. /G&TIC% ,@9&H@>> join, dissenting.
The Court today recogni!es the wise admonition that we should Ca'oid the unnecessary
decision of KconstitutionalL issues.C A"te at 7<= G. &. -<7. But it disregards one
important application of this salutary principle ++ the need to construe an @ct of
Congress so as to a'oid, if possible, passing upon its constitutionality. K#ootnote 741L It
is apparent that the constitutional :uestions raised by the order of the Commission in
this case are substantial. K#ootnote 74*L Before deciding them, we should be certain
that it is necessary to do so.
Page 7<= G. &. --=
The statute pursuant to which the Commission acted, 1= G.&.C. R 17;7 (12-; ed.,
K#ootnote 74<L ma$es it a federal offense to utter Cany obscene, indecent, or profane
language by means of radio communication.C The Commission held, and the Court
today agrees, that CindecentC is a broader concept than CobsceneC as the latter term
was defined in Miller (. Cali)or"ia# 71< G. &. 10, because language can be CindecentC
although it has social, political, or artistic 'alue and lac$s prurient appeal. 0; #.C.C.*d
27, 2-+2=. K#ootnote 747L But this construction of R 17;7, while perhaps plausible, is by
no means compelled. To the contrary, I thin$ that CindecentC should properly be read as
meaning no more than Cobscene.C &ince the Carlin monologue concededly was not
Cobscene,C I belie'e that the Commission lac$ed statutory authority to ban it. Gnder
this construction of the statute, it is unnecessary to address the difficult and important
issue of the CommissionQs constitutional power to prohibit speech that
Page 7<= G. &. --2
would be constitutionally protected outside the conte"t of electronic broadcasting.
This Court has recently decided the meaning of the term CindecentC in a closely related
statutory conte"t. In Ha&li"' (. U"ite$ State!# 71= G. &. =-, the petitioner was
con'icted of 'iolating 1= G.&.C. R 17;1, which prohibits the mailing of CKeL'ery
obscene, lewd, lasci'ious, indecent, filthy or 'ile article.C The Court
CconstrueKdL the generic terms in KR 17;1L to be limited to the sort of Cpatently
offensi'e representations or descriptions of that specific *ar$ core. !exal co"$ct
'i(e" a! exa&,le! i" Miller (. Cali)or"ia.55
71= G.&. at 71= G. &. 117, :uoting U"ite$ State! (. 01 122-)t. Reel! o) Fil&# 71< G. &.
1*<, 71< G. &. 1<. n. -. Thus, the clear holding of Ha&li"' is that Cindecent,C as used
in R 17;1, has the same meaning as CobsceneC as that term was defined in
the Millercase. See al!o Mar+! (. U"ite$ State!# 7<. G. &. 1==, 7<. G. &. 12. (1=
G.&.C. R 17;0.
)othing re:uires the conclusion that the word CindecentC has any meaning in R 17;7
other than that ascribed to the same word in R 17;1. K#ootnote 740L Indeed, although
the legislati'e history is largely silent, K#ootnote 74;L such indications as there are
support the 'iew that R 17;1 and 17;7 should be construed similarly. The 'iew that
CindecentC means no more than CobsceneC in R 17;1 and similar statutes long
antedated Ha&li"'. See U"ite$ State! (. Be""ett# *7 #.Cas. 1.2< ()o. 17,0-1 (CC
&?)J 1=-23 D"lo, (. U"ite$ State!# 1;0 G. &. 7=;, 1;0 G. &. 0..+0.13
Page 7<= G. &. -=.
Ma"al E"ter,ri!e! (. Day# <-. G. &. 7-=, <-. G. &. 7=*+7=7, <-. G. &. 7=- (opinion of
Harlan, /.. K#ootnote 74-L @nd although RR 17;1 and 17;7 were originally enacted
separately, they were codified together in the Criminal Code of 1=7= as part of a
chapter entitled C6bscenity.C There is nothing in the legislati'e history to suggest that
Congress intended that the same word in two closely related sections should ha'e
different meanings. See H.9.9ep. )o. <.7, =.th Cong., 1st &ess., @1.7+@1.; (127-.
I would hold, therefore, that Congress intended, by using the word CindecentC in R
17;7, to prohibit nothing more than obscene speech. K#ootnote 74=L Gnder that reading
of the statute, the CommissionQs order in this case was not authori!ed, and on that
basis, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of @ppeals.
K#ootnote 741L
See# e.'.# Jo*"!o" (. Robi!o"# 710 G. &. <;1, 710 G. &. <;;+<;-3 U"ite$ State! (.
T*irty-!e(e" P*oto'ra,*!# 7.* G. &. <;<, 7.* G. &. <;23 Re!ce Ar&y (. M"ici,al
Cort# <<1 G. &. 072, <<1 G. &. 0;23 A!*/a"$er (. TBA# *2- G. &. *==, *2- G. &.
<7=(Brandeis, /., concurring3 Cro/ell (. Be"!o"# *=0 G. &. **, *=0 G. &. ;*.
K#ootnote 74*L
The practice of construing a statute to a'oid a constitutional confrontation is followed
whene'er there is Ca !erio! $obt.5 a! to t*e !tatte.! co"!tittio"ality. E.'.# U"ite$
State! (. R&ely# 76; U. S. 60# 76; U. S. 6;I Blo$'ett (. Hol$e"# 1<; U. S. 061# 1<;
U. S. 068 Go,i"io" o) Hol&e!# J.H. T*!# t*e Cort *a! co"!tre$ a !tatte to a(oi$
rai!i"' a $obt a! to it! co"!tittio"ality e(e" t*o'* t*e Cort later i" e))ect *el$ t*at
t*e !tatte# ot*er/i!e co"!tre$# /ol$ *a(e bee" co"!tittio"ally (ali$. Co&,are
9e"eral Motor! Cor,. (. Di!trict o) Col&bia# 782 U. S. ;;7# /it* Moor&a" M)'. Co. (.
Bair# 67< U. S. 1E<.
K#ootnote 74<L
The Court properly gi'es no weight to the CommissionQs passing reference in its order
to 7- G.&.C. R <.<(g. A"te at 7<= G. &. -<2 n. 1<. #or one thing, the order clearly
rests only upon the CommissionQs interpretation of the term CindecentC in R 17;73 the
attempt by the Commission in this Court to assert that R <.<(g was an independent
basis for its action must fail. C). SEC (. C*e"ery Cor,.# <1= G. &. =., <1= G. &. 27+
203SEC (. Sloa"# 7<; G. &. 1.<, 7<; G. &. 11-+11=. ,oreo'er, the general language of
R <.<(g cannot be used to circum'ent the terms of a specific statutory mandate such
as that of R 17;7.
CKTLhe CommissionQs power in this respect is limited by the scope of the statute. Gnless
the KlanguageL in'ol'ed here KisL illegal under R K17;7L, the Commission cannot employ
the statute to ma$e KitL so by agency action.C
FCC (. A&erica" Broa$ca!ti"' Co.# <7- G. &. *=7, <7- G. &. *2..
K#ootnote 747L
The Commission did not rely on R 17;7Qs prohibition of CprofaneC language, and it is
thus unnecessary to consider the scope of that term.
K#ootnote 740L
The only #ederal Court of @ppeals (apart from this case to consider the :uestion has
held that
CQobsceneQ and QindecentQ in R 17;7 are to be read as parts of a single proscription,
applicable only if the challenged language appeals to the prurient interest.C
U"ite$ State! (. Si&,!o"# 0;1 #.*d 0<, ;. (C@-.
K#ootnote 74;L
&ection 17;7 originated as part of R *2 of the 9adio @ct of 12*-, 77 &tat. 11-*, which
was reenacted as R <*; of the Communications @ct of 12<7, 7= &tat. 1.21. )either the
committee reports nor the floor debates contain any discussion of the meaning of
Cobscene, indecent or profane language.C
K#ootnote 74-L
(hen the #ederal Communications @ct was amended in 12;= to prohibit Cobscene,
lewd, lasci'ious, filthy, or indecentC telephone calls, =* &tat. 11*, 7- G.&.C. R **<, the
#CC itself indicated that it thought this language co'ered only CobsceneC telephone
calls.See H.9.9ep. )o. 11.2, 2.th Cong., *d &ess., -+= (12;=.
K#ootnote 74=L
This construction is further supported by the general rule of lenity in construing criminal
statutes. See A$a&o :rec+i"' Co. (. U"ite$ State!# 7<7 G. &. *-0, 7<7 G. &. *=0. The
CourtQs statement that it need not consider the meaning R 17;7 would ha'e in a
criminal prosecution, a"te at 7<= G. &. -<2 n. 1<, is contrary to settled precedent5
CIt is true . . . that these are not criminal cases, but it is a criminal statute that we must
interpret. There cannot be one construction for the #ederal Communications
Commission and another for the ?epartment of /ustice. If we should gi'e R K17;7L the
broad construction urged by the Commission, the same construction would li$ewise
apply in criminal cases.C
FCC (. A&erica" Broa$ca!ti"' Co.# !,ra at <7- G. &. *2;.
6fficial &upreme Court caselaw is only found in the print 'ersion of the Gnited &tates
9eports. /ustia caselaw is pro'ided for general informational purposes only, and may
not reflect current legal de'elopments, 'erdicts or settlements. (e ma$e no warranties
or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or ade:uacy of the information
contained on this site or information lin$ed to from this site. Please chec$ official
sources.
'a08y 40%0o% )u66ar0e2
&ubscribe to /ustiaQs #9%% ?aily )ewsletter 6pinion &ummaries
)ub23r0be NoA


F0%& a LaAyer

Search
LaAyer2 - Ge5 L025e& NoAE
Bet a free full directory profile listing
A2F a LaAyer
Iuestion5
;sk Luestion
Abou5 Le<a8 A%2Aer2

Copyright W /ustia 55 Company 55 Terms of &er'ice 55 Pri'acy Policy 55 Contact Gs





EN BANC


FRANCISCO CHA2EZ,
Petitioner,





- <e*!$! -







RAUL M. GONZALES,
&n #&! a+a&t, a! t#e
Se*eta*, () t#e
De+a*t0ent () 3$!t&eD
and NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION (NTC),
-espondents.
G.R. N(. ?7B55B

Present:

PL$D, C.J.,
QL?SLME?$%,
Y$A&BS-SA$"?A%D,
SA$DD@A>-%L"?B&&BU,
CA&P?D,
ALS"&?A-MA&"?$BU,
CD&D$A,
CA&P?D MD&A>BS,
AUCL$A,
"?$%A,
C8?CD-$AUA&?D,
@B>ASCD, J&.,
$AC8L&A,
&BYBS, and
>BD$A&DD-DB CAS"&D, JJ.

Promulgated:

=ebruar1 .(, '))4

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*


D E C I S I O N


PL$D, C.J.:

A. P,#+4(

?n t#is urisdi!tion, it is establis#ed t#at +reedom o+ t#e press
is !ru!ial and so ine*tri!abl1 ,oven into t#e rig#t to +ree spee!#
and +ree e*pression, t#at an1 attempt to restri!t it must be met
,it# an e*amination so !riti!al t#at onl1 a danger t#at is !lear and
present ,ould be allo,ed to !urtail it.

?ndeed, ,e #ave not ,avered in t#e dut1 to up#old t#is
!#eris#ed +reedom. Ie #ave stru!0 do,n la,s and issuan!es
meant to !urtail t#is rig#t, as in Adiong %. C26E$EC,
-./
(urgos %.
Chief of Sta;,
-'/
Social 0eather Stations %. C26E$EC,
-3/
and (ayan
%. Eecuti%e Secretary Er"ita.
=>?
I#en on its +a!e, it is !lear t#at
a governmental a!t is not#ing more t#an a na0ed means to
prevent t#e +ree e*er!ise o+ spee!#, it must be nulli7ed.

B. T)# F-+2(

.. "#e !ase originates +rom events t#at o!!urred a 1ear a+ter
t#e '))5 national and lo!al ele!tions. Dn June (, '))(, Press
Se!retar1 ?gna!io Eun1e told reporters t#at t#e opposition
,as planning to destabilize t#e administration b1 releasing
an audiotape o+ a mobile p#one !onversation allegedl1
bet,een t#e President o+ t#e P#ilippines, %loria Ma!apagal
Arro1o, and a #ig#-ran0ing oC!ial o+ t#e Commission on
Ble!tions 9CDMB>BC<. "#e !onversation ,as audiotaped
allegedl1 t#roug# ,ire-tapping.
-(/
>ater, in
a 6alaca<ang press brie7ng, Se!retar1 Eun1e produ!ed t,o
versions o+ t#e tape, one supposedl1 t#e !omplete version,
and t#e ot#er, a spli!ed, :do!tored; or altered version, ,#i!#
,ould suggest t#at t#e President #ad instru!ted t#e
CDMB>BC oC!ial to manipulate t#e ele!tion results in t#e
President6s +avor.
-F/
?t seems t#at Se!retar1 Eun1e admitted
t#at t#e voi!e ,as t#at o+ President Arro1o, but subseHuentl1
made a retra!tion.
-2/

'. Dn June 2, '))(, +ormer !ounsel o+ deposed President
Josep# Bstrada, Att1. Alan Paguia, subseHuentl1 released an
alleged aut#enti! tape re!ording o+ t#e ,iretap. ?n!luded in
t#e tapes ,ere purported !onversations o+ t#e President, t#e
=irst %entleman Jose Miguel Arro1o, CDMB>BC Commissioner
%ar!illano, and t#e late Senator Earbers.
-4/


3. Dn June 4, '))(, respondent Department o+ Justi!e 9DDJ<
Se!retar1 &aul %onzales ,arned reporters t#at t#ose ,#o
#ad !opies o+ t#e !ompa!t dis! 9CD< and t#ose broad!asting
or publis#ing its !ontents !ould be #eld liable under t#e Anti-
Iiretapping A!t. "#ese persons in!luded Se!retar1 Eun1e
and Att1. Paguia. 8e also stated t#at persons possessing or
airing said tapes ,ere !ommitting a !ontinuing oAense,
sube!t to arrest b1 an1bod1 ,#o #ad personal 0no,ledge i+
t#e !rime ,as !ommitted or ,as being !ommitted in t#eir
presen!e.
-J/

5. Dn June J, '))(, in anot#er press brie7ng, Se!retar1
%onzales ordered t#e $ational Eureau o+ ?nvestigation 9$E?<
to go a+ter media organizations :found to ha%e caused the
spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a
tape; o+ an alleged ,iretapped !onversation involving t#e
President about 7*ing votes in t#e '))5 national
ele!tions. %onzales said t#at #e ,as going to start
,it# InE6.net, a oint venture bet,een t#e P#&%&++&ne
Da&%, InE$&*e* and GMA6 television net,or0, be!ause b1
t#e ver1 nature o+ t#e ?nternet medium, it ,as able to
disseminate t#e !ontents o+ t#e tape more ,idel1. 8e t#en
e*pressed #is intention o+ inviting t#e editors and managers
o+ ?nH2.net and %MA2 to a probe, and supposedl1 de!lared,
:? -#ave/ as0ed t#e $E? to !ondu!t a ta!ti!al interrogation o+
all !on!erned.;
-.)/

(. Dn June .., '))(, t#e $"C issued t#is press release:
-../

$"C %?@BS =A?& IA&$?$% "D &AD?D A$D "B>B@?S?D$
DI$B&SWDPB&A"D&S "D DESB&@B A$"?-I?&B"APP?$%
>AI A$D PB&"?$B$" C?&CL>A&S D$ P&D%&AM
S"A$DA&DS

*** *** ***

"a0ing into !onsideration t#e !ountr16s unusual
situation, and in order not to unne!essaril1 aggravate
t#e same, t#e $"C.a*n! all radio stations and
television net,or0 o,nersWoperators t#at t#e
!onditions o+ t#e aut#orization and permits issued to
t#em b1 %overnment li0e t#e Provisional Aut#orit1
andWor Certi7!ate o+ Aut#orit1 e*pli!itl1 provides t#at
said !ompanies s#all not use -t#eir/ stations +or t#e
broad!asting or tele!asting o+ +alse in+ormation or
,ill+ul misrepresentation. &elative t#ereto, it #as !ome
to t#e attention o+ t#e -$"C/ t#at !ertain personalities
are in possession o+ alleged taped !onversations ,#i!#
t#e1 !laim involve t#e President o+ t#e P#ilippines and
a Commissioner o+ t#e CDMB>BC regarding supposed
violation o+ ele!tion la,s.

"#ese personalities #ave admitted t#at t#e taped
!onversations are produ!ts o+ illegal ,iretapping
operations.

Considering t#at t#ese taped !onversations #ave not
been dul1 aut#enti!ated nor !ould it be said at t#is
time t#at t#e tapes !ontain an a!!urate or trut#+ul
representation o+ ,#at ,as re!orded t#erein, it is t#e
position o+ t#e -$"C/ t#at t#e !ontinuous airing or
broad!ast o+ t#e said taped !onversations b1 radio and
television stations is a !ontinuing violation o+ t#e Anti-
Iiretapping >a, and t#e !onditions o+ t#e Provisional
Aut#orit1 andWor Certi7!ate o+ Aut#orit1 issued to t#ese
radio and television stations. ?t #as been subseHuentl1
establis#ed t#at t#e said tapes are +alse andWor
+raudulent a+ter a prose!ution or appropriate
investigation, t#e !on!erned radio and television
!ompanies are #ereb1 .a*ned t#at t#e&*
-*(ada!tFa&*&n' () !$# )a%!e &n)(*0at&(n andF(*
.&%%)$% 0&!*e+*e!entat&(n !#a%% -e G$!t a$!e )(*
t#e !$!+en!&(n, *e<(at&(n andF(* ane%%at&(n ()
t#e %&en!e! (* a$t#(*&Hat&(n! &!!$ed t( t#e !a&d
(0+an&e!.

?n addition to t#e above, t#e -$"C/ reiterates t#e
pertinent $"C !ir!ulars on program standards to be
observed b1 radio and television stations. $"C
Memorandum Cir!ular ...-.'-4( e*pli!itl1 states,
among ot#ers, t#at :all radio broad!asting and
television stations s#all, during an1 broad!ast or
tele!ast, !ut oA +rom t#e air t#e spee!#, pla1, a!t or
s!ene or ot#er matters being broad!ast or tele!ast t#e
tenden!1 t#ereo+ is to disseminate +alse in+ormation or
su!# ot#er ,ill+ul misrepresentation, or to propose
andWor in!ite treason, rebellion or sedition.; "#e
+oregoing dire!tive #ad been reiterated b1 $"C
Memorandum Cir!ular $o. ''-4J, ,#i!#, in addition
t#ereto, pro#ibited radio, broad!asting and television
stations +rom using t#eir stations to broad!ast or
tele!ast an1 spee!#, language or s!ene disseminating
+alse in+ormation or ,ill+ul misrepresentation, or
in!iting, en!ouraging or assisting in subversive or
treasonable a!ts.

T#e @NTCA .&%% n(t #e!&tate, a)te* (-!e*<&n' t#e
*eE$&*e0ent! () d$e +*(e!!, t( a++%, .&t# )$%%
)(*e t#e +*(<&!&(n! () !a&d C&*$%a*! and t#e&*
a(0+an,&n' !ant&(n! (n e**&n' *ad&( and
te%e<&!&(n !tat&(n! and t#e&* (.ne*!F(+e*at(*!.

F. Dn June .5, '))(, $"C #eld a d&a%('$e ,it# t#e Eoard o+
Dire!tors o+ t#e 8apisanan ng "ga (rod)aster sa Pilipinas
=8(P>. $"C allegedl1 assured t#e SEP t#at t#e press release
did not violate t#e !onstitutional +reedom o+ spee!#, o+
e*pression, and o+ t#e press, and t#e rig#t to
in+ormation. A!!ordingl1, $"C and SEP issued a 3(&nt P*e!!
State0ent,#i!# states, among ot#ers, t#at:
-.'/

$"C respe!ts and ,ill not #inder +reedom o+ t#e
press and t#e rig#t to in+ormation on matters o+
publi! !on!ern. SEP X its members #ave al,a1s
been !ommitted to t#e e*er!ise o+ press +reedom
,it# #ig# sense o+ responsibilit1 and dis!erning
udgment o+ +airness and #onest1.

$"C did not issue an1 MC -Memorandum Cir!ular/
or Drder !onstituting a restraint o+ press +reedom
or !ensors#ip. "#e $"C +urt#er denies and does
not intend to limit or restri!t t#e intervie, o+
members o+ t#e opposition or +ree e*pression o+
vie,s.

I#at is being as0ed b1 $"C is t#at t#e e*er!ise o+
press +reedom -be/ done responsibl1.

SEP #as program standards t#at SEP members
,ill observe in t#e treatment o+ ne,s and publi!
aAairs programs. "#ese in!lude veri7!ation o+
sour!es, non-airing o+ materials t#at ,ould
!onstitute in!iting to sedition andWor rebellion.

"#e SEP Codes also reHuire t#at no +alse
statement or ,ill+ul misrepresentation is made in
t#e treatment o+ ne,s or !ommentaries.

"#e supposed ,iretapped tapes s#ould be treated
,it# sensitivit1 and #andled responsibl1 giving
due !onsideration to t#e pro!ess being
underta0en to veri+1 and validate t#e aut#enti!it1
and a!tual !ontent o+ t#e same.;


C. T)# P#2424o.

Petitioner C#avez 7led a petition under &ule F( o+ t#e &ules
o+ Court against respondents Se!retar1 %onzales and t#e $"C,
:pra1ing +or t#e issuan!e o+ t#e ,rits o+ certiorari and pro#ibition,
as e*traordinar1 legal remedies, to annul void pro!eedings, and to
prevent t#e unla,+ul, un!onstitutional and oppressive e*er!ise o+
aut#orit1 b1 t#e respondents.;
-.3/

Alleging t#at t#e a!ts o+ respondents are violations o+ t#e
+reedom on e*pression and o+ t#e press, and t#e rig#t o+ t#e
people to in+ormation on matters o+ publi! !on!ern,
-.5/
petitioner
spe!i7!all1 as0ed t#is Court:

-=/or -t#e/ nulli7!ation o+ a!ts, issuan!es, and orders o+
respondents !ommitted or made sin!e June F, '))(
until t#e present t#at !urtail t#e publi!6s rig#ts to
+reedom o+ e*pression and o+ t#e press, and to
in+ormation on matters o+ publi! !on!ern spe!i7!all1 in
relation to in+ormation regarding t#e !ontroversial
taped !onversion o+ President Arro1o and +or pro#ibition
o+ t#e +urt#er !ommission o+ su!# a!ts, and ma0ing o+
su!# issuan!es, and orders b1 respondents.
-.(/


&espondents
-.F/
denied t#at t#e a!ts transgress t#e
Constitution, and Huestioned petitioner6s legal standing to 7le t#e
petition. Among t#e arguments t#e1 raised as to t#e validit1 o+
t#e :+air ,arning; issued b1 respondent $"C, is t#at broad!ast
media eno1 lesser !onstitutional guarantees !ompared to print
media, and t#e ,arning ,as issued pursuant to t#e $"C6s
mandate to regulate t#e tele!ommuni!ations industr1.
-.2/
?t ,as
also stressed t#at :most o+ t#e -television/ and radio stations
!ontinue, even to t#is date, to air t#e tapes, but o+ late ,it#in t#e
parameters agreed upon bet,een t#e $"C and SEP.;
-.4/

. THE PROCEURAL THRESHOL" LEGAL STANING

"o be sure, t#e !ir!umstan!es o+ t#is !ase ma0e t#e
!onstitutional !#allenge pe!uliar. Petitioner, ,#o is not a member
o+ t#e broad!ast media, pra1s t#at ,e stri0e do,n t#e a!ts and
statements made b1 respondents as violations o+ t#e rig#t to +ree
spee!#, +ree e*pression and a +ree press. =or anot#er, t#e
re!ipients o+ t#e press statements #ave not !ome +or,ardY
neit#er intervening nor oining petitioner in t#is a!tion. ?ndeed, as
a group, t#e1 issued a oint statement ,it# respondent $"C t#at
does not !omplain about restraints on +reedom o+ t#e press.

?t ,ould seem, t#en, t#at petitioner #as not met t#e reHuisite
legal standing, #aving +ailed to allege :su!# a personal sta0e in
t#e out!ome o+ t#e !ontrovers1 as to assure t#at !on!rete
adverseness ,#i!# s#arpens t#e presentation o+ issues upon
,#i!# t#e Court so largel1 depends +or illumination o+ diC!ult
!onstitutional Huestions.;
-.J/

Eut as earl1 as #al+ a !entur1 ago, ,e #ave alread1 #eld t#at
,#ere serious !onstitutional Huestions are involved, :t#e
trans!endental importan!e to t#e publi! o+ t#ese !ases demands
t#at t#e1 be settled promptl1 and de7nitel1, brus#ing aside i+ ,e
must, te!#ni!alities o+ pro!edure.;
-')/
SubseHuentl1, t#is Court
#as repeatedl1 and !onsistentl1 re+used to ,ield pro!edural
barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious
legal Huestions t#at greatl1 impa!t on publi! interest,
-'./
in
0eeping ,it# t#e CourtPs dut1 under t#e .J42 Constitution to
determine ,#et#er or not ot#er bran!#es o+ government #ave
0ept t#emselves ,it#in t#e limits o+ t#e Constitution and t#e la,s
and t#at t#e1 #ave not abused t#e dis!retion given to t#em.

"#us, in line ,it# t#e liberal poli!1 o+ t#is Court on locus
standi ,#en a !ase involves an issue o+ overar!#ing signi7!an!e
to our so!iet1,
-''/
,e t#ere+ore brus# aside te!#ni!alities o+
pro!edure and ta0e !ognizan!e o+ t#is petition,
-'3/
seeing as it
involves a !#allenge to t#e most e*alted o+ all t#e !ivil rig#ts, t#e
+reedom o+ e*pression.

T#e +et&t&(n *a&!e! (t#e* &!!$e! %&;e
t#e eItent () t#e *&'#t t( &n)(*0at&(n () t#e +$-%&. It &!
)$nda0enta%, #(.e<e*, t#at .e need n(t add*e!! a%% &!!$e!
-$t (n%, t#e 0(!t de&!&<e (ne .#&# &n t#e a!e at -a* &!
.#et#e* t#e at! () t#e *e!+(ndent! a-*&d'e )*eed(0 ()
!+ee# and () t#e +*e!!.

B$t a!&de )*(0 t#e +*&0(*d&a% &!!$e () dete*0&n&n'
.#et#e* )*ee !+ee# and )*eed(0 () t#e +*e!! #a<e -een
&n)*&n'ed, t#e a!e at -a* a%!( '&<e! t#&! C($*t t#e
(++(*t$n&t,> (?) t( d&!t&%% t#e e!!ene () )*eed(0 ()
!+ee# and () t#e +*e!! n(. -e%($ded -, t#e <a'a*&e! ()
0(t#e*#((d !tate0ent!D (8) t( %a*&), t#e t,+e! ()
!+ee#e! and t#e&* d&Je*&n' *e!t*a&nt! a%%(.ed -, %a.D (5)
t( d&!$!! t#e (*e (ne+t! () +*&(* *e!t*a&nt, (ntent-
ne$t*a% and (ntent--a!ed *e'$%at&(n! and t#e&*
(n!t&t$t&(na% !tanda*d () *e<&e.D (:) t( eIa0&ne t#e
#&!t(*&a% d&Je*ene &n t#e t*eat0ent () *e!t*a&nt!
-et.een +*&nt and -*(ada!t 0ed&a and !t*e!! t#e
!tanda*d () *e<&e. '(<e*n&n' -(t#D and (9) t( a%%
attent&(n t( t#e (n'(&n' -%$**&n' () t#e %&ne! () d&!t&nt&(n
-et.een +*&nt and -*(ada!t 0ed&a.


E. RE@EAAMINING THE LA& ON FREEOM OF SPEECH,
OF EAPRESSION AN OF THE PRESS

'o la& shall be passed abridging the freedo" of
speech, of epression, or of the press, or the right of
the people peaceably to asse"ble and petition the
go%ern"ent for redress of grie%ances.
=2>?

=reedom o+ e*pression #as gained re!ognition as a
+undamental prin!iple o+ ever1 demo!rati! government, and given
a pre+erred rig#t t#at stands on a #ig#er level t#an substantive
e!onomi! +reedom or ot#er liberties. "#e !ognate rig#ts !odi7ed
b1Arti!le ???, Se!tion 5 o+ t#e Constitution, !opied almost verbatim
+rom t#e =irst Amendment o+ t#e L.S. Eill o+ &ig#ts,
-'(/
,ere
!onsidered t#e ne!essar1 !onseHuen!e o+ republi!an institutions
and t#e !omplement o+ +ree spee!#.
-'F/
"#is pre+erred status o+
+ree spee!# #as also been !odi7ed at t#e international level, its
re!ognition no, ens#rined in international la, as a !ustomar1
norm t#at binds all nations.
-'2/


?n t#e P#ilippines, t#e prima!1 and #ig# esteem a!!orded
+reedom o+ e*pression is a +undamental postulate o+ our
!onstitutional s1stem.
-'4/
"#is rig#t ,as elevated to !onstitutional
status in t#e .J3(, t#e .J23 and t#e .J42 Constitutions,
reNe!ting our o,n lesson o+ #istor1, bot# politi!al and legal, t#at
+reedom o+ spee!# is an indispensable !ondition +or nearl1 ever1
ot#er +orm o+ +reedom.
-'J/
Moreover, our #istor1 s#o,s t#at t#e
struggle to prote!t t#e +reedom o+ spee!#, e*pression and t#e
press ,as, at bottom, t#e struggle +or t#e indispensable
pre!onditions +or t#e e*er!ise o+ ot#er +reedoms.
-3)/
=or it is onl1
,#en t#e people #ave unbridled a!!ess to in+ormation and t#e
press t#at t#e1 ,ill be !apable o+ rendering enlig#tened
udgments. ?n t#e o+t-Huoted ,ords o+ "#omas JeAerson, ,e
!annot bot# be +ree and ignorant.

E.1. ABSTRACTION OF FREE SPEECH

Surrounding t#e +reedom o+ spee!# !lause are various
!on!epts t#at ,e #ave adopted as part and par!el o+ our o,n Eill
o+ &ig#ts provision on t#is basi! +reedom.
-3./
I#at is embra!ed
under t#is provision ,as dis!ussed e*#austivel1 b1 t#e Court
in*on?ales %. Co""ission on Elections,
-3'/
in ,#i!# it ,as #eld:

ZAt t#e ver1 least, +ree spee!# and +ree press ma1 be
identi7ed ,it# t#e libert1 to dis!uss publi!l1 and
trut#+ull1 an1 matter o+ publi! interest ,it#out
!ensors#ip and punis#ment. "#ere is to be no previous
restraint on t#e !ommuni!ation o+ vie,s or
subseHuent liabilit1 ,#et#er in libel suits, prose!ution
+or sedition, or a!tion +or damages, or !ontempt
pro!eedings unless t#ere be a !lear and present
danger o+ substantive evil t#at Congress #as a rig#t to
prevent.
-33/


*on?ales +urt#er e*plained t#at t#e vital need o+ a
!onstitutional demo!ra!1 +or +reedom o+ e*pression is undeniable,
,#et#er as a means o+ assuring individual sel+-+ul7llmentG o+
attaining t#e trut#G o+ assuring parti!ipation b1 t#e people in
so!ial, in!luding politi!al, de!ision-ma0ingG and o+ maintaining t#e
balan!e bet,een stabilit1 and !#ange.
-35/
As earl1 as t#e .J')s,
t#e trend as reNe!ted in P#ilippine and Ameri!an de!isions ,as to
re!ognize t#e broadest s!ope and assure t#e ,idest latitude +or
t#is !onstitutional guarantee. "#e trend represents a pro+ound
!ommitment to t#e prin!iple t#at debate on publi! issue s#ould
be unin#ibited, robust, and ,ide-open.
-3(/


=reedom o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press means somet#ing more
t#an t#e rig#t to approve e*isting politi!al belie+s or e!onomi!
arrangements, to lend support to oC!ial measures, and to ta0e
re+uge in t#e e*isting !limate o+ opinion on an1 matter o+ publi!
!onseHuen!e.
-3F/
I#en atrop#ied, t#e rig#t be!omes
meaningless.
-32/
"#e rig#t belongs as ,ell -- i+ not more K to t#ose
,#o Huestion, ,#o do not !on+orm, ,#o diAer.
-34/
"#e ideas t#at
ma1 be e*pressed under t#is +reedom are !on7ned not onl1 to
t#ose t#at are !onventional or a!!eptable to t#e maorit1. "o be
trul1 meaning+ul, +reedom o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press s#ould
allo, and even en!ourage t#e arti!ulation o+ t#e unort#odo* vie,,
t#oug# it be #ostile to or derided b1 ot#ersG or t#oug# su!# vie,
:indu!es a !ondition o+ unrest, !reates dissatis+a!tion ,it#
!onditions as t#e1 are, or even stirs people to anger.;
-3J/
"o
parap#rase Justi!e 8olmes, it is +reedom +or t#e t#oug#t t#at ,e
#ate, no less t#an +or t#e t#oug#t t#at agrees ,it# us.
-5)/


"#e s!ope o+ +reedom o+ e*pression is so broad t#at it
e*tends prote!tion to nearl1 all +orms o+ !ommuni!ation. ?t
prote!ts spee!#, print and assembl1 regarding se!ular as ,ell as
politi!al !auses, and is not !on7ned to an1 parti!ular 7eld o+
#uman interest. "#e prote!tion !overs m1riad matters o+ publi!
interest or !on!ern embra!ing all issues, about ,#i!# in+ormation
is needed or appropriate, so as to enable members o+ so!iet1 to
!ope ,it# t#e e*igen!ies o+ t#eir period. "#e !onstitutional
prote!tion assures t#e broadest possible e*er!ise o+ +ree spee!#
and +ree press +or religious, politi!al, e!onomi!, s!ienti7!, ne,s, or
in+ormational ends, inasmu!# as t#e ConstitutionPs basi!
guarantee o+ +reedom to advo!ate ideas is not !on7ned to t#e
e*pression o+ ideas t#at are !onventional or s#ared b1 a maorit1.

"#e !onstitutional prote!tion is not limited to t#e e*position
o+ ideas. "#e prote!tion aAorded +ree spee!# e*tends to spee!# or
publi!ations t#at are entertaining as ,ell as instru!tive or
in+ormative. Spe!i7!all1, in Eastern (roadcasting Corporation
=.5-E> %. .ans,
-5./
t#is Court stated t#at all +orms o+ media,
,#et#er print or broad!ast, are entitled to t#e broad prote!tion o+
t#e !lause on +reedom o+ spee!# and o+ e*pression.

I#ile all +orms o+ !ommuni!ation are entitled to t#e broad
prote!tion o+ +reedom o+ e*pression !lause, t#e )*eed(0 () /%0,
te%e<&!&(n and *ad&( -*(ada!t&n' &! !(0e.#at %e!!e* &n
!(+e t#an t#e )*eed(0 a(*ded t( ne.!+a+e*! and
(t#e* +*&nt 0ed&a, a! .&%% -e !$-!eE$ent%, d&!$!!ed.

E.2. IFFERENTIATION" THE LIMITS B RESTRAINTS OF FREE
SPEECH

=rom t#e language o+ t#e spe!i7! !onstitutional provision, it
,ould appear t#at t#e rig#t to +ree spee!# and a +ree press is not
sus!eptible o+ an1 limitation. Eut t#e realities o+ li+e in a !omple*
so!iet1 pre!lude a literal interpretation o+ t#e provision pro#ibiting
t#e passage o+ a la, t#at ,ould abridge su!# +reedom. =or
+reedom o+ e*pression is not an absolute,
-5'/
nor is it an :unbridled
li!ense t#at gives immunit1 +or ever1 possible use o+ language
and prevents t#e punis#ment o+ t#ose ,#o abuse t#is +reedom.;

T#$!, a%% !+ee# a*e n(t t*eated t#e !a0e. Some t1pes
o+ spee!# ma1 be sube!ted to some regulation b1 t#e State
under its pervasive poli!e po,er, in order t#at it ma1 not be
inurious to t#e eHual rig#t o+ ot#ers or t#ose o+ t#e !ommunit1 or
so!iet1.
-53/
"#e diAeren!e in treatment is e*pe!ted be!ause t#e
relevant interests o+ one t1pe o+ spee!#, e.g., politi!al spee!#,
ma1 var1 +rom t#ose o+ anot#er, e.g., obs!ene
spee!#. Distin!tions #ave t#ere+ore been made in t#e treatment,
anal1sis, and evaluation o+ t#e permissible s!ope o+ restri!tions
on various !ategories o+ spee!#.
-55/
Ie #ave ruled, +or e*ample,
t#at in our urisdi!tion slander or libel, le,d and obs!ene spee!#,
as ,ell as :7g#ting ,ords; are not entitled to !onstitutional
prote!tion and ma1 be penalized.
-5(/
Moreover, t#e te!#niHues o+ revie,ing alleged restri!tions on
spee!# 9overbreadt#, vagueness, and so on< #ave been applied
diAerentl1 to ea!# !ategor1, eit#er !ons!iousl1 or
un!ons!iousl1.
-5F/
A stud1 o+ +ree spee!# urispruden!eY,#et#er
#ere or abroadY,ill reveal t#at !ourts #ave developed diAerent
tests as to spe!i7! t1pes or !ategories o+ spee!# in
!on!rete situationsG i.e.,subversive spee!#G obs!ene spee!#G t#e
spee!# o+ t#e broad!ast media and o+ t#e traditional print mediaG
libelous spee!#G spee!# aAe!ting asso!iational rig#tsG spee!#
be+ore #ostile audien!esG s1mboli! spee!#G spee!# t#at aAe!ts
t#e rig#t to a +air trialG and spee!# asso!iated ,it# rig#ts o+
assembl1 and petition.
-52/

%enerall1, restraints on +reedom o+ spee!# and e*pression
are evaluated b1 eit#er or a !ombination o+ t#ree tests, i.e., 9a<
t#edan'e*($! tenden, d(t*&ne ,#i!# permits limitations on
spee!# on!e a rational !onne!tion #as been establis#ed bet,een
t#e spee!# restrained and t#e danger !ontemplatedG
-54/
9b<
t#e -a%an&n' () &nte*e!t! te!t!, used as a standard ,#en
!ourts need to balan!e !onNi!ting so!ial values and individual
interests, and reHuires a !ons!ious and detailed !onsideration o+
t#e interpla1 o+ interests observable in a given situation o+ t1pe o+
situationG
-5J/
and 9!< t#e %ea* and +*e!ent dan'e* *$%e ,#i!#
rests on t#e premise t#at spee!# ma1 be restrained be!ause
t#ere is substantial danger t#at t#e spee!# ,ill li0el1 lead to an
evil t#e government #as a rig#t to prevent. "#is rule reHuires t#at
t#e evil !onseHuen!es soug#t to be prevented must be
substantive, :e*tremel1 serious and t#e degree o+ imminen!e
e*tremel1 #ig#.;
-()/

As arti!ulated in our urispruden!e, ,e #ave applied eit#er
t#e dan'e*($! tenden, d(t*&ne or %ea* and +*e!ent
dan'e* te!t to resolve +ree spee!# !#allenges. More re!entl1, ,e
#ave !on!luded t#at ,e #ave generall1 ad#ered to t#e %ea* and
+*e!ent dan'e* te!t.
-(./


E.C. IN FOCUS" FREEOM OF THE PRESS

Mu!# #as been ,ritten on t#e p#ilosop#i!al basis o+ press
+reedom as part o+ t#e larger rig#t o+ +ree dis!ussion and
e*pression. ?ts pra!ti!al importan!e, t#oug#, is more easil1
grasped. ?t is t#e !#ie+ sour!e o+ in+ormation on !urrent aAairs. ?t
is t#e most pervasive and per#aps most po,er+ul ve#i!le o+
opinion on publi! Huestions. ?t is t#e instrument b1 ,#i!# !itizens
0eep t#eir government in+ormed o+ t#eir needs, t#eir aspirations
and t#eir grievan!es. ?t is t#e s#arpest ,eapon in t#e 7g#t to
0eep government responsible and eC!ient. Iit#out a vigilant
press, t#e mista0es o+ ever1 administration ,ould go un!orre!ted
and its abuses une*posed. As Justi!e Mal!olm ,rote in ,nited
States %. (ustos:
=D2?

"#e interest o+ so!iet1 and t#e maintenan!e o+ good
government demand a +ull dis!ussion o+ publi! aAairs.
Complete libert1 to !omment on t#e !ondu!t o+ publi!
men is a s!alpel in t#e !ase o+ +ree spee!#. "#e s#arp
in!ision o+ its probe relieves t#e abs!esses o+
oC!ialdom. Men in publi! li+e ma1 suAer under a
#ostile and unust a!!usationG t#e ,ound !an be
assuaged ,it# t#e balm o+ !lear !ons!ien!e.

?ts !ontribution to t#e publi! ,eal ma0es +reedom o+ t#e
press deserving o+ e*tra prote!tion. ?ndeed, t#e press bene7ts
+rom !ertain an!illar1 rig#ts. "#e produ!tions o+ ,riters are
!lassi7ed as intelle!tual and proprietar1. Persons ,#o inter+ere or
de+eat t#e +reedom to ,rite +or t#e press or to maintain a
periodi!al publi!ation are liable +or damages, be t#e1 private
individuals or publi! oC!ials.

E.>. ANATOMY OF RESTRICTIONS" PRIOR RESTRAINT,
CONTENT@NEUTRAL AN CONTENT@BASE REGULATIONS
P#ilippine urispruden!e, even as earl1 as t#e period under
t#e .J3( Constitution, #as re!ognized +our aspe!ts o+ +reedom o+
t#e press. "#ese are 9.< +reedom +rom prior restraintG 9'< +reedom
+rom punis#ment subseHuent to publi!ationG
-(3/
93< +reedom o+
a!!ess to in+ormationG
-(5/
and 95< +reedom o+ !ir!ulation.
-((/

Considering t#at petitioner #as argued t#at respondents6
press statement !onstitutes a +orm o+ impermissible prior
restraint, a !loser s!rutin1 o+ t#is prin!iple is in order, as ,ell as
its sub-spe!ie o+ !ontent-based 9as distinguis#ed +rom !ontent-
neutral< regulations.

At t#is point, it s#ould be noted t#at respondents in t#is !ase
den1 t#at t#eir a!ts !onstitute prior restraints. "#is presents a
uniHue tinge to t#e present !#allenge, !onsidering t#at t#e !ases
in our urisdi!tion involving prior restri!tions on spee!# never #ad
an1 issue o+ ,#et#er t#e governmental a!t or
issuan!e -+2*-$$1 !onstituted prior restraint. &at#er, t#e
determinations ,ere al,a1s about ,#et#er t#e restraint ,as
usti7ed b1 t#e Constitution.

Ee t#at as it ma1, t#e determination in ever1 !ase o+ ,#et#er
t#ere is an impermissible restraint on t#e +reedom o+ spee!# #as
al,a1s been based on t#e !ir!umstan!es o+ ea!# !ase, in!luding
t#e nature o+ t#e restraint. And &n &t! a++%&at&(n &n ($*
G$*&!d&t&(n, t#e +a*a0ete*! () t#&! +*&n&+%e #a<e -een
et#ed (n a a!e-t(-a!e -a!&!, a%.a,! te!ted -,
!*$t&n&H&n' t#e '(<e*n0enta% &!!$ane (* at a'a&n!t t#e
&*$0!tane! &n .#&# t#e, (+e*ate, and t#en
dete*0&n&n' t#e a++*(+*&ate te!t .&t# .#&# t( e<a%$ate.

P,4o, ,#(2,-4.2 re+ers to oC!ial governmental restri!tions
on t#e press or ot#er +orms o+ e*pression in advan!e o+ a!tual
publi!ation or dissemination.
-(F/
=reedom +rom prior restraint is
largel1 +reedom +rom government !ensors#ip o+ publi!ations,
,#atever t#e +orm o+ !ensors#ip, and regardless o+ ,#et#er it is
,ielded b1 t#e e*e!utive, legislative or udi!ial bran!# o+ t#e
government. "#us, it pre!ludes governmental a!ts t#at reHuired
approval o+ a proposal to publis#G li!ensing or permits as
prereHuisites to publi!ation in!luding t#e pa1ment o+ li!ense ta*es
+or t#e privilege to publis#G and even inun!tions against
publi!ation. Bven t#e !losure o+ t#e business and printing oC!es
o+ !ertain ne,spapers, resulting in t#e dis!ontinuation o+
t#eirprinting and publi!ation, are deemed as previous restraint or
!ensors#ip.
-(2/
An1 la, or oC!ial t#at reHuires some +orm o+
permission to be #ad be+ore publi!ation !an be made, !ommits an
in+ringement o+ t#e !onstitutional rig#t, and remed1 !an be #ad at
t#e !ourts.

%iven t#at deepl1 ens!on!ed in our +undamental la, is t#e
#ostilit1 against all prior restraints on spee!#, and an1 a!t t#at
restrains spee!# is presumed invalid,
-(4/
and :an1 a!t t#at
restrains spee!# is #obbled b1 t#e presumption o+ invalidit1 and
s#ould be greeted ,it# +urro,ed bro,s,;
-(J/
it is important to
stress not all prior restraints on spee!# are invalid. Ce*ta&n
+*e<&($! *e!t*a&nt! 0a, -e +e*0&tted -, t#e
C(n!t&t$t&(n, but determined onl1 upon a !are+ul evaluation o+
t#e !#allenged a!t as against t#e appropriate test b1 ,#i!# it
s#ould be measured against.

8en!e, it is not enoug# to determine ,#et#er t#e !#allenged
a!t !onstitutes some +orm o+ restraint on +reedom o+ spee!#. A
distin!tion #as to be made ,#et#er t#e restraint is 9.< a (ntent-
ne$t*a% regulation, i.e., merel1 !on!erned ,it# t#e in!idents o+
t#e spee!#, or one t#at merel1 !ontrols t#e time, pla!e or
manner, and under ,ell de7ned standardsG
-F)/
or 9'< a (ntent-
-a!ed restraint or !ensors#ip, i.e., t#e restri!tion is based on t#e
sube!t matter o+ t#e utteran!e or spee!#.
-F./
"#e !ast o+ t#e
restri!tion determines t#e test b1 ,#i!# t#e !#allenged a!t is
assa1ed ,it#.

I#en t#e spee!# restraints ta0e t#e +orm o+ a (ntent-
ne$t*a% *e'$%at&(n, onl1 a substantial governmental interest is
reHuired +or its validit1.
-F'/
Ee!ause regulations o+ t#is t1pe are not
designed to suppress an1 parti!ular message, t#e1 are not
sube!t to t#e stri!test +orm o+ udi!ial s!rutin1 but
an &nte*0ed&ate a++*(a#Ysome,#ere bet,een t#e mere
rationalit1 t#at is reHuired o+ an1 ot#er la, and t#e !ompelling
interest standard applied to !ontent-based restri!tions.
-F3/
"#e te!t is !alled &nte*0ed&ate be!ause t#e Court ,ill not
merel1 rubberstamp t#e validit1 o+ a la, but also reHuire t#at t#e
restri!tions be narro,l1-tailored to promote an important or
signi7!ant governmental interest t#at is unrelated to t#e
suppression o+ e*pression. "#e intermediate approa!# #as been
+ormulated in t#is manner:

A governmental regulation is suC!ientl1 usti7ed i+ it
is ,it#in t#e !onstitutional po,er o+ t#e %overnment,
i+ it +urt#ers an important or substantial governmental
interestG i+ t#e governmental interest is unrelated to
t#e suppression o+ +ree e*pressionG and i+ t#e in!ident
restri!tion on alleged -+reedom o+ spee!# X
e*pression/ is no greater t#an is essential to t#e
+urt#eran!e o+ t#at interest.
-F5/

Dn t#e ot#er #and, a governmental a!tion t#at restri!ts
+reedom o+ spee!# or o+ t#e press -a!ed (n (ntent is given
t#e!t*&te!t !*$t&n, in lig#t o+ its in#erent and invasive
impa!t. Dnl1 ,#en t#e !#allenged a!t #as over!ome t#e %ea*
and +*e!ent dan'e* *$%e ,ill it pass !onstitutional muster,
-F(/
,it# t#e government #aving t#e burden o+ over!oming t#e
presumed un!onstitutionalit1.

Lnless t#e government !an overt#ro, t#is presumption,
t#e (ntent--a!ed restraint ,ill be stru!0 do,n.
-FF/
Iit# respe!t to (ntent--a!ed restri!tions, t#e government
must also s#o, t#e t1pe o+ #arm t#e spee!# soug#t to be
restrained ,ould bring aboutY espe!iall1 t#e gravit1 and t#e
imminen!e o+ t#e t#reatened #arm K ot#er,ise t#e prior restraint
,ill be invalid. Prior restraint on spee!# based on its !ontent
!annot be usti7ed b1 #1pot#eti!al +ears, :but onl1 b1 s#o,ing a
substantive and imminent evil t#at #as ta0en t#e li+e o+ a realit1
alread1 on ground.;
-F2/
As +ormulated, :t#e Huestion in ever1 !ase
is ,#et#er t#e ,ords used are used in su!# !ir!umstan!es and
are o+ su!# a nature as
to !reate a !lear and present danger t#at t#e1 ,ill bring
about t#e substantive evils t#at Congress #as a rig#t to prevent.
?t is a Huestion o+ pro*imit1 and degree.;
-F4/

"#e regulation ,#i!# restri!ts t#e spee!# !ontent must also
serve an important or substantial government interest, ,#i!# is
unrelated to t#e suppression o+ +ree e*pression.
-FJ/

Also, t#e in!idental restri!tion on spee!# must be no greater
t#an ,#at is essential to t#e +urt#eran!e o+ t#at interest.
-2)/
A
restri!tion t#at is so broad t#at it en!ompasses more t#an ,#at is
reHuired to satis+1 t#e governmental interest ,ill be
invalidated.
-2./
"#e regulation, t#ere+ore, must be reasonable and
narro,l1 dra,n to 7t t#e regulator1 purpose,

,it# t#e least
restri!tive means underta0en.
-2'/


"#us, ,#en t#e prior restraint parta0es o+ a (ntent-ne$t*a%
*e'$%at&(n, it is sube!ted to an intermediate revie,. A (ntent-
-a!ed *e'$%at&(n,
-23/
#o,ever, bears a #eav1 presumption o+
invalidit1 and is measured against t#e %ea* and +*e!ent
dan'e* *$%e. "#e latter ,ill pass !onstitutional muster onl1 i+
usti7ed b1 a !ompelling reason, and t#e restri!tions imposed are
neit#er overbroad nor vague.
-25/


Appl1ing t#e +oregoing, it is !lear t#at t#e !#allenged a!ts in
t#e !ase at bar need to be sube!ted to t#e %ea* and +*e!ent
dan'e* *$%e, as t#e1 are (ntent--a!ed *e!t*&t&(n!. "#e a!ts
o+ respondents +o!used solel1 on but one obe!tYa spe!i7!
!ontentY 7*ed as t#ese ,ere on t#e alleged taped !onversations
bet,een t#e President and a CDMB>BC oC!ial. Lndoubtedl1 t#ese
did not merel1 provide regulations as to t#e time, pla!e or
manner o+ t#e dissemination o+ spee!# or e*pression.

E.D. 4+)o2o01 o6 F,## P,#((" P,4.2 %. B,o-3+-(2 M#34-

=inall1, !omes respondents6 argument t#at t#e !#allenged
a!t is valid on t#e ground t#at broad!ast media eno1s +ree
spee!# rig#ts t#at are lesser in s!ope to t#at o+ print media. Ie
ne*t e*plore and test t#e validit1 o+ t#is argument, inso+ar as it
#as been invo0ed to validate a !ontent-based restri!tion on
broad!ast media.

T#e *e'&0e! +*e!ent%, &n +%ae )(* ea# t,+e () 0ed&a
d&Je* )*(0 (ne (t#e*. Contrasted ,it# t#e regime in respe!t o+
boo0s, ne,spapers, magazines and traditional printed matter,
broad!asting, 7lm and video #ave been sube!ted to regulator1
s!#emes.

"#e di!#otom1 bet,een print and broad!ast media tra!es its
origins in t#e Lnited States. "#ere, broad!ast radio and television
#ave been #eld to #ave %&0&ted =irst Amendment prote!tion,
-2(/
and L.S. Courts #ave eI%$ded broad!ast media +rom t#e
appli!ation o+ t#e :stri!t s!rutin1; standard t#at t#e1 ,ould
ot#er,ise appl1 to !ontent-based restri!tions.
-2F/
A!!ording to
L.S. Courts, t#e t#*ee 0aG(* *ea!(n! ,#1 broad!ast media
stands apart +rom print media are: 9a< t#e s!ar!it1 o+ t#e
+reHuen!ies b1 ,#i!# t#e medium operates -i.e., air,aves are
p#1si!all1 limited ,#ile print medium ma1 be limitless/G
-22/
9b< its
:pervasiveness; as a mediumG and 9!< its uniHue a!!essibilit1 to
!#ildren.
-24/
Ee!ause !ases involving broad!ast media need not
+ollo, :pre!isel1 t#e same approa!# t#at -L.S. !ourts/ #ave
applied to ot#er media,; nor go :so +ar as to demand t#at su!#
regulations serve M!ompelling6 government interests,;
-2J/
t#e, a*e
de&ded (n .#et#e* t#e K'(<e*n0enta% *e!t*&t&(nL &!
na**(.%, ta&%(*ed t( )$*t#e* a !$-!tant&a% '(<e*n0enta%
&nte*e!t,L
@BCA
(* t#e &nte*0ed&ate te!t.

As pointed out b1 respondents, P#ilippine urispruden!e #as
also e!#oed a diAerentiation in treatment bet,een broad!ast and
print media. Ne<e*t#e%e!!, a *e<&e. () P#&%&++&ne a!e %a.
(n -*(ada!t 0ed&a .&%% !#(. t#atMa! .e #a<e de<&ated
.&t# t#e A0e*&an (ne+t&(n () t#e B&%% () R&'#t!
@B?A
M .e
%&;e.&!e d&d n(t ad(+t #. 0-((# t#e U.S. (ne+t&(n () +ree
spee!# as it relates to broad!ast media, +a*t&$%a*%, a! t(
.#&# te!t .($%d '(<e*n (ntent--a!ed +*&(* *e!t*a&nt!.

Dur !ases s#o, t,o distin!t +eatures o+ t#is
di!#otom1. F4,(2, t#e diAeren!e in treatment, in t#e main, is in
t#e regulator1 s!#eme applied to broad!ast media t#at is not
imposed on traditional print media, and narro,l1 !on7ned to
unprote!ted spee!# 9e.g., obs!enit1, pornograp#1, seditious and
in!iting spee!#<, or is based on a !ompelling government interest
t#at also #as !onstitutional prote!tion, su!# as national se!urit1
or t#e ele!toral pro!ess.

S#+o.3, regardless o+ t#e regulator1 s!#emes t#at
broad!ast media is sube!ted to, t#e Court #as !onsistentl1 #eld
t#at t#e !lear and present danger test applies to !ontent-based
restri!tions on media, ,it#out ma0ing a distin!tion as to
traditional print or broad!ast media.

"#e distin!tion bet,een broad!ast and traditional print
media ,as 7rst enun!iated in Eastern (roadcasting Corporation
=.5-E> %. .ans,
-4'/
,#erein it ,as #eld t#at :@aAll for"s of "edia,
&hether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of
the freedo" of speech and epression clause. 1he test for
li"itations on freedo" of epression continues to be the clear
and present danger ruleBC
-43/


.ans ,as a !ase 7led to !ompel t#e reopening o+ a radio
station ,#i!# #ad been summaril1 !losed on grounds o+ national
se!urit1. Alt#oug# t#e issue #ad be!ome moot and a!ademi!
be!ause t#e o,ners ,ere no longer interested to reopen, t#e
Court still pro!eeded to do an anal1sis o+ t#e !ase and made
+ormulations to serve as guidelines +or all in+erior !ourts and
bodies e*er!ising Huasi-udi!ial +un!tions. Parti!ularl1, t#e Court
made a detailed e*position as to ,#at needs be !onsidered in
!ases involving broad!ast media. "#us:
-45/


*** *** ***

93< All +orms o+ media, ,#et#er print or broad!ast, are
entitled to t#e broad prote!tion o+ t#e +reedom o+
spee!# and e*pression !lause. T#e te!t )(*
%&0&tat&(n! (n )*eed(0 () eI+*e!!&(n (nt&n$e!
t( -e t#e %ea* and +*e!ent dan'e* *$%e, t#at
,ords are used in su!# !ir!umstan!es and are o+ su!#
a nature as to !reate a !lear and present danger t#at
t#e1 ,ill bring about t#e substantive evils t#at t#e
la,ma0er #as a rig#t to prevent, ?n #is Constitution of
the Philippines 9'nd Bdition, pp. (FJ-(2)< C#ie+ Justi!e
BnriHue M. =ernando !ites at least nine o+ our
de!isions ,#i!# appl1 t#e test. More re!entl1, t#e
!lear and present danger test ,as applied in J.E.>.
&e1es in be#al+ o+ t#e Anti/(ases Coalition %.
(agatsing. 95< "#e !lear and present danger test,
#o,ever, does not lend itsel+ to a simplisti! and all
embra!ing interpretation appli!able to all utteran!es
in all +orums.
Eroad!asting #as to be li!ensed. Air,ave +reHuen!ies
#ave to be allo!ated among Huali7ed users. A
broad!ast !orporation !annot simpl1 appropriate a
!ertain +reHuen!1 ,it#out regard +or government
regulation or +or t#e rig#ts o+ ot#ers.
All +orms o+ !ommuni!ation are entitled to t#e broad
prote!tion o+ t#e +reedom o+ e*pression !lause.
$e!essaril1, #o,ever, t#e +reedom o+ television and
radio broad!asting is some,#at lesser in s!ope t#an
t#e +reedom a!!orded to ne,spaper and print media.
"#e A"erican Court in #ederal Co""unications
Co""ission %. Paci7ca #oundation 9534 L.S. 2'F<,
!on+ronted ,it# a patentl1 oAensive and inde!ent
regular radio program, e*plained ,#1 radio
broad!asting, more t#an ot#er +orms o+
!ommuni!ations, re!eives t#e most limited prote!tion
+rom t#e +ree e*pression !lause. =irst, broad!ast media
#ave establis#ed a uniHuel1 pervasive presen!e in t#e
lives o+ all !itizens, Material presented over t#e
air,aves !on+ronts t#e !itizen, not onl1 in publi!, but
in t#e priva!1 o+ #is #ome. Se!ond, broad!asting is
uniHuel1 a!!essible to !#ildren. Eoo0stores and motion
pi!ture t#eaters ma1 be pro#ibited +rom ma0ing
!ertain material available to !#ildren, but t#e same
sele!tivit1 !annot be done in radio or television, ,#ere
t#e listener or vie,er is !onstantl1 tuning in and out.
Similar !onsiderations appl1 in t#e area o+ national
se!urit1.
"#e broad!ast media #ave also establis#ed a uniHuel1
pervasive presen!e in t#e lives o+ all =ilipinos.
$e,spapers and !urrent boo0s are +ound onl1 in
metropolitan areas and in t#e pobla!iones o+
muni!ipalities a!!essible to +ast and regular
transportation. Bven #ere, t#ere are lo, in!ome
masses ,#o 7nd t#e !ost o+ boo0s, ne,spapers, and
magazines be1ond t#eir #umble means. Easi! needs
li0e +ood and s#elter per+or!e eno1 #ig# priorities.
Dn t#e ot#er #and, t#e transistor radio is +ound
ever1,#ere. "#e television set is also be!oming
universal. "#eir message ma1 be simultaneousl1
re!eived b1 a national or regional audien!e o+ listeners
in!luding t#e indiAerent or un,illing ,#o #appen to be
,it#in rea!# o+ a blaring radio or television set. "#e
materials broad!ast over t#e air,aves rea!# ever1
person o+ ever1 age, persons o+ var1ing
sus!eptibilities to persuasion, persons o+ diAerent ?.Q.s
and mental !apabilities, persons ,#ose rea!tions to
inNammator1 or oAensive spee!# ,ould be diC!ult to
monitor or predi!t. "#e impa!t o+ t#e vibrant spee!# is
+or!e+ul and immediate. Lnli0e readers o+ t#e printed
,or0, t#e radio audien!e #as lesser opportunit1 to
!ogitate anal1ze, and ree!t t#e utteran!e.
9(< "#e !lear and present danger test, t#ere+ore, must
ta0e t#e parti!ular !ir!umstan!es o+ broad!ast media
into a!!ount. "#e supervision o+ radio stations-
,#et#er b1 government or t#roug# sel+-regulation b1
t#e industr1 itsel+ !alls +or t#oug#t+ul, intelligent and
sop#isti!ated #andling.
"#e government #as a rig#t to be prote!ted against
broad!asts ,#i!# in!ite t#e listeners to violentl1
overt#ro, it. &adio and television ma1 not be used to
organize a rebellion or to signal t#e start o+
,idespread uprising. At t#e same time, t#e people
#ave a rig#t to be in+ormed. &adio and television
,ould #ave little reason +or e*isten!e i+ broad!asts are
limited to bland, obseHuious, or pleasantl1
entertaining utteran!es. Sin!e t#e1 are t#e most
!onvenient and popular means o+ disseminating
var1ing vie,s on publi! issues, t#e1 also deserve
spe!ial prote!tion.
9F< "#e +reedom to !omment on publi! aAairs is
essential to t#e vitalit1 o+ a representative demo!ra!1.
?n t#e .J.4 !ase o+,nited States %. (ustos 932 P#il.
23.< t#is Court ,as alread1 stressing t#at.
"#e interest o+ so!iet1 and t#e maintenan!e o+ good
government demand a +ull dis!ussion o+ publi! aAairs.
Complete libert1 to !omment on t#e !ondu!t o+ publi!
men is a s!alpel in t#e !ase o+ +ree spee!#. "#e s#arp
in!ision o+ its probe relieves t#e abs!esses o+
oC!ialdom. Men in publi! li+e ma1 suAer under a
#ostile and an unust a!!usationG t#e ,ound !an be
assuaged ,it# t#e balm o+ a !lear !ons!ien!e. A publi!
oC!er must not be too t#in-s0inned ,it# re+eren!e to
!omment upon #is oC!ial a!ts. Dnl1 t#us !an t#e
intelligen!e and dignit1 o+ t#e individual be e*alted.
92< Eroad!ast stations deserve t#e spe!ial prote!tion
given to all +orms o+ media b1 t#e due pro!ess and
+reedom o+ e*pression !lauses o+ t#e Constitution.
-Citations omitted/

?t is interesting to note t#at t#e Court in .ans adopted t#e
arguments +ound in L.S. urispruden!e to usti+1 diAerentiation o+
treatment 9i.e., t#e s!ar!it1, pervasiveness and a!!essibilit1 to
!#ildren<, -$t (n%, a)te* ate'(*&a%%, de%a*&n' t#at Kt#e
te!t )(* %&0&tat&(n! (n )*eed(0 () eI+*e!!&(n (nt&n$e! t(
-e t#e %ea* and +*e!ent dan'e* *$%e,L )(* a%% )(*0! ()
0ed&a, .#et#e* +*&nt (* -*(ada!t. ?ndeed, a !lose reading
o+ t#e above-Huoted provisions ,ould s#o, t#at t#e
diAerentiation t#at t#e Court in.ans re+erred to ,as
narro,l1 restri!ted to ,#at is ot#er,ise deemed as :unprote!ted
spee!#; 9e.g., obs!enit1, national se!urit1, seditious and in!iting
spee!#<, or to validate a li!ensing or regulator1 s!#eme ne!essar1
to allo!ate t#e limited broad!ast +reHuen!ies, ,#i!# is absent in
print media. "#us, ,#en t#is Court de!lared in .ans t#at t#e
+reedom given to broad!ast media ,as :some,#at lesser in s!ope
t#an t#e +reedom a!!orded to ne,spaper and print media,; it ,as
not as to ,#at test s#ould be applied, but t#e !onte*t b1 ,#i!#
reHuirements o+ li!ensing, allo!ation o+ air,aves, and appli!ation
o+ norms to unprote!ted spee!#.
=ED?

?n t#e same 1ear t#at t#e .ans !ase ,as de!ided, it ,as
reiterated in *on?ales %. 8atigba),
-4F/
t#at t#e test to determine
+ree e*pression !#allenges ,as t#e !lear and present danger,
again ,it#out distinguis#ing t#e media.
-42/
8atigba), stri!tl1
spea0ing, does not treat o+ broad!ast media but motion pi!tures.
Alt#oug# t#e issue involved obs!enit1 standards as applied to
movies,
-44/
t#e Court !on!luded its de!ision ,it# t#e
+ollo,ing obiter dictu" t#at a less liberal approa!# ,ould be used
to resolve obs!enit1 issues in television as opposed to motion
pi!tures:

All t#at remains to be said is t#at t#e ruling is to be
limited to t#e !on!ept o+ obs!enit1 appli!able to
motion pi!tures. ?t is t#e !onsensus o+ t#is Court t#at
,#ere television is !on!erned, a less liberal approa!#
!alls +or observan!e. "#is is so be!ause unli0e motion
pi!tures ,#ere t#e patrons #ave to pa1 t#eir ,a1,
television rea!#es ever1 #ome ,#ere t#ere is a
set. C#ildren t#en ,ill li0el1 be among t#e avid
vie,ers o+ t#e programs t#erein s#o,nZ..?t !annot be
denied t#oug# t#at t#e State as parens patriae is
!alled upon to mani+est an attitude o+ !aring +or t#e
,el+are o+ t#e 1oung.

More re!entl1, in resolving a !ase involving t#e !ondu!t o+
e*it polls and dissemination o+ t#e results b1 a broad!ast
!ompan1, ,e reiterated t#at t#e !lear and present danger rule is
t#e test ,e unHuestionabl1 ad#ere to issues t#at involve
+reedoms o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press.
-4J/

T#&! &! n(t t( !$''e!t, #(.e<e*, t#at t#e %ea* and
+*e!ent dan'e* *$%e #a! -een a++%&ed t( a%% a!e! t#at
&n<(%<e t#e -*(ada!t 0ed&a. "#e rule applies to all media,
in!luding broad!ast, but onl1 ,#en t#e !#allenged a!t is a
!ontent-based regulation t#at in+ringes on +ree spee!#, e*pression
and t#e press. ?ndeed, in 2s"ena %. C26E$EC,
=90?
,#i!# also
involved broad!ast media, t#e Court re+used to appl1 t#e !lear
and present danger rule to a CDMB>BC regulation o+ time and
manner o+ advertising o+ politi!al advertisements be!ause t#e
!#allenged restri!tion ,as !ontent-neutral.
-J./
And in a !ase
involving due pro!ess and eHual prote!tion issues, t#e Court
in 1eleco""unications and (roadcast Attorneys of the Philippines
%. C26E$EC
=92?
treated a restri!tion imposed on a broad!ast
media as a reasonable !ondition +or t#e grant o+ t#e media6s
+ran!#ise, ,it#out going into ,#i!# test ,ould appl1.

"#at broad!ast media is sube!t to a regulator1 regime
absent in print media is observed also in ot#er urisdi!tions, ,#ere
t#e statutor1 regimes in pla!e over broad!ast media in!lude
elements o+ li!ensing, regulation b1 administrative bodies, and
!ensors#ip. As e*plained b1 a Eritis# aut#or:


"#e *ea!(n! be#ind treating broad!ast and 7lms
diAerentl1 +rom t#e print media diAer in a number
o+ respe!ts, but #ave a !ommon #istori!al basis. "#e
stri!ter s1stem o+ !ontrols seems to #ave been
adopted in ans,er to t#e vie, t#at o,ing to
t#eir +a*t&$%a* &0+at (n a$d&ene!, 7lms, videos
and broad!asting reHuire a s1stem o+ prior restraints,
,#ereas it is no, a!!epted t#at boo0s and ot#er
printed media do not. "#ese media are vie,ed as
bene7!ial to t#e publi! in a number o+ respe!ts, but
are also seen as possible sour!es o+ #arm.
-J3/

Parent#eti!all1, t#ese usti7!ations are no, t#e sube!t o+
debate. H&!t(*&a%%,, t#e s!ar!it1 o+ +reHuen!ies ,as t#oug#t to
provide a rationale. 8o,ever, a-%e and !ate%%&te
te%e<&!&(n #ave enormousl1 in!reased t#e number o+ a!tual and
potential !#annels.D&'&ta% te#n(%(', ,ill +urt#er in!rease t#e
number o+ !#annels available. Eut still, t#e argument persists t#at
broad!asting is t#e most inNuential means o+ !ommuni!ation,
sin!e it !omes into t#e #ome, and so mu!# time is spent ,at!#ing
television. Sin!e it #as a uniHue impa!t on people and aAe!ts
!#ildren in a ,a1 t#at t#e print media normall1 does not, t#at
regulation is said to be ne!essar1 in order to preserve pluralism. ?t
#as been argued +urt#er t#at a signi7!ant main t#reat to +ree
e*pressionYin terms o+ diversit1Y!omes not +rom government,
but +rom private !orporate bodies. "#ese developments s#o, a
need +or a ree*amination o+ t#e traditional notions o+ t#e s!ope
and e*tent o+ broad!ast media regulation.
-J5/


"#e emergen!e o+ digital te!#nolog1 -- ,#i!# #as led to t#e
!onvergen!e o+ broad!asting, tele!ommuni!ations and t#e
!omputer industr1 -- #as li0e,ise led to t#e Huestion o+ ,#et#er
t#e regulator1 model +or broad!asting ,ill !ontinue to be
appropriate in t#e !onverged environment.
-J(/
?nternet, +or
e*ample, remains largel1 unregulated, 1et t#e ?nternet and t#e
broad!ast media s#are similarities,
-JF/
and t#e rationales used to
support broad!ast regulation appl1 eHuall1 to t#e ?nternet.
-J2/
"#us, it #as been argued t#at !ourts, legislative bodies and t#e
government agen!ies regulating media must agree to regulate
bot#, regulate neit#er or develop a ne, regulator1 +rame,or0 and
rationale to usti+1 t#e diAerential treatment.
-J4/

F. T)# C-(# A2 B-,

8aving settled t#e appli!able standard to !ontent-based
restri!tions on broad!ast media, let us go to its appli!ation to t#e
!ase at bar. "o
re!apitulate, a governmental a!tion t#at restri!ts +reedom o+
spee!# or o+ t#e press -a!ed (n (ntent is given
t#e !t*&te!t
!*$t&n,, ,it# t#e '(<e*n0ent #a<&n' t#e -$*den o+
over!oming t#e presumed un!onstitutionalit1 b1 t#e %ea* and
+*e!ent dan'e* *$%e. "#is rule applies eHuall1 to a%% 0inds o+
media, &n%$d&n' -*(ada!t 0ed&a.

"#is outlines t#e +*(ed$*a% 0a+ to +ollo, in !ases li0e t#e
one at bar as it spells out t#e +ollo,ing: 9a< t#e testG 9b< t#e
presumptionG 9!< t#e burden o+ proo+G 9d< t#e part1 to dis!#arge
t#e burdenG and 9e< t#e Huantum o+ eviden!e ne!essar1. Dn t#e
basis o+ t#e re!ords o+ t#e !ase at bar, respondents ,#o #ave t#e
burden to s#o, t#at t#ese a!ts do not abridge +reedom o+ spee!#
and o+ t#e press +ailed to #urdle t#e !lear and present danger
test. ?t appears t#at t#e '*eat e<&% ,#i!# government ,ants to
prevent is t#e airing o+ a tape re!ording in alleged violation o+ t#e
anti-,iretapping la,. "#e re!ords o+ t#e !ase at bar, #o,ever, are
!on+used and !on+using, and respondents6 eviden!e +alls s#ort o+
satis+1ing t#e !lear and present danger test. F&*!t%,, t#e various
statements o+ t#e Press Se!retar1 ob+us!ate t#e identit1 o+ t#e
voi!es in t#e tape re!ording. Se(nd%,, t#e integrit1 o+ t#e taped
!onversation is also suspe!t. "#e Press Se!retar1 s#o,ed to t#e
publi! t,o versions, one supposed to be a :!omplete; version and
t#e ot#er, an :altered; version. T#&*d%,, t#e eviden!e o+ t#e
respondents on t#e ,#o6s and t#e #o,6s o+ t#e ,iretapping a!t is
ambivalent, espe!iall1 !onsidering t#e tape6s diAerent versions.
"#e identit1 o+ t#e ,ire-tappers, t#e manner o+ its !ommission
and ot#er related and relevant proo+s are some o+ t#e invisibles o+
t#is !ase. F($*t#%,, given all t#ese unsettled +a!ets o+ t#e tape,
it is even arguable ,#et#er its airing ,ould violate t#e anti-
,iretapping la,.

Ie rule t#at n(t e<e*, <&(%at&(n () a %a. .&%% G$!t&),
!t*a&tGa;et&n' t#e eIe*&!e () )*eed(0 () !+ee# and ()
t#e +*e!!. Dur %a.! a*e () d&Je*ent ;&nd! and doubtless,
some o+ t#em provide norms o+ !ondu!t ,#i!# even i+ violated
#ave onl1 an adverse eAe!t on a person6s private !om+ort but
does not endanger national se!urit1. "#ere are la,s o+ great
signi7!an!e but t#eir violation, -, &t!e%) and .&t#($t 0(*e,
!annot support suppression o+ +ree spee!# and +ree press. ?n
7ne, <&(%at&(n () %a. &! G$!t a )at(*, a vital one to be sure,
,#i!# s#ould be
,eig#ed in adudging ,#et#er to restrain +reedom o+ spee!#
and o+ t#e press. "#et(ta%&t, () t#e &nG$*&($! eJet! o+ t#e
violation to private and publi! interest must be !alibrated in lig#t
o+ t#e pre+erred status a!!orded b1 t#e Constitution and b1
related international !ovenants prote!ting +reedom o+ spee!# and
o+ t#e press. ?n !alling +or a !are+ul and !alibrated measurement
o+ t#e !ir!um+eren!e o+ all t#ese +a!tors to determine !omplian!e
,it# t#e !lear and present danger test, t#e C($*t !#($%d n(t -e
0&!&nte*+*eted a! de<a%$&n' <&(%at&(n! () %a.. E1 all
means, violations o+ la, s#ould be vigorousl1 prose!uted b1
t#e State +or t#e1 breed t#eir o,n evil !onseHuen!e. Eut to
repeat, t#e need t( +*e<ent t#e&* <&(%at&(n ann(t +e*
!e t*$0+ t#e eIe*&!e () )*ee !+ee# and )*ee +*e!!, a
+*e)e**ed *&'#t .#(!e -*ea# an %ead t( '*eate*
e<&%!. =or t#is +ailure o+ t#e respondents alone to oAer proo+ to
satis+1 t#e !lear and present danger test, t#e Court #as no option
but to up#old t#e e*er!ise o+ +ree spee!# and +ree press. "#ere is
no s#o,ing t#at t#e +eared violation o+ t#e anti-,iretapping la,
!learl1 endangers t#e nat&(na% !e$*&t, () t#e State.

"#is is not all t#e +aultline in t#e stan!e o+ t#e respondents.
Ie slide to t#e issue o+ ,#et#er t#e 0e*e +*e!! !tate0ent! o+
t#e Se!retar1 o+ Justi!e and o+ t#e $"C in Huestion !onstitute a
+orm o+ !ontent-based prior restraint t#at #as transgressed t#e
Constitution. ?n resolving t#is issue, ,e #old
t#at &t &! n(t de&!&<e t#at t#e +*e!! !tate0ent! 0ade -,
*e!+(ndent! .e*e n(t *ed$ed &n (* )(%%(.ed $+ .&t#
)(*0a% (*de*! (* &*$%a*!. It &! !$1&ent t#at t#e +*e!!
!tate0ent! .e*e 0ade -, *e!+(ndent! .#&%e &n t#e
eIe*&!e () t#e&* (1&a% )$nt&(n!. Lndoubtedl1, respondent
%onzales made #is statements as Se!retar1 o+ Justi!e, ,#ile t#e
$"C issued its statement as t#e regulator1 bod1 o+ media. An,
at d(ne, !$# a! a !+ee# $tte*ed, )(* and (n -e#a%) ()
t#e '(<e*n0ent &n an (1&a% a+a&t, &! (<e*ed -, t#e
*$%e (n +*&(* *e!t*a&nt. T#e (ne+t () an KatL d(e! n(t
%&0&t &t!e%) t( at! a%*ead, (n<e*ted t( a )(*0a% (*de* (*
(1&a% &*$%a*. Ot#e*.&!e, t#e n(n )(*0a%&Hat&(n () an at
&nt( an (1&a% (*de* (* &*$%a* .&%% *e!$%t &n t#e ea!,
&*$0<ent&(n () t#e +*(#&-&t&(n (n +*&(* *e!t*a&nt. "#e
press statements at bar are a!ts t#at s#ould be stru!0 do,n as
t#e1 !onstitute impermissible +orms o+ prior restraints on t#e rig#t
to +ree spee!# and press.

"#ere is enoug# eviden!e o+ #&%%&n' eJet o+ t#e
!omplained a!ts on re!ord. "#e .a*n&n'! given to media a0e
)*(0 n( %e!! t#e $"C, a regulator1 agen!1 t#at !an !an!el t#e
Certi7!ate o+ Aut#orit1 o+ t#e radio and broad!ast media. "#e1
also !ame +rom t#e Se!retar1 o+ Justi!e, t#e alter ego o+ t#e
B*e!utive, ,#o ,ields t#e a,esome po,er to prose!ute t#ose
per!eived to be violating t#e la,s o+ t#e land. A)te* t#e
.a*n&n'!, t#e SEP ine*pli!abl1 oined t#e $"C in issuing an
ambivalent Joint Press Statement. A+ter t#e ,arnings, petitioner
C#avez ,as le+t alone to 7g#t t#is battle +or +reedom o+ spee!#
and o+ t#e press. "#is silen!e on t#e sidelines on t#e part o+ some
media pra!titioners is too dea+ening to be t#e sube!t o+
misinterpretation.

"#e !onstitutional imperative +or us to stri0e do,n
un!onstitutional a!ts s#ould al,a1s be e*er!ised ,it# !are and in
lig#t o+ t#e distin!t +a!ts o+ ea!# !ase. =or t#ere are no #ard and
+ast rules ,#en it !omes to slipper1 !onstitutional Huestions, and
t#e limits and !onstru!t o+ relative +reedoms are never set in
stone. ?ssues revolving on t#eir !onstru!t must be de!ided on a
!ase to !ase basis, al,a1s based on t#e pe!uliar s#apes and
s#ado,s o+ ea!# !ase. Eut in !ases ,#ere t#e !#allenged a!ts
are patent invasions o+ a !onstitutionall1 prote!ted rig#t, .e
!#($%d -e !.&)t in stri0ing t#em do,n as nullities per se. A -%(.
t(( !((n !t*$; )(* )*eed(0 &! +*e)e**ed t#an a -%(. t((
%ate.

In 2IE" "HEREOF, t#e petition is GRANTED. "#e ,rits
o+ certiorari and pro#ibition are #ereb1 issued, nulli+1ing t#e
oC!ial statements made b1 respondents on June 4, and .., '))(
,arning t#e media on airing t#e alleged ,iretapped !onversation
bet,een t#e President and ot#er personalities, +or !onstituting
un!onstitutional prior restraint on t#e e*er!ise o+ +reedom o+
spee!# and o+ t#e press
SO ORDERED.

REYNATO S. PUNO
C#ie+ Justi!e





IB CD$CL&:




LEONARO A. FUISUMBING
Asso!iate Justi!e




CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Asso!iate Justi!e




ANGELINA SANDO2AL-
GUTIERREZ
Asso!iate Justi!e




ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Asso!iate Justi!e



MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Asso!iate Justi!e



RENATO C. CORONA
Asso!iate Justi!e






CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Asso!iate Justi!e
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Asso!iate Justi!e



DANTE O. TINGA
Asso!iate Justi!e



MINITA 2. CHICO-NAZARIO
Asso!iate Justi!e




PRESBITERO 3. 2ELASCO, 3R.
Asso!iate Justi!e






ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Asso!iate Justi!e

RUBEN T. REYES TERESITA
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Asso!iate Justi!e Asso!iate
Justi!e


C E R T I F I C A T I O N


Pursuant to Se!tion .3, Arti!le @??? o+ t#e Constitution, ?
!erti+1 t#at t#e !on!lusions in t#e above de!ision #ad been
rea!#ed in !onsultation be+ore t#e !ase ,as assigned to t#e ,riter
o+ t#e opinion o+ t#e Court.



REYNATO S. PUNO
C#ie+ Justi!e

415
G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1..
4.5
.18 P,i#. -50 819809.
435
G.R. No. 10-5-1, (a6 5, .//1, 35- "%R' 096.
405
G.R. No. 169838, '&ri# .5, .//6, 088 "%R' ..6.
455
Rollo, &&. 6!- 8*iting t,e P,i#i&&ine Dai#6 ;nFuirer 8PD;9, June -, .//5, &&. '1, '18H PD;, June 10,
.//5, &. '19H and &. 58.
465
;d. at -!8 8*iting t,e (ani#a "tandard, June 1/, .//5, &. '.9H and 58.
4-5
;d. at -!8 and 59.
485
;d.
495
;d. at 8!9 and 59.
41/5
;d. at 9.
4115
;d. at 1/!1., 03!00, 6/!6..
41.5
;d. at 6.!63, 86!8-.
4135
;d. at 6.
4105
Res&ondents ,ave K*ommitted b#atant vio#ations o1 t,e 1reedom o1 eG&ression and o1 t,e &ress and
t,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to in1ormation on matters o1 &ub#i* *on*ern ens,rined in 'rti*#e ;;;, "e*tions
0 and - o1 t,e 198- %onstitution. ;d. at 18. Petitioner a#so argued t,at res&ondent N+% a*ted
be6ond its &o2ers 2,en it issued t,e &ress re#ease o1 June 11, .//5. ;d.
4155
;d. at 6.
4165
+,roug, t,e %omment 1i#ed b6 t,e "o#i*itor!Genera#. ;d. at 56!83.
41-5
;d. at -1!-3.
4185
;d. at -0!-5.
4195
+,e %ourt 2i## eGer*ise its &o2er o1 )udi*ia# revie2 on#6 i1 t,e *ase is broug,t be1ore it b6 a &art6
2,o ,as t,e #ega# standing to raise t,e *onstitutiona# or #ega# Fuestion. K7ega# standingL means a
&ersona# and substantia# interest in t,e *ase su*, t,at t,e &art6 ,as sustained or 2i## sustain dire*t
in)ur6 as a resu#t o1 t,e government a*t t,at is being *,a##enged. +,e term KinterestL is materia#
interest, an interest in issue and to be a11e*ted b6 t,e de*ree, as distinguis,ed 1rom mere interest in
t,e Fuestion invo#ved, or a mere in*identa# interest. 9imentel v. ?7e!utive Se!retary) G.R. No.
158/88) Ju#6 6, .//5, 06. "%R' 6.., *iting Joya vs. 9residential Commission on +ood
+overnment) G.R. No. 96501, 'ugust .0, 1993, ..5 "%R' 568. "ee Gilosbayan) In!. v.
*orato) G.R. No. 11891/, Ju#6 1-, 1995, .06 "%R' 50/, 56.J563H and ;gan v.
9I;-CO 8De*ision9, 05/ P,i#. -00 8.//39.
4./5
;raneta v. :inglasan, 80 P,i#. 368, 3-3 819099, *ited in OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No.
1//318, Ju#6 3/, 1991, 199 "%R' -5/.
4.15
"ee ;gan v. 9I;-CO 8De*ision9, 05/ P,i#. -00 8.//39.
4..5
9hil!onsa v. Jimene(, 1.. P,i#. 890 819659H Civil Liberties @nion v. ?7e!utive Se!retary, G.R. No.
83896, =ebruar6 .., 1991, 190 "%R' 31-H +uingona v. Carague, G.R. No. 905-1, '&ri# .., 1991,
196 "%R' ..1H OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1//318, Ju#6 3/, 1991, 199 "%R' -5/H 2as!o v.
9;+COR, .-0 P,i#. 3.3 819919H Carpio v. ?7e!utive Se!retary, G.R. No. 960/9, =ebruar6 10,
199., ./6 "%R' .9/H :el *ar v. 9;+COR, 0// P,i#. 3/- 8.///9.
4.35
2as!o v. 9;+COR, .-0 P,i#. 3.3 819919, *iting Gapatiran ng mga %aglilingkod sa 9amahalaan
ng 9ilipinas In!. v. -an, G.R. No. 7!81311, June 3/, 1988, 163 "%R' 3-1.
4.05
198- P:;7. %@N"+. 'rt. ;;;, U0.
4.55
B.". Ii## o1 Rig,ts, =irst 'mendment. 8K%ongress s,a## ma3e no #a2Mabridging t,e 1reedom o1
s&ee*,, or o1 t,e &ress, or t,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e &ea*eab#6 to assemb#e, and to &etition t,e
Government 1or a redress o1 grievan*es.L9
4.65
+,e =irst 'mendment 2as so *ra1ted be*ause t,e 1ounders o1 t,e 'meri*an government be#ieved !!
as a matter o1 ,istor6 and eG&erien*e !! t,at t,e 1reedom to eG&ress &ersona# o&inions 2as essentia#
to a 1ree government. See 7'RR NR'(?R, +:? P?@P7? +:?("?7<?": P@PB7'R
%@N"+;+B+;@N 'ND JBD;%;'7 R?<;?> 8.//09.
-'2/
Arti!le .J o+ t#e .J54 Lniversal De!laration on 8uman &ig#ts 9LD8&<
states: :Bver1one #as t#e rig#t to +reedom o+ opinion and e*pressionG
t#is rig#t in!ludes t#e rig#t to #old
opinions ,it#out inter+eren!e and to see0, re!eive and impart in+ormatio
n and ideas t#roug# an1 media and regardless o+ +rontiers.; Alt#oug# t#e
LD8& is not binding as a treat1, man1 o+ its provisions #ave a!Huired binding
status on States and are no, part o+ !ustomar1 international la,. Arti!le .J
+orms part o+ t#e LD8& prin!iples t#at #ave been trans+ormed into binding
norms. Moreover, man1 o+ t#e rig#ts in t#e LD8& ,ere in!luded in and
elaborated on in t#e ?nternational Covenant on Civil and Politi!al &ig#ts
9?CCP&<, a treat1 rati7ed b1 over .() States, in!luding t#e P#ilippines. "#e
re!ognition o+ +reedom o+ e*pression is also +ound in regional #uman rig#ts
instruments, namel1, t#e Buropean Convention on 8uman &ig#ts 9Arti!le .)<,
t#e Ameri!an Convention on 8uman &ig#ts 9Arti!le .)<, and t#e A+ri!an
C#arter on 8uman and Peoples6 &ig#ts 9Arti!le J<.
4.85
+on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1, 09. 819699.
-'J/
Salonga %. Cru?/Pano, %.&. (J('5, =ebruar1 .4, .J4(, .35 SC&A 5(4-
5(JG *on?ales %. C26E$EC, .32 P#il. 54J, 5J'-3 9.JFJ<G Philippine (loo"ing
6ills E"ployees 2rgani?ation %. Philippine (loo"ing 6ills Co., .(.-A P#il. F2F-
F22 9.J23<G 'ational Press Club %. C26E$EC, %.&. $o. .)'F(3, Mar!# (, .JJ',
')2 SC&A ., JG Adiong %. C26E$EC, %.&. $o. .)3J(F, Mar!# 3., .JJ', ')2
SC&A 2.', 2.(.
43/5
;ndeed, t,e strugg#e t,at attended t,e re*ognition o1 t,e va#ue o1 1ree eG&ression 2as dis*ussed b6
Justi*e (a#*o#m in t,e ear#6 *ase @nited States v. 2ustos)3- P,i#. -31, -39 819189. Justi*e (a#*o#m
genera#i$ed t,at t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, as *,eris,ed in demo*rati* *ountries 2as un3no2n in t,e
P,i#i&&ine ;s#ands be1ore 19//. Des&ite t,e &resen*e o1 &am&,#ets and boo3s ear#6 in t,e ,istor6 o1
t,e P,i#i&&ine ;s#ands, t,e 1reedom o1 s&ee*, 2as a#ien to t,ose 2,o 2ere used to obe6ing t,e
2ords o1 barangay #ords and, u#timate#6, t,e *o#onia# monar*,6. Iut ours 2as a ,istor6 o1 strugg#e
1or t,at s&e*i1i* rig,t: to be ab#e to eG&ress ourse#ves es&e*ia##6 in t,e governan*e o1 t,is *ountr6.
;d.
4315
;d.
43.5
13- P,i#. 0-1, 09. 819699.
4335
;d.
4305
;d. at 093, *iting +,omas ;. ?merson, -oward a +eneral -heory o the /irst ;mendment, -. a#e
7a2 Journa# 8-- 819639.
4355
;d. *iting %ew 0ork -imes Co. v. Sullivan, 3-6 B" .50, .-/ 819609.
4365
;d.
43-5
;d.
4385
;d.
4395
;d. *iting -erminiello v. City o Chi!ago, 33- B" 1, 0 819099.
40/5
;d. *iting @.S. v. S!hwimmer, .-9 B" 600, 655 819.99.
4015
G.R. No. 7!593.9, Ju#6 19, 1985, 13- "%R' 6.8.
40.5
+on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1, 090819699.
4035
:?%+@R ". D? 7?@N, ; P:;7;PP;N? %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'>: PR;N%;P7?" 'ND
%'"?" 085 8.//39 4:ereina1ter D? 7?@N, %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'>5.
4005
"ee J@:N ?. N@>'N D R@N'7D D. R@+BND', %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> U16.1,
1131 8-
t,
ed../// 4:ereina1ter N@>'N D R@+BND', %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'>5.
-5(/
DB >BD$, CD$S"?"L"?D$A> >AI at 54(. >a,s #ave also limited t#e +reedom
o+ spee!# and o+ t#e press, or ot#er,ise aAe!ted t#e media and +reedom o+
e*pression. "#e Constitution itsel+ imposes !ertain limits 9su!# as Arti!le ?[ on
t#e Commission on Ble!tions, and Arti!le [@? pro#ibiting +oreign media
o,ners#ip<G as do
t#e &evised Penal Code 9,it# provisions on national se!urit1, libel and o
bs!enit1<, t#e Civil Code 9,#i!# !ontains t,o arti!les on priva!1<, t#e &ules
o+ Court 9on t#e +air administration o+ usti!e and !ontempt< and !ertain
presidential de!rees. "#ere is also a :s#ield la,,; or &epubli! A!t $o. (3, as
amended b1 &epubli! A!t $o. .522. Se!tion . o+ t#is la, provides
prote!tion +or non-dis!losure o+ sour!es o+ in+ormation, ,it#out preudi!e
to one6s liabilit1 under !ivil and !riminal la,s. "#e
publis#er, editor, !olumnist or dul1 a!!redited reporter o+ a ne,spaper,
magazine or periodi!al o+ general !ir!ulation !annot be !ompelled to reveal
t#e sour!e o+ an1 in+ormation or ne,s report appearing in said publi!ation, i+
t#e in+ormation ,as released in !on7den!e to su!# publis#er, editor or
reporter unless t#e !ourt or a Committee o+ Congress 7nds t#at su!#
revelation is demanded b1 t#e se!urit1 o+ t#e state.
4065
"ee N@>'N D R@+BND', %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> U16.1, 1131 8-
t,
ed..///9.
40-5
;d.
4085
Cabansag v. /ernande(, 1/. P,i#. 151 8195-9H +on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1 819699.
"ee 9eople v. 9ere(, 0 P,i#. 599 819/59H 9eople v. %abong, 5- P,i#. 055 819339H 9eople v. /eleo, 5-
P,i#. 051 819339.
4095
+,is test 2as used b6 J. Rui$!%astro in ,is "e&arate @&inion in +on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#.
0-1, 53.!53- 819699.
45/5
Cabansag v. /ernande(, 1/. P,i#. 151 8195-9.
4515
;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/, -90 8.///9.
45.5
"ee @.S. v. 2ustos) 3- P,i#. -31 819189.
4535
+,e as&e*t o1 freedo fro lia+ilit, su+se-uent to pu+lication &re*#udes #iabi#it6 1or *om&#eted
&ub#i*ations o1 vie2s traditiona##6 ,e#d inno*ent. @t,er2ise, t,e &ro,ibition on &rior restraint
2ou#d be meaning#ess, as t,e unrestrained t,reat o1 subseFuent &unis,ment, b6 itse#1, 2ou#d be an
e11e*tive &rior restraint. +,us, o&inions on &ub#i* issues *annot be &unis,ed 2,en &ub#is,ed,
mere#6 be*ause t,e o&inions are nove# or *ontroversia#, or be*ause t,e6 *#as, 2it, *urrent
do*trines. +,is 1a*t does not im&#6 t,at &ub#is,ers and editors are never #iab#e 1or 2,at t,e6 &rint.
"u*, 1reedom gives no immunit6 1rom #a2s &unis,ing s*anda#ous or obs*ene matter, seditious or
dis#o6a# 2ritings, and #ibe#ous or insu#ting 2ords. 's *#assi*a##6 eG&ressed, t,e 1reedom o1 t,e &ress
embra*es at t,e ver6 #east t,e 1reedom to dis*uss trut,1u##6 and &ub#i*#6 matters o1 &ub#i* *on*ern,
2it,out &revious restraint or 1ear o1 subseFuent &unis,ment. =or dis*ussion to be inno*ent, it must
be trut,1u#, must *on*ern somet,ing in 2,i*, &eo&#e in genera# ta3e a ,ea#t,6 interest, and must
not endanger some im&ortant so*ia# end t,at t,e government b6 #a2 &rote*ts. "ee J@'QB;N G.
I?RN'", ".J., +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R, ..5 8.//3 ed.9.
4505
.reedo of access to inforation regarding matters o1 &ub#i* interest is 3e&t rea# in severa# 2a6s.
@11i*ia# &a&ers, re&orts and do*uments, un#ess ,e#d *on1identia# and se*ret b6 *om&etent aut,orit6
in t,e &ub#i* interest, are &ub#i* re*ords. 's su*,, t,e6 are o&en and sub)e*t to reasonab#e
regu#ation, to t,e s*rutin6 o1 t,e inFuiring re&orter or editor. ;n1ormation obtained *on1identia##6
ma6 be &rinted 2it,out s&e*i1i*ation o1 t,e sour*eH and t,at sour*e is *#osed to o11i*ia# inFuir6,
un#ess t,e reve#ation is deemed b6 t,e *ourts, or b6 a :ouse or *ommittee o1 %ongress, to be vita#
to t,e se*urit6 o1 t,e "tate. ;d.
-((/
F,##3o0 o6 +4,+*$-24o. re+ers to t#e un#ampered distribution o+
ne,spapers and ot#er media among !ustomers and among t#e general publi!.
?t ma1 be inter+ered ,it# in several ,a1s. "#e most important o+ t#ese
is censorship. Dt#er ,a1s in!lude reHuiring a permit or li!ense +or t#e
distribution o+ media and penalizing dissemination o+ !opies made ,it#out itG
-((/
and reHuiring t#e pa1ment o+ a +ee or ta*, imposed eit#er on t#e publis#er
or on t#e distributor, ,it# t#e intent to limit or restri!t !ir!ulation. "#ese
modes o+ inter+ering ,it# t#e +reedom to !ir!ulate #ave been !onstantl1
stri!0en do,n as unreasonable limitations on press +reedom. "#us, imposing a
li!ense ta* measured b1 gross re!eipts +or t#e privilege o+ engaging in t#e
business o+ advertising in an1 ne,spaper,

or !#arging li!ense +ees +or t#e
privilege o+ selling religious boo0s are impermissible restraints on t#e +reedom
o+ e*pression. ?d. !iting *rosDean %. A"erican Press Co., 'J2 L.S. '33
9.J3F<G 6urdoc) %. Pennsyl%ania, 3.J L.S. .)( 9.J53<, and A"erican (ible
Society %. City of 6anila, .). P#il. 34F 9.J(2<. ?t #as been #eld, #o,ever, even
in t#e P#ilippines, t#at publis#ers and distributors o+ ne,spapers and allied
media !annot !omplain ,#en reHuired to pa1 ordinar1 ta*es su!# as t#e sales
ta*. "#e e*a!tion is valid onl1 ,#en t#e obvious and immediate eAe!t is to
restri!t oppressivel1 t#e distribution o+ printed matter.
4565
;d at ..5.
45-5
2urgos v. Chie o Sta, .18 P,i#. -50 819809.
4585
+on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1 819699H ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/
P,i#. -8/, -95 8.///9 8KDo*trina##6, t,e %ourt ,as a#2a6s ru#ed in 1avor o1 t,e 1reedom o1
eG&ression, and an6 restri*tion is treated an eGem&tion.L9H So!ial &eather Stations v.
CO*?L?C) G.R. No. 10-5-1, (a6 5, .//1, 35- "%R' 096 8K4'5n6 s6stem o1 &rior restraint
*omes to *ourt bearing a ,eav6 burden against its *onstitutiona#it6. ;t is t,e government 2,i*, must
s,o2 )usti1i*ation 1or en1or*ement o1 t,e restraint.L9. "ee a#so Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals,
3.8 P,i#. 893 819969 8re#igious s&ee*, 1a##s 2it,in t,e &rote*tion o1 1ree s&ee*,9.
4595
Iglesia ni Cristo v. C;, 3.8 P,i#. 893, 9.8 819969, *iting %ear v. *innesota, .83 B" 69-
819319H 2antam 2ooks In!. v. Sullivan) 3-. B" 58 819639H %ew 0ork -imes v. @nited States, 0/3 B"
-13 819-19.
46/5
"ee J.2.L. Reyes v. 2agatsing) .1/ P,i#. 05- 819839, %avarro v. ,illegas, G.R. No. 7!3168-,
=ebruar6 18, 19-/, 31 "%R' -3/H Igna!io v. ?la, 99 P,i#. 306 819569H 9rimi!ias v. =ugosa, 8/ P,i#.
-1 819089.
4615
Determining i1 a restri*tion is *ontent!based is not a#2a6s obvious. ' regu#ation ma6 be *ontent!
neutra# on its 1a*e but &arta3es o1 a *ontent!based restri*tion in its a&&#i*ation, as 2,en it *an be
s,o2n t,at t,e government on#6 en1or*es t,e restraint as to &ro,ibit one t6&e o1 *ontent or
vie2&oint. ;n t,is *ase, t,e restri*tion 2i## be treated as a *ontent!based regu#ation. +,e most
im&ortant &art o1 t,e time, &#a*e, or manner standard is t,e reFuirement t,at t,e regu#ation be
*ontent!neutra# bot, as 2ritten and a&&#ied. "ee N@>'N D R@+BND', %@N"+;+B+;@N'7
7'> U16.1, 1133 8-
t,
ed..///9.
46.5
"ee OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 351 P,i#. 69., -18 819989. +,e %ourt #oo3ed to ;diong v. %@(?7?%,
G.R. No. 1/3056, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1., 2,i*, ,ad *ited a B.". do*trine, vi(. K'
governmenta# regu#ation is su11i*ient#6 )usti1ied i1 it is 2it,in t,e *onstitutiona# &o2er o1 t,e
Government, i1 it 1urt,ers an im&ortant or substantia# governmenta# interestH i1 t,e governmenta#
interest is unre#ated to t,e su&&ression o1 1ree eG&ressionH and i1 t,e in*ident restri*tion on a##eged
41reedom o1 s&ee*, D eG&ression5 is no greater t,an is essentia# to t,e 1urt,eran*e o1 t,at interest.L
4635
N@>'N D R@+BND', %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> U16.1, 1133 8-
t,
ed..///9. +,is 2as a#so
*a##ed a Kde1erentia# standard o1 revie2L in OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 351 P,i#. 69., -18 819989. ;t
2as eG&#ained t,at t,e c,ear and (re&en# dan!er r+,e is not a sovereign remed6 1or a## 1ree s&ee*,
&rob#ems, and its a&&#i*ation to *ontent!neutra# regu#ations 2ou#d be tantamount to Kusing a
s#edge,ammer to drive a nai# 2,en a regu#ar ,ammer is a## t,at is needed.L ;d. at 0-8.
4605
OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 351 P,i#. 69., -1-, *iting ;diong v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*,
31, 199., ./- "%R' -1.. ;t 2as noted t,at t,e test 2as a*tua##6 1ormu#ated in @nited States v.
OD2rien, 391 B.". 36- 819689, 2,i*, 2as deemed a&&ro&riate 1or restri*tions on s&ee*, 2,i*, are
*ontent!neutra#.
4655
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals, 3.8 P,i#. 893 819969. ;n t,is *ase, it 2as 1ound t,at t,e a*t o1
res&ondent Ioard o1 Revie2 1or (otion Pi*tures and +e#evision o1 rating a +< &rogram 2it,
KCLS on t,e ground t,at it Ko11end4s5 and *onstitute4s5 an atta*3 against ot,er re#igions 2,i*, is
eG&ress#6 &ro,ibited b6 #a2LS 2as a 1orm o1 &rior restraint and reFuired t,e a&&#i*ation o1 t,e
*#ear and &resent danger ru#e.
4665
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals, 3.8 P,i#. 893 819969H +on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1
819699H ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/ 8.///9H So!ial &eather
Stations v. CO*?L?C) G.R. No. 10-5-1, (a6 5, .//1, 35- "%R' 096.
46-5
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals, 3.8 P,i#. 893 819969.
4685
S!henke v. @nited "tates, .09 B.". 0-, 5. 8191919, *ited in Cabansag v. /ernande(, 1/. P,i#. 151
8195-9H and ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/, -90 8.///9.
4695
;diong v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1., *ited in ;2S$C2%
2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/, -95 8.///9.
4-/5
"ee ;diong v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1., and +on(ales v.
CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1 819699, *ited in ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#.
-8/, -95 8.///9.
4-15
"ee ;diong v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/3956, (ar*, 31, 199., ./- "%R' -1..
4-.5
"ee OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 351 P,i#. 69. 819989.
4-35
Parent,eti*a##6, t,ere are t2o t6&es o1 *ontent!based restri*tions. =irst, t,e government ma6 be
tota##6 banning some t6&e o1 s&ee*, 1or *ontent 8tota# ban9. "e*ond, t,e government ma6 be
reFuiring individua#s 2,o 2is, to &ut 1ort, *ertain t6&es o1 s&ee*, to *ertain times or &#a*es so t,at
t,e t6&e o1 s&ee*, does not adverse#6 a11e*t its environment.

"ee N@>'N D R@+BND',
%@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> U16.1, 1131 8-
t,
ed..///9. Iot, t6&es o1 *onten!based regu#ations are
sub)e*t to stri*t s*rutin6 and t,e *#ear and &resent danger ru#e.
4-05
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court o ;ppeals, 3.8 P,i#. 893 819969H +on(ales v. CO*?L?C) 13- P,i#. 0-1
819699H ;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/ 8.///9H So!ial &eather
Stations v. CO*?L?C) G.R. No. 10-5-1, (a6 5, .//1, 35- "%R' 096.
-2(/
"#is is based on a 7nding t#at :broad!ast regulation involves uniHue
!onsiderations,; and t#at :diAeren!es in t#e !#ara!teristi!s o+ ne, media
usti+1 diAeren!es in t#e =irst Amendment standards applied to t#em.; -ed
$ion (road. Co. %. #ederal Co""unications Co""ission @#CCA , 3J( L.S. 3F2,
34F 9.JFJ<. See generall1 'ational (roadcasting Co. %. ,nited States , 3.J L.S.
.J), '.J 9.J53< 9noting t#at t#e publi! interest standard denoted to t#e =CC is
an e*pansive po,er<.
-2F/
See #ederal Co""unications Co""ission @#CCA %. Paci7ca #oundation, 534
L.S. 2'F 9.J24<G Sable Co""unications %. #CC , 5J' L.S. ..( 9.J4J<G and-eno
%. A"erican Ci%il $iberties ,nion @AC$,A , ('. L.S. 455, 425 9.JJ2<. ?n t#ese
!ases, L.S. !ourts disregarded t#e argument t#at t#e oAended listener or
vie,er !ould simpl1 turn t#e dial and avoid t#e un,anted broad!ast -t#ereb1
putting print and broad!ast media in t#e same +ooting/, reasoning t#at
be!ause t#e broad!ast audien!e is !onstantl1 tuning in and out, prior ,arnings
!annot prote!t t#e listener +rom une*pe!ted program !ontent.
-22/
-ed $ion (road. Co. %. #CC , 3J( L.S. 3F2, 34F 9.JFJ<. &ed >ion involved t#e
appli!ation o+ t#e +airness do!trine and ,#et#er someone personall1 atta!0ed
#ad t#e rig#t to respond on t#e broad!ast medium ,it#in t#e purvie, o+ =CC
regulation. "#e !ourt sustained t#e regulation. "#e Court in &ed >ion reasoned
t#at be!ause t#ere are substantiall1 more individuals ,#o ,ant to broad!ast
t#an t#ere are +reHuen!ies available, t#is :s!ar!it1 o+ t#e spe!trum;
ne!essitates a stri!ter standard +or broad!ast media, as opposed to
ne,spapers and magazines. See generall1 'ational (roadcasting %. ,nited
States , 3.J L.S. .J), '.J 9.J53<9noting t#at t#e publi! interest standard
denoted to t#e =CC is an e*pansive po,er<.
-24/
See #ederal Co""unications Co""ission %. Paci7ca #oundation, 534 L.S.
2'F 9.J24<G Sable Co""unications %. #CC , 5J' L.S. ..( 9.J4J<G and -eno %.
A"erican Ci%il $iberties ,nion @AC$,A , ('. L.S. 455, 425 9.JJ2<. ?n =CC v.
Pa!i7!a =oundation, involving an =CC de!ision to reHuire broad!asters to
!#annel inde!ent programming a,a1 +rom times o+ t#e da1 ,#en t#ere is a
reasonable ris0 t#at !#ildren ma1 be in t#e audien!e, t#e L.S. Court +ound t#at
t#e broad!ast medium ,as an intrusive and pervasive one. ?n reaCrming t#at
t#is medium s#ould re!eive t#e most limited o+ =irst Amendment prote!tions,
t#e L.S. Court #eld t#at t#e rig#ts o+ t#e publi! to avoid inde!ent spee!# trump
t#ose o+ t#e broad!aster to disseminate su!# spee!#. "#e usti7!ations +or t#is
ruling ,ere t,o-+old. =irst, t#e regulations ,ere ne!essar1 be!ause o+ t#e
pervasive presen!e o+ broad!ast media in Ameri!an li+e, !apable o+ ine!ting
oAensive material into t#e priva!1 o+ t#e #ome, ,#ere t#e rig#t Qto be le+t
alone plainl1 out,eig#s t#e =irst Amendment rig#ts o+ an intruder.Q Se!ond,
t#e L.S. Court +ound t#at broad!asting Qis uniHuel1 a!!essible to !#ildren, even
t#ose too 1oung to read.Q "#e Court dismissed t#e argument t#at t#e oAended
listener or vie,er !ould simpl1 turn t#e dial and avoid t#e un,anted broad!ast,
reasoning t#at be!ause t#e broad!ast audien!e is !onstantl1 tuning in and out,
prior ,arnings !annot prote!t t#e listener +rom une*pe!ted program !ontent.
4-95
/CC v. League o &omen ,oters , 068 B.". 360, 3-6 819809.
48/5
;d. at 8K=.
4815
"ee ?strada v. ?s!ritor 8Reso#ution9, '.(. No. P!/.!1651, June .., .//6 81ree eGer*ise o1
re#igion9H and OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 351 P,i#. 69., -18 819989 8s&ee*, restri*tions to &romote
voting rig,ts9. +,e %ourt in OsmeJa v. CO*?L?C, 1or eGam&#e, noted t,at it is a 1oreign notion to
t,e 'meri*an %onstitution t,at t,e government ma6 restri*t t,e s&ee*, o1 some in order to en,an*e
t,e re#ative voi*e o1 ot,ers 4t,e idea being t,at voting is a 1orm o1 s&ee*,5. Iut t,is %ourt t,en
de*#ared t,at t,e same does not ,o#d true o1 t,e P,i#i&&ine %onstitution, t,e notion Kbeing in 1a*t an
animating &rin*i&#e o1 t,at do*ument.L 351 P,i#. 69., -18 819989.
48.5
G.R. No. 7!593.9, Ju#6 19, 1985, 13- "%R' 6.8.
4835
;d.
4805
;d. at 630!63-.
4855
+,ere is anot,er *ase 2,erein t,e %ourt ,ad o**asion to re1er to t,e di11erentiation bet2een
traditiona# &rint media and broad*ast media, but o1 #imited a&&#i*ation to t,e *ase at bar inasmu*,
as t,e issues did not invo3e a 1ree!s&ee*, *,a##enge, but due &ro*ess and eFua# &rote*tion.
"ee -ele!ommuni!ations and 2road!ast ;ttorneys o the 9hilippines) In!. v. CO*?L?C, 35. P,i#.
153 819989 8*,a##enge to #egis#ation reFuiring broad*ast stations to &rovide %@(?7?% +ime 1ree
o1 *,arge9.
4865
G.R. No. 7!695//, Ju#6 .., 1985, 13- "%R' -1-. ;n t,is *ase, t,e *#assi1i*ation o1 a movie as K=or
'du#ts @n#6L 2as *,a##enged, 2it, t,e issue 1o*used on obs*enit6 as basis 1or t,e a##eged invasion
o1 t,e rig,t to 1reedom on artisti* and #iterar6 eG&ression embra*ed in t,e 1ree s&ee*, guarantees o1
t,e %onstitution. +,e %ourt ,e#d t,at t,e test to determine 1ree eG&ression 2as t,e *#ear and &resent
danger ru#e. +,e %ourt 1ound t,ere 2as an abuse o1 dis*retion, but did not get enoug, votes to ru#e
it 2as grave. +,e de*ision s&e*i1i*a##6 stated t,at t,e ru#ing in t,e *ase 2as #imited to *on*e&t o1
obs*enit6 a&&#i*ab#e to motion &i*tures. ;d. at -.3!-.9.
48-5
;d. at -.5.
4885
;d.
4895
;2S$C2% 2road!asting Corp. v. CO*?L?C, 38/ P,i#. -8/, -90 8%@(?7?% Reso#ution
restraining 'I"!%IN, a *or&oration engaged in broad*ast media o1 te#evision and radio, 1rom
*ondu*ting eGit surve6s a1ter t,e 1998 e#e*tions9. '#t,oug, t,e de*ision 2as rendered a1ter t,e
1998 e#e*tions, t,e %ourt &ro*eeded to ru#e on t,e *ase to ru#e on t,e issue o1 t,e *onstitutiona#it6
o1 ,o#ding eGit &o##s and t,e dissemination o1 data derived t,ere1rom. +,e %ourt ru#ed t,at
restri*tion on eGit &o##s must be tested against t,e *#ear and &resent danger ru#e, t,e ru#e 2e
KunFuestionab#6L ad,ere to. +,e 1raming o1 t,e guide#ines issued b6 t,e %ourt *#ear#6 s,o2ed t,at
t,e issue invo#ved not on#6 t,e *ondu*t o1 t,e eGit &o##s but a#so its dissemination b6 broad*ast
media. 'nd 6et, t,e %ourt did not distinguis,, and sti## a&&#ied t,e *#ear and &resent danger
ru#e.
49/5
351 P,i#. 69. 819989 8*,a##enge to #egis#ation 2,i*, soug,t to eFua#i$e media a**ess t,roug,
regu#ation9.
-J./
?d. at 2.4.
49.5
-ele!ommuni!ations and 2road!ast ;ttorneys o the 9hilippines) In!. v. CO*?L?C, 35. P,i#. 153
819989 8*,a##enge to #egis#ation reFuiring broad*ast stations to &rovide %@(?7?% +ime 1ree o1
*,arge9.
4935
:?7?N =?N>;%N, %;<;7 7;I?R+;?" 'ND :B('N R;G:+" .96 83
rd
ed. .//.9.
4905
;d.
-J(/
Step#en J. S#apiro, Ho& Internet 'on/-egulation ,nder"ines 1he -ationales
,sed 1o Support (roadcast -egulation, 4-=A>> MBD?A >. X PD>PY ., ' 9.JJJ<.
-JF/
"e!#nologi!al advan!es, su!# as so+t,are t#at +a!ilitates t#e deliver1 o+ live,
or real-time, audio and video over t#e ?nternet, #ave enabled ?nternet !ontent
providers to oAer t#e same servi!es as broad!asters. ?ndeed, t#ese
advan!ements blur t#e distin!tion bet,een a !omputer and a television. ?d. at
.3.
-J2/
?d.
-J4/
"#e !urrent rationales used to support regulation o+ t#e broad!ast media
be!ome unpersuasive in lig#t o+ t#e +a!t t#at t#e unregulated ?nternet and t#e
regulated broad!ast media s#are man1 o+ t#e same +eatures. ?d. ?n ot#er
,ords, as t#e ?nternet and broad!ast media be!ome identi!al, +or all intents
and purposes, it ma0es little sense to regulate one but not t#e ot#er in an
eAort to +urt#er =irst Amendment prin!iples. ?ndeed, as ?nternet te!#nologies
advan!e, broad!asters ,ill #ave little in!entive to !ontinue developing
broad!ast programming under t#e t#reat o+ regulation ,#en t#e1 !an
disseminate t#e same !ontent in t#e same +ormat t#roug# t#e unregulated
?nternet. ?n !on!lusion, Qt#e t#eor1 o+ partial regulation, ,#atever its merits +or
t#e !ir!umstan!es o+ t#e last 7+t1 1ears, ,ill be un,or0able in t#e media
lands!ape o+ t#e +uture.Q ?d. at '3.
AIRPORT SEARCH
"8B PBDP>B D= "8B P8?>?PP?$BS, plaintiA-appellee,
versus
.>B?>A JD8$SD$ Y &BYBS, a!!used-appellant.
-%.&. $o. .3444.. De!ember .4, ')))/
FACTS>
"#at on June 'F, .JJ4 inside t#e $A?A t#e a!!used ,as +ound to #ave in #er
possession t#ree plasti! bags o+ met#amp#etamine #1dro!#loride. "#at t#e
above-named a!!used does not #ave t#e !orresponding li!ense or
pres!ription to possess or use said and t#at t#e !on7s!ated pa!0s !ontained
a total o+ (4).' grams o+ a substan!e ,#i!# ,as +ound b1 $E? C#emist to be
met#amp#etamine #1dro!#loride or :s#abu.;
ISSUE> ?s an airport sear!# a valid ,arrantless sear!#T
RULING>
Persons ma1 lose t#e prote!tion o+ t#e sear!# and seizure !lause b1
e*posure o+ t#eir persons or propert1 to t#e publi! in a manner reNe!ting a
la!0 o+ sube!tive e*pe!tation o+ priva!1, ,#i!# e*pe!tation so!iet1 is
prepared to re!ognize as reasonable. Su!# re!ognition is impli!it in airport
se!urit1 pro!edures. Iit# in!reased !on!ern over airplane #ia!0ing and
terrorism #as !ome in!reased se!urit1 at t#e nation6s airports. Passengers
attempting to board an air!ra+t routinel1 pass t#roug# metal dete!torsG t#eir
!arr1-on baggage as ,ell as !#e!0ed luggage are routinel1 sube!ted to *-ra1
s!ans. S#ould t#ese pro!edures suggest t#e presen!e o+ suspi!ious obe!ts,
p#1si!al sear!#es are !ondu!ted to determine ,#at t#e obe!ts are. "#ere is
little Huestion t#at su!# sear!#es are reasonable, given t#eir minimal
intrusiveness, t#e gravit1 o+ t#e sa+et1 interests involved, and t#e redu!ed
priva!1 e*pe!tations asso!iated ,it# airline travel. ?ndeed, travelers are
o+ten noti7ed t#roug# airport publi! address s1stems, signs, and noti!es in
t#eir airline ti!0ets t#at t#e1 are sube!t to sear!# and, i+ an1 pro#ibited
materials or substan!es are +ound, su!# ,ould be sube!t to seizure. "#ese
announ!ements pla!e passengers on noti!e t#at ordinar1 !onstitutional
prote!tions against ,arrantless sear!#es and seizures do not appl1 to routine
airport pro!edures.
"#e pa!0s o+ met#amp#etamine #1dro!#loride #aving t#us been
obtained t#roug# a valid ,arrantless sear!#, t#e1 are admissible in eviden!e
against t#e a!!used-appellant #erein. Corollaril1, #er subseHuent arrest,
alt#oug# li0e,ise ,it#out ,arrant, ,as usti7ed sin!e it ,as eAe!ted upon
t#e dis!over1 and re!over1 o+ :s#abu; in #er person in Nagrante deli!to.
\

Вам также может понравиться